10.5 (2004)

Natural Disaster

Howdy;

I'm a Videophile and love all types of movies. A movie is for entertainment and nothing more.

This mini-made for TV is based on reality, but goes beyond. I was in Seattle this last August and it did not look like in the movie. YES, it is still standing.

One of the scenes that is hard to believe is the quake outside of Redding, CA. It seems like the quake has a mind of it's own and is chasing the train, following the tracks till it catches and devours the entire train. Once the train is gone, the quake stops. Also, the overhead shots of the train look too much like a toy train set.

The CGI of the final quake on the LA coast is fake looking and the background plate used shows cars and people at the beach.

All and all, it is a low budget film that is enteraining. If you like disaster movies, you should like this one.

L8R daze! November 10, 2008

Horrible

I am a movie-freak and can stand even the cheesiest or most bizarre movies but this movie is one of those rare ones where I can't even finish watching. It starts out as if there is information missing. I kept switching tracks and turned the disc over, but it starts out with part 1 making you feel as if there was something before that. Maybe mine is defective - but they even refer to characters as if you were supposed to know them and their story. The second awful thing about this - the camera work. I know whoever shot it felt they were being "edgy" or something, but honestly - it was ridiculous. Imagine you are holding a camcorder and you zoom in and zoom out again, over and over, and your hand shakes occasionally - that is how this one was shot. The dialogue is similar to soap opera on t.v. There are the obligatory meaningful looks, and the petty family squabbles that try to seem more important than the disasters around them. To be honest I absolutely hate soap opera, so I may be biased there. I can't review any more of this because I can't finish it, it's going into the trash tonight. October 3, 2008

Good Movie

This is a good movie. There are a few scenes where the graphics are a bit cheaply done. But overall it is a good movie. It sure makes you think about the future. October 2, 2008

If you know ANYthing about quakes, do not watch this movie.

I barely managed to stomach the first 20 minutes or so of this movie. When they showed the Seattle Space Needle not moving at all during this allegedly major quake, then suddenly crack at the base and topple over, I knew it was about time to turn it off. When they showed the Richter magnitude on a digital readout going up, up, up that was the final straw. I'm sure seismologists wish we had that technology but we don't. Please, if you know anything at all about quakes and are fascinated by geology, don't even turn it on. It's not science fiction, it's science fantasy. July 6, 2008

Does anybody screen these things before or after production?

After hearing some hype about this movie, I thought it might be a good film to watch on a lazy Saturday afternoon. "Disaster" flicks were popular when I was growing up (Volcano, Dante's Peak, Asteroid, etc.), so I've learned a suspend a little disbelief over the years. This film, however, was hardly worth the time.

My first dislike was the fact that this "disaster" was scientifically impossible. Again, when it comes to disaster films, one must suspend a little disbelief, but this film blantly disregarded geological science. I'm not a geologist personally, but I've taken college-level courses in that field and know plenty of geologists who are practically crying because of the impossibility of "chain reaction" earthquakes tearing California off the coast. Yeah, okay, some may say that "nothing in science is for sure fact", but this film is basically like writing a screenplay for a "disaster" where scientific experimentation has caused gravity to intensify seven fold unless the hero can find a way to reverse one of the universe's strongest forces.

My second dislike was the acting and the dialogue. None of the characters were memorable ones. There was a dad and daughter in the forest, a wimpy president, his buddy who runs FEMA (before Katrina, clearly), some doctors, a few family members, a governor, two scientists, and state office assistants. Believe it or not, are all tied together by three degrees of separation, everyone except some ridiculous bike guy who rides around, escaping a falling city around him. None of their subplots were remarkably exciting. The only way I could distinguish them was by knowing that some had worse acting than others. There were some one-liners that I seriously wonder what agent would ever pick up a screenwriter who writes that kind of stuff (especially since I'm trying to find one myself and my writing is (I'm told) much better).

The third dislike was the action and graphics. On a scene where the Golden Gate Bridge is in trouble, the cars perched on there are clearly Matchbox cars, without a doubt in the world. Watching them fall into the water had me laughing myself to tears. The Seattle Space Needle collapse was poorly done through use of computer-aided graphics. Even the cracks that formed from the quakes were too fake to let pass. Granted, it was a low budget flick, but seriously.

This movie made the classic movie mistake of overdoing the action sequences and underfilming them. There are at least four scenes where the same 4-second shot is taken from different cameras to expand the time used to 16 seconds. Additionally, some action sequences were occurring that weren't necessary. For example, is it really necessary to show 15 car crash sequences when an earthquake occurs? Wouldn't only 3 or 4 happen and then all drivers would be stopped? Furthermore, how is it possible that all these scientists have such little time to solve the problem, but can create these amazing graphical presentations with flashing map images and beeping sounds?

To summarize, most disaster flicks require one to suspend disbelief. Some of these flicks, such as "The Day After Tomorrow", are reaches that could be assumed to happen if conditions were really, really bad. This movie, however, was produced by someone who never consulted a geologist or even a first-year college student who took a mandatory geology course. Coupled with weak actors, poor dialogue, and dry action sequences, 10.5 flops on its face. If you're someone who likes campy 4-hour disaster movies and don't care if the science is accurate or not, then this would probably be a decent movie for you. For the rest of us, you're better off spending that time doing something else. I only give it 2 stars (vs. 1) because, as a writer, I can see that this script originally had hope and, had its screenwriting, dialogue, and actor choice been changed, it would have been much more successful. April 6, 2008

More reviews at Amazon.com ...