I'm slightly worried about posting my opinion on this film. There's so many people who seem to like it. Suffice to say...

I found hilarity in the 'serious' bits and the rest of the film plodded along in a predictable manner. Certain scenes pushed my suspension of disbelief to new levels, leading to cries of 'OH COME ON! That's impossible!'.

I understand that it's fiction, but it was supposed to have a basis in fact and serve as a warning about the damaged environment. The 'eco message' was very silly and it was hard to keep a straight face.

That's what I thought. I will be duly punished with a ton of angry replies, but there you go.

You may throw tomatoes NOW!

quote:

Originally posted by Duncan Black:
You may throw tomatoes NOW!

Not from me, I agree with ya. I was really only interested in the effects work, which weren't all that spectacular (those wolves looked awful, but the director said the real wolves wouldn't cooperate), but what can you expect from those that brung you "Godzilla" '98? Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed "The Day After Tomorrow" & "Godzilla", but only at the most basic levels. I wanted to see New York get taken out by a giant superstorm and a giant lizard stomping through the streets. They (at the very least) delivered that much, so I didn't complain. If only they didn't have all of those friggin' things cluttering up the movies. What are they called? Oh, That's right! Actors.

The effects were decent, but the story is so incredibly lame I was hoping that everyone died and the movie would end.

quote:

mymindsblank
Enthusiast
Posted 28 November 2007 02:57 PM Hide Post
The effects were decent, but the story is so incredibly lame I was hoping that everyone died and the movie would end.

As one of those who enjoyed the movie, several story points that I felt were worthwhile included:

(1) The typical lone risktaker willing to brave the wrath of criticism and rejection for one's views because one feels that it was important enough to do so.

(2) The idea of being big enough of a man to allow someone else to capture the emotional attention of a female instead stand in the way. Usually, the a lame would include the obligatory fight over a female, but here against stereotype, we have a young man who avoids the triangle.

(3) The idea of that none of us, including the United States as a country are special and have magical powers against death or collapse when one of the political leaders in the movie dies and the United States faces its greatest crisis.

I can see your points tabuno, and never considered #2. It just too Armageddon for my tastes.

quote:

mymindsblank
Know-It-All
Posted 28 November 2007 11:09 PM Hide Post
I can see your points tabuno, and never considered #2. It just too Armageddon for my tastes.

After watching Day After Tomorrow on the small screen, the past month, I discovered how much of the glamour and attraction this movie depended on special effects. The movie lust some of its luster. I agree with detractors that the science in the movie is questionable. I admit that the action scene on the giant cargo ship/liner was ridiculous. Yet, this movie can't be the worst movie of 2004, it has some redeeming value. When viewed on the big screen at the time of its release, the more and better was something I guess I must have truly enjoyed - but it was pretty manipulative in showing the major United States' landmarks being trashed. With the United States anti-climate change position in 2004, I imagine I must have been eager to see hypothetically what the leadership of our Country might have been ignoring, even if perhaps, its mostly not true (though recent events this past year are suggestive that maybe things are much worse than we have thought).

Am I alone in wondering when Roland Emmerich will make a film that doesn't involve huge buildings blowing up?

I didn't find it that entertaining the first time round. Admittedly, it was oddly satisfying to see the white house explode in Independence Day, but the rest of the film was pure dung.

This is a bit late by a couple of years but I just happened to find these reviews again by accident. Anyone who says "DAT" is not so bad is just proving my original point. Hollywood panders to airheads and that means America is in trouble.

quote:

Werner
Posted 21 March 2008 08:05 AM Hide Post
This is a bit late by a couple of years but I just happened to find these reviews again by accident. Anyone who says "DAT" is not so bad is just proving my original point. Hollywood panders to airheads and that means America is in trouble.

So are you calling me an "airhead"? I guess we could begin a discussion about the air I have in my brain and talk about this movie so more. I am interested if you are complaining about this movie on its political agenda or on its technical merits?

Ultimately forgettable, but still watchable, it seems like someone is always quick to point to a decent, sometimes aggressively mediocre popcorn flick that they hated and declare it the worst of an entire year. There were indeed surely worse films, it would be saying something if this was the worst film because it would mean all of the films released in 2004 were watchable and mildly entertaining at worse.