2012 was big, dumb, totally unrealistic - and the most fun I've had in the theater since Star Trek came out this past summer.

The difference between Emmerich and directors of other "visual extravaganzas" (like you, Michael Bay) is that Emmerich is in on the joke. He never takes himself too seriously, so when we get cornball dialogue like "we lost it all in Vegas" or "my ex told me she never wanted to see me again" it's a wink to the audience that this is supposed to be taken as good ol' popcorn-chewing fun. Emmerich is the Irwin Allen of the new millennium.

2012 isn't going to win any awards (except maybe for visual effects), but it's more entertaining than anything Michael Bay, Robert Zemeckis, Steven Spielberg, or George Lucas has given us this decade - and that's good enough for me.

In the recent remake of Poseidon, the filmmakers smartly took what could've been a three hour movie and excised everything that wasn't stuff blowing up. The result was a film that wasn't very good, but was entertaining and short.

When I heard the running time of 2012, I wondered what would've been if Emmerich had taken cues from his fellow German Wolfgang Petersen and cut it in half. As I came to realize while watching the film, length was never Emmerich's biggest enemy: it was pacing.

In his past disaster movies, the disaster always arrived early: the snows and superstorms of The Day After Tomorrow, the ships of Independence Day. And while there was always some sort of final showdown, the middle of the film always seemed to be a slow, endlessly boring mess.

In 2012, Emmerich figures out that if you sneak in enough explosions and mayhem throughout the entire run of the movie, it helps. For the first time in all of his films, I'm not checking my watch. (Worse, during ID4, I actually fell asleep).

Is the movie good? Depends on how you react to a scene of a couple saying they feel like they are drifting apart, moments before a crack in the earth literally separates them from each other. Or this scene: a character falls into a fiery pit, their family grieving, the camera sitting close to the ground, intently focused on the edge of the crevasse. Moments pass, then the character's hand grasps the edge of the cliff -- ALIVE!-- while bombastic music begins to play. Do you roll your eyes? Do you cheer? Do you laugh?

The entire movie is cobbled together from scenes like this. Unlike an earlier commenter believed, I do think that Emmerich recognizes these homages. Why else saddle the film with a completely unnecessary subplot about two jazz musicians? Because they're on a cruise ship, and shit's about to go down.

Tarantino can get away with making a movie riddled with homages and cliches. But he subverts them, or makes them his own. Emmerich is not smart enough to do that; or, if he is, he certainly didn't try. 2012 is a big, dumb film, but not shockingly so.

It's not for dramatic effect. The scenes where Emmerich went digital were all ones in the water chambers, moreover, they were ones in the water chambers that had water pouring in from the ceiling. Whatever camera Emmerich used for this, he didn't want to (or couldn't) get wet. The other shots in the end are still in film; the only shots in digital are ones where water is splashing on the camera. I think this was a technical, not dramatic effect.

(For someone using this for dramatic effect, I'd check out Scott Frank's The Lookout).

Saw it today, highly mediocre, borderline sucked.

I did not care about ANY character, none of the emotional elements worked (they came across as laughable and cheesy), there was no suspense in any of the action scenes, etc... It wasn't really boring but at the same time I never cared about anything that happened. I just kind of watched the movie indifferently.

Here is what it comes down to though: 2012 makes both Deep Impact and Armageddon look like masterpieces of tension and emotion. Period.

In ID4, I was interested in Goldblum, Will Smith, and Pullman. 2012 seemed to try and do the same type of thing by having different stories going on at the same time, but other then Chiwetel Ejiofor (had to look him up) I didn't care about anyone else. Cusack, Thandie Newton, Amanda Peet, the Russian characters... not at all.

I thought this movie was just OK. The limo through LA scene was actually cool, though the CGI was Matrix Reloaded like (just meh)

I didn't mind paying $6.75 for this. haha

Saw it. Entertaining, but they didn't have to do the whole bordering on three hours thing. I do have to say it was a step above other disaster flicks in that I actually cared about most of the characters, which I have to accredit to having decent actors in the roles.

IMO, this would have been more interesting as two less than two hour movies as opposed to one big bloated one. Except I would have done it

But of course the whole "How I would have done it" is not a valid reason to dislike a movie, which I did not. I just don't see myself ever watching it again as once the big screen aspect is gone not much remains to dazzle.

So therefore it's acceptable to keep it stupid—and long (more value for your money, little ones!)—for the sake of the children? This is a movie that will attract all ages, regardless. Spectacles do that. Emmerich knew that but decided to pander by writing the most stock characters imagineable because the "it's just a big fun popcorn movie and I check my brain at the door" crowd would still make the film a fortune at the box office even if ONLY they showed up. Even now, in 2009, after 40 years of disaster movies, it's understandable that someone would trot out the same old thing just because a unwitting new generation or two will be sitting in the audience. I am ashamed that other, better written popcorn spectacle movies led me to expect better from someone like Roland Emmerich. I will do my best to stand down after this post! Still, this film could have been just as successful if they'd hired a writer or two with brains, or senses of humour pitched somewhere above the average 10-year old's mentality. Humour in Disney cartoons aims higher than it does in this film.


What an odd statement. Love it at face value, or shut up, I guess? Logically, I'd have to watch it before I could even decide if I didn't like it, but whatever.

As I've gotten older, the range of films I enjoy has actually broadened considerably, not narrowed (and it still has room for films like 2012). When I consider how expansive I thought my taste was 20 years ago (and it was pretty expansive), I have to smile. You can't possibly say that the same isn't true of many people who watch films with any kind of serious intent, especially people on forums like this. Getting wiser is what opens our minds to things they were closed to—or couldn't appreciate—when we were young. I worry that my retirement years will be very hard on my bank account as I may be exploring in directions I haven't even thought of yet . That said, I certainly didn't close my eyes to 2012. I may not fit the age bracket that marketers define as making up the largest segment of the audience for films like these (and even when I did, I was hugely sceptical), but it's precisely the kind of film I look forward to going to see within the first few days, just as I did when I was a teenager. And yes, I'm far more conscious of its flaws and better able to articulate how I feel about them than a good many kids, teens or young adults!

I would expect—and even understand the use of—the old "don't like it, don't watch it" argument if I was some right winger protesting the effect of torture horror movies on our precious widdle children or some B.S. like that, but I'm an avid moviegoer who firmly believes—AND HAS SEEN—that movies like 2012 (i.e. seasonal popcorn blockbusters) don't have to be designed with mouth-breathers foremost in mind, and that it's all in the writing, and that they don't need to be 2.5 hours long. Emmerich and Kloser are formula regurgitators with pens (oooh, hooray, they're in on the joke! Really?). I think Emmerich is afraid to go after quality summer action movie writers—or even script polishers, for heaven's sake—because he fears he might not know how to film what they give him.


Then why do they do it so often, and still make millions?


No, they don't. They run the gamut, just as Hollywood movies do. And not every "good" one gets scooped up for an American release. Genre has a lot to do with what gets released in this region from others. Context has a lot to do with how they should be viewed. And from what I've seen in certain threads elsewhere here, that context is sorely lacking, since American cinema invariably gets held up as some kind of standard that foreign filmmakers should aspire to.

If you're going to put another country's entire cinematic output—or even individual films—in a context that compares it to U.S. cinema overall, then yes, of course it could come up wanting. But why would anyone want to do that? Bollywood films should be primarily compared to other Bollywood films (and maybe films from the immediate surrounding areas with cultural overlap), and in the appropriate historical and cultural contexts, which have had almost nothing to do with Hollywood for decades. Same goes for most other regions. That's how you smoke out the good stuff from the bad. Even if the good stuff still doesn't measure up to Hollywood product, so what? It doesn't have to.


I'd wager a month's salary that my Asian cinema purchases (old stuff and new stuff) would hold their own against anyone else's here. But it's so constantly compared to American cinema on this site (and/or painted with wide, wide brushes as being "bad") that it's not worth the time trying to discuss it. Case in point . . . nah, anyone who cares already knows where it is . . .

But this is a debate that's destined to go nowhere . . .


Oddly enough, I would agree this portion, although it's not really saying much coming from me, as it's entirely subjective.


So they can inject intelligence into these things? Fancy that!

That was my feeling. I cared about many of the characters (that's what good actors will get you) which helps. Could it have been smarter? Yes but I enjoyed it for what it was.

I wish they were written better too, but why would they? I'm all for change too, but realistically, why would movie producers consistently write well-written action movies? Why would movie producers make 2012 a well-written movie? Look at all the big-budget epic films that will come out soon. Do you really think Avatar is going to be well written? I want to see this movie, I'll probably enjoy it, but from the looks of the trailer, it looks like a poorly written film. I don't get why it's so. There are a lot of good writers, but maybe there aren't too many good action movie writers? I certainly know that movie producers get in the way of a movie potentially being good or not, so why are movie producers going to change? It would be nice if every other action film was inspired to be like Matrix or District 9 (well-written action films).

I meant just lower your expectations. If you lower your expectations and don't expect intelligent well-written action movies, then you can enjoy these types of mindless action movies more...

We are out of the age demographic for that particular genre. I'm not talking about getting wiser to like different kinds of movies (like foreign movies for example). I was just talking about the action-movie genre. As we get older and wiser, we will be out of the demographic of that action-movie genre. These action movies are not aimed towards 30-year olds and over nor are they created to stimulate our minds. Especially if the movie is PG-13, since R-rated action movies have more freedom to be well-written (Matrix and District 9). The PG-13 rated The Dark Knight, X-Men 2, and Iron Man are well-done movies, but I wouldn't necessarily call them well-written or intelligent. Their storylines and dialogue are as generic as in any other action movie. Those above three are just great because as a whole they are well-made and the filmmakers were thoughtful to fans.

I agree with you. I don't know why action movies can't get excellent writers. Do excellent writers for action movies exist and/or do movie producers choose not to use them? I have no idea why they don't use them. But I do understand why movie producers don't need to change their habits if all their crummy action movies are making tons of money.




I'm trying not to be a curver when it comes to foreign movies (except for Bollywood flicks). Good films from every country are made the same way - good acting, good flow, good structure, good storyline, good entertainment, etc. Good filmmaking is the standard, not American cinema. Asian action movie cinema is plagued by filler. There's usually a good opening and a good ending, but the majority of the movie is plagued by filler. It's like watching a movie with deleted scenes put back into the film. That's a typical Asian action movie for you. G.I. Joe is a poorly written action movie, but it's got no filler, and it just flows from beginning to end.

Then you are curving a movie just because it's foreign, which means you are treating that country as inferior filmmakers. There is nothing wrong with that - I do that with Bollywood. But when it comes to Asia (China, Japan, and Korea) and Europe, I don't think they should have any excuses. They can make good films just like Hollywood: With Europe, I see their films equal to American ones, I just don't get why a lot of their action movies suck. With Asia, they are the kings of filming action scenes, but what hurts me is that the writing of their action movies are so, so bad, even worse than a Hollywood G.I. Joe-type written film.


Before I continue on this subject, do you think that a good Asian action movie that you really like is most likely going to be considered a fair action movie in other people's eyes (people that are non-Asian movie fanatics or from non-Asian countries) ? The thing I love about Bollywood is that most Indians I talk to in movie forums and in real life are not oblivious. They are aware and admit that the majority of their films suck ass. And furthermore, Non-Indian Bollywood fans such as myself are not oblivious to the majority of them sucking as well. But when I talk to many Asian-movie fans, they have trouble judging the film as being an amateur film or a good film. There is nothing wrong with liking a fair or sucky film, but to be in denial that it's an amateurish production I don't get (for example, Always, Yattaman, K-20, recent Johnny To films or any other HK mafia/criminal cop film, recent Korean blockbusters).

you forgot goofy... but on the whole I agree it was fun, much better than that Michael Bay movie from earlier in the year which roughly had the same running time but I managed to fall asleep on several times.

for some reason the audience I saw this with, thought the reveal of Danny Glover as the President was funny.

It struck me as hilarious too.

The limo/plane 'chase' scenes would make a hell of a theme park ride, all they have to do is 3d them up and add motion.

Good, then we agree after all.



Because they can. And because the have.



I don't know. I haven't seen it yet. Have you?



).


You're judging a finished film on a trailer? I don't know how that's possible, but whatever works. It seems unfair, and might explain why you "don't get why it's so." All I saw was a trailer. It made me want to see the film. End of story.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

What is so wrong with expecting well-written action movies? They happen! It's like you're determined to praise mediocrity. I guess by keeping my expectations level for virtually everything, I actually aim higher, but only in comparison to someone who lowers theirs as a habit. As a result, my expectations have been met many times in these kinds of mega-blockbusters, often because I was famililar with the work of certain people involved (though never enough to judge based on a trailer, of course).

There will always be people who don't care, and Roland Emmerich will be around for many more years (presumably) to feed them the pabulum they crave. And hey, I'll probably still check out his movies. They're good-looking, usually. And I'm hardly a complete cynic. I can extract some entertainment value from them. You'll notice that nowhere in this thread have I said that I hated this movie (2012), or that it sucked, or sucked ass, or was downright "bad". I don't like such narrow labels as they don't elaborate. I hated some elements, for sure, but I elaborated as best I could, I hope.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

So we're not in the demographic. Big deal. Lots of big-budget genre movies like this bring in screenwriters who don't pander. Not sure about you, but I've seen them, and they didn't insult their audiences the way Emmerich does with his simple-minded melodrama and re-heated (and I mean seriously re-heated) dialogue. That means we should just accept truly dismal screenwriting (and this isn't just my opinion; read the legit critical consensus, or look at the opinions in this thread) from film's that spent hundreds of millions of dollars to entertain us? Man, I can see adjusting expectations for some little foreign movie that was made for the equivalent of a grip's salary on a Hollywood production, but do it for 2012, well . . .

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

No, they're all fairly well written. Being "thoughtful to fans" sometimes includes giving due thought to the screenplay. I found flaws in all three of those movies, in case anyone might assume I'm some kind of praise-spewing fan boy. It was subjective of course, but nothing that made me feel as pandered to as 2012. I don't expect the equivalent of classic literature, but Emmerich could do better, and shorter, without sacrificing spectacle (my key, and repeated, point). Besides, you've already copped to many of the film's deep, deep flaws after initially raving about it, so I suspect we're closer to being on the same page than this discussion would suggest.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

But plenty of big budget action/genre movies that are better-written than 2012 do make tons of money. So better action writers do exist, and producers and directors do use them, and they often rake in the dough if they strike the right chords (as in, more than just good writing). I'm leery of using the term "excellent writers for action", nor will I single any that I might think come close to fitting that kind of absolutist term, because the resulting debate will just spin this discussion further off topic. Although I will say that Harald Kloser and Roland Emmerich would not fit the description.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


2012 is plagued with filler, too. That's why it's two-and-a-half hours long. It doesn't "just flow". If if did, the praise would probably be unanimous. Read the comments here. Read the mainstream reviews. Read the amateur internet stuff. Far too many people have said this for it to be a small sample of the viewing public.

Further to that, and using your own rationale, hundreds of Hollywood movies are plagued with filler (in someone's eyes), from direct-to-video shelf-fillers and TV movies, to top-shelf blockbusters like the one under discussion in this thread. You be kind if you'd stop singling out one region's cinema as being more guilty of this than any other's. They're all capable of it. If, as you say, "good filmmaking" is the standard (which is good to hear, as it doesn't often come through in your posts), then you should already know this, and judging by comments you've leveled at some American movies over time, you must. But hey, it's all subjective in the end, right? Especially on an internet forum.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Then you are curving a movie just because it's foreign, which means you are treating that country as inferior filmmakers.

How DO you draw these conclusions? I've never done this with foreign cinema ever, nor on this forum. You're the one who seems to put nearly all of it on a curve that relates it, often unfairly, to Hollywood cinema, for example:

.

Other cultures have no excuses for not making movies that rival Hollywood on your terms? Or because they've demonstrated a technical proficiency (directing, acting, editing, photography, etc.) that equals Hollywood's? That's silly; they're not Hollywood, and they generally don't make their films FOR westerners like us, that's why it's up to us to appreciate the context rather than just define the film by what it isn't in relation to Hollywood. Whether they succeed or fail on their own turf and with their own audiences has so little to do with how much like Hollywood movies they are.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

That's a loaded question. Why not phrase it properly, and ask why would I think ANY action movie from ANYWHERE is most likely going to be considered a fair action movie in other people's eyes? Look at the opinions here regarding 2012, for example? Singling out Asian cinema, which rarely seems to please you on almost any level, and which I take a socio-historical interest in for my offline writing, is just suspect.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I don't bother much with Indian cinema. I've seen and enjoyed plenty, don't worry, and would love to watch more if the average human lifespan was about 120 years, but since it's not, I only dabble very rarely with Indian cinema. That said, I'm well aware that Indians, especially younger generations raised in North America (i.e. real-world associates and friends; those are the kinds I know because I don't visit Indian cinema forums) find their own cinema to be deeply flawed, and yet culturally they're still compelled to watch it, and even take in certain Big Indian Blockbusters when they play the various Indian cinemas that are within driving distance of my neighbourhood here.

As well, Indian films (and Tamil, and Malaysian, and Indonesian), are actually given screens at our major-mega multiplexes here in Toronto (here's an example: see which one sticks out here: http://www.cinemaclock.com/aw/ctha.a...arborough.html). Now why would that be if they all "sucked ass" and no one was watching them? Well, in part it's because, for some countries, and the diaspora FROM those countries, Hollywood quality isn't the drawing card as much as cherished performers, directors, music, dance choreography, etc. Having sat in these screenings on occasion (when there's subtitles, of course), I can say from experience, that many young people in the audiences are not above ridiculing the cornier aspects of the films (you should hear it sometimes!), and yet, there they sit, by the dozens, sometimes hundreds, at $10 a head!

If you're in a city, you're presumably familiar with all of this. It's a lot different if you're not, though. Not worse, not better, just not as easy to see first-hand. It changes perceptions, especially if, like me, you're the rare white dude who's also a cinema tourist when foreign films play local big screens. Were I into reviewing Indian cinema, these factors would be taken into consideration. Otherwise, every single review I'd write would be along the lines of "this is crap compared to Hollywood" and where's the enlightenment in that?

Unfortunately, Asian cinema doesn't get the screen time here in Toronto that southeast Asian cinema gets because of the unfortunate piracy of the former, although I did just get finished attending several screenings at Toronto's Reel Asian Film Festival, and came away very satisfied with what I saw, imperfections and all! And not once was I sitting there going, "Hollywood would do this differently or better" or "this could be so much more like a Hollywood movie." I appreciated them in their own cultural and historical contexts. Richly rewarding.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[/QUOTE]But when I talk to many Asian-movie fans, they have trouble judging the film as being an amateur film or a good film.[/QUOTE]

This, of course, makes me wonder where you participate and what kind of experience those "fans" actually have. I only participate at two respected forums because they help with my project research (I peruse a few others, though), and so far, the members I've met are anything but oblivious to the range of quality within that cinema. I'll happily admit that Asian cinema is an area of fondness, but in no way am I blind to the flaws of certain pictures, nor do I place them on your stranged curve that ranks overseas talent somewhere below Hollywood talent.

When I'm researching some A-list prestige picture, or no-budget shot-on-video Hong Kong shelf-stuffer (the kind of films I seriously doubt you'd even bother with because it's so far below the internet radar), I refuse to run it through the narrow-minded "Hollywood" litmus test. They're not Hollywood films, they don't have a Hollywood histroy. I take them on their own terms, and in relation to their own culture (and hopefully what I'm able to learn about it), and in relation to their own industry trends at the time of its release, and so on. IF, by chance, a title is a direct remake of a Hollywood/European movie (such as RANSOM EXPRESS, or TWO FACES, or even the higher-budgeted MUTO BONTIE, to cite three examples) then and only then does it deserve comparing to something from Hollywood, but only on that level. But enough, I really prefer to discuss Asian cinema elsewhere, and this is undoubtedly causing everyone's eyes to glaze . . .



That's assuming that everyone shares your standards, which they can't. Especially after the same old debates come up nearly every time you post on the subject! If they don't share your baseline, then there's nothing to be in denial about.

Your standards are unique and uncommon, and you don't believe local context is important to understanding cinema from other regions, nor is budget if the raw talent it there. That's fine. You're not alone. You can't understand why anyone would possibly find anything useful or enjoyable in a film that YOU (personally) find "sucky" or only fair ("to be in denial . . . " as you call them), and therefore, any kind of defence is taken to be the unequivocal praise of the deluded. It sure keeps things lively!

Conversely, 2012 appears to have had the opposite effect: "One of the best action movies of the year. So much better than all those other big movies that came out ealier in the year!" People who don't like it just didn't lower their expectations enough, apparently.

So, we must lower our expectations of Roland Emmerich and 2012, but for films from the rest of the world, we must raise them because they have no excuse not to be as good as Hollywood. Interesting . . .

Good, then we agree after all.



Because they can. And because they have.



I don't know. I haven't seen it yet.




You're pre-judging a finished film on a trailer. I don't know how that's possible, but whatever works. It seems unfair, and might explain why you "don't get why it's so." All I saw was a trailer. It made me want to see the film. End of story.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


What is so wrong with expecting well-written action movies? They happen! I guess by keeping my expectations level for virtually everything, I actually aim higher, but only in comparison to someone who lowers theirs as a habit. As a result, my expectations have been met many times in these kinds of mega-blockbusters, often because I was famililar with the work of certain people involved (though never enough to judge based on a trailer, of course).

There will always be people who don't care, and Roland Emmerich will be around for many more years (presumably) to feed them the pabulum they crave. And hey, I'll probably still check out his movies. They're good-looking, usually. And I'm hardly a complete cynic. I can extract some entertainment value from them. You'll notice that nowhere in this thread have I said that I hated this movie (2012), or that it sucked, or sucked ass, or was downright "bad". I don't like such narrow labels as they don't elaborate. I hated some elements, for sure, but I elaborated as best I could, I hope.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


So we're not in the demographic. Big deal. We're still in the audience. Lots of big-budget genre movies like this bring in screenwriters who don't pander. Not sure about you, but I've seen them, and they didn't insult their audiences the way Emmerich does with his simple-minded melodrama and re-heated (and I mean seriously re-heated) dialogue. That means we should just accept truly dismal screenwriting (and this isn't just my opinion; read the legit critical consensus, or look at the opinions in this thread) from film's that spent hundreds of millions of dollars to entertain us? Man, I can see adjusting expectations for some little foreign movie that was made for the equivalent of a grip's salary on a Hollywood production, but do it for 2012, well . . .


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


No, they're all fairly well written. Being "thoughtful to fans" sometimes includes giving due thought to the screenplay. I found flaws in all three of those movies, in case anyone might assume I'm some kind of praise-spewing fan boy. It was subjective of course, but nothing that made me feel as pandered to as 2012. I don't expect the equivalent of classic literature, but Emmerich could do better, and shorter, without sacrificing spectacle (my key, and repeated, point). Besides, you've already copped to many of the film's deep, deep flaws after initially raving about it, so I suspect we're closer to being on the same page than this discussion would suggest.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


But plenty of big budget action/genre movies that are better-written than 2012 do make tons of money. So better action writers do exist, and producers and directors do use them, and they often rake in the dough if they strike the right chords (as in, more than just good writing). I'm leery of using the term "excellent writers for action", nor will I single out any that I might think come close to fitting that kind of absolutist term, because the resulting debate will just spin this discussion further off topic. Although I will say that Harald Kloser and Roland Emmerich would not fit the description.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Then you are a curver.


2012 is plagued with filler, too. That's why it's two-and-a-half hours long. It doesn't "just flow". If if did, the praise would probably be unanimous. Read the comments here. Read the mainstream reviews. Read the amateur internet stuff. Far too many people have said this for it to be a small sample of the viewing public.

Further to that, and using your own rationale, hundreds of Hollywood movies are plagued with filler (in someone's eyes), from direct-to-video shelf-fillers and TV movies, to top-shelf blockbusters like the one under discussion in this thread. You be kind if you'd stop singling out one region's cinema as being more guilty of this than any other's. They're all capable of it. If, as you say, "good filmmaking" is the standard (which is good to hear, as it doesn't often come through in your posts), then you should already know this, and judging by comments you've leveled at some American movies over time, you must. But hey, it's all subjective in the end, right? Especially on an internet forum.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


How DO you draw these conclusions? I've never done this with foreign cinema ever, nor on this forum. You're the one who seems to put nearly all of it on a curve that relates it, often unfairly, to Hollywood cinema, for example:

Other cultures have no excuses for not making movies that rival Hollywood on your terms? And because they've demonstrated a technical proficiency (directing, acting, editing, photography, etc.) that equals Hollywood's? That's silly; they're not Hollywood, and they generally don't make their films FOR westerners like us, that's why it's up to us to appreciate the context rather than just define the film by what it isn't in relation to Hollywood. Whether they succeed or fail on their own turf and with their own audiences has so little to do with how much like Hollywood movies they are.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


That's a loaded question. Why not phrase it properly, and ask why would I think ANY action movie from ANYWHERE is most likely going to be considered a fair action movie in other people's eyes? The answer would then be obvious. Look at the opinions here regarding 2012, for example? Singling out Asian cinema, which rarely seems to please you on almost any level, and which I take a socio-historical interest in for my offline writing, is just suspect.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


I don't bother much with Indian cinema. I've seen and enjoyed plenty, don't worry, and would love to watch more if the average human lifespan was about 120 years, but since it's not, I only dabble very rarely with Indian cinema. That said, I'm well aware that Indians, especially younger generations raised in North America (i.e. real-world associates and friends; those are the kinds I know because I don't visit Indian cinema forums) find their own cinema to be deeply flawed, and yet culturally they're still compelled to watch it, and even take in certain Big Indian Blockbusters when they play the various Indian cinemas that are within driving distance of my neighbourhood here.

As well, Indian films (and Tamil, and Malaysian, and Indonesian), are actually given screens at our major-mega multiplexes here in Toronto (here's an example: see which one sticks out here: http://www.cinemaclock.com/aw/ctha.a...arborough.html). Now why would that be if they all "sucked ass" and no one was watching them? Well, in part it's because, for some countries, and the diaspora FROM those countries, Hollywood quality isn't the drawing card as much as cherished performers, directors, music, dance choreography, etc. Having sat in these screenings on occasion (when there's subtitles, of course), I can say from experience, that many young people in the audiences are not above ridiculing the cornier aspects of the films (you should hear it sometimes!), and yet, there they sit, by the dozens, sometimes hundreds, at $10 a head!

If you're in a city, you're presumably familiar with all of this. It's a lot different if you're not, though. Not worse, not better, just not as easy to see first-hand. It changes perceptions, especially if, like me, you're the rare white dude who's also a cinema tourist when foreign films play local big screens. Were I into reviewing Indian cinema, these factors would be taken into consideration. Otherwise, every single review I'd write would be along the lines of "this is crap compared to Hollywood" and where's the enlightenment in that?

Unfortunately, Asian cinema doesn't get the screen time here in Toronto that southeast Asian cinema gets because of the unfortunate piracy of the former, although I did just get finished attending several screenings at Toronto's Reel Asian Film Festival, and came away very satisfied with what I saw, imperfections and all! And not once was I sitting there going, "Hollywood would do this differently or better" or "this could be so much more like a Hollywood movie." I appreciated them in their own cultural and historical contexts. Richly rewarding.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


This, of course, makes me wonder where you participate and what kind of experience those "fans" actually have. I only participate at two respected forums because they help with my project research (I peruse a few others, though), and so far, the members I've met are anything but oblivious to the range of quality within that cinema. I'll happily admit that Asian cinema is an area of fondness, but in no way am I blind to the flaws of certain pictures, nor do I place them on your stranged curve that ranks overseas talent somewhere below Hollywood talent. But I digress—I really prefer discussing Asian cinema elsewhere, and this is undoubtedly causing everyone's eyes to glaze . . .


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


That's assuming that everyone shares your standards, which they can't. Especially after the same reactions often come up when you post on the subject! If they don't share your baseline, then there may be nohing to be in denial about.

Your standards are unique and uncommon, and you don't seem to believe local context is important to understanding cinema from other regions, nor is budget if the raw talent it there. That's fine. You're not alone. You say you can't understand why anyone would possibly find anything useful or enjoyable in a film that YOU (personally) find "sucky" or only fair ("to be in denial . . . " as you call them), and therefore, any kind of defence is taken to be the unequivocal praise of the deluded. It sure keeps things lively!

Conversely, 2012 appears to have had the opposite effect: "One of the best action movies of the year. So much better than all those other big movies that came out ealier in the year!" People who don't like it just didn't lower their expectations enough, apparently.

So, we must lower our expectations of Roland Emmerich and 2012, but for films from the rest of the world, we must raise them because they have no excuse not to be as good as Hollywood. Interesting . . .

saw this last night. Entertaining. The L.A. and Yellowstone scenes were two of the coolest action scenes i've seen on the big screen.

Everyone enjoyed it, and I adjusted everyone's expectations of the drama scenes beforehand, so we were able to laugh accordingly.

Holy crap that's some long quoting above!

Personally, I like big dumb Michael Bay action better then Emmerich. I would disagree that Bay takes his material more seriously then Emmerich.

Can't say I don't try . . .

So you stayed til the end?

It's unfair to predict that an action movie will be written like every other action movie? But the majority of action movies (including Hollywood movies) are like that. Didn't you want to see 2012 after you saw the trailer? I want to see most big cheesy action movies, but like I said before, I don't expect them to be uniquely written. I'm not the type of person that says "since it looks stupid, I'm not going to see it." I'm the type of person that says "since it looks stupid, I will see it and hope it's better than I expect." I never boycott films. I have no problem wasting money or time on seeing a bad movie.


There is nothing wrong with it. I'm just saying if you train yourself to lower your expectations, you will enjoy more and criticize less. If you don't like to accept mediocrity, then you should judge movies based on trailers and reviews, because they are there to help you to avoid mediocrity. So, you avoid movie trailers, but what about movie reviews?


If we are lucky, movie producers will butt out...Out of curiousity, what are the big-budget genre action movies of this year that you think are well written?


But I don't see technical proficiency (directing, acting, editing, photography) as being "Hollywood". Any country with a film industry is cabable of having professional technical proficiency. The main problem that I have with Asian action movies are their problems with acting, editing, dialogue, and storyline - that's about it. That's another topic I guess. But yeah, I have something against Asian cinema (as well as Bollywood cinema), because I have lowered my expectations to the bottom and I'm still disappointed by release after release. The only well-done Chinese action movies I've seen recently are Red Cliff and Ip Man. I can't think of any other good ones. The last well-done Korean action movie was probably Shadowless Sword which came out ages ago. The last well-done Japanese action movie was Goemon and before that I can't even remember - probably an animated Japanese film. The last good Thai action film was I can't even remember - certainly not Ong Bak 2, not Chocolate, not Dynamite Warrior, and so on...The last good Vietnamese action film was The Rebel (but that's okay, because I rarely see Vietnamese films, and the ones i've seen in the past are usually good dramas)


Do you ever research for movie reviews from that country of origin? Once again, I'm not blaming a mediocre foreign action movie on the "different culture so it's not going to be good as Hollywood" excuse. I've noticed that big-budget action movies from other countries that I particularly singled out as mediocre don't get such high praise from there own countries as well. Just because it was a hit in that country, it doesn't mean it got good reviews.


If you watch more Indian cinema, it's a great exercise of appreciating more Hollywood mediocre movies. I've trained myself. That's one of the reasons I don't fault Hollywood movies as much since watching genre flicks from other countries.

I'd much rather rewatch Minority Report, Catch Me If You Can, Transformers, and Revenge of the Sith again than this.

There's nothing wrong with today's movies that a little more Jason Statham, Megan Fox and some well-staged kung fu couldn't fix.

all these words give me a headache... lighten up people it's a popcorn movie....

No they're not. They may be plotted in similar fashion, because there are certain established plot templates that have proven structurally sound within certain genres, and which can cross borders with no need for cultural translation. But they're not all WRITTEN "like that." A good number are rather smart, especially when held up against something like 2012.


I said that I did. And then I did.

The trailer, I'll admit, gave me pause over the dialogue it featured, but I didn't draw any firm conclusions because I don't judge finished movies based on trailers. I keep my expectations level, even with Roland Emmerich. He got the benefit of the doubt, but in the end, he delivered the same old thing: visual splendor with insulting writing. Was I surprised? No. But I still held out a teensy bit of hope . . .


So you go in with higher hopes after all? What are those if not expectations? Interesting . . .


Neither do I.


Neither do I. We can't know it's "bad" in our eyes until we've paid the money. I will always pay to see as many "spectacle" or "blockbuster" movies on the big screen as I can. And I will always expect them to evolve, even if some of them prove incapable of that.


Like you do with Asian cinema and Bollywood? Please . . .


I judge movies after I've seen the movie. And I will accept mediocrity if there is no choice, but not silently (who would?). Trailers and reviews don't think for me. Trailers entice me to the theatre based on concept, and maybe the director, and maybe the cast, but mostly concept. Reviews offer contrast to (or simply complement) my own thoughts after I've seen the picture.


I love movie trailers. Where did you hear that I avoid them?


MRQE.com is a fantastic aggregate site of (mostly) professional reviews. It's a great resource . . . preferably after I've seen the movie on my own. Reviews rarely if ever influence my theatre-going habits, but I seriously enjoy reading them (professional ones, that is). They may, however, push me to rent something at the lowest price possible.


Oh, I am so not goin' there with you.


Indeed. I discuss such things elsewhere, casually, but I don't feel compelled to do it here. There's no focus. And there's a tendency to reach for words like "retard" too often, which cheapens the discourse.


At what point do you stop, then? Because you certainly don't offer much assistance when people come here asking for recommendations from those regions? Also, if you keep being disappointed, it must follow that your expectations are actually too high, not too low.


I can think of dozens. Weird, eh?

And that's not to say there aren't some duds out there. We can't win 'em all.

Of course, I watch ALL Chinese movies, not just the tried-and-true genre pictures that angle for U.S. DVD releases, so perhaps I just cast my net a little wider. Certainly costs enough to keep up, though.


Ah, yes, Pirates of the Koreabbean. Nothing derivative in that one.
And that underwater battle, oh, to die for!


Not here, the Japanese stuff I've seen runs the gamut of budgets and genres and, of course, production/acting quality. Some have not impressed me, I will admit, but many have, if not always entirely. Kinda like my experience with Hollywood fare, even though they're not the same.


Does Thailand only make action movies? Looking at the stuff I have here, I see they don't, apparently.

But then again, the Thai industry is desperately cash poor, so again, almost everything they churn out has to be analyzed in a different context.


I'll take your recommendation under caution, then.


Sure do. I have to. And I swear I wear out a couple of Chinese colleagues at the office, as well as Google translate, in the process. BUT, I never include box-office success or failure into a review. I'm not reviewing the boxoffice. I'm reviewing the film on its own merits, which is how it stood before it ever saw the inside of a theatre. Now, if I'm writing a generalized article about the film, or interviewing someone associated with it, then I don't mind mentioning that it was successful or unsucessful because it provides context. Most of my researching of other, native reviews is simply to find out if there's any cultural context or other bits of cultural trivia that may have been lost on me as a foreigner. I like to know more, and no outsider can get that from JUST watching a subtitled movie. I thought most writers would think this way, but I guess not.


It often sounds like you are. Perhaps something's getting lost in the translation, so to speak.


And just because it wasn't a hit in that country, doesn't mean it's a bad, fair or "sucky" film. We could go on like this for days, about movies from everywhere, you know that, right? The mainstream critical consensus of 2012 is decidedly in the middle-to-negative, but it will still make a mint at the box-office. And I will sleep well knowing that Roland Emmerich could have commissioned a screenplay that matched his dazzling visuals and he'd still have a box-office bonanza on his hands. But he didn't. Shame, really.


Once again, you're comparing them to Hollywood films, instead of taking them on their own terms, and then admitting that the comparison makes you more tolerant of mediocrity from Hollywood! Some training—I'm not sure I'd take pride in that. It lights up the bias in Vegas-sized neon, baby. But as you mentioned, you're a "curver".

And frankly, I could say the exact same thing about all the TRUE no-budget productions and DTV fare from Hong Kong that I've seen (stuff I'm betting folks here have never even heard of), but I can't. To this very day (I mean literally, today) I still buy them by the dozens on dusty old DVDs, and especially VCDs, in the various Chinatowns I have access to here. If I've "trained" myself to do anything, it's to view them in the proper context, well away from the gloss of Hollywood. They deserve that, no matter how low down the food chain they are. Otherwise, why bother?

That's your dream Pokemon movie, isn't it?