Das große Erdbeben in L.A.

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.

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.

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,,

"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)

I found this to be a decent disaster movie. The story itself is the weakest part since it has too many plot going on in it. I mean there's a lot of plotlines that are connected with the earthquake and does feel unfocused. I do like it shows the dangers on being in a earthquake and how it affects peoples lives. Unfortunately, some of them aren't resolve that well and are forgotten about. The biggest highlight are the disaster scenes which is done really well for a made for TV movie. It shows the destruction it cause to a city and how many damage it can cause it. The special effects is done pretty good by showing it on scene and how terrifying it is. As for the acting, it's a hit or miss with some good acting, but some of it isn't that good.

The Great Los Angeles Earthquake is a decent disaster movie that is one of the better ones out there.