Re: 2012 (John Cusack, Amanda Peet, Woody Harrelson) Grading & Discuss
It's a Roland Emmerich movie.
It's a Roland Emmerich movie.
2012 (John Cusack, Amanda Peet, Woody Harrelson) Grading & Discussion
- Thread starter Aragorn
- Start date
Re: 2012 (John Cusack, Amanda Peet, Woody Harrelson) Grading & Discuss
Point taken
Point taken
Re: 2012 (John Cusack, Amanda Peet, Woody Harrelson) Grading & Discuss
Alright so I went and saw this right after work on Friday... I had like 3 hours sleep the night before, so I was really dragging ass... I went into this movie with a grain of salt... I'm a fan of movies that end the world, I think that kind of paradigm shift in movies isn't done enough... it's neat to put good people in bad situations and see what happens (Battlestar Galactica, basically). With that said, I was really into this for the first 1/3 (until they get to Vegas). Then I basically took a nap. At one point I literally fell asleep. Who cares about some lady with a purse dog? I didn't even know who she was. Too. Much. Talking. I know one of the criticisms Emmerich got from The Day After Tomorrow (by the way, go to rifftrax.com and buy the RiffTrax for that movie... watch it... it makes it SOOOOOOOOOOO much better - can't wait for the 2012 RiffTrax, I was coming up with SO MANY good ones in my head) was that the characters weren't developed, and no one cared about them. Well... I think he tried too hard in this one to make up for that one. I dunno... I really enjoyed the first 1/3 and the last 1/3... The visuals were of course stunning... everyone I went with all agreed it needed to be an hour shorter though... other than that, it's a great popcorn flick.
Alright so I went and saw this right after work on Friday... I had like 3 hours sleep the night before, so I was really dragging ass... I went into this movie with a grain of salt... I'm a fan of movies that end the world, I think that kind of paradigm shift in movies isn't done enough... it's neat to put good people in bad situations and see what happens (Battlestar Galactica, basically). With that said, I was really into this for the first 1/3 (until they get to Vegas). Then I basically took a nap. At one point I literally fell asleep. Who cares about some lady with a purse dog? I didn't even know who she was. Too. Much. Talking. I know one of the criticisms Emmerich got from The Day After Tomorrow (by the way, go to rifftrax.com and buy the RiffTrax for that movie... watch it... it makes it SOOOOOOOOOOO much better - can't wait for the 2012 RiffTrax, I was coming up with SO MANY good ones in my head) was that the characters weren't developed, and no one cared about them. Well... I think he tried too hard in this one to make up for that one. I dunno... I really enjoyed the first 1/3 and the last 1/3... The visuals were of course stunning... everyone I went with all agreed it needed to be an hour shorter though... other than that, it's a great popcorn flick.
Re: 2012 (John Cusack, Amanda Peet, Woody Harrelson) Grading & Discuss
Yep, that's the estimate -- I'll be interested to see the final total once the actuals are in. In any case, I think it definitely did a bit better at the box office than most were expecting.
What's truly amazing, though, is the worldwide estimate for the weekend: $225,000,000. Not quite record-breaking, but pretty damn huge -- enough, I think, to put it in the Top 10 all-time best foreign and global opening weekends.
Yep, that's the estimate -- I'll be interested to see the final total once the actuals are in. In any case, I think it definitely did a bit better at the box office than most were expecting.
What's truly amazing, though, is the worldwide estimate for the weekend: $225,000,000. Not quite record-breaking, but pretty damn huge -- enough, I think, to put it in the Top 10 all-time best foreign and global opening weekends.
S
Stone_Cold_Sisko
Guest
Re: 2012 (John Cusack, Amanda Peet, Woody Harrelson) Grading & Discuss
It was pretty good for what it was. The best part was the flying through disasters on the plane, the toppling buildings and such. Stuff like the big stuff on the "ark" was not as interesting. Its funny though you could keep all the effects and action exactly the same, and just upgrade the acting and lessen the cheesy dialogue and the film would be even better. the original "blockbusters" were movies like Raiders, Jaws, Star Wars, and ET and those were generally really well done even in non-action scenes, so I think people's quality thresholds have dropped over the years.
But, anyways, it was better than 'Day After Tomorrow', not as good as ID4.
It was pretty good for what it was. The best part was the flying through disasters on the plane, the toppling buildings and such. Stuff like the big stuff on the "ark" was not as interesting. Its funny though you could keep all the effects and action exactly the same, and just upgrade the acting and lessen the cheesy dialogue and the film would be even better. the original "blockbusters" were movies like Raiders, Jaws, Star Wars, and ET and those were generally really well done even in non-action scenes, so I think people's quality thresholds have dropped over the years.
But, anyways, it was better than 'Day After Tomorrow', not as good as ID4.
Re: 2012 (John Cusack, Amanda Peet, Woody Harrelson) Grading & Discuss
An enjoyable movie despite numerous cliches and predictable plot twists. I think all the reviewers are really off base in expecting another Hamlet with this one.
An enjoyable movie despite numerous cliches and predictable plot twists. I think all the reviewers are really off base in expecting another Hamlet with this one.
Re: 2012 (John Cusack, Amanda Peet, Woody Harrelson) Grading & Discuss
Still think it's a great SPFX spectacular with too little emotional content.
I wasn't looking for Hamlet.
Still think it's a great SPFX spectacular with too little emotional content.
Re: 2012 (John Cusack, Amanda Peet, Woody Harrelson) Grading & Discuss
Fair enough. Although I do think it's a little weird that you like Enterprise and Stargate Atlantis, yet you think it's inappropriate for a disaster movie to be cheese-ridden and shallow.
Fair enough. Although I do think it's a little weird that you like Enterprise and Stargate Atlantis, yet you think it's inappropriate for a disaster movie to be cheese-ridden and shallow.
Re: 2012 (John Cusack, Amanda Peet, Woody Harrelson) Grading & Discuss
And I like ENT and SGA because the CHARACTERS are likeable.
Hmmmmm ... Let's see ... Multimillion dollar movie budget vs. TV series budgets. Movie makers get lots of months -- if not more than a year -- to complete the project. TV series producers have a week (or maybe 2 or 3 for each episode depending on post-production).
And I like ENT and SGA because the CHARACTERS are likeable.
Re: 2012 (John Cusack, Amanda Peet, Woody Harrelson) Grading & Discuss
I guess this movie was a typical disaster movie. It is enjoyable on the big screen but will not really be worth watching on DVD.
On the big screen I will give it above average simply because it was fun and it was a bit of a visual treat. It was predictable but these sort of movies usually are. On the small screen it will be average at most.
There were plot holes and cheesy moments but they are to be expected and half the fun of these sort of movies is the bad science.
I guess this movie was a typical disaster movie. It is enjoyable on the big screen but will not really be worth watching on DVD.
On the big screen I will give it above average simply because it was fun and it was a bit of a visual treat. It was predictable but these sort of movies usually are. On the small screen it will be average at most.
There were plot holes and cheesy moments but they are to be expected and half the fun of these sort of movies is the bad science.
Re: 2012 (John Cusack, Amanda Peet, Woody Harrelson) Grading & Discuss
Saw it today and wasn't all that impressed. While I wouldn't call it "Shittiest Moie of the Year", it was pretty crappy. Sure, SFX are top-notch, but other than that, I couldn't find much to like about it. The characters are all very bland, the acting is dull and the plot has been rehashed a thousand times over. An overall yawn-fest if you ask me, but it was better than The Day After Tomorrow.
Grade: C, for the SFX alone.
Saw it today and wasn't all that impressed. While I wouldn't call it "Shittiest Moie of the Year", it was pretty crappy. Sure, SFX are top-notch, but other than that, I couldn't find much to like about it. The characters are all very bland, the acting is dull and the plot has been rehashed a thousand times over. An overall yawn-fest if you ask me, but it was better than The Day After Tomorrow.
Grade: C, for the SFX alone.
Re: 2012 (John Cusack, Amanda Peet, Woody Harrelson) Grading & Discuss
It was some in ways better and worse than I expected. The action scenes were extremely cool and very edge of your seat. The endless maudlin "I'm dying now!!!" scenes were not. If they'd cut out 30 minutes of that this would have been a much better movie. I'd probably say it's his best movie since Godzilla though (I'm one of the very few who LIKED Godzilla).
It was some in ways better and worse than I expected. The action scenes were extremely cool and very edge of your seat. The endless maudlin "I'm dying now!!!" scenes were not. If they'd cut out 30 minutes of that this would have been a much better movie. I'd probably say it's his best movie since Godzilla though (I'm one of the very few who LIKED Godzilla).
Re: 2012 (John Cusack, Amanda Peet, Woody Harrelson) Grading & Discuss
Saw it last night. It felt like it was 2012 hours long.
I just kept thinking "god is this ever going to end?"
I suppose you know what you're gonna get given the directors past credits, but I can still say it was dogshit.
Saw it last night. It felt like it was 2012 hours long.
I just kept thinking "god is this ever going to end?"
I suppose you know what you're gonna get given the directors past credits, but I can still say it was dogshit.
Re: 2012 (John Cusack, Amanda Peet, Woody Harrelson) Grading & Discuss
I said pretty much the same thing on the way out of the theater.
S
Stone_Cold_Sisko
Guest
Re: 2012 (John Cusack, Amanda Peet, Woody Harrelson) Grading & Discuss
The best parts were when they flew the planes through colliding buildings and landscape being ripped apart. And Woody.
The worst parts were when there were characters onscreen with no destruction FX.
The best parts were when they flew the planes through colliding buildings and landscape being ripped apart. And Woody.
The worst parts were when there were characters onscreen with no destruction FX.
Re: 2012 (John Cusack, Amanda Peet, Woody Harrelson) Grading & Discuss
I think Emmerich is a good enough director. The problem is, he needs to stop WRITING these films. Maybe if he had some good writers then he could break out of the formulaic films he's been making.
Technically, 2012 was a well-crafted movie...
I think Emmerich is a good enough director. The problem is, he needs to stop WRITING these films. Maybe if he had some good writers then he could break out of the formulaic films he's been making.
Technically, 2012 was a well-crafted movie...
Re: 2012 (John Cusack, Amanda Peet, Woody Harrelson) Grading & Discuss
Amazingly, I found myself disappointed by the /destruction/.
It wasn't that the LA scene wasn't incredible. But, aside from the John F. Kennedy taking out the White House (props for finding the most unlikely method yet of destroying the White House - drop an aircraft carrier on it!) I felt that they really only had one truly great sequence mapped out: LA. Aside from that, most of it felt kind of generic. More than that though, it felt disjointed. It never really felt as if the entire world was being torn apart; just a few major disasters in unrelated spots happening on the same day.
I think it was a mistake to have people mostly explaining on abstract computer screens how the continents were moving around, how super tsumanis were forming and spreading outward - the movie should have found a way to show this visually rather than explain it in dialog. Something, even one shot to tie together all the individual disasters.
I didn't mind the stuff with the Arks, and in a lot of ways, it was kind of cool. Still, a lot of it just rang hollow; lots of potential for spice and character conflicts were downplayed or kind of limp. For example - and god forgive me for asking a rational question about a movie like this - I found it empty and unbelievable that for 3 years the Arks are constructed there is not even more internal strife over the fact that only an elite picked by other elites and rich people who bought their way in, were chosen to be saved. It's not that this is unrealistically cynical. That angle is quite plausible, sadly. But for example, the President of the United States is depicted as a supremely moral and God-fearing mad, yet only at the 11th hour sez "say, maybe a lottery was a good idea after all". The scientists working on the project are not horrified and gaunt-faced about the wretched thing they're doing? Chad's character meets a normal guy and his children who are camping, knows they're some of the little people who are sure to die for being unimportant, and is even capable of speaking to them normally?
In this regard, Deep Impact was a more plausible global disaster story, in terms of how the government and human beings reacted to the situation. I was also unmoved by the attempt to frame the /fat rich bastards/ who had bought their way onto Ark 3 (the damaged one) as suddenly sympathetic refugees who should be saved at the potential cost of losing Ark 4, while billions were dying elsewhere. In the end, only the rich and powerful were saved anyway. It was, under the attempted veneer of hope and the human spirit, a very nihilistic story in the final analysis.
It would have been a more fitting irony, I think, for the scenario to have been along the lines of: the Ark project turns out to largely be a bust. Overbudget, delayed, mostly incomplete, and half of the rich cheaters who bought in are left behind and perish. We see the three surviving Arks damaged and washing up on the newly raised African continent as life boats, and discover that in parts of the world that were not hit as bad as expected by the tsunamis a great deal of the population survived and survivors from the more destroyed countries had made their way there, surviving much better than expected when put to the test. Essentially, send the message that humanity as a whole dealt with the crisis and pulled through. While the rich, powerful, and the leaders who had gotten into the habit of secretly manipulating the world while telling themselves they're doing it for the good of mankind, found their efforts were in vain. And in the end /they/ were left as the refugees to be saved by the people they abandoned.
Amazingly, I found myself disappointed by the /destruction/.
It wasn't that the LA scene wasn't incredible. But, aside from the John F. Kennedy taking out the White House (props for finding the most unlikely method yet of destroying the White House - drop an aircraft carrier on it!) I felt that they really only had one truly great sequence mapped out: LA. Aside from that, most of it felt kind of generic. More than that though, it felt disjointed. It never really felt as if the entire world was being torn apart; just a few major disasters in unrelated spots happening on the same day.
I think it was a mistake to have people mostly explaining on abstract computer screens how the continents were moving around, how super tsumanis were forming and spreading outward - the movie should have found a way to show this visually rather than explain it in dialog. Something, even one shot to tie together all the individual disasters.
I didn't mind the stuff with the Arks, and in a lot of ways, it was kind of cool. Still, a lot of it just rang hollow; lots of potential for spice and character conflicts were downplayed or kind of limp. For example - and god forgive me for asking a rational question about a movie like this - I found it empty and unbelievable that for 3 years the Arks are constructed there is not even more internal strife over the fact that only an elite picked by other elites and rich people who bought their way in, were chosen to be saved. It's not that this is unrealistically cynical. That angle is quite plausible, sadly. But for example, the President of the United States is depicted as a supremely moral and God-fearing mad, yet only at the 11th hour sez "say, maybe a lottery was a good idea after all". The scientists working on the project are not horrified and gaunt-faced about the wretched thing they're doing? Chad's character meets a normal guy and his children who are camping, knows they're some of the little people who are sure to die for being unimportant, and is even capable of speaking to them normally?
In this regard, Deep Impact was a more plausible global disaster story, in terms of how the government and human beings reacted to the situation. I was also unmoved by the attempt to frame the /fat rich bastards/ who had bought their way onto Ark 3 (the damaged one) as suddenly sympathetic refugees who should be saved at the potential cost of losing Ark 4, while billions were dying elsewhere. In the end, only the rich and powerful were saved anyway. It was, under the attempted veneer of hope and the human spirit, a very nihilistic story in the final analysis.
It would have been a more fitting irony, I think, for the scenario to have been along the lines of: the Ark project turns out to largely be a bust. Overbudget, delayed, mostly incomplete, and half of the rich cheaters who bought in are left behind and perish. We see the three surviving Arks damaged and washing up on the newly raised African continent as life boats, and discover that in parts of the world that were not hit as bad as expected by the tsunamis a great deal of the population survived and survivors from the more destroyed countries had made their way there, surviving much better than expected when put to the test. Essentially, send the message that humanity as a whole dealt with the crisis and pulled through. While the rich, powerful, and the leaders who had gotten into the habit of secretly manipulating the world while telling themselves they're doing it for the good of mankind, found their efforts were in vain. And in the end /they/ were left as the refugees to be saved by the people they abandoned.