The Day After Tomorrow

Like I said, I'm going to see it for the special effects. Based on that alone, I think I'll end up enjoying the hell out of it.

This movie was pretty cool visually. The acting was pretty bad, and I've seen alot of the ideas in this movie too many times in other movies. I.E. tidal wave on new york (deep impact), that guy cutting his rope to save the other members of his group(I don't know name of movie, but its about them climbing k2). I am also confused about that wolly mamoth that was in the museum that they said froze instantly.

What's confusing about it? It's a preview as to what will happen.

Also, I'm getting tired of people saying the movie was bad because it was or was not realistic. Did anyone see Shrek? Reality check: It's not fucking realistic! That doesn't make it a bad movie. These types of movies have something that makes them immune to the requirement of realistic developments. It's called FICTION.

Also, wtf was bad about the acting? I didn't find any major flaws in the portrayal of any character. If you didn't like how the story was written, then say that. Don't say that the actors did a bad job unless you have a good reason to.

I didn't think the acting was so bad. I just think that they exposed the use of awesome visual effects to make the movie better than it actually was. If the movie was rated on acting, I probably wouldn't recommend it, but the visual effects make the movie.

Bob, the big difference between Shrek and The Day After Tomorrow is that one roots itself in pure fantasy, while the other tries to root itself in fact. Tomorrow tries to send a conscientious message to the viewer that this is a possible consequence to our actions, which is what is supposed to the give the movie emotional value. You're supposed to truly fear what you're seeing because it could actually happen.

Only...it can't actually happen.

Granted it is a movie, and it is fiction. But the fiction in the movie tries to root itself in scientific fact, and it doesn't (apparently) do a very convincing job of it. That kind of strips away a lot of the weight that this movie wished to attain.

I'm basing everything I've said solely off of trailers and opinions I've heard from other peeople. I haven't made any comments about the acting, or the cohesiveness of the story. I'm just pointing out that the entire fear element of the overall plot is blunted by the mechanics of the situation. Hopefully, the directors were intelligent enough to realize this, and instead chose to focus to fear-building elements off of individual character dilemmas rather than the entire apocalyptic picture.

Truthfully, I was pretty scared when I saw this movie.

I don't think it's fair that a movie can be put down based on being non-factual if people deem that it is possible. If it's non-factual, then it's obviously not possible. I never saw anywhere that the director or writer of the movie had any intent of warning people to stop global warming. I believe it was just a good setup for the movie. There had to be a reason big ass storms.

The theories in the movie are discredited because there's no such thing as a "7 day climate change". Sudden climate changes, at the very quickest, take place over the course of decades, not days. That's why the movie is non-factual.

Either way, it's not important. I'm going to see it, and I expect to enjoy it.