Scorcher (2002) Poster

(I) (2002)

User Reviews

Add a Review
41 ReviewsOrdered By: Helpfulness
Straight to video rubbish
Shaun Jackson28 April 2003
Well, This film is lucky (for now) that the voting section is out of action otherwises I would be giving out a 3/10 for this utter nonsense.

The film's basic premise is sound enough. Underground Nuke testing has caused a disturbance in the movements of the continental plates thereby triggering a natural disaster. The Americans (fair enough, there are some major plate boundaries in the states) have to halt this movement before the world burns up with lava flowing from the earth's inner layers.

But the whole thing is so poorly thought out. The acting from the principles is so rubbish (some notable exceptions in the higher quality cast members who are just working on what they have been given). Wooden delivery of corny lines.

Also there seemed to be pointless plot additions to raise the "action" part including an utterly pointless and under-developed love/hate relationship between a father and daughter scientist team. Also - Hollywood - there is absolutely no need to include a romantic attachment between a male and female lead if the whole film is meant to only take place over a couple of days. It is stupid and unnecessary.

There seemed to be some other (again underdeveloped) subplot where another goverment agent (CIA ?? - can't remember - bored by then) hated the hero character - and hated him sooooo much that he was willing to try and kill him and prevent the entire mission from succeeding. Utter tripe. Another pointless plotline with the hero's daughter being lsot in the city and needing rescuing (virtually the only person lost in the city happened to be the hero's daughter). No element of the film left the audience in suspense (the pointless trip near the beginning into the underground system to "check out" a deep ventilation hole, was surprise surprise was needed to save the day in the end.

Also - another thing (starting to rant now). Why on a mission of such importance were only a handful of people sent in to carry (a seemingly very light - he was running with it in a bag under one arm at one point) nuclear weapon into the hot zone, with NO backup, allowing the team to be effectively mugged by some local gang.

Do not see this on video - do not stay up late to watch this on tv. Just avoid - sleeping is a better use of your time.
20 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
There's bad, and then there's BAD.
imdb-207819 January 2006
Wow, is this bad.

The problem with this movie--besides a budget of $11--is that the premise contains no real conflict for the hero to overcome--it just wouldn't be that hard for the US military to detonate a bomb in an evacuated Los Angeles. So the makers start pulling obstacles and conflict out of thin air about halfway through--none of which make a lick of sense.

Characters inexplicably turn bad or suddenly start behaving contrary to everyone's interest, including their own; boogie men pop up out of nowhere for no discernible reason; and of course the hero's daughter improbably needs to be rescued from conveniently nearby. She, by the way, survives a car fire by hiding--get this--in the trunk. Yeah, that would work.

About three-quarters of the way in you realize that the reason the bomb has to be detonated in Los Angeles is that the director needed to shoot this movie across the street from his brother's dry cleaning shop so he wouldn't be late for his shift.

I know what you're thinking. You're thinking, "A-hah! This guy doesn't recognize a spoof when he sees one! Clearly this movie is tongue-in-cheek!"

Wrong--it isn't. It's just really, really bad.
17 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A very ambitious action film that rivals a big budget studio film
dunnfilms31 January 2003
Scorcher is very impressive. It looks like a major studio film even though it was produced by a very cheap low budget organization. I expected it to be a real stinker but was pleasently surprised to see how good it turned out. If you like action this film is for you
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
flikmaster21 November 2002
Sure, this zero budget Armaggeddon wannabe isn't breaking the slightest bit of new ground, but they sure do make every buck count. Funny part is, it actually WORKS! in large part to the acting and directing. And thats ONLY if you forget the over the top disaster plot (the Earth's plates are moving and can only be stopped by setting off a nuke in LA) Still, there was an honest attempt at making us care for the people in this story by way of two father/daughter plotlines and the movie has some really exciting action sequences to boot. it was nice to see Mark Dacascos doing something other than kicking ass and actually getting to act. Rutger Hauer adds his usual presence and John Rhys Davies was fun to watch as the scientist with a plan. this is one of those movies where you either go with the plot or don't. Despite the obvious low budget, there were some great visuals and the pacing was well done. Music was also great (very Hans Zimmer-like).

in all, you could do a lot worse from the action aisle of Blockbuster.

Recommend only for those who love B movies that truly aspire to more.
10 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Run for the hills!
thinker169119 December 2005
Scorcher is a doomsday film which depicts the end of the world if too many nuclear bombs are tested. In this one, the world's tectonic plates are jarred out of alignment and sets the world on a fiery collision course with the apocalypse. The exhausted end of the world scenario claims the end of the world can only be prevented by an elite group of men trained for just such an emergency. Taxing to watch, an avid movie fan can nearly anticipate what will happen next. Whoever suggested the making of this film, obviously was hampered by a limited budget and restrained by anything novel to include in the script. The actors are subjected to curious scrutiny as to why they accepted their roles. Mark Dacascos easily plays hero, Ryan Beckett. Veteran actor John Rhys-Davies is Dr. Matthew Sallin who is hindered by the traditional over achieving scientist daughter out to prove herself. Rutger Hauer, who usually plays the heavy or hero looks out of place as the President. Finally there's the duplicitous G.W. Bailey as the double-crossing General Timothy Moore. In the final analysis, this film is realized as nothing more than of a poor-man's 'Armaggodon', or 'Core' or Earthquake, etc, etc. You get the picture. *
7 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The brink of disaster, time running out...
genxjeff16 March 2004
On the brink of disaster, with time running out, the fate of the world rests in the determined hands of a crack military unit, and a scientist with a plan that's risky, but just might save the world.

The soldiers are led by a handsome young colonel, whose daughter has been hijacked by a madman. Thrown in for sexual tension, and a woman's touch, is the scientist's daughter, reknowned in her own right, but with a chip on her shoulder because she thinks her father cared more for science than for her. Rutger Hauer, as the President of the United States, wrings his hands and worries with real flair.

This is strictly formula, the same you've seen in "Deep Impact", "The Core", and "Armagaeddon" (and those are the variations just from the last few years). This is a largely unknown cast, less John Rhys-Davies, Rutger Hauer, and the actor who played "Zale" on TV's M*A*S*H.

The story is stale, but still this is not an awful film; the actors turn in, in my opinion, as good a performance as could be derived from the material. If you're like me, and you're faced with a choice between re-runs of "Full House" and "Scorched" at 2 o'clock in the morning, pick this film. The nuclear annihilation of Los Angeles has got to be more entertaining than those horrible twin girls!
7 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
L.A. finally gets it but you won't care
mfisher45217 March 2004
L.A. gets nuked in this Final Solution to the Problem of Traffic and Urban Sprawl in Southern California. Most of the other reviewers of this turkey have given it the pan it deserves, but this is the kind of film that just invites more comments. I grew up in L.A. and left more than 20 years ago, and with every visit back, I grow to hate what it has become more and more. This film was probably thought up by some disgruntled New Yorker who moved out to L.A. and is stuck there and wants revenge. It's a direct-to-video attempt to capitalize on the latest string of planetary catastrophe movies. It may fool you because despite its low budget, it starts out looking like a real movie: Its production values and musical score are actually quite respectable. However, the plot is based on a ridiculous premise and feels like something that was banged out in a 30-second story conference. There is some kind of complication involving nuclear testing that results in a shift of the tectonic plate that runs through Southern California (the plate boundary is the San Andreas Fault). If the plate displacement reaches 44 centimeters, boom! Global catastrophe as the molten mantle spews out and causes a great mass extinction, including all human life. How to stop the plate displacement? Why, a little old 15-megaton nuclear explosion or two right in the middle of the L.A. basin. A seismologist I'm not, but what little I know about plate tectonics tells me that the forces driving the plates are such as to defy any merely human intervention. Why is the film set in L.A.? So that the filmmakers don't have to leave town but can use L.A. locations for the shoot. One laughable premise is followed by another when the feds order the evacuation of Los Angeles, and we're asked to believe that the local and national authorities can 1) actually carry this out, and 2) do it in just a couple of days. Then there is a race against time to place the nukes and detonate them while dealing with stock villains, irrelevant and contrived side-stories about family squabbles, impossible coincidences, and implausible crises.

Let's not ignore the cast, which consists largely of third-rate B-movie regulars who don't exactly light up the screen. Mark Dacascos, who appears to be a cheap imitation Bruce Lee, has little or no screen charisma as the male lead; ditto for Tamara Davies as the female lead: She is beautiful but not much of an actress. Ditto for most of the rest of the case. Two very good foreign-born actors, Rutger Hauer and John Rhys-Davies, are completely wasted in their roles: Hilariously, the Dutchman Hauer plays the U.S. president (!), and Rhys-Davies plays a scientist who is essentially a reprise of the role of Maximillian Arturo that he played in the series 'Sliders.' The excellent and under-appreciated Mark Rolston, who has the misfortune to have been born with a face that invites type-casting as an evil guy, looks so bored and unhappy in his stereotypical role as the evil FBI agent with the hidden agenda that it's actually distracting.

This movie is strictly desperation time for insomniacs. Turn it off, take a sleeping pill and go back to bed.
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Occasionally entertaining rip off!
Ah the unmistakable whiff of stock footage! Scorcher is a very cheap film in the style of Armageddon without the excessive cheese though. Despite borrowing footage from films like Daylight, Dantes Peak and Terminator 2 the rest of the film is of a high standard. The idea is good, Shifting plates that are moving to a point that will have the world hotting up to immense proportions with volcanoes exploding, earthquakes and the molten rock from below the earth rising from under the ground when the pacific plate reaches a certain point. The reason this is happening is the constant damage humans do to the earth, with global warming on the rise and potentially set to rise to the point of Armageddon.

The answer is to set off a nuclear bomb to deflect the plate, but this has to be done in Los Angeles, yes far fetched I know but aren't most movies of this type? It is down to an elite group headed by Ryan Beckett, played well by Mark Dacascos, to save the day. With LA in evacuation they have less than two days to complete the mission and what's more is Beckett's daughter is in Los Angeles. His superiors say they will evacuate her but of course things don't go to plan. On her way through a tunnel an earthquake sets off an explosion in the gas pipes destroying everything in the tunnel (que Daylight scenes), Beckett's daughter is saved by his lover at the cost of her life and so His daughter is now alone in a deserted LA. She gets kidnapped by a nutcase and presumed dead, Beckett isn't even told as it may compromise the mission to save the world. Anyway as you'd expect the world is saved but not without complications. Nutters, looters and a military man with a hidden agenda all stand in the way of his mission as well as earth quakes and other natural elements.

The stock footage is very blatant and the film seems very cheap but the sets they have built up are small but good. Rutger Hauer has a bit part as the President, you can always rely on Hauer, he is good here but is about as convincing as an American president as he is as Britney Spears. He is in this simply for the producers to use his name in the same way as the stock footage, to add a touch of class.

In fact a key part of why this film doesn't fall flat, and become a ridiculous film that would normally star Michael Dudikoff and Gary Daniels, is the excellent cast. As I mentioned, Rutger Hauer is good although coasting through his role. He is required to do little more than seems concerned and is never on screen for more than a minute at a time. John Rhys Davies adds some quality to, he shows his experience of being in top class movies like Lord of the Rings and two of the Indiana Jones films and certainly has a decent part as the scientist with the know how. Mark Dacascos as usual is good. He has improved immensely as an actor over the years and can easily do roles with more depth, he is certainly one of the more interesting actors from the action genre. His delivery is good as well being expressive and charismatic, he has definitely got involving eyes like Rutger that draw the audience in and make him very convincing. He has also got the necessary comical timing and can make good come from poor one liners, which is rare to the action world, he is starting to get the one liner panache that the Oak Ah-nuld has had since he first uttered knock-knock in Predator after having kicked through a door. This film was made before Dacascos hit the big time with Brotherhood of the Wolf, the film that went down a storm and for which he received high praise, and now has two very promising films in the pipeline. Both of which are respectably budgeted and will get him more coverage for people to take notice of the fact he is an action star with acting ability. The next Vin Diesel perhaps? who knows. Tamara Davies was good in her role as John Rhys-Davies's daughter (are they related in real life?). I've never seen her work before but she did impress me, also the girl who plays Beckett's daughter was very good, definitely a promising actress but this I feel will not get her noticed.

Anyway this is a half decent film, the action falls flat because they are basing it around stock footage, there are a few more action scenes which don't need stock footage but they are nothing special and rather cheap. This is really half cheap B-movie and half professional A movie. The acting is certainly good, Hauer is needless but watchable. This will definitely disappoint fans who expect Mark to unleash some Kung-fu upon the bad guys because he doesn't, but this is not that sort of movie. It is better than some of the ham fisted epics Hollywood have released upon us in recent years. It is just a question of why allow a film to be made if the directors and writers visions far out weigh the money the producers are willing to give. This is watchable and is an example of pointless and forgettable movie making. This is similar in its blatant ripping off as Epicentre with Gary Daniels, another disaster flick that's best sequences were ripped off from other movies, this film however has class where it matters, in the acting and direction, there are some nice scenes in the movie. For Dacascos fans it is worth the purchase if only to see an accomplished performance, Drive this is not but his next two will satisfy our kung-fu cravings. This may be worth a rental to anyone else, it depends on how you are effected by the use of stock footage. It shouldn't really mar the quality of the remainder of the film but it does somewhat.

Overall 5.5/10 half good in respect of the acting, music and direction and half bad for the ripping off, cheapness and slightly lame ending.
5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
More clichés...
parcival-36 February 2012
And more clichés. The whole film is a conglomerate of third rate movie clichés, from the smart Aleck military guy, the two fathers who seem to reject their daughters...from beginning to end Cliché! What's more, it makes no sense. One sample of that summarizes one event after the other: the heroes are in need of emergency departure. There it is: a corporate jet just waiting to pick them up on the streets of a deserted Los Angeles.

And then there's the doomsday scenario with pseudo-scientific jargon to spin the mind...

It's okay if you want to occupy the pre-schoolers...I guess.

This makes Ed Wood look classy.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Styles was great!!
Dan11 May 2004
There is one reason and one reason only to see this movie. Jeffrey Johnson as Styles. Styles was by far the best part of this otherwise forgettable film. He was really funny and I would have loved a little more comic relief. The film is so bad at times, it is actually funny. If you really want to enjoy this film, crack a few beers, invite over a few friends and just make fun of it! I can think of a worse way to spend an evening. Like watching the finale of Friends. Rutger Hauer's facial expressions are absolutly priceless. What kind of name is Rutger anyway? But I think you will enjoy what little time Styles has on the screen. Perhaps if Jeffrey Johnson had starred in the film it would have been much better. You want a wise cracking hero, he seems to fit the bill to a tee. The thing is to not take yourself way too serious. Styles for President!!
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Cool Movie.
Tonci Pivac5 March 2003
I really enjoyed Scorcher, I thought it was very entertaining for a B-movie. What first attracted me to this film was Rutger Hauer, I think he is a superb actor in any role, in this movie he plays a president which is cool, its good to see him in differant roles. Also great performances by John Rhys Davies, Mark Dacascos, and also G.W. Baily, a bit differant from his Police Academy Days.

2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Fizzle, fizzle, dud...
Paul Magne Haakonsen1 January 2016
You know that this is going to be one of those questionable disaster movies. But then again, looking at the cast you think that it might actually just surprise you. But it didn't! Not by a long shot.

The story in "Scorcher" is about the end of the world, with the fate of the entire world resting in the hands of a small group of Americans. Yes, it is that exact run-of-the-mill recipe of how-to-make-a-disaster-movie. The tectonic plates in The Pacific are shifting, threatening to incinerate the entire world. And by the orders of the American president, a small group of soldiers and scientists set out to save the world.

Yeah, that is exactly what I thought too. It was as laughable a story as the concept idea was just below mediocre and so horrible generic.

What lured me in to watch "Scorcher" was the cast, which included Mark Dacascos, John Rhys-Davies and Rutger Hauer. But even the talents could not salvage the wreck that is "Scorcher".

If you enjoy disaster movies stay well clear of this predictable movie, because there is close to no destruction and mayhem in the entire movie - except for some awfully fake earthquakes and an adequate flaming explosion in a tunnel.

"Scorcher" is boring and pointless, even by the usual low standards that make up about 90% of all movies in the disaster genre.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A cult classic like plan 9 from outer space
golt-32-25144920 June 2014
Warning: Spoilers
This disaster could not have been made accidentally. A few highlights: Rutger Hauer, a long way from Blade Runner days, plays the (first German) President of the United States, and in a televised address announcing the upcoming nuking of LA, says " bla bla bla of globally importance ..." But a lack of editing was a symptom, not a cause. Imagine a Pavarotti doppelganger and his daughter as the smartest scientists in the world who work out their father daughter issues slowly while the clock ticks on the world. Seal team 6.1 comprised of goofy guy, horny guy, tech guy, tough guy and family guy all commanded by somewhat Asian guy who needs to rescue his very Anglo looking daughter in the middle of stopping Armageddon, complete with tears, hugs, reproaches, fistfights and sighs, pervert kidnapping, and every other cinematic cliché they could work in, all while running around with a nuke in a sports bag. I was left in wonder of it all. I am still laughing. I can't believe I watched the whole thing? Rutger Hauer in that? What happened to you man?
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Certainly is a Disaster Film
ludy21 January 2014
The negative comments previously posted, to borrow a term, "utter nonsense", are all accurate. My first thought was to write HBO and request a refund for the time I watched it, and for all its other airings which took up time slots from shows that need to be deserving of my paid premium. If the world as we know it ended prior to this film being made, would that be a good thing? It would be futile to investigate if there was one morsel of this film that someone, anybody would find appealing. BUT do no classify this as a BOMB, as it lacks the qualities a bomb requires. This needs to be classified as a "WEEPER"; not in terms of the film evoking emotions of sentiment, but one that makes us weep that the powers that be in the film industry, allowed this movie to be made. It wasn't necessary to check off for any possible "spoiler" comments, as it takes predictable paths with unexplainable detours, check that, unfathomable detours. It's just awful, please stay away.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
written by a ten year old sci-fi buff
bradsbucs23 February 2014
Terrible, terrible, terrible. Just watched it on HBO----AND IT WAS A TRAIN WRECK! This will go down as one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Idiotic story, inane science, and the acting; think jr. high school play, maybe grade school! So bad I got half way through and my brain started to dissolve. The only thing that got me that far was one question I kept asking myself, "When they were making this film did the actors have any idea how horrible this film would turn out?" You can find more sense in an average Bugs Bunny cartoon. And where does the money come from for trash like this? What kind of idiot would hand over millions and want his/her name associated with such an unbelievable dog of a movie. Oh, if you've seen it and consider it good,I am pretty sure you think every movie ever made was "reely gude"
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Deliciously, Deliciously Bad
Scott_Mercer17 February 2014
Riper than a fruit cart in August, Scorcher is like a greatest hits of disaster movie tropes, Hollywood hack hits and Clichéd dialog.

Yes, they are all here. The wise-cracking action hero (except this time his jokes are not funny), the scientist who warns of the approaching doom but nobody will listen, Fingers the wacky sidekick (role would have gone to Paul Giamatti if they had a big budget) the duplicitous double agent who wants to thwart the whole mission, I guess because he read the script and hates the writer so much. I know that I saw the movie and now I hate the director so much. And everyone else involved.

Plenty of clichés to go around here: "Grab my hand!" "You're not dying on my watch!" "Doc, again please, this time in English." "Are you out of your mind?" "Don't F@@@ with me, Cowboy." And that was just the first ten minutes.

So bad that I almost thought this crossed into the realm of spoof. But I think they were actually somewhat serious.

On one minor positive note (pun not intended), as many of the other commenters have stated, the music score is pretty good. Almost fooled me into thinking this movie had a bigger budget.

Great fodder for MST3K style riffers or the masochistic movie fan in your life.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
No defense possible for this movie
fullheadofsteam7 September 2013
There is no excuse for this movie, period. The scripted dialogue alternates between stupid and awful (yes, stupid is as good as the dialogue gets). Arguably the greatest travesty of wasted acting talent with Rutger Hauer, to which insult is added to injury by the worst hairstyle for any movie portrayal by Hauer of a U.S. President EVER. Speaking of needing to fire whoever the hairdresser was, they should have fired the make-up person as well for having screwed up the make-up of the torturer-killer in the movie, with head and face portrayed to have been badly burned, but whose ears and actual lips have been untouched by even a hint of flame. And speaking of wasted acting in addition to Hauer, there is always entertaining G.W. Bailey keeping a straight face and playing a decent role amid the hideous mediocrity of story and writing. The remainder of the cast is totally forgettable (thankfully!), including John Rhys-Davies who has some way over-the-top scenes with his flatly-portrayed daughter that truly stretch credulity. Further, too bad the special effects which might otherwise help enliven this dead-on-arrival flick are too few and far between. So, if you want to punish yourself, watch this movie alone, but invite people to your place that you don't like and show this if you want to punish others. But, under no circumstances should you try to defend an aspect of this movie! It fails as drama, as science fiction, as horror, and on and on.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Only one thing:
quargelbrot18 September 2007
Except the horrible cast, the ridiculous script & the lousy dialogues:

Did the author only read ONE scientistic book about climatic structure, tectonic plates, or just physics?

Never saw a more ridiculous movie.

Better to spend the money for renting to me. :-)

Why is it not possible to vote zero?

No movie in the last years would deserve it more!

AND: Which drugs are necessary to write a script like these? Which people are financing this waste of time?

Worst movie of the last years!
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Completely lame plot with plenty of bad acting to make it funny
born-giantsfan12 November 2012
The plot lines in this movie are so bad, one would think this is a spoof. The redeeming factor is that the acting is just as bad so it really turns it into a comedy.

let me give you three examples.

First, Here is a critical mission to deliver 2 nuclear weapons to a site in LA, and it is "protected" by a small team in 1 truck and two jeeps. no backup, no eye-in-the-sky, no secondary communications, nothing. At one point they get stopped by the old "truck in the middle of the road" trick. They all get out and stand around when they are opened up on. These are elite soldiers on a critical mission to save the world? and they are stymied by a rogue team of bandits. And of course along for the ride is the cute scientist wearing stylish slacks and a cute sweater.

Second, there is a father/daughter team of scientists. She hates him because he was not around. And he speaks glowingly of her and her work - to the point that it is revealed that he funded her research. But several times during the movie when she disagrees with him on scientific findings, he completely dismisses and insults her. Then the plot tries to turn the moment when we sees she is right into a tear jerking scene of father/daughter love. It's a complete failure.

Third, one character hates the lead character so much that he continually jeopardizes the mission to save the world in order to make this one guy look bad.

Fourth, two characters take off in a jeep with the second nuke needed to save the world in search of the main characters daughter. They didn't think of leaving it with the main team when they left? Oh, that's right, it was needed to add a little more drama in the plot.

Fifth, when arming the nuclear weapon, the main character tells his daughter "you better step back." He's setting an arming device on a nuclear weapon and has her move 5 feet back? Oh, I see, that was needed for the bad guy to be able to grab her when he wasn't looking.

I guess that was 5 things. I could have gone on even longer, but I think you get the point.

Sappy speeches, bad character acting, typical inept politicians who can't make the right decisions and take all the credit when things go right, and a crazy serial killer in the mix who liked to threatens to burn a young woman but never seems to get around to actually doing anything.

The only suspense in the movie was what next stupid turn was the plot going to take. I have to admit, I was surprised at times - because the turns were so unbelievable and dumb.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Genric b-movie action disaster flick
soniakat20 May 2006
If you take yourself way too seriously like the last reviewer, then you will probably also take this film way too seriously. It's quick paced action B-movie, with a basic plot and some great casting. Rutger Hauer as President--Excellent!

This is a popcorn movie. A don't think about it movie. It has no budget and an obvious plot, but what more do you want on a Saturday afternoon? When it comes down to it, it's a DISASTER movie, and they are all basically the same. If you don't like this genre, don't watch the movie.

And since the fire in the tunnel was a flash fire, a quick burning flame that passed through the tunnel--surviving in the trunk is possible. The trunk would not have heated up enough to overheat her. and besides it's a movie. Don't take it so seriously and you might enjoy yourself.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
I could navigate a battleship through these plot holes!
thermoj2 November 2002
I know that the intentions were good when they made this movie, but I could not ignore the glaring plot holes! I know I'm no geologist, but who says that(of all places)L.A. has to be the exact place to counteract a seismic cataclysm? I've also never been a soldier, but I've never understood Hollywood's classic depiction of the armed forces as jar-headed and idiotic. I am also not a communications expert, but if something like 9/11 could completely jam up land-and-cell telephony, could you imagine what it would be like if a disaster on an even larger scale happened? And whatever you do, DON'T forget the wonderful Los Angeles Metropolitan Subway System (complete with New York Transit Authority "M" logos all over the train)...Some pinheaded producer probably thought that if the story was based in New York, that it would be too similar to 9/11. I'm not even going to touch on some of the so-called "acting" that occurred on this movie, but I really expected more from such respected actors like Rutger Hauer, John Rhys-Davies and G.W. Bailey. Excuse me while I go watch "Gilligan's Island"...It's a whole lot more credible!
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Scorcher is the best
gocart37200016 February 2006
I must also add my glowing praise of the guy who played Styles. That guy was so funny and memorable. I enjoyed the movie but, I really feel the main reason I enjoyed the movie was because of Styles (I believe the actor's name was Jeffrey Johnson). He made the film. I await much more from this talented actor!! I enjoyed the job done by the actress in one of the lead roles. I was just disappointed that there was no more love triangle between Descanso, the actress (sorry I don't know her name) and Styles. That would have been great. It appeared they had great chemistry. Is their someplace I can see more of his work? I watched this movie with my wife and she was very smitten with Mr. Johnson!
2 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Spoiler? How could you spoil this?
Ray Humphries30 March 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I am giving this flick a "2" because it is not the worst Sci Fi Channel movie I have ever seen.

That classification is reserved for one of those hand-puppet, creature features called "Centipede".

The plot of "Scorcher" is unreal, the script inane, the acting bland, and the casting just unbelievable. No matter what one might think of Ruger Hauer as an actor, he does not look nor sound much like a native born American, which some, but apparently not the producers of this disaster of a disaster movie, know the President must be.

All these deals seem to have one thing in common. A tension building disaster timer, in this case the plate movement toward the critical 44 cm mark. I get that. What I don't get is the fact that the script then has the cast sitting around whining, BSing, cracking jokes, whispering sweet nothings, while the clock counts down toward the end of the world.

OH! and 12 minutes to get out of the tunnel, find your plane (not to worry about the rest of your team), take off and get out of range of a 15 megaton nuke. Gimme a break! Oops, my bad. I didn't have to watch.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Did Someone Remake Armageddon?
gavin694223 April 2006
The plot: the earth's tectonic plates are all screwed up, and a colonel has to place a nuclear bomb in Los Angeles to set the plates back the right direction. Other than the obvious fact it was inspired by "Armageddon", the plot has potential.

But there's theory and there's practice. And the actual movie is really messed up. There's a pause every five minutes for a speech about fathers abandoning daughters. There's a military man who wants to stop them, although the motive is really fuzzy. There's a romance that is never carried out. The fate of the 8 million or so LA residents is never mentioned. Basically, this film is full of subplots not fully explored and then ends very abruptly. It was like a novel ending mid-sentence (not unlike Douglas Adams' "Salmon of Doubt").

There were some good parts. The teenage girl, played by Raine Marcus, was a great choice. Beauty, brains, strong driving character. And she runs into a very unexpected turn of events when trying to escape from LA (if only Kurt Russell had been there). And John Rys-Davies is in this film, so that's good. I think maybe there was a line or two of dialogue I liked, if that counts.

So, yeah. Unfinished plots. A ripoff of Armageddon. Too much moralizing about the wrong things. And one big non-stop advertisement for the Blackberry (that Palm Pilot thing). Remember kids, carry a Blackberry on you at all times just in case you're knocked unconscious and kidnapped by a deformed serial killer with a love for fanatic Bible-thumpers! This film, obviously, is not recommended.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews