It's just looks like another Knowing. Tho if they somehow manage to actually survive without the help of the whisper people ill be thoroughly pleased. Cuz an apocalyptic movie that actually ends in complete apocalypse is a waste of time.
Disagree, if Armageddon had ended with McClane not saving the world and Ben Butt-****ing Affleck not getting to slip it some more to that sexy little nymph Liv Tyler, the movie would have been a notch above complete shit.
P.S. That avatar is sick, I was going to do it next, you bastard.
__________________ RUN RABBIT RUN
STRIKE OUT BOYS, FOR THE HILLS
I CAN FIND THAT HOLE IN THE WALL
AND I KNOW THAT THEY NEVER WILL
I think it is very interesting if they completely get destroyed at the end of the movie, at least it is different, that is partially why deep impact was far better than armaggedon. Cause ALL the major characters die in deep impact and there is much more wide spread destruction, and in armaggedon they found out that we only had 18 days before it hit earth if this was true, we wouldn't have a hope in hell.
There is a 2 part show on ABC i think, called impact, part 2 is on on sunday. but after a huge brown dwarf hits the moon, it changes the moons orbit and it will impact the earth in 39 days. it is interesting and entertaining, but they will probably save the day in some stupid way but in reality they don't have any hope.
This film is going to make a lot of silly people panic, thinking the world will end in 2012... on December 21st apparently. So I will not get to celebrate my birthday in 2012, how rude!
__________________ Film spectators are quiet Vampires
Well, the premise would have to be that humanity thought it could stop it, but in the end, it fails. Though it would have to be a tightly kept secret, of the likes of Cloverfield, otherwise it would fail with audiences if they didn't have that surprise 'fail' ending
__________________ RUN RABBIT RUN
STRIKE OUT BOYS, FOR THE HILLS
I CAN FIND THAT HOLE IN THE WALL
AND I KNOW THAT THEY NEVER WILL
Yeah, but don't you think thats the role he is cast to play? He does have diversity but in most films he does play John Cusack which leads me to believe that that is how he was directed? Maybe i've just become over-saturated with cinema but it seems like most of the marquee actors play the same character in every movie. I can understand this, too because if you have a big name actor that you're paying millions of dollars for you might want to play it safe and make sure that he portrays the character he's hired to play with similar characteristics that he exudes in all of his hit movies.
__________________ "If you tell the truth, you never have to remember anything" -Twain
(sig by Scythe)
Last edited by jinXed by JaNx on Jun 24th, 2009 at 11:33 AM
KMC Community Forums
Jun 22nd, 2009 11:29 PM
