Pretty Good

This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

To all those who have watched it: I hope you enjoyed it as much as I do.

Close shines in drama with strong language, adult themes.

Thomas (Tom Skerritt) is the fire chief for NYC but, he is about to submit his resignation. He has bones to pick with the city's mayor (Charles S. Dutton) and rather than work things out, Thomas is set to quit. The mayor has a beautiful, intelligent daughter who serves as a topnotch public defender but who is also being courted by a top law firm. Her latest case involves a man accused of murdering his wife, but the would-be killer proclaims his innocence. Can she get him acquitted and then land the more lucrative job? Also in the city is a lady named Dori (Sharon Lawrence) who suffers with acute guilt over an automobile accident that left her young son with a limp. Her husband (Mitchell Ryan) is dismayed that she still has not gone back to work or that she will not renew their mutual hobby, mountain climbing. Meanwhile, aspiring ballet dancer, Diane (Jennifer Garner) still has to ask her parents for money to make ends meet, something no family member likes, including Diane. Crossing paths with these folks are a Russian immigrant cab driver, the mayor's caring but aging mother, a poor teenager, and a businesswoman with eyes for Dori's husband. Suddenly, a deadly earthquake strikes, in NYC for goodness sake. Some folks are trapped in the subway, some on the street, and some in the upper levels of buildings. Who will survive? Does anyone care? This film is a very poor affair, suffering from implausability and stupidity, too. It's as though someone said, let's have an earthquake strike Manhattan because having people trapped in a subway system would be cool. No matter if the chance of an earthquake hitting NYC is slim to none, let's do it. Add on a fire chief who orders men into dangerous and avoidable situations, a mayor who can take time for a chat during a disaster, and a rock climbing mama who is the only one able to rescue her son and you have a film that goes way beyond credulity. The lame acting by nearly all thespians (Sharon Lawrence starts off well but loses her believability, too) does not help matters, either. The special effects are uneven, sometimes being quite good, and at other times, totally laughable. Costumes and production values are average at best, too. If you have a yen for disaster flicks, then you might take an interest in watching this one. For, in truth, it is a double dose of dire, once as an earthquake flick, and once as an extremely poor-quality film.

I just saw this movie on the Sci Fi channel. I am sure everyone who has seen more then 2 disaster flicks could of wrote this movie. All disaster movies follow the same formula and they never divert to a different path. First part of the movie we meet the characters who lives are going to be in peril. They usually consist ofA a family who is in crisis. B a kid or kids, who sometimes is part of the family in crisis, or the child of the hero or big wig. C a younger character man or women or both who is either just newly married or a romance will develop. D a potential bad guy or guys that will come around in the end. E Two big wigs, either a politician, or a General, if it involves the military. THe politician or General are sometimes the bad guy. F a disgruntle or disgraced male who will eventually save the day. The middle part of the movie, is the disaster itself. And it usually is the shortest part. This is where we see what happened to the characters we met in the first part. How the potential couple will meet up. And where the kid is or kids are at that will put them in peril. Sometimes the child already has a illness that will add to the suspense. So if the disease doesn't kill them the disaster will. According the budget we will see if the movie has great affects or just a camera shaking some people up and cars overturning and scene of one or two insignificant buildings crumbling. Sometimes the budget is so cheap they use scenes from other disaster movies. One person, usually the kid or a women are trapped somewhere,And the last part of the movie is watching who lives or dies. Which is predictable. 1 The family man who we know loves his wife and kids, because he either talked about how much he loves them or we see a happy family picture on a desk. This character is usually the young fireman, or some other minor character who is helping out, we don't much about him other then him having a family and he is young. 2 The black man, I find if there is a black character in these movies, they are either the potential bad person or another of the soon to be hero's sidekick. Who will die saving others. In the newer disaster flicks the black person has jumped from being one of first victims or gang member to now being one of the bigwigs. 3 A elderly person, we know nothing about them other then they are elderly and they are married or a dearly love relative of a major character. Amongst the living are 1 The new lovers2 The star of the movie. There are two exceptions. Joaquin Pheonix in Ladder 64, but he also qualifies in the subgroup of the young family man who gets killed. And Stephen Segal in Executive Decision whose screen time lasted maybe 20 minutes and is killed. 3) A pet that was otherwise thought dead.4) The child or relative of one of the bigwigsThis movie manages to have most of these important elements. I saw it early on a Saturday morning. I am happy that I saw it in one sitting because I believe this had to be a 2 night movie when it first aired. I find I never come back to see the conclusions of these moves. But they showed the whole movie at one, which I am sure helped.It was a TV movie and that is what to expect of it. TV A-list stars like Charles Dutton and Jennifer Garner and Sharon Lawrence and Tom Skeritt and Cecily Tyson are in the movie they do a good enough job to keep it interesting. Do not expect anything more and you will enjoy it. One last remark that cannot go unmentioned. The speech Charles Dutton makes at the end was very stirring. I actually had a tear in my eye. In the wake of the 911 that was in the future and being a New Yorker it was very appropriate.

I bought this on DVD because it was cheap and I couldn't find anything else, but I pretty much thought it would be wasted money. But this movie is surprisingly well written, effective and does its best to avoid disaster movie clichés, albeit not always successful. Like its predecessor "EarthQuake" it focuses on the effect of a disastrous earthquake on the lives of several groups of people whom struggle to survive and find loved ones amongst the devastation. The stories range in degrees of interests, ranging from engrossing to rather weak and familiar. The one that stands out the most is about a pampered rich girl and a young Russian taxi driver whom takes it upon himself to protect her. The contrast is interesting as she finds herself in a totally alien world of sudden death and chaos while her companion seems wearily used to such calamities, and instead of panicking he immediately tries to regain control of their situation. As far as the special effects go it doesn't have all the flashy effects other quake movies do but what it does show is pretty convincing, they seemed to realize their own production limitations and wisely try worked around them without pushing it too far. 7 out of 10, escapes the "made for TV" curse and is overall worth viewing.

AFTERSHOCK: EARTHQUAKE IN NEW YORK (1999) **1/2Starring: Tom Skerritt, Charles S. Dutton, Sharon Lawrence, Cicely Tyson, Fred Weller, Jennifer Garner, Lisa Nicole Carson, and Rachel Ticotin Director: Mikael Salomon Running time: Unknown Not Rated (equivalent to a PG-13, containing disaster violence)By Blake French:(The following may contains a few minor spoilers)If I were to say that by the end of "Aftershock: Earthquake in New York" every problem in the picture will be solved, you would have no idea of how literal I was being. The production has so many independent characters, complicated situations, and internal and external conflicts, by the halfway point of the movie, I lost track of whose who, and what's happening and where to what characters. Most of the time it is a good thing to have a variety of characters, but "Aftershock: Earthquake in New York," pushes the audience over the edge."Aftershock: Earthquake in New York" details an earthquake that erupts in the big apple and the mayhem is causes for separate groups of devastated people. Actually, this production would be more reasonably called "Aftermath: The Horrors of an Earthquake When it Erupts in a Big City" because it is more about the situations encountered after the quake than the existent tremor itself. During the earthquake, we see museums break apart, skyscrapers collapse, streets crumble, a subway train wreak, a bathroom disassemble, and even get to see Lady Liberty fall flat on her face. All the special effects are well done and convincing. The movie does make us believe there is an earthquake is occurring.The film wastes time during the first fifty minutes, sparring us the usual momentum build-up and developing the characters individually, so that we can to care about them when the disaster hits. Good attempt by the filmmakers. But their failure has already been decided. There are just to many characters and complex sub-plots to weave this unorganized, fragmented movie together. We meet Emily Lincoln (Cicely Tyson), a religious woman on her death bed while trying to teach a young, rebellious teenage boy lessons of life, Thomas Ahearn (Tom Skerritt), a family man having tiffs with the city mayor, Lincoln (Charles Dutton), who also has a family in danger. Then we are introduced to a defense attorney Evie Lincoln, (Lisa Nicole Carson), and her client charged with cold blooded murder. They get into a subway wreak (in a tunnel where the lights are still strongly working after a massive earthquake and countless other complications have occurred). A foreign cab driver named Nicholai Karvovsky (Fred Weller) is also involved with a young woman, I forget who and why. Also covered in "Aftershock: Earthquake in New York" are marital problems, legal issues, family crisis, financial necessities, political outbursts, and even medical disasters, all which are related to each other, but distract us from the main events the story centers on.There are a few unconventional surprises contained in the story line, but for the most part, this is one long journey in circles. After the earthquake hits, we expect the movie to build up tension for an aftershock, thus the title "Aftershock." But we just don't get that at all here, but receive a rehearse in an event that took place just an hour earlier. It is like rewinding a video and watching the same scene twice. The actual disaster itself couldn't help but recycling elements from past motion pictures such as "Volcano," "Asteroid," and "Daylight."The picture is directed by Mikael Salomon, whose previous work includes the also mediocre "Hard Rain" (1998) and " A Far Off Place" (1993). Analyzing his past movies, I think Salomon has a tendency to cover a lot of material on screen, but the material doesn't have much of an impact on an audience. In "Aftershock: Earthquake in New York" just about everything happens except someone answering the question of why there would be a major tremor in the big apple in the first place.