This one's definitely a "mixed-bag"; a movie that wasn't quite sure what it wanted to be. Disaster epic? Musical? Psychological drama? Romance? Adventure? Comedy? The producers threw all these elements into "the old stew pot", gave it a brisk stir, and hoped for the best. For one thing, this movie was simply made at the wrong time -- this just wasn't "were it was at" for audiences in 1969; it looked badly dated and inconsequential. It would have fit far better among the B-picture adventure yarns that were being churned out in the 1950's. Yet unfortunately for the producers, it was too early to be part of the "disaster pic" cycle of the mid-Seventies (though they did re-release it under a new name at that time, maybe hoping to recoup their losses?).
I don't know the whole story on the production, but it sounds like the producers were very anxious to get "into the can" all the special effects footage they could of volcano and tsunami, without any concept of how it was going to be pieced together. Apparently they started without anything approaching a finished script, and tried to tack together a story during the filming. Continuity is shaky, the subplots seem underdeveloped, so overall the movie has a sloppy, poorly-edited look. I have to wonder if much of it didn't end up on the cutting room floor. This slip-shod approach probably explains how a major motion picture release could contain in it's title such a glaring mistake in geography!
The musical score, and especially Mack David's theme song, is lovely, but it's simply MUCH TOO "Sixties" for a movie set in the 1880's. On the whole, the acting is fairly solid. Diane Baker and Barbara Werle share duties in the romance department; unfortunately, Barbara's character "Charley" is a source of much unintended humor. Worst scene of the movie is where she sings and dances (and strips) around the stateroom she shares with Brian Keith. Was this supposed to be "seductive"? I recall being stupefied at this sudden and unexpected musical interlude; Brian Keith however just looks totally bored. The special effects are okay for their time, and there's enough adventure in this movie to at least make it watchable.
I don't know the whole story on the production, but it sounds like the producers were very anxious to get "into the can" all the special effects footage they could of volcano and tsunami, without any concept of how it was going to be pieced together. Apparently they started without anything approaching a finished script, and tried to tack together a story during the filming. Continuity is shaky, the subplots seem underdeveloped, so overall the movie has a sloppy, poorly-edited look. I have to wonder if much of it didn't end up on the cutting room floor. This slip-shod approach probably explains how a major motion picture release could contain in it's title such a glaring mistake in geography!
The musical score, and especially Mack David's theme song, is lovely, but it's simply MUCH TOO "Sixties" for a movie set in the 1880's. On the whole, the acting is fairly solid. Diane Baker and Barbara Werle share duties in the romance department; unfortunately, Barbara's character "Charley" is a source of much unintended humor. Worst scene of the movie is where she sings and dances (and strips) around the stateroom she shares with Brian Keith. Was this supposed to be "seductive"? I recall being stupefied at this sudden and unexpected musical interlude; Brian Keith however just looks totally bored. The special effects are okay for their time, and there's enough adventure in this movie to at least make it watchable.