A "Screenplay Writing 101" script with a $225 million budget
Added 3/17/2010
Roland Emmerich has become a very rich man taking a basic disaster screenplay straight out of a freshman college text, superimposing some outlandish subject on it, spending ninety percent of his budget on special effects and peddling it to "the masses", who, predictably, gobble it up. Oh, and he also uses it to peddle his worldview, which, amongst other things, is anti-Christian and vehemently anti-Catholic.
"2012" is just more of the same, capitalizing on the 2012 craze, and grossing over $750 million world-wide. Most of the cast are worldview fellow travelers like Danny Glover and Woody Harrelson. John Cusack gets top billing, but Chiwetel Ejiofor is the only one who warrants that treatment in this picture.
The climax and ending are laughable.
One of the "arks" takes a direct hit from a rather large chunk of Mount Everest and, aside from a small hole and crack (which for some strange reason doesn't let in any water), there's no noticeable damage.
The first land to reemerge is --- what else --- the Cape of Good Hope and south Africa, followed by most of the remainder of the continent. Strange how the rest of the world was literally turned upside-down and yet Africa somehow not only was spared but appears to be fully habitable. The no doubt unintended irony is that most likely only a few African politicians and billionaires survived aboard the "arks".
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
So much potential so little delivered
Added 3/16/2010
I was really looking forward to this movie, that said aside from the spectacular effects the movie sucked, too lame of a plot all the things that had to happen in order for the hero to survive was too much to take, absolutely unable to suspend disbelief.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
My God, this movie makes 1951's "When Worlds Collide" look like "Citizen Kane". 2012 is sad indictment of Hollywood. It is a ridiculous movie with a cliché a minute. The scene where Calfornia is falling into the sea for instance, is a non-stop montage of narrow cliff-hanging escape among rivers of lava, buckling pavement and exploding skyscrapers all set to a John Williamesque sweeping musical score that is almost laughable. John Cusack's character achieves these feats of rapid fire skin of your teeth escapes while driving a limousine which among other passengers included his two children. Placing children in danger to cheaply raise the viewers feeling of angst is one of the lowest forms of Hollywood moving making. The CGI effects are passable but often very video game-like. Watch this movie only if you have 2 1/2 hours to completely throw away.
0 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
Totally Crack'd!
Added 3/16/2010
One star for visuals, and the other star for visuals. The third for nice try. The downfall to any disaster movie is having unlikable people as the headliners. Viola. Irwin Allan knew this, and that is why he is still the reigning master of bigger than life disaster movies, because if he didn't have likeable people, he at least had people you could laugh at. This movie has neither. Woody Harrelson's character I applauded when he got demolished just to shut his mad man computer geek mouth up!
John Cusak plays a confused divorced man with two obnoxious unlikeable kids, and an ex-wife who knows how to scream while on the edge.
The effects begin at will with no sense of timing or build up, which makes "Earthquake" look like Ben-Hur.
The only time this movie drives, is when the unlikeable people are traveling, or getting ready to jam within the newest technology of CGI disaster effects which, quite frankly, save this movie from becoming a disaster!
The big cracks in the movie are when they stilt to the non emotional calm moments that are meant to bring a form of humanity to the earth's crisis. They totally stop the movie with no value to me. Bring on the special effects.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
another catastrophe from Roland Emmerich
Added 3/15/2010
In the long line of disaster movies made by Hollywood in general, and Roland Emmerich in particular, two things remain common. First, the special effects get better with each successive movie. Second, the scientific plausibility of the disaster remains the same, and that is minimal. 2012 came out in 2009 and is about the unraveling of a natural disaster triggered by changes in the Sun's solar flares. The earth's crust supposedly heats up and liquefies, which causes massive earthquakes and volcanoes and a shifting of the continents. The movie attempts to bring some scientific logic to the disaster, but if you know anything about geology or physics, it falls flat. The main characters are a family that escapes this disaster and manages to get themselves onto a big ship built by the Chinese to ferry humanity's survivors. Their escape is totally ludicrous, one hair-raising scene after another makes the entire story unbelievable. So all told, an OK popcorn flick, but don't bother buying this DVD.
0 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
A "Screenplay Writing 101" script with a $225 million budget
Added 3/17/2010
Roland Emmerich has become a very rich man taking a basic disaster screenplay straight out of a freshman college text, superimposing some outlandish subject on it, spending ninety percent of his budget on special effects and peddling it to "the masses", who, predictably, gobble it up. Oh, and he also uses it to peddle his worldview, which, amongst other things, is anti-Christian and vehemently anti-Catholic.
"2012" is just more of the same, capitalizing on the 2012 craze, and grossing over $750 million world-wide. Most of the cast are worldview fellow travelers like Danny Glover and Woody Harrelson. John Cusack gets top billing, but Chiwetel Ejiofor is the only one who warrants that treatment in this picture.
The climax and ending are laughable.
One of the "arks" takes a direct hit from a rather large chunk of Mount Everest and, aside from a small hole and crack (which for some strange reason doesn't let in any water), there's no noticeable damage.
The first land to reemerge is --- what else --- the Cape of Good Hope and south Africa, followed by most of the remainder of the continent. Strange how the rest of the world was literally turned upside-down and yet Africa somehow not only was spared but appears to be fully habitable. The no doubt unintended irony is that most likely only a few African politicians and billionaires survived aboard the "arks".
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
So much potential so little delivered
Added 3/16/2010
I was really looking forward to this movie, that said aside from the spectacular effects the movie sucked, too lame of a plot all the things that had to happen in order for the hero to survive was too much to take, absolutely unable to suspend disbelief.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
My God, this movie makes 1951's "When Worlds Collide" look like "Citizen Kane". 2012 is sad indictment of Hollywood. It is a ridiculous movie with a cliché a minute. The scene where Calfornia is falling into the sea for instance, is a non-stop montage of narrow cliff-hanging escape among rivers of lava, buckling pavement and exploding skyscrapers all set to a John Williamesque sweeping musical score that is almost laughable. John Cusack's character achieves these feats of rapid fire skin of your teeth escapes while driving a limousine which among other passengers included his two children. Placing children in danger to cheaply raise the viewers feeling of angst is one of the lowest forms of Hollywood moving making. The CGI effects are passable but often very video game-like. Watch this movie only if you have 2 1/2 hours to completely throw away.
0 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
