MovieChat Forums > Dante's Peak (1997) Discussion > Re-watched this last night for the first...

Re-watched this last night for the first time since '97

posted 7 years ago by PrimeMinisterX (8290)
8 replies | jump to latest

And I have to say, this film actually holds up really well! I was damn surprised!

In fact, I have to say, this movie is actually BETTER than I remembered it being. Seriously. It's directed by Roger Donaldson--who also directed the underrated Thirteen Days--and while watching it I had the feeling that if Spielberg only had about 2/3 of his talent and decided to make a disaster movie, then Dante's Peak is pretty close to what you'd get.

I identified three primary strengths with this film:

1. There's an emotional core. Brosnan, Linda Hamilton and the kids all did a good job and made me root for them. I wanted to see them survive.

2. The science seems legit. I'm not a volcanologist, so I can't say for sure that it IS legit, but it definitely feels that way and I enjoyed the procedural elements that brought the science team to the point of being convinced the volcano was going to blow.

3. The FX. Holy shit are the effects good in this film! I mean they are goddamn GOOD, not just for '97 but even today they hold up extremely well. The film's real strength in this regard is that instead of just going full CGI the filmmakers decided to marry CGI with traditional miniatures and I think the results are excellent.

All in all, I found this to be a surprisingly enjoyable film that holds up much better than I expected it to. A well-told story, strong performances, and great effects win the day.

[–] sslssg (27625) 7 years ago

I thought that this was certainly one of the better disaster films of the 90's.

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8290) 7 years ago

No doubt.

In the 90s there were quite a few disaster films ranging from the good (Twister, Dante's Peak) to the okay (Deep Impact, Armageddon) to the terrible (Volcano). Dante's Peak definitely holds up better than most of its contemporaries.

[–] beauq81 (1016) 7 years ago

Miniatures kick CGI's butt any time.

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8290) 7 years ago

I think both have their place. The problem today is that instead of only using CGI when it's appropriate, studios want to use it at every available opportunity.

Look at something like Independence Day and Independence Day: Resurgence. ID4 still looks fantastic on ALMOST all fronts, whereas Resurgence looks like a cut scene from a video game.

[–] beauq81 (1016) 7 years ago

Of course, but the main reason the non-digitized version of Star Wars still holds up is the quality of the miniatures.

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8290) 7 years ago

I agree.

I don't understand why studios have chosen to all but abandon miniatures. It doesn't make any sense to me. Isn't it obvious to them that they usually look better?

[–] beauq81 (1016) 7 years ago

Less storage space, less time to create, less people to create them...

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

Yup, watching it now and it still holds up.