Avalanche

I'm not a fan of the disaster genre, they're always the same.

• Introduction of characters
• Expert warns people of imminent disaster
• Powers that be ignore expert
• Disaster happens
• Then either a lot of running and talking about what is happening until it ends or some pseudo science to fix it

This is no different and what's strange is just how little of the film the disaster takes up.

Starring Robert Forster, Rock Hudson and Mia Farrow this is more like a soap opera where an avalanche just so happens to take place.

Swinging 70's, polystyrene snow and merciless deaths this has it's merits but certainly pales in comparison to the better films within this sub genre.

The Good:

Cast do a decent job

The Bad:

Predictible

Soap opera like

SFX are poor even for its time

Things I Learnt From This Movie:

Unless your name ends in Campbell don't be a Bruce, you are no worthy

Death by polstyrene looks as painful as it sounds

Not as bad as I thought it would be. Although the dialogue is very stunted and some cardboardy characters, the plot is straightforward. Compared t some other 'big' disaster movies, it works out a little better

Hey, someone had to die of a little snow in the 70s..it was bound to happen. If whatever hack made this hadn't bothered, Irwin Allen would have..but to give credit where credit is due, Allen would have cast this better. Even if the movie stunk to high heaven (hello, 'The Swarm'), at least there were enough stars to keep you from falling asleep.

Also to give credit where it is due, there is some really beautiful cinematography, especially in outdoor shots of Mia Farrow swimming and another scene of a skier trying to outdistance an avalanche is shot very well.

However, once the cast starts talking, the groans can begin. Rock Hudson and Mia Farrow seem like they wouldn't even converse at a cocktail party; they are from different cinematic solar systems and should not have been paired here at all, even if they are a divorced couple. Robert Forster is semi-interesting as an predictable love interest for Mia and an ecologist who can predict the entire movie in his first scenes if only the screenplay had allowed him.

Impatient action fans - tune in one hour after it started to see the extras get killed. Before that is alot of drama, and after that is the rescue, and that's all, folks.

This movie is so bad that I had to run out and buy my own copy before it vanishes from the planet. Everyone should enjoy the pain that is avalanche. But, amongst the painful plot and characters, you are treated to some very memorable scenes that make this film worth owning. Name another movie that has unstable snow and acid milk. Instead of being sad when characters meet their doom, you cheer with glee as their burning car falls into a deep ravine.

I'm an avid fan-boy of 1970's disaster movies. Not so much because they're intense and captivating since, quite frankly they're not, but actually just because they're so exaggeratedly clichéd and kitschy. You can easily summarize ALL the 70's disaster movies ever made with one and the same synopsis, only the nature of the disaster differs. It can be a fire, flood, volcanic eruption, virus, shipwreck or – like in this case – an avalanche! The main difference between this film and the majority of classic titles (such as "The Towering Inferno" and "The Poseidon Adventure") lies in the budget. Usually Irwin Allen produced this sort of stuff and he had plenty of money to spare. "Avalanche", on the other hand, is a Roger Corman production and he's mostly (in)famous for delivering cheap and extremely low-budgeted cult films. A half-decent disaster movie is simply impossible to accomplish without a bit of budget, and this clearly shows in "Avalanche". The special effects are pitiable, with whole bunches of people getting buried underneath thick and oddly shaped boulders of Styrofoam. But, aside from the budgetary restrictions, "Avalanche" does live up to four out of five essential disaster movie trademarks. #1: there needs to be at least one major star and a long list of secondary stars. Rock Hudson and Mia Farrow were big names around the time, but the supportive cast is a bit disappointing. I assume that Roger Corman spent all his actors' budget on the aforementioned two names and Robert Forster. #2: The characters are usually split into two camps with completely opposite ideals and/or initiatives. Why, yes! Although the "righteous" camp is extremely small this time. Rock Hudson is the owner of a fancy winter sport resort in Colorado and he keeps on expanding the area to lure more tourists. Robert Forster is the tree-hugging reporter who endlessly warns him that the expansion needs to stop otherwise there will be avalanches. #3: regardless what type of disaster we're dealing with, variants of the exact same perilous situations are always applicable. Too true, we have people that are buried alive, trapped in ski lifts, crushed or dead in gas explosions. #4: always remember that, when the situation appears to be at it worst, it can and will still get even worse! That's another true cliché of the disaster film! In "Avalanche", for example, there's a sequence in which an ambulance transporting people who narrowly escaped dead already, crashes into a ravine! Only for die-hard disaster movie fanatics.