 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
216.100.227.202
But, I feel it's my duty to warn off anyone who's considering watching this colossal pile of tripe.
Spectacular effects sequences: Let's get this out of the way first. The FX are truly staggering, but exist purely as eye candy. The way the "characters" interact with the various forms of chaos and destruction unfolding around them is utterly unbelievable and plays out more like a goofy video game than an action movie. No effort was made to cater to the viewer's suspension of disbelief... A wild rewrite of the laws of physics.
The plot: Again, think video game, although I can think of several games which outdo the film in this regard. At least the story is somewhat linear and easy to follow... Unfortunately that's about the most complimentary thing I can say about 2012.
The premise: So contrived that you'll either laugh hysterically, or sit there shaking your head in disgust at the filmmakers' apparent disdain for your intelligence.
The acting: Let's just say that I feel very, very sorry for John Cusack and Chiwetel Ejiofor for agreeing to be part of this mess.
I generally have a high tolerance for films that stretch the boundaries of what is possible. I'm a sci-fi nut and it comes with the territory, but this film offended me... Not only do I want my 2 hours and 38 minutes back, I now have a personal vendetta against Roland Emmerich.
SF
Follow Ups:
-
I couldn't even watch 300 after the first 30 minutes or so because somehow they even made the actors look fake. And with appologies to it's many fans, Avatar was really nothing more than an a cartoon. Of course this film was many notches below Avatar, but too much reliance on fx and especially CGI ruins many of todays major Hollywood releases.
CGI can be great when a film doesn't rely on it to keep the viewer interested, but when it's clearly the star of the film it's better to be prepared for the worst. And unfortunately, that's usually what you get.
I thought it was a massive embellishment of the Battle of Thermopylae. Appreciated it for the artistic re-creation of the graphic novel. I was so amazed that I read the history on the battle. To my surprise the movie was much more accurate than not. I ended up studying on the Greeks and warfare in general, the movie stimulated a lot of research and learning on my part. Fun indeed.
We'll have to agree to disagree about global warming until the next global cooling scare comes along
the video game CGI. The sky, the landscapes and even the actors looked like they were pulled from a video game. I'm very familiar with the story and was very much looking forward to the movie, but it was painful to watch.
to recreate the graphic-novel.
Share a bowl of grits with someone you love tonight.
NFL jocks.
...you'd like to give us your opinion on?
One of the most important stars of that film was CGI which need to be seen on the big screen to appreciate.
I would really appreciate it!
SF
I thought 2012 was awful. The effects were unrealistically over the top and a good cast was wasted.
-Wendell
Woody Harrelson's character is ridiculously over the top and a hoot. Cusack is his goofy hero best. But the reason for all of this is pure escapism: great special effects loosely tied together with a story with a believable premise--- but who cares?
It's great entertainment, like a circus for the visually addicted.
Also, it goes by FAR faster than the pretentious "Inception."
Bonus: no Ellen Page.
I especially loved seeing huge chunks of Fascistfornia fall into the ocean with I-hope-millions of the pinko-hypocrate-liberals who populate it.
"Bonus: no Ellen Page."? Wow. I thought she was very good in 'Inception', which I also much enjoyed. I felt she looked ...er...feeble... early in the movie with her hair tight on her head and drooping; she looks much better--and VERY nice--later in the film with her hair up.
'2012' and 'Inception' are both very good films OF THEIR OWN TYPE, the former being a highly entertaining fantasy-disaster flic and a fine excuse to eat lots of popcorn.
-------------------------------------------------------
Tin-eared audiofool and terrible competitive-pistol shootist.
http://community.webshots.com/user/jeffreybehr
Let's start here: "Woody Harrelson's character is ridiculously over the top and a hoot."
I disagree, Woody is a barely tolerable asshat in every film he's been in except for Kingpin and No Country For Old Men.
"...a story with a believable premise---"
You're dead wrong on this one... Neutrinos suddenly acquire mass for no reason? They didn't even offer a bullshit explanation.
"goes by FAR faster than the pretentious "Inception."
Haven't seen that "masterpiece" yet.
"...this film has a sense of humor (which you don't)."
Au contraire! I found myself laughing at the sheer stupidity of 2012 multiple times... That's a nice way for you to get a cheap shot in, though.
SF
expected "Hamlet," I could understand your disappointment.
Hint: It's a Disaster film.
Expect hokey plot.
Expect lots of destruction.
Expect strange characters.
It was far, far superior to Cruise's, "War of the Worlds." That bomb wasn't even ironically funny....
Pushing Tin, City Hall, and my non High Fidelity favorite, Better off Dead
The scene around the dinner table with "Fraunch" fries, dressing, etc.
And Ricky's mom swigs down the turpentine while smoking... BOOM!
SF
Also, the Japanese guys that do the Cosell bit are great.
Yes, one of the more ridiculous things I have ever heard.
We'll have to agree to disagree about global warming until the next global cooling scare comes along
nt
Mostly agreed, it was WAY overdone. Probably 15 narrow escapes from death, heck I think that's more than "Coach" from Survivor escaped!!
If it were not for this I think the opportunity for a semi-OK Hollywood popcorn movie would have been possible. To some degree I still enjoyed it (I like sci-fi's, action, etc). Also, why build this escape route in some far off mountain range?
I have no idea who Chiwetel Ejiofor is, think I've heard of Roland Emmerich... assuming they usually do better? Has John Cusack done memorable, good quality films?
about a serial killer and a motel.
He's got this sincere, dignified presence that I really like.
I've been watching Cusack since John Hughes' flick Sixteen Candles.
A few of his notable films: Say Anything, Grosse Point Blank, High Fidelity, Being John Malkovich... He's a likeable, versatile and intelligent actor.
I'm not claiming that either are the "cream of the crop", I just hate seeing actors I like cast in awful films.
SF
I've never seen one of the films you mentioned! Not in the subject line or body, not even Sixteen Candles. I do know both actors, but Chiwetel only by face. Serenity looks interesting, I may rent that soon. Thanks.
Post a Followup:
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
