Solemplex To me, this movie is perfection.

Spidersecu Don't Believe the Hype

Calum Hutton It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...

Logan By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

atomicgirl-34996 If you're a disaster film buff, you've seen this movie a dozen times already. It's the same old story--an expert anticipates a major disaster about to happen, tries to warn everybody, and predictably, no one listens to him until it's too late. Disaster strikes, and loads of people die. A grave lesson is learned.In spite of The Great Los Angeles Earthquake going down the same beaten path as every other disaster film, I've gotta admit that I was pleasantly surprised by it, as it did a few things a little differently. First of all, the protagonist was female (Clare Winslow, played by Joanna Kerns). That was a refreshing touch. Also, one of the protagonist's family members became an antagonist (in this case, her husband, Steve). Lastly, the movie handled the antagonists in a more realistic way than disaster movies in the past. Usually, the antagonists were either mustache twirling villains or unreasonable for no real reason. The people who go against Clare are doing so because they're either arrogant or too hung up on the "now" of economics and real estate development to care about the future. Other things I liked about this film: the theme song was amazing and sounded very Irwin Allen-esque. I could definitely hear the homage to 1970s disaster films like The Poseidon Adventure and The Towering Inferno. The special effects were surprisingly good for a film that was shot on a TV budget. The earthquake scenes were incredibly well shot and had me riveted the entire time. They were even better than the special effects in Earthquake.With that being said, The Great Los Angeles Earthquake had its flaws that kept it from being great. The side characters and their subplots were not at all interesting. I wanted to be engaged but they were pretty much cookie cutter and interchangeable. There was one death scene that was supposed to be shocking but was very predictable. There was an assassination subplot involving a South African politician that weakened the movie considerably, not because of how irrelevant it was but because it showed that the writers had a lack of faith in their own material. Too bad because The Great Los Angeles Earthquake would've been a much stronger film without this lame subplot.Other than these flaws, The Great Los Angeles Earthquake was fairly good. Not brilliant, of course, but a lot better than you'd expect for a 1990 TV movie.

kai ringler First off let me say that this one has more ups than downs, and it's better than you're average disaster movie,, first the ups,, the fact that big money plays a part in this film,, you have real estate moguls,, the mayor,, all wanting to hush up the story of "The Big One" for political interests, except for the governor. i liked the ending,, that's always a plus. great acting for the most part,, ed begley jr.. dan lauria, jo anna kerns,, all great actors, and actresses, some of the downs are it takes to long to get going,, to much character development,, and why the heck was there this lame assassination plot,, that had absolutely nothing to do with the story,, and after the big one hits,, the assassination continues,, that took balls, but i kinda liked that,, the plot was very good i thought, the peoples reaction to the big one, and how the media perceives things and "can" twist things is very real,, this movie took some raw facts and shown us that, most disaster movies don't really do that,, you had a great ensemble cast that deserves kudos,,

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

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)