‘2012′: Silly Bombastic Fun
by Carl KozlowskiThere are some filmmakers whom movie fans turn to for serious, introspective fare, like Oliver Stone or Lasse Hallstrom. Others are counted on as masters of the fantastic, like Steven Spielberg or Peter Jackson. And for comedy these days, you can’t beat Judd Apatow.
But if you just wanna see stuff blow up on an epic scale and watch the world fall apart in a good old-fashioned disaster movie, then check out nearly any Roland Emmerich film: “Independence Day,” “Godzilla,” “The Day After Tomorrow” and “10,000 B.C.” provide hours of jaw-dropping action to go with hilariously poor logic in plotting and laughably bad dialogue. Yet they are often undeniably entertaining despite their faults, and with his new film “2012,” Emmerich has fashioned his biggest, craziest cinematic opus yet.
This time, the entire world is coming apart at the seams because sunspots are shooting nuclear radiation into the Earth’s core and making it overheat, so viewers will get the thrill of seeing landmarks from the White House to the Vatican and every major world hotspot in between fall to pieces in stunning fashion – all on December 21, 2012, the day that the ancient Mayan civilization predicted the world would come to an apocalyptic end.
Starring John Cusack in a bizarre yet brilliant change of pace after spending most of this decade making depressing dramas (“Grace Is Gone”), direct-to-DVD action films ( with Morgan Freeman) and romantic-comedy retreads like the awful “Must Love Dogs,” the film rips into first gear within minutes. Picking one of America’s most lovable Everyman movie stars for the lead role of Jackson Curtis, a divorced limo driver who’s fighting to stay on his kids’ radar by taking them on a weekend camping trip that leads to them stumbling upon clues to the impending end of the world, is a casting masterstroke that keeps viewers rooting for our hero no matter how implausible the circumstances get.
And the circumstances definitely get crazy. As the streets of Los Angeles rapidly buckle and form gaping holes just behind his limo, Cusack races to pick up his family – even including his wife’s new live-in boyfriend, Gordon – and race them to the private Santa Monica Airport in the hopes of taking off in a private plane and buying some extra time to figure out where to travel next. This race through the streets is one of the most staggeringly silly yet cheer-inducing action scenes I’ve ever seen, topping even the best chases from the “Lethal Weapon” series – albeit with some rather obvious CGI effects.
Once in the air, Jackson and Gordon – who conveniently had some flight training in his past – head to Yellowstone National Park, where Cusack first noticed things were getting strange in the Great Outdoors and had just met Alex Jones-style talk-radio host Charlie Frost. Played to hilariously crazy perfection by Woody Harrelson in what might be his ultimate crackpot role, Frost is thrilled with the world’s impending collapse, since it validates the wild predictions he’s been making for years on his show. More importantly for Jackson, Frost has a series of secret maps that will reveal where 400,000 of the world’s most elite people are gathering for a chance to escape the cataclysm and relaunch life as we know it.
This movie has everything but logic in it: outrageous car chases, absurd flight stunts, massive earthquakes, a tsunami that slams a naval carrier into the White House, and even volcanoes that launch massive, rapid fireballs through the sky. Add in world landmarks being decimated wholesale, and the hoot-worthy sight of the world’s largest animals including giraffes and elephants airlifted over the Himalayas by helicopters. If you’re willing to suspend disbelief enough to see an elephant suspended over Mount Everest, you will be entertained by this film.
On the plus side, no one can complain that the filmmakers short-shrifted them on special effects. And in a refreshing side note, there is little or no bellyaching from propagandistic characters railing that this is all mankind’s fault due to pollution and CO2 emissions – it’s purely the sun that’s at fault for this one. Well, that and the weird stroke of fate tying in with the Mayan calendar, of course. On the downside, the film is 2 ½ hours long, with the last half-hour becoming nearly as exhausting to viewers as it is for our heroes, leaving one to wonder “What else can go wrong?”
I’m sure Roland Emmerich is laughing at a computer screen somewhere right now, plotting the answer to that very question.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Tips & Feedback
125 Comments
Empty disasater porn willing to destroy every religious icon except the muslim one.
Roland lost me after that ridiculous "day after tomorrow" crap.
I won't even watch this for free on an airplane trip…
Empty disaster P O R N. No B A L L S to attack M U S L I M religious icons, but willing to destroy all the others.
Roland lost me after "the day after tomorrow"
I won't even watch this for free on a plane ride.
Um, wouldn't the solar radiation strong enough to heat the earth's core and set off an apocalypse have cooked every last human on the planet?
CGI overload in the trailer.
Might as well be a video game. . .
Plus, as for who is in the lead role. . . This is the multimillionaire spoiled prat who got his kicks shoplifting tens of thousands of dollars worth (at least) of merchandise and got his millionaire spoil prat celebrity friends to do the same?
Yeah, not one cent from me brother – not one!
Hey, don't diss games for the visuals department. Go look at the commercial for ModernWarfare2 and then look at the trailer for 2012 and tell me which one looks better. It isn't 2012 that's for sure.
I agree with David, what is the ejoyment factor in watching the world be destroyed? I will pass on this like I passed on the Day After Tomorrow. Worthless, unbelieveable tripe. Nothing in this film could EVER happen except in hollywoods mind.
Modern Hollywood believes Capitalism is BAD so I refuse to give them any of my personal Capitalistic Greenbacks; I am tired of celebrities taking my Capitalistic Green while stabbing me in the back.
Hollywood; your delusions of botoxed-grandeur are DEATH to me.
There is only so far I can suspend disbelief. I can suspend disbelief when Indiana Jones rides a U-boat without an explanation on what happens when it submerges, or once the nazi's have the upper hand why don't they just kill him. Why? Because I'm caught up in a character that I like and has at least a bit of depth. I'm on the ride with him, but if there is no depth, the disbelief outweighs the willingness to go on the ride with a character I couldn't care less about. I'll probably wait for a rainy or cold weekend afternoon when this is on cable, just to catch the cool effects. Maybe.
"There are some filmmakers whom movie fans turn to for serious, introspective fare, like Oliver Stone"
You lost me at hello.
Yeah, I should of said it looked like a six year old computer game humpin a long frame by frame on an old Vista machine after a service pack update!
Your Right, Jarod2828 my bad.
"seeing landmarks from the White House to the Vatican and every major world hotspot in between fall to pieces in stunning fashion"
Does this hotspot include Mecca?
The holiest meeting site of the Islamic religion?
What about the destruction of Medina?
The burial place of the prophet Muhammad?
I'm willing to bet that these locations are not shown in the film,
but, it's cool to show Christ the Redeemer falling to pieces in every tv trailer.
I think I'll pass.
In 2012 the only disaster I'm looking forward to in the complete and utter destruction of Obamunism. Let the Holly weird sacred cow leftist make a movie about that.
John Cusack in it? Won't watch it. Even as a rental.
Didn't know Dustin Hoffman had enough upper body strength to carry a small child.
But hey, he must be doing something right he doesn't look a day over 50.
Or is that all part of the effect?
Tu Much,
Cusack was shoplifting? And recruiting others to do it too? Ewww… I thought I still liked him. BUt the F-bomb and this might hit the tipping point.
I'm not aware of that story, can you provide link etc?
Of course not…
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/11/07/director-...
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggutfeld/2009/1...
Big fat chicken.
This is sounding more like a remake of When Worlds Collide. Pass.
And the icing on the turd is Woody Harrelson, who I will also not watch.
[...] the original post: ‘2012′: Silly Bombastic Fun This entry is filed under America – Blogs, Big Hollywood. You can follow any responses to this [...]
As a lover of special effects you have me between refusing to support the senseless Mr.Cusack and
watching a favorite form of entertainment. Hmmmmmm. My refusal to support the senseless, Mr. Cusack wins.
Darn it.
I think for once, some of us would like to see a serious drama made out these high concepts, but it seems like if your movie has a big special effects component, it must wink at the audience, stick tongue in cheek and, above all, be "FUN." The worst crime a "special effects film" can commit is not to be "FUN." Fine, let people make vacuous movies like 2012 or Transformers, but I desperately want some serious fare. I want to see The Lord of the Rings without the wisecracks and pratfalls, or a big apocalyptic film without the goofiness and irony. (And I understand the whole argument about needing to make money by appealing to the public, so don't give me that argument, I'm just telling you what I would like to see.)
You know, I was really looking forward to the first Transformers movie because I grew up watching that show and I still have a lot of the toys from my childhood. I would have accepted the normal level of blockbuster irony/goofiness and cliche in that movie because of the source and the premise, but it seems like Michael Bay thought that because the property came from a cartoon and because of the premise, he had to triple the goof quotient. It may be the first time in history that the live action version of a cartoon was actually MORE cartoony than the cartoon. I was appalled by that one-long-bad-joke wisecrack of a movie. It looked like the filmmakers really had to swallow a huge pill to put any quasi-serious or emotionally real moments in the film.
I for one won't be shelling out any money to Roland Emmerich for remaking the same movie he's been making ever since Stargate.
I can't completely hate "The Day After Tomorrow" (although it would be easy to), since it directly led to the sublimely silly South Park episode, "Two Days Before the Day After Tomorrow".
Biggest bunch of whiners I've seen since I took my infant daughter out of daycare. No wonder Hollywood doesn't make movies for conservatives.
If it doesn't attack every possible demographic equally, it fails your criteria.
If any member of the cast or crew has ever been arrested, it fails.
If it's made by someone who is outspoken on politics, charities, religion, lack of religion… it fails.
If it's made by someone who refuses to be outspoken on politics, charities, religion, lack of religion, insisting that people judge based on the movies, and not the character of the director, it fails.
You're almost as bad as the muslims who get their panties in a twist whenever mohammed shows up in print. Almost. Lighten up, quit taking yourselves so seriously, and if you don't like the current crop of movies, create something better. Geez.
Not on my list of movies to see even when it goes to the bargain basement.
Hey it's a movie. Do you have to inject your ideology into everything?
There was a time when I followed my rule of seeing f/x-packed movies on the big screen because they lost something when watching on TV (even nice plasmas). But now I’m beginning to despise eye candy that fails to challenge me at least minimally on an intellectual level. For example, the 1950s War of the Worlds made sense, and the audience wasn’t assumed to be a bunch of pre-teen boys. The Tom Cruise WotW, while having much better f/x, had so many ridiculous plot holes that the gee-wiz effects only served to cover up the silly premise, rather than illustrate them.
The folks who create the f/x of course do a bang-up job, but directors and producers who allow claptrap to substitute for a smidgen of substance only prove that they want to make money instead of quality.
2nded here. Oliver Stone went off the rails and deep into the land of propaganda long ago. The introspection of Kevin Smith and the reflection of Clerks as an example of America unmasked is more credible.
I don't know about that. The Obama-Care documentary "Zombieland" was good work and brutally honest.
Hey everyone. It has been awhile since I post something here. Figured I would come give you a hard time again. We have 311 subscribers to the paper now. Most of which are Oath Keepers. Many great articles.
If you are tired of getting "scripted news" and want the opinions of your peers. Please sign up for our FREE newspaper. It is NOT an email it is an actual paper that you can hand out to your friends and people who don't know what is going on.
http://MyFreePress.net/subscribe
"There are some filmmakers whom movie fans turn to for serious, introspective fare, like Oliver Stone . . ."
Really? Who?
The Mayans warned us. I'm wondering if they got this truth on their guiness world record of 70,000 human sacrifices in 1 day? or was it one of the less sanctimonious sacrificial massacres???
"There are some filmmakers whom movie fans turn to for serious, introspective fare, like Oliver Stone"
Carl, I guess some do but they are idiots. Couldn´t you think of an actual serious, introspective filmmaker? Might as well have continued "Others are counted on as masters of the fantastic, like Dr. Uwe Boll".
Taken was awesome!
We just want films that show pride in America, its history, its religions (old & new testament), that founded this nation, invented movies, the internet, the only nation ever to conquer than rebuild and leave nations to build themselves up, the only nation to ever achieve world megapower… and do nothing about it… well except attempt to defend those that can't defend themselves. ya know… something like that.
and yah, i wanna see Nine Inch Nails come out with a "Allah is Dead" song, and for that artist to make a "Piss Muhommad"….
Exactly.
Never go into a Roland Emmerich film expecting logic or clever writing. In fact, expect the exact opposite of logic and clever writing.
Just expect to see a bunch of explosions that make Michael Bay look pyrophobic.
Except it wouldn´t be a disaster. It would be wholesome entertainment.
If Libhead Qusack is in it I won't watch
Well, it doesn´t HAVE to have Mecca. I mean, if Emmerich wouldn´t go out of his way to show believers being crushed under St. Peter´s Basilica and so on – and you can basically hear him snigger about the irony – no one would miss the destruction of Mecca.
Michael Bay always triples the goof content. He doesn´t know better. But you are right. I would love to see epic entertainment done in a way that doesn´t immediately destroy all dramatic potential. For example, a disaster movie about a DISASTER, a movie that brings a terrible event affecting real people to life, instead of a funhouse ride where we are supposed to stare in awe at computer generated images of houses falling down. I might have enjoyed it twenty years ago, but that only proves the point.
Amen to that Brother.
SWAP–you're being way too sensitive! Most people will recognize the statue of Jesus as being in Rio and St. Peter's Basilica. Hardly anyone would recognize Medina etc. That's the point! These landmarks have to be visually recognizable, they will only be onscreen for a matter of seconds. Not everything is a big plot against Christians!
Some people fall into that category, but if look at Carl's review, yesterday, of "Precious" you will see a good deal if not the majority of people expressing a positive interest. The reason isn't about Winfrey, Mo'nique or Tyler Perry being conservatives (we know that isn't the reason) but it looks like a interesting story about self-empowerment. I'm critical of almost anything Emmerich, because there isn't much there besides destroying stuff. I'll defend "Stargate" because it was an interesting story, and the characters weren't just a backdrop for explosions. One would think, if someone knows me, I'd like "The Patriot", but nope. The characters were mostly uninteresting, the only interesting plot development was the compulsion for revenge, but it would better if Gibson's character was actually fighting as a, I don't know, a patriot who valued freedom.
I'm not going to be too critical of Cusack, seems like a good actor, but if you want a good movie and a good performance, see "The Jack Bull", and that's the point, I'd rather see a good actor (no matter what political leanings) in a good performance with good material, rather just a weak story that's an excuse of blowing stuff up.
That's John Cusack, not Duston Hoffman.
I have no objection to dumb fun. Every now and then, it's a pleasure to turn off your brain and just watch the cool explosions.
The key word, though, is the second one, and from all the trailers I've seen, 2012 is heavy on "dumb" and not so much on "fun." If I'm enjoying a movie, I'll accept plot holes that an entire chorus line of elephants could dance through. But nothing in the ads for this movie have suggested that I'll be in that happy place. Merely watching landmarks explode is not enough to be fun.
HAs anyone ever listened to Roland Emmerich's commentary tracks? They're bizarre. In every sentence he says "kind of like kind of" or "like kind of like" four or five times.
I agree with you on your second paragraph. I'd even settle for a feces painting of Obama.
Maybe my standards are lower, but as long as a movie doesn't insult America, I'm fine with it. Based on the review. 2012 doesn't seem to take gratuitous potshots at capitalism, consumerism, or the American Dream, so it looks like most detractors are basing their arguments on the director, or the actors.
Out of curiosity (open to everyone), what did you think of Pearl Harbor? The British officer telling the American "If we had a few more Americans like you, the war'd be over", and the victorious Doolittle raid–there's a lot of unapoligetic American victories there. But it has Alec Baldwin as Col (Gen? the memory ain't what she used to be) Doolittle. Discuss.
Not all movies have to have an empowering point. Take Ronin. I've seen it a handfull of times, and I'm still not sure what it's about, besides a case of unidentified stuff, and some excellent chase scenes.
I feel like Sullivan at the end of Sullivan's Travels. Making an epic full of deep themes and growth and fulfillment is all well and good, but there's a bigger market for 2 hours of mindless escapism.
I wondered about the whole submarine thing too – but I have heard that subs travel a lot faster when they are not submerged. So, technically since they were in a real hurry and not being hunted, they could have done the whole thing without submerging.
Hey, James Bond should have gotten shot numerous times too (which logically they should do…) but then we'd not get the gist of the bad guy's plan and how the hero stops it.
But I agree with you – if I like the character, I'm willing to play along. If the writing is just so bad, it's hard to play along after I pay up.
Uhm.. you mean there are not too many people who know what the big, black thing with thousands of Muslims who trample a few to death every year?
I'm thinking that's not the reason, but nice PR work though.
I have to agree. If the director really wanted an "everyman" why not Nick Cage? The guy is odd, but I have to admit there are times I really like the guy, even if the movie is not that great. This movie sounds like it could have used him.
That's a strange question to ask on a political site about movies.
Read some the Roland didn't show Mecca, Medina or Qom being destroyed because he didn't want a fatwa on his head. Still bending over for the towel heads, eh sheisskopf?
No logic allowed! Escort yourself out, please.
I'm guessin' it's a lot more…detailed than when the Empire blowed up Alderan, huh?
Look for:
"The Day After 8,000"
. . . Witness the Arctic Glacier, 2 miles thick, slide down to crush New York and everything to the north. The final 3 minutes captures 500 years of time-lapse destruction.
"The Day After 4,000,000,000"
. . . Witness the devastation of the earth in 1/10th of a second as the Sun goes nova, leaving our heroes in orbit around Saturn, hoping to begin a new life. The final 3 minutes of action captures the exciting detail of that 1/10th second in slow motion destruction.
And, most horrible of them all:
"The Day After 2014"
. . . Witness the end of President Obama's 8 years in office, as inflation hits 8,000% annually. The final 3 minutes captures his exit speech, where we learn that inflation would have been 15,000% without his policies to nationalize baby-sitting services and fast-food restaurants.
Sounds like the writer/s got all their ideas from Coast to Coast AM: The Art Bell years
Solar flares = Remote viewer , "Major" Ed Dames. He's been on that jag forever.
"The kill shot" as he calls it.
Dang! It's my irony-deficient diet!
…"And for comedy these days, you can’t beat Judd Apatow."
Excuse me while I vomit.
The popularity and influence of Apatow and his pals (making Apatow-like films without his direct involvement)
is depressing.
That complacent, eternal immaturity and utter lack of aspiration (for anything beyond external gratifications) —
which these films relentlessly celebrate — is pathetic.
Long scenes showing guys hanging out liesurely yakking — 'in real time' —
is self-indulgent, ignorant, incompetent storytelling.
Apatow would be the comedy equivalent of Quentin Tarantino, except QT shows talent for storytelling, for using the film medium, and his films at times have an electric vitality (despite his impoverished intellect/sensibility).
Oliver Stoned?
LOL!
Might as well be Michael Moore…
"There are some filmmakers whom movie fans turn to for serious, introspective fare, like Oliver Stone…."
Excuse me? The only time I turn to Oliver Stone is if I want to sit through a boring, filthy movie that drops my IQ at least 20 points and then later chide myself for wasting my own money and time seeing it.
I thought that was the Apple store in Manhattan.
No, not everything needs to be a deep treatise on the human condition, man's inherent nature, blah, blah. All I'm asking is the movie have characters that are interesting, some semblance of a back story, something that makes me sympathize. Something. If there is a more interesting subtext, a deeper meaning that makes me think, so much the better. But if I can't see anything for me to root for the character then, I'm not going to go along for the ride. Maybe that's me. But you saying "I feel like Sullivan at the end of Sullivan's Travels." has more depth than most anything Emmerich has put on the screen.
And it's not like I'm this purist art-house snob. I like popcorn munching, blow it up, action, kick the bad guys butt movies as much as the next person, I just need a bit more than just that. Sure there is a big market for escapism. But Hollywood can do better than that. One of my favorite movies is "True Lies" It's a lot of over top action, but there is more going on there than Arnold kicking butt and blowing stuff up.
Noticeably!
Only thing worse I can think of is being on a plane and watching "La Bamba" while sitting next to Lou Diamond Phillips.
Cusak's best roles were "the sure thing" and "one crazy summer".
Deisel subs were/are a lot slower submerged and usually submerged only to torpedo during the day. Most nights they attacked on the surface in order to save the auxilliary battery powered engines. As for nuclear subs I don't think it makes much of a difference. I should ask my dad, as he spent his career underwater in a nuke, but he is unavailable at the moment.
Yeah I always thought the part of the movie where Indiana Jones piggybacked the sub, was far-fetched, I enjoyed the movie in the same regards as truliberty did. Also agree on 007, as it is fun to go along for the ride.
funny you should say video game. In one scene, there is a 'man' running in the background. It looked like the guy from Pitfall.
And Better Off Dead.
The Journey of Natty Gann, Say Anything, and Con Air are a few of my favorite Cusack roles. He used to be one of my favorites to watch, but he's joined the ash heap with the others who won't just "shut up and sing."
I get no enjoyment out of it at all. I especially don't like when the movie seems to be made for the express purpose of blowing up, destroying, melting, or flooding the worlds' iconic buildings or symbols of the worlds' religions.
Maybe I am being sensitive…
Oh well…. I'm still not paying money to watch this film.
=)
If the Mayans were so smart, why didn't they know the conquistadores were coming?
I'm thinking it was a joke, son, you missed it. Too fast for you. He keeps pitchin' em and you keep missin' em!
They did know; they just had the wrong date, because they didn't know about horses. That gave the Spanish a 500 year head start.
Man, a lot of stick in the muds, wet blankets and stuffed shirts in this thread.
Since no one else has, I'll give it a shot. I actually liked Pearl Harbor–the action parts of it, anyway. The romantic parts were pure crap, much of the dialogue was of a similar quality, but the battle scenes were well done, and who doesn't like seeing the Japanese airmen get blown away, or Tokyo being bombed? As for Alec Baldwin (I think Doolittle may have actually been a major at this time, but don't quote me on that), he did pretty good, but I thought the most outstanding performance was by whoever portrayed FDR. Seeing him haul himself out of his wheelchair and tell the generals, "Don't tell me it can't be done," helps one remember why he was so popular, even if his economics were crap.
(cont)
As for 2012, my issue with it isn't so much over whether it's liberal or conservative in message (Kozlowski didn't even bring that up, if you'll notice). My major objection comes from my agreement with a review I read in Entertainment Weekly (sorry, I don't have the link), saying in essence, "The tone of this movie is that violence and slaughter are and should be enjoyable things. Seeing millions of people crushed like ants in an instant isn't ultimately as compelling as whether a handful of good-looking, socially reflective people made a cool escape. 'Forget all the people who died when those two towers (reminiscent of 9/11) crashed into each other; wasn't it awesome how that plane just barely made it through?'" Granted, disaster movies tend to be like that, and it may not be the strongest criticism (I'm not really doing the article justice here), but ultimately, this is just another melodramatic disaster movie where you can count on the president to make some kind of unifying cliche and rest assured that the adorable family dog will escape while thousands perish. No thanks.
Personally, I just can't wait to get up on Dec. 22, 2012, find all the people who believe in this thing, and laughhhhhhhh….
I loved that book! The movie didn't feel as good but with what they had on hand it was pretty darn close. I stumbled across a worn out copy of 'When Worlds Collide' in my highschool library and I couldn't put it down.
wink
When I was in the Navy and tickets where given to many people at the base that I was stationed at and I Thought I hit it big by getting a ticket for the showing of 'Pearl Harbor'!……
How wrong I was was in that! The "Dramatic" staging of every shot, with drifting wavering cameras and slow motion porn that always shows up in a Bay movie with little character building outside of the few "hot throbs" that seemed forced with plastic actors with vogue beauty pageant make-up. Only the loud noises near the end kept me awake and not comatose.
The attack itself? I've watched that movie once, but I still remembered that Bay even went so far and do a mirror shot of Zeros flying by. He actually had a shot of a plane fly by and then not but a few minutes later show that Exact same shot Mirrored! The CGI effects where devastating in detail, problem was that it just looked like highly detailed plastic models blowing up. 'Tora! Tora! Tora!' used models too, but the crew on that one at least tried to make it realistic with all those plumes of smoke! In 'Pearl Harbor'.. refer to what I wrote about the plastic models.
The tacked on Doolittle event was tepid and worthless to the actual events that impelled our country to war and I believe that if Bay had given more time to the other non-fiction characters that movie would of been far, far better.
I would never trust a culture's far reaching predictions that literal salted the ground every year when they flood their farm lands with sea water to "enrich" the soil for harvest the next year.
Nathan, good points – um sort of. Stories have to stand on there own merits and yup sometimes the bad dudes win – but that doesn't always usually the customers unless they are hopeless in life. Simply put, we don't pay good money to be insulted by some of the most spoiled and self centered selfish class that can't commit between boners to anyone – in short – who the heck are the f'n dumbest and most pathetic among us to lecture us? You see, it tends to raise our dander!
You're almost as bad as the muslims who get their panties in a twist whenever mohammed shows up in print.
You are correct. Refusing to spend money on people and ideas that you don't support is almost as bad as rioting and threatening to kill people.
If people don't want to see a movie for whatever reason, it is perfectly reasonably for them to not do so. Furthermore, it is perfectly reasonable to go onto the Internet and tell people why they do so.
I got paid to see it (work took us) and it almost wasn't worth it.
Tony,
Ben A Flack – "playing" Ben A Flack (what a stretch) in every movie he's ever done since Voyage of the Mimi peaked out sometime before Pearl Harbors release. I think Gigly was just the doggie doo topping after the fact. Really, some people you just go WTF – how did they get to be celebrities in the first place? Oh yeah, he glamed onto a guy who can actually act and write a little . – well once upon a time anyway.
Well, since some of my grandchildren are spooked by all the hype about 2012 being the end of the world, with no chance at a second chance, this movie might be just the fun we need to lighten the mood.
I read somewhere that all this stuff about the Mayan calendar 'ends' on Dec. 21, 2012 is just ignorant and the facts are that the Mayan calendar does not 'end' as such but does ROLL over every 5000 years.
I had to make that point to my grandson, who is 11 and ver astute, and did it gladly whether I believe it or not.
Frankly, I have a tendency to believe it. All the doom and gloom these days is more than depressing and we could all use some fun. So what if it is all over in 2012…not like we can do anything about it, so might as well enjoy life while we can.
Until us "Modern People" figure out again how many stars are in our own star system (Hint: What really causes retrograde precession of the equinox) we will be behind the Mayans. The larger Mayan calender was destroyed because it looked too much like a calender from somewhere else. Still, Ouroboros is a rare event on the human scale of things. We can always seek to better ourselves, if this worries us we should turn it positive and use it for that purpose.
In the day after tommorrow, this director had the ocean headed for NYC from behind the statue of liberty. New Jersey, not the ocean, is behind the Statue. Mr Koslowski pointed out the lack of logic in these films.
all three of those were before Cusack the commie had any input into the films, as he was a teenager.
I'll pass… I don't support hippies.
The world isn't going to end in 2012 – God is in control and the end will come at his hands only. For 2012 to be the end, the rapture would have had to of taken place in 2005. Obviously, that hasn't happened yet. The rapture will occur first and then there will be a 7 year tribulation period on earth. The end of the world as we know it will be destroyed by God at the end of the tribulation. Next there will be a 1000 year millennium on earth and then God will create a new heaven and new earth.
By the way, the movie was very disappointing. If they're going to speak for Christians, they should at least do a quick search of what Christians do believe. Christians do not view the rapture as the end of the world as was stated in the movie.
The whole government conspiracy concept was bizarre considering the government had 3 years to tell people to make some kind of ship for themselves or make use of current ships/subs that already exist. Billions of people just died in what was supposed to be the end of the world and they end the movie with a line about pull-up underwear in reference to bed wetting – ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!?!?
jeeze folks… what's with all this gnashing of teeth over 'serious messages' and christian vs. muslim ?? doesn't anybody know how to just have some fun anymore? this is a popcorn movie about stuff blowing up…period.
Jeeze el_polacko….what's with all this gnashing of teeth over other peoples' comments?? Are you the only person whose opinion matters? This is the comment section where people comment….period. Chill out and let people talk about what's on their mind. We don't need the thought police here, thank you very much.
The plausability of the events in the flick are even higher than obama having any positive effect on the economy!
I'd rather punch myself in the balls for an entire day than give any money to Cusack, Emmerich and the rest of those idiots. They could have made the next Casablanca (which this obviously ain't) and I'd feel the same way.
the so-called actors do….what's good for the goose is good for the gander….
SPOILER ALERT! If you haven't seen the movie, don't read below.
At the end of the movie, there was a pull-backing bird's eye view of the planet, showing the continent of Africa with water slowly receding from the lands. I happened to glance northeast-ward of Africa, noticing that most, if not all, of the Arabian Peninsula is underwater.
So one can imagine that Mecca and the Kaaba stone have been destroyed already by earthquakes and water in the movie. Emmerich and crew just gave that away.
In real life, one day, a major tectonic quake could tear apart Africa and Arabia along the Red Sea, creating a new ocean in Ethiopia. The damages would be enormous.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middl...
I love disaster movies for the special effects. That said, I don't see movies with John Cusack in them.
FINALLY someone who noticed Indie rode across the ocean hanging on to a SUBMARINE conning tower.
It spoiled the entire series for me. Didn't care about the character enough to swallow that one.
Most of Cusack's films bomb yet Ho'wood can't figure out there are a whole lot of people out here who won't spend a dime to see any film he's in.
Its curious why the entertainment business does not consider itself a business first but it
would rather be seen as a political arm of the democratic party. I use to like Cusack and even his sister
or at least give their movies a even chance to be entertaining. Since he called me stupid for being a conservative I figure I would just be too dumb to find the ticket office for any movie he participates in.
They got one thing right with the movie though, it's the sun. But it did show off the eugenenic politics strong and hard.
Now, lets kill off all the real working class and save the rich who haven't worked an honest blue collar job, ever. /sarcasm off
It's all good, I just dislike that "looks like a videogame" insult because I'm seeing things on my 360 that are putting special effects superfilms like Avatar to shame.
How is that thought police? He's commenting on the comments. Isn't that…a conversation?
If it weren't for "World Trade Center", I would have NEVER seen an Oliver Stone movie…
If $$ were really the total drive in Hollywood, old Olly would never say a thing ever again…
"Dere's a ticket orifice?"
Guess I am dumb too, can't go, twinkie bus not go there, me sorry…"
/sarcasm
Ditto…
I have read that the newer submarines in the US fleet are designed to be more efficient and faster submerged.
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=...
JustLurkin
Nope, sorry. The creators openly admitted they did NOT want a fatwa for making a film. OH, they are so brave, speaking truth to power and all. They are cowards and hypocrites. They'll bash Christians and conservatives all day, you know, being brave and all, speaking truth to power, but oh, man duck!! here comes a fatwa!!.
Anyone that takes these vermin at their word has no thinking ability.
Didn't someone say the world would end when the computers blew up at midnight, December 31st, 1999?
More "Chicken Little" gloom and doom for the stupid amongst us….
If I took politics into consideration everytime I went to see a movie, I'd never go. You are well within your rights to do so, but can anyone enjoy a movie anymore without worrying about an actor's political slant? It's beginning to look as if that is the case.
Not at this site, my friend!
Personally I don't really care, but most of the visitors here seem to keep scorecards of stars they refuse to watch. Right now it's pretty much down to Gary Sinese and Jon Voight as the only acceptable ones.
Having just seen the movie, I can say it was eye candy and nothing more. The fact that no Muslim shrines were depicted is fine by me. If a major religion is so brittle in its beliefs that it can't stand cartoons and fictional depictions, which means that the idiots who fe-e-e-e-l this way are no better than 3 year olds who can't distinguish fiction and fact, then fine – leave them out. Fewer bit parts for Muslim actors. Fewer displays of their intolerance for others. Fine by me if they want to put themselves into intellectual ghettos. The rest of us can party on and leave these fools to stew in their own juices. May they enjoy their brittle beliefs. We'll try to not whisper any inconsistency lest these brittle people have their eyes pop out and scream some silly thing. Reminds me of Star Wars: "But Sir. No one cares if a droid gets upset." "That's because droids don't pull your arms out of your sockets if they get angry. Wookies are known to do that." Are the brittle Muslims simply Wookies with human DNA? Or are there any Muslims out there who will dare to stand up to the extremists amongst you and say, "I am not a Wookie! I am a civilized human being, and I wish Muslim religious sites could have been depicted in the silly moive and am sorry that the producers felt threatened enough to want to avoid it." Any Muslims out there willing to say that?
When Worlds collide was a better movie – especially considering when it was made.
if you're not into big special effects, then don't bother. but if you are, then even with plot lines as thin as gruel, this is pure eye candy. unrealistic to be sure. I've been in large earthquakes (never a 10.9 of course), and some of it was cool. But out running a fissure or a volcanic blast… well – you just can't take this kind of thing seriously.
I enjoyed it but one more thing: I think this will be the last big-effects movie I see if it's not in RealD. I just saw Christmas Carol yesterday and THAT was a near perfect movie. And the special effects were MUCH BETTER than in 2012. I would gladly see 2012 again if they 3D it. That would be fun.
El_Gordo
Saw Transformers (free from library) I thought my brain was rotting. Truly he ripped off every epic film in the last ten years and turned it into prune juice. It was so awful–if I had payed any money for it I would have been vastly annoyed. I just could not finish it, it insults stupid.
Saw the trailer for 2012, that was enough, could easily see it was more of the same. No wonder the tweens are unable to think or talk coherently.
Yay!
Los Angeles gets pummeled again!
el_polacko
Which is why NASA felt they had to put a blurb out about it, to reassure the common folk.
Sounds like a good light-weight time-killer. Kind of like old Westerns or Chinese Sword / Kung Fu flicks.
I read where Emmerich considered blowing up the Kaaba but decided that he didn't want to attract the Major Hasan / al Qaeda / Headchopper demographic to his showings.
Probably a smart move on his part. Not only does he not get his head chopped off by those 7th Century nutcases, but he doesn't attract them to the theatre where they might dissuade paying customers by doing their characteristic exploding tricks.
Plus it would have cut into the ticket sales in the Middle East where they are always ready to see American landmarks blown up, but get a little fussy when it's too close to home. (They go to movies to forget about real life too.)
Good JL, plain and simple the US Subs are the worlds best, and as the links you provided ever more efficient and faster, as well as, the most important quality, quieter, to avoid detection.
Criticizing others for what or how they post is not good form in a comment's section. What makes el_polacko believe that other posters don't know who to have fun anymore based solely on their words about this topic? He goes on to say that this is a popcorn movie about stuff blowing up…period like that's the end of the conversation and everybody else who stated otherwise got it wrong. He has his opinion and other people have their opinions. A conversation doesn't involve attempting to shut down viewpoints – via criticism – that don't mimic your own feelings. And the "thought police" reference is about other people monitoring the words of other posters to keep them from deviating away from what the thought police feels is appropriate conversation.
In retrospect, my analogy was a bit over-the-top. But there are a lot more Muslims who chant "Death to America" than actually blow themselve up in crowded places.
2012 is just a movie. Save the rigtheous indignation for important stuff, like why the Media refuse to acknowledge that Maj Hassan committed an act of terrorism.
these are the only movies i actually go see and while I initially groaned on the first view of the day after tomorrow the movie has become a fave go-to before beddy by- since no one seems to have seen it, I did and it was [dare I say it] fun!
as for previous blockbusters- I loathed Batman [amoral piece of &%#*@] and the last Terminator was g-awful, so Roland gives me another reason to try again
This site is flush with bombastic proclamations and assertions that the poster's opinion is the correct one. That's a part of the internet culture. Many people post "All X's are stupid and should die!!" Or "X is the greatest thing that ever was!" Message boards are full of absolutes, verifiable or no. I think el polacko was actually very mild in his reaction to what are in fact a lot of stodgy posts. If he'd said "You guys are $%&@'n losers," that would be rude, but I think his (or her) tone was fine–he wasn't trying to shut anyone down, just giving his reaction. Conversation is giving your opinion, even if it differs radically from everyone else's, no? Isn't that part of that free speech thing everyone's always going on about?
You must be logged in to post a comment.