Tremblement de terre

In 1974 I was 29 years old when I first saw this movie. At the time I didn't question the suitability of the lead stars as I had grown up with them appearing in other films. Considering all the various genre of films I had seen up to that time, I must confess that it didn't seem a bad effort at that point in time. I grew up with various westerns and others and one film in particular I remember well is the classic "King Kong".

Critics who knock this film must remember that 1974 was a transitional period where techniques were still being learned. Without the benefit of computers, I might add. When you have grown up with computer wizardry, that is, since the start of the seventies, it it far easier to find fault than to see the merit in what these people achieved.

However, with the passage of time, one realizes the major fault with this film was the poor casting. This should not detract from the efforts of the special effects people. They have led the way and shown the young people coming along what can be done with skill and imagination. 3/10 for casting, 6/10 for special effects.

In the 1970s, Irwin Allen made a niche for himself in Hollywood by producing some big budget disaster films, such as "The Poseidon Adventure", "The Towering Inferno" and "The Swarm". In addition to folks dying and being destroyed, the films all had HUGE star-studded casts as well as a lot of soap opera-like plots. Well, you see all this in "Earthquake", though Allen was not involved in the production...but clearly they copied his formula for success, as the film has the same style AND made a mint at the box office.

The first half of the movie introduces several plots, such as the brilliant architect (Charlton Heston) who is married to an incredibly screwed up and addicted woman (Ava Gardner), the disenchanted no-nonsense cop (George Kennedy), the accident at a local dam and much more. None of these plots are especially deep and are designed to get the audience to care for some of the folks who will be tossed into this epic disaster.

Halfway through the film the Earthquake hits the Los Angeles area and the remainder of the story follows folks trying to make their way to safety. I was actually surprised that the special effects for all this were done very well for 1974...and they actually hold up well today.

So is it any good? Well, it's reasonably well made but not deep in the least...so it would make a great film to watch if you aren't in the mood for something artsy or with an involved plot. Mostly it's just folks trying not to die...and some of them doing very poorly in this department. Overall, modestly entertaining but a film that must have been MUCH better on the big screen and in Sensurround, a sound system with a heavy bass that made theaters rumble.

I saw this movie on the big-screen when it was released and I actually found the Sensurround (R) to be annoying, but the film isn't as bad as critics made it out to be. I agree, the casting could have been better (the Ava Gardner/Loorne Green argument is a good one), but this is a special effects movie, and the special effects were pretty good by 1974 standards. Besides, how can a movie about the destruction of LA be so bad?

Earthquake almost realistically shows us the devastating effects of such "an event" on a large modern day city. Since movie studios didn't have the resources in 1974 to add expensive computerized effects, miniatures, camera trickery and a few large-scale destructions were used to simulate the quake. However even by today's standards, most (but not all) effects work pretty well. Many of the buildings we see crumbling to the ground are actual locals in Los Angeles and anyone who ever lived is this area (myself included) would still find watching this film chilling to say the least. The sets are very impressive - they made one helluva mess of Universal Studios making this film. The acting is so-so and the ending is disappointing and leaves us with a lot of unanswered questions: what ever happened to Miles and Rosa's brother anyway? And the scenes with Jody the weirdo are just plain uncomfortable. But as far as pure "end of the world" disaster entertainment goes, this film has it all.

Earthquake is directed by Mark Robson and written by Mario Puzo and George Fox. It stars Charlton Heston, George Kennedy, Ava Gardner, Geneviève Bujold, Lorne Greene, Richard Roundtree & Marjoe Gortner.

A catastrophic earthquake hits Southern California and begins to level Los Angeles...

"It's not a negative to have heart in the disaster genre of film"

Take yourself to 1974, are you there? Good, now maybe you can appreciate this film a little more? Maybe? Earthquake does suffer from old age, it's a statement we see and hear a lot, but it's a fact that some film's stand the test of time whilst others do not. In this desensitised computer age, it is easy to forget that not all the tools available in film making today were available back when film's like this were being made. So as is my want, I firmly judge this as a 1974 offering, to which it delivers enough entertainment to fully satisfy my genre leanings and entertainment persuasions.

The main complaint of many is the long build up of the characters, cries of boring can be read across internet forums and critics blogs. I just don't see it that way, yes we want the quake and the mayhem destruction that will follow it, because really this is a disaster film after all, but is it so bad that the film has heart to go with the crash bang wallop? After the build up of characters, where relationships and character traits are formed, the disaster strikes and it doesn't disappoint, utter destruction as effects and noise fill the eyes and ears, where those with a good home cinema system finding it literally does rock the house. We are then treated to a series of sequences that hold and engage our attention, upsetting passages of human sadness, punctured by heroic surges as Heston and the fabulous Kennedy set about saving life, hell! saving the town even. Then it's the film's fitting finale, where there are no cop outs, the makers choosing to go out with a darker edge than the detractors give it credit for.

Some can scoff at a blood splat effect, or rant about some of the acting on show, but Earthquake achieves two important things. One is that it entertains as a visual experience, the other is that it doesn't soft soap the devastating effects of an earthquake. As the camera pulls away from a ravaged L.A. the impact is sombre, where reflection is needed and most assuredly surely gotten. 7/10