NOTA : 7 RECOMANDAT

Download subtitrare 2012

Trailer 2012 :

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+

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. ***

Watching 2012 is like eating a basket of fried chicken for dinner. It has no nutritional value. You’ll probably hate yourself afterwards for eating it. But damn, it tastes so very, very good.

Unlike this summer’s vile Transformers 2, 2012 knows exactly what it is. While that Michael Bay film was ugly, repulsive, and generally condescending to its audience, 2012 is almost childlike in it’s deliriously stupid innocence. Transformers 2 was a film that hated its audience. 2012 on the other hands just wants to desperately entertain you with ’splosions and the creative destruction of national landmarks. If you gave a frat boy a bag of cocaine and $200 million, you’d get Transformers 2. If you gave an hyperactive 9-year-old some Pixy Stix and $200 million, you get 2012. In a weird way, the earnestness of 2012 when combined with its complete lack of restraint is oddly charming.

For a movie that is ostensively about John Cusack outrunning various natural disasters for 158 minutes, there is a crap-ton of exposition in 2012. I’m talking what feels like 45 straight minutes of pseudo-science, moralizing, and a bizarrely Altman-esque slew of maybe a dozen subplots, before we finally get to the business of stuff blowing the hell up, and in the words of Aldo Rayne, “Cousin’, business is a boomin’.” But man, 2012 feels almost masochistic in the pleasure that it takes in blowing up landmarks and demolishing any spec-like bystanders that get in the way. Some 6 billion people are decimated throughout the film (uh, spoilers I guess?), but by the end of the film, there is remarkably little remorse evident by those who evade disaster.

But that’s just it about 2012, for all the ham-fisted arguments about human nature and convoluted plotting, it knows damn well that it’s an excuse to laugh and have a good time for two and half hours. After all, the film comes from a man whose previous work has included characters outrunning temperature changes, and cannonball decapitation. I think we can safely say Roland Emmerich is in on the joke.

It’s basically a modern-day Irwin Allen picture. Every character is a comfortable cliche or stereotype; from obnoxious plastic surgeon stepfather to ridiculously noble President Danny Glover. And don’t even get me started on Oliver Platt’s character, the only thing that would make him more cartoonishly evil is if he had a thin black mustache to twirl. But again, the film is an explosion delivery system. And unlike the repugnant Transformers 2, which you could theoretically defend under the same guise, 2012 is innocuous and almost playful in its love for destruction. Transformers 2 was a movie with utter contempt for its own audience, where as this movie merely invites you to join in on the fun.

Make no mistake, 2012 is a very silly, very cheesy, and very ridiculous movie. However, there’s something about it’s earnestness and lack of cynicism that makes it very endearing. 2012 is at once aware of its own ridiculousness and eager to up the ante. If you thought The Day After Tomorrow exhibited too much restraint, then you’ll go ape for the flick. If you wanna enjoy the apocalypse as a theme park ride, by all means, go in for the ludicrous and boisterous fun of 2012.

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.

Director Roland Emmerich gets a lot of grief for making so many disaster-oriented movies.  I must say I’m glad that he doesn’t listen to these critics because he is the best there is at making these kinds of films.  ”2012,” his latest project, is incredibly stimulating to the part of you that loves watching your favorite landmarks get wiped off the face of the planet.  Many claim that it doesn’t offer much that you haven’t seen in Emmerich’s previous movies in the same vain, “Independence Day” and “The Day After Tomorrow.”  However, I thought “2012″ was much more audacious, willing to destroy some venerated structures such as St. Peter’s Basilica, Christ the Redeemer, and the White House.  By doing this, Emmerich introduces some apprehension into the moviegoing experience and makes you wonder what the apocalypse would really look like.

The highlight of “2012″ is its phenomenal special effects, but Emmerich had the good sense not to let them drive the movie.  He gets two angles on the catastrophe that the Mayans predicted, one from a normal citizens experiencing the disaster and the other from the politicians and scientists trying to save humanity.  The normal citizen is Jackson Curtis (John Cusack), a sci-fi writer thrown into the situation after consistently being in the wrong place at the wrong time.  With the aid of an eccentric who sees the writing on the walls (Woody Harrelson), he finds a path to save his family from the imminent destruction.  The scientist (Chiwetel Ejiofor) and politician (Oliver Platt) add a moral depth to the the plot as they agonize over who can and should be saved.

What distinguishes “2012″ from a movie like “Transformers” is a clear understanding that its audience doesn’t take the movie too seriously.  Thankfully, Emmerich is aware of the regard that people hold his movies in, so he has no qualms with using a formulaic plot and being a tad silly.  He also knows from experience not to try to move the plot significantly while he indulges us with sweeping, gratuitous shots of the Earth getting annihilated by tsunamis and earthquakes.  Emmerich recognizes that it is undeniably fun to watch Pasadena split in two, and he lets us marvel at the work of some dedicated visual effects artists.  ”2012″ is no masterpiece, but Roland Emmerich gives us an enjoyable cataclysmic romp that excites the lover of destruction that lurks inside all of us.  B /

(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.

What a great Thanksgiving!!!!

Reformed wild child April Burns (Katie Holmes) attempts to make Thanksgiving dinner — while battling a temperamental oven — for her estranged suburban family at her grungy New York apartment and anticipates introducing them to her new boyfriend, Bobby (Derek Luke). Oliver Platt, Sean Hayes and Oscar-nominated Patricia Clarkson co-star in this drama that observes a dysfunctional family coming together to address the past and heal the future.

Shot in less than two weeks for less than $300,000, Pieces of April was written and directed by Peter Hedges, who adapted his novel Whats Eating Gilbert Grape.

With that film and this, Hedges shows that he can write a pretty decent script even with familiar source material. He happens to have this screenplay that is not only very comedic but also quite dark in its approach.

Though I did like this film I did have a little bit of complaints. The gritty look started to annoy me as I felt that it just looked way too dirty and cheaply made. There was also this little sub-plot that is really mysterious, only cause the film has it that way. Derek Luke is out doing something, and I kind of never understood what it really was.

All these flaws are quickly excused when the performances come out of these stars. Katie Holmes is actually pretty good in this film and gives charming performance as the leading woman, but the one that really knocks it out of the park here is Patricia Clarkson. She gives an amazing performance as an old and dying woman here is funny but also very tragic. You can see that she misses the times that she missed out on with her daughter, and she is upset about that but also still trying to keep her strength as an old woman. She was by far the best out of the whole cast.

The ending is probably one of the more touching and sincere endings I have ever seen. It really did feel genuine and the whole film basically lead up to this point and doesn’t leave us hanging out.

Consensus: Despite its flaws, Pieces Of April is a sincere, touching, and darkly comedic touch on familiar source material, that features an amazing performance from Patricia Clarkson.

8/10=Matinee!!!!

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.

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.

2012 (Estados Unidos 2.009, 158 Minutos, Drama)
Dirección: Roland Emmerich.
Guión: Roland Emmerich, Harald Kloser.
Reparto: John Cusack, Amanda Peet, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Thandie Newton, Oliver Platt, Thomas McCarthy, Woody Harrelson, Danny Glover.
Fotografía: Dean Semler.
Música: Harald Kloser.

Valoración: 4/10

Sinopsis: Jackson es un escritor fracasado que intenta sacar adelante su relación con sus hijos después de que su mujer lo abandonara por otro hombre. Durante una visita a un parque natural conoce a Charlie, un paranoico que le habla sobre el fin del mundo, un evento que los mayas predijeron situándolo en el año 2012. Sorprendentemente todo lo que Charlie contó empieza a cumplirse cuando una serie de catástrofes naturales sacude el planeta. Angustiado, Jackson intentará poner a salvo a su familia antes de que la profecía se cumpla y sea demasiado tarde.

Crítica: Roland Emmerich concibe el fin del mundo como un parque de atracciones lleno de explosiones, huídas al límite y gritos de terror y júbilo. Su filmografía (sembrada de chorradas con grandes resultados en taquilla) podría ser vista, y tal vez mejor apreciada, si el respetable estuviera subido en montaña rusa o atracción similar, siempre captando de reojo la imagen y disfrutándola mejor a través del movimiento antinatural de las propias vísceras. 2012 supone para Emmerich la culminación a su persistente obsesión en terminar con el mundo y la raza humana logrando que el caos y la muerte luzcan bien en pantalla. El exceso es de nuevo su arma pesada, haciendo uso constante de unos llamativos y trabajadísimos efectos especiales que contrastan de forma abismal con un guión simple y tópico, lleno de estereotipos que evolucionan de forma obvia siguiendo los supuestos deseos básicos del espectador: los personajes carismáticos sobreviven, los nobles eligen el honorable sacrificio y los que caen gordos obtienen una muerte horrenda. Sin excepciones. En su apocalipsis – espectáculo, Emmerich alterna escenas de vistosa destrucción con otras de puro melodrama, pasando sin escalas del chascarrillo a la lágrima fácil, apostando por la grandilocuencia visual e ignorando la más mínima calidad del texto, incapaz de sorprender o emocionar en ningún momento. Para Emmerich, el cataclismo es un monstruo al que presenta al acecho primero, cual Tiburón y desbocado después, al estilo Godzilla, contra un elenco desorientado, difuso y patidifuso al que le sobran gracietas y le falta brío. Todos ellos contemplan acongojados la destrucción a su alrededor mientras sacan conclusiones de parvulario sobre lo mucho que han desperdiciado sus vidas hasta ese momento, lo mala que es la élite sociopolítica y lo buenos que somos los humanos cuando necesitamos algo de los demás. De la tan cacareada tensión, ni rastro. Primer acto de calentamiento (nunca mejor dicho), presentación y explicación pseudocientífica, repetitivo segundo acto cargado de fuegos de artificio (Emmerich incluso repite por tres veces consecutivas la misma escena) y para terminar, otra taza de lo anterior aderezado de vacua moraleja. Extenso metraje para contar más bien poco, tras el cual le llega a Emmerich un gravísimo problema. Su obsesión ha tocado techo. Ya no le queda nada por destrozar ni por tanto tampoco que contar en sus próximos proyectos. ¿Qué será ahora de un Roland falto de nuevas metas? Aunque… ¿para qué hacer planes? El fin está cerca.

You’ve never seen destruction like this. Roland Emmerich apparently decided in reading about the Mayan calendar doomsday conspiracies that his previous armageddon films, Independence Day and The Day After Tomorrow, were far too subtle. This is the type of film where the scope of the effects work and the imagination behind the mayhem glue you to your seat. The beauty behind 2012 is that it takes disaster movie elements and cranks them up to the nth degree. Seen tsunamis bury skyscrapers? Here they bury mountain ranges. Seen volcanoes rain lava and ash on our heroes? Here a super-volcano sends off an atom bomb of lava and makes ash rain thousands of miles away. Seen buildings destroyed? Here you have entire continents destroyed. Emmerich gives us perhaps the most impressive effects sequence of the year… and then tops it… and then tops it again. This is the daddy of all disaster films, and easily the pinnacle of Emmerich’s career to date.

In 2009, massive solar flares alert a select number of scientists, including Adrian Helmsley (Chiwetel Ejiofor), that the Earth’s core is rapidly heating up as a result. Dr. Helmsley reports this to Chief of Staff Carl Anheuser (Oliver Platt), who sets in motion a plan to save humanity– we see the Mona Lisa replaced by a forgery, so the original can be carefully stored, and we see plans for a secretive dam being built in China that we suspect is not a dam at all. Flash forward to 2012, where one-time author/current limo driver Jackson Curtis (John Cusack) is late picking up his kids (Morgan Lily and Liam James) for a camping trip to Yellowstone. His ex-wife Kate (Amanda Peet) and her new boyfriend Gordon (Tom McCarthy) eye him with scorn before they depart. While in Yellowstone, Curtis sees dried-up lakes and new government testing facilities. He also meets a conspiracy-filled radio host, Charlie Frost (Woody Harrelson), who tell Curtis the end of the world is coming due to the Earth’s crust being displaced, which will set off massive earthquakes, tsunamis, and super-volcanoes. He also claims to have a map to the place where the government is building ships to save those rich enough to buy a ticket for survival.

Now don’t get me wrong– this is not a “good” movie. The characters are all very familiar, the speeches we’ve heard a hundred times, and the Russians are the fat bulbous detestable cliches that we’ve seen since the Cold War. I don’t mean for this review to convert those who know that they hate disaster movies. I’m not saying this is the disaster movies that will sway you on the ability of disaster movies to entertain. However, if you find enjoyment in the specific entertainment value that disaster movies provide (which I do), then get ready for two and a half hours of bliss. The special effects are among the best of the year– unlike Michael Bay, Emmerich gets off on the long shot, where instead of editing an action sequence to pieces, he lets the shot be packed with special effects without cutting, totally absorbing you into the suspense. The limo racing away from the splitting crust as the freeway crumbles, raining cars into the family’s path, is as intense and joyous a silly action sequence as I’ve seen since Live Free or Die Hard– in fact, it’s better than that. This is the moment where you either buy the movie in its entirety or check out early.

Emmerich also picked some terrific character actors to lead the way. Cusack brings his particular brand of barely likable schmo charm to Jackson– he’s believable as both a jaded writer and impatient limo driver. Chiwetel Ojiefor is one of the best young actors in Hollywood, and while he doesn’t have anything in terms of character (he’s the noble government worker who believes in humanity over the power of the almighty dollar), he delivers his speeches passionately and earnestly. Oliver Platt is a national treasure when it comes to playing smarmy villains; he fully embraces everything ugly about his chief of staff, yet manages to give him shades of dimension in between the dialogue. Danny Glover mostly sits and looks grim, but his mere presence provides some dignity to the proceedings. Amanda Peet is fairly worthless as Cusack’s ex-wife– far better is Tom McCarthy, as the nice guy boyfriend who Jackson’s kids like but who we know from past film experiences will be very very lucky if he survives. He manages to toe the line between the obnoxious new love interest stereotype and the harmless better-option new love interest stereotype… unlike in other films, where you can’t wait for that character to die, I rooted for his survival. Finally, there’s Woody Harrelson as the conspiratorial radio host, who joyously chews the scenery. Every disaster movie needs a shameless ham, and Harrelson not only embraces the ham, he bathes in it.

Why was this movie not released in IMAX? It’s easily the “biggest” movie in recent memory. Shockingly, it’s all based on a real theory– when Harrelson spouts off about Hapgood’s crust displacement theory, and that Einstein believed it was true, he’s not lying. Now, the movie loses steam in the last half-hour… the chaos has mostly ended, and the action moves inside the ships, and the sheer epic nature of the film hits a roadbump. However, when they look outside, and see an ocean covering the Himalayas, where only Mount Everest and K2 are large enough to peek out as islands, we get the full vision of how BIG a scale Emmerich wanted to operate on. This isn’t a film where you feel the effort to entertain– this is a labor of love for Emmerich, filling every corner of the film with every disaster movie cliche that he truly and earnestly loves. I love them too, and even with its flaws, I loved this movie. And yes, just as in every other Emmerich film, the cute little dog survives.

Vista la primera temporada de “Huff”, y en versión original que es como debe ser, he de decir que me gusta la serie. Aunque algún capítulo ha tenido algún altibajo, como el tercero por ejemplo, la historia del doctor Craig Huffstodt (Hank Azaria) y su familia me parece muy buena. La serie tiene partes de drama y partes de humor con mucha ironía además, y un reparto… de esos que cando se dan consiguen crear escenas buenísimas.

Las de Huff y Russell (Oliver Platt) son buenas porque no me imagino ahora a nadie (a parte de Justin Kirk de “Weeds” aunque por edad no pega) para hacer un papel así, pero las de Beth (Paget Brewster) y Izzie (Blythe Danner, para quien no lo sepa es la madre de Gwyneth Paltrow) son geniales también, y el joven Anton Yelchin es uno de esos actores jóvenes que se merecen teener una buena carrera en Hollywood.

Me queda la segunda entrega por ver, y sé que los trece capítulos me sabrán a poco, pero no hay más.

Awesome! Ridiculous…but awesome!!

At first I was concerned when I found out it was nearly 3 hours long (2hrs 40mins) but once it starts, it never stops and doesn’t feel long at all! If anything it leaves you thinking that for once, your £9 (saw it in London!!) was well spent! It’s pacing is fantastic, never feeling rushed and never getting bogged down to compensate either.

After directing ‘Independance Day’ and ‘Day After Tomorrow’, Roland Emerich has said this is his last disaster film, and what a way to finish! The mix of action/destruction, drama, romance, comedy, tension…even philosephy (what makes us human – self interest or compassion?) is perfect. It’s a strong portfolio but this is probably his best!

There are no mega-stars like Will Smith or Tom Cruise, but instead just very good, well known actors that don’t overshadow the film but simply serve it well instead! Apart from a few scenes, none of them seem to particularly stretched themselves. However, they all still bring a level of realism and believability to the characters that makes you genuinally care.

Overall, ‘2012′ is a great film and one of the best ive seen in recent memory! It ticks all the boxes and will have you holding your breath and then emotionally punching the air in joy many times! I can’t wait to watch it again and it’s deffinately at the top of my DVD list, but to fully appreciate, you must watch it at a cinema! Big screen and surround sound is the only way to go! 4.5/5 stars!!

Parental advisory:- There is no nudity, sex or violence but as you can expect, there are many scenes where masses of people die in different ways – crushed, drowned, falling down casms etc. None of this is focussed on in a gratuitous way and even though there is a scene where a man is crushed and a women drowns, these instances are more implied than graphically shown.
There is one f word and a couple of almost unnoticable s words. However, there is so much noise and chaos in the scene with the f word that you almost don’t hear it and in the context of the scene, it could be understandable (personal judgement call!). I believe the 12A certificate is justified as some scenes could be too intense for young children under 10yrs old.