** Might contain spoilers **
I went to see this movie on opening night because the synopsis indicated that it might be just the kind of scifi flick I enjoy but it turned out to be quite ridiculous. I decided I just had to comment on how logic totally fails in this movie but going over the other user reviews I see that other people had similar thoughts. I'll write my piece anyway.
How can a butterfly which is destined to die in an exploding volcano (which presumably will wipe out everything for miles around as we witness the actors running against time away from the ash) cause such drastic changes in the timeline? It cant pollinate a flower that some animal would snack on. Neither the butterfly nor the plantlife would survive!! How can changing the past influence the future in waves? What determines the time interval of these "waves"? Why would you remember what reality used to be like if it no longer exists? Besides, wouldn't this cause an ambiguity in the time loop? If the present is different, how can one go back to the past & alter it? One more thing, if there were no builders (since homo-sapiens apparently don't evolve in the new reality), why are the buildings still standing?
The special effects were not that great, beginning with the first scene from the past (looks like something from Jumanji). The acting was really not that great either. I would expect to be more panicked (and yes, cursing, sweating profusely and perhaps angry, to boot) if I'm being chased by carnivores! The mouth-to-mouth in the water filled subway tunnel was laughable. And even though Ed Burns looked great with his permanent stubble, he lacked the raw sensuality or intensity of say Richard Gere (who he resembles remarkably).
The only saving grace of this movie as far as I'm concerned is that it is set in the future Chicago. Always nice to see renditions of that (as in "I Robot"). There was even a shot of the Corn-cobs with high up passages leading to another building (yet to be built). Altogether it was quite disappointing.
I went to see this movie on opening night because the synopsis indicated that it might be just the kind of scifi flick I enjoy but it turned out to be quite ridiculous. I decided I just had to comment on how logic totally fails in this movie but going over the other user reviews I see that other people had similar thoughts. I'll write my piece anyway.
How can a butterfly which is destined to die in an exploding volcano (which presumably will wipe out everything for miles around as we witness the actors running against time away from the ash) cause such drastic changes in the timeline? It cant pollinate a flower that some animal would snack on. Neither the butterfly nor the plantlife would survive!! How can changing the past influence the future in waves? What determines the time interval of these "waves"? Why would you remember what reality used to be like if it no longer exists? Besides, wouldn't this cause an ambiguity in the time loop? If the present is different, how can one go back to the past & alter it? One more thing, if there were no builders (since homo-sapiens apparently don't evolve in the new reality), why are the buildings still standing?
The special effects were not that great, beginning with the first scene from the past (looks like something from Jumanji). The acting was really not that great either. I would expect to be more panicked (and yes, cursing, sweating profusely and perhaps angry, to boot) if I'm being chased by carnivores! The mouth-to-mouth in the water filled subway tunnel was laughable. And even though Ed Burns looked great with his permanent stubble, he lacked the raw sensuality or intensity of say Richard Gere (who he resembles remarkably).
The only saving grace of this movie as far as I'm concerned is that it is set in the future Chicago. Always nice to see renditions of that (as in "I Robot"). There was even a shot of the Corn-cobs with high up passages leading to another building (yet to be built). Altogether it was quite disappointing.