Scorcher

Well, This film is lucky (for now) that the voting section is out of action otherwises I would be giving out a 3/10 for this utter nonsense.

The film's basic premise is sound enough. Underground Nuke testing has caused a disturbance in the movements of the continental plates thereby triggering a natural disaster. The Americans (fair enough, there are some major plate boundaries in the states) have to halt this movement before the world burns up with lava flowing from the earth's inner layers.

But the whole thing is so poorly thought out. The acting from the principles is so rubbish (some notable exceptions in the higher quality cast members who are just working on what they have been given). Wooden delivery of corny lines.

Also there seemed to be pointless plot additions to raise the "action" part including an utterly pointless and under-developed love/hate relationship between a father and daughter scientist team. Also - Hollywood - there is absolutely no need to include a romantic attachment between a male and female lead if the whole film is meant to only take place over a couple of days. It is stupid and unnecessary.

There seemed to be some other (again underdeveloped) subplot where another goverment agent (CIA ?? - can't remember - bored by then) hated the hero character - and hated him sooooo much that he was willing to try and kill him and prevent the entire mission from succeeding. Utter tripe. Another pointless plotline with the hero's daughter being lsot in the city and needing rescuing (virtually the only person lost in the city happened to be the hero's daughter). No element of the film left the audience in suspense (the pointless trip near the beginning into the underground system to "check out" a deep ventilation hole, was surprise surprise was needed to save the day in the end.

Also - another thing (starting to rant now). Why on a mission of such importance were only a handful of people sent in to carry (a seemingly very light - he was running with it in a bag under one arm at one point) nuclear weapon into the hot zone, with NO backup, allowing the team to be effectively mugged by some local gang.

Do not see this on video - do not stay up late to watch this on tv. Just avoid - sleeping is a better use of your time.

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.

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.

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 very impressive. It looks like a major studio film even though it was produced by a very cheap low budget organization. I expected it to be a real stinker but was pleasently surprised to see how good it turned out. If you like action this film is for you