2012

Join 500,000+ Artists

Its' free and it takes less than 10 seconds!

Join the #1 Art Workshop - LevelUpJoin Premium Art Workshop

Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: 2012

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    390
    Thanks
    275
    Thanked 283 Times in 155 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0

    2012

    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!!!

      Similar Threads
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  


  2. Hide this ad by registering as a member
  3. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Posts
    163
    Thanks
    27
    Thanked 32 Times in 29 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    explosions, destruction, flames, alooot of film effects AND indians

    ... what could possibly go wrong?!

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  4. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Bay Area, CA
    Posts
    768
    Thanks
    355
    Thanked 583 Times in 203 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    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.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    390
    Thanks
    275
    Thanked 283 Times in 155 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    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.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Iceland
    Posts
    1,595
    Thanks
    1,119
    Thanked 1,068 Times in 449 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    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

    sketchbook / sketchblog / deviantart / facebook / twitter / e-mail

    "assiduus usus uni rei deditus et ingenium et artem saepe vincit" - cicero
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    4,422
    Thanks
    497
    Thanked 677 Times in 248 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Sekino View Post

    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.

    * Help a CA artist! Visit the Constructive Critique section! *


    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Philippines
    Posts
    2,925
    Thanks
    410
    Thanked 273 Times in 205 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Interceptor View Post
    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.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  9. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,459
    Thanks
    424
    Thanked 383 Times in 364 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    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 normally hate these kinds of websites, but a friend of mine invited me.
    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: Request to be added first.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  10. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    390
    Thanks
    275
    Thanked 283 Times in 155 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    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

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  11. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    690
    Thanks
    35
    Thanked 36 Times in 29 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    movie was terrible, script was woeful, acting sub par. The visual effects were awesome though. Should have been labeled as a Comedy movie.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  12. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    27
    Thanks
    6
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    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.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to ImmortalX For This Useful Post:


  14. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    oxford
    Posts
    687
    Thanks
    378
    Thanked 194 Times in 103 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Interceptor View Post
    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.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  15. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    360
    Thanks
    29
    Thanked 257 Times in 120 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    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).
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  16. #14
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    2,626
    Thanks
    3,340
    Thanked 5,791 Times in 1,165 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    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 Beksinski
    My Happy Little Sketchbook, please check it out and help me get better!

    My TUMBLR!
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  17. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    England, UK
    Posts
    39
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Parka81 View Post
    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'

    'Are we afraid of failure, or other peoples success?"
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  18. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Aotearoa (NZ)
    Posts
    1,308
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1,329 Times in 271 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    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.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  19. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    410
    Thanks
    525
    Thanked 477 Times in 158 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Meh, they should have just starred Jason Statham. Then named it, Transporter 4: 2012.

    SECONDS: Do you work from life of photographs?
    FRAZETTA: I work from my head.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  20. The Following User Says Thank You to Irishdrunk For This Useful Post:


  21. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Regina, SK, Canada
    Posts
    1,205
    Thanks
    62
    Thanked 24 Times in 21 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Irishdrunk View Post
    Meh, they should have just starred Jason Statham. Then named it, Transporter 4: 2012.
    that gave me a good laugh. thanks.
    Win.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  22. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Philippines
    Posts
    2,925
    Thanks
    410
    Thanked 273 Times in 205 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

Members who have read this thread: 0

There are no members to list at the moment.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •