IMDb > The Poseidon Adventure (2005) (TV) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
The Poseidon Adventure
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
The Poseidon Adventure (TV) More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 6 of 10: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [Next]
Index 96 reviews in total 

bloated

3/10
Author: disdressed12 from Canada
7 June 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

i thought the original Poseidon Adventure(1972) was a very good disaster movie,while this 2005 update,a near 3 hour miniseries,is a near disaster itself.this thing is bloated and overwrought.the dialogue borders on silly(to be kind)at times,and there is an an abundance of over acting.there are some decent actors,here,but most are wasted.i especially thought Adam Baldwin was particularly pointless.the one saving grace in this dept.is Rutger Hauer,who i thought was effective in his role as a bishop.***SPOILER AHEAD***there is no rogue wave,which causes The Poseidon to capsize.in fact,there are no waves at all.instead,the makers of the movie decided to make this about terrorism,so a bomb capsizes the ship.***END OF SPOILER***also,this movie is not very exciting,and it just goes on too long.it certainly does not hold a candle to the original,and it is not even as good as Beyond The Poseidon Adventure,the sequel to the original.for me,The Poseidon adventure(2005)is a weak 3/10

Was the above review useful to you?

If the remake wasn't bad enough

1/10
Author: JonSnowsMother from England
24 March 2008

I've never seen the original Poseidon movie but after seeing that and the Wolfgang Petersen version i think i should avoid it no matter how good its supposed to be. When you look at this poor attempt of a remake why did the producers think they would succeed with this. It was poorly attempted very weak directing,cinematography and screenplay it was like a bunch of four year olds made a movie with a camera phone. Almost a dozen stupid stories are thrown in when the writers should have stuck to one story instead of all the ones thrown in. Another mistake was the idea of having a terrorist attack the original story was good enough about the tidalwave or whatever it was turning the ship upside down not a bloody bomb. But to look at the good sides of he film......Oh yeah their were non. Take my advice and don't watch this it should be hard to find and once you see it you find out why.

Was the above review useful to you?

I love this movie, bring more like this....

1/10
Author: Thomasbuettner22
13 August 2007

Yep, love it simply because it gave me more time to reflect and finally wash my car. I was forced to turn off the TV after 20 minutes of watching the lousiest remake ever, my stomach couldn't take it anymore. If you have 2 hours of time to kill then you are better off to get some ice cream, take a walk or watch birds, but not this movie. And if you've seen and loved he original movie then you'll be very, very upset and hope that "Das Boot" will show up and end this disaster with a Torpedo; quickly.

Should there be a small chance that any of the actors is reading this then: why did you sign up for the audition to take this role? Rutger, Peter, Steve, Bryan, anyone? Great names doesn't necessary mean you'll get a great movie, unfortunately.

Was the above review useful to you?

Very weak remake of 70s classic

3/10
Author: magic-89 from South Africa
6 December 2006

Clichés abound like faux Father Christmases in December in this extremely weak remake of the 1972 movie which, when all is said in done, spawned a Hollywood love affair with disaster flicks which continues to this day.

The problem, of course, is that everything resembling an original idea has evidently been long exhausted. So what do we get in the space of a few months? Not one, but two, rehashes of the Poseidon Adventure. Put together, the two cannot hold a candle to the original.

The first and most obvious cliché is that inevitable phenomenon of our post 9/11 world - the terrorist plot. Exactly why terrorists wanted to blow up the good ship Poseidon is something I have already forgotten. Which leads me to one of the biggest flaws in a seriously flawed production. The characters are so poorly sketched that you don't really give a stuff about who is doing what, or why.

I watched this in its mini-series format, spread out over two nights, which of course didn't help. The whole premise is so weak that after 24 hours I had already forgotten almost all of part one. One thing that does stick in my mind is how ludicrously miscast Rutger Hauer is as a bishop, presumably reviving more-or-less the role played with such Godfearing gusto by Gene Hackman in 1972. At least, though, Hauer makes some attempt at injecting a bit of passion into his part, even if he is utterly the wrong actor for the job. Most of the rest of the cast goes through the motions as best as could be expected from a C-Grade crowd, looking for all the world as if they are doing whatever needs to be done to ensure a pay cheque and stuff-all else.

The capsizing scene actually isn't bad. It's no worse than what we see in the woefully disappointing "Poseidon" which followed a few months later, and in some ways the made-for-TV effort is actually better than its big-screen successor. But that is saying very little, and ultimately the "Poseidon Adventure" 2005 is a mess, drawn out, poorly cast, woefully written, and about as gripping as a slap in the face with a dead goldfish.

Was the above review useful to you?

The TV movie version, introduces terrorists.

Author: TxMike from Houston, Tx, USA, Earth
23 October 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I got the wrong movie. I thought I was getting the recent theatrical remake of the old Poseidon Adventure, but I got this one instead. While it is not awful, it definitely has a 'made for TV' look and feel to it. There are some pretty seasoned actors in it --Adam Baldwin, Rutger Hauer, Steve Guttenberg (hasn't aged well), Bryan Brown, C. Thomas Howell, Peter Weller -- but they can only do so much with the script.

In most respects this is the traditional Poseidon story. A cruise ship full of happy passengers gets into a bind and soon everyone finds themselves upside down. The movie then becomes a test to see who can survive. The 'twist' which is a reflection of the mood of the world right now -- terrorism being responsible for the mishap. Not a very bad movie, just not a very good one.

SPOILERS. The terrorists manage to sneak explosive devices on the ship disguised as beer kegs. Each has a bar code strip over the window that is used via a remote to trigger the countdown mechanism. |The US Marshall on-board gets suspicious and manages to shoot some of the terrorists before they have a chance to detonate their bombs. So, instead of the ship sinking, which was the plan, it only capsized.

Was the above review useful to you?

Rubbish, at best!

3/10
Author: Jamie Evans
21 October 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I had to negotiate, no, beg my family to let me watch this TV-remake over all their favourite TV shows. Now I am regretting that decision.

I must say, I have never really hated a film, just disliked it. This has to be one of those on the "hate" list. I don't even know where to start! The characters are so 2-dimensional. You'd may as well watch the paint peel on the hull of the ship than see their often campy, crappy dialogue. It had to be the special effects that did it for me. Based on a real ship, I think, I thought the new look over the 70's original was really good. I liked the fact they had brought it into the 21st century. But when I saw the terrorist plot, I said "uh-oh". The plot was to sink the ship. They didn't just do that, they sunk the whole TV show. How could a small hole in the ship tip the whole thing over? Titanic had a hole in it, yet it never rolled. (Not to mention Titanic had better graphics, and it was made in 1997!). I remember watching the capsize scene in disbelief. It was stupid! Everyone followed the motion of the ship, or should I say walked to the other side of the room, waiting for it to "roll". The actors and extras knew this was going to happen, you saw them practically waiting for the first sign of the ship tipping, then they all ran to the edge, running up the walls as the ship went over. Practically nothing hit anyone. Sure, one woman held onto a table, yippee! I also remember seeing the swimming pool tip. I never saw -any- water come out of it. I was like "huh? Isn't water supposed to be in there?"

But enough about the bad stuff. Let's focus on the positives shall we? Oh, there aren't any, my bad!

Was the above review useful to you?

"Bad, Bad, Bad...."

2/10
Author: tgarnett25 from Ludlow, Kentucky
28 June 2006

I gave this two stars--owing mostly to my naiveté; my belief that no film is awful enough to be considered a donut. This television version lacks many things. It has no scale; no suspense; no characters that we can relate to, or sympathize with. The music sucks. Likewise, most of the acting. There are no bravura performances, such as the one Gene Hackman delivered in the original with his portrayal of the radical, ultimately doomed, Reverend Scott.

What the film does have is a sophomoric script that is reinforced with layer upon adamantine layer of filler. The end result is less Poseidon Adventure, and more of a patriotic send-up of Homeland Security.

In truth, this was so horrible, I wonder if the production team ever saw (or cared to see) the original.

Such a waste.

Was the above review useful to you?

This whole movie is a spoiler!

1/10
Author: httpmom from San Francisco Bay Area
13 June 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

OK. I liked the original in a really good B kind of movie way and I was feeling under the weather so I figured I would couch potato the night away with this made for TV movie...which turned out to be a worthless piece of Hallmark American family propaganda with some T&A thrown in for the men folk...first...Steve Guttenber ...who is this guy and why is he allowed to take up perfectly good acting space when someone even half as worthy is out of work? And the same can be said for the writer and director of this horrible miss-adventure! How can these people continue to get work in TV if this is the best they have to offer...no wonder cable is king! If only that was the worst of it...unbelievable stereo types and really bad special effects left nothing nothing but character development to save this show...but whoa....the characters were all so dreadful I really didn't care if any of them survived! I think the terrorist won this attack not by blowing up the ship but by leaving enough actors to torture us with this looser movie for three hours!

Was the above review useful to you?

Oh dear.

1/10
Author: hound_mom from United States
12 June 2006

This movie was made for TV. I understand that it could not possibly have the visual impact of the 1972 version. Still, a good script and good acting can make up for that. This 3 hour disaster, unfortunately, had neither.

The only resemblance this unfortunate offering has to the novel it was supposedly "based on" is its title. While I must give credit to the writers for attempting to include some of the sleaze factor that made the characters in the novel more human and less "camp" than those in the 1972 blockbuster, they just didn't pull it off.

The terrorist plot which results in the capsize of the ship (which, incidentally, completely ignores the laws of physics) is unexplained. Is this act by two-dimensional, vaguely "Arab" characters supposed to make us angry, in a post-911-flag-waving sort of way? Yawn. There is none of the suspense, none of the fear, none of the comic relief of the original novel.

This ship was sunk not by terrorists, but by the preachy, long-winded orations of the undeveloped characters and a plodding, disjointed plot line which takes us nowhere but down.

Was the above review useful to you?

See the spectacular Poseidon do a spectacular belly flop.

2/10
Author: Michael DeZubiria (wppispam2013@gmail.com) from Luoyang, China
23 May 2006

Now, neither The Poseidon Adventure from 1972 nor Wolfgang's Peterson's 2006 version had any understanding of the physics of a large ocean liner sinking, but this version takes that lack of knowledge and places it under a microscope, seemingly in order to obliterate any sense of logic or physical understanding of our universe completely. As the first of many fatal errors, they decided for this goofy remake to change the catastrophe from a rogue wave, an event of sheer natural force actually capable of delivering enough power to capsize a full sized ocean liner into a terrorist bomb, probably the dumbest thing imaginable to have placed into a movie and expect the audience to believe that it could flip the ship over.

Consider, if you will, the Lusitania, which was shot by a German torpedo in almost the exact same spot that the terrorist bomb exploded in this movie. A hole was torn in the hull very similar to the one torn in the Poseidon here, and despite having been much better built than the Titanic, which took hours to sink despite having been perforated all along one side by the iceberg, the Lusitania sank in less than fifteen minutes. When a ship experiences a breach in the hull like that, needless to say, it tends to sink because water flows in, making the bottom of the ship too heavy to stay afloat. This movie wants you to believe that the part of the ship suddenly pulling the ship underwater has miraculously decided to spin up into the air, submerging its lightest side. The logic here is the same that will allow a bowl made of solid lead and filled with marshmallows to suddenly flip upside down. Sigh.

The groan inducing performances are equaled only by the astonishingly bad special effects, particularly the exterior shots. I'd rather they had gone with miniatures rather than such god awful CGI. Also, if you happen to get this from Netflix, pay no attention to the 2 hr. label. It's in two parts and each is 90 minutes long. Torturous.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 6 of 10: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

Ratings External reviews Parents Guide
Plot keywords Main details Your user reviews
Your vote history