I haven't seen the movie yet but I had thought about it, now maybe I won't bother. I do have the book although I haven't gotten around to reading it yet. I seem to be spending a lot of time these days at a certain fun forum.
I have now seen the movie twice. It is overwhelmingly partisan, promoting not only the weak science of global warming caused by humans, but also that the Kyoto treaty is the only valid means of fighting that global warming.
The action, the effects, even the story line were all pretty good. It is pure sci-fi, but pretty good sci-fi.
I have finally gotten around to seeing this movie. I watched it on PPV and while I loved the special effects the story was a bit too cliche. I could see things coming from miles away. The timeline really bothered me. I don't think the world's weather could change so drastically practically overnight. When Jack and friends went to New York to try to rescue his son why didn't they use the Arctic vehicle that we saw in the first scene? Wouldn't that have made more sense than a pickup, even a 4x4 one? Also wasn't it fortunate of those stranded in the library for a oil tanker to park itself right outside, just so that they could find some needed medicine in it and have a scary encounter with some very fake looking wolves? I would love for someone to make a disaster film that tells more about how people cope with things afterward. They destroyed L.A. early on and never went back to tell us how people were surviving. This could have been such a good movie. Of course it was directed by the same man who directed Godzilla and Independence Day, so I guess we shouldn't have expected anything too good. I guess you can tell I didn't really care for this movie. By the way, I haven't read the book yet. I have tried but it jumps around so much that it gets very confusing.
Edited: ReneeisXena on 3rd Dec, 2004 - 7:22am
I haven't seen the movie, but based on the previews, it looked like one of those types of movies you have to see on the big screen. I didn't want to go see the movie because of the story, I wanted to see a big picture of New York covered by a couple hundred feet of snow. When I went to see Final Fantasy, I could not explain to anyone what the story was about, or whether it was any good; I just went for the computer animation.
O.
In terms of 'what if?' scenarios, the movie barely receives my 'viewable' stamp. It seemed to be, in my opinion, more of a message than a movie. It's the same way that Troy was an anti-war message more than a movie. As ReneeisXena said, we don't know what happens to the survivors (if there are any) of Los Angeles. There are way too many loose ends. The movie had potential and threw it to the [CG] wolves.
I agree, as a "what if" movie, it is pretty weak. From the very beginning, I knew it was a vehicle for the radical environmental message. I only watched it to see how they handled it, and it was very predictable.
Now, if someone would only make a movie of Lucifer's Hammer, and follow it faithfully, then there would be a great post-disaster movie for us.