I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.

Great story, amazing characters, superb action, enthralling cinematography. Yes, this is something I am glad I spent money on.

This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

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.

For a made for TV movie this really isn't half bad. I was 8 years old when I first saw this and I remember loving it because of all of the destruction and overall it's still a decent cheesy made for TV movie. At the time there were a lot of movies on TV playing into all of the disasters waiting to happen and this was one of the better ones. The first 2 hours of the movie try's to sound as scientific as possible while slowly building to what we all know is coming and nicely builds suspense. The movie does a good job of showing the daily lives of people in L.A. and what happens to them afterwards. Of course some story lines are nothing more than filler, some stories are cheesy and some are quite good. Overall the acting is believable except for a few bad actors here and there. Most people should recognize the mother from growing pains, the father from the wonder years, Ed Bagley Jr and tons more from the 80s and 90s.For a made for TV movie I am pleased by how the movie stays away from overt corniness and try's to tell a good story, but there is problems. The movie is 3 hours long, with 2 of those hours leading up the earthquake and 1 hour dealing with the earthquake and after, then it abruptly ends. The movies does a good job of showing the disaster, but there could have been at least another hour dealing with what happens after the quake. It takes 2 hours to get to the quake and then it speeds along and ends.What can one really expect from a made for TV movie anyways? As long as it entertains that's really the important key to a successful movie. I will say it is a cut above some of the Hollywood disaster movies of the 90's which usually were cheesy and dumb. I wouldn't watch this movie and expect to be blown away, but if you are looking to entertain yourself for awhile then I recommend this movie.

Convinced that an earthquake is going to destroy Los Angeles, a seismologist tries to alert the authorities of the city and the population. Traced on " films disaster ", this fiction turns out without surprises.

Once more, Los Angeles is the target of a large M8+ earthquake; however, scientifically, this one was much more believable than the megaquake on the San Andreas fault in "Earthquake" (1974). However, the plot on the original 4-hour TV movie was way too complicated, and in parts, irrelevant. When a three-hour version was released later, it was clear that the cut parts--centered around the visit and assassination attempt on a foreign head of state, even after the city is in ruins afterwards--had contributed nothing to the movie as a whole. Though still weak, the plot did show the problems with earthquake prediction and dealing with the real world. The attempt to hush-up the threat of an earthquake to the Los Angeles area was real after the Long Beach earthquake of 1933 and for the same reason--money. The reaction to a prediction was quite believable as well--much panic, which then adversely affects those that keep their heads. Overall, a good movie--not great, but certainly interesting.