MovieChat Forums > Beyond the Poseidon Adventure (1979) Discussion > How bad is this film?

How bad is this film?

posted 9 years ago by uplandmad
9 replies | jump to latest

Ok, I'll start: This film is so bad, even the snarky comments on IMDB are poorly-thought-out, lackadaisical and slipshod.

[–] preppy-3 9 years ago

How bad? Very VERY bad. Just saw it on TCM last night. It was slow-moving and boring and all the "action" had been done in the superior original. Also with sole exception of Michael Caine the acting was lousy. However the real problem was the script. The characters weren't interesting, the situations dull and the dialogue was downright atrocious. According to IMDB the script was being changed day by day so that might account for why it's so bad. And why wait seven YEARS to do a sequel?

[–] Michelle_Johnson101 9 years ago

And has annoying Sally Field in this.

[–] ronaldt49 9 years ago

Sally played basically the same character from Smokey and the Bandit only the Bandit had had enough and somehow had pushed her off on Michael Caine's character who would be driven insane by her and become the nut job in Dressed to Kill in 1980.

[–] CaptainTerrific 9 years ago

It's bad, but it's a fun kind of bad.

I like it when a particular genre (in this case, disaster movies) becomes popular, because the ones made at the end of that popularity are always hilariously bad.

It's so bad, it's almost a spoof of a proper disaster movie.

My favorite bad part is the storm at the very beginning. There wasn't even an attempt to make it look like the tug's cabin was being buffeted by waves...it was just a couple of guys spraying garden hoses. Classic.

[–] uplandmad 9 years ago

The opening storm was bad, but I decided to reserve judgment until everyone was on the Poseidon. There, in one early scene, the protagonists were picking their way through a jumble of wreckage in one of the upside-down spaces, while the camera moved behind them to show more of the space from an elevated POV.

Now, if this had been, say, a Hitchcock film, the camera move might have revealed to the audience a threat that our heroes were stumbling into, but could not yet see. As it was, the "story" told by this pointless move seemed to be something like "As you can see, this set is somewhat larger than you might have otherwise suspected."

At this point, I stopped reserving judgment....

[–] Ashaod43 9 years ago

I would agree it's not exactly oscar worthy but I have seen a lot worse. I loved the original and it's okay with me to continue that. The script is weak as well as the characters but i enjoy it. Everyone may think I am crazy but this is one of Jack Warden's best acting jobs ever.

[–] mrt121212 9 years ago

I guess we all juat saw this on TCM?

[–] brefane 9 years ago

It's pointless for starters; it's a disaster rather than a disaster movie. It's actually a modern-day pirate film. Despite the presence of Oscar winners the acting is terribly unconvincing and Field who did Norma Rae the same year was better as Gidget than she is here. And if the comments are poorly-thought-out, lackadaisical and slipshod doesn't the OP realize that that perfectly sums up the film?

[–] trevorh321 (5495) 3 years ago

It's not nearly as bad as I thought it would be. It's not as good as the original but it's got a nice cast and it's an effective film. Yes, Sally Field can be annoying. She can also be quite likeable. The pacing becomes an issue at times. But this is not the awful film I expected. 7/10