2012 - WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE.......(from boredom)

D

D-Fence

Guest
So I watched 2012 yesterday.

Let's make this quick.


The effects are epic and the best I have ever seen. It's worth watching for them alone....the rest. Well. The story itself is easily told: Sun flare, earth boils, everyone dies, father tries to save family. The end. It is incredibly cheesy, and I mean, INCREDIBLY cheesy (see spoilers), and way too long on the cheesy bits. And the movie is really long (1/4 of this is actually stuff going boom, the rest, cheese).

Worth watching for the effects.


Cheesiness:

- Father fighting to make his son love him who likes stepdad more
- little girl needing diapers because she is so insecure
- American president staying in DC and making white house a shelter, dies among his people
- Russian evil fat billionaire changing his mind and saving his children
- Dalai Lama (yeah yeah not him) banging the bell in Tibet while drowning
- Dad & Stepdad becoming friends, Stepdad needs to die, dies.
- Little girl not needing diapers at the end of movie
- World leaders growing a spine and helping the poor people
- That old guy calling his son & grandchild for the first time in 5 years, hearing them die
- That old man drowning Titanic style on the Cruise Ship
- The Indian family drowning

Stuff that I hated for making my tech-savvy brain hurt

- Starting an Antonov on ~200m of exploding runway
- Jet engines without fuel don't smoke or GLOW RED
- the whole "getaway in limo" part
- "THERE IS A PROBLEM IN THE HYDRAULICS" (kogs. Lot's of kogs. It's the gearbox)
- ZOMG HUGEST SOLAR FLARE EVER, NO MORE TELEPHONES! Luckily ALL satellites keep working.
- It's 2012. "LAS VEGAS AUTO SHOW CARS". Gallardo, Carrera GT, F360. "This is the new Bentley. Dad ordered one for next year" (2013 rite). *Continental GT Flying Spur*

A lot more there I don't want to list


Just watch it for the explosions. :p
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's as if the writers looked up the Big Book of Movie Cliches and tried to cram as many of them into the movie as often as possible.

The script was lacklustre, the only thing worth watching this for are the effects. It's pretty clear they spent their entire budget on the CGI, then did everything else on the last $10.
 
Went to see it yesterday (Friday) with my gf.

Halfway through, walked out. (Paid $18 each too....)



It's the most boring, uninspired piece of crap I have ever seen.
90% of the whole movie is earthquakes and the earth splitting apart.
5% is fire and stuff like that.
5% is crap.

Me and my gf both at the same time asked the other if they wanted to leave, and I've never left a movie in the cinema before it finished.

Until now.



I wouldn't even bother downloading it that's how crap I thought it was, and a real waste of money too.

EDIT: It could have been fit into a 45 minute TV show (1 hour including advertisements).
 
Last edited:
The main problem I had with it was the fact that Joe Average could somehow manage to defy death on so many occasions (it was as if the apocalypse was targeting him personally). It would be fine if it was James Bond, or some sort of Arnold Schwarzeneggar character, but having so many instances where he escapes death by the skin of his teeth removes the suspense and tension for the viewer.
 
Good old Roland Emmerich, who needs a script when everything explodes?
 
The effects are the only reason why I watch this kind of movie (like "The day the earth stood still")
 
I'm gonna go against the popular opinion here and say...I liked it. It was a good, entertaining, movie. Yes, it had plenty of cliches but I found some of the really funny (the russian guy, Arnold on TV, etc..)

It had good entertaining value. Much better than that POS Transformers 2.
 
Yawns......

The trailer looks lame, and the CGI doesn't impress me. How many close calls can one family have? First they're driving along a crumbling highway, then flying through collapsing skyscrapers, etc. etc.
 
Yeah, that one family has got to be the luckiest people ever to live. The movie was enjoyable. I mean, I didn't hate it. I would say, if you are gonna see it, see it in the theater on the big screen. But then again, you have to pay $10 per ticket to see it (at least where I live).. so I'm not sure if it was worth it. It didn't suck, but it wasn't great either. Just a popcorn movie and one that, now that I've seen it, I won't watch it again.

Amanda Peet does look incredible in it though.
 
Seen it on Sunday and my friend said that it looked like they gave a 10 year old a blank cheque and said go nuts!

Personally I nearly died from a heart attack...... All that cheese clogging up my ateries good and proper. It's probably worse than eating 4 cheese cheese and tomato pizzas for a week. And I loved how un fussed they were that George the plastic surgeon kicked he bucket at the end. It was like oh, he's dead, oh well nevermind we have this other guy to kiss and hug instead.

Also

Fake governator on the LA local news channel hahahahahahahahahaha his accent was terrible
 
Last edited:
I haven't seen the film so my question to people who have is:

Would it have been improved if they had sneaked in REM into at least 10 scenes? I mean playing on car radios and in the background.
 
Insert short and to the point review
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdcXUqrn29c[/YOUTUBE]
 
had an conversation that got a bit heated with a mate of mine who saw this yesterday and called it "the best film of the year." when i suggested that in my eyes Star Trek was much better than this film he replied that "Star Trek wasn't a great film because it didn't have William Shatner in it" and that "Transformers 2 was better than Star Trek". left me a bit speechless really. anyone who classes Roland Emmerich and Michael Bay as the best directors in the business obviously ain't playing with a full deck of cards.
 
had an conversation that got a bit heated with a mate of mine who saw this yesterday and called it "the best film of the year." when i suggested that in my eyes Star Trek was much better than this film he replied that "Star Trek wasn't a great film because it didn't have William Shatner in it" and that "Transformers 2 was better than Star Trek". left me a bit speechless really. anyone who classes Roland Emmerich and Michael Bay as the best directors in the business obviously ain't playing with a full deck of cards.

I have friends like that too. I just understand that I can't ask those friends about movies. A friend of mine thinks "Kentucky Fried Movie" is the best ever. He doesn't get asked about movies a lot... or asked about many things.

Star Trek, to me, was the best movie all year. Fast and Furious was pretty good too, I thought, although I think you have to have been a fan of the original (in all its sillyness). Those were better than Transformers (and I am a huge fan of those bots).
 
I expected a disaster movie with a whole lot of cheese and CGI,
and somehow it just didn't deliver. Sure it had all of the above, but
it was so uninspired, just couldn't stop looking at the wristwatch.
 
i'm almost certain that both Roland Emmerich and Michael Bay went to the same film school.

Yep, they did: None.

(I know Emmerich went to HFF Munich, but still)

I expected a disaster movie with a whole lot of cheese and CGI, and somehow it just didn't deliver. Sure it had all of the above, but it was so uninspired, just couldn't stop looking at the wristwatch.

The studio should be sued for fraudulent misrepresentation because of the trailer. What the trailer makes you believe the movie to be is disaster porn. And the writing is just like that, lame, full of clich?s and good for nothing but to somehow get the story from one sex scene explosion to the next.

Sadly, almost all good explosion/destruction moments are in the first limo/private plane vs. earthquake chase (especially the subway vs. plane moment was brilliant). After this, the movie falls apart completely: All the carnage to follow is already know from the trailer, a plane full of supercars is introduced but still none of the cars get to play in a chase scene and the only two likeable characters, the two old Blues musicians, are introduced, get noting to do and die. But the worst is that who survives, wo gets a heroic death and who just gets killed of defies everone's sensor of movie ending morale:
-Why does the russian oligarch get his moment of clarity/heroic death?
-Why does the blonde big-boobed chick has to die? (Same as the Antonov pilot: no matter how good a person you are, if you cheat, you die!)
-Why does Bush Anheuser survive unharmed?
-Beloved step-dad dies, is never mentioned again? WTF?

As Anheuser-Bush said, "Life is unfair". But in a movie, especially a disaster movie, i want moral clarity! I want to see the bad guys die and the good guys live! That's what a blockbuster is for. If i want to see my morals challenged, i turn to autheur's movies, not Emmerich.
 
Top