What makes it different from others?

Such a frustrating disappointment

A Disappointing Continuation

Easily the biggest piece of Right wing non sense propaganda I ever saw.

Roller-coaster is a taut, suspense-packed thriller from a decade chock full of such movies. It's written by Richard Levinson and William Link, the guys behind COLUMBO, and in many ways it shares similarities with the films chronicling the TV detective's antics. There's the eye for detail, the strong handling of guest actors, and the detailed investigation and pursuit of a character who is always one step ahead of the police.Despite the disaster overtones, Roller-coaster is much more of a low key thriller than one of the big '70s disaster flicks. Almost the entire second half of the movie is set in a single fairground location yet it becomes a masterwork in claustrophobia as a result. George Segal is a nice and sympathetic choice of lead, and Timothy Bottoms his match as the almost faceless killer. A supporting cast including Henry Fonda, Richard Widmark and Susan Strasberg round things out nicely, and there are minor turns for future '80s stars like Craig Wasson, Helen Hunt, and Steve Guttenberg.The movie is well shot throughout by experienced director James Goldstone and the cinematography brings out nicely the hustle and bustle of the amusement park attractions. Despite the PG certificate, there are some well-done violent moments, along with some hand-held POV roller-coaster ride shots which complement the action nicely. With a superior script and suspense that never lets up, Roller-coaster is never a disappointment and instead something of an under-appreciated gem.

I saw this in the theater… yep, in SENSURROUND… on July 13, 1977, and I'll never forget it. Mostly because after we left the theater in Times Square and began to walk back to our hotel, all the lights in New York City went out, people started screaming and glass started breaking… but that's another story."Rollercoaster" has more suspense and less action than many of the 1970's genre disaster movies… whether or not that's a bad thing depends on your point of view, I suppose. For me, I didn't find many aspects of it that really stood out, and 20 years or so after I'd seen it in New York and finally watched it again, I found I remembered almost none of it except for the crashing coasters. None of the plot and none of the characters had stuck with me… oh, I remembered the kid with the bomb fetish, but not in any meaningful way. (Tim Bottoms looks like a cross between Ryan O'Neal and Ted Bundy, by the way.) Just last week my dad offered me the loan of his DVD, and I immediately said "oh, the blackout movie!", and he too remembered it well… being trapped with two children in a pitch-dark, paralyzed metropolis filled with looters and muggers hundreds of miles from home appears to be seared into the man's memory, far worse than any "disaster" that could be presented on a movie screen. This third time through, my expectations were a bit lower and I found I enjoyed it more than I had the second time.There are a couple of things that really date it… can you imagine in this day and age finding a bomb on an amusement park ride, simply taking it off, and then deeming the ride safe and starting to load it with unsuspecting people? "Nah, it's fine, we found the bomb… okay folks, step right up, no problem, you'll have a blast… er, a great time." There's also a lot of smoking… I don't object to it; I just notice it and get taken back to 1977 by it. I'd also have to say I found the end a bit abrupt and simplistic. That was IT? Not "The Poseidon Adventure" and not "The Towering Inferno", two superior period disaster flicks, but an interesting enough little movie.

You'd think a movie with the title "Rollercoaster" and an interesting premise would be great entertainment? Entertaining? To a degree. Great? No. It's a very mediocre movie that's slightly disappointing. The Highlight of the movie, of course, is when the coaster at the beginning (about several minutes in) of the movie falls off the tracks. If only the rest of the movie were as exciting. The film is at its best when the guys (including Segal) are on-screen, and when We see Harry's girlfriend and daughter. One crucial scene that falls flat: When Harry has to deliver a bomb somewhere in the park. This scene goes on forever, and the voice of the bad guy becomes annoying after a while. This is a movie, I think, that should be remade. ** out of ****

It's more fun that it has a right to be, an inexpensive movie about a Safety Inspector (Segal) who must deliver a million dollars to a techie madman who will otherwise blow up one of the rides at the King's Dominion Amusement Park in Richmond, Virginia.There's a scene in "Dirty Harry" in which the madman "runs Harry all over the city" with a suitcase full of cash, attempting to lose or confuse the many cops known to be following Harry and watching for the pick up. This whole movie is like that, except that instead of simply running from one point to another, Segal is instructed by radio to buy funny hats, ride the roller coaster multiple times, be weighed by a cute girl in glasses, have his picture taken, and do the usual things that people do in amusement parks.George Segal does a nice job as the reluctant but savvy and inventive hero. He's supported by several familiar names, most of them past their prime, few of whom worked on the picture for more than a day or two -- Henry Fonda, beginning to gargle with age; Richard Widmark as the federal agent in charge of tracking Segal's moves in hope of capturing the madman, Timothy Bottoms; Harry Guardino from "Dirty Harry", who has about two lines of dialog; Susan Strasberg who is there to prove Segal is an ordinary heterosexual; and an adolescent Helen Hunt.It's silly and enjoyable, like spending a day at an amusement park, and, like cotton candy, after it melts so engagingly in your mouth there's nothing of substance left.