Dante Posted November 22, 2009 Share Posted November 22, 2009 So many cliched characters. From the divorced displaced dad saving his resentful son, and loving younger sister, too the moralistic, conflicted geo scientist that is fighting against the evil rich elite. The special effects and action scenes were outstanding! Really should get a Oscar for them. But as good and imaginative as those scenes were, the story line was the exact opposite. They substituted heavy handed one on one personal dramas for a real story and it brought the movie to a screeching halt. Poor, sappy acting made it even worse. It really is too bad because I'm sure there is was a good story in there some where. I'd give it 2 out of 5 stars. One for John Cusack( who was good as usual) and another for the special effects. Other than that, it was laughably bad at times. I groaned to myself several times at some of the hackneyed scenes. Even down to the ripped off Shelly Winters Posieden Adventure scene where she has to go under water to perform a risky underwater task to save the ship. Well, John Cusack redoes that exact scene. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted November 22, 2009 Share Posted November 22, 2009 So many cliched characters. From the divorced displaced dad saving his resentful son, and loving younger sister, too the moralistic, conflicted geo scientist that is fighting against the evil rich elite. The special effects and action scenes were outstanding! Really should get a Oscar for them. But as good and imaginative as those scenes were, the story line was the exact opposite. They substituted heavy handed one on one personal dramas for a real story and it brought the movie to a screeching halt. Poor, sappy acting made it even worse. It really is too bad because I'm sure there is was a good story in there some where. I'd give it 2 out of 5 stars. One for John Cusack( who was good as usual) and another for the special effects. Good summary. At the end with yet one more peril to overcome or all (well 1/2 at most) would be lost, I hmmphed. My son (13) asked what was wrong. I replied , "Getting tired of these overly dramatic scenes". He said, "Well, it is for suspense". I replied, "I am suspensefulled <sic> out." Great special effects, but way too long. Tell a story if you are going to make a movie that long IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted November 22, 2009 Share Posted November 22, 2009 They could pen a good story. And lose money. Or, they could pen a crappy story, hire some crappy but popular actors, add a bunch of explosions/special effects/lame love story, and 10 times as many idiots will pay to see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Jack Posted November 22, 2009 Share Posted November 22, 2009 I was watching and trying to place scenes with other movies I've seen. For instance, the cruise ship turning over, Poseidon Adventure. The plane taking off at Yellowstone, Independence Day. The monk ringing the bell as the wave was coming at him, Deep Impact. There were a few more I can't recall now. Oh, and since they showed it in every commercial and preview, when LA was being destroyed is when I headed for the bathroom. Figured I'd already seen it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted November 22, 2009 Share Posted November 22, 2009 Answer: They don't have to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 22, 2009 Share Posted November 22, 2009 I've got a better question: why the hell is Roland Emmerich still making movies? Who the !@#$ is bankrolling this hack? His movies are legitimately sociopathic - sterile, shallow, superficial, devoid of any and all emotional content, replaces "feeling" with "spectacle". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted November 22, 2009 Share Posted November 22, 2009 Who the !@#$ is bankrolling this hack? People who know that their upfront investment will return a significant yield on their investment. Never bet against the stupidity of the American populace and ease it takes to keep them entertained Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Vader Posted November 22, 2009 Share Posted November 22, 2009 I've got a better question: why the hell is Roland Emmerich still making movies? Who the !@#$ is bankrolling this hack? His movies are legitimately sociopathic - sterile, shallow, superficial, devoid of any and all emotional content, replaces "feeling" with "spectacle". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted November 23, 2009 Author Share Posted November 23, 2009 I've got a better question: why the hell is Roland Emmerich still making movies? Who the !@#$ is bankrolling this hack? His movies are legitimately sociopathic - sterile, shallow, superficial, devoid of any and all emotional content, replaces "feeling" with "spectacle". ahh ok I get it. I was curious and went too imdb and looked him up. Splains everything. Some of his gems include. 10000 BC(one of the worst movies Ive seen recently), The Day After Tommorow(South Park version was much better. And probably cost 1 millionth of the cash to make), Independence Day. He both produced and directed those. Thanks for the heads up on this guy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 ahh ok I get it. I was curious and went too imdb and looked him up. Splains everything. Some of his gems include. 10000 BC(one of the worst movies Ive seen recently), The Day After Tommorow(South Park version was much better. And probably cost 1 millionth of the cash to make), Independence Day. He both produced and directed those. Thanks for the heads up on this guy! 10,000 BC is the movie that convinced me that Emmerich not only shouldn't be allowed to make movies, he should be covered in honey and staked to an anthill. Egyptians using enslaved wooly mammoths and Rastafarians to construct the pyramids using ancient construction techniques from Atlantis? The best thing I could say about 10000 BC is that it makes other Roland Emmerich movies look good in comparison, which although being of dubious value is truly an accomplishment nonetheless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 10,000 BC is the movie that convinced me that Emmerich not only shouldn't be allowed to make movies, he should be covered in honey and staked to an anthill. Egyptians using enslaved wooly mammoths and Rastafarians to construct the pyramids using ancient construction techniques from Atlantis? The best thing I could say about 10000 BC is that it makes other Roland Emmerich movies look good in comparison, which although being of dubious value is truly an accomplishment nonetheless. The sabertooth remembered his kindness and returned it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dib Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 It's all about the CGI Watch an old Bogart movie if you want to see art. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted November 23, 2009 Author Share Posted November 23, 2009 It's all about the CGI Watch an old Bogart movie if you want to see art. Kinda want to see a complete movie you know? If I want to see cool cgi I can download some nice demos and watch them on my pc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 Kinda want to see a complete movie you know? If I want to see cool cgi I can download some nice demos and watch them on my pc. Like Iron Man or The Dark Knight, which actually had good acting, a plot, thematic elements, AND effects. Or - in it's time - Close Encounters of the Third Kind, which is a legitimate piece of artwork. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts