2012 (Part Two)
Written by Film Brain Thursday, 19 May 2011 21:12
|
Doug's Official Facebook Page | Purchase Premium Membership Now! Only available till the end of April! |
Comments (173)
-
05.19.2011 - 21:49 | CoolislandSong
-
There's a typo on one of the warning thingies. The Sascha affair was set up by a brief shared glance they had. It's kind of hokey.
I'm surprised there wasn't as much ranting on the "catastrophe and death of ex's partner family reunion". I always find that to be one of the most insulting parts of this movie. At least this wasn't a PG movie, so the audience should at least be aware of how ridiculous that is.
-
I've never been on the first page.
Yay! I'm a douche!!
Anyway, part one was TERRIFIC and I can't wait to click the play button!
-
05.19.2011 - 22:28 | TheBlackMage
Wasn't this supposed to be the prequel to Waterworld?
-
06.01.2011 - 23:07 | Sheranda
Heh heh.
-
05.19.2011 - 22:39 | KiramidHead
I'm actually surprised that the final shot didn't get mentioned. Really, the entire world is fucked, but Africa is okay after just one week? Africa? Way to have a retarded message thrown in, Emmerich.
-
05.20.2011 - 23:17 | GallopingGoomba
Actually, they say nothing happened to Africa except it rose a few thousand feet above sea level. So humanity can return to where it originated, and they have much more room to play now. Joy!
-
05.21.2011 - 12:46 | Mucca
Considering it would've had to have risen higher THAN FRIGGING MOUNT EVEREST, I'd say breathing might be a bit of an issue.
-
05.16.2012 - 13:10 | Thessa
True, not only that the sudden high altitude would kill all plants there so nobody anywhere wouldn´t be able to breath. As plant life in other parts of the world clearly didn´t survive.
-
05.23.2011 - 10:12 | secretsheikNot to mention all of the animals seen being airlifted were FROM AFRICA. Go go pointless.
Also, I'm surprised there was no mention of the Russian guy using an ENGLISH word to start a FOREIGN CAR. Unless you intended to sell it to an English-speaking audience (which was not specified) WHY would you use an English word to START it?
-
05.19.2011 - 22:45 | Crossover Princess
Its still a bad movie no matter how you look at it. Like I said before, it spreads paranoia.
Though I'm a little disappointed that he didn't add in a joke about the upcoming rapture that supposed happen Saturday... oh well.
Still, at least he took out the joke about Japan being destroyed.
Oh and after re-watching the first review, in the first one I mentioned that I had no idea where they in San Francisco when the cruise ship was hit... I noticed the ferry building was in the background. Whoever did the CGI has never been to or near San Francisco, because that shot is impossible. Sorry I'm still harping on it, but it still bugs me.
-
05.20.2011 - 08:57 | Forlong
I'll post a vlog tomorrow, if I disappear into the heavenly realms. Gotta keep people up to date.
-
05.19.2011 - 22:49 | Ratin8tor
Yeah I agree with you Film Brain, I was totally siding with the 'villian' because he was making the must bloody sense.
On the other hand, I loved this movie. Laughed my arse off during the entire thing. Especially the part where JC runs away from the super volcano. That was just so laughably stupid.
Keep up the good work :D
-
05.19.2011 - 23:48 | August M.
The "evil" politician is the only reason to watch this movie. It clearly shows he's the smartest person in the movie.
Also, I wonder what the joke in Japan was(No offense)? Did it involve Godzilla because that was the first thing that came to mind when I saw the movie last year. I said to myself, "Looks like Godzilla is fighting Zilla(American Godzilla) outside but unfortunately they won't show it because Roland knows his monster's ass will get beaten."
Great review by the way.
-
05.19.2011 - 22:53 | SailorCardKnight
Ah, but Film Brain, they did make a movie about Y2K before it would supposedly happen.
http://www.imdb.com/ title/tt0215370/
Hell, I remember watching it when it aired on NBC. And even as a kid I thought it was lame.
As for this movie, geez, its filled with so much stupid, i'm definitively glad I didn't see it. And like CoollisandSong said, this film makes 10,000 BC look like a masterpiece.
-
05.20.2011 - 04:06 | LikaLaruku
Everything with Y2K in the title has a 4.5/10 or lower.
& we can all help lower the popularity of 2012 by giving it negative scores on RT, Amazon, & IMDB.
-
05.19.2011 - 22:53 | NoCoolNames
I'm surprised you didn't mention the fact that it seems to be night all over the world at the same time during the last half of the movie.
seriously, one shot they are in Japan, at night, the next,Washington D.C , AT NIGHT.
how do you fuck up something as basic as time zones?
-
05.20.2011 - 08:55 | ForlongStep 1: Be Roland Emmeric.
In fact, that's the only step. Emmeric can screw anything up.
-
05.19.2011 - 22:54 | Dreammirror
Visually, it was 1 step above the happening, but just as bad. When I saw this in the theater, it lost me when they were flying out of L.A.-I mean...WTF?? Why the hell are they flying 8-15 feet above the ground in some shots? Are they trying to wave to people and see the terror in their eyes for their i-pod pictures? I have no flight experience at all myself, and even I know you generally pull up on the stick to make the plane go up--you know, away from the ground where all the destruction is happening-geez!
Oh and the second, most laughable scene is the Yellow Stone super volcano explosion--again Im not an expert, but Im pretty sure if you are within 20 miles of that thing when it goes off, you are going to be instantly dead. Probably much further, but thats a good guess.
Still a fun movie; the best line in the whole thing--"whaaa? you mean life isnt fair??" lol
-
05.20.2011 - 08:56 | ForlongMy dad, who was in the Air Force, said that the air pressure could have keep them from pulling up. However, I'm not willing to give Emmeric the benefit of the doubt here, considering how much else he got wrong.
-
05.20.2011 - 09:03 | KariIf that should happen, about half the US will be a very bad place to be. Actually that one potential disaster is enough to make a movie about. Documentaries on the subject are scarier than this film.
-
05.19.2011 - 23:01 | kuijiblob
oh yea may 20th release i knew you were gonna release it the day before may 21st lolz
-
05.19.2011 - 23:07 | Guumijuice
First off, I want to thank you, as it was very tasteful and professional of you to delay the release of the 2012 reviews, as well as re-editing your pre-recorded joke/s and replacing it with elaboration.
As for the movie itself, I really hate the convention of "The person your mother remarried is a bad person because they are not your father" Then showing that they aren't ALL bad. Then Killing them off. Seriously? WHY? All they're doing is masking an overly used storyline and trying to pass it off as character development. UGH.
Also, is it just me, or has your cry of "symbolism" gotten all the more passionate? XD
-
05.20.2011 - 04:11 | LikaLarukuI'm going to point this out, it's not tasteful or tasteless in that kind of situation, the words to use are tactful & tactless.
Taste is, well, taste, & taste is a personal thing.
Tact is "acute sensitivity to what is proper & appropriate in dealing with others, including the ability to speak or act without offending."
A sociopath has taste but no tact.
-
05.20.2011 - 22:08 | GuumijuiceThanks for that, you're right it was the wrong word to use. I assure you however, I was not implying that film brain is a sociopath :P
-
In Britain, the word tasteless is an idiomatic expression to mean one does or makes something so disgusting, no one could like it. It is a lot stronger than tactless, which merely means one has ignored or forgotten the sensitivity of another. Tasteless, means they not only ignore/miss it, but they do so in a completely disgusting and offensive manner.
It is tactless to make a joke about Japan to none-Japanese people.
-It is tasteless to do so, directly to Japanese peoples faces. See the difference?
Note, tasteful means it has a good taste or feel. However in everyday language, one would never use the term in such a manner, they only ever use it to mean one has done something which not disgusting. What does disgusting mean? That something has a bad taste or feel.
=God I hate grammar Nazis, who know nothing about English.
-
05.20.2011 - 08:59 | ForlongI think Emmeric's parents may be divorced, and this is his way of retaliating. Seriously, I feel like psychologically analyzing all of his movies. He seems so emotionally disturbed.
-
04.13.2013 - 14:05 | DawnemperorYeah, that was annoying. Maybe it was meant to pack an emotional punch, but when you go for the first father wins trope so easily, it's just...what the hell.
Gordon was somewhat slimy, but he was far from a douchebag, didn't deserve that, especially if they were just going to forget about him
-
05.19.2011 - 23:15 | David2
You handled that well.
-
over here alot of people are saying that may 21st is the end of the world. noooo!! i wont be around to see the end of the world in 2012 and see all this crap :(
-
Seriously people need to stop all this end of the world nonsense. The 21st of May ISN'T the end of the world - it's Judgement Day, the world ends on the 21st of October. Get it right!
-
05.20.2011 - 04:13 | LikaLarukuI dunno, I an see a DCAU Batman film where Poison Ivy & Ras Al Ghul team up to destroy humanity.
-
05.20.2011 - 07:19 | ladydiskette
@ProphetTenebrae
It is going to fall on October 21st? Oh yays I can celebrate my birthday before the world blows up lol
-
05.20.2011 - 00:29 | Taufiq91
okay, this was a guilty pleasure for me. I wanted to hate it with all the stupid shown in this movie, but i actually enjoyed in the end, and unlike Day After Tomorrow, this movie had a plausible tension which fits the narrative.
I knew that from the moment they say "The Neutrinos have Mutated", it's gonna be one of the stupidest movies i've seen so far, especially when the next 30 minutes will be nothing but John Cusack running away from danger.
But in the end, it's still a fun popcorn flick and it did provide me with some enjoyment, albeit a stupid one of course.
You did make a point about Adrian, Film Brain. Infact, he is quite the hypocrite when it comes to being a "humanitarian". First he was like "fuck the rich" and now he's all like "we need to save those rich people who are lining up outside the gate" because it's "humanitarian" and shit.
Instead, he could have said "bring all those skilled Chinese workers inside the ship. We need their resources to rebuild Earth because they're more skilled than the billionaires lining up outside". Because that's the more rational thing to do, especially when you need people who can help in the rebuilding of Earth after this apocalypse.
And congrats to Film Brain for this review. it was tasteful and it was really good. I enjoyed it!
-
05.20.2011 - 01:10 | buddyreederActually that is what he was saying. There are workers as well as rich in that crowd.
-
05.20.2011 - 07:33 | mehja
Taking mostly people beyond the reproduction age, the majority male, unfit for physical labor, without practical working skills, genetically representing less then 10% of the worlds population...
Hey, sounds like a fool proof plan to guarantee humanity's survival!
-
05.19.2011 - 23:25 | TwistedEllipses
In two years time the title will make it sound horribly outdated...
-
05.20.2011 - 05:55 | dennett316
The film was made in 2009, it's title will make it seem LESS outdated than it actually is, not more.
-
05.19.2011 - 23:42 | Bearded Idiot
I've seen low budget made for TV movies with a more realistic outlook on the aftermath of a supervolcano explosion like Yellowstone.
But hey this is Hollywood and we need our happy endings after billions have died! Yay!
And yeah you just have to love the horribly gruesome deaths handed out to the new boyfriend and the Russian girl for the unforgivable crime of not being John Cusack. You're not generating pathos, Roland. All you get is disgust from me.
-
05.19.2011 - 23:43 | brick mooncode
I can't stand when movies have some apocalypse event like a nuclear war or zombies, but there's still things like electricity and running water, and sometimes even cellphones. Nice job creating atmosphere, guys!
-
05.20.2011 - 04:14 | LikaLarukuDied from lick of suspension of disbelief.
-
it's interesting to see aircrafts on the flight deck as if it was manned and ready when it took out the white house even though the USS John F. Kennedy was decommissioned in early 2007.
and also I'm surprised you didn't mention the alternate ending where the cruise ship not just survived but was also but was also located in the direction that the arc ships were heading
-
05.19.2011 - 23:46 | kshade
All the scenes on the ship look like a mid-budget TV series whose director hasn't figured out how to film things without them looking incredibly fake yet.
-
05.20.2011 - 09:04 | ForlongIn other words: like Roland Emmeric's work.
-
05.19.2011 - 23:46 | VoiceAgainstPropaganda
A natural disaster movie will never work unless all that work on the project experience it first hand. That may be a tad extreme but it seems like the best way they can understand what the characters are feeling, thinking and why they act the way they do.
-
05.19.2011 - 23:49 | NilokHow can Gurren Lagann take almost the same premise as this movie, and tell it with more human characters, emotional weight, and realism (HOW!?), in only 4-6 episodes!?
I mean, Gurren Lagann isn't known for being the most cerebral show, but it was able to tell it so far superior to this it hurts.
In closing, GRAAAAHHHHH!!
-
05.20.2011 - 00:20 | Taufiq91Because Gurren Lagann is not stupid.
I mean, Gurren Lagann is a tale of overpopulation, whereas this was nothing more than 2 hours and 30 minutes of John Cusack running away from the Mayan Calendar.
But you know what? I'd love to see Kamina and Simon's gunmen appearing somewhere in this film. It would be interesting and would make up for all the stupid in this film.
-
05.20.2011 - 00:00 | testzero
How come you swear clearly in some cases, but bleep it out in others? What's your dividing line?
-
05.20.2011 - 05:59 | dennett316He keeps the F-bombs to a minimum so that when he does use them - mostly when ranting about a point that really pissed him off - they have more impact.
My favourite usage of this was towards the end of the Bride Wars review when it was revealed the characters were now due to give birth on the same day.....his reaction mirrored mine exactly.
-
Just wanted to say, you handled the risk of saying something offensive quit well, Filmbrain. Congratulations on that, I'm sure it wasn't easy with this movie.
-
05.20.2011 - 00:18 | BATZARRO
Sorry to be morbid, but now I want to know exactly what the joke was.
I know it's a good visual, but Arcs? That's just a stupid, stupid way to try and avoid a super extinction. Especially when obviously expecting huge, deadly tidal waves.
And...billionaires paid billions of dollars to survive the disaster? To whom, and where exactly is he gonna spend the money? I mean, it obviously didn't go into the building of ships with such flimsy hydraulic systems.
-
Why is it that the Queen always survives the danger in your movies, but The president of the US always dies in your movies.Got a problem with Americans?
-
05.20.2011 - 07:34 | mehjaSimple: God saves the Queen
-
06.01.2011 - 23:20 | SherandaBut Roland is German, so he has a president.
-
05.20.2011 - 19:11 | ladydisketteWait, if The Queen lives, and the President dies in Emmerich's movies than what does that make The Pope?
-
09.01.2012 - 11:00 | Doom26In a word... fucked...crushed under St. Peter's Basilica?
-
And there is nothing the "average person" in Hollywood hates more than the United States, Human Beings (white ones, specifically), and Religion. To many of them it is really a trifecta that represents everything wrong with the world. I really wish it was a stereotype but having dwelled there for a time, many many people there share that sentiment. That the United States would be okay if the whole middle and southern parts sank into the ocean and everyone in those parts died.
Fortunately, you can count on Emmerich to be so incompetent at storytelling that the bad guy (read: smart guy) turns out to actually be the smartest one in the movie, nine times out of ten.
-
05.20.2011 - 00:34 | Valzahd
I love how silly the whole ARK scenes are. Like the reveal of all the rich people getting on and Platt saying the workers weren't getting on.
What comes to mind is when they open the ship doors again and want to rebuild...whose doing the manual labor? I doubt the rich bastards will want to tend the fields and rebuild cities. You'd think the ship builders would get a ticket in for that reason alone.
I also love the fact that the ARK captain got a spiffy uniform made just for the occasion. I mean screw saving resources for the future, this guy needs an ARK hat!
-
05.20.2011 - 09:09 | ForlongHEY! Noah had an arc hat. He made it to lord power over his sons. That's totally in the Bible!
-
05.20.2011 - 00:46 | Daemian LuciferWhile I liked the review,I still have to comment about the pet peeve of mine:
You shouldnt have changed anything because of the disasters in japan.Yes,it was a tragedy,yes I sympathize with the people there.But,like you said yourself,you are spoofing the movie,you arent mocking the real world disaster.Anyone who would make such a connection should not be watching comedy shows in the first place.The way you did it you are just sending a message how only tragedies with great publicity deserve special treatment,while thousands that die every day in various other means you dont care about at all.I always found such alterations to be more of vacuous publicity stunts than genuine concerns about the tragedies.
-
05.20.2011 - 01:00 | ValzahdThousands die every day in various other means? Not sure where you get that statistic but I'm sure if that many were dying every single day we'd hear about it.
Also it's not bad of him to at least point that out. I honestly doubt he'd just throw that in as a phony stunt. If he really didn't care what people might think of this review he would have posted it months ago.
Don't harp on the guy for handling the event he felt was in the best interest of taste.
-
05.20.2011 - 03:31 | SimsKatie
Yes, actually. The global statistic is approximately 16 people dying every ten seconds, which gives us a number of roughly 5,760 an hour. What makes up for it is the fact that within the same ten second time span, approximately 30-40 people are born, meaning routine losses don't make much of an impact on the global population. As the Global population increases, the birth-death rate will increase in terms of factoring numbers, but I haven't been able to learn if the ratio will stay the same.
-
05.20.2011 - 06:04 | dennett316There are nearly 7 billion people on this planet, why wouldn't you think that thousands would die per day from numerous causes just by the sheer numbers alone? Doesn't mean I agree with the OP about Matthew's handling of the Japan jokes though...there's such a thing as tact and respect Damian Lucifer, just because YOU wouldn't be bothered doesn't mean that others wouldn't be, particularly as the site is freely available to so many it may offend people who were personally affected.
-
05.21.2011 - 03:24 | Daemian LuciferSure,and therell always be someone bothered by something.So should we stop all comedy then?How many people die by gunfire in new york,yet it doesnt stop Mathew from making gun jokes in movies set in the new york.The difference:Less publicity.
I have nothing against him pointing the fact out.But postponing the video and changing a joke simply sends a message that deaths with more publicity are more meaningful than those with less publicity.
Oh,and to put things into more of a perspective:My country was hit by a 6.1 earthquake some 4 months before the disaster in japan.The city directly hit was half leveled(yes,we dont have earthquake resistant buildings like japan,not surprisingly),and people have died.But,being small country in the middle of nowhere,we didnt receive the publicity japan has.If nothing happened in japan,do you think this one would get a mention from Mathew?Would he have changed the joke back then?Are japanese deaths more important than serbian deaths?
@Valzahd
World mortality rate is 8.6.Which means that for every 1000 people 8.6 die every year.With the population of 6 billion,that gives us 141369.863 deaths every day.Or,like SimsKatie pointed out,16 deaths every 10 seconds.
-
05.22.2011 - 04:35 | ValzahdHuh, guess I was way off on the daily death count. My bad
-
05.20.2011 - 00:56 | Dierna
I saw this movie in theatre and laughed when the camera panned to show the queen boarding with 2 of her precious Corgis.
One thing Im glad is that the tv series based on this film never got off the ground. Yes, that's right..they were gonna make a tv show out of this set a year later about the survivors living in Africa. Thank you ABC for not picking that up. :P
-
05.20.2011 - 07:46 | BATZARROI mean, if it's about saving humanity, let's fill the ship with crazy survivalists that know how to cook newt, not rich people who haven't got a chance in the wild.
As an example, saaaaaaay...the Queen of England. Yeah, God save her or something, but I don't think she's on breeding age, and that's what we need to keep humanity alive. She's gonna live a couple of years and then without access to advanced medical treatment, die. Instead of keeping people who keep humanity's history, culture and services, they seem to have brought only figureheads and recognizable stereotypes.
-
05.20.2011 - 09:11 | ForlongYeah, the Queen wouldn't want to make sure her sons or anything live. Her dogs would be the most important thing to her. Thank you, Roland, for not knowing jack crap.
-
05.20.2011 - 00:56 | VerkYeah, let's fill the arc with the worst scum humanity has to offer, that's going to work out so well in the aftermath.
Only registered users can write comments!
Powered by Compojoom comment 4.2
this movie almost makes "10,000 BC" look oscar worthy...