Print Page | Close Window

Apocalypse...HOW?!?

Printed From: Official RAZZIE® Forum
Category: FORUMS on 2009 RELEASES
Forum Name: 2009 MOVIE DISCUSSIONS, in ALPHA ORDER: 2012
Forum Discription: Will 2012 Be the End of the World 'Cause Sarah Palin Will Be the GOP Nominee??
URL: http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3963
Printed Date: July 22 2014 at 6:51pm


Topic: Apocalypse...HOW?!?
Posted By: HeadRAZZBerry
Subject: Apocalypse...HOW?!?
Date Posted: November 09 2009 at 4:57am

WHEN the SUPPOSEDLY FAVORABLE  REVIEWS REFER to a FILM as http://emanuellevy.com/reviews/details.cfm?id=14746 - "A GUILTY PLEASURE," http://guides.news.com.au/couriermail/movies/movie/?title_id=35592&review=82638 - "SO BAD IT'S GOOD" http://au.movies.ign.com/articles/104/1041326p1.html - "WONDERFULLY TERRIBLE" and http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/2012/ - "ONE of 2009's BEST COMEDIES," THAT'LL GET OUR ATTENTION...

WHEN the DIRECTOR IS http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000386/ - a 3-TIME RAZZIE http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000386/ - ® http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000386/ - NOMINEE WHOSE EVERY MOVIE IS an AFFRONT to the AUDIENCE's FRONTAL LOBES, THAT'LL FURTHER PEAK OUR INTEREST...

AND WHEN PROMOTIONAL MATERIALS for the FILM INCLUDE http://www.syfy.com/2012/index.php - a SYFY CHANNEL SPECIAL SUGGESTING the WORLD MAY ACTUALLY COME to an END in 2012, YOU'VE GOT OUR TOTALLY RAPT ATTENTION.

THOUGH, LIKE http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_topics.asp?FID=363&PN=1 - TRANNIES, TOO and http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_topics.asp?FID=375 - G.I. JOE , http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_topics.asp?FID=397 - 2012 WILL LIKELY PROVE to BE ONE of the YEAR'S BIGGEST BOX OFFICE HITS, IT'S ALSO LIKELY to TAKE a FEW HITS WHEN http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=876&PN=1&TPN=1 - RAZZIE http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=876&PN=1&TPN=1 -

And, lo, The Purveyor of Mindless Crap Spoke Unto His People, and Sayeth: "Go forth to thy multiplexes and make my latest lame excuse for entertainment a box office hit of biblical proportions..."



-------------
Ye Olde Head RAZZberry



Replies:
Posted By: Movie Man
Date Posted: November 09 2009 at 5:46am
I actually like the comment you made about Sarah Palin under this movie's heading, so true...SO so true.


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: November 09 2009 at 6:00am
Just like Michael Bay, Emmerich makes the same damn movie over and over again. While Bay's movies are all about car chases and explosions, Emmerich's movies are all about the CGI. The plots are always full of holes, the characters are as forgettable as can be, the dialounge seems like it was written by 12 year olds, and an hour after seeing the movie, you couldn't care less about it. It's just CGI porn at its finest. Will it makes millions at the Box Office like "Trannies 2" before it? YOU BETCHA! Will it be a prime Top 3 contender along side "Trannies 2" for Worst Picture? YOU BETCHA! (How's that for a little Sarah Palin for you?).


Posted By: Julianstark
Date Posted: November 09 2009 at 8:24am

This looks like a disaster... pun intended.

Why couldn't they have made this film for release in 2012 when the world is supposedly ending so we wouldn't have to see this .

But seriously... I'm already envisioning 2012 having many mentions on my Razzie ballot, which is really bad, because I'm strictly against voting for any film that I haven't seen yet...

 



-------------
For Your 2010 Razzie Consideration: The Bounty Hunter and Leap Year --
Check out my blog! http://julianstark-moviesandotherthings.blogspot.com - Movies and Other Things


Posted By: MiguelAntilsu
Date Posted: November 09 2009 at 12:07pm

Let me answer that question in the subheading:  No.  The world ends because the Mayan calendar ends.  They didn't say anything about politics or anything else.  This movie however is a matter of "What if?", so we don't know if the world is gonna end.



Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: November 09 2009 at 1:07pm

The Sarah Palin thing wasn't a serious question. Yes, the Mayan calendar does end around late 2012, however, there is no mentioning anywhere about this having anything to do with the world coming to an end, it's just an end to the solar cycle that the Mayan's used. So in the end, this is just as you said "a big what if" movie. And Julian is right, it should have been released for 2012 for the full effect.



Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: November 09 2009 at 1:14pm
For fun, it might be interesting to note that it's very possible that 2012 relates to the end of the current celestial cycle, which began at approxiamately 0 CE. It could've actually began before that, but there is a lot of astronomical evidence as relates to the beginning of this particular cycle and the beginnings of Christianity, and why they thought the world was going to end in 1999, etc.
My point, I guess, is that the world isn't going to end, we may be in a new celestial cycle is all.

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: November 09 2009 at 1:18pm
Let's put it this way...if anyone sees me in a theater actually watching this movie, you'll know the world is going to end about 10 minutes later

-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: November 09 2009 at 1:37pm
Let's put it this way...if anyone sees me in a theater actually watching this movie, you'll know the world is going to end about 10 minutes later

-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: November 09 2009 at 2:16pm

Originally posted by dEd Grimley

If 2012 stays where it is, I may have to give up on society and become a Tibetan Monk. No joke as it relates to the trailer.

The hairstyle kind of sucks and I've never seen a Tibetan Monk get savagely raped by 400 young, blonde cheerleaders. I'd reconsider.



-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: Berrynoia
Date Posted: November 09 2009 at 2:16pm
How about the solar flare theory for 2012?  Sun hits center of galaxy, sneezes out a flare onto Earth, and the world is cooked.  End of film.  Then again, how much of this film takes place before the disasters occur?


-------------


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: November 09 2009 at 2:50pm
Originally posted by Berrynoia

How about the solar flare theory for 2012?  Sun hits center of galaxy, sneezes out a flare onto Earth, and the world is cooked.  End of film.  Then again, how much of this film takes place before the disasters occur?

Have you been watching Knowing?


Posted By: RoadDogXVIII
Date Posted: November 09 2009 at 6:44pm
Yeah, I'm with you guys here. Even the positive reviews stated some big problems. Roland Emmerich and Michael Bay went from promising directors (though Bay redeemed himself with the first Transformers) to the biggest jokes towards internet users and the entertainment industry. What a sad world we live in, because they can churn out some surprises.


-------------
You think you know, but you have no idea.


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: November 10 2009 at 6:07am
Solar flare causing the end of the world? I would find it very funny if all that happens in 2012 is the planets all go into alinement ... and the world stays exactly the same.


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: November 10 2009 at 11:11am
Perhaps I live a bit of a sheltered life, but I wasn't really aware of any predictions of the Earth ending as the result of an upcoming solar flare. The sun follows a rather regular cycle of activity that plays out every 11 years or so, and it doesn't have correlation to the positions of the planets. In fact, the only object in the solar system that has any signficant gravitational influence on the sun is Jupiter. The closest alignment of the planets that will occur in our lives happened a few years ago when all of the planets grouped within about a 40 degree arc. As I recall, the planet didn't come to an end, but if I missed something, please let me know.

-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: November 10 2009 at 3:30pm
RT ratings are dropping rapidly. Down to 53% at the moment. It sounds like another case of the Hollywood early critic selection problem.

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: November 11 2009 at 11:17am

Or maybe a case of coincidence, where critics who happen to submit their reviews first end up being positive, while those who submit their reviews later are negative? 

Originally posted by dEd Grimley

RT ratings are dropping rapidly. Down to 53% at the moment. It sounds like another case of the Hollywood early critic selection problem.



 



-------------


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: November 11 2009 at 3:30pm

Nope. It's down to 38%. And as HeadRazz originally stated, most, and I stress MOST, of the positive reviews include the phrase "guilty pleasure." Combine that with "so bad it's good" and "comically bad". It's becoming quite the trend for big budget blockbusters to come out with positive reviews before the release, and then those with better credentials (and credibility) dislike it later.

We've brought this up several times now, with GI Joe and a few others. I have a feeling this will become more and more common.



-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: November 12 2009 at 9:53am
Well, let's be honest, were you expecting this movie to be good good? I didn't think anyone did. Roger Ebert gave it a 3.5/4 saying it's worth what you're paying to see (which is massive destruction). Why is it such a bad thing that the movie offers something what audiences are obviously paying to see in the first place? Michael Philips also gave it a positive review.


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: November 12 2009 at 10:04am

The fact that Roger Ebert had positive things to say about this film is not particularly impressive. Like most critics out there, there I times I agree with his assessments and times I think he is off base. When large numbers of critics develop a consensus, that is more worthy of attention.

I think dEd may be onto something. It wouldn't surprise me if some of the major studios start being very selective about the critics for whom they prescreen their films. There is obviously advantage if they have a lot invested in a movie to get favorable reviews out front, so they have a vested interest in screening films for critics who are apt to be sympathetic to the film or, more cynically stated but still probably accurate, critics whom they have in their backpocket.



-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: November 13 2009 at 4:05pm
And early reviews will likely have an influence on future reviews, as well. This, of course, isn't terribly professional, but it's very likely to happen.
As for whether or not there were expectations of it being good... No, I don't think anyone worth their salt thought it was going to be any good, which leads me to beg restraint of myself while MWG sets up a defense of it.

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: November 15 2009 at 1:52pm
Well, like it or not (like it, in MWG's case), the movie made a whole lot of money, regardless if the reviews were "positive" or not. Like "Trannies 2" and Michael Bay before them, the people behind this movie are laughing their way to the bank and are already planning what their next CGI porno will be. My guess is "The Day After 2012 ... BC".


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: November 16 2009 at 1:08pm
It didn't really make that much though... $65m on opening weekend? And I believe the production budget was $260m, not $200m... There's a chance that this movie might actually lose money.

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: November 16 2009 at 1:43pm
Actually, the movie made around $220 million world wide. Since The Day After Tomorrow (with similar opening number) finished around $550 million, it seems likely that this film will make money.
 

-------------


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: November 16 2009 at 4:55pm
Where are you getting the world wide stats from?

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: November 16 2009 at 5:02pm
I found it on the AP. I still think this movie is more
Moviepocalypse than Apocalypse.

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: November 16 2009 at 6:22pm
Well, at least that $220 million figure was not the USA gross alone, because that would just be sickening. That would be a sign of the Moviepocalypse indeed! Two brain dead, weak storied, CGI driven movies making over $400 million within a matter of months in one year, that's just evil. But then again, all of 2010 to 2012 is nothing but remakes and sequels and adaptations (of board games no less!), so yeah the Moviepocalypse is here!


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: November 17 2009 at 3:18am
Well, I again plead to you all to not pay to see any of this crap full-priced at least. I'm refusing to see 2012 and I had a chance to see it for free.

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: November 17 2009 at 8:42am

WHAT?!?!?! Give me the free ticket then!!!


 



-------------


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: November 18 2009 at 1:35pm
It was only for the sneak preview, and only at this one local theater at a specific time. Most of our sneak passes work that way. Sometimes, we get run-of-engagement passes, which are way better...  

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: November 19 2009 at 1:55am
Even "for free" is too high a price to see this movie!

-------------
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: November 19 2009 at 2:24pm
It surely costs one a part of one's soul to see.

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: November 19 2009 at 4:46pm

I think Michael Bay is without a soul, which I why he makes movies -- to suck out the viewers' souls, and claim them as his own!

Originally posted by dEd Grimley

It surely costs one a part of one's soul to see.



-------------
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)


Posted By: deadguy76
Date Posted: November 20 2009 at 11:02am
Originally posted by Movie Man

I actually like the comment you made about Sarah Palin under this movie's heading, so true...SO so true.
From what it looks like, Sarah Palin's campaigning early. Looks like President Obama's going to get an easy win.

-------------
"Woody Allen, whatever his failings, does not make movies for morons. Most directors do. Of course, most directors are morons."

- Joe Queenan

http://www.myspace.com/deadguy76


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: November 20 2009 at 3:03pm

Originally posted by deadguy76

Originally posted by Movie Man

I actually like the comment you made about Sarah Palin under this movie's heading, so true...SO so true.
From what it looks like, Sarah Palin's campaigning early. Looks like President Obama's going to get an easy win.

I know Obama won by triple digits in the 2008 election, but if Palin runs in 2012 and she picks someone even dumber than her as her running mate, Obama might win by quadruple digits!



Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: November 20 2009 at 4:33pm
Originally posted by Michaels

 

I know Obama won by triple digits in the 2008 election, but if Palin runs in 2012 and she picks someone even dumber than her as her running mate, Obama might win by quadruple digits!

The only person who meets that description is constitutionally ineligible since he just completed two terms the office of the Presidency.



-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: November 21 2009 at 4:04am
Originally posted by saturnwatcher

Originally posted by Michaels

I know Obama won by triple digits in the 2008 election, but if Palin runs in 2012 and she picks someone even dumber than her as her running mate, Obama might win by quadruple digits!

The only person who meets that description is constitutionally ineligible since he just completed two terms the office of the Presidency.

There's always Dan Quayle!



Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: November 21 2009 at 1:49pm
It's still fairly likely that the GOP will come to their senses before nominating Palin in 2012. Of course, there's a long time for her to change her image and educate herself, but it doesn't take a genius to see that someone who appeals ONLY to one's political base isn't truly electable.

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: November 21 2009 at 2:18pm

Originally posted by dEd Grimley

It's still fairly likely that the GOP will come to their senses before nominating Palin in 2012. Of course, there's a long time for her to change her image and educate herself, but it doesn't take a genius to see that someone who appeals ONLY to one's political base isn't truly electable.

I liked this one interview that Chris Matthews had in which he asked a Republican if Palin is really qualified to run for President. After a long pause, the Republican replied "Uh, well, she is constitutionally qualified to run". Nice comeback, all that means is that she meets the requirements of being 35+ years old and she was born in America.



Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: November 21 2009 at 3:51pm
SNL had a recut trailer for 2012 and the source of the destruction was Sarah Palin for President! It was really funny. It might be online later, though.


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: November 22 2009 at 2:31am

Originally posted by moviewizguy

SNL had a recut trailer for 2012 and the source of the destruction was Sarah Palin for President! It was really funny. It might be online later, though.

Which just further goes to show how her becoming President really would be the end fo the world.



Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: November 25 2009 at 7:19pm

Mind you, everybody.  He is merely a physicist.  He's not an astrophysicist or an astronomer, so he COULD be wrong. . . .

. . . but he's not. . . .

Originally posted by saturnwatcher

Perhaps I live a bit of a sheltered life, but I wasn't really aware of any predictions of the Earth ending as the result of an upcoming solar flare. The sun follows a rather regular cycle of activity that plays out every 11 years or so, and it doesn't have correlation to the positions of the planets. In fact, the only object in the solar system that has any signficant gravitational influence on the sun is Jupiter. The closest alignment of the planets that will occur in our lives happened a few years ago when all of the planets grouped within about a 40 degree arc. As I recall, the planet didn't come to an end, but if I missed something, please let me know.



Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: November 25 2009 at 8:14pm

While Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee are campaigning, er, out hawking their books, we have Roland Emmerich taking the leftover ideas from Independence Day and The Day After Tomorrow, adding some pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo. . . okay, a LOT of pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo. . . . and a lot of plot contrivances (remember, if you don't have a kid or a little dog, you will die). . . . and giving us all this eye candy in 2012.  AND YOU DON'T NEED TO SEE THE MOVIE TO SEE NEARLY ALL THE BEST SPECIAL EFFECTS.  JUST WATCH ALL THE TRAILERS.  I'M SERIOUS.  THEY'RE ALMOST ALL THERE.  Other than that, there's nothing about the movie worthy seeing, and even in the case of the special effects, after two or three years, they'll be old hat.  Then what will you have? 

MILD SPOILERS

Maybe the only disaster that will happen will be that 2012 will be boring by 2012, which wouldn't be a disaster, actually.  It will be a lesson to all filmgoers to not be taken in by special effects with a stupid story.

It starts off with weird neutrinos.  Saturnwatcher can tell you about regular neutrinos.  Weird neutrinos get weird when too many frat boys spend too many hours listening to too much Pink Floyd and set all their controls for the heart of the sun.  The sun gets drunk from all those frat boys, the neutrinos get weird, and the core heats up.  Never mind that if the earth's core heats up any more than it already is, you'll eventually have parts of it and the magma vaporize, which will cause many unexpected and almost incalculable effects, none of which are shown in this movie, probably because no one would be alive. . . .

See, Jesus Christ was supposed to come back in 1844.  He didn't, and now we have the Seventh Day Adventists.  Then Jesus Christ was supposed to take over everything in 1914.  He didn't, an now we have the Jehovah's Witnesses.  Then Jesus Christ was supposed to come back and rapture the church and start the tribulation in five years, which became five years later, which became five years later. . . . Then, the planets were supposed to align back in the mid 90s, which would bring about the end of the world and a new age.  It didn't happen.  So the world was supposed to end in 2000, because Prince sang about partying like it's 1999 and a couple of computer geeks couldn't foresee the need to have a four-digit year.  It didn't happen.  So, now all of a sudden, the Mayans got it right and the world will end in 2012.   

It isn't going to happen.

This game has been going on for approaching 2 centuries at least, and who knows how long it's been going on before. . . .

Let me tell you a secret.  The world will end when the last person who leaves turns off the lightswitch. . . .

There was one point in this movie where Danny Glover was giving this speech to Chiwetel Ejiofor, where I lost it.  It was such a lousy speech, and the only reason it worked was because of the amount of acting Danny Glover put into it.

From the obvious impending massacre in St. Mark's Square to the number of times a plane didn't have enough runway and manage to pull out of a power dive to the few arks they could build in three years to Oliver Platt's psychopath representing America to the earth's crust become disconnected and just rolls around the earth anywhere it wants to the guy who took John Cusack's wife away from him obviously going to bite the dust later in the movie. . . .

Just follow Blu Mankuma's lead and have a double before you get taken out in the tsunami of special effects. 

Worst movie?  Of course.  Worst director?  Of course.  Worst actor? John Cusack, because he hasn't been picking them very well over the last couple of years, and he used to be one of the most consistently good actors not too long ago.  I give this movie a generous 5 out of 10 stars, but only for the special effects.  I expect after a couple of years, after the special effects become hoaky, I will drop it down to 3 out of 10 stars.

 



Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: November 26 2009 at 3:08am
Your list above of various unfulfilled prophesies for the end of the world is actually only a tiny percentage. Curiously enough, we seem to have an appalling inability to come to terms with with the very real opportunities to turn the Earth over to the cockroaches, most of which are of our own manufacture...deforestation, dumping excessive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, astonishing stockpiles of WMD's, destruction of rainforests which are unleasing new diseases upon mankind, massive extinctions caused by destroying ecosystems with unforseen consequences, Republicans...if time does indeed run out in 2012 it will be both coincidence and destruction at our own hand.

-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: November 29 2009 at 5:51am

I may be late to the table on this one, but I just discovered that the novelization for 2012 was written by Whitley Streiber (not the story itself, but the novel based on the movie script). That definitely increases its Razzability in my view. Many of you may not be familiar with Streiber, but it is definitely a name that should be recognizable in Razzie circles.

Streiber began his writing career penning modestly successful stories about vampires and werewolves, then struck gold when he hit on the idea of writing a series of "nonfiction" books about how his life had been influenced by his being repeatedly abducted by aliens. The first of the books, Communion, was made into a movie starring Christopher Walken. It more or less flopped at the box-office, although it was hilariously awful. I'm not sure if it caught the attention of the Razzies back then--circa late 80's, but it should have.

Streiber became a regular on the popular Art Bell late night radio talk show, which did for bulls**t what Stonehenge did for rocks. It provided a credulous forum for all sorts of paranormal nonsense, including sounding posts for guys like Richard C. Hoagland. He is the guy who has spent most of the past 3 plus decades running around drumming about the "Face on Mars." More recent NASA photos of the so called face show that it doesn't look anything like a human face--that was a trick of light, camera angle and transmission loss, but Hoagland regularly accuses NASA of doctoring more recent images. He invariably leaves out the part about how his enhancements of the original photos definitely enhanced the illusion.

Anyway, Streiber and Bell, two guys with no particular scientific expertise or even training paired up to write a nonsensical book that served as the basis of the film The Day After Tomorrow. While entertaining, the movie was laughable in terms of scientific credibility. Keep Whit Streiber's name in mind...this man has future Razzie potential. He probably should have already been in serious contention for Communion.



-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: November 29 2009 at 2:06pm
As you all may have predicted, I loved the movie. Review below:

Roland Emmerich has given movie watchers several apocalyptic films in the past in INDEPENDENCE DAY and THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW, and he offers another look at the end of the world in 2012.

From THE FINAL DESTINATION to WOLVERINE and even WATCHMEN, there have been some disappointing movies this year. There's no doubt on that. Saying that, 2012 is not only the mother of all disaster movies, it may be one of the most satisfactory movies of this year, mainly because it delivers on what audiences expect and even more.

Now we have seen disaster movies millions of times. We know the formula: You have a bunch of survivors who don't work well with each other at first but later become a "family" once they have been through the disaster, or, in this case, disasters. 2012 is formulaic to its core. It even has that dog that we all root for to survive, but it's a formula for a reason and when a movie works it so well, you can't help but stand up and cheer when the end credits roll.

This is 2012. One big, major reason this movie is sooooo good is because of the effects, the CGI. They are AH-MAZE-ING. The details put in almost every disaster sequences is commendable to say the least. In one sequence, we can literally see tiny people getting crushed and killed by flying cars, falling towers, and Earth's shaking crust from down below. Remember that chase scene in THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW where that group of people ran away from frozen ice? Well, there's an earthquake chase scene in here, which I know you have all seen in one case or another, that makes that other chase scene look like a baby struggling to walk for the first time. It's just that good.

Even the script is good. Sure, there are some laughable lines, but that's normal for a disaster movie. The characters are also very lovable. The film has a very diverse ensemble cast, with probably three main characters and many other secondary characters running around, and most of them work. John Cusack does a very fine job in his role, the great actor as he is. The character he plays is very sympathetic and caring. Chiwetel Ejiofor also has a main role here and does a great job with his role as one of the scientists.

2012 is sometimes funny, sometimes sad, at times tear jerking, but, on top of all that, it's very entertaining from beginning to end. THIS is how you make a disaster movie. Of course, director Roland Emmerich should know that himself. He's, after all, the master of disaster. Sure, this may look like many other disaster movies you've seen, and it is, but you've never seen one quite like this. It gives you everything you want only bigger and louder and with some of the best CGI I've ever seen in cinematic history. If you go in expecting the mother of all disaster movies, you'll sure as hell get what you want. 9/10


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: November 29 2009 at 2:16pm
Originally posted by cvcjr13

Worst actor? John Cusack, because he hasn't been picking them very well over the last couple of years, and he used to be one of the most consistently good actors not too long ago.

Woah, woah, woah, woah. Let's not get carried away. Cusack is a terrific actor and he was great in this film. You cannot say he was bad in here. He was great as always.


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: November 29 2009 at 4:16pm

9 ... out of 10. I really, really, really hope that grade is based solely on "2012" as a "quality" DISASTER movie and nothing else. Because if that's the grade for it as a great OVERALL movie ... well, I not even  going to bother finishing this sentance, because it's not worth it.

But this does prove why MWG is the punching bag of this forum. He clearly reviews movies differently than the rest of us. Where as we review movies based on BOTH entertainment vaule and QUALITY of the filmmaking, while MWG seems to review movies based ENTIRELY on the entertainment vaule fo the movie. And that seems to be why EVERYTHING he reviews is anywhere between 6 and 10, solely because the movies he watches "entertains" him.



Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: November 30 2009 at 9:10am
I'm really enthusiastic with this movie.


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: November 30 2009 at 12:54pm

Originally posted by moviewizguy

I'm really enthusiastic with this movie.

Clearly, considering the undeservingly high rating. This kind of movie should be broken down like cvcjr did, one rating for being entertaining (the high rating), and one for being an overall rating (which of course would be closer to zero).



Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: November 30 2009 at 2:05pm
Originally posted by Michaels

Clearly, considering the undeservingly high rating. This kind of movie should be broken down like cvcjr did, one rating for being entertaining (the high rating), and one for being an overall rating (which of course would be closer to zero).


Well, IMO, I thought the characters were all great, even though some are rough sketches. I thought the script was good (and I do mean it). The last act was very tense and had me on the edge of my seats in nail-biting tension and it was coherently structured.


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: December 01 2009 at 11:01am
And that would explain why you're not a professional critic. It's almost unanimously agreed that the characters and script were the weakest parts of the movie.

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: December 01 2009 at 2:47pm

Oh, wow -- It's "unanimously agreed"?? I don't care. It was "unanimously agreed" that The Shining was a horrible film when it came out.!

You sound like a conformist. Also, if you bothered reading my review, I specificially stated that the film is "formulaic to its core." The reason why I loved it in the first place is because it's formula done to perfection.

Originally posted by dEd Grimley

And that would explain why you're not a professional critic. It's almost unanimously agreed that the characters and script were the weakest parts of the movie.




-------------


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: December 03 2009 at 6:33am
Originally posted by moviewizguy


Oh, wow. It's "unanimously agreed." I
don't care. It was "unanimously agreed" that The
Shining
was a horrible film when it came out. You
sound like a conformist. Also, if you bothered reading my
review, I specificially stated that the film is
"formulaic to its core." The reason why I loved it in the
first place is because it's formula done to
perfection.


You're so silly.

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: December 03 2009 at 4:49pm

Originally posted by moviewizguy

  Also, if you bothered reading my review, I specificially stated that the film is "formulaic to its core." The reason why I loved it in the first place is because it's formula done to perfection.

...and then, depression set in....



-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: December 04 2009 at 10:20am
Originally posted by saturnwatcher

...and then, depression set in....

Only for you. I find it hilarious that you guys act like my opinions on movies determine how your lives will turn out. In fact, I really appreciate it.


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: December 04 2009 at 2:01pm

Originally posted by moviewizguy

Only for you. I find it hilarious that you guys act like my opinions on movies determine how your lives will turn out. In fact, I really appreciate it.

DANGER! WARNING! Patting yourself on the back that earnestly can cause some really serious blisters. This may come as a real downer for you, but my life has turned out pretty well and I rather doubt there is much of anything you can do or say at this point that will influence the future direction of it. Nonetheless, this is a message board and the entire purpose of its existance is to provide for point, counter-point exchanges. Many of them are quite tongue-in-cheek, but in the future, I'll be careful to make sure I flag them for you when I post messages of that nature.



-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: December 07 2009 at 6:41am
Originally posted by moviewizguy

Oh, wow -- It's "unanimously agreed"?? I don't care. It was "unanimously agreed" that The Shining was a horrible film when it came out.!

Ah, don't kid yourself, 30 years from now, people will still be saying that the story and characters were the weakest links of "2012". But hey, maybe you should be a professional critic. You'd be one of the very few that gives undeserving, good reviews to crappy movies without the studios paying you off!



Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: December 07 2009 at 1:54pm
You're insane, Michaels. I don't think people will be saying anything about 2012 by the end of THIS year.

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: December 07 2009 at 4:32pm
Originally posted by dEd Grimley

You're insane, Michaels. I don't think people will be saying anything about 2012 by the end of THIS year.


Good point, such is usually the case with every movie this hack director makes. That just further proves this movie shouldn't get any more credit than what it really is ... yet another superficial CGI porno.


Posted By: GTAHater767
Date Posted: January 27 2010 at 7:55pm

I'm surprised at the results regarding this movie. Now it can only get a nomination via write-in. My friends and I hold 2012 in especially low regard. Not only that, but how did The Day After Tomorrow get ignored in the 2004 RAZZIES for Anchorman, Dodgeball, and Starsky and Hutch?

And for the measure, I believe on 12-21-012, nothing big will happen. Maybe the sun will set sooner, and the North Pole will get shrouded in darkness, but it'll be NO different from other winter solstices.
 
I'm much more afraid of April 2039. Some scientists once suggested a meteor would stray disturbingly close to Earth. "Spring of O-Thirty-Nine" is where it's at!


-------------
Possible Unofficial Forums, given <35% approval: Jly 25; Ratner's Hercules, Besson's Lucy. Ags 8; TMNT '014. Ags 13; Let's Be Cops. Ags 15; The Giver, The Expendables 3. Ags 29; Jessabelle


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: January 28 2010 at 7:06am
Originally posted by GTAHater767

And for the measure, I believe on 12-21-012, nothing big will happen. Maybe the sun will set sooner, and the North Pole will get shrouded in darkness, but it'll be NO different from other winter solstices.
 
I'm much more afraid of April 2039. Some scientists once suggested a meteor would stray disturbingly close to Earth. "Spring of O-Thirty-Nine" is where it's at!
True, some say that on 12-21-2012, there might be a polar shift in which the North and South Pole with switch and thus the Earth will be thrown into chaos, much like it did in the movie. However, you bring up another interesting note, as I do recall back in 1997 or so, that NASA made the annoucement that a meteor will be headed towards Earth in 30 years ... much to the laughter and mocking of many.


Posted By: specagent1
Date Posted: March 07 2010 at 8:52am
THAT SEEMS TO SUGGEST THAT YOU AND EVERYONE ELSE IN THIS FORUM ACTUALL WATCHED THE MOVIE HOW ELSE WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO CRITICIZE IT??


Posted By: specagent1
Date Posted: March 07 2010 at 8:55am
AND YET YOU GO TO SEE HIS MOVIES!? INTERESTING.......


Posted By: specagent1
Date Posted: March 07 2010 at 9:02am
I AGREE AND WHAT GETS ME IS ALL THESE FAKE CRITICS ON HERE BAD MOUTHING THE MOVIE AND THE DIRECTORS BUT CONSIDER THIS: THEY WENT TO SEE IT! I HEAR ONE GUY RAGGING ON "ALL" MICHAEL BAY FILMS AND YET IN EFFECT, HE CONTINUES TO GO SEE MICHAEL BAY FILMS!! THESE FAKE CRITICS DONT KNOW DIDDLY!


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: March 07 2010 at 9:05am
Ah, specagent1. First, take your caps lock off. Second, professional critics are paid to suffer through Michael Bay movies. Third, I don't pay to see Bay's s***. Fourth, when I do watch Bay's s***, it's to mock it.

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: specagent1
Date Posted: March 07 2010 at 9:07am
YOU SEEM TO HAVE A LOT OF ANGER, ARE YOU A PROFFESIONAL CRITIC ORARE YOU A FAKE COUCH POTATO, SIT IN THE HOUSE SOAP OPERA WANNA BE CRITIC?


Posted By: specagent1
Date Posted: March 07 2010 at 9:09am
NAA, I LIKE MY CAPS ON, ITS A FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION THING, SECOND AR YOU  PROFESSIONAL CRITIC OR DID YOU WORK FOR A FEW HOLLYWOOD DIRECTORS AND GET FIRED SO NOW YOU'RE DISGRUNTLED?


Posted By: specagent1
Date Posted: March 07 2010 at 9:15am
NOW JUST FOR THE RECORD, I WAS REFERRING TO ANOTHET CHARACTER ON HERE THAT HATES MICHEL BAY FILMS BUT I SEEM TO HAVE STRUCK GOLD IN WHICH THERE WILL PROBABLY BE MORE MICHAEL BAY HATERZ OOZING OUT OF THE WOODWORK QUITE SHORTLY. NOW YOU SAY YOU DONT PAY TO SEE MICHAEL BAY **** UT YOU WATCH HIS **** TO MOCK IT....DO THEY SEND YOU FREE MOVIES? YOU STEAL EM? WORK AT THE STUDIO? GO IN THE THEATRE AND RECORD EM WIT A CAMCORDER THEN BOOTLEG EM? (I LIKE THE LATTER)


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: March 07 2010 at 9:24am
And yet I'm the one full of hate? Should have known better, don't feed the troll.

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: specagent1
Date Posted: March 07 2010 at 10:25am
UMM I'M SORRY, WHO RESPONDED TO WHOM AGAIN? AS I RECALL I WAS RESPONDING TO SOMEONE ELSES POST WHEN I WAS ACCOSTED BY UUHHH...YOU?? YOU'RE RIGHT, BUT ITS MORE LIKE DON'T FEED THE GREMLINS.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: March 14 2010 at 2:14pm
The movie is so good and so bad at the same time:
1)It entertains anyone who's into action movies,it has great special effects,funny moments,and you feel bad for any character who dies,even the mean ones.
2)The final scene,where we don't know if JACKSON will come out,and then does,is one of many cliches we see in the movie.Also,we barely hear'bout the Mayans,like if that concept was just an excuse to make a disaster movie.


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: GTAHater767
Date Posted: March 14 2010 at 3:46pm
Along with Revenge of the Fallen, New Moon, and Angels & Demons, this movie would run up for Worst Movie Everyone Saw for 2009 if there was such a penalty. The criteria: Commercial success and critical failure. I made a list of the worst films of 2009 (credits to the RAZZIES for submitting the titles) and 2012 was ranked as the 40th worst.
 
I also questioned how The Day After Tomorrow evaded the 2004 RAZZIES. Like that movie, this one got parodied in an episode of South Park (production code #1314).
 
As for the 2012 conspiracy itself, I still thinkit's nothing to fear.
 
If I've said any of this before, I don't remember saying so.
 
YON JUU BAN


-------------
Possible Unofficial Forums, given <35% approval: Jly 25; Ratner's Hercules, Besson's Lucy. Ags 8; TMNT '014. Ags 13; Let's Be Cops. Ags 15; The Giver, The Expendables 3. Ags 29; Jessabelle


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: March 20 2010 at 2:22pm
I just reviewed this movie in Rotten Tomatoes.Please vote:

www.rottentomatoes.com/user/812172/reviews/view.php?type=2&id=1205696


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: October 04 2010 at 4:41pm
I updated my review.Now's a different link:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/user/812172/reviews/?movie=770795544


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: February 01 2011 at 2:34pm
I just rewatched it and I changed my mind.I give this 7/10.

-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: January 07 2012 at 8:15pm
Time to finish off ABMMW.
 
The good:
 
John Cusack: Cusack is decent here as Jackson Curtis, the only guy whose name alludes to both Jesus and 50 Cent.
 
The special effects: The special effects for this was great! How did this not get a Best Special Effects nod?
 
Woody Harrelson: Harrelson was awesome here as a loony nut who turns out to be right. Granted, it's not as good as his performance in Zombieland, but that's a pretty good performance.
 
The bad:
 
Borderline sadistic kills: Several of the kills in the move border on sadism: The three in particular are the deaths of Sasha, Tamara, and especially Gordon. Gordon's death became somewhat of a catchphrase in my house for inglorious deaths.
 
Noah: If any aspiring disaster movie writers are reading this, take this note: don't put annoying children in them! The only person who seems to understand this is Michael Bay and when Michael Bay understands something positive better than you, that's gotta suck!
 
Amanda Peet: Amanda Peet annoys me. She can't act and she's not that great to look at.
 
The awesomely bad:
 
Roland Emmerich: Man, Emmerich knows how to make destruction! Watching this movie in a theater is one of the funnest moments in my moviewatching career.
 
Oliver Platt: Platt's character is supposed to be the villain, but, due to piss-poor writing, he makes the most sense of anyone in the movie. Platt seemed to notice this and acts accordingly.
 
I got extra-credit: Back in High School, one of my teachers gave us extra credit if we saw a movie that he was interested in and wrote an essay about. This movie was one of them.
 
Well, that's it for ABMMW. Reviews for Abduction, New Year's Eve, Shark Night 3D, and a mystery review in the "Forum member reviews" section. Grade: B


-------------
I'm the Goddamn Batman.-All-Star Batman And Robin #2
https://twitter.com/Scott_DAgostino
Upcoming reviews: http://www.razzies.com/forum/topic7513.html



Print Page | Close Window