I was in my mid-20s, a big movie fan, and a big fan of the stars of this movie, but something made me not see it at the time, it being such an over-the-top formulaic Hollywood production and all, I just never bothered to see it. Now I'm reconsidering. Did I miss anything? Should I see it?
Get the facts first - you can distort them later!share
I just saw it and thought it was kind of cheesy. A little better than Earthquake but not much.
I don't have a signature.
And you're a BIGGER IDIOT!
shareYou only like this because of nostalgia. It doesn't hold up.
I don't have a signature.
@angelthman
That's like an adult who didn't grow up with video games from the early 80's deciding to get into modern video gaming for the first time. Gets used to PS4 and 4k HDPC graphics then having a go on the spectrum or C64 for the first time saying these 2bit games are cheesy and those graphics don't hold up.
Do you think this movie could be pulled off today with no CGI using only the technology, equipment and matte painting skills from 40 years ago and be as successful as this movie? No CGI effect can replace real flames and real stunt people being set alight. Sets and miniature models were used back then. Today explosions and special effects that would take weeks can be done in hours on a £600 laptop.
If it bleeds, we can kill it.
Yet at the same time it is the story and acting that sells. That's the problem with many modern movies all sizzle and no steak. Cgi is a curse and a blessing but at times can look just as fake as some of the scenes in this movie.
shareOh yeah? What's the weather like on YOUR planet?
shareYes, you should see it. As long as you like disaster films. This is one of the greatest disaster films ever, with a great cast.
shareSpoiler
I saw it when it came out. I loved it then and watched it over and over on the paid movie channel at the hotel I was staying at. I've watched it numerous times since then and never fail to enjoy it. I also read the two books on which the film was based.
I think you're putting us on saying you never saw it. But if you didn't, you missed a big-time great film. There is just one thing wrong with the film. O.J. didn't buy it in the role he played. Had he died a beautiful flaming death, this might just have prevented two real deaths 20 years later. In 1994 many people were saying "they should have burned em." I say they missed their chance 20 years earlier.
manage, you just spoiled part of the movie for the OP -- telling him what did (or didn't) happen to Juice.
Seriously, you should have included the word SPOILER in it, for the uninitiated.
Yes, Hobnob. You are right. And I guess I have made it as a poster when I can write spoiler.
shareIt is never too late. I have inserted the word Spoiler. I can't believe I wrote that post. It is full of typos even though I edited it. So I have edited it again. It's not a very good joke about OJ, but I've let it stand.
shareDon't reproach yourself, old friend. I've been yelled at enough (and seen others accorded the same treatment) for not alerting people to spoilers -- even about 70- or 80-year-old movies! -- that I've become hypersensitive to it!
I liked your OJ joke. There's also the one about how he beheads the cat and hands both parts to Harlee Claiborne. Sick, yes, but then so is seeing (an admittedly future) mass murderer as a hero. Or worse, as a comedian, in the Naked Gun films.
I saw it for the first time ca 2012 and I was riveted. I thought it was superb. I didn't find it dated in the least.
If a private venture fails it's closed down. If a government venture fails it's expanded. M Friedman
Glad to hear you say that, Snooze. I saw it when it came out in December 1974 and many times since, and maybe it's because of that fact that the film doesn't seem dated to me at all. (I actually have to think about the dated elements -- no cell phones, and those God-awful 70s tuxedos!) So it's nice to hear someone who only came across it relatively recently say it doesn't seem dated.
In all respects, it certainly isn't anywhere near as dated today, 41 years later, as a 1933 movie was in 1974!
(Oh, I'm a volunteer firefighter, so the bunker gear and Scott packs are a bit dated by today's standards. But even that's not really noticeable unless, again, you stop to think about it.)
It's not dated by any means, and was not rated as great or poor in 1974, but average-good. I don't know if it deserved an Oscar nom; I think they sometimes give a nom for the painstaking effort involved, which should not be the basis.
shareMy recollection is that the reviews ranged from extremely good to as you say average-good. Certainly it was almost universally acknowledged to be the best of the 1970s disaster epics, as indeed it was.
I agree, I'm not sure its Best Picture nomination was entirely deserved. I think that while Oscar voters will sometimes take it into account when a film required enormous effort to produce, there's also some consideration for box-office. It's not at all uncommon for the Academy to recognize such big-budget, complex films with an Oscar nod, though it's much rarer to find them actually winning.
So many -- perhaps most -- Oscars, or even just nominations, have been given for reasons that have little to do with quality or even strict merit, that it's pointless to chastise any one film on that score. There isn't a year goes by that this doesn't happen.
"Chief O'Hallorhan: You know, we were lucky tonight. Body count's less than 200. You know, one of these days, you're gonna kill 10,000 in one of these firetraps, and I'm gonna keep eating smoke and bringing out bodies .........."
He was off by a few thousand, but yeah, I think this movie has held up pretty well.
That aside, the special effects hold up well, even by today's standards. The John Williams's sound track is outstanding and the opening scene of that helicopter flying down the Marin coast to SF is breathtaking. Its true that the dialogue is a bit cheesy by today's standards but thats the way people talked in the movies in the 60's and early 70's.
BTW, doesn't the Millennium tower in SF today look exactly like the Glass tower in this movie ?
He was off by a few thousand, but yeah, I think this movie has held up pretty well.
[deleted]