Epoch: Evolution (2003 TV Movie) User Reviews

Two devices, two different effects on people

[shawn-27 · 3/10 · 2 April 2005]

The previous commenter got confused somehow.

There were two devices. The one in Paris healed people but the one in Russia killed people. The men that injured and killed and then stayed so were at the Russian site. I wonder why they didn't bring up this difference when considering which of the devices they should attack, but I suppose that is asking for too much from a movie like this.

Now if the poster wanted to talk about the bad things in the movie he could have brought up the dialog or perhaps the poorly thought out bad guys, or some of the other quick fixes the movie took. The bad guys didn't seem to have much reason for their decisions other than a fear of something different. They also seemed to miss a major plot point after all of their study.

So while the movie isn't that good it did at least stay consistent. I wonder if we will be seeing a third movie in a few years to help further explain/muddy the water.

Watchable, but not very good

[Vampenguin · 5/10 · 8 April 2006]

Having watched and enjoyed Epoch last week, I was looking forward to this. It wasn't too disappointing, but the first one was definitely better. The actors were actually worse than in the first, which is quite a feat. The plot was somewhat interesting, but once again not nearly as good as the original. The director took this in a much more religious direction, which I think was a very bad idea. The introduction of Mason's kid was a horribly contrived plot point, that lead up to a horribly predictable conclusion. It wasn't all bad though...the Torus's looked as good as ever, and I quite liked the idea of an "evil" Torus. Overall this is worth watching if you're a fan of the first one, but don't be expecting much.

5.5/10

Much worse than original

[jbartell-1 · 3/10 · 30 November 2003]

Wooden acting and a non-sensical plot kill this remake. If you like the first one, skip this. Multiple plot lines all jumble together to no satisfactory conclusions. David Keith, one of my favorites, acts like he never read the script until just before they call "Action".

laughable

[Dooms247 · 2/10 · 10 October 2004]

Quite literally, this movie was laughable. The acting is atrocious, my friends and I were busting up laughing in every single scene. It was fairly entertaining, actually, it is the sort of movie that will end up on Mystery Science Theatre 4000 in about 20 years. It looks like they blew all of their mid-level budget on the computer effects scenes, which are decent. The rest of the movie takes place in and out of various tents, and the Torus... which looks suspiciously like a laser tag arena that they rented for a few hours one afternoon. The plot is silly and obvious, the religious overtones are blatant to the point of being insulting. If you want to see a melodramatic cheesy sci-fi movie, this one delivers in spades.

The hero looks like the Fat Elvis version of David Hasselhoff. Enough said.

TV dreck

[winner55 · 1/10 · 2 September 2006]

amateurish space trash.

politically retarded; scientifically inaccurate; religiously barbaric.

and of course, there's the bad story; bad photography; bad editing; laughably inept dialog.

no point talking about the acting here; these 'professional' actors are reciting lines on cue without any sense that the lines might accumulate into meaningful speech - for the simple reason that it is impossible for them to accumulate into some kind of meaningful speech - it is the usual TV-space-trash babble that people in LSD-flashback really admire.

crap.

You have got to be kidding me..

[david-569 · 1/10 · 15 December 2008]

This came on after some other movie, on TV and it ran for awhile in the background until I got up to look and see, was it really as bad as it sounded? Answer: worse.

The writing is, well, what writing. No actor could make it jump, and Keith did not disappoint in this area. There was no pop, no drama, no NUTTIN' in his voice. I sat through a few mins of it and can only say it is no wonder we are turning into a 3rd class country. We can't write our way out of a paper bag, we do not have actors that can act, preferring to import them from elsewhere, etc etc etc.

This flick is as bad as it gets. I shan't even start in on the visual. All involved with this flick ought to be drummed out of the business and never allowed in the industry again. It is as bad as it gets. Worse.

E.E. ain't so bad

[Artdoag2 · 7/10 · 8 August 2009]

Okay, so this movie, shot on location in Europe, was direct to video. The special effects are passable and the plot will mostly pass muster. Great to see Billy D, David Keith, and Angel Boris on screen. While E-E doesn't break any new ground by recycling themes from Alien, The Rock, and Independence Day, as well as trying to pass off clearly European actors/extras as US soldiers, the plot point were interesting enough to keep me hooked. Also we get a break some seeing the same old familiar actors of A-list Hollywood populate the screen, a welcome selling point for me.

The worst part for me was the *terrible* recreation of UH-60 Black Hawk cabin/seating area. OMG the producers built massively unrealistic studio sets to stand in for the interior. Quite blatantly cheap-o!

Hmm.

[clamydia · 1/10 · 12 March 2005]

"If you like this title, we also recommend...

Boa vs. Python (2004) (TV)."

There's really not much more to say other than that, but I'll try: Imagine being strapped to a chair while every stupid person who has ever irritated you, wasted your time, or otherwise caused you grief pokes you repeatedly in the face with a rolled-up copy of the National Enquirer while explaining the plot of Jason and the Argonauts to you using no words that contain more than two syllables. That's how much fun you will probably have watching this movie. Cue next anonymous hyperbolic scathing.

Nowhere near as good as the original...

[vidalsdauphin · 10/10 · 7 January 2004]

Epoch: Evolution is nowhere near as good as the original, although David Keith and Billy Dee Williams do wonders with the week script. The original was better in every possible way, especially acting wise. The movie was filmed in Bulgaria to save movie and most of the cast had to their voices dubbed over. The special effects are decent, but for it's time and miniscule budget Epoch was able to pull off much better visuals. While the original had a fair amount of drama, and a few thrilling scenes Epoch 2 is dull.

Oh this is brutally hilariously horrible..read my comment.

[vampyrecowboy · 1/10 · 15 February 2005]

Wow...what can I type that will make this seem like it is worth reading? Awful and atrocious sets...even for a low budget.

Plot that stinks worse than week old diapers.

Performanes of wood and not even good wood...rotten wood, full of mildew and mold and worms and stench.

Plot...was there one? Oh yeah...I already made a comment about plot.

Computer graphics...maybe it's time to start drawing stick figures and happy faces. They look better.

Continuity...almost as good as the MUSIC...which is almost as good as garbage, but not so entertaining.

Camera work and editing...the bad part is that it sucked...and the good part is that it sucked.

Plot...oh yeah...none.

The entire movie was just nasty mess of everything that should not ever be made on film.

If there is one piece of advice that you will ever take from a stranger...take this. If you are so desperate to watch this...then count backwards from 5 million and do it while chewing bubblegum and skipping rope, because you will enjoy it ten times more and it will make just as much sense.

Very good

[gohmifune · 30 November 2003]

I wish I could've seen this high budget movie in theaters, i loved the first one, and it kept me interested throughout. The plot was very much the same as the first one mixed with a bit of Taken, but that isn't bad, very good in fact, the plot was good, the religious overtones worked real well like in the first movie. There was also good acting, David Keith was real natural in his role, and just about all the characters likable when supposed to be and dislikable when supposed to be. All in all, the best tho hours I've had in recent weeks. A good watch.

An Interesting Sci Fi Sequel that Can't Escape the Weak Script

[tabuno · 4/10 · 17 January 2019]

9 June 2012. Poor acting in places, illogical jumps of believable plot outcomes make for a by the numbers sequel. The beginning sequences of an assassin who really doesn't look much like a very good one starts out losing most of the movie's steam by the time the potentially intriguing torus appears again, and yet the international military conflict seems oddly manipulatively even though the hoped for tight script shows through briefly. There are just too many pat answers, predictable outcomes to make this movie really that enjoyable or interesting. This movie is a let down and disappointment. The special effects, especially of the torus which seems a lot worse for wear is perhaps the real disaster. There is too much warmed over from the original to keep a sustained interest.

Nowhere as bad as others say.

[ozthegreatat42330 · 11 January 2007]

While this film was not the film the original was it was still entertaining and David Keith was still on his game. The plot did repeat a great deal of the first film but with interesting differences. I would like to have known who the actor was who played the son, David, which was not listed in the film's credits for some reason. The effects were excellent and it is always a treat to see Billy Dee Williams in action. As always the Torus effect was amazing. This film would really have been something if presented on an Imax screen. The villain, Doyle was the one weak link in the film. He was too whiny to be credible and did not seem very threatening, just dumb.

This is a good film to waste an hour and a half on.

Pluses and minuses about pain and religion

[MOSSBIE · 12 June 2010]

This is the FIRST film I have ever scene where, when a soldier gets shot and killed actually screams OWWWW!! or screams in pain when hit. Other than that, when any film brings in religion as a subtext...That is, in a SciFi film, it simply does not work. Even Faith Domergue would have never worn a cross on a chain in her cult classic films. Has anyone noticed that in the last 10 years of film-making the book of GENESIS seems to appear more and more? As an instance where religion DOES show its face is in the H.G.Wells 2005 version of WAR OF THE WORLDS with C. Thomas Howell which did mention the BOOK OF REVELATIONS in its script. In this film, which got some fairly good ratings from viewers when I saw it on the SYFY Channel, when people die, they also do not make any noise of pain when they die. I believe H.G.Wells was an Atheist or Agnostic in case the writers of this version read his book. If anyone has ever been around a real death or wounding of a human, you will remember audible screams of pain.