Download Your Favorite Videos & Music From Youtube
Free YouTube video & music downloader
1.68M reviews
Rated for 10+question
Free YouTube video & music downloader
Free YouTube video & music downloader

Zodiac: Signs of the Apocalypse (2014)

Joel GretschAaron DouglasReilly DolmanEmily Holmes
W.D. Hogan


Zodiac: Signs of the Apocalypse (2014) is a English movie. W.D. Hogan has directed this movie. Joel Gretsch,Aaron Douglas,Reilly Dolman,Emily Holmes are the starring of this movie. It was released in 2014. Zodiac: Signs of the Apocalypse (2014) is considered one of the best Action,Sci-Fi movie in India and around the world.

Archaeology Professor Neil Martin hasn't done field work in fifteen years, ever since his divorce and needing to take care of his son, Colin. Now twenty, Colin convinces his father to accept an assignment offered by Kathryn Keen of Poly Dynamics, a research company that tries to find solutions to global issues. That assignment, which continues the work of a now deceased Professor Robert Bowles, looks into an unusual find in a lead mine in Peru. After traveling to the site with Colin and Kathryn, Neil believes the find, a tablet with some astrological glyphs, including one of Planet X - the ninth planet - is part of a key to some recent natural and destructive phenomenon, including a couple of meteor storms, one which killed Dr. Bowles and one which almost killed Colin. They also uncover a seemingly radioactive stone buried behind the tablet. He believes the stone and the tablet are only parts of the puzzle to the reason behind the destructive natural phenomenon, twelve which will ...

Zodiac: Signs of the Apocalypse (2014) Reviews

  • Not worth the time


    I give credit to the director for trying but don't expect much. The storyline is like any other disaster movie, only difference is how the disasters come about. The special effects are terrible and you can see clearly they are computerized and transfered - hardly believable. Some of the characters got under your skin, and Christopher LLoyd - maybe it 's his age but a disappointment from his days in Back To The Future. The actors did do a nice job carrying the movie but the special effects just didn't seem to help it - in fact it made you cringe at the way some of the effects appeared. A made for TV film for a rainy Sunday afternoon.

  • Generic and predictable...


    "Zodiac: Signs of the Apocalypse" is a very generic and stereotypical disaster movie that follows the dummies handbook of how to make a disaster movie. Everything in the movie was so predictable and scripted that you saw it coming a mile away. And this really brought down the overall enjoyment of the movie. Sure, the movie was entertaining enough for what it is, but if you have seen any other disaster movie, then you basically have seen this one as well - in theory. The story is about a series of disasters that happen around the world, and the future of the entire planet rests in the hands of a few people that run against time to save the Earth. Yeah, basically the same as most other disaster movies. And for some odd reason all these events were happening all around these people. It just didn't make sense. Why would all these cataclysmic events take place around these and not at random locations around the world? Effects-wise, then "Zodiac: Signs of the Apocalypse" was adequate. The effects worked well enough for what they were supposed to portray. But they weren't mind-blowing or overly impressive. So don't get your hopes up for these. As for the acting, well people were doing good enough jobs with their given roles. Joel Gretch was the one who carried the movie, no doubt about it. "Zodiac: Signs of the Apocalypse" is a very average run-of-the-mill disaster movie that offers nothing new to the genre. You watch this movie once and never again.

  • A is for Ambition....


    Disaster movie: The Earth is threatened by a coming apocalypse foretold by the signs of the Zodiac.. or something. Starting with something good, the flow of the movie is good, and the cameramen avoid many of the mistakes that many other B-movies commit. The scenery of is also very pretty. Now for the far worse: Since it's a disaster movie, it relies on special effects, as most of this stripe do. Most of these effects are poor to a degree where special effects of mediocre 80's movies are on part with them. Once I burst out laughing because it was so bad. It's likewise clear that the movie was shot largely in the same spot, giving the impression of someone trying to do an action movie in their back garden. I addition to this, some of the transitions from one location to another are so marked, that they defy belief. Silly! The only significant plus in the grade book of this movie is that the acting performances are good. These actors' delivery is however let down by poor scriptwriting and poor directing; in several scenes the director should have done things markedly different, which would have improved both flow and feel of the movie. What drags the movie down additionally is the lack of additional cast and stand-ins, which hampers the movie's feel SEVERELY. Its hard to believe that they went ahead and got this movie written, picked locations, filmed and fx'd up, and they didn't spend a bit more and more people in the various locations where it was shot. I'm guessing that the production budget came from the product placement funds. Such a pity, with a bit more money thrown at it, and more attention to detail, it could have been significantly better. This is not a turkey, but had the acting been worse, it certainly would have been! Oh and lastly, MARTY! Where are we going to get 1.21 Jiggawatts??!

  • Spend 1,5 hours in oblivion


    Especially the special effects for the tidal wave were one of the worst I have ever seen. The screaming girl with the blond/pink hair needs more acting lessons! She seemed to squeak, scream and express fear at almost everything that happened in the movie and not very good at it as well. I felt like slapping her in the face and yell at her; pull it together bitch! The silly scene where the other woman was being sucked away from the car, I was cringing in despair - I couldn't even watch how stupid this scene was unfolding! In general a movie for when you don't want to think too much and waste your precious time you could have spend better reading a book.

  • Not even Christopher Lloyd is enough to save it


    Considering that he is the most well-known and most experienced actor in the cast by some distance you'd think he would be. Lloyd really gives his all and the eccentric kind of character is one that would have suited him perfectly. Unfortunately Lloyd's screen time is far too limited to save the movie and while he is fun in places- more than his trashy material deserved- he badly over-compensates in others, which really sticks out like a sore thumb. The best performance In Zodiac: Signs of the Apocalypse actually comes from Joel Gretsch, he is a commanding lead and certainly doesn't look at any time look like he's confused or in pain. And Ben Cotton is pretty endearing and makes a real effort to make Marty likable; in fact Marty is like the bright spot when it comes to the characters. Unlike the rest of the cast they actually try to act. That's very much it for things that redeemed Zodiac: Signs of the Apocalypse a little. Gretsch and Cotton are good and Lloyd tries but the movie on the whole is very badly acted- Emily Holmes attempts at being frightened or emotional came over as forced, Andrea Brooks is so annoying to the extent you want to reach into the TV and slap her and Aaron Douglas doesn't even try to act as the very stereotypical and painfully forgettable villain. Everybody else looked stiff and bored. The cardboard cut-outs passing for characters are as thin as paper, with only Marty showing glimpses of colour, and the actors are further disadvantaged by a clunky script, with a number of lines so cheesy that it makes the cheesiest cheeseburger seem tasteless, that gives off the sense of parody without the humour(got a laugh out of Sophie's line about her homework but that was not in a good way). As well as a story that is filled to the brim with so many clich├ęs(with nothing fresh done with them, characters and situations) that the intense predictability severely dilutes the suspense and fun, also the further the movie wears on the sillier and more tedious it gets. Production values are not much better at all, in fact one of the worst things here was the special effects which were half-baked at best and laughably amateurish at worst, the disaster scenes are ruined by how cheap they look and how much unintentional humour they cause. It was abundantly clear that more effort went into the making of the promising DVD cover than to the special effects, the DVD cover at least showed some professionalism whereas the effects were borderline hack-job. The colourless and one-dimensional camera work and lacking-in-crispness editing don't fare quite as badly but they don't improve things either, while the whole movie whether in the un-thrilling disaster scenes or the heavy-handed drama suffered from some rather characterless under-directing. The sound effects have a booming sensation but not in a way that thrills, in fact some of it's headache-inducing, while the score is over-bearingly melodramatic and monotonous. Overall, Zodiac: Signs of the Apocalypse is nowhere near the worst SyFy has done, but aside from two performances and the efforts from Lloyd it just doesn't work. 3/10 Bethany Cox

Hot Search