I agree with Jay that its not serious even when it is going through the motions of melodrama (I tend not to take melodrama ‘serious’ either). Its pantomime, and really playing everything big (Woody Harrelson’s Timothy Treadwell meets every stereotype of a conspiracy nut, for example). Yes there are scenes where people are crying but I didn’t feel like the film was expecting me to take it seriously, it is self-aware of how preposterous the whole thing is, and those ‘dramatic’ scenes are about as deep as a kid playing with his toys, making up grand pronouncements with his action figures.

At times it was a bit too disaster porn for me, repetitive of the same money shots, but it does at times hit a gleeful momentum. I was entertained.

3/5

Feels good to be on the right side for once, eh? .

rot, kiss my a-hole.

To quote Withnail: Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Jay – I personally didn’t take it seriously; I was just bored. But it’s clear Emmerich wants us to take a lot of it seriously. Yes, definitely. “In English!” isn’t Emmerich being whacky and cliche, it’s him being uncreative and unoriginal. There’s a difference.

In the FJ thread I mentioned about all the cool things around the world that we could’ve watched being destroyed rather than listening to Amanda Peet and Paris Hilton become buddies for ten minutes. A shot from space of the Great Wall being taken out would’ve been SWEET! Also plenty of other worldly landmarks – especially since the entire movie’s underlying theme is all about the human culture and our legacy.

The frustrating thing isn’t the length or the melodrama. It’s the wasted opportunities and lack of creativity.

I think you mean to say that the film can in no way be taken seriously, which I would agree with, which makes it all the more embarrasing to see John Cusack try and mend family relationships. None of the actors in the film save for Woody Harrelson have ANY comedic timing. Amanda Peet? For crying out loud…

It was a pretty big deal for me that I was so bored through most of the film. But if you find the set pieces satisfactory then all that stuff isn’t as big of a deal, I was pretty disappointed with the destruction we saw. The first destruction scene was awesome, and it’s of course another problem that the film doesn’t top it, but the fireballs from the sky scene was pretty lackluster, I mean it didn’t do anything interesting with it, just fireballs from the sky and running, and the plane thing I definitely didn’t find thrilling. Had it been more creative and interesting during the effects scenes, I might have been more lenient on the Ridley Scott/Steven Spielberg level seriousness.

I want either Doomsday or Blindness. Not both.

I guess not. At least not explicitly.

Gamble credits you with the accusation here:

http://www.rowthree.com/2008/07/04/today-we-celebrate-our-independence-day/

on 2012, the absurd running time was definitely a show-stopper for me on Sunday. a 10:30 show with that kind of runtime is too late considering I know I’m going to get pretty much junk filmmaking for the length of it.

But most action films do have something of a right wing perspective (especially the super hero genre) in that they are about re-inforcing rather than challenging the status quo. But it’s subtextual.

So I sort of agree, but I’m not quite clear on why you call ID4 “fascist”.

I didn’t notice the anti-democrat thing. I thought the old man was just referring to politicians and gov’t in general. I doubt it was a slight on democrats. That would never fly in Hollywood.

PS – forgot to mention in the review: loved the flying train OVER the airplane. nice!

I never need to see it again. Wouldn’t even recommend it but still didn’t hate it as much as Transformers.