Dynamixor The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

Kien Navarro Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

Yash Wade Close shines in drama with strong language, adult themes.

Marva-nova Amazing worth wacthing. So good. Biased but well made with many good points.

peterbp 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??!

Vampirekiwi25 The whole plot to this movie was well thought out and rather interesting, even though it was predictable... In short the story was intriguing but the graphics were disappointing. I have seen older movies with better graphics, if they had just spent more time on making it a bit more realistic it would have been more enjoyable. Most of the effects looked plastic. But for the acting, it was impressive for a homemade movie, especially since they didn't use the most attractive actors for main characters. Gives it a bit more of a realistic view cause to me, movies like that make it seem like only the perfect people get to be the main characters. In short: Story was wonderful. Acting was good. And the graphics were disappointing.

TheNovemberMan It is difficult to tell what is the worst thing about this movie. The acting, CGI and script are all shocking. It was so bad that I created my IMDb account for the sole purpose of reviewing this movie and as soon as I'm through, I'm going to watch the last 15 minutes of it that remains. That's right - I'm reviewing an incomplete movie.There is a scene very early in the movie where explosions take place in the sky and people are sitting down in the grass watching with interest, instead of running for cover. Obviously, covering your face with your hands is as good a method as any other when your life is in danger.No spoilers from me - the film-makers did that already. Suffice it to say that this movie is so very bad that I couldn't keep myself away. Not even gratuitous nudity would help it - and that says it all, I think. Two stars for being so bad that I have to see how it ends.

Paul Magne Haakonsen "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.