Yawn. Poorly Filmed Snooze Fest.

the audience applauded

I like Black Panther, but I didn't like this movie.

Absolutely Fantastic

You know that this is going to be one of those questionable disaster movies. But then again, looking at the cast you think that it might actually just surprise you. But it didn't! Not by a long shot.The story in "Scorcher" is about the end of the world, with the fate of the entire world resting in the hands of a small group of Americans. Yes, it is that exact run-of-the-mill recipe of how-to-make-a-disaster-movie. The tectonic plates in The Pacific are shifting, threatening to incinerate the entire world. And by the orders of the American president, a small group of soldiers and scientists set out to save the world.Yeah, that is exactly what I thought too. It was as laughable a story as the concept idea was just below mediocre and so horrible generic.What lured me in to watch "Scorcher" was the cast, which included Mark Dacascos, John Rhys-Davies and Rutger Hauer. But even the talents could not salvage the wreck that is "Scorcher".If you enjoy disaster movies stay well clear of this predictable movie, because there is close to no destruction and mayhem in the entire movie - except for some awfully fake earthquakes and an adequate flaming explosion in a tunnel."Scorcher" is boring and pointless, even by the usual low standards that make up about 90% of all movies in the disaster genre.

This movie was billed to be EARTH IN DANGER. After this team embarks on their mission, there's two minor tremors (where I don't see so much as a street lamp keel over), very scary scene in a tunnel and other than that not a hint of additional disasters–anywhere. For the last hr fifteen minutes of film. The plate shift moves ever closer to that 44 centimeters mark were were informed mankind's doomed, at the end stops at 35–and until the bombs are set off all stays as quiet as a emptied parking lot.I started watching this after seeing footage of devastation in the film's first 25 minutes thinking there's going to more, even it if was CGI or old archive stuff there would be more chaos--BUT I got instead was boring by the numbers human drama–Hey this is not the Hallmark Channel; I was baited and then the emphasis of the movie switched--and I am still livid over it! The (young) daughter subplot was good because both characters were somewhat likable while the scientists father daughter subplot reeked--I hated the scientist daughter. But neither one didn't need to be in this storyline cause they pull away from the supposed terror of the Earth on verge of disaster. Instead the Earth gets final billing. And testing was the cause of this why lob another bomb into Earth's precarious underground–and why Earthquake prone California in all places. And nukes–What about planting food, the radiation spreading to other states–Even ID4 had a higher degree of reality in terms of nukes there were someone protested using them and the President hedged.I rate it 1 for the 2 prayer scenes, John Rhys-Davies and Mark Dacascos

Wow, is this bad.The problem with this movie--besides a budget of $11--is that the premise contains no real conflict for the hero to overcome--it just wouldn't be that hard for the US military to detonate a bomb in an evacuated Los Angeles. So the makers start pulling obstacles and conflict out of thin air about halfway through--none of which make a lick of sense. Characters inexplicably turn bad or suddenly start behaving contrary to everyone's interest, including their own; boogie men pop up out of nowhere for no discernible reason; and of course the hero's daughter improbably needs to be rescued from conveniently nearby. She, by the way, survives a car fire by hiding--get this--in the trunk. Yeah, that would work. About three-quarters of the way in you realize that the reason the bomb has to be detonated in Los Angeles is that the director needed to shoot this movie across the street from his brother's dry cleaning shop so he wouldn't be late for his shift.I know what you're thinking. You're thinking, "A-hah! This guy doesn't recognize a spoof when he sees one! Clearly this movie is tongue-in-cheek!" Wrong--it isn't. It's just really, really bad.

This movie is not just awful. It is chronically awful.A script that is clichéd and laughable.A plot which is ludicrous and absurd.A cast which is 3rd rate and amateur.The story-line: the Chinese are to blame for causing a seismic shift in the earth, needing the USA to blow up Los Angeles to restore equilibrium and save the world.....blah....blah.....blah.....In real life of course its' thanks to the Yanks and the likes of their adventure in Iraq plus things such as American uncontrolled pollutants ruining the environment that the world is in such a mess.But-hey------when has reality even stopped film-makers lying to us!The movie has rubbishy sub-plots involving father-daughter relationships, which just adds to the nonsense and probably reflects the writers' own angst.3 of the actors in this film:Mark Dascoscos(whoever he is): Plays a military colonel though looks daft in a uniform and the attempted macho image is at odds with the appallingly bad face lift. He would be better off trying for a job modeling pink underwear.Rutger Hauer: Plays the President of the USA. In the all time list of the worst portrayals of this role he takes second place. George W. Bush is the winner.John Rhys-Davis. Plays a scientist. Seems to think that by huffing and puffing with an affected "English" accent he can capture an audience, but all he does is show what an awful 'Ham' actor he is.Marks out of 10 = 00.00001The fractional mark is awarded for giving us the idea to blow up an evacuated LA, which includes Hollywood. Maybe it will rid us of films like this!