|
2012
Nov 14, 2009 8:00:34 GMT
Post by BtizeF200 on Nov 14, 2009 8:00:34 GMT
|
|
|
2012
Nov 14, 2009 10:15:37 GMT
Post by Falgorn on Nov 14, 2009 10:15:37 GMT
Turn of your brain, leave sarcasm at the door and enjoy popcorn stupidity.
I like Roland Emerich films, they are always contrived crap - but always spectacular.
|
|
|
2012
Nov 14, 2009 13:14:24 GMT
Post by si on Nov 14, 2009 13:14:24 GMT
Yeah - I'd wanna see it for the over the top CG and action.
Not expecting an oscar winner here
|
|
|
2012
Nov 14, 2009 13:39:47 GMT
Post by sovietstu on Nov 14, 2009 13:39:47 GMT
Sure it can't be worse than the shocking remake of war of the worlds.
Awful film. Shoot that kid. Massive plot holes. And tom. Fucking. Cruise.
No thanks.
|
|
|
2012
Nov 16, 2009 9:59:23 GMT
Post by sovietstu on Nov 16, 2009 9:59:23 GMT
Saw this yesterday.
Utter shite.
Yet another 2 hour 40 minute lesson in family values starring;
- Generic divorcee single dad! - His "disillusioned" kids! - His ex-wife + supporting cast new husband/boyfriend that generic husband doesn't like!
A tale of Love! Redemption! and Ultimate Sacrifice!
The only way i can explain how this film made me feel was "i've seen this before" and the closest comparison was the War of the Worlds remake which i'm sure i have mentioned i despised.
Tragedy all around, people dying, but all we're supposed to care about is that the dad doesn't get on with the new boyfriend and his kids think he should give the boyfriend a chance.
What? Didn't a city of several million just crumble around you, and rather than be shocked to the point of vomiting and in a nervous heap, you're chastising John Cusack cause he doesn't like your moms boyfriend?
The thing that annoyed me about War of the Worlds, despite the ridiculous plotholes (son runs over hill, big explosion happens on the same fucking hill killing tanks and shit, then he appears in Boston? wtf?!), was the god damn family values.
There's some kinda mass fucking genocide of the human race, and all Steven Spielberg gives camera time and any real emphesis to is that Tom fucking Cruise doesn't get on with his kids. Great! Big fucking deal! People are dying for Christ's sake...
Anyways, whilst 2012 doesn't necessarily have huge plot holes like WotW did, it does have the same family values crap. It's a bit more "global" which is nice, it doesn't just follow the yanks, and it has Danny Glover in which is always a bonus, but i can't recommend it. The CG was good to the point of being silly and unbelievable.
Oh, Woody Harrelson was good and it also has Chiwetel Ejiofor as probably the second main character, and i've liked him since Serenity (he's English, btw).
Meh, whats anyone else think?
EDIT: Awesome quote from a review on rottentomatoes.com;
"It feels about 2012 minutes too long"
|
|
|
2012
Nov 16, 2009 11:13:02 GMT
Post by si on Nov 16, 2009 11:13:02 GMT
I thought it was good - for what it was obviously.
The CG is soo over the top- Like an action movie without action stars. The plot is believable to the extent that the earth crumbling around them could actually happen, which is always food for though.
As for the film focusing on a family unit to tell the story - I thought there was nothing wrong with that as there was enough characters for varied dialog.
I'm not sure what Stu expected? Why shouldn't it follow a family as the world falls part? Would it be better if if followed the story of an army officer - What we he be doing? Probably with his family - As that is where most people would tend to be in these events? Should it focus on more of the president/ high level officials - NO! .. The film is about the ordinary man trying to save that's dear to him.
If you see this film with the right attitude it's no more stupid than "Saving private Ryan" where the American Army sends an entire squad to go searching across Europe in the middle of a world war in order to bring back a single PRIVATE.
|
|