Scorcher

L.A. gets nuked in this Final Solution to the Problem of Traffic and Urban Sprawl in Southern California. Most of the other reviewers of this turkey have given it the pan it deserves, but this is the kind of film that just invites more comments. I grew up in L.A. and left more than 20 years ago, and with every visit back, I grow to hate what it has become more and more. This film was probably thought up by some disgruntled New Yorker who moved out to L.A. and is stuck there and wants revenge. It's a direct-to-video attempt to capitalize on the latest string of planetary catastrophe movies. It may fool you because despite its low budget, it starts out looking like a real movie: Its production values and musical score are actually quite respectable. However, the plot is based on a ridiculous premise and feels like something that was banged out in a 30-second story conference. There is some kind of complication involving nuclear testing that results in a shift of the tectonic plate that runs through Southern California (the plate boundary is the San Andreas Fault). If the plate displacement reaches 44 centimeters, boom! Global catastrophe as the molten mantle spews out and causes a great mass extinction, including all human life. How to stop the plate displacement? Why, a little old 15-megaton nuclear explosion or two right in the middle of the L.A. basin. A seismologist I'm not, but what little I know about plate tectonics tells me that the forces driving the plates are such as to defy any merely human intervention. Why is the film set in L.A.? So that the filmmakers don't have to leave town but can use L.A. locations for the shoot. One laughable premise is followed by another when the feds order the evacuation of Los Angeles, and we're asked to believe that the local and national authorities can 1) actually carry this out, and 2) do it in just a couple of days. Then there is a race against time to place the nukes and detonate them while dealing with stock villains, irrelevant and contrived side-stories about family squabbles, impossible coincidences, and implausible crises.

Let's not ignore the cast, which consists largely of third-rate B-movie regulars who don't exactly light up the screen. Mark Dacascos, who appears to be a cheap imitation Bruce Lee, has little or no screen charisma as the male lead; ditto for Tamara Davies as the female lead: She is beautiful but not much of an actress. Ditto for most of the rest of the case. Two very good foreign-born actors, Rutger Hauer and John Rhys-Davies, are completely wasted in their roles: Hilariously, the Dutchman Hauer plays the U.S. president (!), and Rhys-Davies plays a scientist who is essentially a reprise of the role of Maximillian Arturo that he played in the series 'Sliders.' The excellent and under-appreciated Mark Rolston, who has the misfortune to have been born with a face that invites type-casting as an evil guy, looks so bored and unhappy in his stereotypical role as the evil FBI agent with the hidden agenda that it's actually distracting.

This movie is strictly desperation time for insomniacs. Turn it off, take a sleeping pill and go back to bed.

Sure, this zero budget Armaggeddon wannabe isn't breaking the slightest bit of new ground, but they sure do make every buck count. Funny part is, it actually WORKS! in large part to the acting and directing. And thats ONLY if you forget the over the top disaster plot (the Earth's plates are moving and can only be stopped by setting off a nuke in LA) Still, there was an honest attempt at making us care for the people in this story by way of two father/daughter plotlines and the movie has some really exciting action sequences to boot. it was nice to see Mark Dacascos doing something other than kicking ass and actually getting to act. Rutger Hauer adds his usual presence and John Rhys Davies was fun to watch as the scientist with a plan. this is one of those movies where you either go with the plot or don't. Despite the obvious low budget, there were some great visuals and the pacing was well done. Music was also great (very Hans Zimmer-like).

in all, you could do a lot worse from the action aisle of Blockbuster.

Recommend only for those who love B movies that truly aspire to more.

There is one reason and one reason only to see this movie. Jeffrey Johnson as Styles. Styles was by far the best part of this otherwise forgettable film. He was really funny and I would have loved a little more comic relief. The film is so bad at times, it is actually funny. If you really want to enjoy this film, crack a few beers, invite over a few friends and just make fun of it! I can think of a worse way to spend an evening. Like watching the finale of Friends. Rutger Hauer's facial expressions are absolutly priceless. What kind of name is Rutger anyway? But I think you will enjoy what little time Styles has on the screen. Perhaps if Jeffrey Johnson had starred in the film it would have been much better. You want a wise cracking hero, he seems to fit the bill to a tee. The thing is to not take yourself way too serious. Styles for President!!

Scorcher is a doomsday film which depicts the end of the world if too many nuclear bombs are tested. In this one, the world's tectonic plates are jarred out of alignment and sets the world on a fiery collision course with the apocalypse. The exhausted end of the world scenario claims the end of the world can only be prevented by an elite group of men trained for just such an emergency. Taxing to watch, an avid movie fan can nearly anticipate what will happen next. Whoever suggested the making of this film, obviously was hampered by a limited budget and restrained by anything novel to include in the script. The actors are subjected to curious scrutiny as to why they accepted their roles. Mark Dacascos easily plays hero, Ryan Beckett. Veteran actor John Rhys-Davies is Dr. Matthew Sallin who is hindered by the traditional over achieving scientist daughter out to prove herself. Rutger Hauer, who usually plays the heavy or hero looks out of place as the President. Finally there's the duplicitous G.W. Bailey as the double-crossing General Timothy Moore. In the final analysis, this film is realized as nothing more than of a poor-man's 'Armaggodon', or 'Core' or Earthquake, etc, etc. You get the picture. *

You know that this is going to be one of those questionable disaster movies. But then again, looking at the cast you think that it might actually just surprise you. But it didn't! Not by a long shot.

The story in "Scorcher" is about the end of the world, with the fate of the entire world resting in the hands of a small group of Americans. Yes, it is that exact run-of-the-mill recipe of how-to-make-a-disaster-movie. The tectonic plates in The Pacific are shifting, threatening to incinerate the entire world. And by the orders of the American president, a small group of soldiers and scientists set out to save the world.

Yeah, that is exactly what I thought too. It was as laughable a story as the concept idea was just below mediocre and so horrible generic.

What lured me in to watch "Scorcher" was the cast, which included Mark Dacascos, John Rhys-Davies and Rutger Hauer. But even the talents could not salvage the wreck that is "Scorcher".

If you enjoy disaster movies stay well clear of this predictable movie, because there is close to no destruction and mayhem in the entire movie - except for some awfully fake earthquakes and an adequate flaming explosion in a tunnel.

"Scorcher" is boring and pointless, even by the usual low standards that make up about 90% of all movies in the disaster genre.