10.5 (TV Mini-Series 2004– ) Poster

(2004– )

User Reviews

Review this title
172 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
2/10
god help us all
erosen3 May 2004
I pray this isn't the future of TV drama. I had to laugh at the opening scene where a guy on a bike manages to dodge every piece of falling debris, including the entire Seattle Tower. Maybe after that it turns into a decent suspense movie, I can't tell because the quick cuts and jerky in-and-out zooming is not only distracting me from what the characters are saying, it is physically making me nauseous and I have to turn it off. They don't pull off the attempt at the NYPD-Blue (maybe it was Kim Delaney's idea?) camcorder style. It's like watching Cribs on MTV, not one shot is long enough for you to see what is going on. It's just frustrating and annoying. This movie should be shown to film classes as an example of what NOT to do.
45 out of 53 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
Funny, if you like bad disaster movies
stan-622 April 2004
They had a preview screening of this for my office. I work with a bunch of seismologists, and the overall consensus was that when it came to the science, they got *everything* wrong. The room was full of people laughing uproariously at one howler after another. The special effects were pretty good, but the acting was kind of hard to take. Too melodramatic. And not just the science was wrong. The bit that kind of summed it up was a scene where a TV news report was showing a banner that the President had declared 'marshal law'. Don't the writers have a dictionary? Anyway, if you like bad disaster movies, this is entertaining. But it's pure fantasy, and not at all an accurate portrayal.
19 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
5/10
Catastrophic Predictable Soap Opera
Claudio Carvalho10 March 2005
After two successive earthquakes, the scientist Dr. Samantha Hill (Kim Delaney) claims that it is not an aftershock, but a rupture and displacement of the plate tectonics. She advises that other earthquakes would happen. When her prediction happens, Roy Nolan (Fred Ward), the assessor of the American President Paul Hollister (Beau Bridges), gives all the support Dr. Hill needs to reduce the casualties in the affected cities. "10.5" is a totally predictable movie, full of clichés and terrible dialogs. There is one specific character (Amanda Williams, played by Kaley Cuoco, in the role of the daughter of Gov. Carla Williams (Rebecca Jenkins)) that irritated me, since her lines were very silly and even stupid. Most of the dramatic situations are shallow, such as the Afro-American doctor who argues with his wife, because he bought a Porsche instead of a new house for the family. However, the guy leaves his expensive car in the city that is being evacuated instead of using it for escaping. I could point out many other ridiculous situations, but it is not the objective of my review. I regret that a movie, having a reasonable budget, good cast and a very updated theme, has had such a bad screenplay and direction. My vote is five.

Title (Brazil): "10.5 – O Dia Que a Terra Não Aguentou" ("10.5 – The Day Earth Has Not Resisted")
23 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
Poor Poor Poor
jimgrigsby4 May 2004
Warning: Spoilers
There is only one part of this epic that I like. The entire west coast offices of NBC (spoiler alert!!!!!) were swallowed up and are now under water, where the original negatives of this movie should be.

I have read the other comments and I too was about to go crazy with the shaky zoom in -zoom out shots all through this film. I had to go get one of those new patches that go behind your ear to keep from getting motion sickness.

Here is the technical stuff: Why oh why was this epic NOT in high definition???? More and more of us have the digital sets and all the other networks make these kinds of events (?) available in high definition. Also, where was the audio?? I heard very basic stereo that had less separation between channels than an 8-track. Where was the low frequency effects channel with all that earthquake rumble??? You know, maybe with better audio and picture, all the other negatives could be overlooked. Well, maybe not entirely overlooked....

I also concur that the daughter character should have been dropped down one of the fault lines along with her inhaler. What an absolutely annoying and obnoxious character. Actually, they were all annoying and obnoxious.

Oh, and lastly, (spoiler alert!!!) just like a scene in the movie Independence Day, the doctor is in Tent City (the refugee camps from the entire southern CA west coast with hundreds of thousands of people) just walks around and finds his family just like that!!! REALLY !!!!

I think I know who wrote the script, she is also a student in my two year old daughters day care...
12 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
Deliciously, Laughably Bad
CelluloiDiva5 May 2004
It was obvious in the opening credit sequence that "10.5" was going to be one doozy of a stinker. The cyclist outracing the collapsing Space Needle - how contrived, how ridiculous, how utterly physically impossible to ride a bicycle during an earthquake so tremendous.

This movie is so bad, it "MST's" itself!

There are so many gaps in logic, fact and production, it's impossible to keep up with them. Cheesy "effects" (that train was soooo obviously a model!), preposterous plot, lousy continuity and terrible timing (yeah, right - Science Chick and Doubting Guy DRIVE from LA to Redding and back in the same afternoon and, oh yeah, neither one of them gets dirty...). However, my absolute favorite gaffe in the movie comes in the first minutes of Part 2, in which a newscaster is detailing the arrival of troops in San Franciso. Across the bottom of the "news crawler" is the phrase "Marshal Law". What, did Marshal Faulk and Ty Law have a baby? When the military takes over local control, kids, it's called MARTIAL Law!! The fact that the editorial and production teams did not catch this simple error is, to me, indicative of their overall approach to this, ah, er, um, film. It seems painfully obvious that the entire company - actors, writers, gaffers, prop masters, everyone - have no respect for the movie they're making.

It is a great mystery how a bit of dreck such as this can get made, especially by network television, which is notoriously conservative. Rank this turd up there with "Atomic Train" and "Tidal Wave" - the only thing missing from "10.5" is an impassioned performance from Corbin Bernson.

A rank pile o' poo, but so much fun to watch! 1/2* out of *****
19 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
2/10
Unrealistic and Impossible
Willman24712 July 2007
I have seen this movie once, but I just don't understand how any of the things that happen in the movie are physically possible, because they probably aren't. Let's see, there is a 7.9 Earthquake in Seattle, a man happens to be able to perform stunts while riding a bike down the streets and tries to out run the Space Needle and also manages to stay on his bike and ride it like there is no shaking at all. But this is only the beginning of the unrealistic stuff you see in the film. Later in Reading, California an 8.4 Earthquake occurs and a rift opens up into the ground and you also see a train. Now instead of having the hole open up and swallow the train right there, they decide to use a even funnier method and have it exactly parallel with the tracks then eventually have gravity pull the train in, also you might probably notice that the train is going the exact same speed as the earthquake to. Later in San Francisco a 9.2 Earthquake occurs causing the Golden Gate bride to collapse and what do you see, people standing up and running. If a 8.0 earthquake occurred in real life people would be immediately thrown from the ground. But the height of the unrealistic story plot is when the 10.5 earthquake hits, and practically destroys everything in California, but everything around the state is almost completely unharmed how do you explain this. Even tough they didn't do a good job with the realism it is kind of fun to watch and the science isn't as bad as the movie science in Core.
5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
2/10
Kept Waiting For It To Get Better, It Didn't
Kevin (isleofdawn)4 May 2004
Ouch. This was painful to watch. I am fascinated with humans trying to overcome potential disasters, i.e. Armageddon, Deep Impact and Twister. However, this disaster movie was a disaster. The guy riding from the space needle and the train getting engulfed by the fissure were ridiculous. I kept hoping there would be a change in plot that would make this better, but it kept getting worse. So much was just not believable. To me it was like watching most people on American Idol. It was so bad, it was fascinating. The other funny thing was nobody had a good relationship at the start of the movie. All the main characters that had relationships were having a rough go of it. Doesn't ANYONE have a good relationship anymore?
24 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
Execrable.. bad.. dumb.. etc.
jcolbert-25 May 2004
Taped it, since I had my doubts beforehand. Good thing too. Just zapping the ads out knocked about 45 minutes off the 4 hour run time. Fast forwarding through some of the drek knocked another hour off.

The science was retarded. If their stupid little idea of nukes would have had half a chance of doing what they said it was doing, it would have required hundreds of them, not 6, and they would have had to been thousands of feet under ground, not hundreds. I don't know why I should be bothered about that as it makes as much sense as arguing the "science" in Star Trek.

Phones that still worked when convenient to the "plot".

It had every cliche known to man and monkey. "Marshal Law" (Is that Jude Law's brother?)

I gave it a 2 instead of a 1 because the little bit of footage they had of things falling down was done pretty well.
36 out of 54 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
2/10
Truly stunning in its intelligence-insulting ability...
Rob_Taylor20 December 2005
This isn't really worthy of a serious review, being just the worst kind of TV movie dreck that it is possible to conjure. Anybody that rated this higher than a 5 needs professional help at once. Instead, here's what this movie will teach really dumb people (the ones who rated it 5+)...

1. The best way to avoid a collapsing building in an earthquake is to ride a BMX bike directly away from, but in the fall line of, the said building. You should also resist the temptation to avoid being crushed to a pulp by the simple expedient of turning down a side street as that would imply rational thought on your part (and we all know BMX'ers have no brains).

2. Earthquakes will form cracks in the ground that will chase a train exactly along the route of its tracks, even going around corners in order to follow the track exactly. Or maybe the track actually held the faultline together....

3. The above-mentioned cracks are so smart that, once they have succeeded in catching and engulfing the train, they will immediately stop opening up at once, literally the moment the engine goes down into the abyss.

4. Everyone in an earthquake will have to overcome some kind of personal /familial/professional problem.

5. An entire town can be swallowed without the slightest trace remaining.

6. A full-grown man will succumb to poisonous fumes far more quickly than a woman half (or less) his body mass.

7. The answer to stopping earthquakes is to detonate multiple nuclear warheads beneath the surface of the earth in the conceit that it will fuse a faultline together.

8. Disaster control centres have map displays that depict nuclear explosions as tiny, superimposed balls of fire. I kid you not...

9. The careers of Beau Bridges and Fred Ward are at an end. No! Wait! This bit is actually a fact. I wonder how galling it is to poor old Beau that his father and brother are/were much more successful than he is/was/will ever be.

10. After the big quake is over, people will shuffle mindlessly forward in an unintentional parody of Day of the Dead.

In fact, there really is only one thing to redeem this movie (at least in some tiny way) and that is the miniature and CGI effects of destruction. They are pretty obviously what they are - mini or CGI - but they are by far the most interesting thing in this otherwise diabolically awful excuse of a film.

Elsewise all the film contains (Apart from the already mentioned points above) is awful shaky-cam footage (it makes it look more realistic you know!), ironing-board acting, ludicrous science-abuse, characters so stereotypical and clichéd that you wonder if they were available "off-the-shelf", terribly over-the-top melodramatic music which is actually laughably awful in most scenes and let's not forget the Hulk-like split-imaging which at times makes the whole thing look like the opening credits of Dallas!

Oh my! This is a real stinker! Avoid this like it was a real earthquake! Unless you want a huge, huge laugh at the dumbness of it all.
15 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
1/10
The worst example of "BAD SCIENCE"
Screenwriters must believe in the power of the atom. I've seen most of the disaster flicks, dating back to the 60s. I must be drawn to them because it's my long time home in Los Angeles that they always ruin. The result of these epics is seeing LA blown to bits. It's always a nuke to save LA, but it never works.

What about that computer screen showing the exact magnitude of the quakes as they happen. In REAL TIME! Did the writers ask how this is done in the real world?

This mini was a complete waste of my time and the producer's money. I simply cannot express just how bad the science was, or the acting, or the camera work. The very concept was flawed. "Let's blow up LA" has been done before.

Did a writer figure out there are interconnecting "Super Faults", 700 miles deep under the west coast? Is this how it started? Well, that's how it ended.

By the third hour of this yawner, I wanted push the buttons on those five devices and atomize this whole mess.

Did they think we would be so gullible to actually suspend our disbelief for four hours? HA!

I gave it g/naout of 10,000, simply because there was no "zero" option.
23 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
5/10
How to nuke an earthquake
kxok63019 June 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Very entertaining, but for all the wrong reasons. It's a natural disaster story predicated on the debunked idea that residents of the west coast of the U.S. will one day be swimming in the Pacific where their front yards used to be. Overlooking the film's goofs for the sake of artistic license becomes impossible as the nonsense keeps coming like aftershocks.

But even sillier is how this movie presents its plot-hole-infested story. Jerky camera movement is used to simulate earthquake motion. Only problem is, they used the jerky camera business even when there was no quake. Characters are all loud and annoying dimwits. The toy cars they use on the chicken-wire model "Golden Gate Bridge" scene are outrageously funny. The numbskull who runs away from a crashing tower on a bicycle. But my personal favorite is the infamous "Fault line fissure chasing a train down the tracks" sequence. It literally follows the wake of the train, even turning corners, moving just slightly faster than the train as it stalks its prey, finally swallowing it up. Then, the instant it catches its lunch, it abruptly stops. If I had laughed any harder, I would have needed to be hooked to emergency oxygen.

How to fight the quakes? Nuke the fault lines, of course. As if this premise wasn't ludicrous enough, the cartoonish CGI graphics utilized in the final sequence, along with where the advancing fissure stops (literally inches from a hero, after travelling over 100 miles), were the final straw.

A sense of humor is all that's required to watch this.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
1/10
Earthquakes hate our freedom ... they're freedom-haters!
Andy (film-critic)23 March 2005
Warning: Spoilers
What a tragic piece of television cinema this was. When I use the word tragic, I am not referencing the events that took place in the actual story of the movie, but the way that this film was made. It was hysterical, horrendous, and pathetic to think that there were actual paychecks handed out for this project. The graphics looked like something pre-schoolers were asked to create using glue, paper mache, and their left over Hot Wheels cars. Honestly, during one of the devastating scenes in this movie, I thought that I saw Hot Wheel on the bottom of one of the cars giving me a true indication of the low production value. Let me just say that if 10.5 was a sandwich, than it would be heavy on the clichés. You could not turn away from this film for a minute for fear that you were going to miss yet another clichéd moment that has been used in nearly every disaster movie ever made. From the acting to the story and even the graphics, everything seemed like it had been done before, and 10.5 times better.

Our first image of this film sets the tone, but doesn't quite prepare us for the hilarity that will ensure further along in the movie. As we witness a biker successfully manage his way through destruction without even a scratch, our idea of reality is lost. Being able to outrun the Space Needle is sheer lunacy, and I will not go into the misleading way that they represented the Space Needle's structure (as most have in other reviews). I was laughing while this scene was happening questioning my choice of this film. Then, as if pulled from the pages of Sam Raimi's early work, we witness a train be completely eaten by the earthquake. Paper mache in full effect, it is as if it is chasing the train in this horror story styled moment that leaves so much to be desired. I couldn't tell if our characters were concerned about the tragedies that were befalling their state or the way that the director, John Lafia, represented the catastrophe with very cheap effects.

I cannot merely say that the graphics are what ruined this film, because everything was equal. The acting and the story were equally as poor giving us one of the largest (and lengthiest) television duds I have ever encountered. Beau Bridges as this sympathetic President was horrible. I could just see President Bush watching this movie at home and saying to himself, "The earthquakes hate our freedom … they are freedom-haters". I really could hear these words when I watched this film. I mentioned Bridges, but the acting was bad on all counts. The family dynamics that ironically all of our characters are fighting was a HUGE cliché that only created more implausibility to our story. Oh, our lives are horrible, but a huge disaster like an earthquake could just bring everyone closer together … let's watch and see! There was one point when I thought that John Schneider was going to break a window to a car, jump into via the window, and speed away talking about how "ain't no Boss Hog gonna git him". That would have been horrible, but at the same time semi-redeemable for this film.

Finally, I need to say to everyone that was involved in this film and for future natural disaster filmmakers, nuclear power does not solve all of our problems. I do not think we have harnessed the ability to stop Mother Nature from taking her course, and that no matter how hard we try, events will happen that will be catastrophic. We need to realize that this Earth was here long before nuclear power, long before humans, and will be long after we are gone. Sometimes I wish I could watch a film where the characters just allowed nature to take its course, and we could see the raw beauty of our world. I hated the fact that this earthquake was this evil train-eating beast that needed to be tamed. I felt that if earthquakes had a union, they would not be too pleased with their representation in this film. I was hoping for some good acting, some decent graphics, and at least a story that would spark the interest, but instead I ended up with three goose eggs.

Overall, if you can't tell already, I really disliked this film. There was no redeeming value to it at all. I remember friends and co-workers talking about this series when it was on television and how they couldn't wait to see the next part. All I can say to them is that they need to get outside more often. If 10.5 doesn't give you enough of a reason to throw your television out the window, then I don't know what will. Avoid this film like the plague, and I promise you that your overall level of life comfort will be much better. A definite Mr. Yuk sticker deserves to be placed on this film!

Grade: * out of *****
9 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
1/10
more cracks and pot holes than an earthquake could cause!
tupolev-217 March 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Take one really bad idea, add a group of actors that should know better, a pinch of insipid drama, mix a bit of "God Bless America" and wrap it all up with shockingly bad camera work and there you have it - the worst tele-movie ever to shake our screens. And another thing - why do all these bad disaster films have the same plot? I mean, a group of so called professionals who are grouped together for their intellect and education working for the authority on whatever disaster they face, have to battle each other and an arrogant know-it-all boss who refuses to acknowledge the opinion of his team? Until it's too late of course. Then that same boss becomes the hero by "taking one for the team" - give us a break! Factor in a sub-plot of a dysfunctional family with a precocious kid who hates their parents and there you have every other so called suspense film made in the last 20 plus years. If you really want to add pain to the viewing experience, wait for it to come out on free to air TV - then you'll know what the 10.5 means - 10 minutes of movie and 5 minutes of commercials, 10 minutes of movie.......
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
1/10
Biker idiot, bear off to the right, the left!
stumpmee7718 June 2007
Warning: Spoilers
That was all that biker at the opening of this film had to do--that and get off the bike and run for his life. Staying on a less balanced object on a continuously shifting terrain just didn't make a heap of sense to me.

This movie made the movie "Earthquake" in the 70's appear a classic. The primary aspect that made that earlier film so gripping by comparison is it didn't throw science into its scenario ergo it's credibility is higher. The characters were also more well-rounded; there was at least one or two I actually cared for in that. It also didn't end happily and/or contain the unbelievable strokes of luck or deplorably by the numbers characters that have been littering many of Sci-Fi channels so called "orignal films". This includes but not limited to: The Hill character with the husband that wants a family, how many times that's been in their original films as well as the Mayor's ex trying to redeem himself with the brat daughter who I wanted to slap and everything comes out hokey-dorry after some trials and tribulations?

Now the Earthquake 70's film aside, it was bad on it's own merit being more predictable than usual. Nukes to end a problem came out my mouth the same time the 1st time it was said. When the quake in the near the last half hour of the film, it pops in my head, "Not the last one." And sure enough--Dang, that's the only area where I wasn't disappointed.

I honestly think NBC worked in association with the Sci-Fi Channel to create this joke.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
1/10
Jerky Camera Made Viewing Impossible
bresea417 June 2007
I love disaster movies, so I was eager to watch 10.5 when it first appeared on TV. I didn't care if it was hokey; I still loved them, but from the previews, this one looked good. Only problem was, 10.5 made me sick and I had to turn it off. I don't mean I was sickened by the plot or dialogue or the acting. I mean the constant jerky camera gave me motion sickness. With frustration, I clicked it off and wished I could've talked to the director. What WAS he/she thinking? When it came on again, and it's showing as a rerun right now, I thought I'd try it again and I've managed to watch approx one hour by looking away from the screen most of the time. But I finally gave up. Please, people. Keep those cameras still!
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
1/10
an unbelievably awful disaster movie
emills_coolchick8 October 2006
Warning: Spoilers
hmmm, Hollywood has labelled this a movie????? i began to watch this movie last nite on TV and i have neva seen a more pathetically acted, worse use of special effects and big waste of money! I had to turn it off because i was so embarrassed for the film makers and actors. i am a big fan of disaster movies and i know they don't have a good history of great acting and they tend to over-exaggerate consequences and i have accepted that, i usually just watch it for the effects and disaster scenes as i love anything to do with natural disasters. This movie did not satisfy any of the criteria which make a good movie for me and i would say that it was the worst movie i have ever seen but i cant as i did not see the whole of it, so i didn't see the movie in its entirety. The fact that people have rated this as 10/10 is an insult to quality film-making, as this had none of the acting, effects, directing, editing etc that make a movie "perfect". Movies like the lord of the rings,the godfather, etc in my opinion are the only ones that deserve 10/10 and even they have not achieved this according to the IMDb ratings. ----------"spoiler alert-------- There was one scene in this movie where the golden gate bridge is breaking, and cars are rolling in2 the water, and it was so painfully obvious that they had used toy cars to create the effect! this is not quality film making, if they had to use toy cars then they could have at least made them look real/lifelike.

This for me proved that this film was not worth watching so I turned it off and watched pirates of the Caribbean-now there is a 10/10 movie.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
1/10
It made me sick.
katarn-529 August 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I've seen twice this "thing", I can't find a way to describe it properly, and it's on air right now to say the truth. I've seen a lot of movies and TV movies with no right to exist, but this is the worst. The rehearsing is scarce (well, that's the Italian version, but I think it goes like the original one), the camera zooms made me queasy - and I'm not joking, my eyes went red and I had a headache! - and there's no way a collection of atomic bombs can stop and earthquake! I just would like to know why someone might think nukes are the solution to all problems: - my breakfast is cold... nuke it! - my grass isn't green like the neighbor's... nuke it! Now it even "glows" green in the night... - an earthquake will separate California from the USA... nuke it! - the *insert subject* is *insert quality*... *insert "nuke it!"*

The only difference here is that the bombing is useless...
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
NBC's worst effort to date!
destrip8 May 2004
Warning: Spoilers
(Contains a few spoilers; not that it really matters)



I thought things couldn't get much worse when I saw NBC's pathetic "Atomic Train" miniseries a few years ago. But this one really takes the cake. I live in the heart of earthquake country, barely 3 miles from the San Andreas Fault, so earthquake movies are intriguing and I was looking forward to some cool special effects, flying bodies, etc. Instead I was treated to sappy dialogue (thank goodness for my PVR - I was able to zing forward when things started getting mushy), special effects which were mediocre for the most part (and when they were good they were all too brief), and things that were so improbable they made my head spin. For instance: When the sea water rushes in and makes it past the camp in Barstow, the water is nearly at ground level, even though Barstow is well over 2,000 feet above sea level! Hello? They call it the HIGH Desert for a reason! If they had been camped in the Coachella Valley it might have made sense. Plus, as many have mentioned, the silly train followed by the chasm sequence, virtually quake-proof landmarks collapsing, real time magnitude displays, etc. It's like they just tried to find every cliche' from every earthquake movie in the past and rolled it into one immense pile of crap. This is one disaster movie that would be a disaster to see more than once.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
Absolute garbage is being kind
hecktr0015 May 2004
Warning: Spoilers
Absolute garbage. Horrible acting. Sickening camera involvement. Disgrace to those who are in the scientific community. Over-cliched, under acted, absolute trash. SPOILER ALERT: I knew from the first moment, an earthquake hitting Seattle, a BMX type bike messenger "outrunning" an earthquake meanwhile performing X-Games type of stunts is ludicrous. Wasn't the earthquake 7.4 or something to that nature? How could you even ride a bike straight through a city DURING A 7 or more earthquake? It's common sense! The ground during an earthquake can move 2 or more feet in all directions! The lead actress, at home during the initial quake doesn't seem like she's evening experiencing a quake. More like experiencing a sneezing fit! The president of the United States running madly from a basketball court when he hears "Mr. President, the space needle has collapsed!" Come on. SPOILER: And the models. Oh the models were pathetic. I love how the ground opens behind a commuter train and follows the train, only to stop as soon as the train is engulfed. Yes the ground opens, yes the camera shakes, but those plastic fake trees show no damage or even dust.

NBC, next time do your homework. Hire someone to direct "disaster flicks" with some knowledge of what the disaster consists of. Hey, maybe even use the internet and find out how to direct a movie and what the definition of an earthquake is. The discovery channel is always a great start.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
10/10
Great TV Film !
whpratt18 May 2004
This TV film was very entertaining and the photography and graphics were very well produced. Every scene kept you spellbound and glued to the screen, something like the "24" TV Series but with lots more action to offer the audience. Kaley Cuoco,"Lucky 13",'04 gave a great performance as a teenager who seemed to give her father a hard time even when their vehicle got suck in earthquake eruptions in the earth. Kim Delaney (Dr. Samantha Hill),"NYPD Blue"TV Series, was the brains that tried to convince her co-workers to try her brain storms dealing with the problems they were facing with the many earthquakes. This is not a way out film at all, and events like this can happen in this great world we live in, just hope I am not around to see it!!
6 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
1/10
Waste of my time
RyanS323 April 2005
I don't think that there are enough words in the English language to describe quite how awful this miniseries is. From the beginning with the biker and the first "quake" in SeaTac to the very end of this miniseries the acting is horrible, the script is a mess and while I realize that this is a "science-fiction" genre show, little credence can be given to any of the "science" in this show.

To start off with the acting I just have to say that Kaley Cuoco has the acting talent of a grapefruit. Her character is quite possibly the most annoying character in any movie I have ever seen. Beau Bridges, Fred Ward, Dule Hill and Kim Delaney could have done better but the bad acting might also be due to a horrible script.

The script is an absolute mess. This is more like a 4 hour long soap opera than a scifi drama. Each character is somehow connected to another ala Kevin Bacon 6 Degrees of Separation yet it takes almost the entire first part of the series to figure this out. Time doesn't appear to be a concept in this series at all. There is just WAY too much happening in one day as the first three "quakes" all take place in about an 18 hour time span in which Delaney and David Cubitt somehow end up making it from Seattle to LA then up to Redding and then BACK to LA all within that time span while still managing to have time to research data in LA and spend time out in the field in Redding. As Vizzini would say in The Princess Bride "INCONCEIVABLE!"

With these big blockbuster made-for-TV miniseries you expect some of this but there are just too many TVM clichés in this series. I expected the one redeeming quality of this show to be the computer graphics but even those were weak, especially in the scenes involving the Space Needle, Amtrak and the Golden Gate Bridge, just to name a few.

All in all, if you enjoy cheesy scifi dramas with bad acting, poor scripting and low-budget graphics then this is your miniseries. Otherwise please don't waste 4 hours of your life as I did.
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
Wow, that was wicked awesome
redhawk6224 May 2004
This movie was so bad it was awesome. Ed Wood would be proud. Plan 9 from outer space now has company on the bottom. The Attack of the killer tomatoes was a more plausible movie. Think of Chris Farley explaining to Lorne Michaels how cool it would be if there was like this giant earthquake and like everything fell but scientist couldn't understand it so they nuked it, Huh wouldn't it be cool. This movie would have been better written by SNL writers. The lines were so bad I kept expecting the actors to look at the camera and wait for a rim shot,'bah dump dump'. Henny Youngman and Norm Crosby couldn't have put together more bad puns and double entendres if they tried. The shocked look on every actors face wasn't the earthquake; it was the thought of how they paid an agent to book them on this train wreck. Like any true tragedy, it was hard to avert my eyes. My middle school child laughed at the bad lines and the poorly though out plot lines. Between laughs he would say, `Now wait a minute, that can't be right'. Too late my son, we too were devoured by the `Attack of the killer earthquake'. Now quick, everyone, evacuate the west coast HAR HAR HAR.
6 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
10/10
Way frickin better than the Day After Tomorrow
glossengd4 April 2005
This movie's CGI was pretty decent, the facts were kinda left by the wayside but it was a movie and it entertained me. Way better than The Day After Tomorrow, at least the acting was! With the small exception of the president, played by Beau Bridges. I think President of the United States is probably one of the hardest roles to portray but in this film it was portrayed particularly bad. I enjoyed the little dramas contained within the main story line. I've never been a fan of the west coast but I don't think that is really relevant to this review. Overall I give it a ten because while the quality of the CGI wasn't as good as The Day After Tomorrow, it had to hold my attention the entire 4 hours it was on. Mission Accomplished!
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
3/10
Feels like amateur night at the movies
Tony Laird2 April 2005
Having lived in California at one point in my life, when I was a child, and having had to take the field trips to the seismology department to learn about earthquakes, it didn't take long for me to look at the science in this and start scratching my head and wondering if they should have made the field trips as well.

I think they were tossed about whether they wanted to make a movie about special effects, and what would happen in such an event, and a movie about the personal involvements that interconnect in such an event - but in the decision as to which to make, they failed in making a good movie about either. Too many people, too many story lines, make the whole story choppy and hard to follow.

What is most disturbing about the movie, and it bothered me the entire movie, was the amateur quality of the camera work. Some of the special effects left a lot to be desired, such as buildings in "aftershocks" that looked like a large crate of rubble on a trolley being shaken, but the camera work was just absolutely poor. Jerky movement back and forth between characters, short, sudden, jerky zooms - both in and out - that serve no useful purpose other than just to have camera movement. I don't know if this was the director's fault, or whomever was responsible for setting up the shot - but they obviously never learned the value of framing a shot, or finding the center of action with the shot. Camera action for the sake of movement is simply just poor movie making.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

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