The Day After Tomorrow...

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

Al Gore really needs to come to terms with the fact that he's not relevent anymore.

[Guest thebigjig]

My favorite Ebert review is his thrashing of Pearl Harbor, a movie I hated as much as he did

 

"Pearl Harbor" is a two-hour movie squeezed into three hours, about how on Dec. 7, 1941, the Japanese staged a surprise attack on an American love triangle. Its centerpiece is 40 minutes of redundant special effects, surrounded by a love story of stunning banality. The film has been directed without grace, vision, or originality, and although you may walk out quoting lines of dialog, it will not be because you admire them.

 

Their first date is subtitled "Three Months Later" and ends with Danny, having apparently read the subtitle, telling Evelyn, "Don't let it be three months before I see you again, okay?" That gets almost as big a laugh as her line to Rafe, "I'm gonna give Danny my whole heart, but I don't think I'll ever look at another sunset without thinking of you."

 

That kind of bad laugh would have been sidestepped in a more literate screenplay, but our hopes are not high after an early newsreel report that the Germans are bombing "downtown London"--a difficult target, since although there is such a place as "central London," at no time in 2,000 years has London ever had anything described by anybody as a "downtown."

 

What is the point, really, of more than half an hour of planes bombing ships, of explosions and fireballs, of roars on the soundtrack and bodies flying through the air and people running away from fighters that are strafing them? How can it be entertaining or moving when it's simply about the most appalling slaughter? Why do the filmmakers think we want to see this, unrelieved by intelligence, viewpoint or insight? It was a terrible, terrible day. Three thousand died in all. This is not a movie about them

[nl5xsk1 0]

I agree with Untouchable ... it pisses me off that NYC is supposed to be untouchable (no pun intended) now from any reference in a fictional disaster movie. Even when movies use cities other than New York, pissants still say "it's too reminiscent of NY and 9/11" or something similar. So, most of this guy's bluster was lost on me due to my being too focused on his 9/11 comparisons.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

Good, I'm glad someone else summed up my feelings on Pearl Harbor so well.

[Guest thebigjig]

Good, I'm glad someone else summed up my feelings on Pearl Harbor so well.

I remember walking out of the theater disgusted and wondering why a movie dealing with Pearl Harbor ended up being like an episode of Ricki Lake

[KingPK 0]

I too saw the "special sneak preview" on FOX last week, and I immediately knew this movie would bomb because the same problem that plagues other bad disaster movies; SFX first, plot second. Hell ID4 wasn't the greatest movie in the world, but youi could actually CARE about some of the characters because the actors actually made an effort to put forth a good performance (Will Smith, Bill Pullman, Jeff Goldblum, hell, even RANDY FUCKING QUAID). Of course, there were the typical horrible actors (the First Lady, Quaid's kids), but they either died, or had few lines.

 

Where was I going with this? Oh yeah, TDAT doesn't seem to have much of a plot behind it and no real big name actors, so, like a lot of these no-brain summer movies, it will do really well this weekend and then drop off the charts next week because A) People will realize not only is it an empty movie, it isn't even a GOOD empty movie and B) they will spread the word to their friends.

 

Who wants to see NYC get flooded AGAIN anyway? We already saw it in Deep Impact.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

I don't think anything will ever beat Tora Tora Tora for best Pearl Harbor movie.

[Guest thebigjig]

I don't think anything will ever beat Tora Tora Tora for best Pearl Harbor movie.

no arguments there

[Guest MikeSC]

Disaster movies almost always suck.  The best one I've ever seen was Twister and that wasn't really trying to be a "The whole Nation (or in some cases the whole planet) will be flattened" type deals.

The problem with most of the recent ones is that they mess with the formula. Instead of having a disaster and then weeding out the characters until a handful are left at the end, they usually try to form some sort of agenda. Man should not mess with nature. That sort of thing.

 

Oddly enough, my favourite disaster movie, Jurassic Park, is of that type, but Spielberg had a much greater vision than most of those that followed him. It was also a good thing that he didn't villify Hammond too. That is the one difference from the book that I prefer the movie verision.

For his faults and biases, Spielberg does manage to make his political beliefs the background in his movies --- not the central thesis.

-=Mike

[Guest Vitamin X]

Of course, while the focus is on the dog, they're conveniently neglecting the dozens of HUMAN BEINGS who are turning into man-flavored bacon.

Well of course, the whole point of that is because we're desensitized to humans being killed whereas a harmless pet (I say harmless because this obviously doesn't include Cujo or the cats in sleepwalkers) is something the audience would care about making it through the whole thing, especially since we're attached to Vivica A. Fox's story at that point.

[BX 0]

I'll see this film Thursday night after work, so you guy will be the first to know how hard it really sucks.

[Guest TheAustralian]

Saw this movie this morning, and it was a bit of a mixed bag,

 

The first hour is full of amazing visuals and amazing sound, but due to the fact that the major scenes are at the beginning of the movie, the last hour seems a tab flat,

 

the acting is just good, the main stars just seem to lack the charisma of Smith, Goldblum and Pullman

 

All that being said, it is miles ahead of the two other blockbusters that have hit downunder recently (Troy and Van Helsing)

[Guest Vitamin X]

There's a lot of movies better than Van Helsing.

 

Better than Troy? Hmm. I thought Troy was decent, about a B or so on my scale.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

OK

 

1) I saw that preview on FX, too. I was laughing so hard at how awful it was. I could have fast-forwarded it (had The Shield recorded) but I was in awe.

 

2) Vyce, pets are always more important than humans. Some killer can go on a rampage and slaughter 20 people, BUT DON'T KILL THE FAMILY DOG OR MOVIE-GOERS WILL BE PISSED.

 

3) Where was that Ebert "I hated this movie" quote from? It sounds familar.

 

4) I have determined that the President in ID4 was a Republican. a) Elenaor Clift was ragging on him at the start of the movie, b) the black lady told the first lady that she "voted for the other guy." Black women with kids OVERWHELMINGLY vote Democrat.

 

So not all Republicans in the movies are bad -- some just allow millions to be killed by not evacuating the cities earlier and launch nukes...

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Disaster movies are among some of the most unentertaining pieces of shit ever thought up. That said, I'm going to go watch this for free, and talk through the entire thing.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

3) Where was that Ebert "I hated this movie" quote from? It sounds familar.

 

North

[Guest Choken One]

and I didn't think North was really all that bad...

 

 

There's been worst.

[RepoMan 0]

As a liberal, I'm very worried about the idea of advancing the enviromental cause through such an over the top and most likely horible movie. It's just going to make most of "The Left" look really, really stupid.

[tommytomlin 0]

Can't we have one thread on this forum spared from the Left/Right bullshit?

 

As for the movie itself, I thought it was alright. Not as good as ID4, which seems to the barometer of a good disaster flick, but better than say, Armageddon or the steaming pile of crap that was Deep Impact.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

I thought Deep Impact was alright. It wasn't a great movie, but it was easily better than Armageddon.

[Guest MikeSC]

Can't we have one thread on this forum spared from the Left/Right bullshit?

 

As for the movie itself, I thought it was alright. Not as good as ID4, which seems to the barometer of a good disaster flick, but better than say, Armageddon or the steaming pile of crap that was Deep Impact.

When the entire point of the film is to score political points --- it's a little hard to ignore it.

 

It'd be like saying "What's with all of this right/left crap?" when discussing Michael Moore films. When the director intentionally puts it in there --- it is fair game for mockery.

-=Mike

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

I agree with Mike here. This is the point that Emmerich is trying to put forward. You don't see people making political arguments in the Harry Potter thread.

[Guest TheAustralian]

I personally find it amazing that many of you have already made up your mind about this movie withot seeing it,

 

personally I dont give a shit about the environmental message behind the movie, it's just a fun movie,

 

it's not a thesis, or an academic journal, Its a movie just treat it as one.

 

go to the best cinema in your area, it is atleast enjoyable.

[Guest Man Of 1,004 Modes]

Best Ebert quote ever:

I hated this movie. Hated hated hated hated hated this movie. Hated it. Hated every simpering stupid vacant audience-insulting moment of it. Hated the sensibility that thought anyone would like it. Hated the implied insult to the audience by its belief that anyone would be entertained by it.

I think he liked it

I loved that. Is that an actually line of his, or did someone make it up? Cause I remember it on the Rob Reiner roast (forgot the movie title) but could never justify it being real.

[LaParkaMarka 0]

Best Ebert quote ever:

I hated this movie. Hated hated hated hated hated this movie. Hated it. Hated every simpering stupid vacant audience-insulting moment of it. Hated the sensibility that thought anyone would like it. Hated the implied insult to the audience by its belief that anyone would be entertained by it.

I think he liked it

I loved that. Is that an actually line of his, or did someone make it up? Cause I remember it on the Rob Reiner roast (forgot the movie title) but could never justify it being real.

I love that quote too, it's just great.

 

And the negative reviews for this movie are flying out. Here's a few:

 

Toronto Star

 

Slate

 

CNN

 

Washington Times

 

It's hilarious to see so many negative reviews. And really, the movie sounds atrocious. Characters outrunning a travelling death freeze? It seems as if it gets into the "so shitty it's funny" stage, so I might actually see it.

[BX 0]

God Damn. What can I say?

 

This was worse then Pearl Harbor, suffering from much of the same problems, such as a massive loss of life playing second fiddle to a simple love story. Also, some of the sequences are fucking laughable.

 

Outrunning a fucking deathfreeze? Outrunning a rushing wave of seawater, which 45 seconds previously, was already two blocks away from you? B U L L S H I T.

 

I cried bullshit so many times during this movie, my boss asked me if I wanted to keep my job.

 

That's what I can say.

 

Save your money for "Raising Helen." Or better yet, food.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

personally I dont give a shit about the environmental message behind the movie, it's just a fun movie,

 

This isn't why I'm not going to see it. I'm merely pointing it out, because I believe when you are using a film as a political tool that it should at least attempt to be accurate. Rewriting history is one thing, rewriting physics is something else.

 

I'm not seeing because the trailers looked like crud and made it out to be the Core Part 2. If feedback was favourable, I would certainly think about it, but thus far it isn't. I feel the exact same way about Catwoman, and it has no message whatsoever aside from entertainment. I am not against mindless entertainment at all. I quite enjoyed Independence Day. Godzilla on the other hand was complete trash. Not all mindless entertainment is actually entertaining, as Van Helsing will show you.

 

With better films coming out in the weeks surrounding it (Shrek 2 last week, Harry Potter 3 next week), there is no reason to see this.

[Scroby 0]

Honestly when I first saw the trailer for this in theaters it looked like crap. I'm not a buff for movies which are focused on special effects. I prefer a good plot, good writing, and good acting and when a trailer is just showing the special effects and nothing else, it doesn't make me want to shell out some money to watch it. Hell even when this releases on DVD I won't rent it and I can get it for free! This was my problem pretty much with Hellboy too, not that I'm comparing the two, but Hellboy lacked in a lot of things also.

[Art Sandusky 0]

Am I the only one that doesn't give two shits about "agendas" in films and just watches them for entertainment?

 

I was going to see this, but all the negative reviews have kinda turned me off. Either way, had I gone, the idea of an environmentalist agenda would have never occured to me, simply because all the other stuff in the film is too ludicrous to take the whole seriously.

[Guest MikeSC]

Am I the only one that doesn't give two shits about "agendas" in films and just watches them for entertainment?

 

I was going to see this, but all the negative reviews have kinda turned me off. Either way, had I gone, the idea of an environmentalist agenda would have never occured to me, simply because all the other stuff in the film is too ludicrous to take the whole seriously.

Personally, I hate it when agendas are pushed in films. As if I'm supposed to give a rat's BUTT WHAT the director of ID4 thinks about Bush's environmental policy.

 

The reason the film has as much press as it does is BECAUSE of the politics of it. Take away that and this film has as much buzz as, say, Dante's Peak.

 

I'm still waiting for the first really good disaster movie...

-=Mike