I know it’s same guy behind it, so I’m really excited to see it. I loved TDAT. I hope 2012 won’t be a let down.
I saw it on Friday and thought it was a good movie. I gave it an 8/10.
I can’t wait to see it but it will have to wait until it comes out on dvd, movie theaters are too expensive for us right now.
Our Priest during his homily told us we shouldn’t see it.
did he give the reason?
He said it was an anti-Catholic movie.
Roland Emmerich said in an interview of the scene where St. Peter’s Basilica falls on praying Catholics that: “[S]ome people…believe in praying and prayer, and they pray in front of the church, and it’s probably the wrong thing, what they would do in that situation. Because I’m against organized religion.” Source]
I saw this movie yesterday at my husband’s insistence. We were both very disappointed with it. The special effects are (of course) eye popping but the plot, characters, and acting are lame, in fact laughably so at times, and nearly every disaster movie cliche in the book is thrown in there.
There were many scenes that were meant to be intense action scenes (people fleeing from earthquakes/volcanic ash/tsunamis/etc.) that I couldn’t help but laugh at, they were so overblown. Reminds me of an updated, computerized version of Towering Inferno, Poseidon Adventure, Earthquake, and other classic bad disaster flicks of the '70s.
Plus the movie goes on much too long (nearly 3 hours from the official theater start time… not counting the endless previews for OTHER movies :mad:) and has several more climaxes than it really needs :rolleyes:
The Day After Tomorrow was better, though only slightly less preposterous (global warming triggering a new ice age vs. solar radiation causing the earth’s core to heat up and the earth’s entire crust to shift, with the South Magnetic Pole ending up in Wisconsin :eek:)
I hardly noticed the alleged anti-Catholic element in this movie because I was too busy snickering at how over the top all the disaster scenes were I give it no more than two stars out of four. Don’t waste your time or money on it. Wait for it to turn up on cable or for 99 cents on Netflix or something, if you have to see it at all.
Supposedly Emmerich did not include any scenes of Muslim holy sites being destroyed because he did not want to offend Muslims, although he obviously had no problem depicting St. Peter’s Basilica and the statue of Christ over Rio de Janeiro crumbling to smithereens. More likely his real worry was that some Muslim fanatic would issue a fatwa or death sentence (a la Salman Rushdie) against him and everyone involved in the movie, or that innocent people would get killed as a result of rioting or protests against it (as happened during some of the Danish cartoon protests). So I consider it kind of a backhanded compliment to the Church that he left those scenes in… at least he doesn’t have to worry about the Knights of Columbus or Opus Dei or the Blue Army putting out a contract on him!
Also, if Emmerich is so anti-religion, how come the President of the U.S. (Danny Glover), who is depicted as religious and a firm believer in an afterlife, comes off as a very good and to some extent heroic character?
I saw it this weekend…I would say it is as good or better…certainly more action.
I’ve been reading about the Kaaba not being destroyed as Christian sites were…I saw nothing offensive by not showing the Kaaba destroyed…they showed it fairly early in the story as people gathered to pray…St Peter’s and Rio were destroyed toward the end when things really started falling apart…they never went back to the Middle East to show what happened to the Kaaba…but most of the world was impacted…so much is up to the imagination.
The problem with that is that it affirms Islam and the Quran. All other religions will be destroyed, but the Muslims will be spared. Forget about the whole “fatwa” defense argument he made. He could have destroyed famous iconography independent of religion. Why not show the Colosseum instead of the Basilica? Call it the director’s selective hatred.
Actually, it “affrimed” nothing…it simply showed early in the movie Muslims praying in their holy city…did you see the movie?
Since this was a Western movie it focused on Western civilization…the movie really showed little of Islamic countries…those countries outside of the US which were part of a “sub-plot” of deciet which took place in India…and a Russian character. Destruction of Western civilization was the focus of the movie…Europe, China, India, Japan, South America got more screen time than any Middle Eastern country…the movie never implied that all “the Muslims will be spared”…IMO, statements like this are simply reactions in the wake of Fort Hood and… “Christian”…dare I say “bigotry” against Muslims in general…to be expected really…sad…but expected.
IMHO…the statements about Mecca and the Kaaba not being destroyed are really reactions to conservative media which made the single scene…which took place fairly early in the movie…out to be more than it was…the conservative medial “fueled the fire” so to speak about an insignificant 30 second scene in the 2-1/2 hour movie. It was “hype” meant to cause indignation for those who “have a bone to pick” with Islam…it seems to have worked quite well.
**** WARNING: THIS POST CONTAINS SPOILERS ****
All other religions will be destroyed, but the Muslims will be spared.
If that was the “message” in the movie, I saw no indication of that. The movie does depict Africa as the only continent to survive relatively intact – but Africa has many Catholics and other Christians as well as Muslims. The Indian subcontinent and most if not all of the Pacific are wiped out, and they have a high Muslim population (Indonesia has the biggest Muslim population on earth if I remember correctly).
The ONLY part of the movie that, to me, came off as possibly anti-Catholic was an offhand remark about the prime minister of Italy deciding to “stay behind and put his trust in prayer” instead of taking advantage of a possible chance to escape as other world leaders were doing. But the President of the U.S. does the exact same thing and no one seems to criticize him for it.
It’s strange to see my country being mentioned in this forum haha…
It is difficult to get movie tickets for this one here. I didn’t expect it to be that huge box office. .:shrug:
“Also, if Emmerich is so anti-religion, how come the President of the U.S. (Danny Glover), who is depicted as religious and a firm believer in an afterlife, comes off as a very good and to some extent heroic character?”
He’s not against religion per se, he’s against organized religion(by his own admission). Because as we all know, when one does anything as a family united by anything, the Seven wonders of the Modern World fall on top of you and you die. The reason the president is allowed to have religion is because he’s not enslaved to any one church. Also, it’s just dandy for him to have the glorious state as the only thing that can save men in crises, while religion crumbles and realy bad actors run amuck
Also to answer Publisher, no he hates Islam too. Probably more than Catholicism. He just didn’t show them because he’s afraid, like Secret Square said, of Muslims showing up at his house and stealing all his Kosher food (or castrating him). He’s a Holly Wood elite, you know, an artist. He knows that the common man who is a Muslim would be offended and kill him( that’s how the plebeian is you know). He can get away with Catholic bashing though. That’s been going on this country since before anyone settled the Holy Land- the Left Coast.
P.S. He admitted that his Muslim-phobia was why he didn’t include its destruction. It is offensive. He showed the structures Chritians use to worship killing them because by his own admission, he thought it fitting! He said it! He admitted it! Look it up! He is antiCatholic, and he is a dishonest sick little puppy!
P.P.S. Once you understand that, yeah fine watch the movie, I didn’t care for it, but that’s just me; I’d defend your right to like it.
Because the Vatican is destroyed:
AND yes. He is anti-religion as confirmed by his own words.