Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: The Day After Tomorrow

This is topic The Day After Tomorrow in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000778

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 05-26-2004, 11:18 PM:

Can't I just sit in the theater and enjoy watching New York city and Los Angeles get demolished without having the leftist propoganda shoved down my throat? Please? Ugh. [puke]

The special effects were cool, but they were nothing new honestly. If you've seen all the trailers for this movie, you've seen all the effects. So if you're only watching to see the effects, just splice all the trailers together and watch that instead. You'll save quite a bit of time.

With all that's going on in the world right now, I don't think many are going to want to deal with the message of this movie. I predict an above average opening at best, and then a quick drop off. We'll see.

Posted by Richard Greco (Member # 2032) on 05-28-2004, 12:12 AM:

I agree Mark. I thought the effects were really awesome. I found the politics to be very leftist. This film will be to much on the science end for people. I thought that it was well acted though and I found the science to be very interesting.

This is good, but not great.

5/5 for effects

pi for everything else

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 05-28-2004, 01:57 AM:

Worst. Dialogue. Ever.

Imagine a cross between Deep Impact, Battlefield Earth, Independence Day, Godzilla (the 1998 version), Armageddon, and a bunch of other marginal films. Imagine the same with better CGI and worse dialogue/acting/direction/editing. That pretty much sums this one up.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-28-2004, 02:07 AM:

I agree with the above reviews, but I can sum this one up even better.

It's CRAPTACULAR!!!

The director and producers need to be frozen so they don't make any more of this crap.

Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 05-28-2004, 04:46 AM:

I enjoyed it. Yes, bad dialogue... But the effects were just cool.

4.5/5

[ 05-28-2004, 11:04 AM: Message edited by: Jennifer Pan ]

Posted by Paul Konen (Member # 41) on 05-28-2004, 10:19 AM:

I agree that it was cool seeing LA get nailed.

Some of the other things that happened just couldn't.
[Possible Spoilers]
How can a supertanker fit down a city street, must less a NY One.
What happened to this same tanker when the rescue happened? (It just disappeared)
How could a little fire in the fireplace and stovetops keep people from freezing. The supercold air was freezing anything it touched.

It just dragged on once the disasters happened.

Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 05-28-2004, 03:28 PM:

I haven't seen it yet, but I'm surprised to hear that the "message" is considered to be leftist. Usually, German film directors become 200% American patriots when they work in the USA, Roland Emmerich did it with INDEPENDENCE DAY and THE PATRIOT, Wolfgang Petersen with AIR FORCE ONE... [Big Grin]

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 05-28-2004, 06:57 PM:

I guess he's spent too much time in Hollywood.

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 05-28-2004, 08:23 PM:

I would like to know who thawed Rolland Emmerich out in the first place. It has been ages since I saw his name on screen.

The visuals looked pretty good but as mentioned above we have seen it all before. But I guess with these types of films that becomes the case. I like Dennis Quaid and I thought he did good with what he had to work with. I was hoping this film would have some of the feel that Deep Impact had with telling the story around the effects. But a lot was lost with pointles discussions and luke warm character development.

I give this one ** stars out of 4

Posted by Dennis Udovich (Member # 1066) on 05-29-2004, 12:47 PM:

The film is just OKAY.

Posted by Sam Johnson II (Member # 2157) on 05-29-2004, 11:05 PM:

Sounds like I'm the only one on this website who actually enjoyed the movie quite a bit...

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 05-30-2004, 12:04 AM:

29 May 2004, 7:10PM, Regal Cinema World 8, Eugene OR, House #3, some kind of digital sound. Attendance around 150. Excellent presentation. No complaints except too many ads.

Brad nailed it: IT'S CRAPTACULAR!!! The screenplay is ludicrous and at times unintentionally funny. The audience was snickering in the wrong places. On the other hand, the special effects are pretty amazing sometimes, definitely top notch. Dennis Quaid still looks a little constipated (a la The Alamo).

Worth it only for the CGI work, which is mostly Grade A. Everything else belongs in the reject pile.

Posted by Kamakshipalya Dhananjay (Member # 1391) on 05-30-2004, 12:30 AM:

The Day After Tomorrow is no science movie. But it never needed to be one. There are other places to learn about Sciences.

TDAT has little emotional punch. For that, the film-makers must have expected moviegoers will seek out other films.

TDAT has spectacular special effects. The film-makers sought to dazzle audiences who were willing to suspend their disbelief for a while. On this, I think they have been tremendously successful.

TDAT never wanted to be a certain type of film. I am surprised so many reviewers assumed it should have been of a certain type, discovered it was not and panned it for that lapse.

But in areas where it set out to be what it is, I am thoroughly surprised and both delighted to say, it is one hell of a superior 'disaster' movie. The movie has so many flaws but the true hero of this film, the special effects, seem to have fewer still.

The really good thing about the pace of this film is that it leaves little room for thinking about the holes in it if you ordinarily wish to not focus on the flaws.

The opening credit shots are well taken and put the mood for what to expect next.

The quick shot outside the Mexican Embassy that shows desperate foreigners flasing their Passports with 100 dollar bills stacked inside their Passports threw the entire theatre I was watching this film into a cloud of laughter.

The concluding shot of the President making that apology and affirming the will to start all over again is however, very impactful. So is the final shot of the beautiful ice-cover over the northern hemisphere.

In all, this movie far exceeds my expectations and I was not at all surprised to see so many people around me unhesitant to say they enjoyed this film.

Good for a 'blockbuster' type.

Posted by Eric Hooper (Member # 1730) on 05-30-2004, 01:00 PM:

United Artists METRO, SF. Saturday 5/29 1pm. 1/4 full.

I thought the sound level was a little too low. During the action sequences, the sound was great, but the rest of the movie I was having a hard time hearing it and focusing my attention to it... Anybody else notice this, or is it my older age or the crappy theatre?

WOW! I REALLY ENJOYED THIS. Everybody is talking about all of the 'leftist' politics in the movie, but I really didn't notice anything like that 'thrown down my throat'?? I enjoyed the efx and the disaster scenes. I loved the REAL CHARACTERS and REAL LIFE they brought to the film. None of the characters seemed fake to me. I enjoyed the homeless guy's contributions. Very real and human touches. Although I enjoyed this thoroughly, I thought the ending was kind of weak. Or maybe I was just having trouble hearing it? Or the dude in front of me who kept shaking is cup of ice eating it was bugging the hell out of me. People can be so inconsiderate....

I might check this out again at another theatre...

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 05-30-2004, 02:49 PM:

quote: Eric Hooper
Everybody is talking about all of the 'leftist' politics in the movie, but I really didn't notice anything like that 'thrown down my throat'??

Really?? Oh, wait...

Eric Hooper
From: San Francisco, CA

Nevermind.

[Wink]

Posted by Dan Chilton (Member # 2288) on 05-30-2004, 03:05 PM:

Terrible CG tornadoes. "Twister's" CG tornadoes were engineered almost 10 years ago and they still look twice as good as the ones that slowly made their way through LA. Very unbelievable.

And the wolves? Psh, Jurassic Park had better effects and they were compiled over 12 years ago! The moral of the story is that CG artists need to share their particle generating source code.

[ 05-30-2004, 04:41 PM: Message edited by: Dan Chilton ]

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 05-30-2004, 06:39 PM:

Muvico Egyptian 24, Arundel Mills, Maryland.

Saw this one in house #11. Quite a big auditorium. Huge screen. I actually liked the movie. The quality was not that great, some scratches and the bulb was not focused properly.

I understand all the commments about the politics, but I did not feel it hindered the film at all.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-30-2004, 07:05 PM:

I have not seen this movie nor do I plan to, but from the stills I have seen it looks as if the CG scenes of water and smoke/wind are very bad. I've seen very few films with properly done CG water/smoke/wind. Yes, I can tell it's fake even by looking at a small picture in a newspaper.[av=n]

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 05-31-2004, 12:03 AM:

I will have to agree with Dan on the CGI work done on the tornado scenes in Los Angeles but the work done on the wolves were ok. As far as the movie itself, it was a rather enjoyable film and not as bad as almost everyone said it was. I saw the film at a almost sold out performance at the Dole Cannery 18 in one of the larger auditorium in SRD with THX this afternoon. When I did not experience the sensation of the wonderful use of LFE in the THX "Tex" and the SRD "EGYPT" sound trailers. I knew I was not going fully appreciate the movie's original soundtrack. The sound was actually not bad and so was the picture. By the way, I did not feel the movie was political at all and nor ditd it try to be

-Claude

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-31-2004, 12:25 AM:

LFE? Oh yeah. That's what the home peeps call a subwoofer. (Just givin' ya a hard time, Claude). [Razz]

[av=q]

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 05-31-2004, 04:08 AM:

I really liked this one. I actually enjoyed the second half of the film more than the first, CGI fest first half. I really felt for the characters and totally saw where Jake Gyllenhal's character was coming from: been there, done that. Also, the whole setting of the NY library reminded me of Ghost Busters. "GET HER!"

AJG

Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 06-06-2004, 10:12 PM:

I saw this last Friday night. It was definitely a long way from "Independence Day" in quality. The special effects were cool, but otherwise, it was just a run of the mill disaster movie.

10 degree per second drop in temperature, at the time when the breeze stopped? Isn't air a good enough insulator that this kind of temperature change can't propagate through it that rapidly, especially without a breeze. We see rapid freezing making its way into buildings. Sorry. It takes time for metal beams to loose their heat. Then after the deep freeze where everything was freezing instantly, people could walk out in it and be OK.

There was just too much that was unbelievable. Lots of bad physics.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-07-2004, 12:00 AM:

I have not seen the film (yet), but would like to add to the comments about the fake looking tornadoes. I laughed at the footage I saw on the trailers and TV commercials. Don't the CGI companies do any kind of subject study/research anymore?

Here in Tornado Alley, people know how tornadoes look. We see them in real life and on lots of weather reports. With the proliferation of video cameras, more are caught on tape than ever before. Tornadoes have a certain "design" to them in how they look and move. "Twister" had the only convincing looking tornadoes out of any modern film I've seen, and even a number of their CG tornadoes looked fake. The CG twisters in "The Day After Tomorrow" just don't look convincing at all. They looked stupid. I mean, the fat end of the tornado is at the bottom in some of their footage. Where is the debris cloud? It just doesn't work.

It may be an old movie, but I thought the tornado effect in "The Wizard of Oz" was pretty effective.

Those CGI companies really need to study videos of tornadoes and work harder on breaking down their mechanics. Right now all they're doing is just animating a dressed up barrel. Perhaps they're doing more than that, but I sure don't see it in the results. Some of it smacks of low-bidder cost cutting. You have various CGI firms working against each other on contracts for each effects sequence. Compromises get made in order to win the bid. Here's one tip for them which might save money. Most tornadoes I've seen appear only as a dark silhouette.

Posted by Nick Engstrom (Member # 2100) on 06-07-2004, 08:44 AM:

I wouldn't exactly call Oklahoma, tornado alley, but to each his own I guess.

As for the tornadoes, I agree, they blew chunks, I especially enjoyed seeing the helicopters fly inbetween them *rolls eyes*

Overall I enjoyed the movie, but as pointed out, physics problems are really what hampered the film for me.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 06-07-2004, 01:48 PM:

Today's CGI trumped by a muslin stocking 65 years ago?:

http://www.noplacelikeoz.com/Page4.htm

quote:
The twister scene from "The Wizard of Oz" was perhaps one of the most stunning special effects creations of its day. Re-creating the Kansas cyclone that transports Dorothy to the land of Oz was no easy feat. The effect was achieved through the construction of a thirty-five-foot muslin stocking affixed to a gantry crane traveling the length of the stage. The tornado-shaped cone was rotated by a speed-controlled motor. The dust and thick clouds were created using Fuller's earth, and dangerous chemicals such as carbon and sulfur with of course, little or no proper ventilation. The ferocious sounding winds were produced through the use of compressed air and wind machines. Creating the realistic sound effects was no simple task, according to the following MGM press release:
"Delicate mathematical calculations were conducted by the man Albert Einstein pronounces one of America's five greatest mathematicians, to work out a formula for the sound of a cyclone in terms of decimals and electrical requencies. The object was to reproduce the noise of such a story for The Wizard of Oz......As sending sound apparatus in search of unpredictable cyclones was impossible, O.O. Ceccarini, mathematician, was put to work. From scientific weather figures he obtained the pressure, velocity, air density and electrical characteristics of cyclones. From these facts he calculated volume and pitch of the sounds that would naturally accompany these phenomena. These calculations completed, he worked out practical methods of creating the sounds; 4,698,271 separate figures and algebraic symbols had gone into 200 pages of calculations before the task was completed."
The result was a remarkably realistic tornado sequence. In fact, various takes of the Oz tornado sequence were used for the climactic scenes of Cabin in the Sky in 1943 and in High Barbaree in 1947.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-07-2004, 05:49 PM:

quote: Nick Engstrom
I wouldn't exactly call Oklahoma, tornado alley, but to each his own I guess.

Tornado Alley is not confined to Kansas, and Oklahoma gets quite a few tornadoes every year. The most powerful tornadic storm in recorded history originated just a couple miles north of where I live back on May 3, 1999. That thing tore a path along I-44 from the Medicine Park exit all the way up through Moore, OK -and then even had enough gas left to go further up the turnpike where it flattened the large outlet mall that used to employ much of Stroud, OK.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-07-2004, 07:08 PM:

We saw this at the AMC Pleasure Island 24 in Downtown Disney last week, on their digital screen.

As for the effects, I liked them except for the hailstones. These filmmakers have obviously never seen real hailstones. The ones in the movie looked like broken-up blocks of crystal-clear ice. Real hail is white and the stones are round (duh). The damage that can be done by hail was shown realistically, however.

As for the story, I agree with most here, it was stupid.

One thing (not movie related) I noticed right away, is that they were not "promoting" the digital screen at the complex in any way. No standee or signage outside the auditorium, nothing in or on the building in any way that I could see. (It was noted in the newspaper ad, however.) The only tipoff at the theatre itself was the letter "D" after the title on their computerized marquee. (The other screens said DAY AFTER, and the digital one said DAY AFTER-D.)

I was disappointed in the picture quality. As others have said elsewhere, the blacks were too gray, in fact the whole picture seemed to have a gray cast to it. Not having seen it on film, I don't know if film would be any better, but we'll be playing this one after "Potter" so I'll get to check it out then.

Posted by Jeremy Fuentes (Member # 2135) on 06-07-2004, 09:25 PM:

I liked everything about this one except for the tornadoes. The movie- [thumbsup]

, the twisters- [thumbsdown]

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-07-2004, 09:43 PM:

Wait a minute, did Evans use the word "quality" in the same sentence as "Independence Day"???

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 06-12-2004, 06:48 PM:

I can live with occasional mediocre CGI. If we all hold out for perfection, we'll never enjoy a movie. I know... crappy rationale, but it seems the way the system works right now.

I walked into the screening, anticipating a product on par with ID4... it was, after all, a major hyping point.

At the end, the two comments that first came to mind were... OK picture... HATE the preaching.

Cmon... really... if we were evacuating the lower half of the country, do you think some reporter would be squawking about "illegal (reverse) immigration".... well, maybe on Air America [evil]

GAAAAAHHHHHHHH!

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 08-23-2004, 03:32 AM:

Yup, it's shite. The 'no politics' rule prevents me from enlarging on that very much (as it has done everyone else), except for to note that the Brits, of course, have to be the first to go. 'We've got enough tea and biccies to sink a battleship, so we'll be fine just as long as the loo doesn't back up.' [puke]

Oh, and Manchester United would be very unlikely to play Celtic in the F.A. Cup Final, as Scottish soccer teams do not take part in that tournament. Maybe people in California think we abolished Scotland as revenge for inflicting Braveheart on us! Some lowly production researcher did a good job there...

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 08-23-2004, 12:06 PM:

quote: Jack Ondracek
I can live with occasional mediocre CGI. If we all hold out for perfection, we'll never enjoy a movie. I know... crappy rationale, but it seems the way the system works right now.

This isn't the way the system used to work. The whole idea of a visual effect is fooling the audience with something that appears real. This is main reason why "Forrest Gump" won the visual effects Oscar for 1994. Even in the old "analog" days of the 1970's and 1980's, shops like ILM went to painstaking efforts to make shots look as real as possible.

Overall, I sense a very broad lack of discipline in doing this with CGI these days. Sure, CGI is not going to be "perfect" all of the time. But it should not be laughable either.

Posted by Robert L. Fischer (Member # 2424) on 08-24-2004, 11:20 PM:

I never wrote a review on this one because I saw it before I posted regularly on the message boards, but since it has been resurrected, I would like to take the time to mention that this is one of the worst films ever put into wide release.

OK, so it's almost a given that the movie is terrible. The scattershot dialogue actually ellicited laughter at some of the most "serious" moments. The side love stories were completely undeveloped and unnecessary, and the sunny ending was one of the most cliched stretches of film ever recorded.

This leaves the big-budget effects, which are pretty much all that one could hope for from this movie. Luckily, we're treated with slow-moving twisters that are out of proportion, as well as not even shaped correctly. Oh yeah, not to mention the totally unbelievable CGI wolves where real wolves would have been completely appropriate. There were many more atrocities in this horrid film, but, luckily, I had all but forgotten about it until tonight.

Posted by Ben Holley (Member # 2247) on 08-25-2004, 09:06 PM:

This movie did very at the theatre I work at with people who dont speak english. [Big Grin]

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-15-2004, 07:49 PM:

I was forced to watch this DVD last night and I HAVE to comment. It is an awful movie! I was hoping everyone would die quickly so the movie would just end. But nooooooo.....

First off am I the only one who has a hard time telling the difference between Toby McGuire and Jake Gyllenhaal? They both suck.

Spoilers:
First of all, the CGI in this movie was unwiped-ass qaulity. They definitely farmed a lot of the effects work out to the lowest bidder. The people who did the tornados (probably an effects house in India) have obviously never seen a tornado before. The fact is that The Wizard of Oz has a more realistic looking tornado BY FAR, and that movie is older than the projection equipment generally used at film festivals (ie: older than the planet Earth). The tornados here seem fatter at the bottom, have little or no debris clouds, and move exceedingly slow. My guess is that German director Ronald Emmerich told the people in India "We need you to make computer tornados for us! Tornados are basically funnels of wind or something. Achtung!"

Then there are the wolves who just happen to be wandering around a frozen New York City. How they survived the massive tidal wave that went through the city is beyond me. Obviously they enter a huge Russian tanker which has somehow floated down the narrow streets of NYC to chase Spider Man and his amazing super-friends. What the group doesn't realize is that these wolves can't actually hurt them because they are incredibly fake-looking CGI. Maybe they are running away because they hate bad graphics? That must be it. Why don't the wolves freeze? They've obviously been outside for a very long time. Also where did the huge tanker go at the end of the movie? It's not by the library. It's just gone! And as you look at the wide shot above the library at the end, you see that there was no way the tanker could have ever have gotten there in the first place. That makes me gaseous.

Then there are the sappy side stories which amount to nothing at all. I don't care if Toby McGuire/Jake Gyllenhaal has feelings for the smart chick. She's actually not very smart at all. She knows enough to heat Toby/Jake/Spider-Man up when he comes out of the water, but she's too much of a dip shit to do anything about a giant gash on her leg. She is a stupid whore and she deserves to die. And while I think the 30-something asian lady in the movie is indeed desirable material, the way he young guy looked back at her as he was leaving and the way she looked at him almost made me puke up pizza bits. And what is up with the homeless guy's dog? SHUT UP ALREADY! Ronald Emmerich loves having barking dogs in his movies, and they never die like they should. The scene in Independence Day where the dog narrowly escaped the explosion made me go diarrhea on my seat. Also, am I supposed to feel sad when the old guy cuts his own rope and falls down to save the other two assholes? My reaction was "Good riddance! You should have died 10 years ago you old fart!" I would have killed myself too if I was in this crappy movie. Oh! And the 3 idiots in England drinking 12 year old scotch worrying about the loo was just retarded. Am I supposed to care about them? Their contribution to the story is about as essential as picking the lint out of my belly-button before I shoot myself for having to watch this P.O.S. BUT THAT'S NOT ALL!!! There are so many side stories in this movie that you may think that some of them are commercials in a TV show. Spider Man's mom is caring for this dippy kid in a hospital bed. We are supposed to be worried and/or concerned for the kid who needs transport to some place. For some reason he can only be moved with an ambulance even though the only thing hooked up to the little bastard is an oxygen tank which could be carried by hand. Sela Ward should be frozen and thawed out when they find a cure for lousy acting.
End Spoilers

Sucks.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 10-15-2004, 10:53 PM:

[beer]

Best. Review. Ever.

I thought the CGI tidal wave action was pretty well-done. The rest of it varied from passable, to just plain awful. And yes the tornado in Wizard of Oz is one of the best special effects ever. I think I read somewhere they used a pair of women's nylons to do that.

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 10-16-2004, 05:03 AM:

quote: Leo Enticknap
Oh, and Manchester United would be very unlikely to play Celtic in the F.A. Cup Final, as Scottish soccer teams do not take part in that tournament.

Why is that? Because English teams are afraid the Scots would kick their pale asses?

quote:
Maybe people in California think we abolished Scotland as revenge for inflicting Braveheart on us!

Well, didn't England pretty much abolish Scotland?

quote: Ben Holley
This movie did very at the theatre I work at with people who dont speak english.

Did very what? That's not a complete sentence. Do you speak English?

I'll put a smiley here: [Wink]

[ 10-16-2004, 06:46 AM: Message edited by: Michael Schaffer ]

Posted by Jeremy Fuentes (Member # 2135) on 10-16-2004, 06:50 PM:

Awesome review Joe. At first, I liked the movie. You made me see the light.

Everyone who liked this movie, then sees it again after Joe's review will change their mind as well. Guaranteed.

Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 10-16-2004, 07:00 PM:

Indeed.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-16-2004, 07:22 PM:

While I agree with everything in your review Joe, I must ask who it was that forced you to watch this terrible movie?

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-16-2004, 10:51 PM:

quote: David Stambaugh
And yes the tornado in Wizard of Oz is one of the best special effects ever. I think I read somewhere they used a pair of women's nylons to do that.

No, no... It was a 35-foot-tall piece of muslin that was attached to a crane and turned with a motor. I have here a copy of a special-effects sheet from the movie (it's in a "Wizard" book) which says the following:

"For the tornado used in Kansas farm sequence a Gantry Crane travelling the length of Stage 14 was hung from the bottom of roof trusses. The Gantry car supported a canvas cone in the shape of a tornado which was rotated by a D.C. motor on a speed control. The motor assembly was arranged to tip sideways and was controlled from the car together with its cross travel. The approach was controlled by a motor winch on the stage floor. The base of the tornado cone was fastened to a car traveling on a predetermined track and containing arrangement for dust. This car was moved by operators below set. Set was built on a platform and was 3/4 scale. Sky was projected moving clouds on white backing. This was augmented by cotton clouds on moving foreground glasses. Air was piped around set for wind effects. Wind machines were also used."

According to the book, the cost of the scene was $12,423 for construction costs including materials and labor, and another $4173 to actually film the shot.

OK, now back to bashing on "The Day After Tomorrow."

Posted by Robert L. Fischer (Member # 2424) on 10-17-2004, 02:25 AM:

I definitely saw the light when I first saw this horrid piece of shit. One would be hard-pressed to find a worse movie in 2004; even Paparazzi is better. And thanks to this movie, Without a Paddle has a shot at not winning the worst movie of the year award. I say they should be co-champions though.

Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 10-17-2004, 04:29 PM:

If you ever saw one single film by Roland Emmerich, maybe even two or three, you should know what to expect. (INDEPENDENCE DAY is the exception from the rule because it goes so far over the top being patriotic science fiction trash that I found it funny, and it moves so fast that it always stays slightly ahead of its own stupidity.)

Look at JOEY/MAKING CONTACT (1985) or HOLLYWOOD MONSTER/GHOST CHASE (1987) or MOON 44/INTRUDER (1990) - all Spielberg imitations, just on a lower budget, a kind of extract from too many (generally better) American mainstream movies. [Roll Eyes]

To me it seems not fair to blame Mr Emmerich for doing what he has been doing successfully for years, you always know what you'll get.