(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thedayaftertomorrowmovie.com%2Fimages%2Fc1r1.jpg&hash=a4113e5703464fcf4e6717cdac14febbbe40ad83)
Trailer here. (http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox/dayaftertomorrow/)
Release Date: May 28th, 2004 (wide)
Cast: Dennis Quaid (Professor Adrian Hall), Jake Gyllenhaal (Samuel Hall), Emmy Rossum (Laura), Sela Ward (Lucy Hall), Joe Cobden (Zack), Jared Harris, Rick Hoffman, Perry King, Kenneth Moskow (Bob), Austin Nichols, Nestor Serrano, Arjay Smith, Tamlyn Tomita (Janet)
Director: Roland Emmerich (The Patriot, Godzilla, Independence Day, Stargate)
Screenwriter: Roland Emmerich (cowriter of Godzilla, Independence Day, Stargate), Jeffrey Nachmanoff (cowriter of 1993's 'The Big Gig')
Premise: This movie takes a big-budget, special-effects-filled look at what the world would look like if the greenhouse effect and global warming continued at such levels that they resulted in worldwide catastrophe and disaster, including multiple hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes (I don't quite get the science of that one), tidal waves, floods and the beginning of the next Ice Age. At the center of the story is a paleoclimatologist (a scientist who studies the ways weather patterns changed in the past), Professor Adrian Hall (Quaid), who tries to save the world from the effects of global warming while also trying to get to his son, Sam (Gyllenhaal), who was in New York City as part of a scholastic competition, when the city was overwhelmed by the chilling beginnings of the new Ice Age. In addition to all of the other challenges Dr. Hall faces, he's also going against the flow as humanity races south to warmer climes, and he's nearly the only one going north... (Rossum plays another student, and Gyllenhaal's romantic interest; Ward plays Quaid's wife and Gyllenhaal's mother; Serrano plays Quaid's boss)
Very nice trailer (minus some rather old fashioned CG work). I had zero anticipation for another Emmerich film, but this is a promising glimpse. Of course, that's easy to do with such a short teaser.
Within a few weeks of each other next summer, we'll have 'The Day After Tommorrow' and 'The World Of Tomorrow' being released, and I believe both are from the same studio...I wonder which one will buckle and change their title.
...::sprays easy cheese into his mouth::
..AWWWWWWWWWW tha-weet another disaster film.(literally and figuratively)......
Quote from: NEON MERCURY...::sprays easy cheese into his mouth::
..AWWWWWWWWWW tha-weet another disaster film.(literally and figuratively)......
Whatever, this is a good premise. Once again someone stole my idea, title, and main cast even.
I'm just going to stop thinking altogether, HOW DO YOU LIKE THAT HUH UNIVERSAL CONSCIOUSNESS??????! *shakes fist to sky*
Ok... my comments:
A) It comes out two days before my birthday... instant cool (pun intended)
B) The first 20 seconds of the trailer looks strangely like the trailer for my short film "The Radio"... coincidence? I think not...
C) This looks like a combination of Independence Day, Earthquake, Twister, et all...
D) I bet you anything everything in this trailer happens in the first 5 minutes of the movie... the rest of the movie will be very slow, low budget, interior shots with dramatic human interactions....
i hope this one changes its title. i think it's a pretty stupid title for a disaster film.
damn that looks nice.
the (happy) ending'll probably involve a grappling hook, though.
Speaking of the apocalypse, I'm glad there's a new flick coming out to show the demise of our world. Everyone running like animals for their lives. I just think that's how it would be, every man for himself.. Kinda like the Burger King soda machines during lunch hour.
I liked some of these images from the trailer --- the millions of birds migrating, the tornadoes ripping apart major buildings (particularly that big building, all the windows shooting out with the wind), and the city covered in snow.
Folks, this is standard CGI-driven Hollywood SHITE. But I'll see it anyway...just....because it's the end of the world.
*Slaps himself for his obvious contradiction*
looks fun enough
Quote from: taz.i hope this one changes its title. i think it's a pretty stupid title for a disaster film.
Punch-Drunk Love wasn't much of a title either... but then it grew on me...
I always liked the title Punch-Drunk Love. As for The Day After Tomorrow... shit title, and most likely shit movie from the director of Universal Soldier.
it sound s like the name for a bond film
The scene with the wall of water coming towards the cars...um isn't this the exact same shot as the fire coming towards the cars in Independence Day? With the people looking back and running away from the camera?Way to reinvent yourself Emmerich. I mean, the shots were kinda eerie, like the stupid reporter right in front of the tornado, or the tornado eating away at the Hollywood sign. Overall, looks kinda lame, but I'm gonna see it. And the title, kinda funny sounding, could also be called, "Two Days From Now" "One Day From Today if You Don't Count Today" "After 48 Hours" "The Tomorrow of Tomorrow (sounds like a soap opera)"
my original working title for the script was The Future Of The Future.. seems there's no way to get around it really.
sounds cool... I didnt even know about this until now
Well now you know... and knowing is half the battle.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.google.com%2Fimages%3Fq%3Dtbn%3Apy7zuB4NnGoC%3Awww.timelesstrinkets.com%2FGIJoeBoyToys%2FImages%2FGIJoeFramePic.jpg&hash=8c9923c4ff5aa55aa9f15dfe905a9c00dddc5c3b)
The End Of The World As We Know It
It was with great anticipation that Empire Online was whisked off to an advance preview of The Day After Tomorrow this morning. Destined to be this summer's big event movie, the film has stirred up a great deal of buzz since its teaser trailer was unveiled, so the chance to take in 18 minutes of footage was too good to miss.
*SOME SPOILERS*
Three scenes were played before our eager eyes, the first of which depicting the destruction of downtown Los Angeles by mother nature herself. Now, it's been a while since anyone in the office was chased by a tornado but, were twisters to descend on a major metropolitan area and begin tearing it to pieces, we imagine it would look much like this. Effects that were, according to director Roland Emmerich, only half finished managed to impress us more than any digital effect in recent memory as everything from LAX to the Capitol Records building were torn apart by the rampaging storm. The moment when two such air funnels combine to create the mother of all cyclones puts the whole of Twister to shame.
And, as impressive as all that was, the next clip managed to top it. New York City was the venue for the second scene of destruction as a tidal wave sweeps over Liberty Island, engulfing the statue itself, and looming over Manhattan. Stars Jake Gyllenhaal and Emmy Rossum wade through waist deep water in the streets, making their way to the Public Library for shelter. Rossum goes back to help a French tourist escape from the back seat of a taxi, unaware of the hundred metre wall of water gushing down the street towards her. Gyllenhaal is forced to drag her away and into the building before the torrent caves in the windows and hurls a car through the front of the structure.
Given that water is the most notoriously difficult effect to capture realistically, the scenes were quite simply breathtaking. A bird's eye view of the flow consuming the big apple was as real as current technology allows and, reminiscent of Independence Day's wall of fire, you can see just how far effects have progressed in the eight years since ID4 was released.
The final clip was a more character-driven spot with Dennis Quaid advising the president to evacuate the Northern Hemisphere (nothing major then) as the icy storm consumes most of the country. Gyllenhaal and Rossum are still holed up in the New York library with other refugees and are advised to try and wait out the big freeze, burning anything they can to fend off the rapidly falling temperatures. The waters outside have stopped rising, but that doesn't stop a huge oil tanker ship from merrily cruising through the Manhattan streets.
All in all we're extremely impressed by what we've seen. True, cutting-edge effects do not a good film make but Emmerich was insistent that, while it was spectacle on show today, the awesome visuals are equally balanced by characters and a compelling storyline. We'll have to wait and see for ourselves whether that proves to be the case but one thing's for sure: if nothing else, The Day After Tomorrow will bring you scenes of spectacular global destruction the likes of which have never been seen on screen.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.empireonline.co.uk%2Fsite%2Fimages%2Fimage_index%2F1028.jpg&hash=b302e914ba5a64b0b22221a22aff0928a2c47412)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.empireonline.co.uk%2Fsite%2Fimages%2Fimage_index%2F1029.jpg&hash=81f98a85872e2dda05c6e55422b3f6af3f6677d0)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.empireonline.co.uk%2Fsite%2Fimages%2Fimage_index%2F1032.jpg&hash=b01a079ae2b784343fabbfe45a64024e35e59bfb)
i really wish they would make more films about the end of the world.... :(
Theatrical Trailer here. (http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox/dayaftertomorrow/trailer/)
I'm particularly interested to see how they drive any kind of plot through to a conclusion when they're fighting unstoppable forces of nature as opposed to Alien Scum. These effects particularly, would look great on IMAX.
The Day After Tomorrow, or: How America deals with Sept. 11
Don't you think it's interesting that a German has taken control over the catastrophe genre, maybe the most American genre there is?
JG seems good at saving the world
the sequel will be "the day after the day after tomorrow."
Trailer #2 (http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox/dayaftertomorrow/trailer2/)
I hear the last scene is a sword fight between Dennis Quaid and God.
Quote from: 1976I hear the last scene is a sword fight between Dennis Quaid and God.
i heard they didn't film that, and instead God just talks a whole lot and then dies of lack-of-momentum-in-the-story.
Quote from: PubrickQuote from: 1976I hear the last scene is a sword fight between Dennis Quaid and God.
i heard they didn't film that, and instead God just talks a whole lot and then dies of lack-of-momentum-in-the-story.
They filmed it. Just not in the final cut, it'll be on the special edition disc 6 months after the bare bones.
I'm gonna go see this film Friday eventhough I know it's a complete waste of money. Sad really :cry:
Interesting article:
These Hollywood special effects may cost the world $15 trillion
By Bjorn Lomborg
In the final minutes of the Hollywood doomsday spectacular The Day After Tomorrow, which opens in Britain at the end of the month, the US president makes a ludicrously over-the-top State of the Nation speech. It is a great deal less realistic than the performance by the undoubted star of this $125 million blockbuster of a film: a 100 ft high tidal wave that engulfs New York.
Indeed, the film loses any credibility long before that. This is not because of any one of the far-fetched incidents that occur in the course of its 125 minutes. It isn't the flash freezing of a presidential motorcade, or even the escape of man-eating wolves from New York Zoo. No, this extremely enjoyable film has been let down by the simple fact that it has got its science all wrong. None of it could happen.
The story goes like this. As a consequence of global warming, the polar caps melt, sending vast quantities of fresh water into the world's salty oceans. The torrent stops the Gulf Stream, a major current in the North Atlantic, precipitating a global storm that instantly creates a new Ice Age. This is an excuse for breathtaking special effects: Manhattan is buried in 30-storey snowdrifts, Los Angeles is hit by 250 mph tornadoes, and a fearless paleoclimatologist, played by Denis Quaid, straps on his snow shoes to trek from Washington, DC to New York to rescue his son.
The bad guy is the vice president, who bears a striking resemblance to the real one. This Dick Cheney doppelganger arrogantly dismisses the Kyoto Protocol - it is too expensive - and rejects concern about climate change as fearmongering. The scriptwriters save him from death only to subject him to a mea culpa public address at the movie's climax, saying roughly, "We thought that we could affect the Earth's delicate systems without suffering the consequences. We were wrong. I was wrong." This State of the Nation address is broadcast live on the Weather Channel.
If The Day After Tomorrow had no claims to be anything more than another cheesy Hollywood movie with some fabulous special effects, we could happily turn a blind eye to its bogus science and concentrate on the sight of the Statue of Liberty up to her armpits in the water. But the film claims to be offering something more than this.
"There's more truth than hype," the film-makers promise in their publicity. The German director, Roland Emmerich, claims he tried to present us with a valuable fund of scientific information. The film's website provides links to news stories published in February about "a secret report prepared by the Pentagon" which warned that climate change would "lead to global catastrophe costing millions of lives". What this publicity does not reveal is that the Pentagon report was merely a hypothetical worst-case scenario - and one that has already been thoroughly debunked. In fact, the respected magazine Science has reviewed this Pentagon report and the alleged scientific support for The Day After Tomorrow and concludes that "it is highly unlikely that global warming will lead to a widespread collapse" of the Gulf Stream, and "it is safe to say that global warming will not lead to the onset of a new Ice Age".
In Nature, another highly-respected scientific journal, a researcher finds that halting the Gulf Stream would be impossible, arguing that "the only way to produce an ocean circulation without the Gulf Stream would be to turn off the wind system or stop the Earth's rotation, or both."
Now, although it is not going to kill us the day after tomorrow, global warming certainly is a reality. It is caused at least partly by mankind's use of fossil fuels. The effects will be predominantly adverse - although high-latitude nations might prosper in a warmer world, tropical countries will have to deal with more heat-days, altered precipitation and higher sea-levels. So what is wrong with using a piece of popular entertainment to campaign for action to save people from that? As the Nasa research oceanographer William Patzert says: "The science is bad, but perhaps it's an opportunity to crank up the dialogue on our role in climate change."
The problem is that if we overestimate the risk that climate change poses, then we will pay less attention to the other challenges that face us. That appears to be exactly the aim of the movie's creators. Emmerich believes that global warming is "the only problem big enough to force all the countries of the world to stop fighting and work together to save the planet"; he says that his great dream is that "this film will force politicians to act".
If politicians were to see The Day After Tomorrow and act on its agenda, what would happen? Implementing the Kyoto agreement on climate change would cost at least $150 billion each year, yet would do no more than postpone global warming for six years by 2100. That is to say, it would cause temperatures to increase slightly more slowly - the temperature we would have reached in 2100 without Kyoto, we would now reach in 2106. Those families in Bangladesh who will get flooded will have an extra six years to move. Even if the film's creators are right - and the scientists are wrong - and the Gulf Stream current does collapse within a decade, then Kyoto would have made no difference.
There is another reason why it is wrong - I would even say amoral - to overplay the case for combatting climate change. We cannot do everything. Our resources are limited, and our attention is quickly diverted from one fashionable cause to another. We must ask ourselves if spending $150 billion every year for the rest of the century to postpone warming for six years is really the best use of that money.
For the cost of implementing Kyoto in just one year, we could permanently provide clean drinking water and sanitation to everyone on the planet. Of course it is unlikely that Emmerich will cast Brad Pitt as a sewage engineer in Kenya for his next glamorous movie. Nor are there many good plotlines to be made from tales of a government which invests in malarial vaccines, or of a global conference called to remove trade barriers. But these are real options that policy-makers face every time they spend a dollar with the intention of easing human suffering.
The world needs a rational basis for making such priorities. That is the aim of a new project, Copenhagen Consensus, which will bring together nine economists - including four Nobel Prize winners - to prioritise solutions to 10 great challenges facing humanity. They will look at problems ranging from financial instability to communicable diseases, examining several different solutions to each challenge. The experts will produce a ranked list - at the top will be the solution that will achieve the most for humanity.
In an ideal world, we would be able to achieve everything - we should halt global warming and eradicate corruption, end malnutrition and win the war against communicable diseases. Because we cannot do everything, we need sound reasoning and high quality information to defeat the hysteria of Hollywood. I believe there is more hope in truth than in hype.
Bjorn Lomborg is the director of Copenhagen Consensus and Denmark's Environmental Assessment Institute. He is the author of The Skeptical Environmentalist
Quote from: ©bradthe sequel will be "the day after the day after tomorrow."
There will then be a movie made based on the happenings before the first one...called, that's right, "tomorrow"
The prequel trilogy to all that will then be called:
"2 days ago", "yesterday", and "today"
The first will have an alternate title of: "the day before yesterday"
Okay, I have went far enough with that.
Saw this last night. For a big budget summer blockbuster, it wasnt bad at all. The movie is to say the least, VERY engaging. The three theaters that were showing it in the multiplex i was at were completely packed, and in mine, there were these kids in the front row being loud and reciting all the commercials and previous, but once the movie started, there was not a peep from anyone in that theater. Wierd experience...
if you can suspend disbelief for two hours, its a great movie...
Gyllenhaal Admits Diva Antics
Hollywood heart-throb Jake Gyllenhaal has admitted to unlikely diva behavior on the set of his latest film The Day After Tomorrow. The Donnie Darko actor, 23, loved starring in the big-budget disaster movie, but on several occasions refused to say some of the lines in the script and suggested new ones. Gyllenhaal says, "There were a couple of instances where I said, 'No way am I saying that line!' and they rewrote it.' There won't be any subtitle saying, 'Sorry, these guys don't sound like real human beings, but they just didn't have the balls to say the dialogue sucked." And Gyllenhaal knows more about screenwriting than most actors - his mother Naomi Foner is a writer. Gyllenhaal continues, "Coming from a family where my mom is a writer, I just respond to how people speak. I thrive on the process of getting this stuff right. It drove them crazy, but it was fun. You have to entertain yourself when you're spending seven months in Montreal."
They should've rewrote the whole screenplay! This is a disaster movie where the movie is the biggest disaster of all. The dialogue is hysterically bad with one contrived situation after the other. It has a likable ensemble but Jake's the only guy giving a good performance.
Please avoid at all cost!
Quote from: Quoylewith one contrived situation after the other.Please
You didn't figure that out by watching the trailer. The film isn't trying be anything more than it is. It's a cheesy, entertaining action flick and as that it works very well. If you are just want to go to the theatre for an entertaining film...I highly suggest this film.
Yeah, it was dumb fun with some really cool effects. I enjoyed it a lot. I saw it in a theater in Dallas that is primarily frequented by Hispanic audiences, and they went nuts when everyone started trying to go to Mexico...the whole theater was roaring with laughter. It was great.
The funniest part for me was when you first see the sick kid. Before he said anything, it occured to me how hilarious it would be if he talked like Cancer Boy from Kids In The Hall: Brain Candy. I was laughing for like five minutes just thinking about that.
Also, I very much enjoyed the part where Dick Cheney wants to send troops up North, presumably to battle the weather.
Quote from: QuoyleThey should've rewrote the whole screenplay! This is a disaster movie where the movie is the biggest disaster of all. The dialogue is hysterically bad with one contrived situation after the other. It has a likable ensemble but Jake's the only guy giving a good performance.
Please avoid at all cost!
I wish I had read this before going. It was abominable I thought. Many of the storylines were completely unbelieveable and I'm not quite certain the scenario with the blizzard hurricane structures could exist due to hurricanes formations being fed by convection. As soon as they hit cool water the disapate. I'm shocked that Ebert gave this 3 stars. I don't think the screenwriters had any concept of time and characters relation to it. I could go on but I'd rather not be long-winded.
Quote from: Reformed WeirdoI wish I had read this before going. It was abominable I thought. Many of the storylines were completely unbelieveable and I'm not quite certain the scenario with the blizzard hurricane structures could exist due to hurricanes formations being fed by convection. As soon as they hit cool water the disapate. I'm shocked that Ebert gave this 3 stars. I don't think the screenwriters had any concept of time and characters relation to it. I could go on but I'd rather not be long-winded.
Yes, I was absolutely shocked that this film wasn't faithful to real science. . .
What did you expect? An atmospheric and oceanic sciences lecture? Obviously this film was going to take liberties for the sake of fun. Ebert gave this film 3 stars because it's just a fun movie. More often than not, I think we're laughing with the filmmakers, not at them. If we weren't supposed to laugh during this movie, they wouldn't have included the satire of Bush and Cheney and illegal immigration.
Quote from: UncleJoeyQuote from: Reformed WeirdoI wish I had read this before going. It was abominable I thought. Many of the storylines were completely unbelieveable and I'm not quite certain the scenario with the blizzard hurricane structures could exist due to hurricanes formations being fed by convection. As soon as they hit cool water the disapate. I'm shocked that Ebert gave this 3 stars. I don't think the screenwriters had any concept of time and characters relation to it. I could go on but I'd rather not be long-winded.
Yes, I was absolutely shocked that this film wasn't faithful to real science.
What did you expect? An atmospheric and oceanic sciences lecture? Obviously this film was going to take liberties for the sake of fun. Ebert gave this film 3 stars because it's just a fun movie. More often than not, I think we're laughing with the filmmakers, not at them. If we weren't supposed to laugh during this movie, they wouldn't have included the satire of Bush and Cheney and illegal immigration.
I was expecting a well made disaster film with nice effects. I didn't really find much funny, except the fact that he walked from philadelphia to new york in blizzard like conditions in what seemed like a day.
tried to warn yall
I really enjoyed it.
The destruction of the Hollywood sign wasn't just a little wink to the audience it it was a blazingly obvious indication of the type of film you were watching. I can't believe people can even begin to try and pick holes in this film.
The tsunami wave sequence was really exciting. I was just smiling the whole time during that. If this movie makes more people buy hybrid vehicles then it will have done a good job.
Nice to have some good representation of the UK (a fringe benefit of the coalition?) but is it a bit too much to ask for a full frame shot of the union jack...just kidding. I'm just glad it wasn't some incompetent, tea-drinking, RAF chappys like in independence day.
Quote from: Quoyletried to warn yall
Seems you and Weirdo are the only two who didn't like it so far.
As long as it's better than "Godzilla", I'll be happy.
as siliasruby would say, I'm Looking Forward To It.
i thought it was pretty decent. jake was good, dennis was alright, and it was a nice treat to see Ian Holm. anywho....2 and a half/5
. i saw this ..it wasn t the disaster film i thought it would be...basically if good fun w/ alot of cheese....dialogue was ghey...fake denzel was neat...effects were rad...and neat.....the "mall scene" was cheese, the 'romantic subplot was cheese, the 'political message" was cheese, ......but i would buy this still on a special edition dvd..with or w/o the dts.....but the best part was watching
one of my old thin red line boys, DASH MIHOK..i just wish they gave him a bigger part.......basically this film reminds me if th elifetime network started puttiing more money into their films and had hollyw$$d effects..........
I don't normally see these summer blockbusters, but I thought this one was alright. It had its flaws, such as the lukewarm "romance" and some leaps of logic, but the SFX were good enough that I generally liked the film. It isn't anything I want to see again, though. I think Ebert gave this film 3 stars because of the political message :-D
figures
Quote from: QuoyleThey should've rewrote the whole screenplay! This is a disaster movie where the movie is the biggest disaster of all. The dialogue is hysterically bad with one contrived situation after the other. It has a likable ensemble but Jake's the only guy giving a good performance.
Please avoid at all cost!
Amen. Off the top of my head, one of the top 5 worst screenplays I've ever seen in a movie. This is prime MST3K material.
***SPOILERS (minor ones but still)***
The whole thing with Sela Ward and the kid with cancer was the most ridiculous and useless subplot since Elisha Cuthbert got her leg caught in a bear trap in season 2 of 24. As much money as this movie cost, you'd think one executive at 20th Century Fox would have said, "Um, Roland? The wife? We don't need her. The movie gets shorter. BAM! More cash. And this homeless guy isn't much of a help either."
So here's to Jake Gyllenhaal not completely pulling an Affleck, even though it's not looking too good so far. "Earth in peril" movie? Check. Actress girlfriend? Check. Superhero movie in the works? Check. Kevin Smith movie in the works? Check. Let's just hope Kirsten Dunst doesn't try for a singing career.
Quote from: hacksparrowOff the top of my head, one of the top 5 worst screenplays I've ever seen in a movie.
What are the other four?
also, another terrible subplot: the wolves
In these movies there is always a scene where people don't listen to the one person who knows what he's talking about. In this movie it was the scene where the cop tells everyone to leave, even though Jake tells everyone that his climatologist dad said not to.
Quote from: El Duderinoalso, another terrible subplot: the wolves
i totally guessed that by the way. ask my girlfriend.
Quote from: ewardQuote from: El Duderinoalso, another terrible subplot: the wolves
i totally guessed that by the way. ask my girlfriend.
It's not surprising that the wolves came back. In most mainstream movies, nothing that is lingered on for even a second doesn't come back later in the film.
errrr....well.....ummmm......they lingered on the bears too!! i didnt see any fuckin bears comin back, did you? i thought not.
i wasn't that proud of it, i swear
Overall, I got what I wanted. I was entertained. I wasn't looking for logic or seriousness. I like the Irwin Allen disaster films, and while this might be on the same scale as Posideon Adventure or Towering Inferno, it was good at it's 'disaster'. The FX were top notch, especially the waves pouring through the streets of New York, and I love my city of Los Angeles so much, I was very giddy about seeing it torn apart. It lagged a bit in parts, and the crescendo of destruction scenes weren't as suspenseful or tense as Emerich built with Independence Day, but I was still satisfied.
This movie was entertaining for one reason only: to laugh.
Who knew frost could chase you through a hallway?!?
First half. Nature destroys the world/ America. Grand scale destruction. = :-D
Second half. "NOBODY go outside. You'll FREEEEZE to death!" = :(
Wasn't it stupid that they burned books, when they had plenty of furniture that would make even better fuel? and , in the ship he takes a fire axe, goes out the window, breaks back in in the other room and opens the door from the inside. why didn't he use the axe to break the door down?
It was a pretty funny film. nice FX, cept for the cg dogs. I liked it very much because these are really hot days, where I live. It was nice to go into the cinema and cool down a bit. Or it could have been the air conditioner.
Jokes made during film:
French woman in Taxi can't get out; character Laura comes to the rescue.
My Friend Darren:
"Let me through! I speak Hysterical Black Woman!"
NYC floods over
Comments made:
"Then there's a guy rowing a gondala remarking 'ahh! She's a just like home!'
"They told me the Boat-car was a bad investment, but I showed them!!!! (shakes fist) I SHOWED THEM!!!!!!!!"
and your basic 'wolves are a natural disaster?' nonsense