Rubbish. (Full Version)

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



Message


nc_jj -> Rubbish. (15/1/2010 9:00:39 PM)

The worst film of the year. Roland Emmerich has become something like Uwe Boll. There goes 3 hours of my life I'll never get back.




empire No. 1 -> RE: 2012 (22/2/2010 2:10:01 AM)

if this were released in 1988, motherf###ers would be queueing round the block! but yeah, carnage is a little boring now days. but i kind of liked it in a silly sort of way. i dont want to see the shit ever again, though. its a "job done" film. no more, no less




igotnewlegs -> RE: 2012 (22/2/2010 12:55:58 PM)

2 stars for me, purely for some decent effects and because it was margnally better than the one star film, The Core.

The film seemed to be one sequence after another of escaping crumbling roads in a car or plane. In fact I'm pretty sure they escaped a crumbling run way three times. I also wrongly heard that John Cusack's character died at the end. I was disappointed that he didn't.




hallbags -> Astonishingly Lazy Pish (4/4/2010 2:32:49 AM)

Just watched this on Blu Ray with a few friends. We were able to predict several lines WORD FOR WORD in advance, which is testament to how appallingly weak the dialogue was. It's the same lazy as fuck formula as every other Roland Emmerich Disaster (of a) Movie- like Independence Day, Godzilla and The Day After Tomorrow with a bit of Armageddon and Deep Impact chucked in... you all know the score by now, scientist notices at the start of the film that somethings wrong with the [blank], he's whisked away and becomes an advisor to the president (yawn). Meanwhile, Joe Bloggs kicks into hero mode and will travel to all ends of the earth to save his kids... As a punter I feel utterly insulted.

If I were marking this out of 10, I might be generous and give it a 3, but only for the ridiculous visual effects, but even those got annoying. Luckily though, I'm marking out of 5, and there is NO WAY that this guff deserves either a 4 out of 10 or a 2 out of 5- it just doesn't deserve it.




joanna likes films -> Predictable But Good Special Effects. (4/4/2010 11:14:50 AM)

Predictable rubbish, you know what's going to happen and who's going to surrive. Clocking over two hours is far too overlong, the script was terrible and the acting was awful. But the reason I give it two stars is the special effects, they were really good and better than Day After Tomorrow (don't get me started on that film!) If you want to watch this movie on DVD or Blu-Ray, whatever you do don't watch the alterentive ending in the extras area. I was shaking my head and laughing my head off of how stupid it really was. Watch this film with catuion, it's a long one and can be seriously over the top.




Indio -> RE: 2012 (4/4/2010 11:44:11 PM)


I thought it was OK, it certainly could have done with half an hour cut off the running time and it was dragging a bit by the end, but its not as bad as some of the previous comments have made it out to be.




anakin solo -> RE: 2012 (5/4/2010 8:16:45 PM)

This film is way better than the day after tomorrow, better script destruction sequences, the utter ruthlessness of oliver platt was so great that you wanted him to be one of the ones to die but you know deep down that he'll find a way to survive.




Sphinx -> RE: 2012 (5/4/2010 8:48:37 PM)

Not bad, more neutral in Patriotism this time - thank God - Bad russian stereotypes but what's an action film without one? Only glad it wasn't a British Fop, great special effects - Finding woody Harrelson as a hippy nut was suprising, Typical Emmerich-isms

Average Joes saving the day
Impossible sequences - John climbing out of the camper without a scratch

FX were the star of the show, easy




anakin solo -> RE: 2012 (7/4/2010 9:48:22 PM)

I liked the russian characters in it.




magiclips -> Cheesy, but it's the Ultimate Popcorn Movie (8/4/2010 9:46:09 AM)

It's been described as a glorified B Film, and there are no words to better describe this end-of-the-world extravaganza.

John Cusack as an improbable action hero is only the tip of the iceberg with what's wrong with this film, but why should anybody care? This is not a film about character developement, it is just one long blast of special effects upon special effects as the Mayan prediction of Armageddon in 2012 comes true (albeit a few months ahead of its december 21st schedule).

One could be here until doomsday pointing out what's wrong with this film. The "cliff-hangers" are so predictable (airplanes racing ahead of disappearing runways etc etc) as to be idiotic and totally non cliff- hanging. . The dialogue could have been penned by a 10 year old. The "moment of conscience" as the ultimate tsunami approaches was is a cliche which staggers the mind in its unavoidability.

So just enjoy the special effects, even if they are not very good. The rest of the film is just filler for them. Grab an extra large popcorn, sit back, and enjoy the mess.




djphilips -> Surprisingly good disaster movie (8/4/2010 4:41:05 PM)

Many people will probably declare me insane when they see the four star rating, and they're probably right. But 2012 acknowledges the fact that it is just another disaster movie with the same typical faults one would expect from it, and is a better movie for it.
To begin with, the special effects are stupendous. They blend perfectly with the film and create a very entertaining experience. Congratulions should go to Roland Emmerich, who is appartently trying to atone for the mess that was 10, 000 BC. He's doing a pretty good job of it though, as he manages to create an enjoyable disaster movie while also incorporating believable characters that the viewer is able to empathise with, by simultaneously applying his writing and directing capabilities (as limited as they are). The cast is able to realise this and acts accordingly, with John Cusack and Chiwetel Ejiofor turning in good performances. Recommended.




dunstabledoug -> (9/4/2010 1:41:06 PM)

Utter drivel. John Cusack, what were you thinking? Did you need to pay for a new swimming pool? The script was derisory, acting was abysmal and the special effects started off at mediocre and sruggled to maintain that "standard". And i'm angry that at 2.5 hours, I could have watched at least 3 episodes of House.....




anakin solo -> RE: (20/4/2010 9:26:43 PM)

I'm sorry but i would rather watch 2012 than house no question.




max314 -> RE: 2012 (5/5/2010 7:17:56 PM)

Emmerich's disaster movie format is predictable enough, as is the inevitable intersecting of multiple plots and sub-plots. But what's amazing about 2012 is that Emmerich is pushing the very same disaster movie format that he invented to its absolute limits and - like the mighty arks in the film's climax - the film buckles and bulges and threatens to spill its guts into the ocean...but it somehow manages to hold it all together and pull through.

Emmerich's ambition on this project was laudably gargantuan, and you know what? It just about paid off.

4/5




BigKovacs -> RE: Great effects, appalling abuse of science! (6/5/2010 10:37:39 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: filmsunlimited

As a person who has a Physics degree, the initial premise of 'mutating' neutrinos microwaving the Earth's core already placed the film in the scientifically implausible. Which is a shame, as later many scientific possibilites (flipping of the poles, Yellowstone eruption etc) are realised. The other gripe is this constant only-just-outrunning the disaster feel to it. I mean a cat only has nine lives! To firstly outrun an ever growing crack running through the city, a flyover, multi-storey car park and then two glass tower blocks is taking the p*ss enough, without outrunning a pyroclastic flow from Yellowstone in a bloody camper van!
The film gets more absurd still when (yet again) an ever growing chasm across Las Vegas International Airport fails to swallow a Russian plane. As for driving out the back of a jumbo in a Bentley. Hmmmm. What tops this madness off is the will it or wont it make the ark scene with the pampered pooch.
Also a minor geological inconsistency. The projection of the tsunami clearly shows a height of one thousand and something metres. Now Im sorry but Everest is nearly 9,000m high. So surely that tidal wave actually made it up several thousand metres. Re the end, does a tidal wave really take about a month to subside or have the Himalayas been flooded? Shifting of the poles is one thing but a worldwide sea level raise of 5000 metres plus?
It seems the director is trying to imply that Princess Di was killed in that Paris tunnel by the completely over obvious comparison to this.
On the whole, poorly woven together, more corny than the popcorn machine at the back of the cinema and scientific rot. Ironically though I enjoyed laughing at the films incompetency in these matters. Wirth a little trepidation I may use the Yellowstone eruption as a teaching resource once the DVD comes out but at nealry 3 hours, this is too long for an end of term treat!


(I can't believe I'm trying to read into a disaster film but can't seem to help it.)

This sums up most of the film for me. The 'running out of road/runway in improbable vehicles/aircraft' took up most of the film and then 'oh shit there's lots of water coming!' took up the rest. Okay it's a disaster film so that sort of developments in the post but it just got a bit silly.

I also thought there were a few geographic inconsistencies. Not my geography is piss poor and I'm not going to google it but if the the San Andeas fault line collapsed and the tidal wave reaches Washington then there's still going to be vast amounts of the US untouched, the map we see of Wisconsin being the new South Pole also shows that there's stacks of land left. It leaves little clue about the rest of the world apart from, well all of Africa?

Damn it I'm trying not to take this too seriously but three years to build that hangar and four Arks? GTFO!




Fluke Skywalker -> RE: Great effects, appalling abuse of science! (11/5/2010 1:16:41 PM)

*** SPOILERS ***

FX wise it was absolutely spectacular at times and looked amazing but as expected the rest was pretty dire. It had loads of unintentionally funny moments as well, the air traffic controllers telling the Russian plane not to take off (why? let's stay and die!) before snuffing it in an ash cloud, Danny Glover 'I'm coming home Betsy' as he was about to get crunched by a wave carrying an aircraft carrier, the animals getting helicoptered to the arks and the best by far the fat Russian billionaire chucking his kid to safety before plummeting to his death.

Overall the scenes of destruction were superb, Cusack's escape in the limo was very cool and the exploding Yellowstone volcano just looked outstanding. The arks were an excellent creation as well although at the end of the day they are just metal ships and surely would be at the mercy of a collapsing planet as much as anything else? Once all the major destruction and flying scenes were out of the way the film completely ran out of steam as well.

It just about scrapes three stars for the epicness of the havoc going on.




BOHEMIANBOB -> RE: Great effects, appalling abuse of science! (13/5/2010 10:36:40 AM)

Dire!
It looks like Cusack is in front of a giant playstation screen for the whole movie.
You never once feel he is in danger.
The cgi must be among the worst ever commited to film,and there's bloody lots of it.
Yes disaster movies are cliched with poor dialogue etc and are just about the action....
but this is a first,a disaster movie that is boring!
Avoid avoid avoid!




REALLYMAD -> RE: Great effects, appalling abuse of science! (19/5/2010 11:09:25 AM)

I seem to recall the interview with Emmerich when he implies that this was probably his last global disaster movie since he was running out of ways to destroy the earth. Let's hope he means it because with this film we are now so deeply entrenched into the realms of farce that no amount of 'jaw-dropping' CGI is going to provide anything like enough credibility to save it.

and that is a shame because the effects are amazing. They really are. you can see that a lot of time and effort (and money) has been lovingly spent to make them look awe inspiring. What spoils them is the vehicle that JUST manages to outrun the volcano narrowly missing the carnage behind it and the other vehicle that JUST manages to outrun the collapsing roads narrowly missing the carnage behind it and the aircraft that JUST manages to take off narrowly missing the carnage behind it and the other enormous aircraft that JUST manages to take off narrowly missing the carnage behind it etc.

It reminded me of a modern day version of the Saturday morning cinema action series like Flash Gordon that every week ended on a surely impossible to survive cliffhanger, only they glued 5 or 6 of them together. now I don't mind watching a decent disaster movie and I go into that aware of the formulaic standards; downtrodden hero with personal issues (character fleshing) surviving against the odds, government working on secret plans, one or two main characters sacrifice themselves and die for shock value and realism points, yadda yadda...

Near miss overkill; it stunted any feeling of peril whatsoever. I didn't care about any of the characters. John Cusack is a favourite of mine. He has an edge to him. Loved him in The Grifters and Grosse Pointe Blank and Hi Fidelity. Slick and sharp. After this I think he needs to fire his agent. Is he a bit strapped for cash or something? What a complete and utter waste of talent.

Effects excellent - the rest was not good.




suleiman -> Michael Bays Favourite Film (16/7/2010 10:00:20 AM)

3 is a fair score, avatar also has an extreamly bad story, characters and acting but gets a 5 so this deserves at least a 3.




stevolegendbauer -> Incredible effects, over qualified cast, no regard for realism but a hell of a lot better than 10000bc (21/8/2010 10:29:41 PM)

There seems to be a bit of a paradox in Roland Emmerich's (The king of the disaster movie) films. He always makes sure that the threat his protagonists are facing is plausable and quite possible yet he fills the screen with OTT scenes that completely defie the laws of science. In the Day After Tommorow most of the weather attacks are possible and the whole global warming upsetting sea currents resulting in next ice age is also quite likely (I asked my geography teacher) but then Dennis Quaid walks hundreds of miles through the frozen wilderness to get his son, losing the films credibility. The same stuff is on display in 2012, only amplified.
He pretty much ditches the Mayan prediction and builds the plot on "platonic shifts". This gives him a pass to create tidal waves that engulf the Himalayas and throw California around like playdough. But when John Cusack manages to drive a limo through falling buildings and always get away just as the world dissapears just metres behind him you cant stop thinking, thats so stupid, thats so unrealistic, and so on. Worst of all is a man who says he cant fly a plane then manages to dodge cascading skyscrapers and fireballs.
Another major flaw is the structure the mid section follows. John Cusack drives a vehicle through destruction, then he gets in a plane and it takes off, just in the nick of time, problem is this happens three times.
Emmerich is still trying to create good character drama but it is still down to his over qualified cast (John Cusack, Thandie Newton, Danny Glover, and a brilliant Woody Harrelson) to carry the movie between super volcanoes and White House-crushing-aircraft-carriers.
But it has to be said that its very entertaining and the effects are nothing short of incredible. This truly is the disaster movie to end all disater movies. Most incredible is the scene where California tilts into the sea. Destruction of this scale has never been done before.
While 2012 is deeply flawed it still stands




The REAL Bozz -> RE: Incredible effects, over qualified cast, no regard for realism but a hell of a lot better than 10000bc (8/9/2010 6:17:35 PM)

Got around to watching this after missing it at the flicks and I loved it. It looked lovely on Blue Ray and it had me glued to the screen. Pure spectacle. Loved it all. Was shocked by which characters made it etc. Some really nasty deaths for some of the more likeable characters while one utter arsehole lives. I was screaming at the screen during the last half hour. Loved it!




hampstead bandit -> RE: Incredible effects, over qualified cast, no regard for realism but a hell of a lot better than 10000bc (8/9/2010 9:44:05 PM)

Got around to watching this after missing it at the flicks and I loved it. It looked lovely on Blue Ray and it had me glued to the screen. Pure spectacle. Loved it all. Was shocked by which characters made it etc. Some really nasty deaths for some of the more likeable characters while one utter arsehole lives. I was screaming at the screen during the last half hour. Loved it!

its really complete b*llocks, but who cares?

its definitely entertaining, just like Independance Day and The Day After Tomorrow....

once the price drops for HD Blu-Ray copies, I will be adding it to my collection as its a great Christmas / rainy afternoon movie to while away the time, whilst marvalling at the visual spectacle and not worrying your poor brain too much about story / plot / reality

3/5 for sure!




reminn -> (3/11/2010 8:49:40 AM)

Good.




JagLover -> RE: (21/5/2011 6:53:02 PM)

I usually like cheesy disater movies, I like the Day after Tomorrow for example, but this was just dire rubbish.

Virtually no characterisation so you don't really care if anyone lives or dies, laughable implausable escapes from perils that somehow are always moving at exactly the same speed as whatever mode of transport they happen to be using at the time, and a stupid plot.

Probably the most impressive special effects of any disater movie, but this is also IMO the worst of them.




tysmuse -> great fun! (20/6/2011 1:05:35 AM)

Amazing CGI destruction! Wonderfully overlong and pompus! Enjoyable all the way through.




RogueElement -> Great fun (16/9/2011 1:04:48 AM)

I've just finished watching this and it was the first film I've seen on Blu-Ray, cracking stuff! I think it demoed nicely the capabilities of Blu-Ray. The story was a load of guff but I can forgive that. The alternative ending is rubbish BTW, best avoided!




Ciaran McDaid -> DISEASTER MOVIE (25/10/2011 10:44:48 AM)

Brilliant special effects but it is still not right




ryanchallenger -> Definate Disaster !!! (6/1/2012 12:18:17 AM)

Don't know what it was but i just found myself fading in and out of this movie, the ammount of times john cusacks character survived moments that nobody would annoyed me. I Felt that the story was too slow but despite that, the effects were fabulous. I Prefer The Day After Tomorrow Than This, sadly.




MusicLovesYou -> Utter tripe (5/3/2012 2:35:29 PM)

But enjoyable nonetheless. Watched it on blu-ray last night and it looks terrific. I think with films like this it's a pre-requisite it's written by an exciteable five year old working from the 'Ladybird Book of Science and Stuff', and to have likeable actors who are clearly above such material throwing themselves at the liberal dollops of script-cheddar with abandon (Woody Harrelson, I'm looking at you, you grinning crazy-eyed bastard). Low expectation = pleasant surprise.




kumar -> RE: Utter tripe (20/8/2012 1:07:12 AM)



This is so much better the second time round, I had a real blast with it. I sat laughing my ass off as millions of people died helplessly- the two old women in the car, the sewage pipe, Woodys helpless scream as he gets hit by a tone of earth. It really does balance world tragedy with some cracking comedy. Excellent film! Emmerich nailed it. Eat that Bay!!!




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

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.078125