The Big One: The Great Los Angeles Earthquake

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.