I finally watched it
Posted: Sat Jan 08, 2005 1:57 am
After many months (or so it seems, i'm not actually sure how long it's been) of thinking "this movie is gonna suck butt, i'm not gonna watch it because it will be a horrible, horrible disaster movie (I never was a fan of disaster movies anyway), and despite it looking pretty it will be horribly directed and will have a story that may leave me in tears or asleep"
The CGI was really neat, i liked the way all the frost formed on everything absorbing the moisture in the air. I didn't much care for the wolves though, i don't think living things ever look quite right (i'm mostly thinking of the excorcist beginnings movie, i haven't seen many other living things depicted with cgi)
the disaster with the fronts changing and earth going into an ice age is based on a real theory (an instructor from iowa state came and talked to us about it once) and it's pretty neat how they based that on something real, but the rest of the story seemed lame to me.
There were so many times i didn't know what to think, they're in a flood, is the water cold? why is he shivering and why isn't she? why did they say the temp would lower this at this speed and then when 3 minutes went by they still weren't frozen? did they ever give that one girl a shot to make her all better? how much time did all this take?
there were so many things the director did horribly (in my opinion), but the effects were really amazing. If i were an actor or a director i'd be pretty embarassed to have this one on my resume. I really wanted to be proven wrong and find out this was really a decent movie, but that didn't happen.
if anyone has anything to say in the defence of the movie i'd be glad to hear it
Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1626, old post ID:21617
The CGI was really neat, i liked the way all the frost formed on everything absorbing the moisture in the air. I didn't much care for the wolves though, i don't think living things ever look quite right (i'm mostly thinking of the excorcist beginnings movie, i haven't seen many other living things depicted with cgi)
the disaster with the fronts changing and earth going into an ice age is based on a real theory (an instructor from iowa state came and talked to us about it once) and it's pretty neat how they based that on something real, but the rest of the story seemed lame to me.
There were so many times i didn't know what to think, they're in a flood, is the water cold? why is he shivering and why isn't she? why did they say the temp would lower this at this speed and then when 3 minutes went by they still weren't frozen? did they ever give that one girl a shot to make her all better? how much time did all this take?
there were so many things the director did horribly (in my opinion), but the effects were really amazing. If i were an actor or a director i'd be pretty embarassed to have this one on my resume. I really wanted to be proven wrong and find out this was really a decent movie, but that didn't happen.
if anyone has anything to say in the defence of the movie i'd be glad to hear it
Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1626, old post ID:21617