User reviews

I found the graphics to be very poor failing to look any where near real. Sound effects were poor too. The editing was bad using the same area multiple times for two different locations. A prop started out as just very basic then in flight ended up being a much higher level prop.

I really had high hopes for this movie hunting it down on Red Box and rushing home to watch it.

The acting was poor and hard to watch.

This is my first time reviewing a movie. I am doing so because I now know how important it is. Reviewing movies can save someone time, driving, and money.

If you love Space Sci-Fi this movie might not cut it for you.

But, I've seen worse, too, although I can't remember exactly when. As has already been pointed out, the acting was not great, although there were a couple of bright spots. Though there was an interesting germ of an idea at the core of this story, the writing was horrible. However, I think the more seasoned actors did the best with what they had. Both Adrian Paul and Richard Grieco have been around for years and have had some pretty good projects in the past and they clearly made an effort. With that said, I'll give it one star for the writing, one for the acting and two more for the two best things about this movie - the Costa Rican scenery and Bali Rodriguez, which I guess could also be considered Costa Rican scenery.

So you can best understand the title of this review, let me explain Thunder Levin's "Sharknado". The film features sharks that wait around for Pacific Ocean hurricanes to pick them up and deposit them in Southern California. It features a great deal of dry land shark attacks and even one shark that is able to climb a nylon rope.

Thank GOD none of that occurs in "AE: Apocalypse Earth". This movie starts with the Earth under attack by aliens and Noah's Space Ark leaving with some grouchy mercenary who just wants to get back to Earth. What no escape pod?

The effects are very poor CGI, so don't expect much there. The one- million dollar budget, must have been spent on the body spray for Bali Rodriguez. Most of the time, she is on screen makes me wonder, if they glued the bikini to her nipples. As much time as she spends in the water, they should have use water proof body paints.

The explosive crash of the ship makes you wonder how anyone survived without a scratch. There were other flaws, other than the acting, some geeky science that will make even the amateur star gazer laugh. When the crew from the two ships talk about their destinations. The first ship was heading to Alpha Centauri and they state that it has 3 star system but Alpha Centauri is a binary system with only two. The other group say they left for Barnard's Star and claim it is a binary system. Barnard's Star is a red dwarf star about six light-years away from Earth.

I caught this "Jane of the Jungle" epic on Netflix today. I guess it's not like I am out any real money. But I wouldn't expect anyone to enjoy watching this unless you are into low budget Tarzan movies.

Every time the Asylum releases a new movie, some pseudo film 'expert' declares it to be 'the worst movie ever made', 'scraping the bottom of the barrel', or some other such derogatory garbage. Well, none of these comments are true - what about the 50's B- Movies in which the alien was a man in a gorilla suit with a diving helmet on his head? Or 'Run For Your Wife'?

The truth is that the Asylum is expert at extracting the most movie from the least money, and no film illustrates this more than AE Apocalypse Earth. In 90 minutes it draws from Predator, Avatar and After Earth, utilising a decent lead man (Adrian Paul), passable CGI, exotic locations, and far from the worst script and direction I've seen, all for a budget not exceeding $1m.

Sure, it's never going to win any awards, and is best regarded as a 'Saturday night after a few drinks' kind of movie, but let's put an end to this Asylum-bashing. Let's see you do better!

(And remember this - the Asylum has never lost money on a movie. How many other studios can say that? I suspect none.)

I will get right to the point. IMDb states that the estimated budget for this film was $350,000. If that is correct, someone stuffed most of that cash in their pocket because it sure wasn't spent on real production costs.

This film has the look, feel, and sound of a film school project. The photography, cinematography, sound, sound effects, visual effects, and acting are so below par that it is hard to take this film seriously.

I could point out specifics but that would take much too long since there is very little about this film that actually works.

Basically, start at the beginning, the script; terrible. The actors; amateurs. The photography; shaky and uninspired. The direction; film school project that got a D.

The robot was an outrageous riopff of Stng's Data. Every manerism, vocal style and behavior traight, he stole. Actor should be ashamed.

That is saying very little however as After Earth was so poorly done, the worst movie personally seen so far this year with one of the worst ever child performances. As bad as it is though it is a masterpiece compared to the irredeemable dreck that is AE: Apocalypse Earth, one of those Asylum mock-busters that happens to "taking inspiration from" After Earth. AE: Apocalypse Earth is not quite down there with The Asylum's worst movies but it's in the lower end. If there is one glint of a redeeming quality it's some competent photography at the end. Visually, it is not good at all and that it's low-budget comes through loud and clear. The scenery is very dully rendered and lit, never once drawing us into the setting, while the special effects look as they were made last minute and that the makers ran out of time to properly finish them and the photography and editing in general are an eyesore. The music is generic and forgettable, sometimes derivative also of the score for After Earth(the least bad thing about that film), while the sound effects and quality are murky. The dialogue is often total gibberish, somebody really needs to check that what they're writing makes any kind of sense, and is cheesy and stilted as well. Seeing as this is The Asylum we're talking about, the lack of originality(not just After Earth, Predators and Avatar as well) is something you eventually have to accustom to- no matter how frustrating it is- but the story still fails to be exciting, emotionally investing or remotely interesting for that matter. Instead it is as plodding as the story for After Earth, has the same nonsense and questionable science you expect for the Asylum and any dramatic scenes are mawkish and forced. The characters are not memorable or likable in the slightest, a few are even annoying, the fact that levels of characterisation itself are next to non-existent is a large part of the problem. The direction is flat and characterless, and the acting is so bad from everybody involved it's not worth commenting on, ranging from bored-sounding to irritating. In conclusion, horrible from start to finish. 1/10 Bethany Cox

A Thunder Levin flick.

Exciting beginning,Kind of STARSHIP TROOPERS.

Then the crew lands on a Alien Planet ? and goes into PREDATOR film

territory.

We get a 'Sci-Fi Channel' swim ( That means the scream

queens tiny bikini AIN'T coming off) aka AVATAR.

The title is similar to a 10 year old CG flick TITAN A.E.. It has two of our favorite B-Movie tough Guys ADRIAN PAUL (Highlander) and RICHARD GRIECO (21 Jumpstreet).

The spaceships are really nice,The aliens are BAD (Predator mode) and GOOD (THE MOLE PEOPLE) and the ending was a Great Payoff.

This must be the worst movie I've seen in years.

• Poor effects The explosions, blasts, ships and vehicles are so fake, like something went wrong in the rendering process.

Poor sound

-Poor acting/dialogues The actors are not believable, and the dialogues are so unnatural and often obvious.

The storyline is quite nice, but so badly interpreted.

At first it reminded me of a average Stargate episode but it went worse every minute.

A complete waste of my time

Greetings, Koen

Not the planet - the movie. Okay, those 'worst movie ever seen' type reviews - however strong the urge to do them - are not particularly helpful, and are probably not true anyway. There is plenty of big-budget Hollywood fare which can seriously lay claim to such an accolade, and have far less excuse than this one. So, I decided to give this a chance, on the basis that every movie has some flaw somewhere, and you can't just write something off unless you've made an effort to bathe yourself in the premise, characters, script, effects, tone and hell even the music. So... Premise: nothing wrong with that, in fact quite engaging. Humans flee the apocalypse on Earth and find themselves having to survive on a hostile alien world, after crash-landing for some unknown reason (hence mystery too). Characters mostly somewhat feeble, without depth and not particularly believable - but this is where script meets *acting*. We know these are not A-list stars, but this is not fatal if the dialogue and writing are good. They're not, they're barely above student standard at best. And at worst, well... as TNG's Data would say, "my feelings can't be hurt", so here goes... the best thing I can say about the android in *this* film is that he makes me truly appreciate the quality of Brent Spiner's acting. As for the effects, I'm afraid it's one apocalypse too far, totally destroying any chance of getting emotionally engaged in the situation or believing in the setting.

Music is always important, and can even make or break, so it mystifies me why low-budget movies so often accept low-budget film music composition. This is one prime example of where skill could compensate for lack of resources. Obviously they cannot afford John Williams or Vangelis, but they don't have to: there's a galaxy of great classical music or even old pop out there which is past the copyright date, and intelligent use of this could raise the tone. Instead, we have vapid 'all-action' music inflicted on us, which has nothing other-worldly evocative about it and does the exact opposite of providing the tension they seem to think it provides. It's as if, here, all they want to do is confirm to us that this is a cheap action-pic (as opposed to engrossing sci-fi drama).

Not the worst movie I've ever seen, but quite simply the worst CGI; technically, many other B-moves have just as awful, but not where it's so integral to the plot, eg a planet under attack and peril from alien monsters. Those aspects have to be portrayed some other way if the effects at your disposal are so unconvincing. I'd have been willing to give it more than a 4 if not for this. If creating a low-budget movie, someone has to have the skill and judgement to side-step ruinous CGI, as well as compensating for mediocre actors by writing great dialogue and maintaining plot tension. And no, an exotic alien world romance in a lagoon cannot save this either. Even if it could, I was killed off before then by the alleged 'dragon'. No danger of a spoiler, because I was simply too bored to continue to the end; and that's the bottom line - a 'survival' movie (with a sci-fi setting watched by a sci-fi fan) where I wasn't interested enough to see who survived. I dug out my latest recording of a Star Trek TNG episode instead.

PS: by the time I'd finished editing, I'd reached the end, the movie playing the background! An extremely intelligent ending, but an opportunity for a film of sci-fi greatness lost by all the pitfalls of the low-budget industry, and lack of creativity to get round this. I'd like to see the big boys do any better, though, all to often they don't. So I'm promoting this to a '5'.

Waste of time. It is very difficult to understand how people can watch and like this movie. How did the filmmakers spend money on this film?

Oh dearie dearie me!!! Terrible acting. Weak storyline and edited with a pair of scissors and someone who didn't know what the storyline was supposed to be. Worth missing.

This film is so bad I only managed 15 minutes before giving up. Who, I wonder, would put money into it, a blind autistic millionaire no doubt. A rip off of Star Trek, Predator and The Jungle Book. If my name had ever appeared in the credits I would consider suicide. Dreadful rubbish.

Really good film, some cgi isnt great but gets the job done. Good story, good actors, good film. Would watch again for my scfi fix.

OK we all know Asylum doesn't stand for quality. The acting is poor (as to be expected) But the Story for once is not that bad. It all sticks together and scientifically it all adds up.

I rate it a 6/10 why? because i've seen way worse movies then this, and If I am going to give Moby Dick 2000 or something a 2 then this movie deserves a 6. It is that much better then most Asylum movies. CGI can be better but then again i've seen them way worse in other asylum movies. Acting is bad, but then again, i've seen worse acting The story on the other hand sticks, and that's why i am giving 6/10 acting = 1 out of 3 CGI = 2 out of 3 Story = 3 out of 4 together that makes 6 ;)