Reply
Sat 29 May, 2004 05:15 pm
I dont know whether Im naive or what, but the recent outcries by the "Global Warming , or anti global warming sides" are silly. Both views, and their scientific committees are criticizing the above movie for being "Poor SCience"
Among the scientists, former moon resident and space propulsion engineer, Dr Buzz Aldrin, has come out and called the science underpinning of the movie as ridiculous and damaging to the pursuit of scientific knowledge. Now,dr aldrin, everyone is in awe of your and Neil Armstrongs accomplishment, however 'How many disaster flicks have you produced/" Where are your flm making quals.
when Jurassic Park came out, I dont recall this kind of silly critique that many of the dinosaurs shown therein werent even from the Jurassic.
I, for one, am planning to go and see thhe DAy AFter... Roger Ebert, who does not profess to be a scientist , but, in my estimation is more qualified to judge a movies entertainment value, said that, and I paraphrase for succinctness
"Its so bad its good"... I think that captures the Ebert review
Anybody else a sucker for "Nature Bats last' movies?
I have to be in the mood for these kinds of movies. Luckily, I am in the mood lately, so I think I will see this piece of crap, just for the fun of seeing a lot of cool stuff get swallowed up by a giant wall of water.
It's okay to watch a piece of crap every once in awhile. Unless Ben Afleck is in it.
whew, so I dont need couseling?
I get way more po'd at movies that take liberties with history than I am about movies with bad science.
Canadians need to be especially concerned about wind chills , as Ive been told.
I can't wait to see it! I love shit like that!
The moon landing was faked. Aldrin, therefore, is clearly not qualified to comment. As for me, I'll wait till it's on digital cable.
I'll get the DVD. That's my normal practice. Last new movie I went to see was Titanic.
I saw it. Its not Oscar material but its very entertaining flick. Special effects alone warrants a theaterical visit, IMO!
I was supposed to go Friday, and hand out leaflets before the film. but man, was I sick.
I just like a good disaster movie, particularly if it's not too realistic. Volcano was really good, but the scene with the subway driver still haunts me.
This movie is a huge stretch from reality, but may help movie-goers to see that global warming IS a reality. just not as fast and drastic as what is depicted in the film.
farmerman wrote:whew, so I dont need couseling?
I get way more po'd at movies that take liberties with history than I am about movies with bad science.
Canadians need to be especially concerned about wind chills , as Ive been told.
I assure you, my wind is anything but chilly.
Hes still around.
Some movies have to be seen in big screen theaters. I hope this one is worth it to make the trip all the way to Lancaster.
At least Vin Diesel aint in it.
Although 'Jurrasic Park" was the name of the theme park, they didn't limit their recreation of the dinosaurs to that period alone -- it just sounds and reads better than "Cretaceous Park," the heyday of the dinosaurs.
I don't doubt the science is just as off base as in many science fiction movies, the accent being on fiction instead of science. It's obviously highly extrapolated and exagerrated but methinks the detractors are complaining only for the fear that it will turn more citizens into environmentalists. So how do they counter attack? By exagerrating the critique.
sorry wiz. I only posted after news coverage on Friday pM was clearly out to create some controversy. I believe the point was that movie makers have some sort of responsibilitry to get the science correc t.
When did all that "truth in entertainment" BS start?
There are easily a hundred movies I can name that contain silly science. so what?
Would be some creativity and imagination were used in government. Those sad stilted minds in Washington are still running a creaky machine that defies any kind of science. Isn't "Political Science" an oxymoron afterall? It's more of an art and we certainly have a lot of Artful Dodgers in our government.
BTW, the fear runs both ways just like the sword cuts both ways. They fear the thoughts of the prolitariat and don't want no (sic) Hollywood blockbuster to mess up anything. It's okay to get what they want by instilling fear.
I just say the movie today. Frankly I found it boring after the tidal wave hit Manhattan. The best part of the film, indeed an inspired bit, was the scene of Americans escaping across the Rio Grande into Mexico--and being graciously received.
Sort of my feelings too JL. I was dissapointed at the whole thing. I disagreed with Ebert. Itwas bad not good at all. I think Im getting sick of a movie revolving around its effects and absent any thought regarding a compelling plot.
i saw Mystic River on DVD and loved how the storywas developed and acted by the 3 key characters.
Yeah Mystic River was a work of art. Notice how AT THE END, Penn was walking away down the same street that the kidnapped boy rode down, looking out the back window in terror, AT THE BEGINNING. Very much like the repetition at the end of a symphony.
I thought the editing was tight so that such scenes were repeated in the film at certain times. Reminding us that the kidnapping was the defining event
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace
