2012

**Sekino** · November 13th, 2009, 11:55 AM

When I saw the 5 minutes preview, the epic, over-the-top (and unlikely) destruction made me cackle out loud with glee

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZxBYItj2sM

I have yet to be disappointed by Emmerich's special effects (okay, even though I think I'm the only person on Earth who actually liked Godzilla

) and it has John Cusack in it. Nonetheless, I was still hesitating whether it would be worth seeing on big screen until I saw Roger Ebert's review on it this morning- "This is fun. "2012" delivers what it promises, and since no sentient being will buy a ticket expecting anything else, it will be, for its audiences, one of the most satisfactory films of the year. It even has real actors in it. Like all the best disaster movies, it's funniest at its most hysterical. You think you've seen end-of-the-world movies? This one ends the world, stomps on it, grinds it up and spits it out..."

Sounds perfect to chase a couple of pints. I know what I'm doing tonight!!!

**gnilrE** · November 13th, 2009, 11:59 AM

explosions, destruction, flames, alooot of film effects AND indians

... what could possibly go wrong?!

**Amber Alexander** · November 14th, 2009, 02:08 AM

Just saw it and it was decent but it wasn't good enough that I would want to buy it. I assume its the director but the acting isn't great, their reactions to the situations around them were a bit too happy. People would be dying all around them and they would crack a joke. The mom in the movie was the only one who was believeable. I dunno what it was about the characters, maybe they were just too plain, but I didn't really care about them like I did in other disaster movies. Hell I just finished watching it and I don't even remember any of the characters names, they are that forgettable.

The family plot of it is very similiar to War of the Worlds but don't worry I won't give any specifics away. There is TONS of action and destruction and the special effects are great. The movie is 2hr 45 min.

In the seat next to me was a kid who must have been about 5 years old. Some guy actually took his kid to see it which I thought was disturbing, the movie covers topics that no child of that age should have to be faced with. I remember seeing Ghostbusters when I was 5 and had nightmares about it, children do not understand special effect, don't take your little kids to see this.

Anyway I'm sure some people will really like it but I wasn't too impressed.

**Sekino** · November 14th, 2009, 12:34 PM

I did see it and pretty much second Amber Alexander on everything. However, since I looked at it more as a comedy, I didn't mind the wise-cracking and total lack of consideration for billions of deaths. I was annoyed by several clichés (like-minor spoiler- 'the new boyfriend never wins') but it was more attributable to the action genre than this particular movie.

Obviously, the science was utterly wrong and I had to purposefully keep all my geology knowledge at bay. Overall, it was a good time and I didn't get bored even though it was 2.5+ hours. I could even see it again, say if a friend insisted, but only on big screen to enjoy the effects, because that's the main reason to see it. It was no deep art, but it was decent entertainment.

**AsaB** · November 16th, 2009, 12:58 PM

I just saw it last Friday, and it was pretty much everything I expected. That is, awesome looking CGI, good action and a pretty nonexistant plot :p But that didn't bother me, I didn't get bored either despite its length, so that's a good sign. For some reason I enjoy huge disaster films, even though I often feel uneasy afterwards. But it felt good walking out and seeing good ol' Earth still staying in one piece

And this is definitely something you need to see in the cinema if you're going to see it in the first place, since the wow-factor is much more enjoyable on the big screen.

Who else liked Yuri? Haha

**Interceptor** · November 17th, 2009, 03:05 AM

Originally Posted by Sekino

I was still hesitating whether it would be worth seeing on big screen until I saw Roger Ebert's review on it

Roger Ebert also recommended both Garfield movies. He's turn into a babbling old senile.

**Dizon** · November 17th, 2009, 04:20 AM

Originally Posted by Interceptor

Roger Ebert also recommended both Garfield movies. He's turn into a babbling old senile.

There were also a couple of instances where he would give positive reviews to movies that received a majority of negative feedback and vice-versa.

**FightingSeraph** · November 17th, 2009, 03:35 PM

I rarely check out movie reviews that aren't from Alfred Richard, mainly because I end up disagreeing with them. As for the actual movie, I'm not into disaster films.

**Sekino** · November 17th, 2009, 04:34 PM

Roger Ebert also recommended both Garfield movies. He's turn into a babbling old senile.

I don't feel any given critic's opinion is gold (because they are merely that: opinions), but I do find it helpful to have one or two critics whom I feel share my tastes to a certain extent. I don't like going to the theater absolutely not knowing what to expect. So far, I've found Ebert's reviews a fairly good gauge for my own purpose (not that I always agree). I also simply find that his writing is enjoyable to read. On another note, I also love that he is never condescending towards animation

**Barts** · November 17th, 2009, 05:42 PM

movie was terrible, script was woeful, acting sub par. The visual effects were awesome though. Should have been labeled as a Comedy movie.

**ImmortalX** · November 23rd, 2009, 10:58 PM

I would.. gona see it tomorrow
I dont care about plot lol only special effects
It could be just a lengthy sequence of violent explosion for all i care (which it is)
better that than just a text box with a lamely narrated story and stick people.

**newman** · November 25th, 2009, 10:36 AM

Originally Posted by Interceptor

Roger Ebert also recommended both Garfield movies. He's turn into a babbling old senile.

Did you know that Roger Ebert wrote the script/screenplay for Russ Meyers "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls"? I only just found that out.

**Parka81** · November 26th, 2009, 06:05 AM

I found the movie pretty entertaining until...

they boarded the ark, everything went downhill. Looks like all the budget went into the effects, all. I was cringing when the characters are in the set filled with water. It was really bad.

**LORD M** · November 26th, 2009, 11:53 AM

Somehow the "ark" and everything like that seems a bit much like christian propaganda, maybe it's just me.

**TheCleaner** · November 28th, 2009, 06:58 PM

Originally Posted by Parka81

I found the movie pretty entertaining until...

they boarded the ark, everything went downhill. Looks like all the budget went into the effects, all. I was cringing when the characters are in the set filled with water. It was really bad.

POSSIBLE SPOLIER\ got to agree with you there on the water bit.. it made no sense and was completely inconsistent with the CG that the door open with water coming in, to then be merely a few buckets within a confined tunnel lead straight from that massive door.

Theres plenty a critic could pull this movie apart with, so i'm just going to take it as a wonderful cg showreel with 'filler bits'

**Rusty** · December 6th, 2009, 06:07 PM

I actually came out of that movie slightly pissed off and that's saying something since i'm a mellow kinda guy, the whole movie seems to be about watching cracks form on an assortment of surfaces and how fascinated people are by seeing a crack form on something.