Search
Search results
Jason Kimbro (105 KP) rated The Day After Tomorrow (2004) in Movies
Dec 30, 2017
Dean (6926 KP) rated Midway (2019) in Movies
Nov 15, 2019
Good SFX on the whole (1 more)
Big action scenes
Entertaining WW2 action Film
Well with Roland Emmerich at the helm you should know what to expect from this film. Lots of big budget action scenes and SFX heavy scenes. Going for all guns blazing, quite literally, at the slight expense of any indepth character development. It's good that this also covers the battle from the Japanese perspective. I'm not sure how accurate it is but it is at least based on real people who had key roles in the battle. One definitely to enjoy for the action scenes, especially if seeing in 4DX.
David McK (3422 KP) rated The Day After Tomorrow (2004) in Movies
Nov 20, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2022)
Roland Emmerich sure likes his disaster movies.
This is his 2014 disaster movie that, taking climate change as it's starting point, has entered the popular vernacular - "it's like the day after tomorrow out there" - and, until the movie 2012 came along (I'm typing this in 2019) also must have held the record for portraying natural disaster on the big screen.
The main focus of this one is on both Jake Gylenhall and Dennis Quaid, with the former becoming trapped in New York when a series of natural disasters leads to a new ice-age leading to the latter (who, natch, is an experienced climatologist) to trek has way across the frozen North America to rescue his son.
This is his 2014 disaster movie that, taking climate change as it's starting point, has entered the popular vernacular - "it's like the day after tomorrow out there" - and, until the movie 2012 came along (I'm typing this in 2019) also must have held the record for portraying natural disaster on the big screen.
The main focus of this one is on both Jake Gylenhall and Dennis Quaid, with the former becoming trapped in New York when a series of natural disasters leads to a new ice-age leading to the latter (who, natch, is an experienced climatologist) to trek has way across the frozen North America to rescue his son.
Awix (3310 KP) rated Godzilla (2014) in Movies
Mar 24, 2018 (Updated Mar 24, 2018)
Second American attempt at a Godzilla movie avoids some of the old pitfalls which scuppered the Roland Emmerich version, but discovers some brand ones and promptly stumbles into those instead. A slightly oblique take on the Godzilla mythology - Godzilla is not the result of nuclear testing but a survivor from an earlier epoch - and the fact the film often seems more interested in the Muto monsters (Godzilla's opponents this time around) result in a film with a rather odd feel, for all that on paper it looks like a more 'classic' Godzilla story.
They get a lot right - Godzilla is a properly imposing beast, and there are monster battles at the centre of the film - but it's much more po-faced than the Emmerich version, apparently worried that if it cracks a smile for a second or acknowledges its own absurdity everyone will instantly lose interest. Gareth Edwards' habit of cutting away to another sequence every time the monsters start fighting rapidly becomes very annoying, too. A better Godzilla movie than the 1998 version, certainly; but less assured and capable as a piece of entertainment.
They get a lot right - Godzilla is a properly imposing beast, and there are monster battles at the centre of the film - but it's much more po-faced than the Emmerich version, apparently worried that if it cracks a smile for a second or acknowledges its own absurdity everyone will instantly lose interest. Gareth Edwards' habit of cutting away to another sequence every time the monsters start fighting rapidly becomes very annoying, too. A better Godzilla movie than the 1998 version, certainly; but less assured and capable as a piece of entertainment.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated The Day After Tomorrow (2004) in Movies
Feb 27, 2022
The Day After Tomorrow is probably one of the better big-disaster-blockbusters out there. Roland Emmerich manages to show a sliver of artisctic restraint for once, by which I mean that this one doesn't have a scene where a small dog Crash Bandicoots its way to safety. There's still a fair chunk of unnecessary silliness here and there, the scene with the wolves for example, but for the most part TDAT is well paced and engaging. The big disaster moments are well crafted. Los Angeles getting torn apart by massive tornadoes is suitably horrifying to watch unfold, and the massive flash flooding of Manhattan Island is well built up. They forgo the more cooky elements of other Emmerich projects and are all the better for it.
As per usual, it's hard to give two shits about any of the human characters in these things, but Jake Gyllenhaal at least provides a sniff of acting chops.
The Day After Tomorrow isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but it's entertaining enough, and provides the weird catharsis that comes with watching Earth get destroyed to a satisfying degree.
As per usual, it's hard to give two shits about any of the human characters in these things, but Jake Gyllenhaal at least provides a sniff of acting chops.
The Day After Tomorrow isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but it's entertaining enough, and provides the weird catharsis that comes with watching Earth get destroyed to a satisfying degree.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Day After Tomorrow (2004) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
It’s not subtle, but boy does it get the job done. The Day After Tomorrow, directed by Roland Emmerich aka the disaster movie expert, this disaster movie is a slickly shot and well-paced film that’s brimming with special effects.
Some of them hold up well and some of them don’t (ahem, the wolves). But the story is decent and Jake Gyllenhaal is always a win, plus Dennis Quaid is always reliable. It’s also much, much better than 2009’s 2012 and remains a really good addition to the genre, though maybe a little too close to home for the UK at the moment. Storm Emma is on her way and she’s not going to be pretty.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/02/28/best-snow-movies-top-5/
Some of them hold up well and some of them don’t (ahem, the wolves). But the story is decent and Jake Gyllenhaal is always a win, plus Dennis Quaid is always reliable. It’s also much, much better than 2009’s 2012 and remains a really good addition to the genre, though maybe a little too close to home for the UK at the moment. Storm Emma is on her way and she’s not going to be pretty.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/02/28/best-snow-movies-top-5/
Awix (3310 KP) rated The Day the Earth Caught Fire (1961) in Movies
Mar 3, 2018 (Updated Mar 3, 2018)
Weather Forecast says 'Sun Everywhere'
Apocalyptic British SF movie shows how this sort of thing should be done. Nuclear tests shift the Earth on its axis, send it closer to the sun: civilisation struggles to cope with the prospect of looming extinction. Story is told from the point of view of the journalists of the Daily Express (don't laugh, it was a newspaper back in the 60s).
Very similar in its downbeat tone to the Quatermass movies Val Guest had previously made for Hammer - no B-movie this, but a serious, hard-edged naturalistic drama. Personal story of romance between lead journo Edward Judd and met office secretary Janet Munro is woven into the main plot with considerable skill; scenes of devastated London are well-mounted. A bit dated in some of its attitudes, but its concerns with the disastrous effects of climate change and its political cynicism mean it still feels surprisingly relevant today. Much better than any of the Roland Emmerich movies which have arguably ripped it off.
Very similar in its downbeat tone to the Quatermass movies Val Guest had previously made for Hammer - no B-movie this, but a serious, hard-edged naturalistic drama. Personal story of romance between lead journo Edward Judd and met office secretary Janet Munro is woven into the main plot with considerable skill; scenes of devastated London are well-mounted. A bit dated in some of its attitudes, but its concerns with the disastrous effects of climate change and its political cynicism mean it still feels surprisingly relevant today. Much better than any of the Roland Emmerich movies which have arguably ripped it off.
Mike Wilder (20 KP) rated 2012 (2009) in Movies
May 30, 2018
As a disaster movie it doesn't get much better than this.
Contains spoilers, click to show
Roland Emmerich has done it again. He seems to get a kick out of bringing out humanities worst fears and putting them on screen in all its glory. After destroying a large part of the world in Independence Day: ID4, and trashing New York with Godzilla, he decides to go the rest of the way and change the face of the earth forever and in the process kill off most of humanity. What is the enemy this time? Aliens? Nope done that. Monsters? Nope also done that. Bad weather? Once again done that. What is left? I know lets have the sun spit out solar flares that heat up the earth's core and destabilize the planet! Whatever his problem with humanity is, it translates well on to film. This is an epic disaster movie. No part of the world is safe and there is no magic quick fix here.
The film itself is simple, massive destruction minimal plot. But in this case it really works. With amazing effects and a great cast that includes John Cusack, Thandie Newton, Oliver Platt, Danny Glover and the story is played out well and the acting is good. It is not too over the top except the stand out performance from the great Woody Harrelson. He is your go to guy when you are looking for crazy, and once again he pulls off the crazy guy effortlessly.
I really enjoyed this film and I think it has been given an unfairly hard time by critics and movie goers alike. I don't understand what people expected from this film. It is a disaster film not The Shawshank Redemption! I expected disaster and destruction and it exceeded my expectations. I didn't expect award winning performances by the actors (many of who are award nominees and winners), and I didn't expect a plot more complicated than oh s**t, we are going to die what can we do? Many viewers and critics must have forgotten the other films by Roland Emmerich when viewing this or they were comparing it to other films that were released at the same time. However I judge a film on its own merit and not comparing it to films that are in a different category. As a disaster movie it doesn't get much better than this.
The film itself is simple, massive destruction minimal plot. But in this case it really works. With amazing effects and a great cast that includes John Cusack, Thandie Newton, Oliver Platt, Danny Glover and the story is played out well and the acting is good. It is not too over the top except the stand out performance from the great Woody Harrelson. He is your go to guy when you are looking for crazy, and once again he pulls off the crazy guy effortlessly.
I really enjoyed this film and I think it has been given an unfairly hard time by critics and movie goers alike. I don't understand what people expected from this film. It is a disaster film not The Shawshank Redemption! I expected disaster and destruction and it exceeded my expectations. I didn't expect award winning performances by the actors (many of who are award nominees and winners), and I didn't expect a plot more complicated than oh s**t, we are going to die what can we do? Many viewers and critics must have forgotten the other films by Roland Emmerich when viewing this or they were comparing it to other films that were released at the same time. However I judge a film on its own merit and not comparing it to films that are in a different category. As a disaster movie it doesn't get much better than this.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Geostorm (2017) in Movies
Jul 9, 2018 (Updated Jul 9, 2018)
Ruined by awful dialogue
Let's face it, you never begin any film with Gerard Butler in with high expectations, but this one was surprisingly better than I'd expected.
This is probably the best I've ever seen Butler act. His American accent was impressively good by his standards and only once did I hear him slip into his native Scottish. The rest of the cast are alright, but they've got little to work with what with poor character motivations and the even poorer script. The effects are very good, although the plot itself is potentially a little too farfetched and has The Day After Tomorrow meets Armageddon written all over it. Indeed I was very surprised to see that this wasn't actually made by Roland Emmerich.
A few plot nuances aside, the main issue with this is the dialogue. It's absolutely atrocious, to the point where I was visibly cringing throughout the film. Its not good when a film makes you embarrassed for the script writer. If it hadn't been for this, i probably would've rated this a lot higher as it was surprisingly enjoyable, even if it did raise a few unintentional laughs.
This is probably the best I've ever seen Butler act. His American accent was impressively good by his standards and only once did I hear him slip into his native Scottish. The rest of the cast are alright, but they've got little to work with what with poor character motivations and the even poorer script. The effects are very good, although the plot itself is potentially a little too farfetched and has The Day After Tomorrow meets Armageddon written all over it. Indeed I was very surprised to see that this wasn't actually made by Roland Emmerich.
A few plot nuances aside, the main issue with this is the dialogue. It's absolutely atrocious, to the point where I was visibly cringing throughout the film. Its not good when a film makes you embarrassed for the script writer. If it hadn't been for this, i probably would've rated this a lot higher as it was surprisingly enjoyable, even if it did raise a few unintentional laughs.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated 2012 (2009) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Roland Emmerich does big budget disaster flicks as well as Dairylea does cheese. However, some of his most recent attempts to dominate the box office have been panned by viewers and critics alike, who say that he has become too reliant on special effects.
Unfortunately, those critics better look away now, as his new film is the biggest yet.
2012 takes place, well, in 2012 for the most part and features an array of big Hollywood names attracted none the less by the huge box office forecasts for the film. The premise is simple; here comes the end of the world and god should we run!
With a reported budget of over $200m which is more than Michael Bay spent on his worldwide smash Transformers: Revenge of the fallen, Emmerich was certainly able to splash out on some eye popping CGI.
2012 reads like The Day After Tomorrow on a steroid, which is no bad thing, but that film had some hideously underdeveloped characters and lacked the depth needed to allow viewers to share compassion for the people who had been affected by the global crisis.
Thankfully it seems that Emmerich has learnt his lesson here and has provided us with a back-story and it comes in many different forms. Thandie Newton and Danny Glover play president’s daughter and president respectively, a great deal of emotion has gone into writing these two characters and their on-screen scenes together, albeit a small amount, are wonderful.
John Cusack and Amanda Peet play divorced parents Jackson and Kate, only united by the love they share for their two young children and predictably later on in the film, a few deeper emotions. Unfortunately these two share no chemistry together and their on-screen scenes are flawed as a result.
2012 doesn’t have a huge deal of character development but it does improve on what was seen in The Day After Tomorrow and more recently, 10,000BC, with a deeper understanding of the characters. It ultimately succeeds in making the viewers share compassion for even the heartless characters in the film.
Moving on to the saving grace of all disaster films; the special effects, fans of major cities being destroyed are going to be pleased here with some eye-watering action pieces really showing why perhaps Emmerich overshadows even Michael Bay and has become the king of destroying anything that can be destroyed. There are a few questionable scenes, which look rather less than realistic, but this is a small point that doesn’t need to be taken into account.
Whilst all this may seem excellent, it all feels familiar, it’s all been seen and done before, so in reality 2012 adds nothing new to the genre which is unfortunate because it really is an excellent film.
Overall, 2012 is a mouth-watering treat in cinema engineering, apart from some lapses in scientific accuracy and some shaky special effects; it surpasses The Day After Tomorrow and similar disaster films by sheer depth. On the downside it adds nothing new to the formula, but if you want sheer popcorn fodder then please, look no further.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2010/10/18/2012-2009/
Unfortunately, those critics better look away now, as his new film is the biggest yet.
2012 takes place, well, in 2012 for the most part and features an array of big Hollywood names attracted none the less by the huge box office forecasts for the film. The premise is simple; here comes the end of the world and god should we run!
With a reported budget of over $200m which is more than Michael Bay spent on his worldwide smash Transformers: Revenge of the fallen, Emmerich was certainly able to splash out on some eye popping CGI.
2012 reads like The Day After Tomorrow on a steroid, which is no bad thing, but that film had some hideously underdeveloped characters and lacked the depth needed to allow viewers to share compassion for the people who had been affected by the global crisis.
Thankfully it seems that Emmerich has learnt his lesson here and has provided us with a back-story and it comes in many different forms. Thandie Newton and Danny Glover play president’s daughter and president respectively, a great deal of emotion has gone into writing these two characters and their on-screen scenes together, albeit a small amount, are wonderful.
John Cusack and Amanda Peet play divorced parents Jackson and Kate, only united by the love they share for their two young children and predictably later on in the film, a few deeper emotions. Unfortunately these two share no chemistry together and their on-screen scenes are flawed as a result.
2012 doesn’t have a huge deal of character development but it does improve on what was seen in The Day After Tomorrow and more recently, 10,000BC, with a deeper understanding of the characters. It ultimately succeeds in making the viewers share compassion for even the heartless characters in the film.
Moving on to the saving grace of all disaster films; the special effects, fans of major cities being destroyed are going to be pleased here with some eye-watering action pieces really showing why perhaps Emmerich overshadows even Michael Bay and has become the king of destroying anything that can be destroyed. There are a few questionable scenes, which look rather less than realistic, but this is a small point that doesn’t need to be taken into account.
Whilst all this may seem excellent, it all feels familiar, it’s all been seen and done before, so in reality 2012 adds nothing new to the genre which is unfortunate because it really is an excellent film.
Overall, 2012 is a mouth-watering treat in cinema engineering, apart from some lapses in scientific accuracy and some shaky special effects; it surpasses The Day After Tomorrow and similar disaster films by sheer depth. On the downside it adds nothing new to the formula, but if you want sheer popcorn fodder then please, look no further.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2010/10/18/2012-2009/