डांटेस पीक

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.

Yes, there are some cheesy, hollywoodish moments in this movie, but the actors bring enough charisma and presence to hold the story together. Pierce Brosnan makes a convincing scientist, whose passion and desire to protect the townspeople plays off nicely with Mayor Linda Hamilton's similar concerns.

But what I most want to say is that the volcano itself was both believable and accurate. So I want to commend the filmmakers for having enough integrity to make an entertaining film within the boundaries of scientific accuracy. And face it, you don't go to a movie like Dante's Peak to see insightful drama, or peer deep into the human psyche. The people and the volcano play off each other very nicely. It's not often you get a film with both chemistry and physics.

This "disaster film" had some of the best special effects of its day (almost 10 years ago). I have to say "of its day" because technology has made CGI become dated quickly these days.

This film is all about a volcano, a la Mt. St. Helen's, erupting and killing people and destroying a small town below it. Some of the scenes were just jaw- dropping and, at least for the first-time viewer, a lot of suspense over whether the main characters of the story will survive it.

Of course, there are some credibility gaps in here, things that just could not happen such as little boy drive van up a mountain (when his feet wouldn't reach the foot pedals!) but you just go along for the ride and enjoy the tension and special effects even if the story gets a little hokey.

It might not be the most intelligent film, but it's very entertaining 109 minutes, and that's the name of the business. It's good escapist fare, and that's all. It's worth two looks.

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.

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.