Reptileenbu
Did you people see the same film I saw?
Odelecol
Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.
Robert W.
This movie kind of haunted me as a kid and then growing up. We had taped it off of Television and it was one of those cool movies I watched a lot and it really gave me a big interest in Earthquakes and things like that, that really has lasted me my entire adult life. So when I spied this in a bargain bin I snatched it up without a second thought and finally got around to watching it and I admit I was asking myself...'What did I see in the movie?' Maybe it seemed better, less drawn out and boring because of commercials or being split into two parts on Television. I mean I really do understand the self importance of this film and the message it is trying to convey and it does a good job. I just thought that for a disaster film that is three hours long the quake would start more than 1 hour and 50 minutes into it leaving the disaster nature of the film to less than one quarter of the film. Basically the film is more about the idea and premise of Earthquake prediction and preparedness than it is about the actual quake itself but that doesn't really keep you all that riveted. That being said when the quake does happen you're in for a very impressive display of special effects especially for a Television movie. I admit when I think Joanna Kerns, obviously you think Growing Pains but you also don't really think of a class 'A' actress but you know she actually does a really, really good job as seismologist Dr. Clare Winslow. Basically it is her against everyone including her own family and colleagues as she begs them to listen to her warning. She is a very good actress and very stern and powerful on screen and I give her kudos and won't underestimate her again. Dan Lauria, also a TV Legend, Kevin's Dad from The Wonder Years plays Kerns' husband Steve. The two of them have terrific chemistry and he is very good in his role. Both of them are terrific. Lindsay Frost is good as Kerns' free spirited little sister Laurie, and I always like to see steely faced Alan Autry (Bubba from In The Heat Of The Night) as Laurie's cop boyfriend, Matt. Bonnie Bartlett is terrific as the overbearing and stubborn mother of Clare and Laurie. Stephen Elliott is their kind father and Doctor. Ed Begley Jr., who seems to get top billing for this film, plays Clare's assistant Jerry Soloway and honestly never really does much of anything except assist Clare. If this was real life he'd be in line for promotion. Richard Masur, who I really have enjoyed in some films, is corny and misused and his character stinks as a sleazy newspaper reporter who supposedly sees the error of his ways but really you don't care and he never has to experience the earthquake either. The film was so jammed with other characters I wish I could run them down but honestly I've listed the main characters and anyone who stood out and everyone else was unfortunately mostly clutter and earthquake fodder. The Big One: The Great Los Angeles Earthquake has a few key elements missing when it comes to the disaster epic genre. They all do the same thing...compare it to Charlton Heston's Earthquake of the seventies. They establish various characters (usually not connected) and you become intertwined in their stories so you see the disaster from different vantage points. This film didn't really do that. All the characters were connected, essentially from the same family, and therefore they aren't different stories. They also force a completely unnecessary story about a Government assassination which is pointless to the entire thing, and a story about the Winslow's housekeeper and her son. They could have literally removed both those story angles and the film would not have missed a beat and might have been better for it. Finally I understand that the focus was on prediction and preparation but in all honesty when you watch an Earthquake movie or a disaster movie, you watch it for the disaster. Would Titanic have been nearly as popular if Jack and Rose ran around the boat for two and a half hours warning everyone the boat was going to sink and then minutes before the credits the boat sank? I doubt it. The Earthquake is so impressive, and the aftermath so devastating that it warrants seeing but it happens so late in the film. So this child hood memory of mine wasn't so great the second time around but I suppose if you're a fan of TV Movies, this was one of the good ones for its day but don't expect an epic disaster flick by any means. 6/10
mattkratz
This movie wasn't bad, as it dealt with the biggest earthquake Los Angeles could have. The film focuses equally on the preparation the city makes and the actual earthquake itself. All in all, not too bad, with decent performances.** 1/2 out of ****
virek213
Forget for a second that the acting and the dialogue are not exactly first-rate; this isn't Shakespeare or Spielberg. This 1990 made-for-TV film does focus on an all-too-plausible disaster for those of us, like myself, who live in Southern California--a cataclysmic earthquake tearing the region apart.Irritating subplots aside (Robert Ginty's greedy developer engaging in what I'd call "Quakegate"; Joe Spano's emergency management chief torn between Ginty and Kerns; Richard Masur's Geraldo-like tabloid TV reporter), THE BIG ONE is just too effective in its depiction of destruction on a scale not seen in a long time. Kerns' performance as seismologist Claire Winslow is clearly modeled off of CalTech scientists Lucy Jones and Kate Hutton. The film's science is also pretty straight-on, especially when one realizes that the quakes that have shook up Southern California since the 1971 Sylmar event have not occurred along the dreaded San Andreas Fault but on faults of which little or nothing is known about.So whatever plot pratfalls it has, THE BIG ONE still works as an ultimate science fiction/disaster movie, at least from the science angle.
jhaggardjr
"The Big One: The Great Los Angeles Earthquake" is a chilling, well-made disaster film that was made-for-TV and aired on NBC back in the fall of 1990 as a two-part movie. Joanna Kerns (star of TV's "Growing Pains") stars as a seismologist who worries that the earthquake of the title is going to strike Los Angeles. But before she can make her prediction, she crosses paths with her family members, co-workers, and city officials. The movie is long at times (this review is based on the entire four hour movie that ran when it premiered on NBC, not the shortened home video version) but it kept me interested and entertained through its entire four hours. The second time the movie aired on NBC they cut an hour of footage and shortened it to a three hour film. That version was pretty good too. But then I saw the home video version with half the movie gone. This is the version to forget about. Stick with either the three hour version or the full-length four hour version if you can find it on TV.The three and four hour versions: *** (out of four)The home video version: ** (out of four)
