CO2

source: CO2

The acting is terrible, and the dialog is even worse. Nothing in this movie is even close to real, and is completely fake. It may be based on real life incidents, but nothing in this movie is based on science.

If you're expecting a Michael Bay or James Cameron or Steven Spielberg movie or budget you will be dissatisfied. This movie is a low budget with a unknown cast that somehow makes this movie work. The performances aren't Oscar worthy but they do try and that alone deserves credit. There are no huge explosions or over the top effects that spell's disaster these days. The writer who also produced and directed may have big off a bit more than he was able to handle but somehow created a decent movie that doesn't tend to sag where it shouldn't. The cast (what Hollywood would label) D List do try to make it convencing. There are no big name star's or at least star's past their prime. There were a few issues where this movie suffers from but builds from it. For one none of the characters had any chemistry or interesting. But that's a miss where the movie build's from, in reality everyone doesn't have chemistry or are even interesting. We go about in our daily lives which tends to be boring. That's where the movie build's from but does so in ways that attract your attention for the wrong reasons. Next one that particular day there were no deliveries so no one could go missing from town's unaffected by the gases. But since no actual day is given could have been a weekend. There are now the far fetched issues that I could quickly. The biggest were people surviving in their cars. From my knowledge not all cars are air proof except the late model Volkswagen even then air is limited. Next, no army, military for that matter or government help in proper attire come to see what's happening. I'm sure that guys computer wasn't the only one that alerted a issue. Here the bad guys were almost done a dozen which included a character trying to find a escape or be rescued. The good guys came out kind of boring but under the circumstances I have to understand. This movie does however raise a good point, we can all go out in a whimper instead of a bang. It's been known that our planet does host it's toxic and deadly gases but far beneath the surface. How something like a earthquake can release these gases makes for a far more alarming factor here. But while the movie continues it doesn't host a good vs. evil scheme but a host of survivors trying get rescued. In all it's a good little gem that could have been better but could have also been worse.

This movie refers to the tragedy that has happened at the Lake Nyos in August 1986 and it tries to show what could happen if there is a similar lake located in the States and if a similar incident would happen. Lake Nyos is a crater lake in Cameroon and there are in total 4 lakes in the world we know about that there might be a danger like at Lake Nyos. There are various documentaries about it, and well, I must say that those documentaries have been much more interesting than this movie. Everything is well played, so in my opinion it is an average drama entertainment, typically to be shown in TV. Nothing special at all, nothing bad, lame suspense though, nothing especially good to say about it, too. 4 stars.

Not sure what kept me watching... while this spoils nothing i 'm still going to SPOILER ALERT An evil green corporation is making money of carbon credits, but just like the all carbon credit pushers they do not let science get in the way. Anyway the evil green corp uses their newest up and comers to make a case that a further CO2 injection site is ready, an earthquake ensues and CO2 comes back out of the lake and their science team (completely oblivious to that companies operation side) has to struggle to survive. With stolen scuba gear they scientifically determine they cannot rescue any of the zombie-like townfolk lest they will die themselves and carry on to find refuge in a forest lookout station. There is a damn us all to hell moment, an obvious serious scientist, he is using a virtual keyboard, writes some high brow commentary a backdrop of windmills. LOL All in all plays like an Al Gore infomercial. At one point one of the scientists calls H2S HS2, while still establishing science cred. Also throughout they have various ways of using or not using oxygen tanks, seemingly wasting them, but magically they last. CO2 should have been thick white clouds at the lake was little wisps and allowed an extremely close approach even it was deadly oxygen displacing concentration before when a townfolk couple got caught up in it. Considering the unique landscape CO2 would have stayed in the valley by the lake but somehow manages to chase then menacingly about the movie. This movie must have been conceived and funded on the sole premise of making CO2 the villain in a disaster movie. Turns out as bad an idea as carbon credits.

Good premise but horribly executed. Bad actors make a slow story even slower. And why does the asian actress have a constant smile on her face in EVERY scene even when they're dying? It's just weird. Anyway no one acts in a believable way, and none of the characters are worth saving because they're all horrible people.

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.

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.

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?