MovieChat Forums > Poseidon (2006) Discussion > Poseidon. underrated disaster film

Poseidon. underrated disaster film

posted 8 years ago by michaelglenn82
9 replies | jump to latest

Like william friedkins "Cruising". Poseidon is a totally underrated film there is a lot the poseidon gets right..from the amazing 360 degree pan around the futuristic looking ocean liner. The sets are great- including the ballroom, upside down grande lobby with oil fires and inverted elevators,and engine room to name a few. Tha action moves so fast taking us thru the upside down ballroom thru the grande lobby thru a cramped ventilation duct into a flooding balast tank thru undereater corridors and burnt out hallways. The exteriors of the upside down ocean liner are great. If you look closely you can spot the rafts floating around the ship. The soundtrack was excellent and should have been nominated for an academy award. The sense of urgency really moves this film along. There are a few touching moments as when Jen shows her father engagement ring -when Christian was willing to risk his life so thet could escape the engine room. I saw this film on imaxb(loved it) anyone else agree this film is underrated?

[–] my-final-destination-446-746343 8 years ago

Totally agreed. A highly entertaining film filled with sespence and thrills with some emotional moments and (as you mentioned) a great soundtrack.

saw it 3 times in theaters.

Life does not operate nor function without meaning.

[–] TheSonomaDude_Returns 8 years ago

The sets, cinematography, direction, special effects, and overall look of the film is spectacular. The writing and characters, however, are not.

[–] eolloe 8 years ago

I kind of agree with this. In terms of direction, hats off to the Peterson and the team. There were many moments that had my heart racing with suspense--much more so than in the typical action film or even in the classic disaster films.

The disaster happened so fast, though, that we never got a chance to get any real sense of the characters beyond very superficial outlines. Big contrast to, say, the original Towering Inferno, which spent quite a bit more time with the characters' backgrounds. Also big contrast to James Cameron's Titanic, which was arguably as much a love story as a disaster flick.

[–] bradleynath 8 years ago

I agree it is highly underrated, just Richard Dreyfus character could have done with dying. It's highly entertaining very tense and exhilarating.

[–] Harlem_Nights 7 years ago

I would say this is one of the most underrated 'big movies' of the last 20 years. It's insanely well-shot, relentlessly gripping, intense as hell.

The marketing team didn't do its job properly. During the summer of 2006 few people knew about this movie. Weak marketing campaign for sure. Shame, because if it was properly marketed to the 'summer crowd' this could've been a rising box office success. It's the kind of movie mass audiences LOVE: action packed, top-notch visual effects, giant set pieces, fast pace. Maybe if they had a superstar like Tom Cruise in the lead, things would've been different, I don't know......

Shame that it bombed at the box office, but whatever. I still like the movie and I'm glad I own the two-disc Special Edition DVD.

===================
"You don't watch Michael Bay films. They happen to you."

[–] Drooch 7 years ago

Lack of big stars was a rookie error for a movie like this, and disaster movies aren't popular - they're basically epic horror films - disturbing and tragic, with virtually no feelgood factor.

Titanic kept the focus on a love story and how Jack ultimately freed Rose from her social prison. You won't find that here - any nourishing character development is on the cutting room floor after the studio told Peterson to slash it all.

What's left is a simple but powerful masterclass in tension, and I agree is very underrated.

[–] Harlem_Nights 7 years ago

and disaster movies aren't popular - they're basically epic horror films - disturbing and tragic, with virtually no feelgood factor.

I see your point. But I have to say, I'm not so sure about them not being popular. I mean, Roland Emmerich made his name with those types of movies: 2012, Dat After Tomorrow, etc. I would also add to that list Mike Bay's Armageddon, Petersen's Perfect Storm and Mimi Leder's Deep Imapct. Those were all quite successful and still very popular disaster films. Especially Armageddon.

If done properly - with the right amount of drama, action, some comedy, likeable characters and emotion - they could be huge crowd pleasers. That's how I see it.

any nourishing character development is on the cutting room floor after the studio told Peterson to slash it all.

Was it really the studio? I wrote about that in another thread here. I thought it was Petersen's decision to make it shorter and faster. I mean, he was also a producer of the movie and at the time he was considered a pretty big director who was able to make the kind of movie he wants to make, without having to suffer under much studio pressure.

But maybe you're right and I'm wrong. Maybe it was indeed the studio. In Hollywood no matter how big you are you still have to deal with someone who is bigger.

===================
"You don't watch Michael Bay films. They happen to you."

[–] naples-884-346409 7 years ago

I read in an interview with Petersen, that it was his decision to cut out about 20 min. of 'character interaction' because it slowed the movie down and it simply wasn't believable that these people would behave like that in such a situation.

Maybe it was the right decision: He never released a director's cut.

This is clearly his version.

[–] Harlem_Nights 7 years ago

^^^ Yes, thank you.

I probably read the same interview. I just couldn't remember exactly what he said and couldn't find the interview itself.

=====================================
"You don't watch Michael Bay films. They happen to you."