Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I watched it, enjoyed it a lot. The plane scene was spectacular in my opinion. As for the Alien versus Angel argument, its apparent to me that if you're having the argument in the first place, you missed the entire point of the movie.

Good movie except for the ending which i was'nt expecting

I know Roger Ebert gave the movie 4 stars and a another reviewer her in Australia also gave it 4 stars seems like another movie with its mixed reviews


Originally posted by Bicnarok

Ok there were illogical holes in the story, .

Such as?

For one..... If the aliens know the future.... why didn't they put humanity on a planet that wasn't gonna burn...

another is If that lil girl was the only one who knew the future.... or at least wrote it down... did the aliens just kidnapp all the other kids? Or was there a girl who knew the pick up coordinates in every city in the world, or how ever man kids got abducted?

Originally posted by omgchos
For one..... If the aliens know the future.... why didn't they put humanity on a planet that wasn't gonna burn... That's the thing, it isn't explicitly stated that the Aliens/Angels, for they were both, were in anyway connected to the apperance of human beings. They were connected to the cultural developement, that is for certain, but the appearance and evolution of humans? The movie didn't make it clear.Originally posted by omgchos
another is If that lil girl was the only one who knew the future.... or at least wrote it down... did the aliens just kidnapp all the other kids? Or was there a girl who knew the pick up coordinates in every city in the world, or how ever man kids got abducted? Again, the movie didn't make it clear, but with the number of crystal chariots (ships) that took off, I would imagine there was somebody like Lucinda in more than one place on Earth.

I thought the movie was more dumb, and illogical. It looked good and it had some thrilling elements but overall it didn't make a bunch of sense and essentially didn't have to go where it ended up.

I'm not understanding the whole illogical sentiment.

Wow the best movie Nicholas Cage has done in several years. Super recommended. The ending was kind of disturbing. its pretty deep and the effects are heart stopping it was so good im still thinking about it

Originally posted by simpleviolet
Wow the best movie Nicholas Cage has done in several years. Super recommended. The ending was kind of disturbing. its pretty deep and the effects are heart stopping it was so good im still thinking about it

Yeah, that's about how I was on the film.

There were stupid parts of the film, such as the boy writing feverishly. No reason for that. What was he writing dates for? It was PIS. It was simply added to the film to be "freaky". No need for it.


Also, when the boy saw the whole forest on fire, that was fairly freaky. Nicely done...and actually freaky.


Plane crashing was the shiznit. Quite cool. Very nicely done. Realistic.

I like realistic.

However, the super solar flare B.S. Stupid and unrealistic.

I really was enjoying this movie, and then the last half an hour happened. i was left so disappointed... bar those 30 odd minutes, great movie, imo...

Originally posted by Bicnarok
"Having the argument" I think any thinking person must consider the possibility. But Having the tree of life there on the other planet was just silly imo That's the thing, though: a thinking person would understand that those beings represent both aliens and angels. So having the argument, to me, is completely missing the point that the movie was stressing. I wasn't talking about you, though, in my first quote, I was just stating what I thought.



Seemingly advanced and being advanced enough to block out the power of the sun are two very different things.

Producing the disasters is a very intriguing idea, but I say they were just able to produce algorithms that could show the answers to the future.

This is a common criticism, I've found. But answer me this, what would be the point of starting the evacuation fifty years in advance? Who's to say they had enough resources to save everybody on Earth? Would that be fair to save some "good" people and not all? They made the executive decision to wait and save just enough children to protect the survival of the human species but not force people to live their entire lives in deep depression, knowing that they didn't get chosen and they will soon die with the planet.

After thinking about this movie for the entire day, I have to say, if the acting was better from Cage, this movie might be the best of the year.

Originally posted by dadudemon The aliens seemed to be a metaphor for those people, imo. That's a vaible opinion. I didn't get that feeling, but I can certainly understand why you did.

Negative. Everyone would be dead, whether they were in the ground or not. If they were not underground, they would suffocate because the entire atmosphere was burning up, thats what that ball of fire on Earth was: the atmoshphere being lit up in flames. As for being underground, the radiation and heat would have killed them, plus the crust would have been radiated as a result, as well.


Agreed.

Originally posted by Darth Macabre
Negative. Everyone would be dead, whether they were in the ground or not. If they were not underground, they would suffocate because the entire atmosphere was burning up, thats what that ball of fire on Earth was: the atmoshphere being lit up in flames. As for being underground, the radiation and heat would have killed them, plus the crust would have been radiated as a result, as well.

No, the crust would have been fine.


Cage said 1 or 2 miles deep.


That'd be fine.


And, no, underground facilities with their self contained ventilation systems would be fine.

Also, the pentagon is like.......50+ stories undergound or some shit.


There would be those freaks who had those underground shelters that are/were built for a nuclear explosion that have their own ventilation as well.


And, the oxygen would quickly restore itself back to normal levels.....and, no, it wouldn't burn up all the oxygen. Why doesn't the entire room explode when you light a match? Because the atmosphere is mostly Nitrogen....kinda chokes out the oxygen being burnable.


And, no, it wouldn't be nuclear.



The radiation from space is very minimal...even without our ozone layer and Van Allen Belt. (Van Allen Belt should be fine, though...because the central core should still be churning away.)

It's about ****ing time they had an "end of the world" movie in which the worlds does actually end. Glad to see it happen for once instead of being averted by fat old men like Capt. Spurgeon 'Fish' Tanner

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, the crust would have been fine.

Cage said 1 or 2 miles deep.

That'd be fine.

And, no, underground facilities with their self contained ventilation systems would be fine.

Also, the pentagon is like.......50+ stories undergound or some shit.

There would be those freaks who had those underground shelters that are/were built for a nuclear explosion that have their own ventilation as well.


And, the oxygen would quickly restore itself back to normal levels.....and, no, it wouldn't burn up all the oxygen. Why doesn't the entire room explode when you light a match? Because the atmosphere is mostly Nitrogen....kinda chokes out the oxygen being burnable.

And, no, it wouldn't be nuclear.


The radiation from space is very minimal...even without our ozone layer and Van Allen Belt. (Van Allen Belt should be fine, though...because the central core should still be churning away.) Well, firstly, this whole thing is a non-argument because a solar flare of that nature could never, or rather hasn't ever happened, so everything is just a what if. But a few things.

1) The atmosphere can absolutely be burned away and decimated. Either I'm not being clear enough or you're confusing burning for being burned away, as in a torrent solar flames or gamma bursts that wash away the atmosphere into nothingness or very minimal is left.

2) The crust would have been irradiated completely because of the lack of ozone. The ozone protects from ultraviolet light, which would kill all land life and only the creatures of the deep under water would be able to survive. So, no, the crust would not have been fine.

3) Going against my opinion of their immediate death, those "freaks" would die eventually because they would run out of food either way.

4) 50 stories or "some shit" is not 1 to 2 miles deep.

5) It seems to me that you think I'm saying the Earth would be completely dead...I'm not. Human life would absolutely be extinguished is what I am saying. The Earth would eventually restore itself, and life in the oceans would continue going strong, but land animals and plants? Gone, until some animal in the ocean grows legs and walks out.

If the atmosphere is done away with, then ocean life dies too. It's a balance, sir. Hey, we'll always have bacteria.

Originally posted by Robtard
If the atmosphere is done away with, then ocean life dies too. It's a balance, sir. Hey, we'll always have bacteria. I know it is. I was trying to base my responses on his idea that the atmosphere would be fine, but now I realize that I went back and forth and made it quite confusing. I apologize. But changing my stance after further thought, the crust probably would be okay.

I know this was only one problem that the movie had but hows come the Aliens were intent on torturing little girls with math equations?

Originally posted by Darth Macabre
Well, firstly, this whole thing is a non-argument because a solar flare of that nature could never, or rather hasn't ever happened, so everything is just a what if. But a few things.

1) The atmosphere can absolutely be burned away and decimated. Either I'm not being clear enough or you're confusing burning for being burned away, as in a torrent solar flames or gamma bursts that wash away the atmosphere into nothingness or very minimal is left.

2) The crust would have been irradiated completely because of the lack of ozone. The ozone protects from ultraviolet light, which would kill all land life and only the creatures of the deep under water would be able to survive. So, no, the crust would not have been fine.

3) Going against my opinion of their immediate death, those "freaks" would die eventually because they would run out of food either way.

4) 50 stories or "some shit" is not 1 to 2 miles deep.

5) It seems to me that you think I'm saying the Earth would be completely dead...I'm not. Human life would absolutely be extinguished is what I am saying. The Earth would eventually restore itself, and life in the oceans would continue going strong, but land animals and plants? Gone, until some animal in the ocean grows legs and walks out.

Angry because I'm right.


Mwhahahaha.


1. They never said it burned away the atmosphere. It looks like it got really hot...that's it. Sure, the much higher atmospheric temperature would lend itself to more particles leaving the Earth's gravitational pull at a faster rate, but most to all would still be here. Teehee.

2. Where is this radiation coming from that you speak of? You mean "radioactive" not "radiation" right? In either case, no, wrong. I present to you the "moon" as an example. Though it is partially protected from our very own Van Allen Belt...it still gets a massive dose of that radiation you are shitting yourself over. Yet, astronauts have walked on teh moon. Again...they didn't mention it burning away the atmosphere.

3. Sort of. Depending on how long the Super Flare lasted, it would take quite a bit of sustained energy to burn off the oceans...The further north or south of the equator one gets, the less damage they would realize.

4. I guess your forgetting how protected the pentagon is...and that 50 stories leaves plenty of room for safe zones...both classified and public. Any system that was underground that has adequate insulation from the heat would do...not just 1 - 2 miles. I see that you've conveniently forgotten about the nuclear shelters I mentioned.

5. Human life would not be extinguished. We're nasty little boogers. There's still those people who might have been in caves...many miles underground...plenty of nice air to breath for a while until it dissipates by diffusion or dynamic equilibrium is reached before they die.

And lulz that you think all plant life is gone. I think you're forgetting about those freaks who store seeds, not to mention the ones that survived the solar flash...due to random or strange events. The solar flare was actually too hot in the film and wouldn't have burned things up that fast in reality (which, in reality, that flare could never reach that fare. It would lose MUCH too much energy before reaching Earth to do anything.). It would have been impossible for it to be that hot. A nuclear weapon would be hotter than a flare like that. However, I will allow the movie it's unscientific use of that flare and still say seeds would survive by random chances in weird obscure ways...just like things remain oddly unscathed in Nuclear detonation tests.

By my estimates, the flare would dissipate very quickly. Meaning, it wouldn't be sustained for very long...maybe a day at best. Hardly enough damage could have been done.



In closing, humans survive, and you're wrong. The writers got it wrong, too, on many different levels as they totally overlooked the nuclear shelter crap and the poles.

Damn, now I will see this movie to see how full of shit your theories are, DDM.

Originally posted by Robtard
Damn, now I will see this movie to see how full of shit your theories are, DDM.


K.

Do so.

Good film.


Take special note of how long it takes for the buildings to vaporize...then you'll realize how retarded it is.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Angry because I'm right. Who's angry?

Okay, you think I'm wrong...so what? How can we have an argument that one of us isn't wrong based around a happening that can't actually happen? A solar flare of that magnitude is impossible, we both know that. But I'm basing my opinion around what I saw and what was actually said in the movie. So I'm wrong, if that's what you think, then that is what you think. Not everyone is on here to be right.

Originally posted by Darth Macabre
Who's angry?

Okay, you think I'm wrong...so what? How can we have an argument that one of us isn't wrong based around a happening that can't actually happen? A solar flare of that magnitude is impossible, we both know that. But I'm basing my opinion around what I saw and what was actually said in the movie. So I'm wrong, if that's what you think, then that is what you think. Not everyone is on here to be right.

You seemed a angry in your response...even though I am always cheerful and playful. So...I pointed it out.

But this post was a good post. Respectful and respectable.


I am not here to be right...it just happens. dun dun dun!

But, anyway, the movie was swell. I was thinking about it, and perhaps the aliengels only took those that can hear them because they wanted to stay in contact with the new humans? That would be a viable option.

Originally posted by dadudemon



And lulz that you think all plant life is gone. I think you're forgetting about those freaks who store seeds, not to mention the ones that survived the solar flash...due to random or strange events. The solar flare was actually too hot in the film and wouldn't have burned things up that fast in reality (which, in reality, that flare could never reach that fare. It would lose MUCH too much energy before reaching Earth to do anything.). It would have been impossible for it to be that hot. A nuclear weapon would be hotter than a flare like that. However, I will allow the movie it's unscientific use of that flare and still say seeds would survive by random chances in weird obscure ways...just like things remain oddly unscathed in Nuclear detonation tests.

By my estimates, the flare would dissipate very quickly. Meaning, it wouldn't be sustained for very long...maybe a day at best. Hardly enough damage could have been done.



In closing, humans survive, and you're wrong. The writers got it wrong, too, on many different levels as they totally overlooked the nuclear shelter crap and the poles.

Solar flares regularly reach temperatures in the 10's of millions of Kelvin and are ejected at near the speed of light.

They also emit energy across the electromagnetic spectrum from radiowaves to gamma rays and everything in between. So in terms of radioactivity they are very dangerous.

Granted the film takes liberties with the chances of the earth being hit directly with the full force of a flare being minute simply becase of the distance away compared with the size of the earth in relation to that distance and the sun's surface.

This video gives an idea of just how violent the sun gets during solar max approximately every 11 years. Although solar max was still 3 years away at the time.

rnqubAGgx2k&feature=related

A strong enough hit would be enough to push the earth's protective magnetic field far enough back to allow dangerous radiation to strike the entire day side of the planet and effectively kill everyone on it.

If we were to take the full force of the 2003 level 28 x-ray flare it wouldn't have had to burn off the atmosphere. It would simply blow it away.

shiit, Superman got our backs

Originally posted by jaden101
Solar flares regularly reach temperatures in the 10's of millions of Kelvin and are ejected at near the speed of light.

They also emit energy across the electromagnetic spectrum from radiowaves to gamma rays and everything in between. So in terms of radioactivity they are very dangerous.

Granted the film takes liberties with the chances of the earth being hit directly with the full force of a flare being minute simply becase of the distance away compared with the size of the earth in relation to that distance and the sun's surface.

This video gives an idea of just how violent the sun gets during solar max approximately every 11 years. Although solar max was still 3 years away at the time.

rnqubAGgx2k&feature=related

A strong enough hit would be enough to push the earth's protective magnetic field far enough back to allow dangerous radiation to strike the entire day side of the planet and effectively kill everyone on it.

If we were to take the full force of the 2003 level 28 x-ray flare it wouldn't have had to burn off the atmosphere. It would simply blow it away.

But, as you know, it wouldn't be nearly that energetic by the time it expanded to Earth. It wouldn't be in the tens of millions of degrees anymore, because, as it expands, it decreases in energy relative to per unit volume at a much closer distance to the sun. The energy of the flare at the origin will definitely be in the tens of millions of degrees, but quickly cools off as it expands.

This is why I disagree with the exaggerated temperature of the sun. As far as blowing it away, I am unsure about that. I can't watch that video now, but I wouldn't think it would blow away the atmosphere. Also, it would be traveling much much slower by the time it reached Earth...lessening the degree by which it erodes the atmosphere. My original assumption was the atmosphere, being much hotter, would lose it's atmosphere much faster than normal, but the majority of it would stay.

And the earth being 'radiated" from the flare would be much less than seen in the movie, again, due to the distance travel. (Then intensity would be much lower than at a few thousand KM from origin..)


As of right now, I still can't see the video...I'll watch it later.

Originally posted by dadudemon
But, as you know, it wouldn't be nearly that energetic by the time it expanded to Earth. It wouldn't be in the tens of millions of degrees anymore, because, as it expands, it decreases in energy relative to per unit volume at a much closer distance to the sun. The energy of the flare at the origin will definitely be in the tens of millions of degrees, but quickly cools off as it expands.

This is why I disagree with the exaggerated temperature of the sun. As far as blowing it away, I am unsure about that. I can't watch that video now, but I wouldn't think it would blow away the atmosphere. Also, it would be traveling much much slower by the time it reached Earth...lessening the degree by which it erodes the atmosphere. My original assumption was the atmosphere, being much hotter, would lose it's atmosphere much faster than normal, but the majority of it would stay.

And the earth being 'radiated" from the flare would be much less than seen in the movie, again, due to the distance travel. (Then intensity would be much lower than at a few thousand KM from origin..)


As of right now, I still can't see the video...I'll watch it later.

It would take about 10 minutes for an energetic solar flare to reach the earth. They consist mostly of protons, electrons and heavy ions travelling near the speed of light.

Granted some of the energy would be dissipated but given that, for example, sunspot 720 was 16 times the size of the earth and gave 5 x class flares in a matter of days...each with millions of times the energy of the most powerful earthquake ever recorded...you can easily see the level of damage it could do.

There's even a NASA funded research book been published into it.

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12507

There's already been a documented solar flare that that hit the earth's electromagnetic defence and punched a sizable hole right to the earth's surface.

The film tries to portray the flare like a giant flame which is utter nonsense. So the image of the earth burning is unreasonable but the damage in terms of deaths could be similar.

As for the atmosphere being blown away. It's surprising how little atmosphere the earth actually has. The image on the right below shows what it would look like if it was all in 1 ball suspended about the earth

http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/GXcjc7XP05wa42v41GMFReAT_500.png

Not to mention that 80% of the atmosphere's mass is below 20km and 50% of it below 5km. It's just a thin layer that with enough force could easily be blown away by a coronal mass ejection with enough force applied directly to the earth.

The good news is that only about 1% of coronal mass ejections actually produce solar energetic particles in large quantities. They are quite rare.

I wouldn't argue with this man on the subject. ^ He's a swotty swotty. :kiss: - don't know the smiley.

I'm seeing the film next week, can't wait.

Originally posted by jaden101
It would take about 10 minutes for an energetic solar flare to reach the earth. They consist mostly of protons, electrons and heavy ions travelling near the speed of light.

They also slow down, rapidly, once they eject. But, yes, some of the components would get here much faster. Our satellites would vouch for that. The primary component, as shown in the movie, would have taken much longer (the physical, arching, portion). They did show that the electronics were being interfered with, and correctly so.

And I submit to you, 15 minutes travel time. (with 8 minutse for the electromagnetic components. )

Originally posted by jaden101
Granted some of the energy would be dissipated but given that, for example, sunspot 720 was 16 times the size of the earth and gave 5 x class flares in a matter of days...each with millions of times the energy of the most powerful earthquake ever recorded...you can easily see the level of damage it could do.

There's even a NASA funded research book been published into it.

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12507



Originally posted by jaden101
There's already been a documented solar flare that that hit the earth's electromagnetic defence and punched a sizable hole right to the earth's surface.

That 2005 one?

Originally posted by jaden101
The film tries to portray the flare like a giant flame which is utter nonsense. So the image of the earth burning is unreasonable but the damage in terms of deaths could be similar.

AHA! Now we are on the same page.

Originally posted by jaden101
As for the atmosphere being blown away. It's surprising how little atmosphere the earth actually has. The image on the right below shows what it would look like if it was all in 1 ball suspended about the earth

http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/GXcjc7XP05wa42v41GMFReAT_500.png

Not to mention that 80% of the atmosphere's mass is below 20km and 50% of it below 5km. It's just a thin layer that with enough force could easily be blown away by a coronal mass ejection with enough force applied directly to the earth.


While I agree...somewhat, I don't think a solar flare would ever have enough size to blow away greater than 50% of the atmosphere. The flare they showed in the movie is impossible. Knowing that, the flare also took....what...a day to reach earth? Also impossible. It would have lost way too much energy to reach the earth that fast...and it still shouldn't have had enough energy to blow away the atmosphere.

Originally posted by jaden101
The good news is that only about 1% of coronal mass ejections actually produce solar energetic particles in large quantities. They are quite rare.

Not very many X class flares happen to begin with, as you probably know, and on top of that, unless interfered on by an outside force, it is impossible for a solar flare of that size to form.


Also, the reason I say the atmosphere stays there on Earth:


The atmosphere is a fluid. As the fluid/plasma from the flare made contact, we would observe a massive compression of the magnetosphere...and the atmosphere would "squish" in the direction of movement with the flare. Since the flare wouldn't last that long, Earth's gravitational pull would not only prevent the atmosphere from "squishing" too far away, it would also pull it back until it reach an equilibrium, again. There's also the fact the the Earth's surface would "supposedly" be producing much more gas, due to the heated situation. We would see a massive spike in CO2 in the atmosphereic componenets as that would get released from the Earth's crust much faster the hotter it gets.


However, the atmosphere would still "pull" back towards the Earth as the flare passed. I would suspect much of the atmoshpere to even collect at the "dark" side of the Earth as the flare passes.



Now, this is all under the assumption that the retarded flare could occur to begin with. As Darth Macabre intelligently pointed out, it simply wouldn't happen.







Now, I need to admit a fault here. There WOULD be massive radiation on the Earth that would take some time to get over on the surface. However, and again, the poles would see the least impact of this radiation, futhering my point...radioactivity? Yes. Long term? Maybe...at lleast in the category of "years".

Mostly true but not entirely...Some of them actually speed up because if they start slower than the solar wind then that accelerates them.




Think it was 2003....I also believe there's still holes (2 of them) in the earth's magnetic field now...Which is strangely disturbing.



It's mostly a matter of mass. While the earth's atmosphere is made up of much heavier atoms than the single protons, electrons and ions that the sun punches out, like anything there's the force of motion to be considered. Plus the fact that the sun can through out a mass the equivalent of far more than what the earth's atmosphere's mass is. It would depend on how much hit the earth.

Like I said before, it's highly unlikely that a mass ejection would be aimed directly at the earth and focused enough that all it's energy (or at least the large % of it) would directly hit us...But if it did....It would be goodbye atmosphere...goodbye people. Depending on the speed of it and how much it radiated heat out...You may even get the earth burning.

I don't think we have anything to worry about though.



I try my best darling.

Originally posted by jaden101
Mostly true but not entirely...Some of them actually speed up because if they start slower than the solar wind then that accelerates them.

Cool, but the plasmic front would slow down, greatly.




Originally posted by jaden101
Think it was 2003....I also believe there's still holes (2 of them) in the earth's magnetic field now...Which is strangely disturbing.

The one I'm referring to was in January of 2005.

http://www.spaceweather.com/archive.php?view=1&day=20&month=01&year=2005


That's the best I could find.

I'm looking for the 2003 one you're talking about.





Originally posted by jaden101
It's mostly a matter of mass. While the earth's atmosphere is made up of much heavier atoms than the single protons, electrons and ions that the sun punches out, like anything there's the force of motion to be considered. Plus the fact that the sun can through out a mass the equivalent of far more than what the earth's atmosphere's mass is. It would depend on how much hit the earth.

It would depend on how much would hit the Earth. The plasmic front in the movie had errors:

1. It would have taken much much longer to reach Earth.

2. It would have lost much of it's thermal effects, even being that large.

3. The vast majority of the atmosphere would have remained in tact...even if it did flatten the atmosphere and elongate on the dark side of the Earth. It would eventually reach an equilibrium, as would Earth's the magnetic field. Also, as the flare expanded, so would the density of the the flare, furthering my point that most of the atmosphere would be fine. Also, if the Earth did notice a heat up, the atmosphere would quickly (quickly is relative. Probably looking at years and the Earth's atmospheric density would vary directly with the global mean temperature.) replenish itself and stabilize back to a normal temperature. It will do this through sublimation and evaporation. (Obviously, I don't need to tell you this.)

4. As you an I both agree on, the flare occurring in a very specific arc, towards the Earth, is a very improbable, and the flare occurring itself, is impossible without some sort of outside influence.

5. It would have taken much longer than a day or two to get here. Of course, the radiation would have gotten here in several hours...those radiation particles move at relativistic speeds!

Originally posted by jaden101
Like I said before, it's highly unlikely that a mass ejection would be aimed directly at the earth and focused enough that all it's energy (or at least the large % of it) would directly hit us...But if it did....It would be goodbye atmosphere...goodbye people. Depending on the speed of it and how much it radiated heat out...You may even get the earth burning.

I don't think we have anything to worry about though.


Ah, yes. I should have read a little farther down. Yeah, a flare like that would be pretty hard to hit Earth...considering all the places the flare could go.

I haven't seen it yet, but I'll definately will.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
Yeah its another one of those movies that you would think for sure would have had at LEAST one thread on it with Cage being a famous actor in everything . Reminds me of my FROST/NIXON thread.I couldnt believe it when I made that thread that there was no other thread made about that movie since it was a true real life event that really occured and had a major impact on the world.go figure.

I don't think Nic Cage is particularly big news anymore, especially since he's been in so many pants films of late (National Treasure 2, the Wicker Man). The guy just isn't that great (and I don't think particularly popular, either) an actor.

yeah I wouldnt be surprised if some people decided not to go see this movie cause of that disgraceful WICKERMAN movie.that was easily the worst movie of the year for me that year when that movie came out.the fact that he agreed to do a movie so crappy and horribly written like that one makes it look like he is having a hard time getting good movie offers these days.I would expect a struggling actor just coming on the hollywood scene to jump at a movie like that,but come on,if I was in the position of Cage,no way in hell would I have done a movie like that so yeah doesnt sound like he is in too much demand these days and has to take what he can get.That being said,I saw this movie and I would kinda put it in the same catagory as wickerman,not anywhere near as awful of course but like that movie,it was exciting and fun to watch but the ending was really dissapointing and ruined the movie for me.so cause of that.I would give this movie a ranking of 6 out of 10.

Anyone who says they would pass up the opportunity to dress up as a bear and give a woman a massive punch in the face is a liar. The Wickerman is the funniest movie ever.

Originally posted by jaden101
Anyone who says they would pass up the opportunity to dress up as a bear and give a woman a massive punch in the face is a liar. The Wickerman is the funniest movie ever.
lulz


I forgot about that part. It just ended soooo horribly. He should have "won" and got to be like Don Juan wit da crazy ladies. (For you idiots wondering WTF this is about, you would have to watch the damn movie.)

I watched yesterday , it's a very good movie highly recommend

*regarding the argument in the first 2 pages*
guys, didn't the ending show the earth disintegrate? they gave a clear hint towards it being shattered to pieces by firstly showing parts of it shattering and then fading out to white. clear hint imo.......and i loved it!
good to see the world end in a end of the world movie. finally. extra points for not coping out !!

I honestly don't know what's wrong with the aliens message actually. there are about 2.1 billion christians, 1.2 billion muslims, 1.1 billion athiests and agnostics and the rest are all believers of some kind of god or another.................and none of them can explain what god is (most probably can't even why they believe in him). not to mention that many people do actually believe that there is an alien influence (tom cruise not counting!) in human existence. so in comes a movie that says that religion may have its roots in the extratrestrial and people have a problem?

also, i don't think there were many options for the story. if they put REAL angels or supernatural stuff then the tone would be overly religious. aliens was the only other plausible alternative.

~Sado
P.S. phuck the critics. critics are people with an opinion just like the rest of us. why they get "special rights and status" is beyond me. most critics just go around looking for stuff no one else even bothers about, and I'm pretty sure they make up their mind well before they even watch the movie.

Did you see parts of it shattering? I didn't notice that.

Cage's character says that the ozone layer would get blown away and that the radiation (thermal and UV) would destroy all life on earth but I don't think a solar flare would physically shatter the earth.

IIRC the last thing they showed of the earth was these pieces breaking off it and everything which keep growing as they earth moves in front of the sun until the screen fades to white.