CharleyH
Curioser and curiouser
- Joined
- May 7, 2003
- Posts
- 16,771
Spoiler alert:
If you plan on going to see this, please come back later and add your two cents. You've been warned.
I was excited about seeing 2012. I also had low expectations. Roland Emmerich is the producer attached to this movie, and while he gave us 'Independence Day', he's also responsible for giving us 'The Day After Tomorrow'. What - you don't remember 'The Day After Tomorrow?' I barely do either - it was that forgettable. As for the director/ co-writer, I have no idea who Mark Overbeck is, but a quick search on IMDb (former credits include composer and a 15-minute short) indicate that he's nothing but Emmerich's puppet - not Chucky, folks, more like Howdy Doody with his head bobbing up and down in a constant yes motion.
2012 has been long anticipated, if not on the AH, certainly in the rest of the world. It has fantastic special effects (albeit the FX would have been better served in 3D) and it was genuinely worth the €4.50 spent, although I'm not convinced that it would have been worth the $12.50 I might have spent if I were living in North America. The thing is, I didn't fall asleep and I enjoyed my popcorn, and that's important to me.
When it comes to background, story, character, or even genre, the movie fails on all levels. First of all, there is no background. The story mentions the Mayans and every other religion with Apocalyptic myths for that matter, in a brief-wash-over passing. It was as if the producer didn't want to miss anything or leave anyone out, so they hired Woody Harrelson just to give it to us in 2 minutes or less - stoner-style. Wow, that was deep.
Harrelson was the obvious comedic element. He was a bit melodramatic and unbelievable, but he was enjoyably two dimensional. The other characters were pathetically and predictably two-dimensional. As for the story, well, it was textbook. By this I mean that any idiot could pick up a book on how to write a disaster film and it would probably turn out like 2012.
2012 isn't a disaster film, you say? You are correct. There were 2 missing elements: a realistic-enough premise and a sexy chick taking off or cutting up her evening gown to get somewhere or avoid danger (see Poseidon Adventure or Towering Inferno).
Come December 12, 2012, I probably won't remember 2012: the movie, but for the rest of my life I will remember how much fun my husband and I had at dinner making fun of this film.
If you plan on going to see this, please come back later and add your two cents. You've been warned.
I was excited about seeing 2012. I also had low expectations. Roland Emmerich is the producer attached to this movie, and while he gave us 'Independence Day', he's also responsible for giving us 'The Day After Tomorrow'. What - you don't remember 'The Day After Tomorrow?' I barely do either - it was that forgettable. As for the director/ co-writer, I have no idea who Mark Overbeck is, but a quick search on IMDb (former credits include composer and a 15-minute short) indicate that he's nothing but Emmerich's puppet - not Chucky, folks, more like Howdy Doody with his head bobbing up and down in a constant yes motion.
2012 has been long anticipated, if not on the AH, certainly in the rest of the world. It has fantastic special effects (albeit the FX would have been better served in 3D) and it was genuinely worth the €4.50 spent, although I'm not convinced that it would have been worth the $12.50 I might have spent if I were living in North America. The thing is, I didn't fall asleep and I enjoyed my popcorn, and that's important to me.
When it comes to background, story, character, or even genre, the movie fails on all levels. First of all, there is no background. The story mentions the Mayans and every other religion with Apocalyptic myths for that matter, in a brief-wash-over passing. It was as if the producer didn't want to miss anything or leave anyone out, so they hired Woody Harrelson just to give it to us in 2 minutes or less - stoner-style. Wow, that was deep.
Harrelson was the obvious comedic element. He was a bit melodramatic and unbelievable, but he was enjoyably two dimensional. The other characters were pathetically and predictably two-dimensional. As for the story, well, it was textbook. By this I mean that any idiot could pick up a book on how to write a disaster film and it would probably turn out like 2012.
2012 isn't a disaster film, you say? You are correct. There were 2 missing elements: a realistic-enough premise and a sexy chick taking off or cutting up her evening gown to get somewhere or avoid danger (see Poseidon Adventure or Towering Inferno).
Come December 12, 2012, I probably won't remember 2012: the movie, but for the rest of my life I will remember how much fun my husband and I had at dinner making fun of this film.
