2012
Way too long, unconvincing flying scenes, unconvincing story line, unconvincing science to story line, under acted, over acted. Not bothered if they lived or died. Building the equivalent of 8 QEIIs (twice the size) 20,000′ up a mountain in the middle of nowhere?…….logistics……..with no one knowing? …….sky not blotted out for 500 years?……no 10,000 year ice age?……atmosphere not burnt off? Transporting wildlife underslung from choppers with a wind chill of minus 60 degrees, Giraffes….from Africa? If you microwave lava, would it react? Is it organic? Would continents move 1,500 miles in an hour?
more plot holes than Braveheart!
*here be spoilers*
😀
I loved ‘2012’, simply because of the reasons you stated. The “right in the face” camera as the Russian guy (who had all the best bad lines) falls to his death, “Howieeeeeee!” as the tidal wave hits, Danny Glover recovering in time to see the JFK aircraft carrier hit the White House (what a coincidence on both counts, especially when you consider a) how much sea there is and b) that everyone else around him had died), the complete lack of any reason to care about anyone, the step-father getting the James Bond villain death treatment in the ship’s cogs, the blonde Russian with the dog drowning but nobody caring, the family getting over the step-father’s death in about 20 seconds…I could go on, but I’d be here all day.
In short, there are so many reasons why this film is terrible that it may actually be quite good. 😮
Oh, and on the DVD release, the ‘making of’ documentary is brilliant. I laughed out loud at some of the cast’s comments about how deep the script and characters, with Roland Emmerich saying that the film is really a character study, or something ridiculous like that.
Sign In
