Results 1 to 15 of 19
November 13th, 2009 #1
When I saw the 5 minutes preview, the epic, over-the-top (and unlikely) destruction made me cackle out loud with glee
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!!!
Hide this ad by registering as a memberNovember 13th, 2009 #2
explosions, destruction, flames, alooot of film effects AND indians
... what could possibly go wrong?!
November 14th, 2009 #3
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.
November 14th, 2009 #4
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.
November 16th, 2009 #5
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
November 17th, 2009 #6* Help a CA artist! Visit the Constructive Critique section! *
November 17th, 2009 #7
November 17th, 2009 #8
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.The Louisianian Sketchbook You can Comment and Criticize if you want.
My Newgrounds Profile Warning: Politically Incorrect thoughts, view at your own risk.
My Facebook Site I stopped using it years ago.
Louisianian artists thread If you're from or live in Louisiana, don't hesitate to post here.
My Profile Nothing else needs to be said.
Trillian: Zenithian Oh, and I am also a GNASH supporter/promoter.
Nintendo Network ID: FightingSeraph
November 17th, 2009 #9Roger Ebert also recommended both Garfield movies. He's turn into a babbling old senile.
November 17th, 2009 #10
November 23rd, 2009 #11
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.
The Following User Says Thank You to ImmortalX For This Useful Post:
November 25th, 2009 #12
November 26th, 2009 #13
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.Parka Blogs <- Most dangerous blog for artists (and their wallets).
November 26th, 2009 #14
Somehow the "ark" and everything like that seems a bit much like christian propaganda, maybe it's just me."I wish to paint in such a manner as if I were photographing dreams" - Zdzislaw BeksinskiMy Happy Little Sketchbook, please check it out and help me get better!
November 28th, 2009 #15
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''Are we afraid of failure, or other peoples success?"