Well, I feel certain this has been discussed in the Most Replys (sic) threads somewhere, but too bad.
2012 is an awesome movie. Way too long, incredibly cheesy, but everything you want in a blockbuster action disaster end of the freakin’world movie. Massive explosions, questionable science, continents sinking, multiple near misses that defy probability, stereotypes, giant impossible technological developments, death on a scale so huge you really don’t know whether to laugh or cry, a heroic if geeky plastic surgeon, and it actually managed to deliver one decent performance by one actor.
If you love everything that is good and decent and American about disaster movies, you won’t be disappointed.
Just got back from the movie and it was good but the audio was shit and the cinema left a horrible throw making the bottom half of the screen wider . This could have been keystoned and the whole time the trailers were on I was for sure thinking it would be corrected by the time the main feature came on . This ruined what was a great action movie
I really did enjoy it. Every criticism of it you can imagine, e.g. “was too unbelievable”, has some validity. But as a big budget disaster movie it absolutely delivers, in my opinion.
Jacquie would agree with that first part, not the rest.
CAUTION: SPOILERS BELOW
There were plenty of holes in it, but it’s also a lot to take in. I can’t think of another movie that takes disaster to such a level. Sure, whole planets get destroyed in Star Wars and Hitchhiker’s Guide, but not with this kind of detail!
Yup, had to overlook quite a bit of science and physics, but the same is true in almost every special effects movie. Definitely too many near misses, even in the first 30 seconds of the first “narrow escape” scene. If they had dialed that back a bit, I think I would have liked the movie a lot more. Nobody gets that many, unless supernatural forces are involved. And I don’t mean the Earth transforming in a way that would probably take at least several thousand years, in the time it takes to run out of gas in an airplane. BTW, the airplane they chose to use is a real one (An-225), but only one of those was ever built.
What you said about American disaster movies though. If I compare it to any of the big blockbusters from Irwin Allen in the 70s, it beats the crap out of all of them!
Huh? Do other end of the world movies have plastic surgeons? This question would be about #300 if I were to make a list. Bigger questions would be about how the Earth’s crust can move at hundreds of miles per hour, how cell phones can work after most of the world’s gone kerflooie, and how three years is enough time to build seven gigantic ships, with plenty of luxury features and convenient security cameras in the cargo door gear areas?
Also, were the planets supposed to have aligned this year, then? Or, if that was supposed to have happened in 2012, shouldn’t the movie be called 2015?
I wouldn’t pay (esp. $10 US) to watch a movie like that. But if nobody complains about picture problems, sometimes they don’t get noticed or just don’t get fixed.
How many “stars and stripe banner swingin in the wind?”
That’s a very important thing to notice as, in my experience, this number and the movie’s overall quality are “reverse proportional”
I’ve heard the director has already commited “Independance day” and “the day after”…
I might give it a try when it airs on TV in a year or two (we’ll be closer to our end, at that time )
Actually, I asked only because Raphael saw fit to include it in his list of initial observations.
As for all the scientific license…well, back when Star Wars made its debut I was enthralled with the special effects, but now I’m so jaded with all the CGI I can feel my mind closing as soon as I see a trailer such as the one for 2012. These special effects are so incredibly over-used these days I have just lost interest. All those near-misses for example: can we agree that the only reason to stack up so many of them is to show off what wonderful things we can do with our CGI? What did they add to the plot?
(I confess, I haven’t seen the film, for all I know those near-misses might have been crucial to the plot)
Nope, you got those near-misses right. If anything, you don’t realize the ridiculous amount of them our main characters scrape through unscathed. You could have the same amazing scenes of destruction and be a few more feet away, and it would be just as good. And more believable!
But then you might spend more time thinking how all this could happen so suddenly and be over so quickly. I’m thinking it took at least 10,000 years last time this sort of thing happened, if it ever did.
Ok so my point is: they disrtoced the theories and everything was so absurd that it wasn’t even cool to watch. I mean, they were doing so many absurd things with the airplanes and etc. that at a certain moment I got fed up of that. And there is too much romances there. Everybody falls in love with everybody that dies, that sucks.
That was probably one of the more believable aspects of the movie. With 99.999% of the population being killed off, this was bound to happen. Much more rare would be the romances where one of them didn’t die.
)