The last few weeks has seen the release of two very different 'disaster' themed movies. Whereas one harks back to the 'golden' age of Hollywood genre films, the other is an ultra realistic and indeed brutal cinematic experience. Guess which one is worth watching?

Poseidon (a computer heavy reworking of the 1970's Poseidon Adventure) is undoubtedly one of the best looking films of the year. I would argue that on a purely visual level it is one of the greatest films of all time. The special effects really are stunning; from the onboard calamities to the tidal wave that topples the cruise liner in the first place, everything is flawless. So why did the film fail at the box-office? Putting aside the fact that the script and characters aren't that great (have you ever scene a disaster flick where they are?), the more pertinent reason lies with the other release of the week. Following on from real life terror, and subsequent heroism, who wants to see a bunch of overpaid Hollywood actors saving the day in fiction when there are real heroes out there…?

United 93, based on the final hours of the flight that crashed into a field on 9/11 is presented in realistic documentary format. It is undeniably a disaster film, one where the ending is even more 'predictable' than Poseidon but of course it is based on real life events and real characters. The emotions felt by the films central protagonists is presented through a frightening level authenticity, and the physical impact on the viewer is palpable. Later in the year, controversial filmmaker Oliver Stone will present his take on the disaster in World Trade Centre starring Nicholas Cage as one of only two fire-fighters who survive the collapse of the buildings. The wounds of that day may still be raw, but if the films are as expertly handled as United 93, it will spell the end for 'popcorn blockbusters'.

Some may try to label United 93 and other such films as being in a different genre, but this would be a snobby point of view. The film is sophisticated and clever certainly, and emotionally involving but it is a disaster film nonetheless. Look at other films in the genre, from the never ending 'Airport' franchise to the standard-bearer 'Towering Inferno'; you have a disparate group characters, an impending disaster that the viewer already knows about and a triumph of the human spirit over adversity. There are some differences here obviously, namely the fact that you are placed directly in the midst of the action, but the staples are still the same.

The charm of the retro disaster films were predominantly in the calibre of the actors involved. They ranged from the A-list superstar (Heston, Newman and Mcqueen) to the C-list comedy sidekicks, always a clearly defined character, often with as many defects as plus points. Nowadays Tom Cruise can be seen in action man mode saving the world from overweight arm dealers (Mission Impossible 3) or world conquering alien life form with allergies (War of the Worlds), but no matter what the situation it is he alone who is the star, and with the same interchangeable onscreen persona.

The visuals are sumptuous; even a few years back the twin asteroid attack of 'Deep Impact' and 'Armageddon' stood head and shoulders above the rest of the action movies that came out before, but both lacked soul. This 'critical' opinion however has now been rendered irrelevant, for a disaster film to succeed today it must not only entertain, but also educate. Michael Bay must be quaking in his boots…