Clever and entertaining enough to recommend even to members of the 1%

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

I watched about half of 1999's AFTERSHOCK, and what I saw was a standard TV production about the impact of an earthquake on New York City. I had no problem with the so-so special effects nor the overly large AIRPORT-type cast, other than Sharon Lawrence as a gin-guzzling middle-aged mom. It's easy enough to imagine just how much worse the impact of a quake would have on Manhattan than was portrayed in this movie, including a lot more looters and shootings, with rats and corpses and disease and devastation everywhere -- like post-Katrina New Orleans. I also understand this lengthy movie does not follow the novel on which it is based. Ah well ... A young Jennifer Garner is extremely appealing as a wannabe ballerina. At first, I thought I was looking at Natalie Portman -- Garner was that good-looking in her 20s. Familiar TV faces Tom Skerritt and Charles Dutton ham it up big time as the city's feuding fire chief and mayor, respectively. A strangely bewigged Cicely Tyson plays Dutton's wiser than Moses and older than Methuselah mom.

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.

upon turning on my television set to relax with a fine made-for-tv movie, i stumbled upon this. perhaps it was fate, or perhaps it was simply nothing more than a bit of luck on my behalf, but i must say, first and foremost that i was immediately blown away. the movie drew me in with its top-notch special effects and intriguing character situations--needless to say, for approximately 170 minutes i forgot entirely of any relatives or close friends i may have. instead, i was living the adventure--no, i WAS the adventure. and i can, with the truest of intentions say, that while watching this movie i was the happiest i have ever been in my entire life. and, more than likely, it was the happiest i will ever be. even now, on dreary afternoons when i find myself alone with nothing to do, i like to sit back with a fine, cool glass of lemonade and compile stanza upon stanza of poetry in my head encompassing the various scenes and events, making the movie ever-mine and something that will live forever within my memories.

OK. The genre "disaster film" genrally doesn't mean earth-shattering, brilliant writing. What these movies are all about is the ACTION-something that, i'm pleased to see, the other commenters on this page realize. This movie, i think, has some better writing than others. It sidesteps cliched characters to a certain extent...for example, the mayor is sympathetic and really NOT a mad power-monger. It was refreshing for me to see a person in a position of power in an action movie attempt not to abuse such power for his/her own interests. All the other characters are also appealing...except one. As for the direction, Mikael Salomon truly knows how to stage action...it's all about camera angles. In this film, he uses these to great effect...my personal favorite being the one he uses when 2 characters escape out from under a truck collapsing underground in the nick of time. all-in-all, this is an entertaining movie...and a worthy entry into the disaster-film genre. in fact, i like this better than VOLCANO, a theatrical release from a few years back. i give this movie 3 out of 4 stars.