Originally posted by: MrDingleDangle
Originally posted by: MAME
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/TheDayAfterTomorrow-1132625/
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/TheDayAfterTomorrow-1132625/
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/TheDayAfterTomorrow-1132625/
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/TheDayAfterTomorrow-1132625/
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/TheDayAfterTomorrow-1132625/
enough links??
oh, good call. I thought it looked a little slim:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/TheDayAfterTomorrow-1132625/
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/TheDayAfterTomorrow-1132625/
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/TheDayAfterTomorrow-1132625/
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/TheDayAfterTomorrow-1132625/
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/TheDayAfterTomorrow-1132625/
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/TheDayAfterTomorrow-1132625/
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/TheDayAfterTomorrow-1132625/
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/TheDayAfterTomorrow-1132625/
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/TheDayAfterTomorrow-1132625/
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/TheDayAfterTomorrow-1132625/
:heart:
A lot had to do with timing and the rising celebrity that was Will Smith. It was released on a Wednesday and with some word of mouth and by the time the July 4th weekend rolled around, people flocked to see a shamelessly fun, "humanity unites" movie. Shrek 2 also did well the same way, being released midweek and carrying on with strong weekend sales stirred from good reactions from the first comers.
But nothing will help weekend sales if the movie sucks.
0roo0roo
No Lifer
- Sep 21, 2002
- 64,795
- 84
- 91
yea, keeping critics out early is a bad bad bad sign.
on another note, saved, gets two early thumbs up from ebert and roeper http://tvplex.go.com/buenavista/ebertandroeper/today.html
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=38&threadid=1312030&STARTPAGE=1&FTVAR_FORUMVIEWTMP=Linear
on another note, saved, gets two early thumbs up from ebert and roeper
http://tvplex.go.com/buenavista/ebertandroeper/today.htmlhttp://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=38&threadid=1312030&STARTPAGE=1&FTVAR_FORUMVIEWTMP=Linear
chibchakan
Platinum Member
- Oct 30, 2001
- 2,349
- 0
- 76
Maybe they banned the press because there's some sort of plot twist, and they fear it being leaked.
because everyone knows that movies that get bad reviews always do so horribly :roll:
I'm sure that it will do respectable in the box office. at the very least, all of us NYC'ers will go and see it to see if we can spot our apartments
I'm sure that it will do respectable in the box office. at the very least, all of us NYC'ers will go and see it to see if we can spot our apartments
0roo0roo
No Lifer
- Sep 21, 2002
- 64,795
- 84
- 91
Originally posted by: loki8481
because everyone knows that movies that get bad reviews always do so horribly :roll:
I'm sure that it will do respectable in the box office. at the very least, all of us NYC'ers will go and see it to see if we can spot our apartments
eh, don't discount the gili factor
but yes, movies can do well even with poor reviews. well atleast for the first weekend or two if its truely bad.Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
Originally posted by: loki8481
because everyone knows that movies that get bad reviews always do so horribly :roll:
I'm sure that it will do respectable in the box office. at the very least, all of us NYC'ers will go and see it to see if we can spot our apartments
eh, don't discount the gili factor
the one thing that DAT has going for it is low expectations. I can't wait to see it, but I'm not expecting it to be some kind of oscar-worthy highbrow performance about survival in the face of natural disasters. I'm expecting a good action flick with passable acting, poor dialogue, and good special effects.
Oh noes it's like 9/11 except this time teh terrorists attack with snow and water. Someone slap whoever wrote that garbage review.
0roo0roo
No Lifer
- Sep 21, 2002
- 64,795
- 84
- 91
apperently its not even dumb fun.
May 26, 2004http://www.thehotbutton.com/today/hot.button/index.html
The Disaster The Day After Tomorrow
I want to start this piece with a sincere tribute to the team over at Fox. I cannot recall a single movie during my decade covering the film business - or even in decades of movie loving - that has been made to look as good as The Day After Tomorrow for as long as Team Fox has made this thing look good and which turned out to be as truly horrible a movie as this thing is. I'm not kidding. (I'm being a smart ass, but I'm not kidding.)
No one at Fox will soon acknowledge just how bad they know this movie is... but they know. They must have known for months. Like Universal did with Van Helsing, Fox execs took a risk with a commercial writer/director who has delivered in the past and who had an idea about taking a traditional genre and pumping up the volume. And when it was clear that that roll of the dice came up snake eyes, Team Fox did what few studios are willing to do, since it is just so very unpleasant? they put one of their big summer movies under uber-lockdown.
It was an act of genius. Because it is now Wednesday, less than 48 hours before The Day After Tomorrow is to be unleashed on the world, and no one sees the tsunami that is about to smash into American moviegoers. If they started screening this film early or - heaven forbid! - tested it, the storm clouds would have been gathering for months and there would be a real threat to the four-day opening weekend. But unlike some films that might have been helped by testing or early screening, The Day After Tomorrow could only be helped by reconstructing the entire story so that it offered narrative logic, emotional interest, and/or the slightest hint of a sense of humor.
As it is, the only earthquake you'll feel is the natural sensurround of people snoring in their seats through the second act (waking them would be unkind) and then again in the third act as people run for the exits when the boredom becomes too excruciating to bear. But come next Monday afternoon, you can be sure that more than $60 million will be in the Fox piggy bank and that is a remarkable achievement indeed.
Unlike the smarmy jackass at FoxNews.com who ran a blistering review of the film yesterday because he was not given a ticket to the opening night party, my shock at this film required no hard feelings against Fox. As far as I'm concerned, they treat the media as well as any studio and sometimes better. I genuinely like the team over there and sympathize with them, since this is the ugliest moment for the studio since Myra Breckenridge? well, since no one seems to remember Freddy Got Fingered anymore.
The trouble with this movie is classically Roland Emmerich. I may be the first person you read who compares this film unfavorably to Godzilla, but I won't be the last. But the problem is very much the same. Ememrich is a guy who makes big dumb movies who desperately wants to bring a reality to them. But that would require an act of genius. Emmerich knows what he's doing behind the camera, but he is not a directing or writing genius.
As we now know, no one really cares why Godzilla is attacking New York and no one really cares whether an ice age can come to the northern United States in a few weeks. What they care about it watching stuff get destroyed in a really cool way by really cool people. And besides the endless time wasted in both films explaining why the nonsensical makes sense, neither film has had a single human character as compelling as the characters played by ID4's Will Smith, Jeff Goldblum, Randy Quaid, Harvey Fierstein, Viveca Fox, Robert Loggia or even Bill Pullman.
This speaks to the cardinal lesson of Summer 2004? Less is More. Think about how limited the effects in ID4 really were. They blew up buildings. There were some cool creatures, all done with puppets, I believe. But the human beings carried the film. In The Day After Tomorrow, the actors don't stand a chance? they have nothing to do? they have no opportunity to deliver real heroism? they are tertiary characters.
Dennis Quaid plays a paleoclimatologist. Really! If you think that the big word is the problem, try defining it! Can any of you identify with a paleoclimatologist? Wouldn't you be a lot more likely to connect to a weatherman?
The other huge problem with the film is that it manages to move along both too fast and too slowly all in one movie. It doesn't help that the film apologizes for its own unreality in that first act, as we keep being told that what we know we are about to witness couldn't happen in our lifetime, couldn't happen in 20 years, couldn't happen in six years and couldn't happen in six weeks? all before it happens in six days.
Then, once it happens - and here is a consumer report? virtually everything you have seen and loved in trailers and commercials happens in the first act and never reoccurs later - there is a lot of waiting. But what are we really waiting for?
Things are so utterly unrelenting that as Dennis Quaid goes on his ridiculous trek to the Manhattan Public Library, there is no sense of anticipation for the audience to grasp onto. Then, as he finally arrives, as the sun comes out - yes, the sun comes out a few days into our next ice age - you realize that if he had just waited a day or two, he could have choppered into New York, no problem. I guess a paleoclimatologist wouldn't have thought about that. (A weatherman would have!)
There are all kinds of tiny deaths in this film that are not quite horrifying enough for The Day After Tomorrow to be the Springtime For Hitler of summer movies. There is the sick bald child, whose illness and medical needs are never explained. There are the morons who burn books instead of wood shelves. There is the wardrobe malfunction from the normally reliable Renee April, who didn't seem to realize that a bunch of brunettes bundled up in lost & found clothes by a fire would look like they were in a badly cast high school production of Fiddler On The Roof. (I kept waiting for Jake Gyllenhaal to break out in "Anatevka? Anatevka?") The CG wolves are irritatingly CG. Why is Jake almost drowning by using a payphone when a cell phone works just minutes later. (And why are cell phones working in this kind of weather?)
There is a moment where the lyricism of the idea of much of the United States being frozen over is ripe. At one point on the Quaid quest, the trio is threatened by the glass ceiling of a mall. But the only thing that we get is the survival (or failure to survive) from that experience. What about the massive tribute to mindless consumerism that a mall is? Isn't nature forcing us to give up what came too easy poignant? Instead, we get overwrought speeches about the Guttenberg Bible.
I was stunned by this movie? really. It was beyond any expectation of failure. And I didn't feel that way about Godzilla at all. I felt that movie had some cool stuff in it, even if it didn't really work. But even in that film, we had Hank Azaria as the pathetic comic relief. If there is a single sin that damns The Day After Tomorrow to hell even more profoundly than the others, it is its utter lack of humor. It is so bad that even trademark Emmerich gags didn't draw any laughs in the screening I attended. That silence was deafening.
Remember, the turning point in ID4 was when the humans stopped reacting to the alien threat and started taking aggressive action. This film doesn't allow for that moment. It could easily have been a first act of destruction, a second act of survival and a third act of a father trying to recover his son who everyone else assumes is dead.
Fortunately, we have Harry Potter and Tom Hanks coming to our movie rescue. And if you need something sooner and enjoy coarse humor, take a ride on the Soul Plane this weekend. But if I were at Fox this week, I'd be praying for an ice age that would bury me alive and thaw me out next week, because the global warming on this film is about to get as hot as any we've seen in a long time.
May 26, 2004http://www.thehotbutton.com/today/hot.button/index.html
The Disaster The Day After Tomorrow
I want to start this piece with a sincere tribute to the team over at Fox. I cannot recall a single movie during my decade covering the film business - or even in decades of movie loving - that has been made to look as good as The Day After Tomorrow for as long as Team Fox has made this thing look good and which turned out to be as truly horrible a movie as this thing is. I'm not kidding. (I'm being a smart ass, but I'm not kidding.)
No one at Fox will soon acknowledge just how bad they know this movie is... but they know. They must have known for months. Like Universal did with Van Helsing, Fox execs took a risk with a commercial writer/director who has delivered in the past and who had an idea about taking a traditional genre and pumping up the volume. And when it was clear that that roll of the dice came up snake eyes, Team Fox did what few studios are willing to do, since it is just so very unpleasant? they put one of their big summer movies under uber-lockdown.
It was an act of genius. Because it is now Wednesday, less than 48 hours before The Day After Tomorrow is to be unleashed on the world, and no one sees the tsunami that is about to smash into American moviegoers. If they started screening this film early or - heaven forbid! - tested it, the storm clouds would have been gathering for months and there would be a real threat to the four-day opening weekend. But unlike some films that might have been helped by testing or early screening, The Day After Tomorrow could only be helped by reconstructing the entire story so that it offered narrative logic, emotional interest, and/or the slightest hint of a sense of humor.
As it is, the only earthquake you'll feel is the natural sensurround of people snoring in their seats through the second act (waking them would be unkind) and then again in the third act as people run for the exits when the boredom becomes too excruciating to bear. But come next Monday afternoon, you can be sure that more than $60 million will be in the Fox piggy bank and that is a remarkable achievement indeed.
Unlike the smarmy jackass at FoxNews.com who ran a blistering review of the film yesterday because he was not given a ticket to the opening night party, my shock at this film required no hard feelings against Fox. As far as I'm concerned, they treat the media as well as any studio and sometimes better. I genuinely like the team over there and sympathize with them, since this is the ugliest moment for the studio since Myra Breckenridge? well, since no one seems to remember Freddy Got Fingered anymore.
The trouble with this movie is classically Roland Emmerich. I may be the first person you read who compares this film unfavorably to Godzilla, but I won't be the last. But the problem is very much the same. Ememrich is a guy who makes big dumb movies who desperately wants to bring a reality to them. But that would require an act of genius. Emmerich knows what he's doing behind the camera, but he is not a directing or writing genius.
As we now know, no one really cares why Godzilla is attacking New York and no one really cares whether an ice age can come to the northern United States in a few weeks. What they care about it watching stuff get destroyed in a really cool way by really cool people. And besides the endless time wasted in both films explaining why the nonsensical makes sense, neither film has had a single human character as compelling as the characters played by ID4's Will Smith, Jeff Goldblum, Randy Quaid, Harvey Fierstein, Viveca Fox, Robert Loggia or even Bill Pullman.
This speaks to the cardinal lesson of Summer 2004? Less is More. Think about how limited the effects in ID4 really were. They blew up buildings. There were some cool creatures, all done with puppets, I believe. But the human beings carried the film. In The Day After Tomorrow, the actors don't stand a chance? they have nothing to do? they have no opportunity to deliver real heroism? they are tertiary characters.
Dennis Quaid plays a paleoclimatologist. Really! If you think that the big word is the problem, try defining it! Can any of you identify with a paleoclimatologist? Wouldn't you be a lot more likely to connect to a weatherman?
The other huge problem with the film is that it manages to move along both too fast and too slowly all in one movie. It doesn't help that the film apologizes for its own unreality in that first act, as we keep being told that what we know we are about to witness couldn't happen in our lifetime, couldn't happen in 20 years, couldn't happen in six years and couldn't happen in six weeks? all before it happens in six days.
Then, once it happens - and here is a consumer report? virtually everything you have seen and loved in trailers and commercials happens in the first act and never reoccurs later - there is a lot of waiting. But what are we really waiting for?
Things are so utterly unrelenting that as Dennis Quaid goes on his ridiculous trek to the Manhattan Public Library, there is no sense of anticipation for the audience to grasp onto. Then, as he finally arrives, as the sun comes out - yes, the sun comes out a few days into our next ice age - you realize that if he had just waited a day or two, he could have choppered into New York, no problem. I guess a paleoclimatologist wouldn't have thought about that. (A weatherman would have!)
There are all kinds of tiny deaths in this film that are not quite horrifying enough for The Day After Tomorrow to be the Springtime For Hitler of summer movies. There is the sick bald child, whose illness and medical needs are never explained. There are the morons who burn books instead of wood shelves. There is the wardrobe malfunction from the normally reliable Renee April, who didn't seem to realize that a bunch of brunettes bundled up in lost & found clothes by a fire would look like they were in a badly cast high school production of Fiddler On The Roof. (I kept waiting for Jake Gyllenhaal to break out in "Anatevka? Anatevka?") The CG wolves are irritatingly CG. Why is Jake almost drowning by using a payphone when a cell phone works just minutes later. (And why are cell phones working in this kind of weather?)
There is a moment where the lyricism of the idea of much of the United States being frozen over is ripe. At one point on the Quaid quest, the trio is threatened by the glass ceiling of a mall. But the only thing that we get is the survival (or failure to survive) from that experience. What about the massive tribute to mindless consumerism that a mall is? Isn't nature forcing us to give up what came too easy poignant? Instead, we get overwrought speeches about the Guttenberg Bible.
I was stunned by this movie? really. It was beyond any expectation of failure. And I didn't feel that way about Godzilla at all. I felt that movie had some cool stuff in it, even if it didn't really work. But even in that film, we had Hank Azaria as the pathetic comic relief. If there is a single sin that damns The Day After Tomorrow to hell even more profoundly than the others, it is its utter lack of humor. It is so bad that even trademark Emmerich gags didn't draw any laughs in the screening I attended. That silence was deafening.
Remember, the turning point in ID4 was when the humans stopped reacting to the alien threat and started taking aggressive action. This film doesn't allow for that moment. It could easily have been a first act of destruction, a second act of survival and a third act of a father trying to recover his son who everyone else assumes is dead.
Fortunately, we have Harry Potter and Tom Hanks coming to our movie rescue. And if you need something sooner and enjoy coarse humor, take a ride on the Soul Plane this weekend. But if I were at Fox this week, I'd be praying for an ice age that would bury me alive and thaw me out next week, because the global warming on this film is about to get as hot as any we've seen in a long time.
guys. go watch the movie.
i just came back from an advanced screening, and despite the really poorly written article on fox, i'd reccommend it.
PURELY for witnessing some awesome effects etc, NOT for storyline or "realism"
but go watch it for its effect, especially new yorkers.
i just came back from an advanced screening, and despite the really poorly written article on fox, i'd reccommend it.
PURELY for witnessing some awesome effects etc, NOT for storyline or "realism"
but go watch it for its effect, especially new yorkers.
Watching some news programs and they're interviewing the films creators and some political pundits.
The political pundits are all up in arms that the movie does not stick to scientific fact and theory. They're upset that many exaggerations were made and they think it's a dig at Pres. Bush's environmental policies (or lack thereof).
Do these people not realize one important thing?
IT'S A FVCKING ACTION MOVIE!!!!
The political pundits are all up in arms that the movie does not stick to scientific fact and theory. They're upset that many exaggerations were made and they think it's a dig at Pres. Bush's environmental policies (or lack thereof).
Do these people not realize one important thing?
IT'S A FVCKING ACTION MOVIE!!!!
Funny how he goes on about how unrealistic the movie Day After Tomorrow is, yet mentions Independence Day as his favorite film. Apparently he didn't find it odd that the Alien spacecraft in Indpendence Day had comfortable ergonomic bucket seats designed to fit humans. Not to mention Will Smith can knock them out with one punch to the face. Um.. Yeah.
Hahahaha thats hilarious, on the right side theres three pictures....two of them are of natural disasters, one is of rosie o'whatever....all of them are of something bad.
Seriously though, thats an odd place to just chuck in a picture of her.
Seriously though, thats an odd place to just chuck in a picture of her.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
3 easy ways to spot when a movie going to suck:
1. It has a budget of over $200 million but B-actor never-was Dennis Quaid has the lead.
2. It gets delayed for a year even after all filming was completed.
3. It's a disaster flick where the disaster is global warming :roll:
And Ebert takes more bribes than any other film critic in America. He is completely untrustworthy. I'll never forgive him for giving the thumbs up to 2F2F, and I didn't even see that pile of steaming sh!t in the theaters, I just rented it!
edit: and of course Fox kept it under wraps. Look at Van Helsing! That movie stunk and Universal still got some $55 million back in the opening weekend. And what? over a $100 mil from the whole run? From a movie that should never have been made?
The marketing geniuses know that idiots who are easily brainwashed by hype will go regardless of how much they are warned. They also know that a good percentage of those will also say the movie was good regardless of how bad it was, merely to maintain the appearance of being cool.
Thank you, idiots, for ruining the theater by not boycotting these "disasters".
1. It has a budget of over $200 million but B-actor never-was Dennis Quaid has the lead.
2. It gets delayed for a year even after all filming was completed.
3. It's a disaster flick where the disaster is global warming :roll:
And Ebert takes more bribes than any other film critic in America. He is completely untrustworthy. I'll never forgive him for giving the thumbs up to 2F2F, and I didn't even see that pile of steaming sh!t in the theaters, I just rented it!
edit: and of course Fox kept it under wraps. Look at Van Helsing! That movie stunk and Universal still got some $55 million back in the opening weekend. And what? over a $100 mil from the whole run? From a movie that should never have been made?
The marketing geniuses know that idiots who are easily brainwashed by hype will go regardless of how much they are warned. They also know that a good percentage of those will also say the movie was good regardless of how bad it was, merely to maintain the appearance of being cool.
Thank you, idiots, for ruining the theater by not boycotting these "disasters".
0roo0roo
No Lifer
- Sep 21, 2002
- 64,795
- 84
- 91
bull, sometimes i don't agree with him, but he's not paid off. prove it. i mean really, he's the top critic for a reason, people trust his integrity, if he were taking money on the sly...he'd be knocked off his high horse so fast by the other critics it would blow your mind. 2f2f was good dumb fun to me. i wasn't bored. which is more then i can say for many very truely bad movies.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
Of course I can't prove it. But unlike Siskel (God rest his soul), Ebert has never had any integrity with me. IMO, it was Siskel's integrity that Ebert has rested his whole career on. Ebert has simply given the thumbs up to too many very bad movies.
2F2F was not good dumb fun. It was a horrible movie. Beyond a bad screenplay, bad writing, bad directing, bad acting, and being entirely unrealistic, it glorified street racing in a way I cannot forgive. F&F was good dumb fun.
When I saw the trailer with the tidal wave crashing down the "canyon" of two buildings, my first thought was "that kind of looks like the smoke/dust/rubble did when the WTC came down" and my second thought was "I wonder how long till someone complains and they either pull the movie or release a edited version missing that scene"
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter