Reviews (1707)

Titanic Triumphs Over Sinking Feeling
James Cameron's 1997 Titanic is, of course, the biggest box office hit of all time, edging out such blockbuster films as E.T., Star Wars, and Jurassic Park for that title. This film, with its tale of star-crossed lovers Rose and Jack intertwined with the real-life tragedy of the Royal Mail Steamer Titanic, won 11 Academy Awards and the loyalty of its millions of fans.
In 1997, though, no one involved in its making (except maybe the determined Cameron himself) believed this movie would float to box office glory. It was so ambitious and so expensive that not one but two studios (Paramount and 20th Century Fox) financed it, splitting the distribution rights and spending over $200,000,000 to recreate the fatal maiden voyage of the 1912 world's largest ocean liner. Yet Cameron, who had previously directed the first two Terminator movies, The Abyss, and True Lies, was proven correct when world-wide audiences embraced this touching and technically brilliant movie.
Yes, this first movie to reap $1 billion in box office gross did capture the hearts of millions of teenage girls who repeated screenings to see Leonardo DiCaprio's Jack Dawson woo Kate Winslet's feisty socialite (and soon-to-be-wed) Rose. And while many detractors scoff at this admittedly clichéd poor-boy-meets-rich-girl love story, it is exactly through this pairing that we get a feel for what it was like to travel at sea in those Gilded Era days before the First World War destroyed the old Europe forever.
This film has much going for it. It has, in addition to actual location shots of the real Titanic wreck (the minisub sequence is NOT special effects), a winsome couple, a classic mustache-twirling villain (Billy Zane) with the usual henchman (a menacing David Warner), a great supporting cast which includes Danny Nuccio, Bernard Fox (who used to guest star in TV series such as Hogan's Heroes and Bewitched), Kathy Bates, Bill Paxton (who has appeared in most of Cameron's movies) and Gloria Stuart (who plays the older Rose Dawson). Titanic also has a great musical score and incredible visuals: the sinking of the great liner is certainly realistic - even if the CGI effects are a bit artificial-looking. This picture certainly was difficult to make .... Thankfully, in spite of the media hype and negative publicity, Titanic proved to be a good and entertaining film. I recommend it to anyone who likes love stories or epic disaster films. This movie mixes both genres very well.

The Maiden Voyage
O.K. I'll admit it, while I'm usually not much for the sappy romantic films, James Cameron's Oscar winning epic Titanic is a very good movie. And I did see it more than once on the big screen.

An undersea expedition, led by explorer Brock Lovett (Bill Paxton), is searching for a valuable diamond aboard the wreckage of the Titanic. The team, instead finds a drawing of seventeen-year-old Rose DeWitt Bukater, (Kate Winslet) who is on the way to her wedding to wealthy tycoon, Cal Hockley (Billy Zane). Now an old woman (Gloria Stuart) Rose tells her story of the fateful voyage to the team. While the ship races to meet its fate with an iceberg, Rose falls in love with Jack Dawson (Leonardo DiCaprio) a free-spirited artist and third-class passenger who ignites a passion inside her.

The film itself is a technical marvel. Cameron and his crew recreated the ship and her history with such skill and percision that it's easy to go along for the ride. I liked the way the fictional story of Jack and Rose was interlaced with actual historical figures and facts. For example "The Unsinkable" Molly Brown (Kathy Bates), Captain Edward J. Smith (Bernard Hill), and shipbuilders J. Bruce Ismay (Jonathan Hyde) & Thomas Andrews (Victor Garber), all have a place within the love story. Speaking of which, for me, it's Stuart that sells the romance. Acting as "narrator", she makes it possible to care about these characters more than you would have otherwise. The chemistry between DiCaprio and Winslet is very apparent and Zane is pitch perfect as Cal. The sinking sequence is really something and no disaster film since has matched its scope.

As it stands right now, the DVD doesn't have any bonus material on it, save for the theatrical trailer. Enough time has passed that another edition is warranted. That said, the bare bones DVD is recomended. For some additiional perspective on the history of the disaster, I also suggest, James Cameron's documentary Ghosts Of The Abyss.

movie hits an expensive iceberg
this is my opinion should have its own category in the video store.by this i mean it should be under terrible movies that cost to much along with the day after tomorow.I think that this movie really did hit an iceberg and it was only popular because of its stars these stars i must add were not that great they were ok but nothing special.And i would rather shoot myself than hear another person singing my heart will go on.I really do not like this over expensive movie bu5 i suppose that thats just my opinion.

LOVE IT!
THIS IS ONE OF MY FAVORETE MOVIES OF ALL TIME!THE ONLY GROSS PART IS WHEN ROSE TAKES OF ALL HER CLOTHES!?YUCK!BUT ANYWAY,IT`S A GREAT AND ROMANTIC MOVIE!

build a bridge
titanic...The Movie....Is just that.
I enjoy the story, from that perspective.
I appreciate the effort to create a level of interest in such an event. Drama can attempt to capture, only you can respond!
In reading short 4-5star reviews, and Loooong 2-3star reviews, I believe the connection has been made, as planned! ... Read more

Reviews (203)

A Powerful Film By Master Of Disaster Emmerich
Roland Emmerich directed the 1996 blockbuster hitIndependece Day which many still consider his best work. Later, he directed Godzilla, which according to some was not well-crafted. But 2004's "Day After Tomorrow" is quite powerful and moving and Roland Emmerich brings back the magic and dynamics of his old masterpiece Independence Day. This time the threat is not alien, it's our own earth. Global warming has caused the polar ice caps to melt and erratic weather to errupt. Hail begins to attack Tokyo, Japan and it snows in the usually hot New Delhi, India. Star Dennis Quaid gets a hold of the fatal news that the world is going to end as it experiences a new Ice Age. His son Sam (Jake Gallynhaal) is away in New York City on an Academic Decathelon which he joined to be with the girl he loves. Sela Ward plays Sam's mother and Dennis Quaid's wife, a doctor who is caring for a cancer-struck little boy. The President of the U.S. and the Vice President (who looks a bit like Dick Chaney)completely ignore the warnings and it's not long before Los Angeles is destroyed by a tornado. The Hollywood sign gets blown away. New York City is flooded. The special effects are top-notch and the characters and plot stunningly engaging. Only a small group who has listened to Sam, who in turn was going by his father's directions, remain in the New York City Public Library even after it freezes entirely. Dennis Quaid searches for his son in the extreme weather. This is a movie about survival, as is expected about humans when confronted with great disaster. It is about courage and human compassion. To contrast the epic disaster with its serious drama is touches of humor such as the bum and his dog who survive the disaster and the fac that the tables are turned and it is desperate survivor Americans who are crossing the border illegally into Mexico, which was not effected by the disaster. All the performances are credible and though one can easily criticize for its typical disaster movie routine, it does'nt matter. The success of this film proves that we love to see this kind of genre. Humankind surviving all sort of disasters and the will to live. Five stars. An incredibl experience at the movies and hopefully it will make a wonderful DVD loaded with interesting features.

Disaster movie
We don't need to get too intellectual on this movie, nor make any pretense of why you should see it - there is one reason and one reason only to view The Day After Tomorrow, the special effects. We all know this. So I really don't want to spend a page writing about the dialog that is worse than a soap opera, the science that made Lord of the Rings look reality based, or the believability factor that made Cliffhanger look like CNN. C'mon, you kind of expect that from a movie like this don't you?

All of that nonsense aside, there are several scenes which are truly spectacular, some of the best special effects that I've seen. True, a great deal of those scenes were shown in the previews, but there are still many staggering effects that are saved for the film.

Yes it's melodramatic. Yes it's preachy (Al Gore and Al Franken actually used this movie to promote their environment agenda). But if you would enjoy seeing LA destroyed by what would be the largest tornado in recorded history, or New York getting swallowed by a wall of water, it's worth the price of the movie ticket. And here's another idea - go with some friends and keep notes of the best (i.e. worst) lines, and then afterwards you can argue about which was the worst line of dialogue. Mine was probably, "Jake...tell her how you feel," with "I think I will go close my eyes for a while," coming in at a close second.

One final note to the dude at Amazon who filters these reviews: Here's a little inside tip - *stop posting reviews written by people who haven't even seen the film - and even ADMIT this in their reviews!* And certainly don't make them the spotlight review. Maybe you could have a special "trailer review forum" for these idiots and stop wasting our time.

Best new movie
The Day after Tomorrow is a outstanding movie. The special effects are awesome. I was not sure about the movie at first but after I rented it from blockbuster and viewed it, I definitely will buy it on dvd fullscreen. There have been a few movies made involving natural diasters but this one is the best. If you have not seen it yet, definitely watch it. The director did a fantastic job, the cast members put a outstanding job. It's one of those movies you'll want to watch again and again.

Great Thrill Ride Movie
When you watch this movie it will feel like you are in the movie. Trust me I have seen it 4 times in the theaters. You will have to watch it again and again and each time you will find something new. Enjoy the movie.

"Independence Day" minus the aliens, plus eco-propaganda.
If you've seen the 1997 sci-fi hit "Independence Day", then for all practical purposes you've seen this movie too. The only real difference is that instead of a bunch of ticked-off aliens, the threat of human extinction comes from a ticked-off "Mother Nature". In the former, however, it was all about "us versus them" and the triumph of the human will to survive. In "Day After Tomorrow", the message is: "We have met the enemy, and they are the Republicans."

Yeah, the movie is about the epic struggle to survive in the face of an overwhelming natural catastrophe, but it's pretty obvious that the producers were less interested in telling a story and more concerned about sending an election-year political message. From the early scenes of the movie, the "hero" character (a very forgettable paleoclimatologist played by Dennis Quaid) serves as the "voice crying in the wilderness" against the environmentally unsound excesses of corporate America. He warns of the doomsday scenario which does in fact unfold throughout the movie, but the heavily stereotyped conservative politicians (who are, no doubt, in the pockets of the polluters) shrug off his warnings. Maybe it's just me, but I thought the "vice president" character looked uncannily like Dick Cheney. Coincidence? I don't think so, but feel free to decide for yourself.

The main story is about a dysfunctional family whose members find themselves separated by the unpredictable (yet somehow predicted) chain of natural events. Of course, the events aren't really natural -- they're caused by foolish and greedy men who fail to pay attention to the needs of Mother Earth. Somehow, against incredible odds, the family manages to reunite, save the human race, and resolve their own domestic issues all at the same time. And of course, the tale is duly concluded with the humiliation of America and its (implied Republican) leaders, as well as some cheap jabs at American immigration policy.

In short, this is enviro-hysteria at its cheesy best, but election year political propaganda at its worst. There isn't even a mild attempt to veil the message -- it's right there in your face. If you're a Bush-hater, you'll cheer. If you're a little more honest with yourself, you'll see this film for the cheap trash that it is. The ONLY reason I gave it a second star was because it was chock full of stunning visual effects from beginning to end. Beyond that, your enjoyment of this movie will stand in direct relation to your political affiliation. That's no way to make a movie. ... Read more

Reviews (39)

Unhappy Landings !
I'm sure that many movie buffs will remember this fine, suspenseful thriller from the 60s. Jimmy Stewart is flying a cargo plane with an interesting assortment of male passengers across the Sahara desert, and he decides to battle through an oncoming sandstorm. The sandstorm wins ! The plane crash-lands in an ocean of sand--not without casualty--and our heroes are stranded, with limited supplies, under a brutal sun. The men waste several precious days on the assumption that help is on the way. They eventually realise that survival will depend on their own resilience and ingenuity.

Of course, we have one of the finest American actors in the lead, but Mr. Stewart is ably supported by a blue-chip international cast, including Richard Attenborough, Peter Finch, Hardy Kruger, Ernest Borgnine and Ian Bannen. As the sun gets hotter and with no rescue party in sight, this unfortunate group displays all of the human qualities that arise in desperate situations--resentment, fear, arrogance, assignment of blame, madness, cowardice and courage.

Richard Attenborough is the sensible voice of reason and compromise, which makes the scene where he finally "loses it", even more compelling. Peter Finch is the typical British "stiff upper lip " officer--stubborn and brave-- though I doubt that this role was much of a challenge to such a talented actor. Ernest Borgnine gets to chew up a little scenery as a guy who is pretty unhinged even before the plane crash--that blazing sun doesn't do him any good at all ! Well--it's 1965 and you need someone to play a brainy, cold, arrogant German--Hardy Kruger, come on down ! The other actors are excellent--Ian Bannen, in particular, is effective as a guy who would get under your skin even at the North Pole !

As another reviwer has noted, the film is perhaps longer than it needs to be, although it does give the characters plenty of time to interact with one another, and display the psychological aspects of the plot. After a while, you--the viewer--will also start to feel that oppressive heat and sand, and the tension of being trapped in this hell-on-earth. I can't really comment on the feasibility of the plan that Hardy Kruger's character comes up with to save everyone--I'm not an aeronautical engineer ! It certainly gives the film an exciting climax though.

I found the DVD picture to be beautiful--the sound typical for an almost 40-year old film.

"Phoenix" gave Jimmy Stewart another great role, later in his career, and with the supporting cast--and a liberal amount of suspense--this nice DVD could appeal to a variety of viewing tastes. Recommended.

GREAT CAST...great adventure
One of the great adventure movies of all time. I'm kinda surprised it hasn't been remade...it's a perfect little movie. Basically, we see the trevails of the survivors of a plane crash into the dunes of the Sahara. Their quest to find a way out is only part of the adventure...the human quarrels and intersecting interests are just as fascinating.

The movie has a slightly dated "manly" feel...there are no women, but it isn't a "tough guy" movie, a la, THE DIRTY DOZEN, let's say. These are military men, mostly, each with his own idea of how to escape. How all these efforts play out is at the heart of the movie.

Everyone is very good. Richard Attenborough is very good, and Peter Finch even better. What a underrated actor he was. He is certainly someone who should have had more work. Hardy Kruger is very fine...and his character holds the key to possible escape (and a VERY BIG humdinger of a surprise too!!). And James Stewart is at the top of his game. We so often remember him in romantic comedies like PHILADELPHIA STORY, and impersonators have done him no favors with their stammering, slightly dim-witted approach. When he was a mature actor (not an older, more feeble man)he could be very strong, and very unlikeable if need be. This is one of those roles. He is a convincing tough guy...not just a bland hero, but a hard-headed, sometimes wrong, leader. I put this right near the top of my Jimmy Stewart list.

If you haven't seen this movie, and you are an adult viewer who doesn't require lots and lots of noise and special-effects to have a good time...you MUST see this film. It is a nearly forgotten classic, in my estimation, and one that bears up very well with repeated viewings.

A gripping story of survival (and Jimmy stewart in the lead)
Any film with Jimmy Stewart in a leading role is sure to be a hit and Flight of the Phoenix doesn't disappoint.
A plane crash in the desert follows into a gripping two hour film of survival and hope. Led by Jimmy Stewart, the crew which include great acting talents like Richard Attenborough, Peter Finch and Ernest Borgnine courageously try to survive the desert heat, lack of water, and high tempers between crew members.
When all hope of a rescue is gone, an idea by a German model plane maker, to rebuild the crashed craft, initially not taken seriously by Jimmy Stewart, is eventually seen as the only option of survival and the movie climaxes into a gripping story of team effort and a race against time to get the plane flying. This is a highly recommended film that will have you on the edge of your seat right to the end. The film got 4stars because the UK DVD lacked even the simplest extra, like a trailer.

Flight got shortened
I had seen this movie probably half a dozen times over the years, and had always loved it. When it finally came out on DVD this year, I had to get it, but was VERY disappointed when I watched the DVD. As I was watching it, I kept saying to myself "this doesn't seem right"....and then I realized that there were quite a few shortened and even missing scenes from the original. Some of the missing scenes are quite significant. There is a scene where the group is moving the wing with the pulleys, and Capt. Towns stops them for no good reason, just to show that he is in charge. The whole scene where Towns and Dorfman have a silent standoff is missing, leading up to Dorfman asking the whole group "who is in authority here". I can go on and on with missing or shortened scenes. Very disappointing to me.I have read 35 other reviews and no one else has mentioned the shortened scenes. I am going to purchase the old VHS, to see the original version.

A forgotten classic?
I've seen this movie maybe half a dozen times and I'm pretty sure each time was a Sunday afternoon when I should have been doing homework. I think I made the right choice!

A decent cast for this movie, set in the unbearable heat of the central Sahara desert. Plane crashes and there is seemingly no way out. Someone has the idea of cannibalising the damaged plane to build another airplane to get them out of there as the only other way out is to walk and the surrounding natives are none too friendly. The design of the plane is undertaken by Hardy Kruger, who claims to have designed airplanes before. Unfortunately the only designs he has done are for children's model planes. Nevertheless, Attenborough, Stewart and the gang dig deep and finally make something flyable. But do they have enough cartridges to get the engines started? Watch and find out.

A gripping movie suitable for most ages. ... Read more

Reviews (202)

The DTS version rocks the home theater!
This is the first disc I bought since I got the home theater set up and this one you won't believe! Ok, I'll admit the story here is a little weak, but this isn't supposed to be a "Raging Bull" type of character study. This is a very entertaining, state of the arts effects, fun film. The sound from this DTS version is extraordinary. The separation of the 5.1 is incredible. The twister sequences will blow you away. You feel the sound and the fury! The only other disc that compares is the Saving Private Ryan one. For you home theater fanatics, this is your film.. you'll see it, hear it, and feel it. This disc also has some great extras like director commentary and a cool documentary of how it was made. All in all, it's not one of the finest 100 or 200 movies ever made, but you may find yourself watching it over and over for the experience of it! You'll love it! The movie itself is about a 3, but the DVD DTS is about a 5!

I like it anyway...
OK, I've read the other reviews...I think "Twister" is entertaining, with great CGI effects. The plot is intense, and most sub-plots are silly. Helen Hunt is beautiful, and quite a good actress. Bill Paxton is customarily hammy. Still I enjoy this film as entertainment. It's interesting to note that a lot of our current best actors today got a start in this film. Philip Seymour Hoffman, in particular, shows great flair, as well as Jeremy Davies, playing the wimp. Director Jan de Bont seems to use Alan Ruck a lot, and for good reason: He's talented. I was disappointed when Jamie Gertz won the Razz Award as "Worst Supporting Actress" in '96. I thought she gave a fine performance...her character was written to be reactionary, and I thought her every nuance was touching and sincere. As far as writing, well, some of the soap opera stuff could've been cut short. Jan de Bont, with all the films he could've chosen, showed scenes from Kubrick's "The Shining" (at the drive-in), and Cukor's "A Star is Born" (before Aunt Meg's house is blown away). If these are homages, he has good taste. And Lois Smith was solid as the aunt; I've liked her since she played Nicholson's sister in "Five Easy Pieces". A fine character actress. With this stuff in mind, I watch "Twister" often, and enjoy it each time. Why be so analytical? It was made as mass-marketed entertainment and, on that level, it succeeds. Doesn't seem to matter that it was also on quite a few "10 Best" lists in '96. I like it a lot; if you don't, maybe you should get out more...

the suck zone II
In the movie, the twister destroys a drive-in while The Shining is showing on the screen. One could only imagine that this amounted to a review of The Shining. I don't agree with this review. The Shining is a very good movie.

the suck zone
I rented this movie thinking it was going to be a remake of The Wizard of Oz. Boy what a letdown. Come to think of it I had the same experience watching Zardoz.
While watching this movie, it became clear to me that "actors" are people who have been randomly selected to get in front of a camera and pretend to do things. The characters say things like, "these satellite readings have increased in the last ten minutes" "Keep monitoring this pattern" "Ok" Then there is a tossing aside of sodas and a melee of excited, riot-like running toward vehicles. Then there is more dialog, like "We're not going to be able to intercept!" "No, we will. Hang on!" "Are you out of your mind?"
"We gotta get outta here!" "I know!" This last dialog is screamed over the sound of lots of wind. The movie appears to be about a weather phenomenon wherein lots of wind causes a general sucking effect: the script sucks, the acting sucks, the effects even pretty much suck.

The tornadoes alone save this movie.
I have had interest in the concept of severe weather for my entire life and had high expectations for the movie "Twister" and the result cuts boths ways for me.

The movie is of a married meteoroligist couple who are in the midst of getting a divorce, and have not gotten along for a very long time and they make a new invention that they believe will help them see what it looks like, inside a full blown tornado. They have ambition to deploy this new technology to disperse 'lighter than air' radio transmitters into a twister and record the signals to see what it may look like inside a tornado.

The special effects when the tornadoes strike are absolutely awesome not to mention the chase scenes especially towards the ending when the couple speed away from a tornado drive right through a house that was thrown onto the countryside road by a tornado (Impossible in real life) and the other of when a drive-in movie screen showing a snippet of the movie "The Shining" being ripped apart by a F5 tornado in the middle of the night.

"Twister" though suffers from several things and I can sometimes see where some of the detractors are coming from when regarding this movie. While the action scenes and special effects are amazing, the movie's plot lacks a good flow and the film drags on and on in several places and one scene which is just like a boring day at home would've been better left out altogether. Plus the characters are very unconvincing and lack personality.

Even for me who doesn't mind ocassional deviation from the laws of physics in movies, some of the tornadoe scenes are completely unrealistic. For example as I said earlier in a review, there is no way a twister could fling a whole house across a countryside road or even roll the whole intact house across the countryside because most houses are built on foundations and strong tornadoes in real life would shed houses into tiny pieces or otherwise reduce them to ruin. An F5 tornado would leave nothing of a house behind and can even rip the pavement off a road if the conditions warrant. \

This movie is nonetheless worth watching just for the tornadoes alone but this movie could have been a lot better than it turned out to be. While having it's share of flaws Roland Emmerich's "The Day After Tomorrow" is far superior on many levels and corrects a lot of the flaws of "Twister" in my opinion. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Dirty War takes a Traffick-like approach to its subject matter: the dirty bomb or RDD (Radiation Dispersal Device). In other words, the goal of this HBO/BBC co-production is realism, not soap opera. Just as Traffick (the miniseries, not the movie) took a global look at the drug war, Dirty War takes a comprehensive look at a terrorist attack. It begins with a London-based drill before moving on to the making of several dirty bombs by Islamic fundamentalists (portrayals counterbalanced by Muslim characters presented in a more positive light). The action continues to alternate between any number of groups, including politicians, the press, and the general public. When the terror cell detonates a bomb in the city center, the movie tracks the aftermath, including the interrogation of a suspect. Dirty War lacks Traffick’s scope, but it does boast some of the excitement of 24 and certainly provides ample food for thought. --Kathleen C. Fennessy ... Read more

Reviews (6)

A Fine Example of "What if...?"
Some might accuse this film of fear-mongering, but if that's the case then they've lost sight of what Dirty War truly has to teach us: that a dirty bomb could easily explode in any city around the world and even after September 11 we are still woefully unprepared for it.This is one of the finest films about terrorism to come along in a very long time.It presents, in very stark detail, the affect of a dity bomb attack on a major city like London.What makes this film so great is the way it was made:more like a documentary than a fictional movie.There are times when you actually feel like this is happening.Another great thing about Dirty War is the way it depicts politicans, police officers and Muslims.There are good and bad in all those groups.Often when you see films like this, especially American-made films, they depict the heroes fighting against the evil Muslim terrorists.While that is certainly shown in Dirty War, it also shows good Muslims standing up against the terrorists and lazy politicians who put their country in danger.That kind of well-rounded view is rarely seen in films of this nature.Will this movie scare the heck out of you? Yes, but then we need that now and again to remind ourselves we're still in danger.

Hold Your Breath.
Prepare yourself for a truly terrifying 90 minutes. The lack of Hollywood star-power and the documentary-like filming immediately put you on the edge of your seat. If you liked 'Traffik' or 'Edge of Darkness' this is up there as one of the classics of the genre. This is as serious as drama gets.


*SPOILER*: Having lived in London and being familiar with the streets and skyline, watching the scenes of the army trying to contain a near riot as the mushroom cloud of radioactive material spreads out over them was like being punched in the gut.

Filmmaking at its informative, political best.
This film has rightly been compared to the brilliant 1989 series "Traffik." Obviously it cannot reach "Traffik"'s scope in 90 minutes, compared to over five hours. However, there is still the same intelligent approach to a complex issue, without the hysterical melodrama that an American film about the same topic would undoubtedly bring to the issue, like the overwrought "The Day After" did for nuclear war in 1983.

Much of the film reminds me of the compelling 1998 drama "The Siege." However, that film featured big Hollywood stars, necessitating "big dramatic moments" for them to show how well they can emote. There is none of that here.

The performances are uniformly excellent, but there is no lead, and there are no big character moments. We just get a serious look at a fictional attack on The City, London's financial district, from the point of view of the security services, the firemen, the government and the terrorists themselves, who are not portrayed as monsters but as focused, intelligent men with horiffic goals.

The DVD features a great commentary track with the director and his co-writer. Instead of just saying how brilliant each actor is or describing what is happening on screen, as if for the blind, like so many of these tracks, the two of them offer a wealth of information about the making of the film, and their thorough research into the topic. They give a real sense of why they felt a fictional approach was best. It's nearly as good as the film and a worthwhile addition.

It's just a pity HBO didn't include the BBC News discussion special which aired immediately after the film in the UK, "Dirty War: Your Questions Answered." It was much like the special episode of Nightline that aired after "The Day After" in 1983, in which various officials and other commentators debated about the film.

Still, this disc is highly recommended.

What would happen if a dirty bomb went off in London?
Although you might have seen it on HBO first (or PBS second), "Dirty War" is a BBC production that dramatizes terrorists exploding a "dirty bomb" in the middle of London.Also known as a radiological weapon, a "dirty bomb" is simply a conventional explosive (e.g., dynamite) packaged with radioactive material.When the bomb goes off the radioactive material is scattered in a considerably larger radius than the conventional explosion thereby increasing the number of people who become contaminated and could well end up dying.With such things we are not necessarily talking truck bombs because it could be something contained in a brief case.Constructing a nuclear bomb is a complex procedure and stealing one could have its problems.In comparison, getting radioactive material and blowing it up seems a lot easier and therefore a lot more likely.In the Age of Terrorism, a "dirty bomb" is a lot of people's worst fear and "Dirty War" tells a story of how it might play out.

The story begins when Scotland Yard learns from a number of sources that terrorists and materials used in radioactive weapons have entered Great Britain.The race is on for undercover detectives and terrorism experts (Ewan Stewart, Martin Savage and Koel Purie) to find and capture the terrorists before they can detonate one of their devices.Meanwhile, firefighter Murray Corrigan (Alastair Galbraith) is tired of putting up with a civil defense plan that will only be too little, too late.For example, there are not enough contamination suits and nobody can stand to be in one long enough to do even a fraction of what they are supposed to do.Practice drills might be good for propaganda purposes for the public, but the people who have to do these jobs are only getting discouraged, fearful, and angry.Then one of the bombs goes off the city's emergency services plan starts to fall apart immediately.

The obvious lesson being pushed by "Dirty War" is that the British government is blind to the inadequateness of the preparation methods, an incompetence personified by the new Minister for London, Nicola Painswick (Helen Schlesinger).My own belief is that government officials probably know how bad the situation is but are just incapable of indicating as much in public.Anybody with a third grade education can see that the numbers do not add up when you look at the casualty projections and compare them to a tally of supplies and personnel that would have to deal with them.I think there is much more of a tradition in Britain of getting in the face of politicians, as we see all the time in the floor debates on the House of Commons, and that is essentially what "Dirty War" does.Unfortunately there is not an American counterpart that would do the save service here, which is troubling since I have to think we would be the more likely target for such a terrorist attack.

I still remember "Threads," the 1984 made for television film that is undervalued when reduced to being called the British version of "The Day After."With both of those films the question left to viewers was "What can we do to prevent this?"But while that question is still a good one to ask with "Dirty War," there is this other question of "What can we do to deal with this when it happens?"Given what happens in the movie, it seems that is the more important question because the answers are not as obvious and the gap between what is and what should be seems to be greater.It is hard to think otherwise after seeing this film or after catching a television news story about how many beds there are in the Washington, D.C. area for treating people who have been contaminated.

Actually I think the counter-intelligence plotline takes away from the potency of the dirty bomb detonation.The idea, of course, is that it could have been a lot worse except for the actions of those who have the job of protecting and defending, but I was actually more interested in what the people responding to the attack were going to do. Even if such efforts failed it is impossible not to see the heroism of their efforts.When the film jumped ahead to the final scenes I was thrown off because I was really getting into the story and what was happening with Corrigan at that point.

Ultimately "Dirty War" reminds me most of the second season of "24," where it dawned on me that they were not going to be able to get away with having the nuclear device deactivated at the last second (or seven seconds in the James Bond tradition a'la "Goldfinger"), and the damn thing was going to have to go off.That would be another reason for wanting to deal more with what happens and less with the cops and terrorists bit.We have seen enough stories like that and it is what happens in the hours after such an attack that has more resonance with us.That is why the final scenes of the fenced off sections of London hit home: we are thinking what it would be like to live in a world like that and we know that saying it could happen is nothing but blind and unwarranted optimism.

Dead On Target!
As a fire fighter who has been part of many weapons of mass destruction drills with a large metropolitan fire department, I can tell you that this film portrays a dirty bomb explosion and its aftermath exactly as it would actually happen. It's frightening!

It is a very well made film. The charaters are well played, interesting and believable. The plot moves along at a good pace and is accurate and riveting.

I can't exactly call it "entertaining" because of the subject matter, but it is indeed a film every American should see. This is far scarier than any horror flick I've ever seen..... This could actually happen as portrayed....

... Read more

Reviews (70)

The Hour After......
THE DAY AFTER was to be THE made-for-TV anti-BOMB fable. Released in 1983 as "secular" film of Revelation...BEYOND IMAGINING! hyped TV promos...it was greatly disappointing. This is partially because of asinine Talking Head discussions predicting national traumatism of youthful viewers. (Legions of counselors were dispatched like a priesthood...T-Group/Mass for the masses...to enable psychic healing.) The crassness of ratings-war ploy failed "to protect" a vunerable public from a movie that lacks wallop...nuclear or otherwise.

Director Meyer seems to be going through the motions. As do many fine actors (led by Jason Robard and John Lithgow)in the ensemble cast. Technically the film is adequate. The NUCLEAR STRIKE sequence effects are good. But the DAY AFTER War Day suffers from the same "listlessness" that characterizes the pre-Attack segment. Problem? The movie, in my estimate, lacks moral and "military" compass. The War Scenario positing Soviet invasion of Western Europe though the Fulda Gap...followed by text book NATO "tactical" nuclear response...is curiously unmoving. (The Escalation Narrative is ambiguously conveyed by cliched use of intermittent News announcements). This is the Time of Terror. Relegation of "reasons" for WW III to backgound noise neither sustains tension, nor provokes reflection this movie purportedly intends. The satirical characterization of THE PRESIDENT (probably intended as Reagan) is as transparent as it is indign for a film of such serious matter. (Recall: Peter Sellers' roles as President and RAF Wing Commander/SAC liaison in DR. Strangelove were played with deadly seriousness; without meretricious irony.)

Yes: Nuclear War is bad (wrong......INAPPROPRIATE!). But: THE DAY AFTER...unintentionally... conveys moral vacuity by lack of dramatic force or commitment (cf: THE MISSILES OF OCTOBER; or 13 DAYS). Though set in Kansas, this is a Hollywood "adventures of World War III" piece of slick, PC amorality that blames no one for anything, nor accounts for its own flacid nihilism. 20 years later this film is ...in my obviously critical assessment...a "Wonderland" curiosity. Technically and dramatically competent in execution THE DAY's impact is decisively low yield. Watch it and be "entertained". But it is not an illumating, frightening or stirring-to-rage STATEMENT. It's just a big TV movie whose "effect" will be forgotten...by most viewers...THE HOUR AFTER

The ultimate anti-war movie
Probably the most heartbreaking scene in "The Day After" is the one where four missiles bearing nuclear warheads zoom into a crystalline blue sky on a glorious spring morning from a hidden bunker in Kansas, while doctors and nurses at a nearby hospital watch in shock as the impact of what those missiles mean gradually hits them.

Watching this film, we pray that scene never comes true; if it does, we can kiss the world goodbye. "The Day After" is probably the most gut-wrenching anti-war film ever made. It's set sometime in the last quarter of the 20th century; the decades-long cold war has turned burning hot, and the news broadcasts are turning hourly worse. We are in Lawrence, Kansas, the center of the United States, following the routines of ordinary people as they try to go about their lives while the world around them is going to hell -- a doctor and his wife, a farmer and his family, including his young daughter two days away from her wedding, a graduate student, a cynical college professor, and a young soldier about to be separated from his wife and baby. The hostilities between Russia and the United States, meanwhile, have gone beyond the point of no return; and the decision is made: nuke 'em. We watch the missiles being launched; we feel all the horror of the impending counterstrike, and then three stark words from an officer at the missile base: "We have incoming." Incoming doesn't begin to describe it. Two nuclear warheads hit nearby Kansas City, and the world explodes. The resulting scenes of destruction are unbelievable; and yet, they are all too believable. If the wrong finger hits the nuclear button, this could someday happen.

The immediate scenes leading up to the nuclear strike are as compelling as the hit itself: shoppers at the supermarket grabbing up everything edible off the shelves; people bolting out of a college stadium in a panic dash for cover; a young bride-to-be coming downstairs to the family's fallout shelter carrying her wedding dress and her childhood teddy bear, the look of stark terror in her eyes competing with the realization that she will never wear that dress in any wedding; and her mother, grimly going about her business of making beds and tidying up the house, being carried kicking and screaming to shelter, refusing to accept the realization that her life as she knows it is finished. And after the devastation of the nuclear strike, as ashes continue to rain down from the sky for days, we realize that those who died in the attack may have been the fortunate ones; the survivors are left to face a horrible slow death by radiation sickness, starvation and anarchy.

Nicholas Meyer didn't direct this film for shock value, although the shocks keep coming and don't let up; in smaller but telling ways he makes us feel all the devastation of total war. At the film's end, one of the survivors asks, "Is anybody out there? Anyone at all?" His guess is as good as ours. There are no redeeming moments in this movie. From the minute the first button was pushed, everything is gone.

It's been said that "The Day After" is a dated film, but this is true only in the sense that the cold war, as we knew it from 1945 through the 1980s is over; as long as there are nuclear weapons around and anyone fanatic enough to even contemplate using them, it's a film with telling immediacy. When the film was first shown, some viewers asked, why didn't they say who started the war? Meyer shows us that the question is moot; no matter who started it, there will be precious few survivors left to point fingers. We emerge from watching "The Day After" emotionally devastated, drained, realizing that in a nuclear war, everyone, even the victors, will be the losers.

Still packs a multi-megaton emotional wallop
This made for television film first aired nearly 25 years ago while the Cold War was on - and it still packs the same sobering multi-megaton emotional wallop as it did back then. The story and scenes of human and animal tragedy and suffering will haunt for days afterwards. It's very good early 1980s period piece that fairly accurately depicts the rising Cold War tensions early in the Reagan administration.

In a reprise of the Soviet blockade of Berlin two decades earlier in 1961, the plot begins with a Soviet blockade of access points between East and West Germany, following by the massing of troops on the border between East and West. When the Soviet bloc troops move across the border, NATO responds by unleashing tactical nuclear weapons on the invading forces, destroying two German cities in the process. The Soviet responds by targeting a NATO regional headquarters in England. It rapidly escalates from there to a major exchange of MIRVed ICBMs, including electromagnetic pulse (EMP) weapons that detonate high in the atmosphere and knock out all electrical and electronic equipment.

All of the European developments are depicted via fast paced news reports and bulletins coming into a worried American heartland on what would have been an otherwise typical early September weekend as people went about and planned their lives. One of the more chilling scenes vividly depicts the contrast between normal life and unfolding nuclear exchange. Two children innocently watch television, unaware of the gravity of the situation, as their amorous parents slip upstairs for a quick interlude before breakfast. Suddenly a TV bulletin interrupts to report the use of tactical nuclear weapons in Europe. The scene then shifts to a nearby Strategic Air Command base as klaxons wail and B-52 crews scramble to get their planes into the air. The film is set in Kansas City and Lawrence, Kansas. Jason Robards puts in a fine performance as a doctor and the central character.

Ensemble cast shines.
The Day After (Nicholas Meyer, 1983)

Recently, motivated by a strong desire to see Threads again, I've been going through a kind of craving for nuclear-holocaust-flick nostalgia. Seeing The Day After again was my first foray back into the world of atom-bombs-blowing-stuff-up. I hadn't seen it since its original television broadcast more than twenty years previous, and was surprised at how well it holds up.

The excellent ensemble cast is headed by the late Jason Robards (Magnolia, Enemy of the State, etc.) and John Lithgow (Shrek, Third Rock from the Sun, etc.) as a doctor and scientist, respectively, at two college campuses in the midwest in the aftermath of a nuclear holocaust. (Said nuclear holocaust happens, as one might expect, early in the film, but not as early as you might figure; unlike modern-day films, stuff made a quarter of a century ago actually took time to build its characters before getting into the plot.) Also along for the ride are Robards' right-hand nurse, played by JoBeth Williams (Poltergeist); a family whose house was close to one of the bombed missile silos, the Dahlbergs; Lithgow's right-hand man Aldo (Stephen Furst of Animal House fame), oh, we'll just run down some names: John Cullum, Bibi Besch, Steve Guttenberg, Lori Lethin, Amy Madigan, Jeff East, Dennis Lipscomb, Arliss Howard... you get the idea. This may have been a made-for-TV movie, but didn't shirk on the starpower. Also, look for uncredited appearances by Wayne Knight (Seinfeld's Newman), David Kaufman (Presidio Med, Pearl Harbor), John Lafayette (various movies based on Tom Clancy novels), and the late director Herk Harvey (in his first screen role since Carnival of Souls twenty years before, and the last before his death in 1996). Meyer and co. didn't scrimp on the casting budget.

It shows. The whole thing is exceptionally well-acted, though sometimes it's a bit tough to believe these folks are really as devastated as one would think survivors of an all-out nuclear war should be (and that a house situated right next to a bombed missile silo would still be standing just because Steve Guttenberg happens to be hiding there provides a moment of unintentional humor). Robards is probably the best at communicating this, especially in the movie's final scene. The makeup job on Robards was also not scrimped on; by the end of the film, he could be something out of a Romero film. For that matter, the makeup crew did an all-around fantastic job; by the end of the flick, Steve Guttenberg was unrecognizable. (I have heard it opined-- well, okay, inside my own head-- that perhaps he should have kept the makeup on when doing Three Man and a Baby.)

The point was brought up in a recent discussion that perhaps those born after the early eighties will probably be too young to really grasp the terrors of the Cold War to those of us old enough to remember "Duck... and Cover!" So perhaps not the best flick to get your kids to thinking about how bad off you were in the old days (for that, use Threads), but it's definitely worthwhile on the nostalgia-trip angle, or if you just like watching Jason Robards act with an equally fantastic cast around him. ****

Life As We Know It Ends...THE DAY AFTER
The made-for-TV film THE DAY AFTER was enormously controversial when it was originally broadcast on ABC in November of 1983, primarily because it was promoted as being the first film to accurately and realistically depict a nuclear holocaust and its aftermath. Political right-wingers didn't like it because they believed such a film would deter support of a strong U.S. military and a large nuclear arsenal. Those on the left were concerned that it might promote the idea that a full-scale nuclear war could be survivable, thereby INCREASING support of the right-wing's push for a strong U.S. military and a large nuclear arsenal. And both sides were worried that the film would be too graphic for the prime-time position in which it was slotted to air. In fact, much of the controversy was vehement enough to worry the sponsors, so consequently not a single minute of commercial time was sold for the part of the film following the depiction of the nuclear war--the last half of the show was aired commercial free!

Socio-political controversy aside, THE DAY AFTER is a very powerful and compelling drama. In the tradition of great SF and horror films, it takes a real-life potentiality--in this case, nuclear holocaust--and portrays it as graphically and as realistically as possible, thereby allowing viewers to vicariously experience the nightmare. For this film, said nightmare takes place in the small towns surrounding Kansas City, one of the ground-zero targets for the enemy's hydrogen bombs. But the real horror of it all is not the bombing itself. The real horror is being a survivor and having to suffer through the aftermath with things like radioactive fallout, nuclear winter, contaminated food and water, political anarchy, and the like.

Portraying survivors from various walks of life, the highly talented cast--which includes big names like Jason Robards, JoBeth Williams, Steve Guttenberg, and John Lithgow, to name a few--does a fantastic job running the gamut of human emotion as their characters come to grips with the traumatic and devastating situation. The excellent script for THE DAY AFTER was written by Edward Hume, a respected TV writer best known for his work on series greats like THE FUGITIVE, CANNON (which he also developed), and THE STREETS OF SAN FRANCISCO. And the film was directed by the venerable Nicholas Meyer, who has directed other SF greats such as 1979's TIME AFTER TIME, 1982's STAR TREK II: THE WRATH OF KHAN, and 1991's STAR TREK VI: THE UNDISCOVERED COUNTRY, and who has written the screenplays for other greats like 1976's THE SEVEN-PER-CENT SOLUTION (having previously written the novel), 1986's STAR TREK IV: THE VOYAGE HOME, and 1987's highly acclaimed FATAL ATTRACTION. With such great talent behind it, it's not hard to defend the claim that THE DAY AFTER is ONE of the best films, if not THE best film, made specifically for TV.

The DVD from MGM is a no-frills disc, meaning that it is without bonus material, but it does offer a nearly pristine digital transfer of THE DAY AFTER in its original aspect ratio of 1.33:1. And the asking price is very reasonable (especially with amazon.com's discount), so lovers of great films and good drama have no excuse for not having this gem in their collections. ... Read more

Reviews (203)

A Powerful Film By Master Of Disaster Emmerich
Roland Emmerich directed the 1996 blockbuster hitIndependece Day which many still consider his best work. Later, he directed Godzilla, which according to some was not well-crafted. But 2004's "Day After Tomorrow" is quite powerful and moving and Roland Emmerich brings back the magic and dynamics of his old masterpiece Independence Day. This time the threat is not alien, it's our own earth. Global warming has caused the polar ice caps to melt and erratic weather to errupt. Hail begins to attack Tokyo, Japan and it snows in the usually hot New Delhi, India. Star Dennis Quaid gets a hold of the fatal news that the world is going to end as it experiences a new Ice Age. His son Sam (Jake Gallynhaal) is away in New York City on an Academic Decathelon which he joined to be with the girl he loves. Sela Ward plays Sam's mother and Dennis Quaid's wife, a doctor who is caring for a cancer-struck little boy. The President of the U.S. and the Vice President (who looks a bit like Dick Chaney)completely ignore the warnings and it's not long before Los Angeles is destroyed by a tornado. The Hollywood sign gets blown away. New York City is flooded. The special effects are top-notch and the characters and plot stunningly engaging. Only a small group who has listened to Sam, who in turn was going by his father's directions, remain in the New York City Public Library even after it freezes entirely. Dennis Quaid searches for his son in the extreme weather. This is a movie about survival, as is expected about humans when confronted with great disaster. It is about courage and human compassion. To contrast the epic disaster with its serious drama is touches of humor such as the bum and his dog who survive the disaster and the fac that the tables are turned and it is desperate survivor Americans who are crossing the border illegally into Mexico, which was not effected by the disaster. All the performances are credible and though one can easily criticize for its typical disaster movie routine, it does'nt matter. The success of this film proves that we love to see this kind of genre. Humankind surviving all sort of disasters and the will to live. Five stars. An incredibl experience at the movies and hopefully it will make a wonderful DVD loaded with interesting features.

Disaster movie
We don't need to get too intellectual on this movie, nor make any pretense of why you should see it - there is one reason and one reason only to view The Day After Tomorrow, the special effects. We all know this. So I really don't want to spend a page writing about the dialog that is worse than a soap opera, the science that made Lord of the Rings look reality based, or the believability factor that made Cliffhanger look like CNN. C'mon, you kind of expect that from a movie like this don't you?

All of that nonsense aside, there are several scenes which are truly spectacular, some of the best special effects that I've seen. True, a great deal of those scenes were shown in the previews, but there are still many staggering effects that are saved for the film.

Yes it's melodramatic. Yes it's preachy (Al Gore and Al Franken actually used this movie to promote their environment agenda). But if you would enjoy seeing LA destroyed by what would be the largest tornado in recorded history, or New York getting swallowed by a wall of water, it's worth the price of the movie ticket. And here's another idea - go with some friends and keep notes of the best (i.e. worst) lines, and then afterwards you can argue about which was the worst line of dialogue. Mine was probably, "Jake...tell her how you feel," with "I think I will go close my eyes for a while," coming in at a close second.

One final note to the dude at Amazon who filters these reviews: Here's a little inside tip - *stop posting reviews written by people who haven't even seen the film - and even ADMIT this in their reviews!* And certainly don't make them the spotlight review. Maybe you could have a special "trailer review forum" for these idiots and stop wasting our time.

Best new movie
The Day after Tomorrow is a outstanding movie. The special effects are awesome. I was not sure about the movie at first but after I rented it from blockbuster and viewed it, I definitely will buy it on dvd fullscreen. There have been a few movies made involving natural diasters but this one is the best. If you have not seen it yet, definitely watch it. The director did a fantastic job, the cast members put a outstanding job. It's one of those movies you'll want to watch again and again.

Great Thrill Ride Movie
When you watch this movie it will feel like you are in the movie. Trust me I have seen it 4 times in the theaters. You will have to watch it again and again and each time you will find something new. Enjoy the movie.

"Independence Day" minus the aliens, plus eco-propaganda.
If you've seen the 1997 sci-fi hit "Independence Day", then for all practical purposes you've seen this movie too. The only real difference is that instead of a bunch of ticked-off aliens, the threat of human extinction comes from a ticked-off "Mother Nature". In the former, however, it was all about "us versus them" and the triumph of the human will to survive. In "Day After Tomorrow", the message is: "We have met the enemy, and they are the Republicans."

Yeah, the movie is about the epic struggle to survive in the face of an overwhelming natural catastrophe, but it's pretty obvious that the producers were less interested in telling a story and more concerned about sending an election-year political message. From the early scenes of the movie, the "hero" character (a very forgettable paleoclimatologist played by Dennis Quaid) serves as the "voice crying in the wilderness" against the environmentally unsound excesses of corporate America. He warns of the doomsday scenario which does in fact unfold throughout the movie, but the heavily stereotyped conservative politicians (who are, no doubt, in the pockets of the polluters) shrug off his warnings. Maybe it's just me, but I thought the "vice president" character looked uncannily like Dick Cheney. Coincidence? I don't think so, but feel free to decide for yourself.

The main story is about a dysfunctional family whose members find themselves separated by the unpredictable (yet somehow predicted) chain of natural events. Of course, the events aren't really natural -- they're caused by foolish and greedy men who fail to pay attention to the needs of Mother Earth. Somehow, against incredible odds, the family manages to reunite, save the human race, and resolve their own domestic issues all at the same time. And of course, the tale is duly concluded with the humiliation of America and its (implied Republican) leaders, as well as some cheap jabs at American immigration policy.

In short, this is enviro-hysteria at its cheesy best, but election year political propaganda at its worst. There isn't even a mild attempt to veil the message -- it's right there in your face. If you're a Bush-hater, you'll cheer. If you're a little more honest with yourself, you'll see this film for the cheap trash that it is. The ONLY reason I gave it a second star was because it was chock full of stunning visual effects from beginning to end. Beyond that, your enjoyment of this movie will stand in direct relation to your political affiliation. That's no way to make a movie. ... Read more

Reviews (40)

Great Movie!!
Outbreak is a fantastic action/drama with a great, all-star cast.

Outbreak features the acting talent of Dustin Hoffman, Rene Russo, Morgan Freeman, Cuba Gooding Jr., Kevin Spacey and Donald Sutherland. Dustin Hoffman puts on one excellent performance throughout this film, and the supporting cast is nothing short of excellent. This thriller will keep you on the edge of the seat until the very end of the movie.

The DVD while lacking many special features, is still well worth owing. The crisp picture, theater sound, and low price makes this one well worth getting.

If you are a fan of any of the above actors, pick this one up!!!
You will not be disappointed.

Highly Recommended!!

A movie worth watching!
Outbreak, brings to the screen the likely scenario that a deadly virus (similar to the Ebola virus) spreads rapidly endangering mankind, and threatening life on Earth. The likelihood of such a phenomenon is presently great indeed (as it always has been i.e. the Black Death etc), and hopefully the film will get many people thinking.
The movie is very realistic in its approach, and conveys a much needed message of the dangers facing people, especially when dealing with viruses (how easily many of them spread e.g. an airborne virus in an airplane or a movie theater). Moreover, one realizes how the government would have to act in such an emergency and the type of use of the military one should expect in order to protect the majority of people that have yet to be infected and contain the spread of the disease.
Dustin Hoffman, Morgan Freeman, Kevin Spacey, and Rene Russo, whose performances are simply amazing, make this movie one of the best of its kind.
The actors' great talent and chemistry clearly shows, thus providing a film that can be watched over and over again.
Resident Evil (Milla Jovovich) is another very good movie dealing with virus-related incidents/threats, though it falls much more under "Horror" than Outbreak, which is a more "Thriller/Action" type of film. Another movie that comes to mind is Twelve Monkeys (Bruce Willis, Brad Pitt, Medeleine Stowe), which is a futuristic/science fiction approach to similar virus-related threats to humanity.
In short, Outbreak is a very good movie, it's an eye opener, and very much worth watching!

Stop that Virus!
Viruses scare the bejesus out of people who spend any significant amount of time thinking about them. Stephen King has written a couple of horror stories where humanity is essentially destroyed by the flu. "Outbreak" taps into that primal fear and elevates a killer virus to a status cinematically usually only reserved for tornadoes, volcanoes, great white sharks or Godzillas. In Outbreak a bad virus is discovered in a deep dark place, carried by a cute monkey, and attempted to be stuffed into a military pandora's box.

Wolfgang Peterson knows how to make a suspenseful movie as he proved with "Das Boot" and "Air Force One" and here he gets to work with a cast that would be difficult to reproduce today with Dustin Hoffman, Morgan Freeman, Kevin Spacey, Cuba Gooding, Jr, Rene Russo and Donald Sutherland.

There are a few cliches in the film. Sutherland plays a stereotypical military general who sneers as he orders the death of thousands of innocents in the name of "National Security" - but he does it with skill and enthusiasm. Morgan Freeman dispatches a bomber crew with a speech that could have been replaced word for word with the same speech Slim Pickens delivers to his bomber crew in "Dr. Strangelove" ("I know you have reservations about what you've been ordered to do..... you wouldn't be human if you didn't....")

There are several light-hearted moments, such as when Hoffman's Colonel is out in a helicopter flown by Gooding's Major and they all but acknowledge that they are the characters-in-a-disaster-movie-tasked-with-saving-humanity. "I don't need you to get negative on me now", Dustin says after Cuba summarizes the hopelessness of their situation. "Affirmative, Sir!"

Awesome
I loved this movie. That is all that can be said. That is all that is needed to be said.

Casualties of War.
"In war, truth is the first casualty." - Aeschylus.

In 1989, a secret U.S. Army SWAT team was called in after an Ebola outbreak among monkeys in a Reston, VA lab; a mere ten miles from Washington, D.C. They eventually determined that this particular strain wasn't contagious for humans - others, however, are; capable of producing a 90% mortality rate within a matter of days. The incident produced Richard Preston's bestselling book "The Hot Zone," on which this movie is loosely based (another project involving Robert Redford and Jodie Foster eventually folded).

Like the Reston Ebola strain, the (fictitious) Motaba virus at the center of Wolfgang Petersen's "Outbreak" is brought to the U.S. by an infected monkey, caught near a village in the Zairean (now: Congolese) Motaba Valley. Unlike the Reston Ebola it is contagious for humans, with a 100% mortality rate within a single day. And unlike any known Ebola strain it is airborne, i.e. not only transmitted by direct human-to-human contact.

Officially nobody has any prior knowledge of the virus at the time of its apparent first hit. In fact, once they've overcome their shock about its gruesome effects, USAMRIID Colonel Sam Daniels (Dustin Hoffman) and his assistants, Majors Schuler and Salt (Kevin Spacey and Cuba Gooding Jr.) - in Zaire to provide medical assistance - are downright ecstatic to have discovered a new virus; a once-in-a-lifetime event for most scientists, if it happens at all. What they don't know is that their own superiors, Brig.Gen. Billy Ford (Morgan Freeman) and Maj.Gen. Donald McClintock (Donald Sutherland) have encountered this virus before, albeit non-airborne, in a mercenary camp in 1967 ... and on McClintock's orders, firebombed the camp to secretly develop a biological weapon. Now McClintock insists that their knowledge remain secret even after a first Motaba outbreak in Boston, brought about by the Californian animal lab worker (Patrick Dempsey) who has unwittingly smuggled the carrier monkey out to sell it to a pet store; and after another outbreak in Cedar Creek, CA, transmitted through the pet store owner and a lab technician infected by his blood. McClintock's solution is the same as 30 years earlier: Firebomb the contaminated area and everybody in it, keep your weapon and be done with it.

But unlike 1967, complete secrecy is no longer an option, as not only Colonel Daniels's team but also his ex-wife Robby (Rene Russo), who is now with the CDC and has helped contain the Boston outbreak, is aware of the virus's presence. Thus, McClintock opts for the reverse strategy, obtains a presidential OK for his "Operation Clean Sweep" - after a dramatic presentation to the assembled cabinet resulting in the conclusion that the "bug" is capable of spreading to the entire country, including D.C., within a mere 48 hours; and the admonishment "Be compassionate, but be compassionate globally" - and orders Ford to get Daniels out of the way and keep him "in line."

Daniels, however, who has long earned a reputation for following orders rather selectively, rushes to Cedar Creek, to work alongside Robby and her team trying to contain the virus. In short order Ford and McClintock show up as well, and soon the town is crawling with soldiers, who seal it off to the outside world and implement a curfew, to prevent a further spread of the virus but also in preparation of "Operation Clean Sweep." A frantic race ensues; pitting Daniels and Salt, who set out to search for the host animal to develop an antiserum, against their own comrades.

The premise of "Outbreak" is entirely believable; as evidenced by the 1989 Virginia incident - after all, it was mere luck that the Reston strain didn't prove contagious for humans - and by the fact that, as is public knowledge, various kinds of viral strains do exist in the U.S. and other countries; at the very least for experimental purposes. While their military use is banned under the 1925 Geneva Protocol and the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention, there still is no functioning control mechanism in place (which was/is also a factor in the Iraq WMD debate). And although the U.S. is a signatory to both aforementioned instruments and has previously stated its non-use policy, the Bush government abandoned international discussions on the issue in 2001.

So, "Outbreak" addresses enormously important concerns; and it does so compellingly and with a stellar cast. Dustin Hoffman imbues his Colonel Daniels with tremendous compassion but also a great sense of humor; and his snappy exchanges with Russo's Robby Keough and his team are a delight, especially those with Kevin Spacey, who in 1995 burst into movie audiences' collective awareness with this film, the Oscar-winning "Usual Suspects" and "Se7en." Morgan Freeman brings all his sensitivity to the movie's most intricate role, General Ford, who is caught between being party to McClintock's scheme and realizing its profound immorality. Then-27-year-old Cuba Gooding Jr. may have been a bit young to play a Major, but he certainly stands his ground; and few actors can portray a villain as menacingly as Donald Sutherland, although the script gives him little opportunity for true complexity.

Unfortunately, "Outbreak" gets the full "Hollywood thriller" treatment, complete with dramatic score, two-dimensional villain, cliched ending and reliance on a few coincidences too many. This (and some plot inconsistencies) somewhat reduces its effect, preventing a good movie from becoming a truly great one - although its 'copter chases are pure eye candy; and it certainly helps that they were shot by Michael Ballhaus, arguably the business's best cameraman. But for the importance of its subject alone, and its outstanding cast, "Outbreak" is worth all the notice it has received.

"[The Cedar Creek population] are casualties of war. ... I'd give them all a medal if I could. But they *are* casualties of war." - "Outbreak," Maj.Gen. Donald McClintock.

"[N]o massacre has occurred ... no further action is warranted." - From the initial Department of the Army investigation report on the March 16, 1968 My Lai incident (Vietnam). ... Read more

Amazon.com

In 1972 a chartered plane carrying a Uruguayan rugby squad and various family members crashed in the Andes. If that sounds dry and matter-of-fact, you haven't seen director Frank Marshall's harrowing re-creation Alive, an adrenaline-pounding, heart-in-your-mouth spectacle that kicks off this famous story of survival. The real-life against-all-odds odyssey made worldwide headlines when it became known that the survivors ate their own dead to survive. What could have easily become sensationalistic exploitation is treated with compassion and dignity by Marshall as he explores their moral and spiritual struggles as well as their physical ordeal. As team captain and base-camp cheerleader Vincent Spano slowly collapses under the stress and Ethan Hawke rouses from mourning his dead family to taking charge of saving himself, it also becomes a portrait in leadership, hope, and emotional courage. --Sean Axmaker ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

Disaster movies used to work because there was little certaintyas to who would survive. Not so in this film, really an amalgam of twooriginal stories, about a group of well-to-do celebrants at the top floor of askyscraper. Cheapo electrical wiring and bad construction managementcause an enormousblaze at the lower floors, steadily rising to consume the revelers. Newman'san architect, McQueen a firefighter, and Fred Astaire a kind oldgentleman, for which he was Oscar-nominated. O.J. Simpson plays asecurity guard who rescues acat. Now that's a disaster. --Keith Simanton ... Read more

Reviews (68)

No doubt, BEST DISASTER MOVIE EVER!
Firstly, this movie deserves praise for Faye Dunaway's dress that she wears throughout the entire film. But movies shouldn't all be beautiful women in provocative clothing, this movie has it all. Produced by Irwin Allen, who produced "The Poseidon Adventure" before this movie. Allen bested himself in this flick.

The story is relatively simple; the world's highest skyscraper catches on fire. There is a large party on the top floor, and we watch as people fight for survival as the fire creeps towards them. Only Steve McQueen playing a streetwise firehouse captain, and Paul Newman acting as the tower's architect can stop the fire before everyone inside dies. As I was re-watching this film I couldn't help but think of the similar situation faced by many in the 9-11 attack. Their result was not as positive.

throughout the film there are too many people, too many relationships, and too much death to keep track of everything. However, the important people to watch are Fred Astaire, Faye Dunaway, Paul Newman, and Steve McQueen. This is the only real weakness to the film.

Also, for a film that is approaching 30 years old the special effects are still good, and that will make this a good film for a long time. The images of the tower burning, the fires, and the stunts are superb.

At times, the acting in this film can seem a bit stiff. That's early on, however after the first 20 minutes of the film everyone seems to find their place in the film. One of the notable performances is done by O.J. Simpson, who plays as a senior security guard. The interplay between McQueen and Newman is also well done, especially since there was a good chance of major dorkdom in the architect of the "perfect" building versus the blue-collar fireman plotline.

Some may complain that the movie is slow, and maybe by modern "immediate gratification" standards it is, I say that the tension builds, you care about the characters, many of which, and are left at the end of your seat. And I was watching the thing on a computer; imagine what a decent entertainment system will do.

This definitely is an "essential" film.

An epic disaster film! Not to be missed!
I remember first seeing this movie at a very early age. As a child, I loved this movie for it's spectacularity. As an adult (sort of), I love it for the acting performances of it's marvelous cast.

This is a disaster movie. During the seventies this type of movie was extremely popular, with timeless hits such as "The Poseidon Adventure" and "Airport".
Disaster films seemed to have lost their appeal during the eighties but recent hits like "Armageddon" and "Titanic" show that this type of movie is still very popular and here to stay.

In San Francisco, the tallest building in the world, "The Glass Tower" has finally been completed. An awesome superstructure and the new icon of the city.
On the night of the dedication ceremony on the 130th floor a seemingly harmless fire erupts fifty floors below the partying crowd. When the situation grows out of control their pleasant happening turns into a nightmare struggle for survival.

With some of the best actors of that time (Paul Newman, Steve McQueen, William Holden, Faye Dunaway and Fred Astaire to name a few), true drama and an absolutely convincing inferno this movie deservedly took the world by storm!

Got a Match?
Somebody once asked James Garner's character on "The Rockford Files" TV show if there was nothing he wouldn't do for money. He wouldn't kill for it and he wouldn't marry for it, he said, other than that he was pretty much open to suggestions. Paul Newman and Steve McQueen must have been open to suggestions when they ok'd this turkey, and I wish they had said no. The world's tallest skyscraper is burning due to shoddy construction work, and architect Newman and fireman McQueen would like to put it out before the entire cast is incinerated. On top of the building are a million gallons of water in reserve Newman forgot about in all the excitement. Why this 2500 ton weight hasn't gone crashing into the basement we are not informed but the daring duo manage to blow up the tanks and there's your happy ending. O J Simpson rescues a cat and Fred Astaire, after a lifetime of giving the American movies some of their greatest moments, was awarded an Oscar for enduring this production.

A better film than is often assumed
More than 10 years ago, Roger Ebert and the late Gene Siskel did a special edition of their program that examined "The Early '70s: The Last Golden Age of American Film." It was a great show, with a look at each nominee for the Best Picture Oscar for the years 1970-1974, and then which film Siskel and Ebert would have chosen as the winner.

When the duo got to 1974, and a split screen revealed the five Best Picture nominees for that year, Ebert expressed some amusement at "The Towering Inferno's" nomination, when compared with the others ("Chinatown," "The Conversation," "Lenny" and the winner, "The Godfather Part II."). But while it was not the best film in a truly great year for the medium, "Inferno" did deserve to be considered one of the best.

This is polished, professional filmmaking. It was not intended to be a scathing expose of construction politics, or an actor's showcase. "The Towering Inferno" never tries to be anything more than an action spectacular, pure and simple, and on that level, it has few equals.

The film has been criticized for being almost gleeful in its depiction of various deaths, but I'm not sure what those critics would have had directors John Guillermin and Irwin Allen do. The story is about a giant skyscraper on fire, which means that the primary dangers involved are burning, falling, smoke inhalation and being buried under tons of debris. All of these are horrific, and "Inferno" conveys that horror.

The movie takes on a different hue than the Irwin Allen film it's inevitably compared to, "The Poseidon Adventure," the minute Steve McQueen arrives at the scene as the San Francisco Fire Dept.'s battalion chief, O'Hallorhan. Unlike "Poseidon," in which a small band of ship passengers follows a layman toward safety, the "Inferno" disaster is going to be taken on by a competent, experienced professional, leading other professionals. McQueen conveys an authority that anchors the film.

None of the acting struck me as truly bad, even in action-oriented scenes that called for broad playing. Aside from McQueen, my favorite performances were those of Susan Flannery and Jennifer Jones. Flannery makes the most of a small but memorable part as Robert Wagner's love interest, while Jones, looking very good for a woman of 55, plays the kind, heroic love of Fred Astaire's con man character.

Fred Koenekamp's cinematography received a well-deserved Academy Award, as did L.B. Abbott's special effects. The song "We May Never Love Like This Again," sung by Maureen McGovern, also won an Oscar, though I found it to be forgettable. "The Poseidon Adventure's" similar "The Morning After" is much better (which will certainly be faint praise to some).

John Williams' Oscar-nominated score would have been a perfectly reasonable choice as the winner, though Jerry Goldsmith's evocation of film noir classics for "Chinatown" was probably the year's best. Carmine Coppola and Nino Rota wound up winning for "The Godfather Part II."

Williams is in majestic form here. The main title is appropriately busy and exciting, the love themes for the Paul Newman/Faye Dunaway and Astaire/Jones duos are poignant, and the finale is one of the masterpieces of the art. This is a justifiably a favorite score among film music buffs, and Williams' greatest triumph, in my opinion, until "Star Wars" in 1977.

"The Towering Inferno" is a must for action film fans, and the finest representation of the "disaster film" genre.

The Glass Tower - tallest building in the world... on fire.
After a long vacation, away from the hectic city life, Doug Roberts (Paul Newman) returns to San Francisco in order to participate in the opening of his newest architectural wonder, The Glass Tower - tallest building in the world. The seemingly perfect skyscraper has one big flaw as James Duncan's (William Holden) son-in-law has received kick backs to ignore Doug's requests on the top-of-the-line electrical circuitry. The installed electrical circuits cannot handle the electrical use of the Glass Tower and on the opening night a fire begins on the 81st floor, which Fire Chief Michael O'Hallorhan's (Steve McQueen) men try to get under control while the opening party is taking place on the 135th floor. Towering Inferno has an immensely talented cast (e.g., Faye Dunaway, Fred Astaire, Richard Chamberlain and many more), however, the cast cannot enhance the cinematic experience. Overall the film is hurt by the many scenes that go on ceaselessly as the director attempts to create suspense through tedious climbing and rescue scenes. This occurs through occasional lapses in realism in the film, such as the ending, prevent the audience from receiving a top notch suspenseful drama. Instead the audience is left with an epic rescue mission that seems endless, and leaves the audience with a barely acceptable cinematic experience. ... Read more

Reviews (95)

4.5 stars -- more enjoyable than "Titanic."
"The Poseidon Adventure" is the quintessential disaster movie -- the very best of the disaster film genre that reigned through the 70's and early 80's.

This particular disaster flick involves a ocean liner capsized by a tidal wave (on New Year's Eve of all times!)and the ten survivors who struggle to make it up to the hull (which is actually the bottom of the ship) to possibly find a way out through the stern. Being that everything is upside down presents major obstacles to the cast.

The pic features a stellar cast, including a young Gene Hackman and a fit Ernest Borgnine, who are constantly at each others throats because, as the Hackman character points out, they're two of a kind and Borgnine simply doesn't like what he sees in the mirror. The female cast includes Pamela Sue Martin (Nancy Drew), Carol Lynley and Stella Stevens, all well-cast as scantily-clad babes in distress. Also, Shelley Winters does a nice job as an overweight heroine. Red Buttons, Roddy McDowall and Leslie Nielson (in a serious role as The Captain) are also on hand.

The sets of the sinking, upside down ship are absolutely outstanding. The scene wherein the ship tips over showing the party-goers fall/slide to the ceiling is superb.

The characters are great and you really start to care for them. Okay, there is admittedly some silly dialogue, but I KNOW people who talk lik