THE GREAT LOS ANGELES EARTHQUAKE is a TV movie exploration of a familiar topic: an earthquake striking a large metropolis, as seen in EARTHQUAKE and SAN ANDREAS. The problem with this film is that it runs no less than three hours, and it has absolutely no reason to do so. The plot is more than familiar from pretty much every other disaster movie you can think of, with an expert scientist predicating an upcoming disaster but ending up disbelieved by everybody around her. Meanwhile various other assorted characters are introduced, from reporters to cops, government officials and ordinary people. The earthquake itself doesn't strike until more than two hours of the running time has passed, although the special effects are decent and there's some good drama arising from the situation. But this really didn't need to be three hours.

Describing what could happen in the future, the film combines formulaic character subplots with terrific visuals in the second half to convey a fictional but realistic story of people caught up in their own private dramas before and during a devastating earthquake.There are a couple of problems here. The first relates to the subplots; there are too many, resulting in an unnecessarily long run-time of about three hours. The assassination subplot seemed a bit hokey. At least 30 minutes probably could have been cut out without affecting the quality of the overall story. Because of so many speaking parts, I lost track of how some characters connected to other characters.Also, the sound quality in the copy I watched was not very good. At times I could not understand the dialogue; it seemed muffled.But of course viewers aren't really watching the film for the melodrama. They're watching for the disaster that's about to befall the characters. And the visuals during and after the earthquake are spectacular, every bit as good as in the 1974 film "Earthquake", if not better. Attention to detail is terrific. A lot of time and effort went into the visuals of this film, and it shows.Casting of main parts is fine; the cast of extras is enormous. Overall acting is average, though I thought Joanna Kerns, as the lead character, gave an especially credible performance. Production design was far higher here than we would expect for a TV movie.And I think it is indeed the "TV movie" label that brings down the cumulative rating for this film. Actually, "The Big One" is closer to a blockbuster theatrical release than it is to the stereotyped image of made-for-TV movie that viewers have come to expect. Unnecessarily lengthy subplots notwithstanding, if the viewer can watch the film for what it is, sans TV label, the viewer will enjoy it all the more.

While this 1990 TV movie had a heap of familiar faces from both TV and movies alike from the 1980s and 1990s, then this movie wasn't particularly thrilling. And the title is somewhat of a lure.The story is about Dr. Clare Winslow who pinpoints the location and time of a massive earthquake that will strike sunny Los Angeles.Greanted, the TV movie is not depending on grand effects, but more on the drama and fear of an earthquake, as well as the impact such an event has on those living in an area at risk of earthquakes.The cast list was quite nice, with a lot of familiar faces, at least to us who watched TV shows and movies during the 1980s and 1990s."The Big One: The Great Los Angeles Earthquake" was too slow paced for my liking and my interest was fast drifting away a couple of times throughout the 180 minutes that the TV movie ran for.If you enjoy disaster movies, then I would suggest that you watch something else entirely. But then again, that is because I like for thrilling things to happen in a disaster movie. If you enjoy a human drama set in the face of an earthquake, perhaps this TV movie might appeal to you.

Very good pre and post quake special effects, a believable buildup, and overall decent acting all contribute to a very entertaining if somewhat horrifying movie experience. It's definitely worth a watch.What detracts from the film are a number of bogus subplots which add nothing because they are either contrived, stereotypical, or too obvious political lectures. The assassination has absolutely nothing to do with anything, and doesn't fit into the movie. Most people are not going to be watching this to see the dynamics of a family squabbling over a birthday party or marrying off a daughter. Many of us are tired of being hit over the head with a sugar coated lecture about illegal aliens being God's gift to humanity. There was no need to have another subplot about evil real estate owners somehow being responsible for a massive quake. And the angst over nobody wanting Claire to speak up was misplaced. If anything she may have contributed to the casualties by causing mass panic with her assistant.Why put all these mini-morality plays into a good disaster movie? There are ways to make us care about the characters without shoving them down our throats.Still, worth seeing, especially for those of us who live or lived in Los Angeles. There is just 'something' about seeing what is familiar reduced to ruins that is an humbling experience.