Taken too seriously

Rating: 7/10 (4 November 2010)

I think people take a movie like this entirely too seriously. We all know what we're going to see here. People criticize the film, with respect to it's execution, like it's an Oscar quality film when we all well know that this is a blockbuster movie made for summer audiences to enjoy in the masses and with their families. It's not a family film per see, but the is not The Godfather, nor was it ever intended to be such a film.
The major draw of the film is the subject matter; how that relates to the religious predictions and media spawned fear of the end of all time. It makes for an entertaining subject matter because it creates a buzz in our general culture that is all too familiar, with respect to previous predictions of disaster. I.E. Y2K, etc. I find that the deeper meaning is that it is a pivotal way in which we, as members of society can be driven away from some of the urgent matters that effect our society and our world. It is a distraction from what's actually going on.
Obviously a lot of money went into this film and was mostly spent on visual effects. How is that different from any other Roland Emmerich films? Independence Day, The Day After Tomorrow, Godzilla, and 10,000 B.C. were all tent pole movies with large visual effects budgets. Is it all so different than Michael Bay?
The only main problem I had with the movie was the character dichotomy of Jackson Curtis and Kate Curtis. So she leaves him for a doctor because he's a failed writer and then comes back to him when he saves the day. How conditional is that? What kind of message does that send?