Welcome to 2012: where every end of the world scenario and cliche concocted by man is put on display using amazing special effects. Unfortunately, even the pyrotechnics and Santa Monica falling in the ocean and some oversized space ship meant to be a modern day Noah’s ark lose their appeal after TWO AND A HALF HOURS. The plot is miserable at best and the situations are either completely predictable or entirely implausible. Apparently Jackson Curtis (John Cusack) and his wife split up because Jackson worked too much and loved her too little. Next time guys: don’t get an embittered housewife to write your script. K? Thx. Even a surprisingly comedic appearance by Woody Harrelson, as a cracked radio host who broadcasts from his motor home that’s chock full of conspiracy theories, can’t provide enough entertainment to make this trip down cataclysm lane interesting enough to actually pay attention to.

Not that can you can expect much else from director Roland Emmerich, of let’s kill the super advanced aliens with a laughing skull and run away from the COLD AIR, fame. He seems to have  a knack for ridiculous films that fail to entertain and completely lack in substance.

On the upside watching an aircraft carrier flatten the White House was surprisingly satisfying and, unlike most other action flicks this year (I’m looking at you Transformers 2), you can at least tell what the hell is going on. Also, seeing Danny Glover play the President did give me a nice nostalgic feeling – Angels In The Outfield was one of my favorite films as a young lad – it did not, however, give me the 158 minutes of my life back that 2012 entirely wasted.

If you’re the type of person that can stare at something shiny for hours on end then 2012 is probably for you. Otherwise avoid the brain rotting stupidity and see something else.

Whaduya mean…the sky is falling?

Here’s what you know going into a movie like this…the guy WILL get the girl, the dog WILL survive and there WILL be at least 3 situations where the hero narrowly escapes. One of these things does NOT happen in “2012″, but I’m not sayin’ which one. “2012″ is the latest disaster flick from Roland Emmerich, the same director that gave us “The Day After Tomorrow”, “Independence Day” & “Godzilla”.  And to say that he goes far above anything he has ever done is an understatement.

Look…if you’re looking for a plot, forget it. There is only one reason to see this movie and that is to see stuff go to hell in a handbasket. No one does that better than Emmerich and let me tell you this…this movie is an amazing sight to behold! The computer generated graphics are unlike anything I’ve ever seen before with historic monuments crashing, the tallest buildings falling and the earth’s crust shifting and creating tidal waves so big, you are afraid you might get wet if you sit too close to the screen! It’s really is amazing what can be done by computers these days and sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. For “2012″…it definitely works.

But here’s the catch…it’s the only thing this movie has going for it. Not that the performances aren’t good. John Cusack plays a novelist who is trying to get his family to safety. Amanda Peet plays his ex-wife. Danny Glover tackles the role of playing The President.  Oliver Platt plays the bad guy. And even Woody Harrelson shows up for a few scenes as a crazed radio prognosticator. All the character’s in “2012″ have a role. Unfortuntely there are a few too many roles and not enough plot to carry them.

Emmerich and company cram so many characters into 2.5 hours of movie that trying to get to know any of them is pointless. There are entire scenes set up with characters who were written into the film for really no purpose than to eat up time and allow more destruction to happen. That is unfortunate for the actors who play in those roles because there are really some very talented people involved in the film, but with so much being packed in, certain characters are left by the roadside. And that is why I would recommend that if you have any plans to see this film, you should definitely see it on the big screen. Because the fun of seeing it is in the sheer enormity of the destruction, not the human element. I’m sure that once this movie comes out on DVD, it will be a huge disappointment on your television at home, whether you have a large screen or not. Seriously, if you have a chance, see “2012″ on an IMAX screen as soon as possible…and then you never have to see it again.

Overall Rating: B+

Here’s what you know going into a movie like this…the guy WILL get the girl, the dog WILL survive and there WILL be at least 3 situations where the hero narrowly escapes. One of these things does NOT happen in “2012″, but I’m not sayin’ which one. “2012″ is the latest disaster flick from Roland Emmerich, the same director that gave us “The Day After Tomorrow”, “Independence Day” & “Godzilla”.  And to say that he goes far above anything he has ever done is an understatement.

Look…if you’re looking for a plot, forget it. There is only one reason to see this movie and that is to see stuff go to hell in a handbasket. No one does that better than Emmerich and let me tell you this…this movie is an amazing sight to behold! The computer generated graphics are unlike anything I’ve ever seen before with historic monuments crashing, the tallest buildings falling and the earth’s crust shifting and creating tidal waves so big, you are afraid you might get wet if you sit too close to the screen! It’s really is amazing what can be done by computers these days and sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. For “2012″…it definitely works.

But here’s the catch…it’s the only thing this movie has going for it. Not that the performances aren’t good. John Cusack plays a novelist who is trying to get his family to safety. Amanda Peet plays his ex-wife. Danny Glover tackles the role of playing The President.  Oliver Platt plays the bad guy. And even Woody Harrelson shows up for a few scenes as a crazed radio prognosticator. All the character’s in “2012″ have a role. Unfortuntely there are a few too many roles and not enough plot to carry them.

Emmerich and company cram so many characters into 2.5 hours of movie that trying to get to know any of them is pointless. There are entire scenes set up with characters who were written into the film for really no purpose than to eat up time and allow more destruction to happen. That is unfortunate for the actors who play in those roles because there are really some very talented people involved in the film, but with so much being packed in, certain characters are left by the roadside. And that is why I would recommend that if you have any plans to see this film, you should definitely see it on the big screen. Because the fun of seeing it is in the sheer enormity of the destruction, not the human element. I’m sure that once this movie comes out on DVD, it will be a huge disappointment on your television at home, whether you have a large screen or not. Seriously, if you have a chance, see “2012″ on an IMAX screen as soon as possible…and then you never have to see it again.

Overall Rating: B+

Yesterday I joined an enthusiastic crowd on a sunny afternoon in the courtyard of the Federal Building in Oakland to join Rep. Barbara Lee’s rally and press conference to build support for her bill to stop escalation in Afghanistan. I can’t imagine there are many members of Congress who have as devoted a following as Rep. Lee—throughout the event you saw signs and heard chants of “Barbara Lee Speaks for Me!” As we keep up the tough fight of pushing our government to support an alternative strategy in Afghanistan, I am inspired and heartened to hear the passion and commitment from politicians like Barbara Lee, and proud to have such a principled and courageous woman representing me in Congress.

Rep. Lee’s staff lined up a great list of speakers on short notice. The MC for the event was Sharon Cornu of the Alameda County Labor Central Committee, and the first speech came from Vietnam Veteran Paul Cox of Veterans for Peace, who spoke about learning the lessons of Vietnam and ensuring our government doesn’t continue to make the same mistakes in Afghanistan.

Renowned activist Tom Hayden took the stage to make the case for supporting congressional vehicles for ending the war in Afghanistan. He expressed his hope that President Obama will reject the “long war” doctrine embraced by some in the Pentagon who have talked about a 50-year war that spans several countries. He said that by his calculations, another two years of war at the current rates would mean 1,100 more US soldiers would die in Afghanistan, and said he believes these are “unsustainable policies.” Hayden noted the need for us to “define a progressive alternative” to the current plan in Afghanistan, which he emphasized should include an exit strategy, and urged us to help pressure people to become cosponsors of Rep. Lee’s HR 3699. Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to take video of the event, but you can listen to the audio of Hayden’s speech here:

Rep. Lee was introduced by actor and activist Danny Glover, who pointed out that she is special not just for her lone opposition to the war in Afghanistan in 2001 but for her ongoing work to support social justice. In discussing the need to oppose the war in Afghanistan, he evoked Martin Luther King Jr.’s fight against militarism, racism and materialism. Glover said that Barbara Lee is about “transforming values,” and that our country needs a transformation of values, starting with all of us as citizens, but especially with our representatives in the White House and Congress.  Listen to Danny Glover’s speech here:

Rep. Lee started out by thanking the crowd for “keeping hope alive.” She said that she stands “resolved to bring this chapter of American history that has been characterized by open-ended war once and for all to a close.” She encouraged us, in the words of her House colleague John Lewis, to “make some noise” in this country and said we need the “street heat,” and she laid out what she and others in Congress have done to “stir the pot” in the House of Representatives and push for an alternative in Afghanistan.

Lee outlined several letters that she signed to the President, including one with her “sisters in the triad” Lynn Woolsey (D-CA-6) and Maxine Waters (D-CA-35); one with the Congressional Black Caucus; and another with 53 other members of Congress urging President Obama to reject a request for more troops. She also cited the vote on an exit strategy in June that gained 138 votes, and her introduction of HR 3699 to prohibit funds for increasing the number of troops in Afghanistan. It’s important that we are publicizing these efforts and magnifying their impact by making sure the public is aware that there are members of Congress who are working to move the debate forward.

Rep. Lee told the cheering crowd, “We all know there is no military solution to the war in Afghanistan.” She said her legislation sends a “clear and unequivocal” message and urged us to help build support for the bill. She asked the crowd to “make some noise” and be “the wind beneath our wings” and help push Congress to speak out for a new approach in Afghanistan. You can listen to Rep. Lee’s speech here:

This is absolutely a critical time to “make some noise.” Reports today indicate that President Obama is going to announce a plan on Tuesday that will include sending around 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. Join thousands of others around the country as part of our campaign to flood the White House with calls. Call 1-202-456-1111 to tell President Obama to support an alternative plan that doesn’t include an increase in troops. Click here to urge your representative to cosponsor Rep. Lee’s bill to prohibit funding for sending additional troops to Afghanistan.

Mega producción protagonizada por John Cusack que interpreta a un hombre separado que debe conformarse con ver esporádicamente a sus hijos, todo en medio de literalmenete el fin del mundo tal como lo conocemos, debido a una serie de explosiones solares que han afectado el nucleo terrestre, provocando una serie de terremotos y tsunamis que arrasan el planeta. La historia sigue a un grupo de personas en las horas previas, que van desde viejos músicos  de cruceros hasta el mismísimo presidente de EE.UU. ,pasando por científicos y magnates rusos.

Hay que decir que los efectos visuales y sonoros son los verdaderos protagonistas de esta película, ideal para ver en pantalla grande, destacando la escena de los protagonistas escapando en auto al aeropuerto mientras todo se desploma a su alrededor. ***

i’m a little late getting this review out.  but hey, i been busy.  i just now got around to seeing this film and i can honestly say it didn’t suck.  it’s way better than the day after tomorrow.  which did suck and was the last movie by director roland emmerich.  wait, i take that back.  his last movie was 10,000 BC.  which also sucked.  but anyway…

they should have named this film 20012: an apocaliptic odyssy.

this thing is not really strong in the story department, but these catastrophe films rarely are.  not enough time for any good plot when all you are doing is trying to run from the destruction of the earth.  the special effects are what this film is all about.  but you also have some very likeable actors to make this thing run along quite smoothly.

who doesn’t love john cusack?  and everyone loves danny glover.  amanda peete is great.  the chick that plays danny glover’s first daughter is super hot and reminds me of thandie newton.  oh wait, that’s because it is thandie newton.  and even though i can’t pronounce his name, chiwetel ejiofor is one of my favs.  he plays the role of the scientist.

and it is great to look at.  watching the ocean roll over the himilayas is pretty awesome.  as is all the destruction.

bottom line this is a big budget hollywood blockbuster type of disaster film.  with a special appearance by woody harrelson.  and it flows along nicely as i’ve just said.  it doesn’t seem near as long as it’s 2 hour and 45 minute run time.  just go easy on the large soda or you might miss seeing hawaii as a giant volcano.

i’m probably not going to run out and buy this when it comes out on dvd like i did star trek last week, but this is a very enjoyable movie perfect for the big screen.

three popcorn tubs out of five.

Antes do último texto sobre a Mostra de Cinema, preciso escrever sobre a ’super produção épica catastrófica’, que esta em cartaz em quase todos os cinemas, “2012″. Prometo que finalizarei em breve analisando “500 dias com ela”.

Já era de se esperar um filme com pouco embasamento teórico, mesmo porque ninguém vai para o cinema esperando uma película sobre o fim do mundo acreditando em algo extremamente realista com bases científicas muito plausiveis. Como a maioria dos projetos para o cinema do diretor Roland Emmerich (veja a lista aqui), o espetáculo visual está muito a frente do roteiro. Ainda é fácil encontrar uma linha narrativa muito semelhante em todos os seus projetos, quase uma fórmula, que ele não tem medo de repetir. Com uma pequena exceção de “Caça- Fantasmas”, que de certa forma diverge (não muito) dos outros.

Voltando a “2012″, o seu maior problema não está no roteiro batido, nas cenas impossíveis ou mesmo nos fracos personagens, porque afinal, o que queremos ver é o mundo acabar, não? Aliás, se vamos ao cinema para ver um cara que lança teias dos pulsos, outro que voa com a cueca por cima das calças além de Elfos e Hobbits, porque não um delicioso fim do mundo? A questão aqui, é que em nenhum momento ele consegue nos colocar dentro do filme, o tempo inteiro estamos seguros em nossas poltronas, toda destruição e Cristo sendo demolido não ‘mete medo’ em ninguém. Somente para citar um filme, com tema catastroficamente semelhante, abordado de uma forma diferente e tecnicamente excelente, temos “Guerra dos Mundos” (eu sei, eu sei, o desfecho estraga, mas o filme é muito bem feito). Steven Spielberg utiliza diversos planos seqüência, quase impossíveis, a câmera em vários momentos nos coloca ao lado dos personagens, como se fossemos as próximas vítimas dos terríveis alienígenas.

Continuando esse paralelo, é possível citar uma cena muito ’semelhante’ de destruição. No início de  “Guerra dos Mundos”, existe a famosa passagem aterrorizante, quando Dakota Fanning vê os Tripods destruindo um viaduto atrás do carro que sua família esta em fuga. Em cena de “2012″, com aspectos muito semelhantes (vários viadutos sendo destruídos), parece muito mais um espetáculo circense, onde o carro indestrutível, ‘quase’ voa. Até pode divertir, mas cinematograficamente posso afirmar é muito fraco.

Outro aspecto técnico que incomoda é a fotografia, a câmera digital descaradamente utilizada nas cenas onde ‘não existe fim do mundo’, contrasta com as outras cenas de computação gráfica, a imagem tem uma qualidade diferente. Em certos momentos empobrece o filme, e deixa ainda mais evidente a falta de credibilidade dos próprios atores na trama. Citando o elenco que conta com John Cusack, Danny Glover, Thandie Newton, entre outros. Rostos conhecidos que pouco podem fazer para evitar a catástrofe mas cumprem o papel da maneira que podem.

‘Para não dizer que não falei das flores’, “2012″ pode sim agradar, se você esquecer qualquer nexo com a realidade, e isso que quero afirmar não tem nada a ver com o fato do calendário Maia ou da forma que o mundo acaba. Reparem que os ‘cavaleiros do apocalipse’ podem desfilar toda sua ira sobre a terra em um mar de fogo, mas a energia elétrica e a telefonia celular continuarão funcionando ‘firmes e fortes’. Despindo-se da razão, não esperando nada, apenas mais um filme de catástrofe, sim “2012″ diverte, mas com certeza qualquer esperança de provas que o mundo vai acabar em 2012, ou a sensação que seria se ocorresse este fato, desmoronam junto com o fim do filme.

A cena de “Guerra dos Mundos” da destruição do viaduto e o pavor nos olhos de Dakota.

O trailer de “2012″. Só cuidado, porque nele tem pelo menos um trecho de todas as cenas interessantes do filme.

Here's the real star of 2012.

(Columbia) John Cusack, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Amanda Peet, Oliver Platt, Woody Harrelson, Thandie Newton, Danny Glover, Thomas McCarthy, Liam James, Morgan Lily, Zlatko Buric, Beatrice Rosen, Johann Urb, John Billingsley, Jimi Mistry. Directed by Roland Emmerich

Nearly every culture has an end-of-the-world scenario, as does almost every religion. What would happen if one of them actually came to pass?

Dr. Adrian Helmsley (Ejiofor) is a junior geologist working for the U.S. Government. When he gets a call from colleague and old friend Dr. Tsurutani (Mistry) summoning him to India, he is happy to go but a bit mystified by the urgency. When his friend shows him figures regarding the temperature at the earth’s core, Helmsley immediately gets on a plane and crashes a fundraiser where presidential advisor Carl Anheuser (Platt) is holding forth. When Helmsley shows Anheuser the report, Anheuser leaves the fundraiser and informs Helmsley that he now works for Anheuser.

Flash forward several years later. Unsuccessful science fiction writer Jackson Curtis (Cusack) is resorting to driving a limo for an overbearing Russian billionaire (Buric). He gets a weekend off to take his kids – angry Noah (James) and incontinent Lilly (Lily) – camping at Yellowstone, where he and estranged wife Kate (Peet) once canoodled.

He meets a whacko end-of-the-world nutjob named Charlie Frost (Harrelson) who tells him why he and Kate’s favorite lake has dried up, and in the best conspiracy theory fashion, that the government not only knows about it but has been feverishly building spaceships to save the human race, the locations of which he conveniently has a map to.

Initially Curtis dismisses Charlie’s ravings but when they start to come true, he hightails it back to L.A. in his stretch limo and races against the earthquakes that will soon render the City of Angels a disaster zone, which might bring the property values down somewhat. From then on, Curtis and his family along with Kate’s nebbish plastic surgeon boyfriend (McCarthy) try to stay one step ahead of Armageddon.

Those special effects are absolutely worth the price of admission. Realistic and spectacular at the same time, we watch things in the words of the immortal Farm Film Report “blow up real good” and then blow up real good some more. Fleets of helicopters fill the skies as do flocks of hysterical birds escaping their impending doom. Waves crash over the Himalayas like they were pebbles on a beach, and we lap up every mind-blowing second of it knowing that it’s a little ghoulish but nevertheless we love it.

Cusack makes for an attractive lead. He’s not really suited for the action hero genre being much more of a hip indie sort but he soldiers on like the trooper he is. Ejiofor is one of those actors who I tend not to think about as a really compelling performer but every time I see him I notice how good he is – I think he’ll be on my list of must-see actors soon. Glover makes for a dignified president but compared to the Morgan Freeman presidency we got in Deep Impact doesn’t hold up quite as well, but still it’s nice to see him. Peet and Platt are two outstanding actors who take what they can out of a script that really doesn’t deserve them.

The big problem here is that the script is so predictable and cliché that after awhile you just long for a twist or a turn that you aren’t expecting. Also the movie at nearly two and a half hours is about 20-30 minutes too long. Still, these are things that get swept aside when you are in your special effects happy place.

Emmerich in that respect has become the Irwin Allen of his generation, and 2012 might just be his masterwork in that regard. He takes some pretty good actors who know well enough to just go with the preposterous dialogue and lets loose his digital effects subcontractors. The results are great entertainment and if that’s what you’re after then you’re in the right theater.

REASONS TO GO: Spectacular apocalyptic special effects overwhelm the many script deficiencies. John Cusack even in his weaker performances is worth seeing.

REASONS TO STAY: The script is predictable and riddled with clichés. Character development is nearly non-existent.

FAMILY VALUES: A good deal of disaster violence and some occasional salty language.

TRIVIAL PURSUIT: The character name of Jackson Curtis is the real name of rapper 50 Cent backwards (Curtis Jackson).

HOME OR THEATER: The eye-popping disaster scenes must be seen on the big screen to get the full experience.

FINAL RATING: 6/10

TOMORROW: Superbad

I am so disappointed with the second delay in the screening of A Christmas Carol. It has been rescheduled for 25 November 2009 (Wednesday) here in the Philippines. At least, it’s this week, but these continued delays just get on my nerves. Alternatively, This Is It, the Michael Jackson movie tribute, has been showing for quite some time and has actually raked in an admirable sum in gross revenue. The problem is, I’m not really a Michael Jackson fan. Thankfully, a film that is categorized within one of my favorite movie genres has been released: 2012.

I'm glad I got to watch this.

Despite being screened simultaneously with The Twilight Saga: New Moon, I am glad that there are sensible people who have opted to watch 2012 instead. Believe me, instead of mulling over the love life of a desperate girl named Bella, go for the latest end-of-the-world flick. It has convincing premises, unprecedented intellect, and a showcase of more realistic human emotion. And, it’s got a great score and soundtrack.

The earth's crust will "shift," causing chaos on the globe's surface.

The movie (2012) talks of a prophecy from the Mayan civilization that the world will end on December 21, 2012 (12.21.12). This is termed as the 2012 Phenomenon. After the said date, nothing else follows; so naturally, everything will end. Scientists have dug into the accuracy of this premise and decided that the earth won’t necessarily be annihilated—the crust would just “shift.” This is described as Earth Crustal Displacement. In this phenomenon, the earth’s crust will move as a result of an overheating core. An extremely hot core will melt the interior layers of the earth, making the crust movable since the underlying supporting ground is liquefied. So, North and South America can literally “shift” to the South Pole, while Asia relocates to the North Pole. Sounds simple. NOT! This process would involve earthquakes, lava explosions, humongous tidal waves, and ash booms. So every life on the earth’s surface is in danger of total eradication. Unless humanity decides to build modern-day arks to carry representatives of every nationality, and every plant and animal species there is.

For Jackson Curtis (John Cusack), family is very important.

Like in other disaster of doomsday flicks, 2012 focuses on a single family that fights for survival, with occasional diversions to other families and individuals who would be significant to the protagonist family’s survival. Of course, the meat of every film of these genres is the blow-by-blow account of the destruction of the environment, places, and popular landmarks. This film showcases new scenes for a disaster flick; and, everything is detailed, messy, and chaotic—just exactly what you might expect in a disaster scenario. I wish they rendered this film in 3D—it would very much be entertaining in that format—cars flying, explosions here and there, tsunamis moving in towards you, and the works! I wouldn’t want to be one of the characters fighting for their lives like in the film though. I figured that if I was in a doomsday situation, my mind would go blank and I would just stop and watch it happen. By watching this film, I learned that in such cases, the best thing to do is run until something stops you; if you ever get stopped, try to resume your running fast!

For Adrian Helmsley (Chiwetel Ejiofor), every bit of life is very important.

I think that 2012 has the potential to become a very entertaining video game either in the PC, Xbox 360, PS3, or Wii consoles. So you are trapped in a doomsday event and the only way to survive is to travel half-way across the globe to China, where the arks are located. You utilize every vehicle available to your disposal—public cars, small planes, big planes, ships, cruises, whatever—just to get to the arks. You go through earthquakes, eruptions, falling boulders, tsunamis and every natural disaster possible and somehow, manage to live through all these—narrowly escaping death. It’s a great game—if the producers and developers would get it right.

I am glad that despite being panned by critics, this film has done well worldwide. I guess it’s been quite some time since a worthwhile disaster movie has been released. Since this movie has been on its second or third week of showing here in the Philippines (not to mention the hype over New Moon), I expected the cinema to have less or virtually no one in it. I was pleasantly surprised that the cinema was about one-third full, and after my showing time, more people came in, rendering it almost full! This reaffirms my faith that society is not easily swayed by ridiculous vampire love stories.

Yeah, I don’t appreciate the Twilight series. I think it’s because I perceive Edward Cullen and Jacob Black as a threat to us other males. I mean, almost every girl we know swoon over them! Duh! They’re fictional! I remember the hype over The Lord of the Rings back in the early 2000s. Girls lined theaters not to watch this great epic, but to ogle Legolas! Mind you, I love The Lord of the Rings series, but if you watch it just to lust over a single fictional character, something is wrong with you. The same goes to female Twilighters wanting to be the desperate Bella.

Save you money. Watch 2012 instead. You might be disappointed with New Moon. I am so glad I did. I cried, I laughed, I was exhilaratingly entertained. Oh, and I’ve been treated to trailers of next year’s flicks that I am definitely going to look forward to: Prince of Persia, Salt, and Legion.

(not too concerned with spoilers in this review, I must warn)

In a certain moment of “2012″, in the Himalayas, a surprisingly advanced onboard computer claims they are in a collision course with something that is 8.840 km high. To which a character actually asks “What could be 8.840km high?”. Because there are so many 9 km high things to choose from, and in the Himalayas. Then another character says what it is ominously (I will not “reveal” it because I don’t want to insult your intelligence). This is how Roland Emmerich builds suspense. And this is why I am absolutely convinced “2012″ is a comedy that, if directed by Emmerich with the help of Jerry Zucker, would have achieved its full comedic potential. It’s a shame that in the moment the president played by Danny Glover adresses the nation, he does not start screaming, “We are all gonna DIIIIIEEEEEE!”, even though what he says is hilarious in a less hysterical way. Paraphrasing slightly because I can’t remember the exact words: “I believe what I will say next is true for every religion: the Lord is my shepherd…“

“2012″ is the result of an entire career’s worth of warming up with films like “Independence Day” and “The Day After Tomorrow”. This is the film Roland Emmerich always wanted to make, and I hope his apparent grudge against planet Earth has now ended, otherwise Emmerich’s next film will be about the destruction of the Milky Way (and consequently Earth, again) because of a collision with Andromeda, happening “much earlier than we thought it would!”, a specialist possibly played by Dennis Quaid would say.

The plot of “2012″ is, well… it’s 2012. According to the film (and worryingly, millions of real people who actually believe this), the Mayan calendar doesn’t stop because the Mayans just kinda got bored with it or something, but because the world will end then. The film depicts that the planets will align causing the sun to emit too many neutrinos (or vice-versa, don’t ask me to understand physics the way Emmerich does), but the point is that the center of the Earth rises in temperature dramatically, causing the tectonic plates to shift position, which causes earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanos, pretty much everything short of zombies and dinosaurs, which finally causes a broken family to come together again, and a boy who calls his father by his name to start calling him “dad” once again because that kind of emotional arc is so original.

“2012″ doesn’t take itself seriously. It plays like a drama but has several moments that reveal its true farcical nature, like the change of magnetic poles that results in the new South Pole being located “somewhere in Wisconsin”. Not to mention how blatantly the film uses convenient character traits to make its unbelievably stupid disaster scenes seem even mildly believable, like the protagonist being a “writer and a limousine driver” and the boyfriend of his ex-wife being a “plastic surgeon and a plane pilot”. Sure, the latter constantly says he only took a few plane lessons, but mate, if you can take a plane off the ground as that very ground breaks open beneath you, then dodge falling buildings, debris and fireballs — you’re a fucking pilot. Shut the fuck up.

Another sign of the film’s sense of humor are the characters that clearly represent real people, like the rich blonde girl with a dog that reminded me of Paris Hilton. And it’s especially hilarious how the film kills all of its supporting cast in increasingly over-the-top ways, and how blatantly the film provides catharsis with the gratuitous death of particularly unlikeable characters.

Therefore, complaining about cliches, inconsistences and coincidences in a movie like this is pretty much missing the point: it’s just plain fun. Unlike Sam Raimi in “Drag Me To Hell”, which couldn’t decide between comedy and horror, Roland Emmerich opts for comedy disguised as drama and shares the fun with us, not only indulging himself but the audience with his amazing ability to find the best possible way of filming something’s destruction. And Emmerich adds to the hilarity by always destroying a famous thing with another famous thing. I gasped from laughter when a character sees a large object riding a tsunami towards them and says, “Sir, that’s the Air Force One.”

Even better, Emmerich spares no-one. After extracting humor from painfully obvious symbolism (the Sistine Chapel’s ceiling being cracked apart right where the hands of Man and God almost touch), he proceeds to destroy the Vatican right when the Pope is giving a speech. Leaders of other religions and countries suffer the same fate.

And this is good, because a movie trying to take the Mayan calendar bullshit seriously would just be sad to see. Emmerich satirizes it constantly with Woody Harrelson’s character, a crazy radio broadcaster who turns out to be right despite being clearly insane, in an irony so improbable I just had to laugh. Speaking of the talented Harrelson, he’s fortunately not the only one to know he’s in a comedy, since the also talented John Cusack doesn’t hesitate to be histrionic and shouty during action scenes. The rest of the cast seems to take the movie more seriously though, but this ends up being even funnier.

So, is “2012″ good? Well, if I’m right and Emmerich’s intention was to make a comedy about the world’s destruction in 2012 and disguise it as a drama, then yes, it’s excellent and delivers. And if his intention was to deliver a serious, emotional drama, then “2012″ is a wonderful mistake. Either way, it’s an entirely forgettable, but very fun time. And really, I can’t actually believe this film is serious: on one of the final scenes, with inspiring “everything worked out okay” music, people leave their arks (yes, there are arks) to be met by the wonderful sight of… a destroyed world covered in water. But look at that beautiful sunset!

But now that he’s had his fun, Roland Emmerich should start a new part of his career where he dedicates himself to more serious films, because maybe if he actually tries, he can make a movie that’s not only fun but also memorable.

Which, okay, sounds less likely than the world ending in 2012, but still.

2012. USA ( 2009)

• Dir. Roland Emmerich
• Reparto: John Cusack, Amanda Peet, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Thandie Newton, Danny Glover,Woody Harrelson y Oliver Platt.

Calificación 3 estrellas

Es triste ver como una cinta no supera las expectativas que genera. Enmarcada en una de las discusiones escatológicas mas populares en años recientes, esperábamos ver un fin de mundo diferente en la pantalla. Quizás más místico, quizás más realista, quizás más sorprendente.Sin embargo, al final vemos una película nueva pero construida bajo las premisas de siempre.

Teniendo en mente que  hacer una película supone un conjunto de decisiones, de las que se disponía para hacer  una de éste tipo eran varias, algunas documentadas y ampliamente conocidas por la opinión pública. El mundo podría acabarse a causa de un meteorito, una  crisis cilmatológica, una epidemia fuera de control, un accidente nuclear experiemental,  y no sé que tantas otras cosas que ya el Discovery se ha encargado de introducir a las discusiones de café del ciudadano promedio. Aquí se eligió  una inusual y atípica carga de neutrinos, provenientes de una también inusual y atípica explosión solar.

Y por otra parte, de todas las predicciones hechas ( Nostradamus, El Libro de las revealciones, el I Ching y los mayas) se eligieron a estos últimos como agoreros del desastre. Y para héroe y protagonista la verdad es que no fueron tan creativos: un escritor mediocre ( Cusack) superando un divorcio, que encuentra en la misión de salvar a su familia, el medio perfecto para recuperarla.

El caso es que todo eso ya lo hemos visto.  Una historia fraccionada acerca de cómo viven personas diferentes el cataclismo y las lecciones de moral que se aprenden en el camino, es la premisa central de la película.  Una compleja combinación entre Armaggedon, Epidemia, Godzilla, Expedientes Secretos X y hasta Titanic, es lo que vemos en más de dos horas de duración. Aquí lo triste es que bien pudieron incluir algo de 28 días (Exterminio) por ejemplo, pero la visión nunca llega a ser tan oscura. Si acaso, hay una actualización interesante, donde el Presidente de Estados Unidos es negro (Glover) y  alusiones directas al Gobernador Schwartzenegger, Angela Merker, la Reina Isabel de Inglaterra, El Papa. Pero el malo y egoísta es Ucrananiano, los científicos son unos pobres nerds, uno además con discapacidad (eso como les gusta en las películas gringas: el científico discapacitado que seguro por eso es científico: no pudo jugar futbol), la gente sencilla que da muestras de nobleza y humildad, y un largo etcétera.

Y no les voy a mentir: el final es absolutamente predecible. Ni falta hace “spoilearlo,” porque lo van a adivinar sin ayuda.  Así que si disponen de más de dos horas para ver algo que ya han visto, adelante. Pero nunca podrán decir que nadie se los advirtió.

Lo mejor:

• Los efectos especiales son de 10.  Vertiginosas huídas áereas en medio de la destrucción son verdaderamente impactantes. El derrumbe de los monumentos históricos del mundo es muy buena: La Plaza de San Pedro en Roma, La Casa Blanca en Washington, El Cristo del Corcobado en Brasil…
• Para quienes gustan de los mensajes positivos, están en el lugar correcto.
• Ver a Woody Harrelson como agorero loco del desatre es toda una experiencia.
• La frase: ¿No es triste comprobar que los locos que predicen el fin del mundo tenía razón? Me reí muchísimo.

Lo peor:

• Es laaarga! y lo peor de todo es que ya te esperas el final, así que empiezas a ver el reloj para ver si por fin se acaba ésto.
• La cantidad de lugares comunes – clichés- es insultante.
• No aporta absolutamente nada nuevo al género, uno de los más nobles de la ciencia ficción, por cierto.
• La tercera vez que huyen por casi nada de la destrucción total – la verdad- bostezas.
• Los mayas y su predicción, si se mencionan dos veces creo que es mucho y ni siquiera de manera que resulte interesante para el público.

Believe it or not, Roland Emmerich actually explores a common theme in most of his disaster movies. He is very concerned with how people unite during a catastrophe and is interested in how they come out of it as human beings. Now there’s obviously nothing nuanced about Emmerich’s approach and his conclusions aren’t every very logical or meaningful, but there is a method to the madness beyond blowing stuff up real good.

With 2012, Emmerich blows things up real good and then some in creating one of the biggest and baddest disaster pictures of all time. It is a ridiculous motion picture in just about every sense of the word, but it delivers a thrilling first half and packs a slew of awe-inspiring visuals into its colossal runtime before running out of gas when Emmerich tries to put too fine a point on things.

2012 is of course Emmerich’s take on the various disasters predicted for the end of the world. It invokes a host of myths about our planet’s grand finale, ranging from the Mesoamerican Long Count calendar to the beliefs of the Mayans. The earth starts to get in trouble due to solar flare bombardment, we are told, and that causes a series of events that plunge the world into destruction. California falls into the Pacific, for instance, and a slew of earthquakes and tsunamis wreck the joint with style.

Through it all, Emmerich has us follow a cast of unnecessary characters. John Cusack is one, playing a writer from Los Angeles that manages to make it through a zillion improbable circumstances with his ex-wife (Amanda Peet), two kids and his ex-wife’s new man (Thomas McCarthy). Danny Glover gets to be president, too, and Thandie Newton is the president’s daughter. There’s also a host of scientists and crazies warning the planet, including Woody Harrelson as a hermit/conspiracy theorist.

2012 manages to roll its improbable, silly scenario out for quite a good long while thanks to some absolutely dazzling effects. Watching the destruction of Los Angeles is especially thrilling, as Emmerich lets the ground gobble everything up in brilliant light and colour. The tsunamis and earthquakes do their stuff and give the characters lots of cool crashing stuff to fly around and drive through. This provides copious amounts of popcorn-munching entertainment and should be seen on a big screen to truly appreciate it.

Of course, Emmerich does eventually drop the ball. Things get a little fuzzy and repetitive when the various large-scale attempts to survive start emerging. There’s a whole bunch of “arks,” apparently, and they were built by the private sector to ensure the survival of society’s elite. This was done in secret until the last minute, amazingly enough, and their existence generates the movie’s ethical quandaries.

Emmerich just isn’t very good at the ethical stuff, though, and the film stumbles when he starts to thin things out. Telling the “human story” doesn’t particularly work with this disaster flick, especially when it involves more dogs and kids than Independence Day. The problems emerge when it becomes obvious as to where certain characters are gravitating, making for many a groan-worthy moment in what was a pretty slick, deadly disaster pic.

In the end, 2012 gets a pass because it delivers the goods in a big way. It’s worth a look or two just to see how cool the effects look and how well Emmerich can blow stuff up when he really wants to. His patience and timing with the destruction is especially admirable, as he doesn’t “Michael Bay” it with overwhelming motion. The Los Angeles scenes are incredible. But when things start drawing to their conclusion, don’t be surprised if you find yourself looking at your watch.

5.9/10

Trailer:

Roland Emmerich has given movie watchers several apocalyptic films in the past in INDEPENDENCE DAY and THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW, and he offers another look at the end of the world in 2012. This action film stars John Cusack, Chiwetel Ejiofor, and Amanda Peet.

Starring: John Cusack, Chjwetel Ejiofor, Amanda Peet, Oliver Platt, Thandie Newton, Danny Glover, Woody Harrelson
Director: Roland Emmerich
Screenwriter: Roland Emmerich, Harald Kloser
Producer: Harald Kloser, Mark Gordon, Larry Franco
Composer: Harald Kloser, Thomas Wander
Studio: Sony Pictures Entertainment

MOVIE TRAILER :

The Movie Overdose attempts to contain the apocalypse with a review of Roland Emmerich’s 2012. We chat about how we would change Eddie Murphy for the better, what kind of sequel we want for Star Trek and whether we are glad to see Sean Connery coming back, if only in voice form. Tom slightly dampens the praise given to An Education and Sam revels in the madness of Running Scared and the flawed ambition of Dogma. The conclusion involves a discussion of actors that, no matter what, we always look forward to seeing on screen.

Download The Movie Overdose Episode 42

Email us, follow us on Twitter and subscribe through iTunes on the links on the left side of the page.

Lupe Fiasco & Michael Ealy

NYC Premiere Of ‘The People Speak’ backstage at Jazz at Lincoln Center on November 19, 2009

The film brings together images, music and narration with re-creations of American moments of resistance. There’s the Declaration of Independence; speeches by Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, Jr.; songs by Woody Guthrie, Bob Dylan and Public Enemy; and a call to action by Cindy Sheehan among many others.

2012, so recockulous its brilliant. If you don’t know what 2012 is about it’s a disaster movie based on the 2012 phenomenon. The 2012 phenomenon is basically a prediction that the world will end on the 21st December 2012. Basically the film is a series of Doomsday event scenarios plunging the world into chaos and Jackson Curtis’ (John Cusack) attempts to keep his family alive.

If you go into this expecting anything other than amazing CGI and action sequences then you are going to be disappointed. People who criticise this movie for being what it is are idiots. The only reason you go to see a disaster movie is for those two reasons. If it hadn’t given us those two options then sure, be negative about it. But it did what it said on the tin (and by that I mean trailer). Oliver Platt is amazing in this film and he has by far the best character. I also enjoyed Woody Harrelson’s roll in the film. In a lot of the actors were good, considering the type of movie it is anyway.

Really though, if the Mayan’s turn out to be right in their doomsday theory. And we do all in fact die in 2012, I’m going to be pretty pissed off if I find out that the Royal family were in fact saved while I was left to die by my government like they were in this film.

Go and see this film if you want to be entertained by explosions and things collapsing on other things. If that’s not your cup of tea, don’t.

Definitiva sería la palabra idonea para ilustrar lo que representa la última película de Roland Emmerich, 2012. Definitiva porque dentro de su género no puede tocar más palos, más catastrofes naturales no puede acumular, habrá quien eche de menos algún tornado, pero ¿quien necesita viento cuando hay erupciones, terremotos y olas gigantes? La película es un cúmulo de tópicos, situaciones imposibles, escenas forzadas y elementos mil veces vistos en la filmografía del director. Pese a todo, consigue entretener al espectador durante las más de dos horas y media que dura la cinta, que ya es un logro para las cosas que se llegan a proyectar hoy día. Nadie debe esperar una disertación filosófica sobre la vida, aunque haya escenas que lo pretenden, 2012 hay que tomarsela como lo que es, un montón de sobradas entretenidas con personajes resultones que hace que el espectador salga del cine sin pensar que ha pasado horas dentro.

El guión no es especialmente brillante, una catástrofe natural predicha por los Mayas hace un gritón de años es descubierta por unos científicos, a partir de ahí, secretismo, conspiraciones, y unos personajes demasiado estereotipados. Las lineas generales de 2012 recuerdan a otras películas de Emmerich, elementos como la exaltación del presidencialismo y su heroicidad estaba ya presentes en Independence Day, el elemento humanizador de la trama mediante personajes de a pie, los conflictos comunicativos entre padres e hijos… podría decirse que 2012 es poco más que una puesta al día de su estilo, eso sí, aderezada con una cantidad ingente de infografía y con unas escenas cogidas con pinzas que no pueden sobrarse más. Las dos horas y media son un corre que te pillo constante, siempre con la muerte en los talones, cada vez esquivándola de forma más inverosímil, pero pese a todo, entretiene, sobre todo porque sabe dosificar los ingredientes, especialemente los toques de humor.

El reparto es bastante aceptable. John Cusack soporta el mayor peso de la película con bastante dignidad. Amanda Peet ha dado el salto y ya hace papeles de madre aunque sigue siendo igual de atractiva. Danny Glover es el presidente de los Estados Unidos, con lo que parece que comienza una nueva moda en el cine, antes casi todos los presidentes ficticios eran señores canosos, ahora todos afroamericanos. Glover no hace el papel de su vida, eso está reservado para Arma Letal, pero también es correcto. Entre los secundarios con cierto peso destaca el papel de Chiwetel Ejiofor, y por supuesto, Woody Harrelson, cuyos minutos en pantalla no tienen desperdicio.

En definitiva, 2012 pasará sin más como han pasado tantas películas de catástrofes, aunque flota sobre el mar de mediocridad que rodea este género que tan de moda estuvo en los 90. Emmerich ha conseguido realizar una película visualmente atractiva, con unos personajes lo suficientemente interesantes y alejados de la pedantería habitual de los protagonistas de estas cintas. Eso sí, no logra desacerse de algunos tópicos, como el de los críos repelentes e insoportables al estilo de Timmy. La cinta es perfecta para pasar una tarde domingo, es larga, con lo que se cubren muchas horas de ese día, y no se hace pesada en absoluto, al contrario, es una película que no pide consultar el reloj, y eso tiene mucho más valor de lo que la gente piensa.

I’ve just recently sat through director Roland Emmerich’s latest opus, 2012, and thought I’d review it on here. I’d like to say that I was amazed and overawed by the spectacle of it all, but sadly that’s not the case. At the end of the film I felt similar to when I’d sat through ‘The Day After Tomorrow’ in Newcastle in 2004. Both films were big on action and had so many special effects crammed into them they were virtually just one big special effect. However, both left a rather unsatisfied feeling and that’s how I felt as the credits to 2012 rolled. For anyone who hasn’t yet seen it, the plot is, divorced dad and limo driver to wealthy Russian oligarch John Cusack finds out that the world, as we know it, is about to end. Dragging his ex wife and kids along, plus her new husband, they set out to make sure they survive this new planetary catastrophe. Which, unsurprisingly, they do. The problem I have is, in addition to having to suspend your disbelief 350,000 feet above the floor, the story just isn’t there. The idea that the Mayans predicted the world will end in 2012 (and that could be a whole other post in itself) is, in my opinion, interesting enough to sustain a better plot than the one that is unravelled in 2012, which ends in a much similar way to The Day after Tomorrow and Independence Day, with humanity living to fight another day and blah, blah, blah. Aside from the plot having more cheesy scenes than a block of wensleydale, it’s a film straight out of a tired old Hollywood that’s relying more and more on CGI and special effects to bring it box office returns rather than plot and story. But don’t get me wrong, it has its good points. In addition to Cusack, Woody Harrelson and Danny Glover also star in it and all turn in good, decent, performances. Also, it’s over 2 and a half hours long but this does fly by. Go see it if you like your films big on effects and like the actors starring in it. It is entertaining, it’s just not that spectacular. Thanks for reading.