This disaster drama created for TV is based on a novel by a popular New York TV anchorman-turned-author Chuck Scarborough. A massive earthquake shakes 'The Big Apple' and the city is all but held hostage by the devastation. New York City Mayor Bruce Lincoln(Charles S. Dutton)and his political foe Fire Chief Thomas Ahearn(Tom Skerritt)come to grips putting their differences aside to work together digging the city out of the ruble. There seems to be more than enough sub plots stretching this Hallmark presentation to near three hours. There are some good special effects, but nothing we haven't seen before. This earthquake flick is really no great shakes. And not unlike other disaster movies there is vast and varied talent featured in the cast: Sharon Lawrence, Jennifer Garner, Fred Weller, Lisa Nicole Carson, Rachel Ticotin and Cicely Tyson.
25 Reviews
They Should Be Embarrassed!
MovieAddict201614 March 2003
This latest entry into straight-to-TV videos sees Tom Skerrit running for his life when disaster hits New York City.
Another predictable, pretentious natural disaster "thriller" made for TV, "Earthquake in New York" does nothing we have not seen before, and accomplishes zip.
Boring from start to finish.
1.5/5 stars -
John Ulmer
Another predictable, pretentious natural disaster "thriller" made for TV, "Earthquake in New York" does nothing we have not seen before, and accomplishes zip.
Boring from start to finish.
1.5/5 stars -
John Ulmer
Special effects are good, but there are just too many characters and situations. **1/2 out of ****
Movie-1224 December 1999
Warning: Spoilers
AFTERSHOCK: EARTHQUAKE IN NEW YORK (1999) **1/2
Starring: Tom Skerritt, Charles S. Dutton, Sharon Lawrence, Cicely Tyson, Fred Weller, Jennifer Garner, Lisa Nicole Carson, and Rachel Ticotin Director: Mikael Salomon Running time: Unknown Not Rated (equivalent to a PG-13, containing disaster violence)
By Blake French:
(The following may contains a few minor spoilers)
If I were to say that by the end of "Aftershock: Earthquake in New York" every problem in the picture will be solved, you would have no idea of how literal I was being. The production has so many independent characters, complicated situations, and internal and external conflicts, by the halfway point of the movie, I lost track of whose who, and what's happening and where to what characters. Most of the time it is a good thing to have a variety of characters, but "Aftershock: Earthquake in New York," pushes the audience over the edge.
"Aftershock: Earthquake in New York" details an earthquake that erupts in the big apple and the mayhem is causes for separate groups of devastated people. Actually, this production would be more reasonably called "Aftermath: The Horrors of an Earthquake When it Erupts in a Big City" because it is more about the situations encountered after the quake than the existent tremor itself. During the earthquake, we see museums break apart, skyscrapers collapse, streets crumble, a subway train wreak, a bathroom disassemble, and even get to see Lady Liberty fall flat on her face. All the special effects are well done and convincing. The movie does make us believe there is an earthquake is occurring.
The film wastes time during the first fifty minutes, sparring us the usual momentum build-up and developing the characters individually, so that we can to care about them when the disaster hits. Good attempt by the filmmakers. But their failure has already been decided. There are just to many characters and complex sub-plots to weave this unorganized, fragmented movie together. We meet Emily Lincoln (Cicely Tyson), a religious woman on her death bed while trying to teach a young, rebellious teenage boy lessons of life, Thomas Ahearn (Tom Skerritt), a family man having tiffs with the city mayor, Lincoln (Charles Dutton), who also has a family in danger. Then we are introduced to a defense attorney Evie Lincoln, (Lisa Nicole Carson), and her client charged with cold blooded murder. They get into a subway wreak (in a tunnel where the lights are still strongly working after a massive earthquake and countless other complications have occurred). A foreign cab driver named Nicholai Karvovsky (Fred Weller) is also involved with a young woman, I forget who and why. Also covered in "Aftershock: Earthquake in New York" are marital problems, legal issues, family crisis, financial necessities, political outbursts, and even medical disasters, all which are related to each other, but distract us from the main events the story centers on.
There are a few unconventional surprises contained in the story line, but for the most part, this is one long journey in circles. After the earthquake hits, we expect the movie to build up tension for an aftershock, thus the title "Aftershock." But we just don't get that at all here, but receive a rehearse in an event that took place just an hour earlier. It is like rewinding a video and watching the same scene twice. The actual disaster itself couldn't help but recycling elements from past motion pictures such as "Volcano," "Asteroid," and "Daylight."
The picture is directed by Mikael Salomon, whose previous work includes the also mediocre "Hard Rain" (1998) and " A Far Off Place" (1993). Analyzing his past movies, I think Salomon has a tendency to cover a lot of material on screen, but the material doesn't have much of an impact on an audience. In "Aftershock: Earthquake in New York" just about everything happens except someone answering the question of why there would be a major tremor in the big apple in the first place.
Starring: Tom Skerritt, Charles S. Dutton, Sharon Lawrence, Cicely Tyson, Fred Weller, Jennifer Garner, Lisa Nicole Carson, and Rachel Ticotin Director: Mikael Salomon Running time: Unknown Not Rated (equivalent to a PG-13, containing disaster violence)
By Blake French:
(The following may contains a few minor spoilers)
If I were to say that by the end of "Aftershock: Earthquake in New York" every problem in the picture will be solved, you would have no idea of how literal I was being. The production has so many independent characters, complicated situations, and internal and external conflicts, by the halfway point of the movie, I lost track of whose who, and what's happening and where to what characters. Most of the time it is a good thing to have a variety of characters, but "Aftershock: Earthquake in New York," pushes the audience over the edge.
"Aftershock: Earthquake in New York" details an earthquake that erupts in the big apple and the mayhem is causes for separate groups of devastated people. Actually, this production would be more reasonably called "Aftermath: The Horrors of an Earthquake When it Erupts in a Big City" because it is more about the situations encountered after the quake than the existent tremor itself. During the earthquake, we see museums break apart, skyscrapers collapse, streets crumble, a subway train wreak, a bathroom disassemble, and even get to see Lady Liberty fall flat on her face. All the special effects are well done and convincing. The movie does make us believe there is an earthquake is occurring.
The film wastes time during the first fifty minutes, sparring us the usual momentum build-up and developing the characters individually, so that we can to care about them when the disaster hits. Good attempt by the filmmakers. But their failure has already been decided. There are just to many characters and complex sub-plots to weave this unorganized, fragmented movie together. We meet Emily Lincoln (Cicely Tyson), a religious woman on her death bed while trying to teach a young, rebellious teenage boy lessons of life, Thomas Ahearn (Tom Skerritt), a family man having tiffs with the city mayor, Lincoln (Charles Dutton), who also has a family in danger. Then we are introduced to a defense attorney Evie Lincoln, (Lisa Nicole Carson), and her client charged with cold blooded murder. They get into a subway wreak (in a tunnel where the lights are still strongly working after a massive earthquake and countless other complications have occurred). A foreign cab driver named Nicholai Karvovsky (Fred Weller) is also involved with a young woman, I forget who and why. Also covered in "Aftershock: Earthquake in New York" are marital problems, legal issues, family crisis, financial necessities, political outbursts, and even medical disasters, all which are related to each other, but distract us from the main events the story centers on.
There are a few unconventional surprises contained in the story line, but for the most part, this is one long journey in circles. After the earthquake hits, we expect the movie to build up tension for an aftershock, thus the title "Aftershock." But we just don't get that at all here, but receive a rehearse in an event that took place just an hour earlier. It is like rewinding a video and watching the same scene twice. The actual disaster itself couldn't help but recycling elements from past motion pictures such as "Volcano," "Asteroid," and "Daylight."
The picture is directed by Mikael Salomon, whose previous work includes the also mediocre "Hard Rain" (1998) and " A Far Off Place" (1993). Analyzing his past movies, I think Salomon has a tendency to cover a lot of material on screen, but the material doesn't have much of an impact on an audience. In "Aftershock: Earthquake in New York" just about everything happens except someone answering the question of why there would be a major tremor in the big apple in the first place.
A good movie...for distaster-flick fans:)
miro-144 August 2000
OK. The genre "disaster film" genrally doesn't mean earth-shattering, brilliant writing. What these movies are all about is the ACTION-something that, i'm pleased to see, the other commenters on this page realize. This movie, i think, has some better writing than others. It sidesteps cliched characters to a certain extent...for example, the mayor is sympathetic and really NOT a mad power-monger. It was refreshing for me to see a person in a position of power in an action movie attempt not to abuse such power for his/her own interests. All the other characters are also appealing...except one. As for the direction, Mikael Salomon truly knows how to stage action...it's all about camera angles. In this film, he uses these to great effect...my personal favorite being the one he uses when 2 characters escape out from under a truck collapsing underground in the nick of time. all-in-all, this is an entertaining movie...and a worthy entry into the disaster-film genre. in fact, i like this better than VOLCANO, a theatrical release from a few years back. i give this movie 3 out of 4 stars.
Boring and dumb
mozart82728 December 2000
I was VERY disappointed in this film. No, that's not quite true. I didn't have great expectations for this TV movie, but it did not even live up to those meager hopes for a decent disaster flick. The characters, for the most part, were uninteresting and whiny and unsympathetic. The special-effects are not exceptionally good-- no better than most films today. And the story was lacking in excitement and depth.
In addition, the lack of destruction was 1) rather unbelievable, and 2) annoyingly sparse. After an earthquake in a city that is mostly unprepared for such an event, one would think there would be a great deal more devastation. Like ASTEROID, GODZILLA, VOLCANO, and to a lesser extent, DANTE'S PEAK and ARMAGEDDON, AFTERSHOCK has relatively little in the way of physical damage. Now, far be it for me to want total devastation and loss of life, but really, can't we get a little more than a few toppled and cracked old buildings? I realize that special effects are expensive, but to me, the directors and script-writers of these films don't seem to want to make any effort to make a truly "disastrous" film.
(One last point, NY City seems to get picked on a great deal in disaster films: AFTERSHOCK, DEEP IMPACT, ARMAGEDDON, GODZILLA, FAIL SAFE, INDEPENDENCE DAY, and others such as DIE HARD 3, and THE SIEGE.)
In addition, the lack of destruction was 1) rather unbelievable, and 2) annoyingly sparse. After an earthquake in a city that is mostly unprepared for such an event, one would think there would be a great deal more devastation. Like ASTEROID, GODZILLA, VOLCANO, and to a lesser extent, DANTE'S PEAK and ARMAGEDDON, AFTERSHOCK has relatively little in the way of physical damage. Now, far be it for me to want total devastation and loss of life, but really, can't we get a little more than a few toppled and cracked old buildings? I realize that special effects are expensive, but to me, the directors and script-writers of these films don't seem to want to make any effort to make a truly "disastrous" film.
(One last point, NY City seems to get picked on a great deal in disaster films: AFTERSHOCK, DEEP IMPACT, ARMAGEDDON, GODZILLA, FAIL SAFE, INDEPENDENCE DAY, and others such as DIE HARD 3, and THE SIEGE.)
Surprisingly good, especially for something made for TV!
andybob-33 August 2002
I bought this on DVD because it was cheap and I couldn't find anything else, but I pretty much thought it would be wasted money. But this movie is surprisingly well written, effective and does its best to avoid disaster movie clichés, albeit not always successful. Like its predecessor "EarthQuake" it focuses on the effect of a disastrous earthquake on the lives of several groups of people whom struggle to survive and find loved ones amongst the devastation. The stories range in degrees of interests, ranging from engrossing to rather weak and familiar. The one that stands out the most is about a pampered rich girl and a young Russian taxi driver whom takes it upon himself to protect her. The contrast is interesting as she finds herself in a totally alien world of sudden death and chaos while her companion seems wearily used to such calamities, and instead of panicking he immediately tries to regain control of their situation. As far as the special effects go it doesn't have all the flashy effects other quake movies do but what it does show is pretty convincing, they seemed to realize their own production limitations and wisely try worked around them without pushing it too far. 7 out of 10, escapes the "made for TV" curse and is overall worth viewing.
average made for TV disaster movie
pkzeewiz12 May 2010
Warning: Spoilers
The title pretty much speaks for itself. The mayor and the fire chief are having a big feud, but when an earthquake hits New york they put aside their differences and try to help their city. The chiefs daughter is trapped in a high school and the mayors daughter is trapped underground in the subway tunnels. The mayors daughter is a lawyer and she's trapped with her client whom she just helped walk free for murder charges and now that she's in this situation with him she begins to see maybe she helped free the wrong man. Other stories include a gangster wanna be trapped in a church basement with the majors mother. A woman who must get to a grade school and try to save her disabled son. A girl who is trying to get across town to find her mother and shes being helped by a Russian Cab driver. All kinds of little stories are rolled in to this almost 3 hour made for TV movie.
I must say I have seen this about 3 times, not sure why as I never cared much for it, but I keep watching it every few years for some odd reason. It is very slow at times and it's predictable and the earthquake happens fast and the aftermath is most of the movies story. I think great disaster movies need action and excitement all the way through in order to work.
Hated the direction, I hate when a director shakes the camera to incorporate movement, and way too many slow motion shots here. There is often scale models used in place of subways, buildings and the statue of liberty and the directors ratio of his camera location verses the model is horrible.
Acting is full of a bunch of nobodies and has beens. Tom Skeritt, Charles Dutton, Jennifer Gardner, Cicely Tyson among others, Frederick Weller playing a Russian was the best acting job here.
The movie is OK but just not anything you haven't seen before in these types of films. It had a very basic feel to it which came up short with excitement - 3/10 stars
one creepy line said by a helicopter reporter "the twin towers are still standing"
I must say I have seen this about 3 times, not sure why as I never cared much for it, but I keep watching it every few years for some odd reason. It is very slow at times and it's predictable and the earthquake happens fast and the aftermath is most of the movies story. I think great disaster movies need action and excitement all the way through in order to work.
Hated the direction, I hate when a director shakes the camera to incorporate movement, and way too many slow motion shots here. There is often scale models used in place of subways, buildings and the statue of liberty and the directors ratio of his camera location verses the model is horrible.
Acting is full of a bunch of nobodies and has beens. Tom Skeritt, Charles Dutton, Jennifer Gardner, Cicely Tyson among others, Frederick Weller playing a Russian was the best acting job here.
The movie is OK but just not anything you haven't seen before in these types of films. It had a very basic feel to it which came up short with excitement - 3/10 stars
one creepy line said by a helicopter reporter "the twin towers are still standing"
Good movie, reminiscent of the 70's disaster films!
fiera1218 September 2002
For those of you who enjoyed the 'disaster' movies of the 70's such as The Towering Inferno and The Poseidon Adventure, you'll love this movie. Although it's quite long (just under three hours), my attention never wavered. It had several sub-plots going on simultaneously, including a love story, the resolution of an old rivalry, and a parent's fight to absolve herself of guilt over a two-year accident. Yet the storyline was never blurred or confusing and the characters seemed real to me. Perhaps most importantly, not all the little sub-plots had fairy-tale endings; some ended happily and some did not, but you don't know which is which until it happens. All in all, this is a movie well worth seeing!
Disappointing Disaster Series
dromasca22 February 2003
A boring and disappointing TV film. True, after 9/11 it is hard to watch a disaster movie happening in New York as reality unfortunately exceeded everything fiction script writers ever imagined. However, this is still a bad TV movie. Cheap melodrama, flat and bombastic characters, ridicule script lines a real person would never say, and everything is so predictible - you can always guess what happens or what will be said next. 4/10 on my personal scale.
Has some real heart, hope and stories about people
Robert_duder13 June 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Aftershock is less about the disaster and more about the people. This is an unusual but very good twist to the typical TV disaster film. Although the disaster itself, an Earthquake in this case, obviously plays an enormous part in the film the 3 hour movie really delves into many, many different characters, their lives, and their stories. As good as this is to see it is also one of it's shortcomings. There are SOOO many characters and stories and some of the stories don't even really get resolved or any sort of closure to it. The film is a plethora of TV actors and one break through role by Jennifer Garner 2 years before she was CIA Agent Sydney Bristow. She was such an unknown she doesn't even get anywhere near top billing despite the fact she is a major character. I didn't even know she was in it until I saw her.
It's tough to break down every role in this film because there is SOOO many. Jennifer Garner definitely plays one of the lead characters as aspiring dancer Diane Agostini. She's as cute as she usually is in her roles and comes across as a little childish at times but the role is boosted by the romance with Fred Weller who plays Russian cab driver turned knight in shining armor Nicholai Karvovsky. Together Garner and Weller are terrific and make the most of the horrific situation around them helping each other out at every turn and revealing back story between them. I think out of everyone they are the most watchable and carry the film substantially. Tom Skerritt plays fire chief Thomas Ahearn who is ready to resign because of a personal argument with the Mayor of New York. Skerritt is pretty good in everything he does. He definitely has presence and a strong ability and brings class to his roles. His character Ahearn is strong but a little too silent. I expected him to be a little more forceful and in control. Still his scenes are well done. Sharon Lawrence plays over protective mother Dori Thorell who has an emotional back story involving a car accident that nearly crippled her son. Lawrence does the best job hands down of really giving her character a story arc. She goes from being a total mess to taking control of the situation and saving her son from death. I didn't feel that Lawrence had really good screen presence but she is adequate. Charles S. Dutton plays Mayor Bruce Lincoln. His squabbles and chemistry opposite Skerritt is good. Enemies forced to work together and they definitely portray that well. I found Lincoln most of the time to be kind of a blow hard but he still manages to take control of his city in crisis. Although they set up a deep relationship between Dutton and his daughter played by Lisa Nicole Carson, it's one story that they kind of leave on the back burner. Carson's character Evie is trapped in the subway and Dutton's character rarely mentions her during the crisis and we never see them reunite. Other supporting cast members include Rachel Ticotin, JR Bourne as the bad guy who has just been cleared of murder but is completely guilty and the young Michal Suchánek as Lawrence's son. He does a terrific job in his few scenes. Everyone in the film is adequate and save for a very few performances and moments the cast is not outstanding but they all serve their purpose. There is just so many of them to keep track of and stories to follow it's a bit much at times.
Director Mikael Salomon is certainly no stranger to film and no stranger to cinematography so the talent is there but perhaps the budget is a little low. That being said there is some incredible special effects for a TV film and the Earthquake itself is quite terrifying. The film is just a little bland perhaps being so long, and have so many characters. It's mostly typical TV fluff but it's not bad and it's worth seeing for something perhaps not normally seen. The nice thing about it is that there is a really uplifting message about hope...something important nowadays in an age of natural disasters, 9/11 and war. There is a message about working together, never giving up hope, and rebuilding from disaster. It's a nice movie and worth checking out. It's not outstanding but it's okay. It's less cheesy and better acted and presented than recent TV disaster flick Category 6. (see my review.) Also interesting to see is the World Trade Center and their interpretation of how it still stands even after a deadly destructive Earthquake. 6/10
It's tough to break down every role in this film because there is SOOO many. Jennifer Garner definitely plays one of the lead characters as aspiring dancer Diane Agostini. She's as cute as she usually is in her roles and comes across as a little childish at times but the role is boosted by the romance with Fred Weller who plays Russian cab driver turned knight in shining armor Nicholai Karvovsky. Together Garner and Weller are terrific and make the most of the horrific situation around them helping each other out at every turn and revealing back story between them. I think out of everyone they are the most watchable and carry the film substantially. Tom Skerritt plays fire chief Thomas Ahearn who is ready to resign because of a personal argument with the Mayor of New York. Skerritt is pretty good in everything he does. He definitely has presence and a strong ability and brings class to his roles. His character Ahearn is strong but a little too silent. I expected him to be a little more forceful and in control. Still his scenes are well done. Sharon Lawrence plays over protective mother Dori Thorell who has an emotional back story involving a car accident that nearly crippled her son. Lawrence does the best job hands down of really giving her character a story arc. She goes from being a total mess to taking control of the situation and saving her son from death. I didn't feel that Lawrence had really good screen presence but she is adequate. Charles S. Dutton plays Mayor Bruce Lincoln. His squabbles and chemistry opposite Skerritt is good. Enemies forced to work together and they definitely portray that well. I found Lincoln most of the time to be kind of a blow hard but he still manages to take control of his city in crisis. Although they set up a deep relationship between Dutton and his daughter played by Lisa Nicole Carson, it's one story that they kind of leave on the back burner. Carson's character Evie is trapped in the subway and Dutton's character rarely mentions her during the crisis and we never see them reunite. Other supporting cast members include Rachel Ticotin, JR Bourne as the bad guy who has just been cleared of murder but is completely guilty and the young Michal Suchánek as Lawrence's son. He does a terrific job in his few scenes. Everyone in the film is adequate and save for a very few performances and moments the cast is not outstanding but they all serve their purpose. There is just so many of them to keep track of and stories to follow it's a bit much at times.
Director Mikael Salomon is certainly no stranger to film and no stranger to cinematography so the talent is there but perhaps the budget is a little low. That being said there is some incredible special effects for a TV film and the Earthquake itself is quite terrifying. The film is just a little bland perhaps being so long, and have so many characters. It's mostly typical TV fluff but it's not bad and it's worth seeing for something perhaps not normally seen. The nice thing about it is that there is a really uplifting message about hope...something important nowadays in an age of natural disasters, 9/11 and war. There is a message about working together, never giving up hope, and rebuilding from disaster. It's a nice movie and worth checking out. It's not outstanding but it's okay. It's less cheesy and better acted and presented than recent TV disaster flick Category 6. (see my review.) Also interesting to see is the World Trade Center and their interpretation of how it still stands even after a deadly destructive Earthquake. 6/10
A pretty good TV disaster movie
marbleann5 August 2006
I just saw this movie on the Sci Fi channel. I am sure everyone who has seen more then 2 disaster flicks could of wrote this movie. All disaster movies follow the same formula and they never divert to a different path. First part of the movie we meet the characters who lives are going to be in peril. They usually consist of
A a family who is in crisis.
B a kid or kids, who sometimes is part of the family in crisis, or the child of the hero or big wig.
C a younger character man or women or both who is either just newly married or a romance will develop.
D a potential bad guy or guys that will come around in the end.
E Two big wigs, either a politician, or a General, if it involves the military. THe politician or General are sometimes the bad guy.
F a disgruntle or disgraced male who will eventually save the day.
The middle part of the movie, is the disaster itself. And it usually is the shortest part. This is where we see what happened to the characters we met in the first part. How the potential couple will meet up. And where the kid is or kids are at that will put them in peril.
Sometimes the child already has a illness that will add to the suspense. So if the disease doesn't kill them the disaster will.
According the budget we will see if the movie has great affects or just a camera shaking some people up and cars overturning and scene of one or two insignificant buildings crumbling. Sometimes the budget is so cheap they use scenes from other disaster movies. One person, usually the kid or a women are trapped somewhere,
And the last part of the movie is watching who lives or dies. Which is predictable. 1 The family man who we know loves his wife and kids, because he either talked about how much he loves them or we see a happy family picture on a desk. This character is usually the young fireman, or some other minor character who is helping out, we don't much about him other then him having a family and he is young.
2 The black man, I find if there is a black character in these movies, they are either the potential bad person or another of the soon to be hero's sidekick. Who will die saving others. In the newer disaster flicks the black person has jumped from being one of first victims or gang member to now being one of the bigwigs.
3 A elderly person, we know nothing about them other then they are elderly and they are married or a dearly love relative of a major character.
Amongst the living are 1 The new lovers
2 The star of the movie. There are two exceptions. Joaquin Pheonix in Ladder 64, but he also qualifies in the subgroup of the young family man who gets killed. And Stephen Segal in Executive Decision whose screen time lasted maybe 20 minutes and is killed.
3) A pet that was otherwise thought dead.
4) The child or relative of one of the bigwigs
This movie manages to have most of these important elements. I saw it early on a Saturday morning. I am happy that I saw it in one sitting because I believe this had to be a 2 night movie when it first aired. I find I never come back to see the conclusions of these moves. But they showed the whole movie at one, which I am sure helped.
It was a TV movie and that is what to expect of it. TV A-list stars like Charles Dutton and Jennifer Garner and Sharon Lawrence and Tom Skeritt and Cecily Tyson are in the movie they do a good enough job to keep it interesting. Do not expect anything more and you will enjoy it.
One last remark that cannot go unmentioned. The speech Charles Dutton makes at the end was very stirring. I actually had a tear in my eye. In the wake of the 911 that was in the future and being a New Yorker it was very appropriate.
A a family who is in crisis.
B a kid or kids, who sometimes is part of the family in crisis, or the child of the hero or big wig.
C a younger character man or women or both who is either just newly married or a romance will develop.
D a potential bad guy or guys that will come around in the end.
E Two big wigs, either a politician, or a General, if it involves the military. THe politician or General are sometimes the bad guy.
F a disgruntle or disgraced male who will eventually save the day.
The middle part of the movie, is the disaster itself. And it usually is the shortest part. This is where we see what happened to the characters we met in the first part. How the potential couple will meet up. And where the kid is or kids are at that will put them in peril.
Sometimes the child already has a illness that will add to the suspense. So if the disease doesn't kill them the disaster will.
According the budget we will see if the movie has great affects or just a camera shaking some people up and cars overturning and scene of one or two insignificant buildings crumbling. Sometimes the budget is so cheap they use scenes from other disaster movies. One person, usually the kid or a women are trapped somewhere,
And the last part of the movie is watching who lives or dies. Which is predictable. 1 The family man who we know loves his wife and kids, because he either talked about how much he loves them or we see a happy family picture on a desk. This character is usually the young fireman, or some other minor character who is helping out, we don't much about him other then him having a family and he is young.
2 The black man, I find if there is a black character in these movies, they are either the potential bad person or another of the soon to be hero's sidekick. Who will die saving others. In the newer disaster flicks the black person has jumped from being one of first victims or gang member to now being one of the bigwigs.
3 A elderly person, we know nothing about them other then they are elderly and they are married or a dearly love relative of a major character.
Amongst the living are 1 The new lovers
2 The star of the movie. There are two exceptions. Joaquin Pheonix in Ladder 64, but he also qualifies in the subgroup of the young family man who gets killed. And Stephen Segal in Executive Decision whose screen time lasted maybe 20 minutes and is killed.
3) A pet that was otherwise thought dead.
4) The child or relative of one of the bigwigs
This movie manages to have most of these important elements. I saw it early on a Saturday morning. I am happy that I saw it in one sitting because I believe this had to be a 2 night movie when it first aired. I find I never come back to see the conclusions of these moves. But they showed the whole movie at one, which I am sure helped.
It was a TV movie and that is what to expect of it. TV A-list stars like Charles Dutton and Jennifer Garner and Sharon Lawrence and Tom Skeritt and Cecily Tyson are in the movie they do a good enough job to keep it interesting. Do not expect anything more and you will enjoy it.
One last remark that cannot go unmentioned. The speech Charles Dutton makes at the end was very stirring. I actually had a tear in my eye. In the wake of the 911 that was in the future and being a New Yorker it was very appropriate.
If there were an award for best film made from a silly premise...
rbsjrx29 April 2007
I'd avoided this movie for years. Unlike the writers, I understand the geology under NYC, so I was expecting it to be every bit as bad as "Volcano", based on a similarly silly premise. Finally, last night I needed some mindless entertainment to help me get to sleep so I tuned in.
Yes, the premise is just as silly as it sounds. However, the writers, while technically clueless, did craft one of the best disaster flick scripts I've ever seen. The acting is uniformly excellent, and the direction, after the typically slow disaster flick setup, was taut and effective. The special effects were quite decent for TV - certainly better than most SciFi channel made-for-TV films. Unlike "Volcano", the characters are sympathetic and believable. After the viewer has swallowed the basic premise, everything else goes down well. Altogether a very involving film, which is, after all, the goal of all disaster flicks.
Given a chance, I will watch it again (I missed the first 10 minutes or so). Heartily recommended for disaster flick fans, conditionally recommended for everyone else.
Yes, the premise is just as silly as it sounds. However, the writers, while technically clueless, did craft one of the best disaster flick scripts I've ever seen. The acting is uniformly excellent, and the direction, after the typically slow disaster flick setup, was taut and effective. The special effects were quite decent for TV - certainly better than most SciFi channel made-for-TV films. Unlike "Volcano", the characters are sympathetic and believable. After the viewer has swallowed the basic premise, everything else goes down well. Altogether a very involving film, which is, after all, the goal of all disaster flicks.
Given a chance, I will watch it again (I missed the first 10 minutes or so). Heartily recommended for disaster flick fans, conditionally recommended for everyone else.
For a TV movie, it could have been worse
xredgarnetx7 January 2007
I watched about half of 1999's AFTERSHOCK, and what I saw was a standard TV production about the impact of an earthquake on New York City. I had no problem with the so-so special effects nor the overly large AIRPORT-type cast, other than Sharon Lawrence as a gin-guzzling middle-aged mom. It's easy enough to imagine just how much worse the impact of a quake would have on Manhattan than was portrayed in this movie, including a lot more looters and shootings, with rats and corpses and disease and devastation everywhere -- like post-Katrina New Orleans. I also understand this lengthy movie does not follow the novel on which it is based. Ah well ... A young Jennifer Garner is extremely appealing as a wannabe ballerina. At first, I thought I was looking at Natalie Portman -- Garner was that good-looking in her 20s. Familiar TV faces Tom Skerritt and Charles Dutton ham it up big time as the city's feuding fire chief and mayor, respectively. A strangely bewigged Cicely Tyson plays Dutton's wiser than Moses and older than Methuselah mom.
In this post-9/11 era this movie is more than eerily prophetic and moving.
amish20 January 2002
This movie was shown here (Israel) on the Hallmark channel in Dec 01. As a former New Yorker, and watching it in this post-9/11 era, it was truly eerie, especially since in this film, one of the few sites left standing and untouched was... the Twin Towers.
This movie is based on a novel by one of NY's most familiar faces, former NBC newscaster, and my 'regular' source of info in my NY days, Chuck Scarborough. Perhaps only a real New Yorker could have imagined and foretold such scenes and, knowing the essence of a true New Yorker, written such speeches that eventually proved so prophetic and so amazingly close to reality. Besides the story and text, the scenes and special effects were awesome (even though you *know* looking at them that it's not real).
This will no doubt prove to be the first in many similar disaster films that will be made about NY, be they natural or terrorist, but since this was done three years "before," it makes it more prophecy than mere fiction, and worth seeing.
This movie is based on a novel by one of NY's most familiar faces, former NBC newscaster, and my 'regular' source of info in my NY days, Chuck Scarborough. Perhaps only a real New Yorker could have imagined and foretold such scenes and, knowing the essence of a true New Yorker, written such speeches that eventually proved so prophetic and so amazingly close to reality. Besides the story and text, the scenes and special effects were awesome (even though you *know* looking at them that it's not real).
This will no doubt prove to be the first in many similar disaster films that will be made about NY, be they natural or terrorist, but since this was done three years "before," it makes it more prophecy than mere fiction, and worth seeing.
It would be a shock, if, after a viewing, you had good things to say about this film
inkblot111 October 2007
Thomas (Tom Skerritt) is the fire chief for NYC but, he is about to submit his resignation. He has bones to pick with the city's mayor (Charles S. Dutton) and rather than work things out, Thomas is set to quit. The mayor has a beautiful, intelligent daughter who serves as a topnotch public defender but who is also being courted by a top law firm. Her latest case involves a man accused of murdering his wife, but the would-be killer proclaims his innocence. Can she get him acquitted and then land the more lucrative job? Also in the city is a lady named Dori (Sharon Lawrence) who suffers with acute guilt over an automobile accident that left her young son with a limp. Her husband (Mitchell Ryan) is dismayed that she still has not gone back to work or that she will not renew their mutual hobby, mountain climbing. Meanwhile, aspiring ballet dancer, Diane (Jennifer Garner) still has to ask her parents for money to make ends meet, something no family member likes, including Diane. Crossing paths with these folks are a Russian immigrant cab driver, the mayor's caring but aging mother, a poor teenager, and a businesswoman with eyes for Dori's husband. Suddenly, a deadly earthquake strikes, in NYC for goodness sake. Some folks are trapped in the subway, some on the street, and some in the upper levels of buildings. Who will survive? Does anyone care? This film is a very poor affair, suffering from implausability and stupidity, too. It's as though someone said, let's have an earthquake strike Manhattan because having people trapped in a subway system would be cool. No matter if the chance of an earthquake hitting NYC is slim to none, let's do it. Add on a fire chief who orders men into dangerous and avoidable situations, a mayor who can take time for a chat during a disaster, and a rock climbing mama who is the only one able to rescue her son and you have a film that goes way beyond credulity. The lame acting by nearly all thespians (Sharon Lawrence starts off well but loses her believability, too) does not help matters, either. The special effects are uneven, sometimes being quite good, and at other times, totally laughable. Costumes and production values are average at best, too. If you have a yen for disaster flicks, then you might take an interest in watching this one. For, in truth, it is a double dose of dire, once as an earthquake flick, and once as an extremely poor-quality film.
Lukewarm Creamed Corn
megasniper25 February 2006
This movie defines 'Corny'. Continuity doesn't seem to be a strong point in the making of this film. Little quirks here and there such as: a woman walks in and catches 2 guys stealing a TV, she yells, they drop the TV, she runs, they disappear.... later, the broken TV vanishes too. Some of the 'emotional' reactions, as well as actions, by these actors is also over the top. You watch them do something, or react to something and you just have to sit in awe: There's just no way any sane person would do that, or waste THAT much time telling a story, or plain old goofing off, in an emergency. The musical score in coordination with some of the scenes is almost comical. And, finally, if you like 'in-the-nick-of-time' scenes, you'll be in heaven.
Excellent FX
mvkirby0122 November 2008
I'm watching this movie right now, a little over one hour in. Very good character development before the catastrophe. Excellent special effects. I haven't read the storyline herein, nor any reviews here, this is just a one-person as-its-happening opinion. As far as disaster movies go, this is one of the best I've seen in the past 30 years. Worth a rental, or a must-catch on TV. All of the lead roles are very well played and believable. There is love here, anguish and anger. Lost or failing relationships are resurrected (as would be expected in any disaster). Direction is admirable, acting all around is good, this is not a "B" movie, it's very entertaining, not a waste of time.
Watch Charlton Heston's EarthQuake (1974) Much Better!!!
JACK-29629 September 2001
The disaster films of the 1990's excluding of course " Volcano" (1997 Tommy Lee Jones.) are just downright bad the special effects are horrible and the characters are pathetic. If you are going to make a disaster film you need to make them epic. If you are going to make a movie about an Eartthquake in new York then for god's sake show New York getting destroyed. The Earthquake sequence in this movie leaves you feeling jipped when it is all over with, and then it leaves you with pathetic characters that you don't care much about for the rest of the film. Another major problem with this film and most of the disaster films of the 90's is that there is absolutely no build up what so ever. If you watch the disaster films of the 1970's there was always a feeling for the first twenty minutes or so of those films that something really bad was going to happen, an impending doom that got you more involved in those films. That is certainly not the case nowadays and especially with " Earthquake In New York". If you want to see a good disaster film most definetly watch " The Towering Inferno" or " Earthquake" and if you are interested in a more updated disaster film catch " Volcano" with Tommy Lee Jones that movie truly delivers the goods.
An amazing movie!
Lil' Z17 November 1999
Aftershock was great! Most of the effects were awesome and really believable. The characters were great, ones that you could relate to. The actors and filmmakers did a great job. I would recommend this movie to anyone. If you missed it, try to get the video. The movie had a good message behind the drama. Two thumbs up and five stars.
stupendously believable.
chrismulkeyisgod9 July 2003
upon turning on my television set to relax with a fine made-for-tv movie, i stumbled upon this. perhaps it was fate, or perhaps it was simply nothing more than a bit of luck on my behalf, but i must say, first and foremost that i was immediately blown away. the movie drew me in with its top-notch special effects and intriguing character situations--needless to say, for approximately 170 minutes i forgot entirely of any relatives or close friends i may have. instead, i was living the adventure--no, i WAS the adventure. and i can, with the truest of intentions say, that while watching this movie i was the happiest i have ever been in my entire life. and, more than likely, it was the happiest i will ever be. even now, on dreary afternoons when i find myself alone with nothing to do, i like to sit back with a fine, cool glass of lemonade and compile stanza upon stanza of poetry in my head encompassing the various scenes and events, making the movie ever-mine and something that will live forever within my memories.
Top Notch Disaster Flick
mandagrammy6 August 2020
As disaster flicks go, this ranks very high at 4 1/2 Stars. The special effects are very well done, and the events seem quite believable. But all disaster films must have characters that you can root for and care about. That is where this film excels. Much of the dialogue is authentic sounding without being too cloying. And although there are a few deaths that are predictable, there are also surprising ones. All in all, this mini-series was well worth the time to watch it.
A bit unrealistic, but good anyway.
nymoosi18 March 2001
This is an excellent movie for someone who has never experienced an earthquake; as we all know one does not last for 15 minutes. If a 15 minute earthquake would have struck New York, it would be in total ruin and not have buildings standing. The movie also failed to touch on the happenings of the other boroughs, Bronx and Staten Island. The acting and cast is well played and very believable. I will see this movie again though and do recommend it to others.
Read the book!
DAN_CANTWELL20 October 2001
I first read Chuck Scarboroughs' novel "Aftershock" in 1996 or 97. Having grown up in NY as a child, I was familiar was Scarborough from his anchoring the local Eyewitness news for WNBC ch 4. I thoroughly enjoyed the novel, to the point that I reread it several times since. The piece of crap that aired on CBS bore no relation to the novel other than the fact that an earthquake struck the City of New York. Many subplots were missing, characters were added (i.e., the Russian cabbie [who the hell was he?]. I have wished that I could locate Chuck Scarboroughs' address and ask him how he could have greenlighted this garbage.
WOW!!!!!!!
Ironman-717 November 1999
I watched this on TV, and all I can say is that it was an awesome movie, with incredible special effects and more than the other stories of destruction, a believable plot line. I saw that movie is available on video tape, but I'd personally wait for a DVD. I know it probably will never get made in that format, but it would be one that i'd buy!!
"Earthquake" Revisited
badnewsbear1212 December 1999
It has taken 25 years, but through the magic of computers and clever filmmaking, the effects in "Aftershock: Earthquake in New York" have far and away surpassed the effects in the 1974 disaster epic "Earthquake."
Utilizing actual footage of New York City, the effects team on "Aftershock..." achieved big budget effects for the small screen... and the effects truly are amazing!
The story and the acting are pretty much TV miniseries stuff, but if for nothing else, see this miniseries for the chilling special effects alone!
Utilizing actual footage of New York City, the effects team on "Aftershock..." achieved big budget effects for the small screen... and the effects truly are amazing!
The story and the acting are pretty much TV miniseries stuff, but if for nothing else, see this miniseries for the chilling special effects alone!
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
