Poseidon
Warner Bros. Pictures | Release Date: May 12, 2006
5.9
USER SCORE
Mixed or average reviews based on 158 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
67
Mixed:
54
Negative:
37
Watch Now
Stream On
Stream On
Buy on
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Expand
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)

User Reviews

User scoreBy dateMost helpful
3
KenG.Jun 17, 2006
What script? What character development? Action wasn't even handled that well, because it all blurs together.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
1
Ryo91Apr 17, 2020
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Naja. 1/10 *
0 of 2 users found this helpful02
All this user's reviews
0
ChrisC.May 10, 2006
Painful...makes four hours of "Titanic" feel like a 30-minute sitcom.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
AldrinC.May 16, 2006
"Poseidon" is typical of Wolfgang Petersen's films; either they suck or they sink.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
AlveroO.May 30, 2006
terrible movie it was a wasted of time this movie should have been called Titanic 2 but it is just a poor imitation (I know it is based on a 1972 movie) but it has no any plot so you are not worried about the moment when the people die terrible movie it was a wasted of time this movie should have been called Titanic 2 but it is just a poor imitation (I know it is based on a 1972 movie) but it has no any plot so you are not worried about the moment when the people die because yo have not been involved with the characters.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
magnusJun 4, 2006
I saw this late night in an empty cinema with three friends. It was so bad we were laughing and booing, sometimes in hysterics. It is an anti-drama, animatronic robofilm made by and for automatons. The script and acting are so banal that the I saw this late night in an empty cinema with three friends. It was so bad we were laughing and booing, sometimes in hysterics. It is an anti-drama, animatronic robofilm made by and for automatons. The script and acting are so banal that the interplay between actors becomes unfollowably dull, as characters enter the frame, babble cheese-drivel and then leave. On top of this; the action, the very raison d'etre of this scuppered piece of fishy junk, is utterly underwhelming. With such resource at his command, why did the director shoot in such a cluttered fashion, with most action taking place in shaky mid-shot, and most wides tainted by a CGI sheen? Only one scene had effective claustrophobia, in a situation that should have been saturated with it. This film lacked charisma, especially in the casting, featuring bland non-entities shifting about the frame like so much forgettable fish fodder. I tell ya, I was rooting for the water! Drown 'em! Drown 'em all!… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
MarcO.Jun 7, 2006
I prefered the 1972 movie that they extracted it from. This was just nonsense.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
StanleyBMay 14, 2006
I was shocked and disgusted by the treatment of ethnic minorities in this movie. It was offensive and insulting. Just kill off all the minorites. What a pitiful execuse of a movie. Get me my ten dollars back.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
NealC.May 14, 2006
Vivid visuals...but that's about it. Overall, a big, hot, steaming pile. And could someone please give Richard Dreyfuss, an Oscar winning actor mind you, a few lines? They substitute actual meaningful dialogue with a huge diamond Vivid visuals...but that's about it. Overall, a big, hot, steaming pile. And could someone please give Richard Dreyfuss, an Oscar winning actor mind you, a few lines? They substitute actual meaningful dialogue with a huge diamond earring to remind audiences that he is gay? A completely pointless character. Sad! I suppose watching Kurt Russell choke on gallons of water is fun, but it was not worth the nearly $10 I spent to see the film.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
thaliar.May 15, 2006
The worst character development in history. I loved the orignal movie with the great cast and developement. Sure the special effects were lame compared today but at least it was fun with real excitement. This one had no excitement and The worst character development in history. I loved the orignal movie with the great cast and developement. Sure the special effects were lame compared today but at least it was fun with real excitement. This one had no excitement and completely ridiculous. Why did not Kurt Russell as a retired fireman Captain try to save more people? Where was the X mas tree? Where was the cool New's yeare party? It was just a prop to show off all the special affects that the original lacked. Watch the first 20 minues and leave to see another movie. WORTHLESS.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
TedT.May 15, 2006
I didn't go expecting much. I got even less. Missing is any depth of character, no undercurrent themes that were prevelant in the 1972 version, no story,and no point. A terrible movie that made about 20 million too much in its first weekend.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
MarkB.May 16, 2006
This remake (although its stars claim it isn't one) is definitely not your father's Poseidon Adventure, which proves that sometimes father really does know best. Purists, of course, will find plenty to cavil about (Where's my This remake (although its stars claim it isn't one) is definitely not your father's Poseidon Adventure, which proves that sometimes father really does know best. Purists, of course, will find plenty to cavil about (Where's my Shelley Winters yakking about what a championship swimmer she was right before she drowns? Where's my Reverend Gene arguing with God just prior to meeting Him? Where's my Ernest Borgnine nagging my Stella Stevens to put on some clothes for a change? Where's my schlocky-but-catchy Maureen McGovern song that turned out to be so catchy, she virtually duplicated it two years later in The Towering Inferno?) but let's be honest: even if you're not a devotee of the original, there's STILL plenty to hate here. Irwin Allen's 1972 version of Paul Gallico's novel was a relatively respectable early example of one of the most unlikable of major film genres, the disaster movie; the personal drames and cornball characters navigating their way through the wreckage of an ocean liner destroyed by a tidal wave are precisely as campy as some viewers think they are, but there's an equally plausible reason why some of the original's fans (past and present) take it all perfectly seriously: because the filmmakers did, too. While "Master of Disaster" Allen no doubt handled most of the heavy lifting on the special effects, the actors were helmed by Ronald Neame, a dignified British director whose previous efforts (Tunes of Glory, The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie) were character studies first and foremost; even though the 1972 Poseidon was dramatically several leagues inferior, there's no doubt that Neame brought a considerable level of utter conviction to his material. The remake's director, Wolfgang Peterson, under the assumption that a summer movie audience is by definition unanimously stricken with A.D.D. and thus in a desperate hurry to get to the fires and explosions, gives us characters that are so half-dimensional (they don't even have enough depth to qualify as ONE-dimensional) that he makes the original's script look like a Eugene O'Neill play by comparison. All the women (including Ladder 49's lovely Jacinda Barrett) look alike even BEFORE being covered in smoke and bilge, and all the men yell their way through the entire movie with the exception of Richard Dreyfuss, who as a heartbroken, suicidal architect strikes an inadvertent blow for gay equality by proving that homosexuals can be every bit as boring as straights. What in the name of Neptune has happened to the once-great Peterson, anyway? Much of his previous work had what Poseidon stubbornly and willfully lacks: The Perfect Storm respected and honored its ill-fated real-life fishing crew while detailing the logistical mistakes they made that led to their tragedy, and in Air Force One Peterson took special care to tour us through the Presidential plane so that the action that subsequently took place in every compartment and chamber would really hit home. Judging from this and Troy, Peterson (who also, of course, made the definitive underwater movie, Das Boot, with very few special effects) needs to have his shiny new CGI toys taken away from him: some of the effects and exteriors here look as phony and unconvincing here as the rear-projection shots of ANY movie made in 1945. But what truly transports this Poseidon from being merely forgettably and disposably bad to being genuinely offensive is its graphic depictions of human pain, injury and agony and the utter callousness that both the film and its major characters display to the suffering of everyone else on the ship. Remember that in the original, the walk-ons and extras who perished did so because they were offered the choice of following the principal players and declined it; they essentially sealed their own doom. Here, the main characters don't even TRY to help anyone else, so perhaps it shouldn't be too surprising later on when someone responds to the life-or-death peril of a FAMILY MEMBER with all the emotion you'd expect from someone who temporarily misplaced a shopping list. Although the original Poseidon Adventure was a fairly benign example of the form, I've always found disaster movies to be as reprehensible as the current spate of horror films in which a character spends 90 minutes or so torturing all the OTHER characters: both genres invite their audiences to stare and drool at human pain and tragedy, only in this case Mother Nature herself does the slicing and dicing. Perhaps this Poseidon's already legendarily, uh, disastrous box office showing, coupled with the real-life United 93 making fictional accounts like this even more obscene by comparison will send any future incipient efforts to recycle Earthquake, The Towering Inferno and the Airports to a well-deserved watery grave.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
ChristineP.Jun 1, 2006
i almost fall alsleep and the movies doesnt even have a story line. it was bored and it failed to make me feel touching. and actors were acting not really good at this movie either. it was aweful.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
DaveB.Aug 22, 2006
one of the worst films of all time...terrible in every aspect possible...bad acting...unrealistic and dull plot...bad writing....annoying direction...its so bad it even goes down to bad lighting, special effects and hot women.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
[Anonymous]Aug 22, 2006
A horrible movie in every way.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
RoboB.Oct 17, 2006
Absolutely terrible. A degrading role for Richard Dreyfus.... I'd rather sit through a New Years morning hangover listening to someone drag their fingernails across a chalkboard than sit through this abortion of a film again.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
JamesJMay 15, 2006
People may have liked this junk 35 years ago, but then again, Bread was a popular band once. The original wasn't any good, why did I think a bloated remake would be better? Don't waste your money - boycott this or else People may have liked this junk 35 years ago, but then again, Bread was a popular band once. The original wasn't any good, why did I think a bloated remake would be better? Don't waste your money - boycott this or else Hollywood's going to make more (and we don't need a remake of "Earthquake.")… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
BillyS.May 27, 2006
I find it embarrassing to write about this movie because it's admitting that I actually paid money to see it! The original Poseiden Adventure was released in 1972 and started a Hollywood trend of big budget disaster films most of which I find it embarrassing to write about this movie because it's admitting that I actually paid money to see it! The original Poseiden Adventure was released in 1972 and started a Hollywood trend of big budget disaster films most of which became huge movie-for-the-masses fodder. It has taken 34 years, but Hollywood has finally put the nail in the coffin of the disaster epic by making the absolute worst remake in film history! They should have sold this movie as a remake of Airplane because it is so (unexpectedly) funny that I give it one point only for Kurt Russell's hilarious Shelley Winters impersonation as he swims and swims, holding his breath under water, trying to reach the on/off switch control panel for the enormous engines of the ocean liner(and the control panel is, amazingly, functioning underwater also). If only there had been a second "Rouge Wave" at the very end, now that would be worth 10 bucks!!… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
FranzHcriticJan 17, 2014
Overuse of CGI, a jumble of writing, and a series of scenes that made me ask, could these people even exist? A ships sinking normally interests me, for I am a buff of wrecks and ship disasters and I've always been interested in the history ofOveruse of CGI, a jumble of writing, and a series of scenes that made me ask, could these people even exist? A ships sinking normally interests me, for I am a buff of wrecks and ship disasters and I've always been interested in the history of these sunken vessels, but this film looks more to me like an animation mixed with real people, only it's uncanny and to an extent disturbing. Should have stuck with the original, plain and simple. It's macabre in every shape, size, and hue.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
More From This Movie

50 Critic Reviews

5.9 User Reviews

Details & Credits|Trailers

Current Movie Releases
By MetascoreBy User Score
1 81 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple
2 77 Project Hail Mary
3 75 Send Help
4 73 Hoppers
5 72 The Sheep Detectives
SEE ALL
Essential Links
New on Amazon Prime Video
New on Netflix
Coming Soon to DVD/Blu-ray
SEE ALL