StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Well, here it is. The latest catastrophic movie to depict the downfall of humanity because of their own mistakes, with "scientifically accurate" "predictions". They even have proof, on their website!

I went out to see it today, and it turned out to be a rehash of that last melodramatic asteroid movie the name of which I forgot (not Armageddon - Armageddon never pretended to be scientifically accurate )

Where to begin...the plot is pretty dull. A scientist warns everyone, nobody listens, shit hits the fan, people still don't listen, more shit hits the fan, a friend of the scientist influences a bigwig, people start listening, the scientist goes to save his son, loses a friend (who sacrifices himself so that the other guy may keep going), everything ends in reflection and a solemn promise to do better next time round. Throw in some love triangle that turns out to actually not be a love triangle at all, and you've got the movie. The story could actually work nice, if the acting didn't suck, and it was told at a briskier pace with less sidetracks and more character development.

I won't comment on the special effects, since they were absolutely stunning. Too bad you just can't cut it special effects alone this day and age, everybody has them and they are nearly always top-notch. They were good. But for a movie that pretends to base it's premise on a scientific foundation, it massacres it amazingly well and thoroughly. You'll know what I mean when you see the deadly insta-freeze effect in action.

All in all, it wasn't worth my money. Next time something like this comes around, I'll rent it.

Deep Impact?

He refers to "The Core"- which I read the novelization of, but didn't see (mercifully). I still plan to see TDAT, but just for sheer special effects wankery. The whole thing is based on an Art Bell book called "The Coming Global Suprestorm", so that should give you an idea of its scientific accuracy.

Super-Gagme wrote:Deep Impact?

Yeah, that's the one. I haven't seen The Core - God must be merciful

Oops- I got 0wned. Well, don't see the Core.

The core is a fun flick, as long as you don't take it seriously.

That's the same way I thought about Day after Tomorrow. Don't think about it, and you'll have lots of fun.

And I was sooo hoping that the girl would take her clothes off or something! SHE WAS HOT!

Is it true the scientist decides to hike from Philly to NYC, with the temp dropping ten degrees a minute?

Straha wrote:Is it true the scientist decides to hike from Philly to NYC, with the temp dropping ten degrees a minute?

Sort of. They don't start their trip out that way. The only thing that really boggled the mind were the helicopters at the end.. they start out in Mexico and then end up in NY in a few hours or so?

I would've really liked to see what happens at the end. Just a few states remain barely habitable.. so Mexico now finds itself with the world's strongest army sitting within its borders and no home to call its own, lol. I wonder what happens.

I loved listening to the actors prattle on about the importance of the movie and that they are going to be showing real possible outcomes if something isn't done. The director even believed this drivle. If I see I'm seriously going to have to turn off my bullshit-o'meter because I think this movie might break it.

It's full of annoying leftist political points as well. Really sucked. When I plonk down money for a disaster movie, I don't need preaching about forigiving Latin American debt ...

My review:

Good:

• The acting. Not magnificent, but definitely a cut above what'd you expect for a Roland Emmerich vehicle, with no one in particular really hamming it up. The dialogue could have been the most corny shit ever written but it wasn't.
• The plot with the people in the library - least annoying high schoolers ever, and they didn't kill off the black guy.
• The FX - a no-brainer. Magnificent.
• The suspense; they did a good job creating a genuine sense of dread during the action sequences.
• Emmy Rossum's (the young actress who played the love interest) smile.

The Bad

• Pretty much the entire premise.
• The subplot with the cancer patient. Gag me.
• The leftie propaganda, as has been pointed out.
• The fact that the whole thing operated under the completely baseless assumption that global warming is a phenomenon caused by humanity.
• The wolves in the Russian tanker. Gag me again.
• Stupid foreshadowing. It would have been better to let the instantaneous freezing surprise the audience.
• The pacing. The action was too concentrated during the beginning of the movie, there should have been one huge action sequence to finish it off.
• I was unaware that Australia and New Zealand were third world countries.

Vympel wrote:It's full of annoying leftist political points as well. Really sucked. When I plonk down money for a disaster movie, I don't need preaching about forigiving Latin American debt ...

And you know what's better? The new US President at the end, when he thanks Mexico for being kind and hospitable and letting in the US citizens in the time of need...

...but they did so AFTER the late pres decided to forgo all the Latin American debt
In other words, it was pure extortion.

Joe wrote:*snip*

Just saw it and I agree with pretty much everything on this list with one addition.

Does anyone else notice that Roland Emmerich has a serious hard on for having President's be the pinnacle of heroism? What the fuck was it with the Prez staying behind at the White House while it froze over? Can anyone see Bush or Clinton or even FDR doing that?

The Kernel wrote: Does anyone else notice that Roland Emmerich has a serious hard on for having President's be the pinnacle of heroism? What the fuck was it with the Prez staying
behind at the White House while it froze over? Can anyone see Bush or Clinton or even FDR doing that?

It wasn't heroism, it was stupidity. Death of the President serves no purpose, other than a disruption in the chain of command, and he can coordinate the rescue effort
just as well from the Air Force One if he wants to.
Furthermore, he basically sentenced his entire motorcade to death for no real reason.

The president in that movie was just an indecisive asshole.

Why? Because he's a modern American Zealot...America this. America That. Look at Independence Day, Godzilla, etc.

Majin Gojira wrote:Why? Because he's a modern American Zealot...America this. America That. Look at Independence Day, Godzilla, etc.

Roland Emmerich is German.

Joe wrote:

Majin Gojira wrote:Why? Because he's a modern American Zealot...America this. America That. Look at Independence Day, Godzilla, etc.

Roland Emmerich is German.

Please don't associate Emmerich with my country. Especially his "America-is-the-greatest" views, he had to display in every of his movies, I not like so well.(Independece Day is here the worst offender)

Tribun wrote:

Joe wrote:

Majin Gojira wrote:Why? Because he's a modern American Zealot...America this. America That. Look at Independence Day, Godzilla, etc.

Roland Emmerich is German.

Please don't associate Emmerich with my country. Especially his "America-is-the-greatest" views, he had to display in every of his movies, is not so well liked here.

From a recent interview in der Spiegel:

"We must not destroy our planet. The United States are the most powerful country, and there sits George W. Bush, a president who cares about nothing but oil. How different would the world be if the Democratic environmentalist politician Al Gore would have come to power? All this is hard to bear for me as a German. I never want to be an American."

Sounds like a good German to me.

PeZook wrote:Well, here it is. The latest catastrophic movie to depict the downfall of humanity because of their own mistakes, with "scientifically accurate" "predictions". They even have proof, on their website!

I went out to see it today, and it turned out to be a rehash of that last melodramatic asteroid movie the name of which I forgot (not Armageddon - Armageddon never pretended to be scientifically accurate )

Where to begin...the plot is pretty dull. A scientist warns everyone, nobody listens, shit hits the fan, people still don't listen, more shit hits the fan, a friend of the scientist influences a bigwig, people start listening, the scientist goes to save his son, loses a friend (who sacrifices himself so that the other guy may keep going), everything ends in reflection and a solemn promise to do better next time round. Throw in some love triangle that turns out to actually not be a love triangle at all, and you've got the movie. The story could actually work nice, if the acting didn't suck, and it was told at a briskier pace with less sidetracks and more character development.

I won't comment on the special effects, since they were absolutely stunning. Too bad you just can't cut it special effects alone this day and age, everybody has them and they are nearly always top-notch. They were good. But for a movie that pretends to base it's premise on a scientific foundation, it massacres it amazingly well and thoroughly. You'll know what I mean when you see the deadly insta-freeze effect in action.

All in all, it wasn't worth my money. Next time something like this comes around, I'll rent it.

Uhm, ahem. If you were to read about to fucking movie, you will learn from the directors that they were making no attempt to be scientifically accurate. They admit of taking a concept and running with it to just have a natural disaster movie. So roll your eyes at your own fucking assumptions.

Number two: how much plot can you expect? This isn't about personal relationships, but about surviving and that's what they did. This movie was meant for its action and concept of survival. If you want a love story or some other complicated plot, then that's just something else to ruin a movie.

Uhm, ahem. If you were to read about to fucking movie, you will learn from the directors that they were making no attempt to be scientifically accurate. They admit of taking a concept and running with it to just have a natural disaster movie. So roll your eyes at your own fucking assumptions.

The people who made The China Syndrome made no attempt to be scientifically accurate and the movie created a new wave of anti-nuclear paranoia. Scientific inaccuracy is OK sometimes for popcorn entertainment, but when you're dealing with a controversial issue like global warming it's downright irresponsible, especially given the fact that one of the stated reasons for making the movie was to raise awareness about global warming.

CrimsonRaine wrote: Uhm, ahem. If you were to read about to fucking movie, you will learn from the directors that they were making no attempt to be scientifically accurate. They admit of taking a concept and running with it to just have a natural disaster movie. So roll your eyes at your own fucking assumptions.

Yes, the "what can you do" and "future predictions" bits on their website give it all away. I'm sorry for not noticing them.

They even have a quote from Emmerich himself going "The threat of global climate change is the only problem big enough to force all the countries in the world to stop fighting and work together to save the planet."

It sure sounds like they were just making an entertainment movie, yup.

CrimsonRaine wrote:Number two: how much plot can you expect? This isn't about personal relationships, but about surviving and that's what they did. This movie was meant for its action and concept of survival. If you want a love story or some other complicated plot, then that's just something else to ruin a movie.

Of course it's about action and survival. But they shoddily inserted the love story and father/son relatonship into the plot anyways, which was my original gripe. If you're gonna introduce sublots, at least do it right for chrissakes!

Man, what a piece of shit. All these disaster movies suffer from the same thing: the concentrate on the disaster. And with that, you have to suffer with characters that take up time between the special effects.

What they SHOULD do is have such a disaster as the background story; happening as the main story unrelated to disaster is happening.

Lord Poe wrote:Man, what a piece of shit. All these disaster movies suffer from the same thing: the concentrate on the disaster. And with that, you have to suffer with characters that take up time between the special effects.

What they SHOULD do is have such a disaster as the background story; happening as the main story unrelated to disaster is happening.

THen we're back to those horrible 70's disaster movies where the first forty minutes is spent establishing half a dozen soap-opera plots before shit starts breaking.

For me, this film worked as an adventure movie and eye candy, and that's all I was expecting out of it. So I got my five bucks' worth (student discount--they can't tell I've been out of Villanova more than a year when I flash my old Wildcard at them).

After watching that movie, I have concluded that I'm never going to get that time back. It sucked from the opening shots to the end of the film. The concept was ridiculous. The special effects weren't good enough to save the film (and many of them made no sense, if you think about them, ie. the fact that additional ice forms when the "eye of the storm" hits, etc.). The best part about it was the girl, but the movie forced her to put more clothes ON, which ended up removing the film's biggest potential lure.

The plot really sucked. My favorite moment, though, was that the guys walking from Philadelphia to NY ended up walking past the Statue of Liberty. Granted, the one guy mentioned earlier that they couldn't navigate worth shit, but that was ridiculous.