Michael Thompson
I think the critics of this movie must have spent the entire time of over two hours watching this movie while playing with their mobile phones.This was a really very good film, exiting, passionate, excellent script and excellent special effects and the acting was also, great.My wife and I sat through the entire time on this film sitting virtually on the edge of our streets, because once this film gets going, it doesn't stop.The special effects are first class.From all the earthquake movies my wife have seen, this is up there with the very best, no doubt about it.So, you go ahead whomever is reading my review, rent or buy this film, and just expect to be entertained with an earthquake fiction movie, full of great performances, great action, great special effects, and a bit of emotion thrown in for good measure.10 out of 10 from my wife, and myself.
AvdW
I always watch disaster movies, but 9 out of 10 they turn out to be disasters themselves. This movie was no exception to that rule. The story is simple (as it should be): Mother Earth shows her wrath and has no mercy doing it. The president of the US (who else, as no other country seems to be affected Hawaii being the US) takes charge and assembles a team of experts to tell what is going on and provide a solution to the problem. No complaints from me there. But why oh why does the daughter of the president have to happen to assist the doctor who treats the wife of the FEMA rescuer who saves his own wife who happens to be in the same building as the father of the scientist in charge who happens to be the discredited geologist who happens to have the 'solution' (no spoiler intended), all supervised by the daughter of the FEMA director who happens to be in direct contact with the president (to come full circle)? To cut it short: suspension of disbelieve is not something thought about thoroughly by the filmmakers.But that's story wise; in a disaster movie you expect disaster to take place, and indeed is does. The special effects and computer graphics are good (for a TV movie at least). No cardboard boxes, or Styrofoam walls flying around (not too obviously anyway), and the CGI is up-to-date. But then again the story line (or rather the suspension of disbelieve) cuts in: the imagery on the computer screens at the geological crisis center are good quality, but unrealistic; the distance people and helicopters are maneuvering from exposed lava or occurring earthquakes is sheer impossible; not to mention the small amount of people that apparently are actually caught in the disaster (admittedly, the number of extras swarming the make-shift medical rescue centers is impressive).Overall the movie shows rather realistic disasters, but that is all it does. There's no real science in the movie, there's no real personal drama (should I care for a person just because he/she is introduced to me?), and there is no satisfactory ending (yeah, yeah, we shall overcome
).
stumpmee77
Pity I came into it a little after 9:00 p.m. I got involved in this sequel very quickly.The characters made me forget the science gaffes; they're right up there with 1970's Earthquake as I care for all of them. A better movie this go around. Character types more broader in terms of physical appearance--and personal conflict pushed miles away. And thank God there's more than one character possessing sense! There's 2 wonderful African-American ladies respectively working with the military and a disaster committee in continual touch with the president. Beau Bridges is back as the president and with a few tweaks to the script, his president doesn't have to ride solely on his acting. He seemed like he was straining to appear real in the 1st 10.5--not here. Human drama is beautifully underplayed. No whining couples failing getting it together until the last half our of movie. Especially wish Langella had been in the original; he gives the film a dash pizazz the first seriously lacked.Not to say this movie is without flaws. We have the EMT person working to save his wife--What chance in blue blazes that would happen unless one's just ready to leave for work? The sudden fast camera break-aways and good ol' 10.5 jiggly cam; but both are mild compared to good ol' Cloverfield. The technical element that's really bad is the Nuclear plant--couldn't they have built a scale down model instead of the computer generated crap? Alright last one's nitpicking and again like the camera pans and jiggly-wiggles are comparatively mild. Sad I missed the beginning hanging around to see the end.
kai ringler
as the movie goes, it was you're tradional disaster flick,, the problem i have with these kinds of movies though is that they are too cozy,, too schmoozy, but the action is decent i must say, the plot, fairly average. the ending i really liked, beau bridges did an adequate job in his role as the Prez. Kim Delaney, i thought she did a better job in the first one,, but hey she's hot and i like her. i wouldn't go so far as to call this movie great. but then again on the other hand it is not a stinker by any means.. i don't think they should make 11.0 . i think they really should have stopped with the first one,, only because some of what they suggest could happen , is so far fetched.. others, fairly plausible.
AD
