डांटेस पीक

I think in between those years i have watched it numerous times.

CGI has got better but to the point where it seems a little unreal, this doesn't.

Daft plot points (we still get plenty of them) but generally a really watchable disaster movie.

Disaster movies can be a fun way to spend some time idle, although most are not particularly cinematically remarkable. This movie fits that description well. The action takes place in a small rural village that has just been considered a great place to live in the US, but lives in the shadow of a sleeping volcano. What no one knows is that this volcano appears to be in full swing and threatens to explode.

The movie quickly creates tension among the audience, and it serves well to grab our attention. I am not the best person to judge the script's ability to be true to the scientific facts underlying a volcanic eruption, I just accept what I saw tacitly, but I admit the possibility the film is not very true to science. The initial half is slower and the action is concentrated on the final half, which is basically a race to escape the volcano. There are some loose ends and inconsistent details, like that scene where a girl, who doesn't even reach the car's pedals, can drive off in a 4-4 jeep.

Pierce Brosnan was convincing in his starring role, while Linda Hamilton made an effort but is always in his shadow. Either way, they are the ones who leverage the movie. The volcano, as it happens in such cases, is almost a character in its own right. Technically, the film was entitled to the best sound and special effects that existed in 1997... but the quick advances in film make it look old-fashioned to many today. Personally, I liked what I saw.

It's not an excellent movie and it's far from being the life movie of anyone involved, it has a dubious script and unbelievable scenes where (as always happens in these movies) some characters escapes from death by a hair. But it's still one of the best disaster movies of the late 1990s, it's fun and entertains the public well.

Back in 1997, when I was still a carefree and stressless teenager, there suddenly came two volcano movies in one year. I enjoyed them both at the time, but all the critics and movie-going audiences unanimously claimed this "Dante's Peak" was much better than "Volcano". They were right.

Now that I re-watched them both again, shortly after one another, "Dante's Peak" is definitely the superior achievement, mainly thanks to the better and far more plausible script, but also the special effects are more splendid. What I also didn't realize in 1997, because I was too young and because I am European, is that "Dante's Peak" bears a lot resemblance with the factual events of the Mount St. Helens eruption as they occurred between end of March and mid-May 1980.

Not only does director Roger Donaldson make use of the actual Mount St. Helens craters as filming locations, but there are also many parallels with the series of events as they took place in 1980. Similar to St. Helens, Dante's Peak is the name of a quiet and peaceful little town in Washington state, located at the bottom of a beautiful volcano that has been dormant for nearly 150 years, and believed to remain like that. One geologist/volcanologist also predicts the eruption and forewarns the local authorities, but hardly anybody takes him seriously. And, last but not least, here as well the human death toll unnecessarily increases because stubborn elderly people refuse to leave their mountaintop homes when the volcano erupts. By the way, if you enjoyed "Dante's Peak", I warmly recommend seeking out the obscure 1981 disaster-movie "St. Helens" directed by Ernest Pintoff.

More than two decades later, this is still one of my favorite disaster films, and my all-time favorite volcano movie. The visual effects are sensational - even by today's standards.

The film grips you from the opening and never lets go. The suspense remains throughout. The characters are believable and likable, and the chemistry between Linda Hamilton and Pierce Brosnan was really good. As with all disaster movies, there are a few cliched moments, but it was still exhilarating and top notch entertainment. This is an all round excellent production and a classic in the disaster genre.

There is a formula for disaster movies and books. An insightful scientist sees The Bad Thing is going to happen, various foils keep him from warning people (often with sillier motivation than in this film), we get to know a bunch of average Joe characters who survive or do not survive the disaster. Earthquake movies, movies about made-up natural disasters that cannot happen, asteroid movies, even some nuclear holocaust films (like The Day After, unique in how many survive). It's a hackneyed formula, but it also works, and nothing else really does work as well for disaster plots. It was followed here.

The special effects were terrific in the day, and they still hold up very very well in 2012.

For a Hollywood film, the science was pretty good. I actually cringed back at the shots of Hawaii type basalt floes (just...no), and the ashfall cleared up nicely whenever they wanted a wide shot, which anyone in Yakima could tell you it really doesn't do, and the boat and drive-over-lava scenes were silly, and if you paddle a boat (through acid or not) with one hand, it's not going to go straight, and our heroes didn't need to cover their mouths in ashfall (meaning, IRL, the ash would turn to concrete in their lungs and they'd suffocate). However, all that having been complained about, much else was very accurate: what gets tested for by volcanologists, what monitoring stations of the day looked like, what some of the warning signs of a coming eruption might be. Most Hollywood film reviews by me on science-based movies are nothing but a list of what they did wrong, with no "however" of accurate bits to follow that list, so kudos for doing it more than half right.

A pleasant diversion, very pretty to look at.