524 of 575 people found the following review helpful
Yes, a 5,
This review is from: 2012 [DVD]  (DVD)
I have looked at some of the reviews, and as much as anything I wanted to write a couple of lines simply to counter things.
There are far too many people who want to come across as insightful, so very seriously aware viewers, who know the hidden agenda going on, and can't be fooled into watching brainless entertainment without giving back a whole load of disdain. However, if you want a battleground for such debate, I hardly think 2012 is the proper place.
This movie is from the guy who make 10,000 BC, Godzilla, and The Day After Tomorrow. It's a disaster movie. It's a soap opera. As such it has all the cardboard characters, the ridiculous cliffhangers, the simple dialog, and all the depth of a pond. On the other hand, it has spectacular effects, load bangs, literary seismic events. Some characters won't make it, some will become unlikely heroes. Which ones? Watch The Towering Inferno from the 70's to find out, it's all the same.....
But then, what was this movie trying to do? Some here are talking about the political message, the "new world order". I truly think they must be having a laugh on us. This film has been made many times, and it'll be made many times more. It's exciting at times, daft, silly and ridiculous. It's a disaster, after all.
What more do you want? You want politics? Go elsewhere. Who'd have thought an American movie, made largely for the American market, financed by American dollars, would center itself on American ideals, and the American way of life? Are we really shocked?
This is a five not because it's a good film, but because it does what it says on the tin. And for those concerned, it's okay to simply be entertained sometimes, honestly, it is.
Tracked by 3 customers
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 11-20 of 35 posts in this discussion
Posted on 2 Apr 2010 17:47:12 BDT
Caleb Williams says:
And you still gave this a 5?
Posted on 12 Apr 2010 11:27:37 BDT
In my review i don't talk about art house cinema or political agenda's, i talked about lack of plot and character development which just doesn't make you care about the characters. Visual specticle does not a film make...it is story and characters and this film lacked both...unlike many of his earlier movies which are on my 'always watch when on TV' catagory.
It may be American money and cast but it is a German director although there are no european cinema sensibilties to be found here. And doing what it says on the Tin means that 'Disaster Movie' should be up there for an Oscar....and it really sucked!
I'm sorry but my one star was for what was on the screen...only one of the 3 elements that makes a movie enjoyable was satisfied...you giving it 5 stars just shows really poor taste and judgement.
In reply to an earlier post on 14 Apr 2010 07:10:51 BDT
[Deleted by the author on 14 Apr 2010 07:11:47 BDT]
Posted on 21 Apr 2010 11:36:50 BDT
Event Horizon 123 says:
You put forward a good argument Vaughan, no point looking for realistic aspects to this film, Just best to enjoy the special affects and the corny features of this film or should I say pop corny features LOL
Posted on 27 Apr 2010 21:11:40 BDT
Last edited by the author on 27 Apr 2010 21:12:23 BDT
Mr. Duncan G. Evans says:
The problem is that it doesnt do what it says on the tin. I don't care about subtexts and messages when i watch blockbuster entertainment, i just want to be entertained. This is a MEDIOCRE disaster movie. The actors are poor, half the effects are unconvincing and it's repetitive. Roland got it right with Independence Day and the The Day After Tomorrow - big budget, daft action films with great characters, lots of varied action and drama. This isn't a patch on either. Unless you think escaping in a plane from the same threat three times is great film making, in which case you'll pretty much watch anything, but remember to change your bib occassionally.
Posted on 7 May 2010 22:29:45 BDT
Mrs. K. Page says:
Awesome review, exactly what made Transformers amazing!
Posted on 10 Jun 2010 14:51:53 BDT
T. Burrage says:
I like the cut of your Jib!
Posted on 14 Jun 2010 10:04:41 BDT
I fell asleep for some of it and watched the remainder. Then again, i had a major ear infection and that may account for it. It is rubbish but, then again, I used to pay to go to Saturday morning cinema and that was rubbish but I still loved it. One thing I did hate about this nonsense was that I wasted about a minute of my life looking at the fat guy when the bloke was in the gear cogs trying to save everyone. That aside and forgive me if you are a little overweight ( I am as well and so can laugh at myself if you get my meaning); it was twaddle but seen me through and hour or so of ear infection - what more can you want from a movie. If you want high - brow, watch some French rubbish and your wish will be fulfilled. I wouldn't buy this though - it was my daughters - she was daft enough to part with the cash.
In reply to an earlier post on 22 Jun 2010 01:04:36 BDT
Hill Walker says:
the problem with this film is precisely that it does not deliver on any front as regards a disaster film; no plot, crap CGI, hideous acting, ludicrous premise...
even putting one's brain in neutral, I still found myself wondering what on earth the film makers were trying to do - nul points as they say on eurovision...
In reply to an earlier post on 9 Jul 2010 17:49:23 BDT
OK, I hear what you're saying.
Even leaving aside the politics and plot holes, I really don't see how this film "does what it says on the tin". Does anyone go to see a film purely for its effects? Really? Ironically the effects are in places laughable. CGI is surely there to ENHANCE a good action film - for instance Jurassic Park. They should never be the BASIS for a movie.
As a disaster movie it fails because we don't engage with the characters. Does anyone really care what happens to John Cusack's character? In all the classic disaster movies, there are characters you're happy to see wiped out and others you want to survive. Here I couldn't care less what happens to any of them.
As I said in my review, the Indian scientist calling his mate on a mobile phone set against the landscape of widespread and utter devastation, and just seconds before being wiped out by a tsunami characterises the utter stupidity of the movie. How can anyone just put this sort of stuff to one side and "enjoy the ride". I just don't get it. Fair play if you can, but I'm actually glad I can't.