Day After Tomorrow = 10/10

[electricJ]

Anyone who says this was the best movie they've seen this year surely (and sadly) missed Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind or Kill Bill Vol. 2....

 

[Fritzo]

Originally posted by: alkemyst
I love when people attack science with the premise "I am not really sure but"

It was a movie BTW...some of it is highly plausible as a future possibility. Should the 'Greenhouse effect" happen the first step would be the melting of the polar ice caps, which would in turn release at least enough water to submerge many islands, most of Florida and reduce land along every coast line.

If it happened fast enough tidal waves could result, it would only take a 20' storm surge to really cause a lot of damage.

Eventually the world would warm up...this would change our wind patterns...no as far as triggering an 'ice age' I have not looked into that possiblity enough to yea or nay it. My bet is either way is you will be lucky to make it through, but I would guarantee life would not end totally.

Read this:

Text

 

[Fritzo]

Originally posted by: spacejamz
so let's see...

i guess everyone should hate all action/sci-fi movies and pretty much any other movie that is not 100% realistic and true to life and contains any scenes that cannot occur in real life or don't have a good plot...


did i miss anything...

SciFi has nothing to do with it...people aren't hating it because of the premise, people are hating it because of the bad acting, huge plot holes, and continuity problems.

 

[jjones]

Originally posted by: spacejamz
so let's see...

i guess everyone should hate all action/sci-fi movies and pretty much any other movie that is not 100% realistic and true to life and contains any scenes that cannot occur in real life or don't have a good plot...


did i miss anything...

It's called "suspension of disbelief", something every movie tries to achieve. If there are too many plot holes, inaccuracies, or blatant movie making mistakes, disbelief is not suspended enough for people to get involved in the movie.

It doesn't matter the genre or how outrageous the premise is, as long as there is consistency and a foundation of plausibility, then a director can achieve the suspension of disbelief necessary to entertain an audience.

I haven't seen the movie and hadn't planned on it. Disaster movies just do not seem capable of entertaining me. And I hate Dennis Quaid, truly one of the lousiest actors in the business.

 

[spacejamz]

Originally posted by: Fritzo

Originally posted by: spacejamz
so let's see...

i guess everyone should hate all action/sci-fi movies and pretty much any other movie that is not 100% realistic and true to life and contains any scenes that cannot occur in real life or don't have a good plot...


did i miss anything...

SciFi has nothing to do with it...people aren't hating it because of the premise, people are hating it because of the bad acting, huge plot holes, and continuity problems.

sounds exactly like the reviews for T2/T3 with its loopholes and acting...I enjoyed those movies as well...

(again, not comparing this movie to the Terminator ones, just trying to make a point)...

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: xchangx
How about using a payphone underwater? That did it for me. or the fact that NY had no power, underwater and frozen, yet cell phone towers were still up and running. There were a lot of other "mistakes" I caught while watching it.

There are some electrical devices you can use underwater....the phone i believe only worked until it was submerged. The bottom portion of a payphone is just the money strongbox.

 

[JYDog]

I give it 8/10.

Not the best acting but what were one expecting from it, superb effects all the way.

If one craves realism than this PBS's NOVA is better...

 

[UglyCasanova]

I enjoyed it. It was nothing but a high budget memorial day special effects fest, but that is exactly what I expected. No better or worse than almost every other movie being produced lately.

And to all of you who say this genre is beaten to death, how many other climate-shift-hear-comes-the-ice-age type movies have you seen? Name one. Now, out of every movie being produced this year, or last year, or hell the year before that; name me one single movie whose idea was original and puts itself into a genre of its own. Yeah this was a disaster film and we've all seen those, but ive never seen one about a coming ice age. I have seen just about every love scenario possible to make, too many flics of spaceships and galactic wars, way too many stupid fuggin "teen movies", good guys vs. bad guys, and everything else.

 

[johnjohn320]

Originally posted by: brigden
Just got back from seeing the film.

One, I will stab anyone in the face who attempts to either defend or refute the "science" behind the film. Leave it alone, and get a life.

Two, the special effects were very pretty.

Three, dialogue was hilarious - this made for an entertaining film. I, like most in the theatre, laughed out loud constantly.

Four, I realized Dennis Quaid is capable of only one expression/emotion: confused disbelief.

My only beef was with the abrupt un-ending.

I enjoyed myself, and I'm glad I saw the film in the theatre, where the effects could be appreciated. It was unpretentious, good-looking fluff, people, nothing more.

Funniest.Post.Evar.

 

[Fritzo]

Originally posted by: spacejamz

Originally posted by: Fritzo

Originally posted by: spacejamz
so let's see...

i guess everyone should hate all action/sci-fi movies and pretty much any other movie that is not 100% realistic and true to life and contains any scenes that cannot occur in real life or don't have a good plot...


did i miss anything...

SciFi has nothing to do with it...people aren't hating it because of the premise, people are hating it because of the bad acting, huge plot holes, and continuity problems.

sounds exactly like the reviews for T2/T3 with its loopholes and acting...I enjoyed those movies as well...

(again, not comparing this movie to the Terminator ones, just trying to make a point)...

T2 got great reviews...T3 stunk.

 

[Pepsi90919]

the special effects were fine. the character development was nil.


here we have 'peter', the cancer kid, whom the director spends no more than 5 minutes building up the character of, and then near the end when the woman is crying and the sad music is playing because he might not [but does] make it out alive, we're supposed to feel empathetic? shut up.

 

[SSP]

Originally posted by: Pepsi90919
the special effects were fine. the character development was nil.


here we have 'peter', the cancer kid, whom the director spends no more than 5 minutes building up the character of, and then near the end when the woman is crying and the sad music is playing because he might not [but does] make it out alive, we're supposed to feel empathetic? shut up.

Yeah, the destruction was entertaining. The subplots were stupid and pointless.

Wolves?? looking for penicillin in a ship that managed to not crash through couple of building... :roll:

 

[Rufio]

it's a freaking movie.

lighten up you nerds.

 

[0roo0roo]

And JOHN E. writes: "Saw DAT. I'd wager I could make a list of 67 Problems with The Day After Tomorrow. Here are 10 as a warm-up.

1. Why does never occur to anyone in the library to burn a chair or table, something that'd take longer to burn than some books?

2. How did the wolves escape and why only them?

3. Wouldn't Jake Gyllenhaal lose his hand to frostbite after being outside on the ship with no glove?

4. If the temperature drops ten degrees a second in the eye, how they possibly outrun the freeze?

5. Those people trekking away from the library... One guy has doubts and says "We should have stayed in the library." Why not go into the building right next to you instead of staying outside to build a fire?

6. So an entire Ice Age takes four days to come and go?

7. Why would Dennis Quaid's bosses let him trek to the North when they could helicopter over in a couple days?

8. Why does the cancer kid have to wait for an ambulance when he's only on oxygen?

9. How did those cell phones come back online?

10.. Why did it never occur to the Scotsmen to build a fire?"http://www.thehotbutton.com/today/hot.button/2004_thb/040601_tue.html

 

[MillionaireNextDoor]

Originally posted by: Staples
This seems to be a love/ hate movie. I saw it today and thought it was one of the best movies I have seen this year.

 

[freegeeks]

this is the most ridiculous movie of the last 12 months

it's up there with "battlefield earth" as one of the silliest movies ever

 

[EpsiIon]

I went to see the movie with a bunch of friends and it was obvious that nobody in the theater took the movie seriously. The whole place would laugh at "serious" scenes and we just couldn't stop moaning at all the plot devices. Even so, I thought it was thoroughly entertaining. I went to see it for the special effects and was fully satisfied.

I must say, though, that I didn't like how politicized it was. A movie whose central element is a sudden global climate shift should not try to be anything other than mindlessly entertaining, if you ask me.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: EpsiIon
I must say, though, that I didn't like how politicized it was. A movie whose central element is a sudden global climate shift should not try to be anything other than mindlessly entertaining, if you ask me.

Yeah let's have every movie written by the same guy and have only one storyline. Just mix up the actors so every horned up guy can drool over the next Ms. Somebody.

It's be grrreat!
:disgust:

 

[rh71]

Just finished the movie... and as much as I realize this is all taken to the extreme of everything... there were so many things that didn't make sense. What was the idea behind Quaid getting to his son ? He did nothing but risk his own life and 2 others... when he got there... he did jacksquat.

Anyway... the biggest thing that sticks out... what happens when all this snow melts ? EVERYTHING will be under more water than before... were we just supposed to forget about that ?

It was entertaining, but retarded.

 

[welst10]

eyecatching special effects. But lame story, something just wont happen. But the girl (forgot her name) is hot!

 

[rh71]

Originally posted by: welst10
eyecatching special effects. But lame story, something just wont happen. But the girl (forgot her name) is hot!

LOL... we all subconsciously seek out the best looking chick in a flick. She really wasn't all that hot. Check IMDB.

 

[brigden]

People expect too much from movies these days. Unpretentious, mindless entertainment, folks; nothing else.

 

[Paulson]

I thought it sucked... too long and it didn't hold enough interest...

 

[prvteye2003]

I saw this movie a couple of days ago and thoroughly enjoyed it. The only part I didn't like was that with such a bad ass special effects film, they always find a way to make a love story out of it.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Aelius
The mistake is made when people try to make out a movie, before watching it, as something that it is not.

Just like Van Helsing. People thought it should have been some sort of drama/horror with stage acting.

WTF? Maybe the previews, website, and general plot would have given people a clue that it was a "fun" movie and not a serious drama. Lame.

eh well not entirely. atlesat for van helsing. i expected dumb fun like the mummy. but it didn't have that. it was just dumb with incredible amounts of bleh effects.