Geostorm makes 2012/Day After Tomorrow look grounded and realistic

Avatar image for Byshop
#1 Posted by Byshop (18708 posts) -

Wow. I knew this movie would be dumb but... wow. If you're looking for a fun diversion that you can turn your brain off completely for an hour and a half, and tons and tons of disaster porn, then this is the film for you.

-Byshop

Avatar image for davillain-
#2 Posted by DaVillain- (30144 posts) -

I legit thought it was G.I Joe with Cobra spin-off with a weather Dominator lol.

I'm embarrassed to admit how many times I have watched the various Sharknado movies, Geostorm was quite enjoyable. Yes it made no sense, so this one of those movies you gotta switch the brain off to enjoy.

Avatar image for Byshop
#3 Posted by Byshop (18708 posts) -

I love Gerard Butler but he's already been doing a lot of these types of these films lately. _______ Has Fallen were both meh, although the first one was a bit fun.

-Byshop

Avatar image for madrocketeer
#4 Edited by madrocketeer (5492 posts) -

Not for me, then. I can't even watch 2012 without feeling the urge to rip my scalp out and wear it as my sock, or watch the Starkiller base in Star Wars: The Force Awakens without feeling like my face is threatening to collapse into a gravitational singularity.

I mean, I consider my suspension of disbelief to be pretty resilient. However, I do have my limits, and those movies utterly obliterated them.

Avatar image for mrbojangles25
#5 Posted by mrbojangles25 (41056 posts) -

Gerard, come back to us. You are not a great actor, but you are not a shit actor, either.

Go make a sequel to Law Abiding Citizen...

Avatar image for MrGeezer
#6 Posted by MrGeezer (59378 posts) -

@Byshop: Does "lately" evn apply here? I heard this was one of those movies that actually got made (or mostly made) a while ago and then got canned.

If that's the case, that's almost always a sure sign of suckage. If you go through the trouble of "mostly" making a movie and then you decide to scrap the whole thing late in production, and then you leave the whole thing in movie limbo for several years, then you later bring it back and hastily slap a thin coat of paint on it before releasing it in order to fill some void in your release schedule...then the movie is probably shit.

I could be wrong though. But for some reason, I really recall reading about this being some old shitty movie that got cancelled late in production for being too shitty, and is only now being revived. Necromancy almost always leads to bad things.

Avatar image for Byshop
#7 Posted by Byshop (18708 posts) -

@MrGeezer said:

@Byshop: Does "lately" evn apply here? I heard this was one of those movies that actually got made (or mostly made) a while ago and then got canned.

If that's the case, that's almost always a sure sign of suckage. If you go through the trouble of "mostly" making a movie and then you decide to scrap the whole thing late in production, and then you leave the whole thing in movie limbo for several years, then you later bring it back and hastily slap a thin coat of paint on it before releasing it in order to fill some void in your release schedule...then the movie is probably shit.

I could be wrong though. But for some reason, I really recall reading about this being some old shitty movie that got cancelled late in production for being too shitty, and is only now being revived. Necromancy almost always leads to bad things.

It wouldn't surprise me, but being canned doesn't always mean a movie will be crap (although it does most of the time). Cabin in the Woods was filmed a good three years before it's release but got put on hold due to studio financial difficulties until Loinsgate nabbed it.

-Byshop

Avatar image for MrGeezer
#8 Posted by MrGeezer (59378 posts) -

@Byshop: That's why I said that necromancy ALMOST always leads to bad things. There are certainly exceptions.

But in any case, it's a BIG warning sign just like "the review embargo won't be lifted until the day of the movie's release." Stuff like that doesn't DEFINITELY mean that a movie will suck, but it's a good sign that a movie will PROBABLY suck.

Avatar image for Byshop
#9 Posted by Byshop (18708 posts) -

@MrGeezer said:

@Byshop: That's why I said that necromancy ALMOST always leads to bad things. There are certainly exceptions.

But in any case, it's a BIG warning sign just like "the review embargo won't be lifted until the day of the movie's release." Stuff like that doesn't DEFINITELY mean that a movie will suck, but it's a good sign that a movie will PROBABLY suck.

I can't think of a good example of a "review embargo" movie that wasn't awful.

-Byshop

Avatar image for THUMPTABLE
#10 Posted by THUMPTABLE (2011 posts) -

@mrbojangles25 said:

Gerard, come back to us. You are not a great actor, but you are not a shit actor, either.

Go make a sequel to Law Abiding Citizen...

How would that work?

Avatar image for hallenbeck77
#11 Edited by Hallenbeck77 (15434 posts) -

@mrbojangles25: He's too far gone.

By the way...is it just me, or does he seem like a bootleg Hugh Jackman?

Avatar image for mrbojangles25
#12 Posted by mrbojangles25 (41056 posts) -

@hallenbeck77 said:

@mrbojangles25: He's too far gone.

By the way...is it just me, or does he seem like a bootleg Hugh Jackman?

Totally.

Avatar image for hallenbeck77
#13 Posted by Hallenbeck77 (15434 posts) -

@mrbojangles25: I thought I was losing my mind for a bit--so it wasn't just me!

I think his career going forward is going to be nothing but B-movies and low-rent action flicks. (The type of movies Val Kilmer used to do during his career decline). I still can't believe that Geostorm had an actual theatrical release.

Avatar image for davillain-
#14 Posted by DaVillain- (30144 posts) -

@hallenbeck77: He wasn't bad in Den of Thieves.

Avatar image for mrbojangles25
#15 Posted by mrbojangles25 (41056 posts) -

@THUMPTABLE said:
@mrbojangles25 said:

Gerard, come back to us. You are not a great actor, but you are not a shit actor, either.

Go make a sequel to Law Abiding Citizen...

How would that work?

It makes sense if you don't think about it.

Avatar image for hallenbeck77
#16 Posted by Hallenbeck77 (15434 posts) -

@davillain-: haven't seen that one yet. Last movie of his i watched was God's of Egypt. And that was just a hot mess.

Avatar image for JustPlainLucas
#17 Posted by JustPlainLucas (78298 posts) -

I do enjoy disaster porn. As with regular porn, I don't care much for the stories.

Avatar image for hallenbeck77
#18 Posted by Hallenbeck77 (15434 posts) -

@mrbojangles25 said:
@THUMPTABLE said:
@mrbojangles25 said:

Gerard, come back to us. You are not a great actor, but you are not a shit actor, either.

Go make a sequel to Law Abiding Citizen...

How would that work?

It makes sense if you don't think about it.

I guarantee you that is something a majority of film producers say when pitching a bad movie Idea...

Exec 1: "So you wanna make a biopic about Wilt Chamberlain, and you want Peter Dinklage as the lead?"

Producer: "It makes sense if you don't think about it."

Exec 1: "Here's $250 million. We want it in time for Chrsitmas release. "

Avatar image for hallenbeck77
#19 Posted by Hallenbeck77 (15434 posts) -

@JustPlainLucas: I wouldn't even classify this as disaster porn--it's a disaster mid-90s' Skin-a-max movie, at best.

Avatar image for MrGeezer
#20 Posted by MrGeezer (59378 posts) -

@Byshop said:

I can't think of a good example of a "review embargo" movie that wasn't awful.

-Byshop

Neither can I. I'm sure there are probably some examples, but I can't think of any off the top of my head.

I actually still kind of wonder why studios do that crap with review embargoes. I mean, sure, I understand the logic. They want to cut down on the number of negative reviews that appear when people go to buy tickets during the opening weekend. Still, I feel like people are in on the game. People know the deal by now, and that if there's a shortage of reviews by the time they go buy a ticket, then the movie is probably shit. The thing is, lots of shitty movies still do decently enough even when there ARE negative reviews prior to the opening weekend. So from where I'm standing, it still looks to me like a lot of people are perfectly willing to watch shitty movies regardless of whether or not there's a review embargo in effect.

And if that's the case, why even bother? Allowing negative reviews tells consumers that the movie sucks, but having a review embargo that close to the release date also tells consumers that the movie sucks. Either way, the message is "this movie sucks." So...screw it. Don't even bother trying to hide the movie's suckage. After all, in many cases there'll be enough people who watch it anyway.

Avatar image for vfighter
#21 Posted by VFighter (3414 posts) -

@MrGeezer: Bad reviews don't automatically mean a bad movie though.

Avatar image for MrGeezer
#22 Posted by MrGeezer (59378 posts) -

@vfighter said:

@MrGeezer: Bad reviews don't automatically mean a bad movie though.

Sure, which was my point. Bad reviews aren't going to automatically deter people if they think that it looks like a movie that they might like. Which is why people actually DO spend money on movies that get shitty reviews.

I suspect that "well, this looks like I might like it" and also "I don't have anything better to do" probably play more into EARLY ticket sales than reviews. Which means that at least on opening weekend, the people who see shitty movies probably would have seen it anyway.