CO2

There are some films where stuff happens, and when that stuff has happened, more stuff happens. Stuff keeps happening until the end of the film. Whether you find the stuff entertaining is up to you. This is a film where lots of stuff happens, and if you find the stuff entertaining then you probably need a lot of therapy, or to come of those weird drugs you're on.

The story revolves around another corrupt corporation that pumps tonnes of CO2 beneath a lake. Suddenly there's an earthquake and the gas starts to escape, bubbling up through the water of the lake, creating a vast cloud of CO2 that starts to fill the lake valley.

Most people die quickly soon after the earthquake and the film is the 'heroic' tale of the survivors, struggling to escape the valley before their oxygen runs out. Yeah, right.

Where did it all go wrong? For one thing, everything is far too obvious. You know that it's the fault of the big, evil corporation when you hear the 'lubrication speech'. You know the dad is bad because he beats his wife. You know someone is going to fall off the bridge because that's what happens with damaged bridges. You know the kid is going to survive because you can't kill a kid in a movie. The list goes on and on. All of this obviousness deflates all attempts to create tension.

Then there's the science, which is complete rubbish. I won't provide too many details, but CO2 poisoning doesn't work the way it does in this film, and fires will burn under the conditions shown in the film, and, if a match won't light, then the hydrogen sulfide that appears late in the film won't burn either.

The acting is just about OK. There are a few shaky scenes, but overall the acting is in line with most afternoon movies. The setting and scenery is OK, apart from the awful CGI bridge crossing scenes. Even the use of flashbacks to fill in the missing plot, that you've already guessed, isn't too bad.

What this film lacks is any effort. There are no convincing actors, no convincing action, everything moves along at the same dull level with almost no variation. It's just a lazy production, with poor dialogue, an obvious plot, no tension and little entertainment value. Unless you suffer from insomnia, avoid this film, otherwise you'll be comatose in the first 30 minutes, just like nearly everyone in the film.

CO2 clearly had noble intentions -- which are as right as rain and average as white bread for these American times. We are poisoning our environment. Here is proof of it. Theoretically one could have had a fine Eco-thriller here. The cinematic execution is passable, about "B". The acting is awful, about "D+". The plot is "A-". Why such a tremendous imbalance? How did this happen? One cannot help but wonder if the self-righteousness of Environmentalism didn't get in the way here. That CO2's authors (director? producer? film company?) thought that this theme was so right, so morally correct that it couldn't go wrong, that they had a slam-dunk of a subject. But the film -- like much Environmentalism -- preaches instead of teaches. It lacks magic, also what's called "the moment" in theater -- when the audience forgets they're watching a show. CO2 is relentlessly, simplistically didactic -- Good (the intelligent women,the thoughtful scientist, the sweet, sensitive guy who's wounded and dies) versus Bad (the macho dad, the evil company head, carbon gas!) -- didactic to the point of being a story that applies pressure without seduction. Such a shame. Such promise. Is this in the nature of the modern Environmental movement? Who or what is ultimately at fault here?

The movie concept was a good idea. It seems they pulled the actors off the street. There was no believability to their script. I was almost embarrassed by the carrying out of their lines. Not to mention, when I watched the credits, THEY KILLED A RABBIT TO MAKE THIS GARBAGE.

I personally enjoyed this movie as I found it to be a realistic take on a situation that actually could happen it's about a CO2 flood in a small Valley town which kills all but a small group of people who try to survive and make it to the highest ground possible using oxygen tanks which is very realistic the cause of the flood is due to an earthquake that opens a passage for CO2 to flow from a CCS deposit under a lake vaporising it the movie takes the idea from a real life event where a natural disposit of CO2 killed over 1700 people it was a natural disaster not related to CCS

The movie is an independent film and had a somewhat low budget there aren't any special effects or big name actors but you feel that this film was made by people who have a passion for filmmaker and did the best they could with what they had for an independent film it's an interesting idea and could of been so much more with a bigger budget but with that being said there are scenes that are very well shot and cause real emotion which not a lot of movies achieve let alone independent films.

The screen writer wanted to create a film that made people think about our future and raise awareness about CCS and other possible alternatives for the future it's not intended as an attack on CCS it's more about thinking ahead for the future and other ways to achieve a better future with less risk which I think the movie succeeds in doing the film wasn't made to make money but more the enjoyment and art of making a film from dedicated filmmakers.

I would recommend this film to people who are fans of independent movies and appreciate the dedication it takes to make a movie like this and also enjoy a movie that makes you think and has a plot grounded more in reality when compared to other disaster movies like 2012 and focuses more on it's characters and the situation they are in than simply making everything explode on screen.

This movie makes you feel like people are pushing their religious beliefs on you. There needs to be a religious rating so parents can protect themselves and their children from such language. Other then the stupidity of religion. Over all this is worse then a B movie. It looks like some college kids needed a grade. Very cheesy movie.