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.

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

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.

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.)