2012

[TIMtationX]

this movie is just like the transformers movies - just plain fun action and shouldn't be taken too seriously.

Agreed!!

[littleman794]

yes, cause honestly? the world ending...nu uh

[Dark Angel]

This is just another disaster movie meant to entertain, nothing like this is going to happen anyway, I will watch it like some others will, for the story and the effects, nothing else.

[Drake]

I think the FX will be the ONLY reason I'm going to see it.

[Bayhem]

The L.A. earthquake ( behind the scenes ) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fa9cj7OljQ0

[Mindfreak87]

Depending on other areas of the country I don't think this will be a huge hit in the UK, at my local 17 cinema complex there is only 2 showing on the release date, the Saturday it has 1 screening, and so on over the weekend, none of which are sold out.

Fri 13th Nov 16:30, 20:12
Sat 14th Nov 20:12
Sun 15th Nov 12:45, 20:12
Tue 17th Nov 20:12

[Mindfreak87]

This made me giggle: http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=3724

During a promotion interview for '2012', German-born director Roland Emmerich was asked about whether the Blu-ray of his latest disaster extravaganza would include any deleted scenes. Emmerich said there was "not much", except for an alternate ending that was deemed "too unrealistic" and was therefore cut out.

The entire film is unrealistic.

[razgriz21]

^^^Did you like the movie?

I'll rent it.

[Bayhem]

Just saw it.

I have to say that overall I liked the movie, but the sheer volume of coincidences and lucky breaks was, for lack of a better word, absurd. I mean I’m willing to suspend my belief for any film, but in this case it was too much for my taste ( just my humble opinion of course ). I don't wanna compare this movie to "Revenge of the Fallen", because outside the heavy CGI, they're completely different movies, but in terms of entertainment and excitement in my view the Michael Bay film is the unquestionable winner. I don't want to spoil the whole thing for you guys, that's why I'm gonna do only one thing - I'll shut up.

[Swift]

It was alright.

My mom liked it, and there were definitely had some good parts, some tearkjerkers (lol) and some 'yeah, right' parts. I did enjoy it, but I don't think it stood up at all to ROTF. The CGI was pretty cool, as well as the cast. Maybe it could become a DVD for me

*Overall I'd rate it 3/5.

[Dark Angel]

It was alright.

My mom liked it, and there were definitely had some good parts, some tearkjerkers (lol) and some 'yeah, right' parts. The CGI was pretty cool, as well as the cast.
*Overall I'd rate it 3/5.

I would have a similar opinion of it, my partner thought the same of it, as we both only saw it last night.

[TIMtationX]

I thought i was entertaining for the most part even though they were probably the luckiest group of people in the history of movies.

[Hautori]

When I eventually do watch it, I'll set my brain to 'off'.

And now I read that Emmerich has threatened, ahem, mentioned that he's planning to make ID4 3 and 4.

[Trailbreaker]

*Anti-critic rant ahead*

Ebert is at it again:

[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.

He gave the movie a 3.5 out of 4. Now as I do recall, Revenge did exactly what he said 2012 did, delivering what it promises, satisfying the audience, and what does he give that? 1 out of 4. How bias is that?

[Bayhem]

How bias is that?

Good point, but personally I think it's all 50/50.

Can't remember his name, but one critic said that "Revenge of the Fallen" was "destined to be the biggest movie of all time" and overall it was a positive review. At the same time our old friend Peter Travers said that it was the worst movie of the decade.

"2012" is pretty much the same thing -Ebert liked it, other major critics like James Berardinelli hated it.

[Trailbreaker]

Good point, but personally I think it's all 50/50.

Can't remember his name, but one critic said that "Revenge of the Fallen" was "destined to be the biggest movie of all time" and overall it was a positive review. At the same time our old friend Peter Travers said that it was the worst movie of the decade.

Was it Todd Gilchrist? I did like that one part of the review but he did seem to offer a lot of criticisms. Other than that he did say that the movie did exactly what it was suppose to do. He doesn't use a rating system apparently, so it's a bit unclear whether he actually liked it or not.

[Bayhem]

Was it Todd Gilchrist? I did like that one part of the review but he did seem to offer a lot of criticisms. Other than that he did say that the movie did exactly what it was suppose to do.

Yes thank you, that's him.

Despite the criticisms, I think his review was at least balanced and objective - he talked about the technical side of things, the cinematography in particular, something most critics don't even care about. Ebert and Travers could learn a lesson or two.

[Mindfreak87]

Talking numbers now, this film has pulled in $225 million worldwide on its first weekend, already making profit over its production value (not including advertisements) so despite it seems this film seems it will do well.

http://movies.yahoo.com/news/movies....e-bang-225m-ap

[Xsubs]

*Anti-critic rant ahead*

Ebert is at it again:
He gave the movie a 3.5 out of 4. Now as I do recall, Revenge did exactly what he said 2012 did, delivering what it promises, satisfying the audience, and what does he give that? 1 out of 4. How bias is that?

But the thing is that people were expecting more of the second Transformers film. Seriously, Revenge of the Fallen could've been much more; It could've had a much deeper story and more depth within the Transformers characters. But instead, it ended up getting the same old stuff but more explosions and action.

E.g.; Kind of like the Dark Knight. They gave the Batman franchise a more serious, no nonsense, gritty film that challenges our morality.

Transformers could've given many intelligent messages of strength, morals and the idea of life.

But ultimately, this is just my opnion

[Swift]

But the thing is that people were expecting more of the second Transformers film. Seriously, Revenge of the Fallen could've been much more; It could've had a much deeper story and more depth within the Transformers characters. But instead, it ended up getting the same old stuff but more explosions and action.

E.g.; Kind of like the Dark Knight. They gave the Batman franchise a more serious, no nonsense, gritty film that challenges our morality.

Transformers could've given many intelligent messages of strength, morals and the idea of life.

But ultimately, this is just my opnion

I agree with you there, I was looking for more. lol

[Xsubs]

I agree with you there, I was looking for more. lol

I say "more" too often lol

[Bayhem]

Talking numbers now, this film has pulled in $225 million worldwide on its first weekend, already making profit over its production value (not including advertisements) so despite it seems this film seems it will do well.

I'm not surprised.

Believe it or not, many people will see "2012" just because of the title without knowing anything about the movie itself. The question is, whether it'll make more money than "The Day After Tomorrow". At this point, I really can't tell...

[razgriz21]

But the thing is that people were expecting more of the second Transformers film. Seriously, Revenge of the Fallen could've been much more; It could've had a much deeper story and more depth within the Transformers characters. But instead, it ended up getting the same old stuff but more explosions and action.

E.g.; Kind of like the Dark Knight. They gave the Batman franchise a more serious, no nonsense, gritty film that challenges our morality.

Transformers could've given many intelligent messages of strength, morals and the idea of life.

I don't think so.

Ebert is just sucking up to Emmerich in my opinion and has something against Michael Bay.

I have some respect for Ebert but I'm liking Richard Roeper these days.

This along with Ebert's Rise of Cobra review in which he takes another unwanted shot at Transformers 2 is unacceptable.

Sorry. I'm just frustrated at critics who bash Michael Bay and don't realize that he is a hard worker when OTHER directors completely relies on CGI.

[Xsubs]

Sorry. I'm just frustrated at critics who bash Michael Bay and don't realize that he is a hard worker when OTHER directors completely relies on CGI.

Ummmm... transformers relied heavily on CGI. And I mean heavily!

Ebert gave 2012 a good review because he realized what he was getting when he watched the film; Dumb, fun action. He was obviously expecting more from the Transformers sequel.

[Bayhem]

He was obviously expecting more from the Transformers sequel.

I think he wasn't paying attention.

That's a quote from his "Revenge of the Fallen" review, "Ron and Judy Witwicky swoop down out of the sky on Egypt, for reasons the movie doesn't make crystal clear, so they also can run in slo-mo from explosions."


This doesn't make any sense, because it was clearly explained in the movie that the Decepticons took Sam's parents in order to trap him in the end. If memory serves me right Starscream said, "Rampage, spring the trap..", right before the revealing of the parents in Egypt.

One more thing, Mr. Ebert - Ron and Judy didn't run in slow motion.