The Great Los Angeles Earthquake (1990 TV Movie) User Reviews

8.3 quake, 7.0 IMDB rating

[virek213 · 7/10 · 10 August 2001]

Forget for a second that the acting and the dialogue are not exactly first-rate; this isn't Shakespeare or Spielberg. This 1990 made-for-TV film does focus on an all-too-plausible disaster for those of us, like myself, who live in Southern California--a cataclysmic earthquake tearing the region apart.

Irritating subplots aside (Robert Ginty's greedy developer engaging in what I'd call "Quakegate"; Joe Spano's emergency management chief torn between Ginty and Kerns; Richard Masur's Geraldo-like tabloid TV reporter), THE BIG ONE is just too effective in its depiction of destruction on a scale not seen in a long time. Kerns' performance as seismologist Claire Winslow is clearly modeled off of CalTech scientists Lucy Jones and Kate Hutton. The film's science is also pretty straight-on, especially when one realizes that the quakes that have shook up Southern California since the 1971 Sylmar event have not occurred along the dreaded San Andreas Fault but on faults of which little or nothing is known about.

So whatever plot pratfalls it has, THE BIG ONE still works as an ultimate science fiction/disaster movie, at least from the science angle.

Clichés and stereotypes limit what could have been a great movie

[rlange-3 · 6/10 · 25 October 2009]

Very good pre and post quake special effects, a believable buildup, and overall decent acting all contribute to a very entertaining if somewhat horrifying movie experience. It's definitely worth a watch.

What detracts from the film are a number of bogus subplots which add nothing because they are either contrived, stereotypical, or too obvious political lectures. The assassination has absolutely nothing to do with anything, and doesn't fit into the movie. Most people are not going to be watching this to see the dynamics of a family squabbling over a birthday party or marrying off a daughter. Many of us are tired of being hit over the head with a sugar coated lecture about illegal aliens being God's gift to humanity. There was no need to have another subplot about evil real estate owners somehow being responsible for a massive quake. And the angst over nobody wanting Claire to speak up was misplaced. If anything she may have contributed to the casualties by causing mass panic with her assistant.

Why put all these mini-morality plays into a good disaster movie? There are ways to make us care about the characters without shoving them down our throats.

Still, worth seeing, especially for those of us who live or lived in Los Angeles. There is just 'something' about seeing what is familiar reduced to ruins that is an humbling experience.

Cheesy but good

[shaunephillips28 · 6/10 · 3 July 2012]

For a made for TV movie this really isn't half bad. I was 8 years old when I first saw this and I remember loving it because of all of the destruction and overall it's still a decent cheesy made for TV movie. At the time there were a lot of movies on TV playing into all of the disasters waiting to happen and this was one of the better ones. The first 2 hours of the movie try's to sound as scientific as possible while slowly building to what we all know is coming and nicely builds suspense. The movie does a good job of showing the daily lives of people in L.A. and what happens to them afterwards. Of course some story lines are nothing more than filler, some stories are cheesy and some are quite good. Overall the acting is believable except for a few bad actors here and there. Most people should recognize the mother from growing pains, the father from the wonder years, Ed Bagley Jr and tons more from the 80s and 90s.

For a made for TV movie I am pleased by how the movie stays away from overt corniness and try's to tell a good story, but there is problems. The movie is 3 hours long, with 2 of those hours leading up the earthquake and 1 hour dealing with the earthquake and after, then it abruptly ends. The movies does a good job of showing the disaster, but there could have been at least another hour dealing with what happens after the quake. It takes 2 hours to get to the quake and then it speeds along and ends.

What can one really expect from a made for TV movie anyways? As long as it entertains that's really the important key to a successful movie. I will say it is a cut above some of the Hollywood disaster movies of the 90's which usually were cheesy and dumb. I wouldn't watch this movie and expect to be blown away, but if you are looking to entertain yourself for awhile then I recommend this movie.

A Seismologist's Viewpoint

[Teach-8 · 6 June 2002]

Unfortunately, there was never any such thing, scientifically speaking, as a "good" earthquake movie. Though located smack in the middle of Earthquake Country, Hollywood has reflected the unfortunate ignorance of millions of residents. Most of the monster quakes that devastate Los Angeles in the movies are on the San Andreas Fault, 50 miles from downtown at its closest approach--again, parrotting the common myth that this is where the next "Big One" will come from. "The Big One" is a refreshing departure from this illconcieved mold. Though by no means a great movie, it zeroes in on the fact that there are faults criss-crossing the Los Angeles Basin that could cause major damage without being a "monster." In many ways, it was an unintended preview of the Northridge earthquake in 1994--the movie's quake was centered on the Elysian Park fault, which is a blind thrust fault that runs under downtown Los Angeles, while Northridge was also on a blind thrust fault under the San Fernando Valley. Though the seismology "details" were typical movie fare--foreshocks, unexplained geologic occurrences, and a doomsday prediction by a scientist that everyone else tries to silence (or at least ignore), it does demonstrate that something like this could happen in a much more believable scenario. It is not a "great" earthquake movie, but it is certainly an improvement.

One of my favorite movies as a kid didn't give me the same thrill now

[Robert_duder · 6/10 · 10 February 2008]

This movie kind of haunted me as a kid and then growing up. We had taped it off of Television and it was one of those cool movies I watched a lot and it really gave me a big interest in Earthquakes and things like that, that really has lasted me my entire adult life. So when I spied this in a bargain bin I snatched it up without a second thought and finally got around to watching it and I admit I was asking myself...'What did I see in the movie?' Maybe it seemed better, less drawn out and boring because of commercials or being split into two parts on Television. I mean I really do understand the self importance of this film and the message it is trying to convey and it does a good job. I just thought that for a disaster film that is three hours long the quake would start more than 1 hour and 50 minutes into it leaving the disaster nature of the film to less than one quarter of the film. Basically the film is more about the idea and premise of Earthquake prediction and preparedness than it is about the actual quake itself but that doesn't really keep you all that riveted. That being said when the quake does happen you're in for a very impressive display of special effects especially for a Television movie.

I admit when I think Joanna Kerns, obviously you think Growing Pains but you also don't really think of a class 'A' actress but you know she actually does a really, really good job as seismologist Dr. Clare Winslow. Basically it is her against everyone including her own family and colleagues as she begs them to listen to her warning. She is a very good actress and very stern and powerful on screen and I give her kudos and won't underestimate her again. Dan Lauria, also a TV Legend, Kevin's Dad from The Wonder Years plays Kerns' husband Steve. The two of them have terrific chemistry and he is very good in his role. Both of them are terrific. Lindsay Frost is good as Kerns' free spirited little sister Laurie, and I always like to see steely faced Alan Autry (Bubba from In The Heat Of The Night) as Laurie's cop boyfriend, Matt. Bonnie Bartlett is terrific as the overbearing and stubborn mother of Clare and Laurie. Stephen Elliott is their kind father and Doctor. Ed Begley Jr., who seems to get top billing for this film, plays Clare's assistant Jerry Soloway and honestly never really does much of anything except assist Clare. If this was real life he'd be in line for promotion. Richard Masur, who I really have enjoyed in some films, is corny and misused and his character stinks as a sleazy newspaper reporter who supposedly sees the error of his ways but really you don't care and he never has to experience the earthquake either. The film was so jammed with other characters I wish I could run them down but honestly I've listed the main characters and anyone who stood out and everyone else was unfortunately mostly clutter and earthquake fodder.

The Big One: The Great Los Angeles Earthquake has a few key elements missing when it comes to the disaster epic genre. They all do the same thing...compare it to Charlton Heston's Earthquake of the seventies. They establish various characters (usually not connected) and you become intertwined in their stories so you see the disaster from different vantage points. This film didn't really do that. All the characters were connected, essentially from the same family, and therefore they aren't different stories. They also force a completely unnecessary story about a Government assassination which is pointless to the entire thing, and a story about the Winslow's housekeeper and her son. They could have literally removed both those story angles and the film would not have missed a beat and might have been better for it. Finally I understand that the focus was on prediction and preparation but in all honesty when you watch an Earthquake movie or a disaster movie, you watch it for the disaster. Would Titanic have been nearly as popular if Jack and Rose ran around the boat for two and a half hours warning everyone the boat was going to sink and then minutes before the credits the boat sank? I doubt it. The Earthquake is so impressive, and the aftermath so devastating that it warrants seeing but it happens so late in the film. So this child hood memory of mine wasn't so great the second time around but I suppose if you're a fan of TV Movies, this was one of the good ones for its day but don't expect an epic disaster flick by any means. 6/10

A lot of talk and drama, but very little action...

[paul_haakonsen · 4/10 · 19 December 2015]

While this 1990 TV movie had a heap of familiar faces from both TV and movies alike from the 1980s and 1990s, then this movie wasn't particularly thrilling. And the title is somewhat of a lure.

The story is about Dr. Clare Winslow who pinpoints the location and time of a massive earthquake that will strike sunny Los Angeles.

Greanted, the TV movie is not depending on grand effects, but more on the drama and fear of an earthquake, as well as the impact such an event has on those living in an area at risk of earthquakes.

The cast list was quite nice, with a lot of familiar faces, at least to us who watched TV shows and movies during the 1980s and 1990s.

"The Big One: The Great Los Angeles Earthquake" was too slow paced for my liking and my interest was fast drifting away a couple of times throughout the 180 minutes that the TV movie ran for.

If you enjoy disaster movies, then I would suggest that you watch something else entirely. But then again, that is because I like for thrilling things to happen in a disaster movie. If you enjoy a human drama set in the face of an earthquake, perhaps this TV movie might appeal to you.

EaRtHqUaKe

[kairingler · 6/10 · 13 February 2008]

First off let me say that this one has more ups than downs, and it's better than you're average disaster movie,, first the ups,, the fact that big money plays a part in this film,, you have real estate moguls,, the mayor,, all wanting to hush up the story of "The Big One" for political interests, except for the governor. i liked the ending,, that's always a plus. great acting for the most part,, ed begley jr.. dan lauria, jo anna kerns,, all great actors, and actresses, some of the downs are it takes to long to get going,, to much character development,, and why the heck was there this lame assassination plot,, that had absolutely nothing to do with the story,, and after the big one hits,, the assassination continues,, that took balls, but i kinda liked that,, the plot was very good i thought, the peoples reaction to the big one, and how the media perceives things and "can" twist things is very real,, this movie took some raw facts and shown us that, most disaster movies don't really do that,, you had a great ensemble cast that deserves kudos,,

Long-winded and predictable story of an earthquake

[gus81 · 5/10 · 1 April 2005]

This film wasn't too bad for a TV movie; but nonetheless, it isn't too good either.

The film is too long in the first place. The kind of simple plot lines employed here could have been told in a two hour time-frame, they didn't need to be dragged out over the three hours the film is. These sub-plots indeed are pretty boring and lacklustre - typical TV movie stuff; but this time an earthquake shakes things up some.

Worse still, the main plot is almost inexcusable. The star, Joanna Kerns, is a seismologist and she thinks she has figured out a methodology to predict earthquakes. Using this method, she decides an Earthquake is going to hit LA pretty soon. Of course no one believes, or wants to believe her, because there's too much red tape involved in following up such a warning - like evacuating the city for nothing if it ends up being a false alarm. So she becomes the strong willed and much maligned protagonist, fighting against the system in order to save lives.

This plot line was ripped straight out of 1974's Earthquake (with Charlton Heston and Ava Gardner), so everyone knows how the film is going to end; they've seen it before! And everyone knows that those bureaucratic skeptics in the film are wrong. Heck, the film's title is a dead giveaway that there will be a quake, and that everybody should have listened to the seismologist! This is why the film makers didn't have to drag out the scenes dealing with this for such a long time before wowing us with the actual quake.

Other than that, the quake scenes were surprisingly good for a TV movie. There was enough bang and blast to keep anyone amused, and the special effects carried it off quite well. The problem is that not many people (except extras) die in the end, and this is a bit disappointing, because after such a simplistically boring plot line being dragged out for such a long time, one yearns for a bit of a jolt at the end. This doesn't not come, however.

'The Big One' is not too terrible a movie, but you may need to engage your trusty fast-forward button....

Chilling disaster epic

[jhaggardjr · 8/10 · 22 June 2000]

"The Big One: The Great Los Angeles Earthquake" is a chilling, well-made disaster film that was made-for-TV and aired on NBC back in the fall of 1990 as a two-part movie. Joanna Kerns (star of TV's "Growing Pains") stars as a seismologist who worries that the earthquake of the title is going to strike Los Angeles. But before she can make her prediction, she crosses paths with her family members, co-workers, and city officials. The movie is long at times (this review is based on the entire four hour movie that ran when it premiered on NBC, not the shortened home video version) but it kept me interested and entertained through its entire four hours. The second time the movie aired on NBC they cut an hour of footage and shortened it to a three hour film. That version was pretty good too. But then I saw the home video version with half the movie gone. This is the version to forget about. Stick with either the three hour version or the full-length four hour version if you can find it on TV.

The three and four hour versions: *** (out of four)

The home video version: ** (out of four)

Not bad, but way too long

[Leofwine_draca · 5/10 · 29 April 2018]

THE GREAT LOS ANGELES EARTHQUAKE is a TV movie exploration of a familiar topic: an earthquake striking a large metropolis, as seen in EARTHQUAKE and SAN ANDREAS. The problem with this film is that it runs no less than three hours, and it has absolutely no reason to do so. The plot is more than familiar from pretty much every other disaster movie you can think of, with an expert scientist predicating an upcoming disaster but ending up disbelieved by everybody around her. Meanwhile various other assorted characters are introduced, from reporters to cops, government officials and ordinary people. The earthquake itself doesn't strike until more than two hours of the running time has passed, although the special effects are decent and there's some good drama arising from the situation. But this really didn't need to be three hours.

Spectacular Visuals

[Lechuguilla · 8/10 · 27 October 2017]

Describing what could happen in the future, the film combines formulaic character subplots with terrific visuals in the second half to convey a fictional but realistic story of people caught up in their own private dramas before and during a devastating earthquake.

There are a couple of problems here. The first relates to the subplots; there are too many, resulting in an unnecessarily long run-time of about three hours. The assassination subplot seemed a bit hokey. At least 30 minutes probably could have been cut out without affecting the quality of the overall story. Because of so many speaking parts, I lost track of how some characters connected to other characters.

Also, the sound quality in the copy I watched was not very good. At times I could not understand the dialogue; it seemed muffled.

But of course viewers aren't really watching the film for the melodrama. They're watching for the disaster that's about to befall the characters. And the visuals during and after the earthquake are spectacular, every bit as good as in the 1974 film "Earthquake", if not better. Attention to detail is terrific. A lot of time and effort went into the visuals of this film, and it shows.

Casting of main parts is fine; the cast of extras is enormous. Overall acting is average, though I thought Joanna Kerns, as the lead character, gave an especially credible performance. Production design was far higher here than we would expect for a TV movie.

And I think it is indeed the "TV movie" label that brings down the cumulative rating for this film. Actually, "The Big One" is closer to a blockbuster theatrical release than it is to the stereotyped image of made-for-TV movie that viewers have come to expect. Unnecessarily lengthy subplots notwithstanding, if the viewer can watch the film for what it is, sans TV label, the viewer will enjoy it all the more.

Improvement of 1974's "Earthquake," but...

[Teach-8 · 3 January 2001]

Once more, Los Angeles is the target of a large M8+ earthquake; however, scientifically, this one was much more believable than the megaquake on the San Andreas fault in "Earthquake" (1974). However, the plot on the original 4-hour TV movie was way too complicated, and in parts, irrelevant. When a three-hour version was released later, it was clear that the cut parts--centered around the visit and assassination attempt on a foreign head of state, even after the city is in ruins afterwards--had contributed nothing to the movie as a whole. Though still weak, the plot did show the problems with earthquake prediction and dealing with the real world. The attempt to hush-up the threat of an earthquake to the Los Angeles area was real after the Long Beach earthquake of 1933 and for the same reason--money. The reaction to a prediction was quite believable as well--much panic, which then adversely affects those that keep their heads. Overall, a good movie--not great, but certainly interesting.

Shake shake shake

[bevo-13678 · 10/10 · 1 April 2020]

One of the better earthquake movies going around. Star studded cast and great special effects

Quite darned good.

[calcat-75546 · 8/10 · 14 September 2023]

I really liked this one. I've been watching a *lot* of not-so-great disaster movies on YouTube lately. I enjoying them all, even when they're really bad lol

This one is actually pretty good. It has a terrific cast, they are all equal to their roles, they're all good actors doing a good job here.

What I really like about this one is that it isn't sanitized. The consequences of the earthquake and aftershocks are shown in very gritty realism. The chaos, the mess, the dirt, the lack of tidy, miraculous resolutions. Bad things happen to nice people.

It's great. It brings home how horrific a situation like this would be.

There were no "star turns" here as there are in the Irwin Allen-type movies. This is just good ensemble acting. Special kudos to Richard Masur.

I saw the 3-hour version shown on YouTube.

good

[mattkratz · 29 September 2001]

This movie wasn't bad, as it dealt with the biggest earthquake Los Angeles could have. The film focuses equally on the preparation the city makes and the actual earthquake itself. All in all, not too bad, with decent performances.

** 1/2 out of ****

The Best Damn Earthquake Period!

[DaveHasNoTimeForAnyOfThisBull · 19 September 2003]

Joanna Kerns is the sister who takes care of her family andworks hard studying earthquakes, which she predicts will happen soon. Her sister is played by Lindsey Frost whose hormones are going through the roof, symbolically like an earthquake, in this movie. Dr. Claire Winslow (Kerns) has arguments with her sister, her mother, her husband, and her daughter, all leading up to the big earthquake. More people should of died than in the movie. This movie was a year after the SF bay area earthquake and was made to take advantage of the fear that there would be another one in California soon. I'm an Earthquake freak. Oddly enough we have had several small ones in the past year and that leads me to believe there will be a bigger one in the coming months. They have been growing in size and that is a guarantee that a big one is coming. Overall the movie is good, well acted, and interesting. It's the best damn earthquake movie I've seen, period.

It is really anything !

[lionel.willoquet · 18 July 2001]

Convinced that an earthquake is going to destroy Los Angeles, a seismologist tries to alert the authorities of the city and the population. Traced on " films disaster ", this fiction turns out without surprises.