OldBoy

Movie:
"2012" (2009) (Starring John Cusack, Amanda Peet, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Woody Harrelson)

Release Date:
11/13/2009

Rating:
PG-13 (for intense disaster sequences and some language)

Running Time:
158 min. (2h. 38m.)

Rotten Tomatoes:
Fresh:56 Rotten:99 (36% as of 11/13/09)
RT Link...

Info:
IMDb Link...

Trailer:
<object width="512" height="296"><param name="movie" value="http://www.hulu.com/embed/Z0ZEqmmLxnU9COSpdEG9hg"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.hulu.com/embed/Z0ZEqmmLxnU9COSpdEG9hg" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowFullScreen="true" width="512" height="296"></embed></object>

Poster Art:

OldBoy

actually looking forward to this. little long for a theatrical for me, but will probably be last i get to see before getting kids ready for mid-terms.

devilshalo

Like I said earlier. You don't go for the plot (which is very Deep Impact-ish). Instead you go for the visuals.. and my oh my, it is a visual orgy. If you don't want to stay for the ridiculous runtime this thing has, I would leave after the destruction of .

fumanstan

I didn't realize this was 158 minutes. Damn.

AnonomusBob15

thanks for the tip devilshalo, I just may take up up on that.


Would it reduce the film by 10-20min?

devilshalo

Try an hour.

AnonomusBob15

An hour? Why would they do that to people?

islandclaws

So you can feel the same anguish the characters do in the film?

Michael Corvin

Because Emmerich is nothing more than Uwe Boll with a budget?

fumanstan

I wouldn't go that far

I'm catching this tomorrow morning for a work event. Not really excited, but at least it's a free showing for me.

Yeti4623

I'm hoping this isn't just a a total cash-in popcorn movie. I hope it's a memorable popcorn movie.

Kal-El

Nobody destroys the planet in movies better than Emmerich. I'm watching this weekend.

Cardiac161

Ebert just gave it 3.5 stars:http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/...IEWS/911119994

AnonomusBob15

"And Emmerich gives us time to regard the effects and appreciate them, even savor them, unlike the ADD generation and its quick-cutting Bay-cams." - Ebert


sounds good, i'm in for the whole two and a half hours.

mdc3000

I like Emmerich when he's in this mode and thought Day After Tomorrow was trashy fun...so if this is in that vein, I'm sure I'll enjoy it. Seeing it tomorrow (hopefully with D-Box!!)

dolphinboy

I think this is like 3 times for Peet and Cusack together in not that many years.

Identity, Martian Child, and this.

Matthew Chmiel

I really enjoyed the first half, which I felt was an unintentional homage to disaster films of the seventies. I say unintentional because Emmerich is a moron and probably had no idea what he was doing while putting together this film (we will get to this in a minute). I enjoyed how numerous characters were being introduced and how they weaved together as the story continues.

I also loved all of the destruction, because nothing is better than seeing all of Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Yellowstone National Park, and Washington D.C. be completely and relentlessly destroyed. I'd argue the chase scene throughout the streets (and skies) of Los Angeles is probably one of the best action set pieces of the past decade.

What didn't I like? Almost everything else.

The running time of this picture did not need to be near three hours. No sir. I mentioned earlier that I liked how there were so many characters in the film, well, either skip character development all together or give their character development some growth. This is a disaster film, I can look the other way when it comes to logical plots and development. However, there's a lot of filler in here. I don't need to see a five-minute scene where George Segal tries to talk to his estranged son on the phone as that has no impact on what's coming next. Why? Because George Segal's is then instantly killed off. Emmerich goes against the cardinal sin by giving characters scenes to themselves before killing them off to try and make the scene more emotional or impacting. It's almost as if Emmerich is trying to tug on the heart strings of his audience. Well, guess what Emmerich? You're a shitty screenwriter and incapable of having such scenes be meaningful, so knock it off. Kill people and move on to the next scene of destruction.

To devilshalo who said the last hour tries to be too preachy. This is a disaster film. I don't need a morality tale. If we're giving a morality tale in a disaster film, it should be something akin to survival of the fittest.



Chiwetel Ejiofor is the only actor in the film who is actually trying to elevate the material from shit, Woody Harrelson is fun for his ten minutes of screen time, John Cusack looks like he wishes he was given more material to do rather than be the comic relief, and numerous other actors (such as Amanda Peet, Thomas McCarthy, Danny Glover, and Thandie Newton) are just wasted.

I agree with everyone that if you're looking for destruction, you won't be disappointed. The film is entertaining, but it could've been better. It could've and should've been this:

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZW2qxFkcLM0&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54abd6"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZW2qxFkcLM0&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54abd6" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

fumanstan

Agree with pretty much everything above from Chmiel. We were pretty much all cracking up at the destruction scenes. Breathtaking sure, but the disaster always being right behind them like a giant chase sequence was hilarious, especially watching a limo navigate the streets of LA, take some sweet jumps, and go through a building Rinse and repeat with a small plane, a trailer, and a bigger plane. That part of it is some stupid fun; everything else not so much.

marty888

Probably the best "bad movie" since SHOWGIRLS. Special effects are indeed terrific, so if you're going to see this at all, don't wait for it to show up in your living room - that big screen is all it has going for it.

jpb07

This movie is going to be A/V porn for all of our HT setups. If they do the BR right it could be reference material.

That said, it's better than Transformers 2 but that's not really saying much.

I hated the athiest comments thrown into what became a biblical tale.

fumanstan

What comments were there? Other then having arks, I don't really think of it being biblical although I never notice those things unless it's rammed down my throat.

Supermallet

What atheist comments were those? And why would it be a Biblical tale if this was a Mayan prophecy?

Edit: Or what fumanstan said.

Rypro 525

hmmmm, this in Digital Projection at the landmark theater in baltimore, or Boondock Saints 2 at the muvico, decisions decisions

Brian T

I am absolutely sick of this kind of thing in action/adventure movies, this ridiculous need to make every escape by the skin of the teeth. Hell, not the skin, the goddamned root, because the skin's been scraped away (along with the logic) by hurricanes of debris. Stupid fun? No, just stupid. It's acceptable once or twice, and even then it doesn't hurt to give the characters a bit of a head start; the earth doesn't literally have to be falling away at their feet—or under the wheels of their many airplanes, as it does in this thing—to sell us on the idea that they're in jeopardy. Emmerich seems to do this in every picture, and it's unbelievably insulting to the audience, as if he thinks we're not capable of understanding suspense unless it's actually pushed beyond the realm of logic. Over the past decade or so, it's gotten to the point in a lot of movies where narrow escapes are so fucking close they're actually impossible, and you can't help but instantly realize it and start analyzing it, which isn't what you should be doing. There's just no need for it.

Another thing I've hated for a long time in movies like this: the need to have characters let out a protracted, and increasingly loud, "whooooooooooaaaaa" every time they're undergoing one of these narrow escapes (as Cusack does while the plane is flying through the falling buildings, and probably elsewhere), as if, once again, the filmmakers think the audience needs to be reminded that what they're seeing is an E-ticket rollercoaster ride. Christ, it's insulting.

The special effects are phenomenal—and I think the reviewer here was a bit harsh in comparing the greenscreen work to the "let's walk on treadmills" silliness in A SOUND OF THUNDER. Sure, you suspect greenscreen here and there—particularly during the dusky pickup truck ride late in the film, but it's not so obvious that it takes you out of the drama completely, as it did so painfully in SOUND.

The various reviewers who've pointed out all the other movies this "lifts" from are pretty well spot on. Don't know whether the subject matter simply means we're bound to see things we may have seen in other movies, or if Emmerich hubristically wanted to show all the other directors that he could make even more detailed versions of stuff they already did, only as throwaway gags in his supermovie. Seriously . . .

Tipping cruise ship = POSEIDON remake (not to mention the act of heroism on the ark at the conclusion!)
Limo through building = LETHAL WEAPON 4
Falling subway train = WANTED
Ark gashing ark = TITANIC (well, OK, that's a stretch, but then there is that big chunk of city that actually appears to break off at the stern in one wide shot)
Air Force One in the water = AIR FORCE ONE in the water
Yellowstone "meteors" = every Michael Bay meteor
Collapsing/crumbling elevated highways = WAR OF THE WORLDS

Others? Probably, but it's late here, so feel free to flesh out the list.

Someone above said this would have been better were it seen largely from the perspective of the Cusack character, or one character in general, instead of several, which inevitably leads to scenes like that godawful, preachy "come together" moment on the arks at the end, not to mention several other times throughout the film. This is SO true; there are just too many mouths in this film, spouting some of the most artificial "movie world" dialogue.

When it wasn't destroying everything to impress me, which it did, this movie actually made me feel dumber. Roland Emmerich's earlier pictures seem better with every new picture he makes.

All said, 2012 is still worth seeing large if you can, but for entirely obvious reasons. It's too easy to say "yeah, well, I expected to check my brain at the door" or whatever, but it's genuinely saddening to think how much more intelligent something like this could have been were it penned by someone with a larger sense of awareness. "Athiest comments"—which, like the "Christian comments" and "Buddhist comments" in the film, are just that, comments; they amount to absolutely nothing because Emmerich isn't philosophically mature enough to do anything more than nod at them in the hopes the audience will be fooled—might have actually provoked some thought in a picture like this were it made by someone unafraid to have a point of view, and capable of weaving (perhaps contradicting) contemporary philosophies into all the glitter and dust, something Emmerich has never, ever done, and will never, ever do.

Matthew Chmiel

Boondock Saints II. You shouldn't even have to ask.