Valanga

I'm not a fan of the disaster genre, they're always the same.

• Introduction of characters
• Expert warns people of imminent disaster
• Powers that be ignore expert
• Disaster happens
• Then either a lot of running and talking about what is happening until it ends or some pseudo science to fix it

This is no different and what's strange is just how little of the film the disaster takes up.

Starring Robert Forster, Rock Hudson and Mia Farrow this is more like a soap opera where an avalanche just so happens to take place.

Swinging 70's, polystyrene snow and merciless deaths this has it's merits but certainly pales in comparison to the better films within this sub genre.

The Good:

Cast do a decent job

The Bad:

Predictible

Soap opera like

SFX are poor even for its time

Things I Learnt From This Movie:

Unless your name ends in Campbell don't be a Bruce, you are no worthy

Death by polstyrene looks as painful as it sounds

I'm an avid fan-boy of 1970's disaster movies. Not so much because they're intense and captivating since, quite frankly they're not, but actually just because they're so exaggeratedly clichéd and kitschy. You can easily summarize ALL the 70's disaster movies ever made with one and the same synopsis, only the nature of the disaster differs. It can be a fire, flood, volcanic eruption, virus, shipwreck or – like in this case – an avalanche! The main difference between this film and the majority of classic titles (such as "The Towering Inferno" and "The Poseidon Adventure") lies in the budget. Usually Irwin Allen produced this sort of stuff and he had plenty of money to spare. "Avalanche", on the other hand, is a Roger Corman production and he's mostly (in)famous for delivering cheap and extremely low-budgeted cult films. A half-decent disaster movie is simply impossible to accomplish without a bit of budget, and this clearly shows in "Avalanche". The special effects are pitiable, with whole bunches of people getting buried underneath thick and oddly shaped boulders of Styrofoam. But, aside from the budgetary restrictions, "Avalanche" does live up to four out of five essential disaster movie trademarks. #1: there needs to be at least one major star and a long list of secondary stars. Rock Hudson and Mia Farrow were big names around the time, but the supportive cast is a bit disappointing. I assume that Roger Corman spent all his actors' budget on the aforementioned two names and Robert Forster. #2: The characters are usually split into two camps with completely opposite ideals and/or initiatives. Why, yes! Although the "righteous" camp is extremely small this time. Rock Hudson is the owner of a fancy winter sport resort in Colorado and he keeps on expanding the area to lure more tourists. Robert Forster is the tree-hugging reporter who endlessly warns him that the expansion needs to stop otherwise there will be avalanches. #3: regardless what type of disaster we're dealing with, variants of the exact same perilous situations are always applicable. Too true, we have people that are buried alive, trapped in ski lifts, crushed or dead in gas explosions. #4: always remember that, when the situation appears to be at it worst, it can and will still get even worse! That's another true cliché of the disaster film! In "Avalanche", for example, there's a sequence in which an ambulance transporting people who narrowly escaped dead already, crashes into a ravine! Only for die-hard disaster movie fanatics.

Checking in rather late, though not at the tail end, in the 1970's disaster movie cycle, this Roger Corman cheapie is only entertaining in fits and starts. Hudson (looking ragged and drunk at times) has just built a huge winter paradise in the mountains of Colorado. His ex-wife (Farrow) comes to the opening, for old times sake, while employee Forster foresees danger in the snow caps. Hudson's mother (Nolan, in a white fright wig) wines and dines with abandon. There are also trite and annoying plot threads about a studly skier, a TV show host (Primus) and his unfaithful wife and a nervous ice skater. Aside from having less than stunning production values, the film's main problem is that it takes an hour for the title event to occur and then races through all the resultant carnage with choppy editing and distorted timing. The viewer must endure a shabby, clichéd script and some bad acting while waiting for the Styrofoam chunks and plastic snow to may their way down the hill. Hudson is bad. He barks and yells inappropriately when he isn't wooden. Farrow looks idiotic much of the time and is completely mismatched with Hudson. (She learned nothing from this experience as she was soon to film the disastrous "Hurricane", another career killer. Thankfully, for her, Woody Allen was just around the corner!) Forster actually outshines the others with his charm and conviction in a thankless part. Nolan shamelessly hams up her role in a desperate attempt to add life to the often dull proceedings. She is funny, but not always in the way intended. Primus had worked for Corman before, so he should have known what he was in for. On the plus side, there are a few hooty lines of dialogue and some unintentionally hilarious, overwrought, emotional scenes among the lesser players. Also, a few of the ice and snow effects and destruction scenes are solid (most, however, are shoddy.) One hilarious scene has a skater spinning obliviously while snow encompasses her. In another, folks digging a hole out of an enclosed lodge keep knocking against the rubber "snow" so that it springs back! Then there's the rescue workers who, after witnessing an electrocution, allow the victim to fall onto the ground instead of into their net, which is right under him! There's also an ambulance door that apparently flies open simply by leaning against it. One distinction: This has to be the only 1970's disaster film that has nudity. Hudson (in a bid to reinforce his heterosexual image?) has a secretary that walks around his chalet naked! If the film had spent a half hour getting to know the people and an hour rescuing them (instead of the opposite), it might have been more entertaining. The way it stands, viewers wind up not really liking the characters and can barely keep up with the rescues!

Dreadful, horrendous, awful and terrible are all words that don't even begin to describe how bad this movie is. Rock and Mia, about as mismatched a pair of costars as could be imagined; he towers over her and they share no chemistry whatsoever, would make more sense as father and daughter than ex-spouses but that is the least of this picture's problems. Some of the cast try to maintain their dignity and soldier on while being faced with stupid words to speak and idiotic situations to react to. Nonsensical happenings, bad special effects and rotten direction all add up to a textbook example of why the disaster epics ran out of steam shortly after the release of this dog.

I love disaster films, even the bad ones, but this one is completely horrible. From the acting to the special effects this one is crap. The script is laughable and the whole affair is absolutely boring. The "Avalanche" doesn't happen till around the hour mark and all we get till then is totally blinding boredom. Mia and Rock barely have anything to do (god knows why they actually did the movie), Robert Forester is hot but the character is bland, and Jeanette Nolan is under used in the only entertaining role in the flick. The rest of the cast are forgettable and not all that all-star. The action is contrived and "special effects" are for the most part low-budget 70's-ish.

This movie would make a great sleep aid. It's bad, not enjoyably bad, just bad. It's bland and pointless. Skip if at all possible.