The Poseidon Adventure (TV Movie 2005) Poster

(2005 TV Movie)

User Reviews

Review this title
98 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Wrong-headed, blasphemous piece of drek.
Poseidon-322 November 2005
Warning: Spoilers
There's little sense in "reviewing" something so devoid of logic, appeal, captivation, construction or even suspense, so instead a few of the many mistakes in attempting to remake the memorable 1972 feature film will be listed.

~~The insertion of a terrorist plot. All this did was prolong the capsizement, add characters no one cares about and feebly try to appear timely when actually the full force of nature has proved to the world to be plenty to deal with! ~~The removal of a strong leading character and his antagonist. Half the suspense of the original was wondering if the survivors were doing the right thing and they often fought about it in between climbing and trying to stay alive. No one really seems in charge here. ~~The complete stripping of any Biblical symbolism, which added a subtle gravity to the original as the characters followed their leader, sometimes with great sacrifice. The book gave Reverend Scott twelve followers. This thing doesn't even have Rev. Scott! ~~The omission of the most popular character among die-hard fans -- Linda Rogo. She provided sass and comic relief throughout the suspenseful original. She's scarcely even mentioned here. Also, the removal of Manny Rosen lessens the interest and the meaning of Belle Rosen's character despite endless references to him. ~~The absence of great music, which enhanced the original tremendously. ~~The lack of urgency. The original survivors could only barely keep ahead of the water pouring in. Here, the ballroom survivors stay alive much longer and most characters hardly get wet at all! Except for Belle, no one of any importance is killed. Only the non-name performers die and their deaths are telegraphed to where a six year-old could see them coming. It was never a "given" in the original that there would even be a rescue as there is here with all the endless naval sequences. ~~One of the key sequences of the original film, Belle's swim and heart attack, is so poorly handled as to be laughable. There's no discussion beforehand, no need for her to go first and no benefit from it, since the priest swims right beside her all the way. The whole point was that no one was sure it could be done. Since the priest kept up with her, he obviously could have done it alone first!

These are only a few of the major points. In addition, there are countless inanities and confounding changes which do nothing to enhance the story. The capsizement no longer takes place at midnight and no further reference is made to a new year. Why? Was it so wrong to have the explosion happen at 12:00? Part of the drama was that everyone went from so jubilant to so terrified within minutes! A singer preposterously strips off her dress at the drop of a hat in order to provide masks for people, yet Mrs. Rosen has a large flowy jacket that could have easily done (for three times as many people!) This film asks the audience to believe that a teen girl can follow instructions left by a Sharpie marker on the walls and ceilings of an overturned liner. Additionally, a teen boy films everything with a video recorder even when death is at hand. He never once wonders where his father is, but just keeps taping everything. Ridiculous. The film provides a massive insult to professional massage therapists as a female one practically has her left breast exposed during a session and proceeds to flirt with and eventually sleep with the married client. The characters are practically bereft of engrossing traits or texture. They don't even get to the point of stereotypes. They're merely props!

Is anything good? The overturning sequences aren't bad, actually, and this time the viewer gets to see other areas of the ship such as the kitchen and (ridiculously) a bedroom with a copulating couple in it. Also, the sets tend to be fairly decent throughout. Otherwise, it's a pretty dire affair.

Several of the actors (Hauer, Brown, Van Wyk, Hamilton) attempt to inject some presence into their nondescript roles. Most of them are wasting their time and get no thanks for their efforts. Time and gravity have been very cruel to several of the people on hand here (Guttenberg, Weller, Howell and Syms) and it's depressing to see them wallowing in such a poorly conceived project. It was a pointless idea to begin with. The producers should have just made up their own story and left the name Poseidon out of it. One can only hope that Wolfgang Peterson, director of the upcoming feature remake (!) learned something from this futile mess. It should be noted that this was originally a FOUR HOUR mini-series and so a great deal of character development was cut out to make it a three hour movie. they should have trimmed down the rescue and government scenes and left the emphasis on the ship, where it always should have been! Lastly, 5 out of the original's 10 primary cast members were Oscar-winning actors. With talent like that you can rely on the performers to fill in the blanks. Unfortunately, most of the people in this would be lucky to work as a seat-filler at the Academy Awards ceremony.
37 out of 43 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
waervin21 November 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I love the part where the bishop goes into a room and comes out saying that there are toxic fumes. He suggests everyone needs to cover their face with a cloth so they can breathe long enough to make it through the room. An old lady screems because she sees a dead body, the person right behind her isn't covering his face. He talks for about 30-40 seconds about how she needs to move on. Then they pan out and multiple people are shown coughing and hacking like crazy while they have a cloth over their face. For some reason this one guy had no problem breathing and talking in a smoke infested room.

If a boat is upside down, wouldn't you have to reach up for the door knobs, plus step over the trim where the wall where it meets the ceiling...not on this boat you don't.

I love how they explode a 15 ft hole in the boat at the end, but they only needed to be 20 feet away from the explosion. If they were that close to the explosion i would think their ears would have been bleeding.
6 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
You have got to be kidding me!
deniabate20 November 2005
I am a huge fan of the original 1972 classic......They ruined, butchered the original. How this ever got approved is beyond me? They should of retitled this "The Love Boat: The Sinking"......I mean that is what I felt like I was watching. You get a bunch of actors that should of put on The Surreal Life and put them in this......There is nothing about this remake that even comes close to the original. The whole entire movie was rewritten......Not even a tidal wave, guys come on.......Oh and the terrorist plot how genius....NOT!! This piece of garbage is laughable and a disgrace......I would rather sit and watch Barney by myself for two hours! I have never seen a worse remake of a movie. The remake of Carrie came close but this takes the cake!!!! This is S.S. Disaster!!!!! Way to go!!!
58 out of 84 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Who dies? Who cares?
Charly-2523 November 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Poor Paul Gallico must be spinning in his grave to see such an excruciatingly bad production of his adventure novel, The Poseidon Adventure (it says so in the credits; "based on the novel by Paul Gallico")and then to have it so blatantly based on the Irwin Allen disaster movie. Come to think of it,Irwin is probably doing about 500 RPM's himself.

To start, the teleproduction committed the very worst of sins. It bored. There was little suspense or tension. The characters evoked no charm, no life, and no spark. Most of the actors may as well have been carrying cardboard standees of themselves and reading from the script as they moved about. With few exceptions, most of the portrayals made Sharon Tate and Pia Zadora's worst performances look like Sarah Bernhardt and Ethel Barrymore. Even Mamie Van Doren and John Agar were never this tedious.

There were characters who did not emit waves of blandness. The castrating shrew of a wife, Mrs. Rosen and the terrorist "high value prisoner". No, they just annoyed the hell out of me. The wife was so emotionally disaffected, my jaw dropped. Here you are on a capsized, sinking ship. Would you let your teen daughter stay behind to help the injured? For all the reaction she showed to the idea, the girl might as well have been her favorite manicurist. Mrs. Rosen would not have been too bad if she had not kept blathering on about her deceased husband, and as far as the terrorist went, he might as well have had a turban and a Kris and a handlebar mustache to twirl.

The screenplay had the feel of a high school play that was written by the drama coach and cast with the popular students, rather than the ones who had talent. It was trite, mediocre, and awkward. With lines such as "We'll burn and drown at the same time!", my eyes were rolling more than a hooker at a craps table. Mrs. Rosen's death scene was excruciatingly horrible, I cringed with embarrassment for Sylvia Sims. And that was the only time I felt anything for anyone in the production.

The special effects were okay at best and unbelievable at worst. The best were the actual capsize scenes in the ballroom, but even there it felt matter of fact. The worst were the scenes of the oil fire,burning on water,in the engine room. It was obviously computer created and done by people who have never seen an oil fire.

The worst mistake the director made was to take us outside of the ship. By doing so, any sense of immediacy, tension, and mystery were completely lost. by switching back and forth, the viewers were not able to put themselves into the story. One could only watch as a distanced and disaffected viewer.

One of the most wonderful things about seeing a film is to be able to become part of the film; to forget yourself and merge with the story. The most magnificent example of this I ever noted was in the original 1972 film. When Shelly Winters and Gene Hackman emerged from the water, I was startled to hear this odd noise in the theater. And I was delighted to realize that it was the sound of almost 700 theater patrons releasing their breathe at the same time. Had this film been shown theatrically, there may have been a similar incident, that of hundreds of people losing their dinners at the same time.
8 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
This Movie Will Turn Your Frown Rightside-Up
camp_hazzard25 February 2006
By accident, we rented this instead of the original. I couldn't imagine this movie being any worse. Several scenes and characters have been added, which have no real value. There's the guy from police academy in some awful "divorce" angle. A fake ex-American idol contestant sings a whole song for no reason. There's a kids who's not just annoying, but is making humorous handi-cam films with the help of the zany crew. And oh yeah, there's a terror attack, because the dead horse is only half-beaten by TV standards, I guess. There's also a creepy old crewman who's trying to get with some teenager, and the priest in this film is a far weaker character/actor.

Add in some of the most un-inspired editing, music, and dialogue imaginable and that sums up the worst of this movie. I'd rather draw a picture of boat upside-down and stare at it for two hours rather than repeat watching 10 min. of this film.
21 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
No treasure on this sunken ship
lawofthebicycle9 October 2005
Warning: Spoilers
A clarification: Another commenter seems concerned that people should not be allowed to comment on how the film compares to the original. Let me make this clear: This telemovie is dreadful on it's own terms. Some might find it regrettable that it associates itself with the earlier '70's movie, but it is poorly executed regardless of that fact. Still there is nothing wrong with drawing legitimate comparisons for the purpose of highlighting some of the many weaknesses in this new version. I also wonder whether those who rated this movie as 10 stars honestly believe that it deserves such a rating, and if so, what kind of rating they would give to a even a reasonably well-regarded film let alone the truly great films.

I saw the original Poseidon Adventure as a 12 year old, so I am conscious of the fact that there may well be young kids out there today who will see this with fresh young eyes and enjoy it, perhaps even as much as I did the original.

Having said that, this TV movie sunk to new depths of "bad", perhaps even plunging to "evil", in some respects.

One of the more amusing goofs in this TV movie is that most of the cast still had their eventual fate clearly written on their foreheads with magic markers ("dies early", "dies mid-way", or "saved") during many of the early scenes! OK, I exaggerated slightly - their fates weren't literally visible, but it's generally easy to see who will live and who must ultimately die to keep the "drama" from flat-lining.

On the positive side, the change of plot to incorporate a terrorist attack as the cause of the disaster is in some ways more plausible than the original "Tsunami at sea", and the CGI special effects are generally obvious but passable, especially considering it's a TV movie.

Major weaknesses involve the dialogue and the none-too-subtle way in which the survivors all turn out to be "good" (or at least clearly repentant) white folk.

There are far too many long-winded, schmaltzy speeches at points where the pace should be frantic from both a logical (within the plot) and a dramatic point of view. A classic example is when the ship is just minutes from sinking, and the survivors are crossing a makeshift bridge, one by one, interspersed by obligatory pep-talks, expressions of love, etc... and the would be rescuers radio in "It's taking too long! What's the hold-up?" (eerily echoing the viewer's thoughts precisely).

Alec Baldwin, the Sea Marshal character, should have replied "there's too much talk, not enough action", but instead, he somehow manages to calculate the load-bearing capacity of this makeshift bridge and says "this looks like it will take two at a time". Not wanting to give too much away, I'll just note that he may have been correct in theory, but perhaps didn't take into account the extra "weight" of the sins being carried by certain people. The "fire of hell" burning below at the time was perhaps a missed hint.

At the end, after the cheers go up at HQ with the news that there are about nine survivors (out of the thousand plus passengers and crew)...the one person with a bit of perspective in the room sums up the entire show with the very last line:

" This isn't a miracle... it's a bloody mess".
34 out of 50 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The "New" Poseidon Adventure
glenn-mcleod9 October 2005
Having just watch the first remake of the classic Poseidon Adventure to be released, I can now safely say "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!" Not to say that this was a bad remake but it was not great either. Disappointing characters, none of which were endearing and it would not have been a huge loss if none of them got out. Good special effects, but not spectacular - lots of very average CG effects. The capsizing of the ship had no shock/horror effect of the original - it looked like it could be a lot of fun to go sliding across the polished floors, landing on your feet to walk up the wall to the roof of the ballroom. Let's just hope that the big screen "POSEIDON" due for release in 2006 is better than this small screen adaption. My last comment is "STELLA, STELLA, WHERE ARE YOU STELLA?"
14 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Terrorists Try To Sink The Love Boat . I Know How They Feel
Theo Robertson28 February 2013
Warning: Spoilers
This turned up on one of the more obscure film channels and instantly thought I was going to be watching the 2006 remake of THE POSEIDON ADVENTURE only to find out relatively late that this is a Hallmark production no doubt produced to tie in with the big budget remake , a sort of cynical marketing ploy used by The Asylum company and their infamous " mockbusters " . I'll say one thing about Hallmark and that is no one is capable of making a film as bad as the ones at The Asylum . However we are talking about a very well regarded disaster movie from the 1970s and that alone may come close to cinematic blasphemy . After seeing the whole TVM I'm afraid Hallmark have done their level best to make a shipwreck of a movie

Being effectively a three hour miniseries the producers have split the story in to two halves , one setting up the characters and backstory and the second half featuring the disaster of a capsized ship . Watching the first half you're not reminded of THE POSEIDON ADVENTURE but that most dreadful and twee of American comedies THE LOVE BOAT . Most of the characters are looking for either romance or success where as the relatively big name actors playing them should have started looking for a new agent circa 1990 . The actresses seem to be slightly more fortunate since they've seemingly found a plastic surgeon , but the trouble is he wasn't a very good one who seems to have a fetish for botox . Honestly I'm not trying to get a cheap laugh but more than a few women seen here look like they're emulating waxworks and I'm not just referring to to the wooden acting

Being a TVM means that it's family friendly fare . This means for the sake of audience identification we've got a little irritating kid as a relatively major figure . He also spends much of he first half of the story hanging around with one of the crew filming home made vampire movies in dark remote spots of the ship without any hint of an adult having an unhealthy interest in children . This jars greatly with one of the main aspect of the story where the cause of the ship capsizing is by an act of cold blooded terrorism. When the bombs explode and the terrorists start murdering the ship's crew it's almost like watching another film . That said after watching something that resembles THE LOVE BOAT I started thinking perhaps the terrorists were the good guys
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
One word: Shande!
jgoodfriend8 January 2006
Remember the tag line on the poster for the original? It was "Hell, Upside Down". Well, this little TV movie of the week is definitely from hell. And it does, of course, turn upside down. It may also turn your stomach upside down if you're stupid enough to sit through this garbage.

I can't believe anyone in their right minds would associate their names with this piece of dreck. Oh, I forgot. If I were Steve Guttenberg, I suppose I'd be thrilled if the phone rang with a job. Too bad he was home the day his agent called with this audition. Too bad he auditioned. Too bad he got it. Too bad he took it. But, I suppose he does have mortgage to pay. Bless his heart. But I shouldn't just pick on poor Steve. Ditto Rutger Hauer. Bless his heart, too.

The producer should be taken out and beaten with a stick. So should the executives at the network who decided to buy and air this. It must have been bring your toddler to work week at NBC, and some little one got into an office he shouldn't have, pushed a button and sent TV Guide their weekly listings with this reject in the Sunday night slot.

I can't believe I was able to sit through this whole thing. What an embarrassment. If you've got a few hours of your life to kill and don't mind throwing a chunk of it away, watch this if it ever comes out on DVD, which I pray to my personal God, for YOUR sake, Poseidon enthusiast, it wont! Let's hope for something better when the film remake comes out.

I'm not holding my breath.

PS - for those of you who don't know, Shande is a Yiddish word which translates to: THE MOST HORRENDOUS DISGRACE EVER! Belle would know. Well, Shelley would DEFINITELY know. This other hack cast in her part, I'm not so sure.
24 out of 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Neil Welch20 April 2011
Warning: Spoilers
You wouldn't think that 3 hours of something as iconic as the Poseidon Adventure would be forgettable, but this is.

The insertion of a wholly unnecessary (an massively unconvincing) terrorist plot subplot draws attention away from the main course - do our survivors escape? The fact that we don't care very much about the survivors (and particularly about the adultery-and-its-consequences subplot which impinges on a good chunk of them doesn't help).

The TV movie budget means that we are never looking at masses of production value on screen, but instead we are looking at very dim lighting to disguise the absence of production budget - OK, I know there wouldn't be much light, but this is ridiculous.

And there is too much of it, given that it is plodding and fairly uninteresting a lot of the time.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Just sink already!
Son_of_Mansfield6 February 2007
Warning: Spoilers
THREE HOURS. It has the same basic plot and lasts three hours. Scenes drag on for minutes with the ending of each scene obvious. The catwalk scene is a perfect example, it is clear that someone is going to die. We wait for a few minutes as everyone walks over, instead of crawling safely, only to see the annoying terrorist and the wussy masseuse die. Yawn. This predictability is worsened by movie of the week acting complete with cheesy close-ups and heart wrenching music. Add in effects look like they were done on a high school computer and you have a snore fest filled with over the hill B-actors. I found myself wanting all the people to die so that the movie could END.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Not as bad as I expected, but....
cellapie21 November 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Where do I begin? Of course this movie was cheesy and it could've been much better, but it also could've been much worse (i.e. some other film about a capsizing ship was made and the only upside down scenes were in corridors! I apologize for not remembering the name of it). There was no sense of suspense whatsoever. The scenes taking place outside the ship of the rescue effort absolutely RUINED the movie. The ending was too pat; you knew what going to live and who was going to die---James Martin has been so helpful getting Mrs. Rosen thru the air duct: dead! slutty maseusse who sleeps with a married man: dead! The terrorist who Rogo dragged thru the inverted ship: DEAD! However, I do choose to give the writer and the director the benefit of the doubt. The scuttlebutt is that the TV movie was severely altered from what was originally planned by some network exec who played up the terrorist angle. (IN THE SPIRIT OF FULL DISCLOSURE, I SHOULD ADD THAT I AM A MEMBER OF THE POSEIDON ADVENTURE FAN CLUB).

The one bit of casting that I truly hated was Steve Guttenberg. If you see his name in a movie, you know it's going to have a cheese factor. And he is still in great shape but his body looks 20 years younger than his face. scary. Plus, he was quoted in an EW article in a review of this movie and he came off sounding like a self-important jerk. You're Steve Guttenberg!!! I would've much rather seen someone like Jimmy Smits, Gary Sinise, William Petersen, etc. in the role of the duplicitous husband.

I also agree with one of the earlier posts pondering how someone could survive getting bounced about in a 3-story tall ballroom, while others die from massive trauma in a corridor. huh?

I also found it a tad disappointing that the survivors found the other bomb---in the mess of the overturned engine room, the bomb is just sitting on a platform waiting to be tapped--blew a hole in the hull and just jumped to safety. Reminds me of Lindo Rogo's lambasting of her husband in the original: "Why don't you just say this is the police, kick out the hull, and swim to shore!"

That being said, when the movie is released on DVD (according to Netflix, that will be in March), I will buy it. Maybe it will be the director's real cut.

Personally, I'm not going to complain about not being emotionally vested in the characters because I watched The Simpsons during the movie's first half hour. oops!
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The swimming pool adventure
spyanotherway9 October 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Was this meant to be a comedy? I and my family were laughing either way. I just finished watching this, and at 3 and a half hours, i have to say it was definitely not worth staying up for. The sets are bad, the story is very predictable and corny, the effects are in their own right, disastrous, the cast tries their best, but with dialogue like this, how could you help it? The navy were a pack of idiots who didn't end up helping at all, just sitting in the ocean (the still water-like pool) outside the ship and making them inside the ship all risk their lives instead of actually blowing a hole in the ship with THEIR OWN resources. And everyone at the end was celebrating that only 9 people out of about 1000 survived! What heartless monsters. As with the other comment, I agree. That annoying little kid with the fake accent and the water proof video camera (that also has a 1000hr tape inside it) should have perished with the ship and the film. "may god help us all"
12 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Classically Bad made for TV Movie
Jamie Clay20 November 2005
This film is only entertaining if you like watching bad movies. It's full of clichés, bad special effects huge plot holes, random acts of death and even a gratuitous hot chick in her underwear.

This adventure is over acted, poorly directed, poorly written, contrived (of course) and predictable. It could have been saved if they had done it using Legos. (cast included) There is no reason this needed to be 3 hours but no doubt NBC wanted to fit as many commercials into this time slot as possible.

If you like crap, then this is the film for you. Why did I watch it? Because I like to study disasters (in film) and this turned out to certainly be a classic.
14 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Makes "Beyond the Poseidon Adventure" Look Like "Titanic"
dsb113-125 November 2005
Certainly from the school of "what the ...?", this production is ground-breaking on so many levels; terrible TV movies; needless remakes; mind boggling lack of logic; one dimensional characters; questionable casting of forgotten "C" listers; and how bad can Steve Guttenberg act - and now look?

I watched it because I love the original, and disaster movies in general. It was a chore to sit through the entire commercial-padded three hours. Wolfgang Peterson's "Poseidon" has only up to go from this trash.

One note: this is definitely NOT based on the original novel, as one piece of Trivia states. The ship of the novel flipped at dinner the day after Christmas; there were many more characters involved; a large number of passengers were rescued from the bow.

Not even fun in the bad movie realm. It stinks.
7 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
"All Are Bored!" (Cast, crew and the audience)
disc_home10 October 2005
The original "Poseidon Adventure" was exactly that - an adventure, and for audiences, it really was new and exciting.

This "new" version fails to be either "new" or exciting from the start. It relies so heavily on stereotypical cliché characters and plot lines, that, as another reviewer implied, they could just as well have had labels written on their foreheads.

Shamefully, this reliance on stereotyping bleeds over into the story itself. Blatant racial profiling seems to be given a big thumbs up by the lead character. The "sea marshal" on board (Adam Baldwin) explains to the ship's security guy that in selecting suspects to keep an eye on from the list of ship's employees, he always follows the most obvious leads to their conclusion. The "moral" of his lesson? If you have a middle-Eastern or other "suspicious" sounding name, or your skin is the wrong colour, watch out, you're probably a terrorist.

Of course, turns out he's exactly right in this super-simplified piece of trash. And the terrorist characters don't just look evil, they bend over backwards to look evil. Perhaps the director was concerned that they may not be sufficiently recognizable as terrorists since they weren't wearing all the overdone headgear that the terrorists wore during the earlier terrorism-plotting scenes.

Certain characters also have an interesting habit of giving long, disapproving looks of contempt to others who are clearly less worthy of salvation than themselves. Of course plenty of films have flawed characters who are found wanting in various ways, but there's something about the smarmy judgementalism in this film that just detracts from the characters who display it.

Young children might get something from this (though I'm not sure exactly whether it would be anything intellectually or morally healthy), but it rarely reaches beyond infantile.
16 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
I don't know what you're all talking about.
jonathan-zabel1 November 2005
I saw this, and I thought it was riveting entertainment. All of you are so caught up on comparing it to the original that you refuse to rate it based on what it is--a modern adaptation. The casting was solid alongside the pacing, and I felt that all of the characters were fleshed out in interesting ways.

If you're going to comment, you need to evaluate this based on it's own merits, not be fanatical based on truthfulness to the original. How many times have we seen the "boat sinking" story? This new angle feels a lot more fresh and contemporary to me.

So that's my two cents. At least watch it and come up with your own opinion rather than just going along with what everyone else has said.
17 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Boy, did it sink
nesscav11 October 2005
This thing had 'first draft' written all over it. A prologue that takes away any suspense, a new way of capsizing that doesn't make any sense, completely unnecessary subplots and an excruciatingly drawn out 'climax'. The original had a scene where one character goes off alone, valiantly sacrificing themselves on a one-way trip. In this remake they're accompanied by someone else, making the sacrifice totally unnecessary and robbing the scene of any power! It's so bad that some characters at the end of the movie (in another unnecessary subplot) sit around literally looking at their watches in the middle of the 'climax'. Rutger has the only half decent performance, and struggles valiantly with the lines he's given. Utterly woeful. Very worthy of the names Guttenberg and Baldwin.
9 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
3 hours of my life I won't get back
InMyTribe9 October 2005
Being a fan of the original 72' film I was looking forward to this miniseries - how disappointing. The premise was quite good (although poorly executed) about terrorists on board blowing a hole in the hull of the S.S. Poseidon. After that, it's flail city as a bunch of has-beens and never-was actors slip and slide along walls, ceilings and staterooms. Steve Guttenberg gives arguably the worst performance in his not-so illustrious career as a weak, philandering husband of Alexa Hamilton. Bryan Brown and Tinarie Van Wyk-Loots play a TV producer and a reality TV singer respectively with little conviction. Brown's character even asks the little brat (the son of Guttenberg & Hamilton) to film their escape. The CG effects are average (especially when the boat starts to capsize the water in the pool stays put ?!?). Without an all-star cast there is no building tension in the entire production. Even if you ignore the gaping holes in the story (the group climb three decks and are swimming underwater while the ballroom is still dry) the editing is so bad that you are not sure where they are in the ship or how they even get to the hull. When one of the characters asks where to tie the end of the rope I felt like saying "how about the scriptwriters neck?" The one bright spot in the whole mess is Alexa Hamilton as Rachel Clarke. Her performance (while not spectacular) manages to convey her bitterness at her two-timing husband while trying to keep her family together (if you ignore the hokey bit where she sends an e-mail Christmas list as a may-day). 2 stars for Alexa, that's all.
9 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Oh my
jonj-86 December 2009
How can I begin? It should have been called The Love Boat VII. There is nothing even interesting about this movie. Would anyone involved win this movie use it on their CV? It was one of four movies on a $5 DVD in the delete bin at Walmart. This movie cost $1.25 and at that was overpriced. I noticed that the Australian version of this thing was considerably shorter than the general release version and had we not fast forwarded through every piece of "significant" dialogue I would have kicked myself for not searching out the Aussie release.

I am somewhat grateful however knowing that should I decide to finish my story about the workday of a toll-booth collector, there are producers out there waiting. Rutger Hauer and Steve Gutenberg are already cast.

A chimpanzee could write a better screenplay by sticking a crayon where the sun don't shine and squatting over a copy of the National Enquirer.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Weak remake at best!
rlnutt21 November 2005
Warning: Spoilers
With Hollywood redoing everything from the sixties and seventies it should be no surprise that they would try and remake on of their disaster movies so popular in the early/mid seventies. This time, the idea should have stayed that... an idea! Adam Baldwin was a no-nonsense Homeland security officer that works with a priest (Rutger Hauer) to save a handful of survivors of a terrorist act that capsizes a HUGE luxury liner... PUUULLLEEEZZE!! I still can't get over seeing Rutger Hauer as anything but a killing creation going after Harrison Ford in Bladerunner... now, he's a priest? Does he need the money to lend his face and name to such a weak story? C Thomas Howell who has fallen off the face of the earth since somewhere in 1992 made an appearance as a doctor that smiles a lot at Steve Guttenburg's daughter... and where has Steve Guttenburg been since 1992? Did he and C. Thomas Howell escape from the same B list actors island to star in this silly interpretation of a classic? Go back to the island guys... you escaped to star in a real razz-berry of a movie... I'm just glad it was a freebie on TV, I would be demanding my money if they had tried to release this in the theaters first!
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Like The Ship In This Movie, Irwin Allen Turns Over In His Grave
steve392723 November 2005
Warning: Spoilers
(I don't believe I've actually made a spoiler here, but I do mention some character and technical differences between this and the original and for that reason I'm not taking any chances in ruining your viewing if that were possible.)

As a movie lover I often watch remakes of movies just to compare the new interpretation, even if I think they might not be any good. Such was the case with NBC's "The Poseidon Adventure". I must admit I thought it might actually work but the entire viewing experience came across as a thin shadow of the original seasoned well with television melodrama. Frankly it wasn't even a fair tribute to Irwin Allen's work, which although "cheesy" at times (ya gotta love those explosions in his television work when aliens appear and disappear!) always entertained the audience and helped them suspend their disbelief for awhile.

Although rich with CGI television special effects, the best image in this movie was the image of the ship upside down between commercial breaks with the lights going out.

For the most part, the actors gave it a good try, but for the life of me I can't understand Rutger Hower's interpretation of the former Gene Hackman "Reverend" character. Hower, whom I've watched over the years and first saw in "The Hitcher", always brought a strong and when necessary, evil and eerie presence to the screen. Here he seems so reserved and meek as the Reverend - save for one brief moment with an ax that comes across as totally out of his character - that I wondered if he felt this movie didn't deserve his best effort.

It was obvious that political correctness altered some of the plot in NBC's version, because the character of "Belle" became an "old" woman instead of a "large" woman. Face it, people come in different shapes and sizes but that doesn't make them any less lovable. The character in the original as played by Shelly Winters was lovable and added spice to the survivors of the original capsizing of the ship. Changing that character's trait to "old" simply moves the supposed offense to people over middle age and valiant as Sylvia Sim's attempt at the role, her Belle, minus her husband Manny, simply doesn't touch our hearts like the original.

I've always thought Adam Baldwin's acting was underrated, and although good here, this isn't "Rogo" as Rogo was meant to be - the antithesis of Reverend Scott. Here he is simply overconfident and too stuffy at times to get on the same plane as the other survivors.

Enough about the miscast and misplayed characters. Technically, as another commenter pointed out,there is no way an explosion on one side of a ship would cause it capsize. Sink from that side maybe with a large enough hole, but not capsize. The original,although also stretching things, was much more plausible with it's tidal wave scenario.

What this whole thing is missing is the major portion of entertainment equation and that is Mr. Allen's oversight and direction in an undertaking such as this. The actors in 1972's movie worked hard and some of them nearly drowned while filming as he fired gallons upon gallons of water upon them from water canons. 2005's television attempt takes much of the realism away and the CGI fire and water make it obvious no one is ever in any real danger.

Rest in peace, Irwin Allen. Your shoes are in no danger of being filled here.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Could this SINK please?
DJAkin20 November 2005
OK, this movie was not saved even by ADAM BALDWIN!! And what's up with ROBOCOP getting shot so soon in the movie? He was horrible!! And he was drinking on duty? And then there is that dude from Police Academy. Oh my GOD he was sad. When he said "Cruiseships are not supposed to capsize" I almost barfed out a lung. I mean, this was sad. Then there is Rutger Hauer and C Thomas Howell as a Priest and Ships doctor respectively? I was half expecting Rutger to allude to "The Hitcher" and talk about the juice that spurts out of an eyeball when stabbed. Then there is that dude who is a poor man's Michael Caine! Yes, that annoying Aussie from Cocktail. He was PATHETIC as a poorly baked cake on Hitler's birthday. His acting was sad and NOT good. Then there was this CRUISE SHIP that TERRORISTS happened to infiltrate? I have been on Carnival Cruise Line and trust me, there are NO TERRORIST LOOKING DUDES EVEN ALLOWED to work on those boats!! If you look like HodGee from Johnny Qwest, then you DO NOT GET HIRED! Avoid this movie and save yourself from TORTURE IN THE NINTH DEGREE OF HELL!
7 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Oh, the humanity
TanQ16 July 2006
I had to give this film a 3 rather than the 2 I gave the Peterson version. As horrible and laughable as the characters were I still think they were slightly less wooden and predictable than Peterson's. And I wanted to see if Steve Guttenburg would die a horrible death.

I think the worst thing about the film, though, was during the capsizing. I swear that they actually doctored up footage from the 1972 film. I'd like to confirm it but I really can't bring myself to watch it again. All I kept thinking was "why?" This film is so bad I kept thinking that the producers must have been trying for a tax-loss.

It takes a lot for me to sympathize with on-screen terrorists but this film did it. After the first few minutes of the film I wanted to grab a screwdriver and puncture holes in it until it sank for good. If the original ship was a grand, old lady heading for retirement then this one is the cheap, crack-ho passing out in the alley.
6 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Really awful remake
svp3109621 November 2005
I was a big fan of the 1972 movie. I was to young to have seen it in the theater, but have watched it on TV. I'm sorry to say the remake is awful. The acting is bad, A bomb blows up and capsizes the luxury liner is just laughable. The original film was capsized by a title wave which is more believable. The TV version was 3 hours including commercials. Why ? The remake has some of the same characters as the original and even some of the same scenes, minus the terrorists. This remake has many has been stars like Guttenburg, Hauer, Weller to name a few. I hope the 2006 version (Poseiden) is much better. The special effects were pretty good for TV. The liner upside was pretty fake though.

Rent the original, its great.
6 out of 11 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