RE: 2012 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews



Message


JV -> RE: 2012 (14/11/2009 10:52:24 PM)

I really, really enjoyed this! I love Independence Day and have grown to love the cheesefest that is The Day After Tomorrow so I knew I would be up for this. Plus it has John Cusack!

Plot holes keep coming to me but I don't mind 'em. It was exactly as I expected it to be: Kaboom! Save yourselves! Kaboom! Save the average joe!!

What's not to love?!




jrewing1000 -> RE: 2012 (15/11/2009 12:45:50 AM)

It comes down to this - there's good crap, and bad crap. And 2012 is probably the best crap you'll ever see.




tusse67 -> A little remark (15/11/2009 9:02:28 AM)

Being labeled an idiot for complaining about the human angle used in this movie (as in all Emmerichs movies) makes me wanna expand a little on my review.
I knew to a vary large extend that the character development was irrelevant in this movie. But why does Emmerich believe that the "fixing during a disaster" of broken relationships is the only angle worth investigating in his movies? Couldn't he content with portraing the will of the characters to survive? I mean... When you read or hear about real disasters its not divorsed people getting back together we care about! Its people surviving against overwhelming odds that we care about! Furthermore, our protagonists are strangely unaffected by all their off screen relatives dying. I find this narrow depiction (absent despair, sorrow and such) of the charactors more dispurbing than the scientific nonsense (which is nescessary for the sake of great images).




Death_Row_Marv -> RE: 2012 (15/11/2009 10:49:30 AM)

Horrific.  Two and a half hours for gods sake!!!! WHY!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!??!?!?

This is one of the worst films of the year.  Awful plot. Dull flat character and so cliche.

Just lots of bangs and CGI that was not exciting as watching old disaster films with real people with real stunts.  Not just wow CGI wow more CGI. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Seroiusly just why??????  Horrible film.




jrewing1000 -> RE: 2012 (15/11/2009 1:24:34 PM)

oh dear, looks like i'm becoming a defender of this movie...what is happening to me?!

I think complaints about plot,character, script etc are all valid. but that's like complaining that McDonalds isn't very nutritional. You don't go and see these movies for plot, character and script etc. If these things are that important to you, you shouldn't be watching this movie.

I've learnt to like Independence Day, despite an even worse plot/script etc than 2012. The point is it's just unashamed cartoon fun - the real point of the film is to show the world destroying itself on a grand scale and that has NEVER been done before. You have to applaud Roland's balls for attempting that.




captainrentboy -> RE: 2012 (15/11/2009 1:25:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Death_Row_Marv

Horrific.  Two and a half hours for gods sake!!!! WHY!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!??!?!?

This is one of the worst films of the year.  Awful plot. Dull flat character and so cliche.

Just lots of bangs and CGI that was not exciting as watching old disaster films with real people with real stunts.  Not just wow CGI wow more CGI. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Seroiusly just why??????  Horrible film.



But surely to God you knew what you would be getting when you went to see it. Other than The Patriot which is an ever so slight exception, Emmerich doesn't really do character development or particularly deep and meaningful plotlines (And The Patriot isn't exactly overloaded with them either). What the guy does like to do is show stuff blowing up and famous landmarks being destroyed and he does that very well.
The trailers for the film have shown nothing but masses and masses of CGI destruction whilst John Cussack narrowly escapes death each time and a quick look at any cinema website or IMDB would've told you it was a bloody long film.
I'm not looking for an argument, I just don't understand what film you thought you were going to watch, when every single aspect of it's development and advertising screamed
''This is just like every other Emmerich movie!!!!!''




Death_Row_Marv -> RE: 2012 (15/11/2009 2:17:32 PM)

Don't get me wrong I enjoy Popcorn films.

But this was not a good one.  Good popcorn are like Goonies, Germlins, The Indina Trilogy (not touching the last one)

There is no skill invlovled at all.  Just wow what can the CGI people do with this. BORING!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No stunts. No excitment.  You know exactly how its going to plan out fromt he start.

And 2 hours 30 my god. No film like this needs to be that long!




Death_Row_Marv -> RE: 2012 (15/11/2009 2:22:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: captainrentboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Death_Row_Marv

Horrific.  Two and a half hours for gods sake!!!! WHY!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!??!?!?

This is one of the worst films of the year.  Awful plot. Dull flat character and so cliche.

Just lots of bangs and CGI that was not exciting as watching old disaster films with real people with real stunts.  Not just wow CGI wow more CGI. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Seroiusly just why??????  Horrible film.



But surely to God you knew what you would be getting when you went to see it. Other than The Patriot which is an ever so slight exception, Emmerich doesn't really do character development or particularly deep and meaningful plotlines (And The Patriot isn't exactly overloaded with them either). What the guy does like to do is show stuff blowing up and famous landmarks being destroyed and he does that very well.
The trailers for the film have shown nothing but masses and masses of CGI destruction whilst John Cussack narrowly escapes death each time and a quick look at any cinema website or IMDB would've told you it was a bloody long film.
I'm not looking for an argument, I just don't understand what film you thought you were going to watch, when every single aspect of it's development and advertising screamed
''This is just like every other Emmerich movie!!!!!''



I went to see it becuase

1. I like John Cusack.

2. I do not pre judge any film and will try to see as many films as i can. Every now and then you get a nice surprise (like Star Trek this year was not expecting much but will be getting the Blu Ray 2moz for it.)

3. Just out of a perverse sence of curiosity.

After such an awful summer of films I hoped that maybe just maybe there might be something a bit more to this.  Saddly I was wrong.




Dr Lenera -> RE: 2012 (15/11/2009 6:59:01 PM)

MILD SPOILERS
2012 may well be both the ultimate disaster movie and the ultimate Roland Emmerich film, with all the good and bad points that may entail. It cribs bits from countless other genre efforts and even rehashes things from other Emmerich film, so very little feels fresh and it seems a little tired at times. However, it does work as spectacular entertainment. After a very slow first hour, which doesn't quite gell because we don't really learn enough about most of the characters, it really kicks into gear and delivers one awesome CG destruction sequence after another. John Cusack and his family's constant escape and survival from falling buildings, the ground ripping open, exploding volcanoes, rising water, you name it, gets ludicrous but does get pretty exciting and most of the effects work is pretty convincing. As usual most of the obligatory personal stuff really isn't as interesting as the writer and director thinks it is, at least one person survives who shouldn't and there's the most idiotic "dog running to safety" scene ever filmed. Nonetheless, in it's own way this movie manages to deliver pretty much everything you'd both expect and realistically want from it, and in spades.




Timon -> RE: 2012 (15/11/2009 8:03:59 PM)

Well I enjoyed it. Everything I was expected plus I actually found it 'deeper' than I thought it would be.... and by that, I mean I actually cared about some of the characters - Chiwtel and The Cusack namely.

Couple of things though;

Who the hell puts a camera in a hydraulic shaft?

The Arks really did look like Battlestars (and for the BSG fans, who else spotted Jammer and Captain Kelly?)

Enough with the 'dog in peril' situations

And I'd just like to say, that Russian pilot was one handsome dude... !




Bubba76 -> (15/11/2009 9:21:12 PM)





lipton village -> Just leave your brain outside for 2 hrs (16/11/2009 3:26:34 AM)

I enjoyed the movie. Leave your Brain at the door and just enjoy the unfolding disaster. If your looking for holes in the movie then you will have a great old time. If you just want a good old disaster movie with plenty of disaster and action  then you will have a right old time while eating your pop. 




genejoke -> Appetite for cheese and destruction (16/11/2009 11:05:51 AM)

It does exactly what you expect of a roland emmerich film. It is pure chedder, it has a dysfunctional family, a scientist who cares, noble sacrifices, a crazy madman who just happens to be right. Dogs and children are safe because well because it's an emmerich movie, I would have given it five stars if the bloody rat on a lead had been killed horribly.
A large part of the movie would make a great theme park ride, it really felt like one just without being rocked about.
My wife loved it, I enjoyed the spectacle and sneered when I was supposed to be feeling anguish.





tonyfield19 -> Average (16/11/2009 11:17:05 AM)

Well whilst it passed the time, i found 2012 to be quite boring. The effects were good when the cities were being destroyed, but other than the effects, i didn't care what happened to the characters at all. I guess it all felt "done before", i could see what the director was aiming for in parts but i just didn't think they actually worked that well. I think john cusack is a great actor but i dont think they gave him a good enough script for him to inject sone emotion into the film, it felt very "by the numbers" to me and my wife. with all of the budget going into the effects and then trying to bolt on a script after. Also i agree with tusse67 in that, with all the big disaster films, there is always a familly that's broken. They are nearly always divorced/separated with the kids hating the dad for some reason. everything seems to follow a certain rule or formula in films such as this and i wish there was some originality to be seen. Other than the character work, the film was ok. I know people dont go to these films to analyse the script, but i do go to feel drawn in by a movie, which is usually done by sympathy for the characters, through good script writing, which this film failed to do, miserably.




nclowe -> (16/11/2009 12:57:51 PM)

I'd like my £7.30 back please.




superdan -> RE: 2012 (16/11/2009 1:19:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Death_Row_Marv

But this was not a good one.  Good popcorn are like Goonies, Germlins, The Indina Trilogy (not touching the last one)



Are they the creatures that multiply on kitchen surfaces and dissolve in Cif? [:D]




nclowe -> RE: 2012 (16/11/2009 1:44:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Timon


The Arks really did look like Battlestars (and for the BSG fans, who else spotted Jammer and Captain Kelly?)



I did! Also spotted Bates and Coombs off Stargate as well as quite a few other - 'Oh! Its him./her! What was he/she on?' background people.




Gameoverman -> ...terrible, (16/11/2009 3:29:32 PM)

..simply terrible. What more can I add?!




jcthefirst -> RE: ...terrible, (16/11/2009 4:08:07 PM)

Big (really fucking big) dumb fun.

The escape from LA was a particular highlight. Faultless CG.




moviemaniac2 -> 2012 (16/11/2009 8:45:37 PM)

Roland Emmerich does what he does best, and that's blow shit up on a mammoth scale. And you don't really get much bigger than the destruction of planet earth. Having ended the world in a similar fashion a few years back with The Day After Tomorrow, this is hardly original stuff, as he rips off his own work as much as other directors - while his dialogue still plays like it was written by someone who learnt English watching Michael Bay movies. Still, the destruction of the planet becomes one long money shot after another.
2012 is essentially another one of those blockbusters that delivers the goods in terms of following up the action that the trailer promised, but fails in most other respects. Cusack and Ejiofor are both consistently better than the material they're given; managing to come away with their dignity intact despite some atrocious lines. Ejiofor's rousing speech towards the end is embarrassingly cheesyClocking in at damn near two and a half hours, it feels like its 2012 by the time its over.




HERMES_67 -> 2012 (17/11/2009 6:31:25 PM)

Taken with a pinch of salt this film is well worth the 2.5hrs of your life.




hatebox -> RE: 2012 (17/11/2009 7:22:28 PM)

If you want to see the world inexplicably torn to pieces for a very long time then I struggle to think of a more fitting film. It felt like Emmerich was really going for it after the extremely tame Day After Tomorrow.

As disaster porn I enjoyed it, but the last act on the 'ark' was absurdly long and dull compared to the first two thirds of the film.




bramvh -> RE: 2012 (17/11/2009 7:45:16 PM)

What a waste of money.. seriously, the effects were cool but just pay a little more for a good script.

p.s. The dog was f*ing annoying.... REALLY




JV -> RE: 2012 (17/11/2009 8:20:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Timon
The Arks really did look like Battlestars (and for the BSG fans, who else spotted Jammer and Captain Kelly?)


I remember thinking they looked like Battlestars, however I am gutted I didn't spot the BStarG'ers! That said, people from BSG are showing up everywhere at the moment, I think Apollo and Helo fighting in Dollhouse was quite a moment!!




skeletonjack -> RE: 2012 (17/11/2009 9:40:48 PM)

First things first: some of the action scenes were superb, the California escape in particular being the standout.
However the movie is WAY too long. So much material could have have been cut as so many scenes and characters were completely uneccessary.
Shame, because this could have been a really fun movie had it not outstayed its welcome by about an hour.
2 stars




Sutty -> RE: 2012 (18/11/2009 6:25:33 PM)

I actually enjoyed this movie. Went with the missus and it is a typical Roland Emmerich Popcorn flick, and aside from ID4 his best by far. Who cares if the acting is 70's melodrama? Who cares if the script is complete cheeseball and you can guess what is gonna be said next? Who cares if it uses stereo types and uses broad (very broad) strokes to crack things along? Who cares if the effects take presidence over character? It's a ROLAND EMMERICH movie!!! This is the guy who likes to create the perfect world (great prez, happy if dysfunctional families, cool dads with funky jobs) and then destroy it (leaving the good folk in tact of course!

This type of film is one of the main reason for which cinema was invented.

Very good movie. Screw Oscars, this movie will make millions!!!! 

Im pretty sure Emmerich ended his pitch with that!!!!




evil bill -> RE: 2012 (18/11/2009 7:15:50 PM)

Anybody going to this movie to learn about the Mayan prophecies for 2012 or for any true science,or for a great script/story, is going to be sadly disappointed.But Emmerich has taken a fictitious subject he knew would be controversial and woven some drama? into it.Now i went expecting to be highly entertained by great CGI and action? and it's a big Yes! to that. One thing i've noticed many reviewers haven't been picking up on while watching this movie is the very slight tongue-in-cheekiness of the subject that Emmerich cleverly wove into the plot. He obviously doesn't believe any of the prophecy any more than most of the rest of us do?.Just look at Woody Harrelson, to see what i'm on about,a real bit of ham acting,yet all done in the best possible taste.If you love ye old disaster movies of old, and love cinema.And enjoy the things about cinema that make it great.IE visuals,sound turned up,epic big screen fun,great action,well this is one great popcorn blockbuster of the b movie kind.The film has obvious flaws, trite clichés, and phony science, but if you are a fan of 50's sci-fi/70's Erwin Allen movies, you will love this movie. And remember, don't take it too seriously folks,it's only a movie so just enjoy the ride,though at nearly 3 hours it is a longer ride than normal.Still it's never boring as there's not much script to follow,and the leads know it's just a fun ride of a movie,pure entertainment notting more.ENJOY!!7/10




JJB888 -> 2012 (18/11/2009 11:27:30 PM)

What has earth ever done to Roland Emmerich, every chance he gets he's always blowing parts of it up, freezing it or flooding it. 2012 is no different. A bit too similar to The Day After Tommorrow, without the message of Global Warming, 2012 is just about the biggest disaster movie ever. The effects, as they should be for the money, are brilliant and really keep you watching. A good job really because little else would, the performances are not all bad Cusack is o.k in the lead and a few supporting cast members turn out well, although the only real good performence in my view was that of Danny Glover as the U.S president, one of the fewer depthful characters. If you have seen the the trailer you have seen the plot, aside from a few unengaging sub-plots and a cliche' divorced family setting aside their differences. The length is the biggest dilemma as stretching this pretty tiny plot to a 2 and a half hour running time is really pusing it. I mean they could have made the film 90 minutes long and delivered just as good (or bad) a film. The film does interest at times when mentioning the Maiyan Calender and natural processes at work, however that is all the film does, mention it, if you were looking for a backstory to these predictions and processes you will be greatly dissapointed. As well as this the ending is very overblown and just kind of acts to give a somewhat debateable message about the kindness of humanity. So after all these bad points why 3 stars? Well all in all 2012 delivers on its generic promise disaster and while it sounds a little sick, there is fun to be had seeing the CGI landmarks being swept away or demolished, and trust me you see a lot of this. While in effect 2012 is a bad movie it delivers on its promises and gives you an entertaining disaster movie, that makes for perfect visual cinema fodder and delivers give-your-brain-a-rest entertainment on an afternoon where you have nothing else to do. So 2012 is an entertaining blockbuster that keeps you watching, just about.




Deviation -> RE: 2012 (19/11/2009 1:15:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sutty


This type of film is one of the main reason for which cinema was invented.

Very good movie. Screw Oscars, this movie will make millions!!!! 



Erm............ ehhhhhhh........... yeahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh..................




CORLEONE -> RE: 2012 (19/11/2009 10:11:33 AM)

Totally enjoyable farce. Corny script mostly, but some funny bits, and some emotional too. Flawless effects, great action sequences. Cusack and Harrelson as watchable as ever.

The chase scene where Cusack & Co are escaping LA as the city crumbles around them is the most exciting sequence I've seen in years.

7/10




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.03125