Es musste ja so kommen. Das ganze Brimborium mit Maya-Kalender, Planetenkonstellationen und Weltuntergang war einfach wie geschaffen für Roland Emmerich. Erst pulverisierten Aliens in „Independence Day“ ganze Städte, dann legte Godzilla New York in Schutt und Asche und schließlich raffte ein plötzlicher Klimawandel („The Day After Tomorrow“) mal eben Millionen Menschen dahin. Dass Emmerich nun die ganze Welt untergehen lässt, ist da eigentlich nur der nächste, logische Schritt. Und da „2012“ eben genau in der Tradition der größenwahnsinnigsten Filme des größenwahnsinnigsten Regisseurs Hollywoods steht, ist es fast schon unnötig zu erwähnen, dass Emmerich sein Erfolgskonzept nur minimal variiert. Bombastszenen hier, wirre Verfolgungsjagden dort und zwischendrin rettet der Versager von Nebenan mal so nebenbei die halbe Menschheit, was aber nur bedingt interessiert, denn viel wichtiger ist, dass er dabei seine zerrüttete Familie wieder zusammenschweißen kann. Am Ende kann dann trotz Milliarden an Toten ein Happy End gefeiert werden. Ein Kunststück, das in der Form wirklich nur Emmerich vollbringt.

Irgendwie wäre damit auch schon fast alles zu „2012“ gesagt – aber eben auch nur fast. Nicht unter den Tisch gekehrt werden darf nämlich, dass Emmerich hier so konsequent wie nie vorgeht. So ist bereits die erste Action-Szene, in der Jackson Curtis (John Cusack) samt Exfrau (Amanda Peet) und Kindern durch das einstürzende Los Angeles rast, hanebüchener als alles, was uns in „The Day After Tomorrow“ so aufgetischt wurde. Überhaupt versucht Emmerich nun gar nicht mehr, so etwas wie Fingerspitzengefühl zu beweisen, vielmehr präsentiert er die absurdesten Szenen so unglaublich schamlos, dass es eine wahre Freude ist. Wer also fähig ist, zwei Stunden lang nie nach Sinn und Zusammenhang zu fragen, sondern jede Szene als beeindruckendes Einzelbild genießen kann, der wird den Besuch von „2012“ garantiert nicht bereuen. So gesehen hat Emmerich mit „2012“ auch den Höhepunkt seines Schaffens erreicht, denn mehr „Popcornkino“ als hier geht nun wirklich nicht.

Angst macht in dem Zusammenhang nur die Verlautbarung Emmerichs, dass er als nächste Projekte einen Film über Shakespeare (!) sowie eine Verfilmung der Pazifik-Seeschlacht zwischen den USA und Japan 1942 (!!) anpeilt. Da könnte uns dann wirklich der Weltuntergang bevorstehen.

]]> http://elblogbuster.wordpress.com/2009/11/27/2012-el-milenarismo-va-a-llegarrrrr/ Fri, 27 Nov 2009 18:53:34 +0000 matasanos http://elblogbuster.wordpress.com/2009/11/27/2012-el-milenarismo-va-a-llegarrrrr/

El final se acerca. Nadie está a salvo de los extraterrestres,… ¡eh, espera!,… ¡ah, no!, perdón: nadie está a salvo del fin del mundoooo (*1).

Imaginaos un mundo en el que no haya alimentos, imaginaos un mundo lleno de corrupción, imaginaos un mundo lleno de piratas, dejad de imaginad esta es mi cancióoonnn, oh, oh.

Después de un breve inciso lleno de pequeñas bromas escritas a bombo y platillo, sin ningún tipo de orden o lógica alguna me dirijo pues a relatar, escribir, contar, criticar un pequeña crítica (valga la redundancia). Si os dais cuenta todas mis críticas siempre son pequeñas, pero eso más bien es por mi lado vagativo, como dice el poeta: ” si no sabes , más vale que te subas la bragueta “.

CRITICA-(ZA).

Hoolaaa me llamo Roland (macdonald) Emmerich y os traigo un super castañazo de producción, con 4 efectos. 1 de ellos marca casera (de aquí de España, síiii el agua digital fue creada aquí, en España, gracias a un trasvase digital) unos actores que se toman muy en serio su papelazo en la película y mucha, muchaaa, muchísiiiimaaaa acción por un tubo.

Agárrense los machos porque se viene el 2012. Que sí que sí, también un loco dijo que en el 2010 sería el año del contacto y se forró los pantalones con trozos de periódicos usados con su peliculón del sábado.

¿2012? Sí, por aquí.

Para quien no sepa de qué va todo esto os pongo un poco en antecendentes: supongo que la mayoría de lectores no cineaficcionados habrán ido al cine con la esperanza de ver algo decente  pero  ¿qué es algo decente para un NO CINEAFICCIONADO ?  (Crepusculo, Harry Petas y bodrios varios del siglo XXI).

Con estos antecedentes penales, porque realmente dan pena, se consigue una recaudación del copón, pero, jeje amigo, acaso ¿sabe usted por qué se recaudó tanto? ¡Patrocinadores! Esastoo, esa es la respuesta y además un amigo infalible para rematar el exitazo en taquilla: el internete of course (por supuesto).

Ahora si usted querido lector busca por el joojle “2012″ encontrará un montón de basura del tamaño del Empire State ese del cual nuestro querido director directooor (véase cancioncilla entonada en el capitulo de los simpson cuando el director Skiner conduce el bus escolar) (*2) se ha nutrido y ha adquirido conocimientos tales que asombrarían incluso al más ignorante de los humanos. Luego cogió tales vodrios y dijo algo tal que así:

Ronald (macdonald) (Él mismo) : Mmmm, ¿qué es esto? 2012 , pero que …….. jajajajaja

Ronald (macdonald ) (Parte mala) : ¡Hazlo! Si juntas todas estas chorradicas podemos forrarnos buajaja.

Ronald (macdonald) (Parte buena) : ¡Hazlo!

Ronaldiño :  Ey, ¿qué pazaaa?

Ronald (macdonald) (Él mismo) : ¿Quien coño eres tú?

Ronaldiño : Ronaldiñooo.

Ronald (macdonald) (Él mismo cogiendo una pistola y disparando a Ronaldiño): Basta ya de tantas gilipolleces. Sigue contando la maldita critica que me estoy poniendo malico del tó.

Bueno, siguiendo con la crítica, ¿os dáis cuenta? Es que no hay casi nada que contar porque toda la película es un bodrio, una falacia, un moñigo tamaño familiar. Que nooo, lo que más me duele es haber pagado 5 euros  que solo Dios sabe como los conseguí haciendo cosas sucias. Fue todo muy traumático.

Para los que seáis unos seguidores de este directooor directoooor (*2) debéis saber que es una peli más de su estilo, como en todas sus pelis anteriores. Todas ocurren cosas bestiales, excepto en HOLLYWOOD MONSTER.

Pues bien si todavía no ha quedado clara mi crítica hacia la película 2012, lo resumiré todo en breves palabras:

Es una película muy mala que recoge todas las historias y chorradicas varias sobre el fin del mundo en 2012 mezcladas con el humor y la acción inconfundible del direc Ronald Emmerich.

SINOPSIS.

Un geólogo descubre que los rayos del Sol están dañando el núcleo de la Tierra y haciendo que ésta se convierta en una (p)olla a presión. Unos cuantos años después el presidente de los ee uu se hace eco de la situación. Mientras en Chinatown se está acabando de construir unos barcos que han costado unos pocos millones de billones de trillones de dolares, que salvaran a los gobernantes del mundo.

Entonces el día menos esperado todo empieza a ser un desastre. Lo que venia a ser un fin de semana con la familia se convierte en un tormento como si de una convención de 100.000.000 suegras se tratase todas esperando a ver que cara se te queda cuando te dan la noticia de que tu mujer está muerta por una intoxicación provocada por comer hamburguesas de la más alta calidad firmadas y homologadas por los distribuidores cárnicos del país y los cuales no se hacen responsables de los efectos secundarios de los cuales no se sabe nada y no tienen ni idea de lo que están hablando.

Pues así de mal lo pasa el protagonista cuando se entera que un volcán va hacer ¡catabuummmm! y un tío loco con una pancarta lo decía pero nadie le hacia ni P.C.

Entonces sin saber ni cómo ni por qué, ni cuando, los protagonistas se convierten en unos virtuosos del volante : sorteando grietas del tamaño de tu cabeza (sí, de tu cabeza, ¿te has mirado alguna vez en el espejo?), esquivando piedrolos gigantes y ardientes, atropellando a George Bush en una escena y otras muchas situaciones ridículas que sólo se darían a conocer en el 2012, obviamente.

Al final el protagonista se entera gracias a un amigo que trabajaba en la fabrica de Guilette, que estaban fabricando unos barcos y el protagonista que quería publicar su libro de astronautas, dice : pues por mis C. que a mi no me dejan aquí esos pinches pendejos.

Todo acaba bien , matan a un chino en la película mientras subían de escondidos a un barco de ee uu , y poco más.

Después de eso el barco de ee uu se perdió y el director Ronald está a la espera de hacer una nueva serie que se llame “PERDIDOS EN EL MAR 40.000.000 hombres y 200 MUJERES  Y UN HUEVO DE TIEMPO LIBRE SIN INTERNET”)

RESUMEN.

Al final la gente se levantó, uno hizo un intento de aplauso pero fue silenciado misteriosamente. Al rato vino la policía para investigar una misteriosa muerte que les conduciría a la calavera de cristal (*2) pero los iluminatti no se lo iban a dejar fácil, así que decidieron ir a casa del autor de esta crítica y acabar con él para poder finalizarla, por que vaya tostóoooon

(*1 vease independence day)

(*2 referencias a pelis y series )

Por: Skarmentus.

2012 Release Poster

Director:  Roland Emmerich

Producers:  Roland Emmerich
Mark Gordon
Harald Kloser
Larry J. Franco
Ute Emmerich

Cast:

CGI as Awesomeness (in the lead role)

Supporting Cast

John Cusack as Jackson Curtis

Amanda Peet as Kate Curtis

Thandie Newton as Laura Wilson

Zlatko Buric as Yuri Karpov

Oliver Platt as Carl Anheuser

Jimi Mistry as Dr. Satnam Tsurutani

My past reviews have been pretty long and boring, so I’ll cut this one short.

Review: Is there anyone in this world, who has not escaped the clutches of Roland Emmerich? Ever heard of Independence Day, Godzilla, The Day After Tomorrow and 10,000 BC? Definitely. So here comes another one, 2012, which is also based on Roland’s favourite theme: destruction. Now there are several apocalypse theories ranging from a huge asteroid hitting the ocean to Jeremy laughing on Candace, but Roland chooses the Mayan prophecy of solar fires which happens once every 600,000 years.  Incidentally, that is also the time Kolkata Night Riders will take to win the Indian Premier League. Once.

John Cusack plays Jackson Curtis, who is a failed novel writer and a divorcee as well. He now works as a limo driver to earn money, and that must be the reason Kate Curtis left him in the first place. Now Jackson meets a maniac in Yellowstone, who tells him why the world is ending, and also that the US Government has arranged ships (or arks) for their survival in the ocean, via a splendid amateur Flash animation. But what is not clear is, that why the government is keeping all this secret.

And Indian (Jimi Hendrix) informs a White House executive about the end of the world, by calling him to boiling Calcutta. It is also that same Indian who saves the world in the end, telling the same White House executive that a huge tsunami was coming over.

Towards the end you’ll realise that the Earth’s geography has changed dramatically. The African continent is now extremely fertile, and the south pole is stuck in the middle of the United States.

Like all of his previous movies (such as Independence Day, which is widely regarded as the worst movies ever to become a hit),  2012 is a big pile of noise and action, with absolutely no proper story or screenplay. It’s a ridiculous film. A pathetic one. A failure. And nothing extraordinary at all. The acting is poor, which is probably because there is no scope of acting here. The dialogue is ridiculous, and so are the facts. Dr. Satnam speaks in the way Americans would speak Hindi, not the way a native Calcutta guy would. In fact, he should not even speak Hindi, but Bengali, as he’s living in Calcutta! Another one: In a particular scene, Jackson’s plane takes off with family and Russian boss Yuri with a huge ash cloud behind them. So much ash in the air would definitely cause an airplane’s engines to go kaput. However, special effects are flawless, nothing like you’ve ever seen before. But Roland, you must realise (along with Michael Bay), that gone are the days when the audience could be won only on special effects! We need a solid plot, screenplay and acting to go with it, something which District 9 achieved successfully.

You must have realised by now, that 2012 is a bad film. It has been panned by critics all over the globe. But you know what? Once you finish watching the movie you actually feel its good, completely knowing the fact that you really shouldn’t have liked it. Is the dialogue silly? Yes. But does it make you laugh? Oh yes. Is it stupid? Of course. But do you really care? NO!

There are memorable moments in the movie, especially the one in which Jackson is driving the limo with his family at a high-speed, when the road is cracking beneath the car. Buildings are falling down, and the limo jumps right through them. Oh, how can you forget the scene were Gordon takes off in a plane, when the runway is crumbling behind? And that scene, where Yuri and the others are sitting in a sports car (was it a Porsche?), and after Jackson’s failed efforts to start it, he says

Eeengine. Staaart.

at which it promptly revs up.

When it ends (rather too stereotypically, with the hero getting lost and resurfacing when presumed dead), you feel happy. It’s global cooperation that saved the day. Which will save the day any day, even today.

2012 is a flawed, worthless and too long at two hours and forty minutes, it is an becomes edge-of-the-seat thriller with some brilliant moments, which makes it one of the must-see movies of the year.

Detailed Ratings (out of 10)

Rating: 6/10 (Good)

Skin, not soul. It’s the curse of the lad-mag/chick-flick obsessed generations – beauty, relationships, sex become about appearance and not reality, about surface not feeling, about sensation not depth. It’s well recorded the corrosive impact this has on expectations or experiences of relationship – nothing can ever match up to the image in the head, to the fantasy in the head. All surface, no feeling as the Manic Street Preachers once sang.

Special effects film run a similar risk – spectacle not soul. They needn’t be, of course. At their very best, special effects laden films enhance the soul of a film. Take the Lord Of The Rings movies, for example. Or Batman Begins. Too often, though, it’s all flash and bang, smoke and mirrors, to divert away from an empty heart. Enter, then Roland Emmerich, shadowy and sinister purveyor of this new destruction pornography. The vapid remake of Godzilla took out a city or so. Otherwise it’s been pick your end of the world poison: aliens in Independence Day; supercharged climate change in The Day After Tomorrow; and in 2012 (his latest offering), it’s an accelerated ‘natural’ process, originally prophesied by the Mayans. It ticks off all the disaster movie conventions (dog, estranged family, maverick scientists proved right), without either a sense of humour or of drama or of depth to make any of them stick. Of course, the visuals are desperately impressive, but all it does is distract from the vacuous nature of the allegedly thrilling roller coster ride that we’re given. The spectacle deflects from an empty heart.

You could argue that just makes the film overwhelmingly cynical. It is cynical, but that’s not why. That comes in an appallingly insulting ending; the remnants of humanity have survived aboard  a series of super ships (arks); they discover after a few weeks afloat that Africa, until that point completely unmentioned, has not flooded much, and is the place to make for. So doubtless in some way this was an attempt to tack on a sheen of respectability and worldwide awareness to the standard Western-centric model of the rest of the film. Instead it’s just doubly crass and misjudged, in fitting with a film that has nothing in its heart and soul, and nothing to add to the tradition and genre of end-of-the world and/or disaster movies. It’s not even good eye-candy; it just makes you sick.

Run!  It’s the end of the world!  Or so Roland Emmerich would have you believe.  First, he sent aliens to destroy us, then Godzilla came stomping around New York City, and next he froze the world with an ice age.  Now, he throws absolutely everything into a blender in hopes of creating the ultimate disaster movie.  What comes out is stupid, cheesy, and over-the-top.  But it’s also a pretty fun ride.

Plot is of no consequence here, but I’ll give a rundown anyway.  It’s the year 2012, the same year the Mayans supposedly predicted the end of the world.  It’s also the same year there’s a once-in-several-thousand-years alignment of the planets in our solar system, an event that has some negative effects on our sun’s solar flares.  The Earth heats up and the core melts, causing the plates on which our continents sit on to shift around.  Thus, all hell breaks loose as the world is restructured after some dramatic earthquakes, hurricanes, typhoons, tsunamis, etc.

The governments of the world aren’t exactly sitting around doing nothing.  The U.S. has sent Adrian Helmsley (Chiwetel Ejiofor) to get to the bottom of this.  Meanwhile, the governments plan for a contingency: ride out the storm of all storms on gigantic ships designed to ensure the survival of mankind.  In the middle of it all is Jackson Curtis (John Cusack), a failed writer-turned-limo-driver.  He helps his family outrun the end of the world, trying to find a safe place on a planet where there are no safe places.  Anywhere.  Oh yeah, Woody Harrelson is in it as a crazed conspiracy theorist, and Oliver Platt is great as Helmsley’s boss, who is a general asshole.

The real highlight of this movie are the visual effects.  With every movie that Emmerich does, he attempts to outdo himself.  Well, I find it hard for anyone to outdo all the CG carnage featured here.  Yes, there are giant waves hundreds of feet high.  Yes, there are earthquakes that swallow entire cities whole.  Yes, an aircraft carrier gets lifted and tossed onto the White House.  Did I also mention the destruction of Hawaii, a volcanic explosion akin to a nuclear bomb, or the entire state California sliding into the ocean?!  If nature can do it, it’s done here.

I don’t really have too much to say as to why I enjoyed this movie so much.  If this movie piques your interest even in the slightest way, check it out before it leaves theatres.  This is one of those that must be enjoyed on a giant screen with thousands of watts of sound blasting in your ears.  Sure, the plot is dumb, but the actors all seem to have a good time, and if you go in with your expectations in check, you’ll come out with a smile on your face.

7.5/10

No se ni como empezar la reseña para decir que me ha parecido la mejor película palomitera que he visto en todo este año 2009. Ni Harrys Potter, ni vampiros luminiscentes, ni orígenes de mutantes, ni la esperadísima guerra entre robots, ni tan siquiera las rencillas en el espacio entre los tripulantes de la USS Enterprise me han gustado tanto como la peli que vi ayer en una sala de cine.

Bien es cierto que me gustan este tipo de pelis, y más sin son del género de catástrofes (da igual que sea la mítica Terremoto en San Francisco de Clark Gable, que algún día de estos la conseguiré para mi colección, que Volcano, por poner 2 ejemplos), pero los films que generan expectación por su elevadísimo marketing, luego acaban defraudando (no voy a remitirme a las pelis que he nombrado arriba), pero este no es el caso (por lo menos para mi, y yo me he tragado todos los clips, trailers, sinopsis, carteles, imágenes, etc, etc, etc).

No es una obra maestra, no os confundaís, es solo y exclusivamente un blockbuster de calidad (a diferencia de muchas otras), donde las dos horas y media que dura el metraje pasan sin enterarse entre terremotos, tsunamis, explosiones y movimientos de la corteza terrrestre.

Quizás ande un poco predispuesta porque cuando Roland Emmerich rueda una película que tiene una mínima base científica, lo hace bastante bien, y me explico. Todo el mundo puede acudir despues de ver la peli a San Google a buscar que pasará el 21 de Diciembre de 2012, y casi todas las webs, hablarán de el alineamiento de planetas que se producirá para el solsticio de invierno de ese año y que pronosticaron los mayas. En la mayoria de esas webs (quitando las extremistas, por supuesto), hacen suposiciones de los daños tecnológicos que podremos sufrir, pero Emmerich ha ido mas allá y ha basado ese fenómeno en una reacción física que se produciría entre las unidades más pequeñas de un átomo que se desprende de las tormentas solares (que en principio solo pueden producir reacciones químicas, y no físicas) y nuestro planeta (que es mucho suponer, pero bueno), y los daños producidos por esa reacción física los ha elevado a la n-ésima potencia para hacernos disfrutar en la sala del cine con un supuesto apocalipsis. Y lo mejor de todo, es que por muchos terremotos que veamos, por muchas nubes piroclásticas que abarquen la gran pantalla o por muchas olas (una escena “tipical Roland Emmerich”, lo que le gusta a este hombre el movimiento de las aguas salvajes y descontroladas) que inunden el planeta, no se hace cansina la película, y eso no es solo por la forma de realizar dichos fx, sino porque los personajes no son tan planos como nos suelen mostrar otros directores de blockbusters.

Además su reparto es bastante atrayente (por lo menos para mi). John Cusack, nunca tendrá ese “noseque-queseyo” que pueden tener otros actores que llevan a las masas a ver sus películas por muy malas que sean, pero en todas las que he visto de él, cumple y bastante bien (no olvidemos esa Alta Fidelidad). Sabe meterse en su papel y nunca parece que se limite a leer los diálogos  como un actor (no podía dejar pasar la escenita con el gobernador de California). La presencia de Danny Glover como el presidente es un aliciente más (menos mal que no tenemos de nuevo a Morgan Freeman para encarnar dicho papel), al igual que la presencia de Amanda Peet, que si bien, tiene en su trayectoria mas de un bodrio, aqui es más que pasable como la madre angustiada por el futuro de sus hijos.

Pero no todo son puntos buenos para la gran catástrofe que se avecina (o no?), ya que hay fotogramas de la película que tienen cierto tufillo a otras películas catastrofistas, como el tsunami que arrasa India (demasiado parecido al de Deep Impact), o la erupción del volcan de Yellowstone (Dante’s Peak o Vulcano), aunque eso sí, estan mucho mejor conseguidas (para mi la mejor de toda la película es la de Yellowstone, sólo por esa escena merece verse la película), vamos, que originalidad no es que tenga mucha, pero esta bien llevado y enlazado al guión con todo lo que ocurre, ya que conocemos a muchos personajes, que de una manera u otra enlazarán su destino al destino final del planeta.

Desde el punto de vista científico………..pues podria decir mucho mucho mucho,  y no es que mi especialidad sean los neutrinos precisamente, pero hay cosas que son de “cajón”, como el poner cristales en un arca que se supone que te va a salvar de un montón de tsunamis que arrasarán todo a su paso!!!!! O que según se cierre la puerta del arca, los motores (enormes para mover una nave así) se pongan a funcionar en menos de una décima de segundo, o que saquen dicha nave del Everest en menos de medio minuto mientras se le cae casi toda la montaña encima. O me voy a la erupción donde se encuentra Woody Harrelson viendo como la naturaleza se rebela contra el ser humano. Una explosión de esa magnitud genera un impulso electromagnético que fundiría todos los chips tanto de la radio portatil que lleva Harrelson como los de los circuitos de la carvana que usa el protagonista para huir. Si obviamos todo esto y algunas cosas más, se podría decir que es perfecta como película de puro entretenimiento y nada más.

Como opinión personal decir que Emmerich sabe utilizar el miedo colectivo a un acto determinado (alienígenas, monstruos mutados, el fin del mundo, bien sea por el efecto del calentamiento global o como en este caso una profecia formulada hace millones de años) y exagerarlo hasta límites insospechados, aunque a veces repite la fórmula de como transcurren sus películas. Científicos de varios lugares del mundo, que se ponen en contacto para contarse lo que puede ocurrir y coordinar sus esfuerzos, protagonistas con los que empatizas a la primera oportunidad, desastres a lo largo de todo el globo terráqueo, desarrollo en alza pero sin perder el interés en la segunda mitad del filme…. Todo esto podría hacerlo cualquiera, pero porqué será que a todos no les sale bien?

En fin……..que ya no me extiendo mas, entretenida, interesante, palomitera y sobre todo para verla en el cine, en pantalla grande con sonido envolvente, para que podamos sentir como se aproximan las aguas para devastar todo a su paso. Si te gustan los blockbuster, el mejor que ha salido este año.

Para leer la ficha de la película, pincha aqui

Karelia

(source : http://autremedia.blogspot.com/2009/11/2012-lodyssee-du-degueulasse.html  25/11/09)

Force est de le reconnaître : Roland Emmerich est un auteur. Dans ses œuvres précédentes – Independance Day, Godzilla, Le Jour d’après –, il nous faisait déjà part de ses grandes obsessions : la fin de l’Amérique (et donc du monde) et les gros immeubles qui s’effondrent. Avec 2012, il creuse ses thèmes de prédilection, et livre une œuvre-somme qui serait amusante à regarder au second degré, si l’idéologie qu’elle véhicule ne se révélait si nauséeuse.

Vous vous souvenez du bug de l’an 2000 ? Eh bien, le 21 décembre 2012, ce sera pareil, mais en pire. Résumons la thèse pseudo-scientifique du film : suite à l’affolement des neutrinos, le cœur de la Terre se transformera en gigantesque « four à micro-ondes » (c’est un géologue qui utilise cette audacieuse métaphore), des volcans se réveilleront et des êtres s’éteindront, les champs magnétiques perdront le nord, les plaques continentales grimperont les unes sur les autres et la Californie coulera à pic. Heureusement, les responsables politiques du monde entier auront eu le temps de construire, dans le plus grand secret, des canots de sauvetage pour quelques élus soigneusement sélectionnés sur des critères économiques et, accessoirement, génétiques. L’espèce humaine devrait pouvoir survivre à l’Apocalypse ; on respire.

Ainsi, à partir d’une fumeuse histoire de calendrier maya dont on risque hélas d’entendre parler au moins jusqu’au 22 décembre 2012, Roland Emmerich imagine et met en images rien moins que la chute des civilisations. Il n’est pas le seul : son grand copain Michael Bay, également spécialiste des chantiers de démolition à échelle planétaire, prépare en ce moment sa propre version de 2012, sous-titrée La Guerre des âmes pour éviter toute confusion. Chez ces deux cinéastes, tout est prétexte à faire exploser la Terre – ou au minimum New York. Les extraterrestres (Independence Day), la reprise des essais nucléaires français (Godzilla), des robots géants sortis tout droit d’un coffre à jouets (Transformers et sa suite), une météorite (Armageddon), le réchauffement climatique (Le Jour d’après) ou le calendrier maya : au fond, quelle différence tant que ça permet de filmer de belles explosions et de mettre en valeur l’héroïsme latent de l’homme de la rue ? Car au fond, c’est là le programme du film-catastrophe, inchangé depuis les années 1970 qui virent éclore ce genre typiquement américain (L’Aventure du Poséidon, La Tour infernale…) : mettre en scène une situation de crise propice à révéler (et à punir) la lâcheté des uns, à célébrer le courage des autres, et à unifier le corps social autour de valeurs communes indémodables, à savoir 1/ Dieu et 2/ la bannière étoilée. Avec l’exacerbation des peurs occidentales et l’hypertrophie des effets spéciaux numériques, la catastrophe est de plus en plus globale et spectaculaire, mais le discours reste peu ou prou le même.

Emmerich met la barre très haut avec 2012, qui représente le tout-en-un du film-catastrophe : éruptions volcaniques, tremblements de terre, tsunamis… rien ou presque ne manque à l’appel, la fin du film nous offrant même un remake de Titanic. Pour faire bonne mesure, Emmerich empile avec application tous les clichés, enfile toutes les scènes obligées. Pendant plus de deux heures et demie, tandis qu’une poignée d’officiels s’agite à la Maison-Blanche, une famille d’Américains moyens va donc cavaler (en voiture) sous des autoroutes qui s’effondrent, slalomer (en camping-car) au milieu de missiles de lave, se faufiler (en avion de tourisme) entre des immeubles qui s’écroulent, s’écraser (en avion de ligne) dans l’Himalaya, et passer à chaque fois à un quart de cheveu de la mort. À chaque étape ou presque, un second couteau périra, mais qu’on se rassure : les enfants et le chien, eux, survivront. Quant aux parents divorcés, ils profiteront de la catastrophe pour panser leurs plaies et se remettre ensemble, car rien de tel qu’une bonne fin du monde pour ressouder la famille américaine. Et, par extension, la nation toute entière, comme le rappelle le digne et admirable Président des États-Unis d’Amérique (un Noir, pour faire moderne) dans son ultime allocution télévisée : « Today we are one family » (« aujourd’hui, nous sommes une seule et même famille »).

Bien sûr, il y a de quoi rire. Pour peu que l’on soit un peu pervers, ou que l’on soit prêt à mettre son cerveau au vestiaire pendant deux heures et demie, 2012 peut s’apparenter à un divertissement correct. Mais, en grattant un peu, le film se révèle très antipathique. D’abord, par la manière dont sont traités (puis sacrifiés) les personnages secondaires. Cas exemplaire : le beau-père. Interprété par un acteur visiblement choisi pour son manque de charisme, il ne fait pas le poids, même en face du fade John Cusack. Au début, il est pourtant présenté comme un rival sérieux (il est prévenant et tendre envers sa femme, complice et attentif avec les enfants), mais dès que les vrais problèmes commencent, il se révèle superficiel, pleutre, râleur, systématiquement à côté de la plaque. En un mot : grotesque. Sa seule utilité, c’est qu’il sait conduire un avion ; une fois à terre, comme résigné au sort que lui prépare le scénario, il passe la main à l’époux/père légitime le temps d’un court dialogue où il se lamente de n’avoir jamais eu d’enfants « à lui », bref : d’avoir raté sa vie. Sa mort sans héroïsme est expédiée en quelques secondes, et s’apparente à l’expulsion d’un corps étranger.

2012 est par ailleurs confit de religiosité, engluant les soi-disant prophéties mayas sous des références bibliques grosses comme l’Arche de Noé, et y ajoutant une bonne couche de bouddhisme avec un moine tibétain tel que le rêvent les Occidentaux : vénérable, philosophe et sibyllin. Il n’y a que les Musulmans qui ne soient pas de la partie : Emmerich a certes filmé la destruction de La Mecque, mais la scène a finalement été retirée du montage final, le réalisateur justifiant sa décision en ces termes : « Je ne voulais pas provoquer une fatwa et vivre avec des gardes du corps jusqu’à la fin de mes jours. Franchement ça ne valait pas le coup. Ce n’est que du cinéma. » On perçoit dans ces belles paroles toute l’islamophilie légendaire de l’industrie hollywoodienne.

Enfin et surtout, quand bien même serait-il enrobé d’un semblant de critique sociale, le discours du film est des plus réactionnaires. La caricature des riches et des puissants paraît véhiculer un message contestataire, mais Emmerich prend bien soin de choisir des milliardaires venus d’ailleurs : un Russe veule et disgracieux, des Saoudiens huileux, mais certainement pas des Américains ! Le film désamorce toutes les questions qui fâchent en laissant la parole à l’antipathique (mais si pratique) homme de main du Président et maître d’œuvre du plan de sauvetage, qui se charge de se salir les mains pour les autres : d’accord, il a fallu tuer ceux qui avaient vent du projet, mais c’était pour éviter une panique généralisée ! D’accord, seuls les riches auront droit à la vie sauve, mais il fallait bien que le « secteur privé » paie pour la construction des Arches ! Vous ne voulez pas risquer l’extinction de l’Humanité toute entière pour des questions d’éthique et deux ou trois ouvriers chinois, tout de même ? Le film tente de racheter ce cynisme assez ahurissant par un ultime acte de générosité : quelques gueux seront sauvés in extremis, ce qui permettra de faire oublier les six milliards d’être humains qui auront été sacrifiés et trompés jusqu’au bout par des puissances politiques et économiques. Ne reculant devant aucune hypocrisie, Emmerich fait même tenir à un de ses héros-boy scouts un discours magnifique sur une nouvelle ère qui s’ouvrirait pour l’Humanité. Une fois débarrassé des pauvres, c’est sûr qu’on se sent tout de suite plus à l’aise…

Quant au happy end inévitable mais paradoxal, il est tellement gratiné qu’il ne manquera pas de faire grincer quelques dents. En effet, présenter l’Afrique en territoire vierge à (re)coloniser, il fallait oser. Mais les mauvais cinéastes, ça ose tout. C’est même à ça qu’on les reconnaît.

Cast : Does it matter?

Director : Roland Emmerich

Running Time : 2 Hours and 30 minutes

Rating : 4 out of 4

Release Date : November 13th 2009

I have no idea who coined this term but I will use it here anyway. This movie is THE BEST DISASTER PORN ever! Emmerich is the dude when it comes to exploding stuff (though not as good as Michael Bay), especially when it comes to hailing destruction on Cities and Earth.

Of course, the movie has a story to tell. The Earth is going to end in 2012 (the movie takes place in 2012) and one everyday common man, some how manages to save his and his family’s life from it. That is it. However, I don’t even care as to what is the story is or its characters. The trailer for the movie was awesome and I walked in expecting large scale destruction of earth and that is what I got!

Destruction sequence 1 : The main guy is riding his Limo (of all cars!) across this city and he manages to win the race against an amazing recreation of Earthquake.

Destruction sequence 2 : The main guy is now on a plane and the plane as to escape being destroyed by some fireballs (How did they come and where? I don’t care. It just looked awesome) Then there was this huge Display of Nuke-type explosion as well, which was just amazing.

Destruction sequence 3 : The main is now on a much bigger plane and it has to escape (water or smoke or something). It was awesome.

Destruction sequence 4 : The main guy has to pull out some kind of stuck tool from huge gears. Awesome underwater sequence.

Destruction sequence 5 : The main guy is now part of Huge “Arks” and due to a malfunction the doors of the Ark is not closing. All kind of bad things happen and we are treated a mammoth scale tsunami and crashing into the Himalayas. Hurray! The arks themselves, god how were the special effects for that even created. Amazing. Just amazing.

In between all the destruction, you have some small talk about seismic plates, earth’s magnetic field exchanging its poles, family values and so on. Anyway, if 2012 End-of- the-world does happen, now I know how its going to look. I also know that since I am neither working for the government or have 1 billion Euros, I will not be rescued. I better make that trip to Hyderabad before the year 2012 then!

O ultimo BlockBuster de Roland Hemerich realmente surpreendeu.

O bochichos em cima de filme foi algo surpreendente. Não sei se pelo Diretor ser um especialista em destruir o mundo ou se pelo fato de dessa vez não se tratar de Et’s. Ou de um fato isolado em um ponto X no Iceberg Z na Antártida.

Roland Emmerich

Talvez os nossos medos nos levem a querer saber sempre o Futuro, e talvez por isso nunca conseguimos reparar os erros do passado. Mas isso já é outros quinhentos.

Até que enfim fui no Cinema e sai muito, mas muito satisfeito mesmo com um filme. O cara é simplesmente o melhor no que faz. É um filme de ação do começo ao fim. É um filme sem peso, surpreende a cada novo Take.

A muito tempo não sai do cinema com a sensação de: Putz preciso ver esse filme dinovo!!!!!

Tem alguns pontos fracos no filme, sim tem!!!!Como diria minha vó perfeito só Deus…..

Como por exemplo, a Cena do Rio de Janeiro não é exatamente como está no Cartaz. O Cristo aparece apenas em uma cena onde John Cusack, olha para um noticiário que exibe as imagens do Cristo caindo após um tremor de terra.

Um outro ponto que gostaria de comentar é que o tema 2012 não é muito abordado. Mas fazer o que esse é o efeito Hollywood no filme. Provavelmente se abordagem muito as teorias a cerca do fim não teria o tal apelo comercial.

E vou deixar um outra pergunta que ficou no ar e que serve de atrativo para que quem não viu fique um pouco mais curioso. E vale dizer que não ouvi essa pergunta nem uma, nem duas e nem três vezes das pessoas que assistiram o filme:

Mas o mundo não vai acabar em Fogo?!?!

Bom é isso o filme é  recomendadissimo…Atendeu completamente as expectativas para a qual foi feito. Afinal pra falar de casualidades da vida cotidiana, pra demonstrar as parodias das lógicas contemporâneas modernas tem os outros Wood Allen, da vida por ai….Não se deixe enganar por críticos da vanguarda pós moderna contemporâneo radical!!!!hehehehe

Assistam por que 2012 tá ai!!!!!!!!!hehehe

[Voz de narrador da TV - On]Corra hoje mesmo para o Cinema!!![Voz de narrador da TV - Off]

Recebe 5 Play’s…

>>>>>

Ps.: As imagens do Tibet são um ponto forte, por isso preferia Foto do Monge acima.

Site Oficial.: www.whowillsurvive2012.com

2012 (2009)

Rated: Pg-13

Running Time: 158 Minutes

The mother of all disaster films. It lacks depth but has the most exhilirating sequences ever in film history. For what it is, its quite macho in performance and unbelievable in experience. Not a masterpiece but a fun film. Something Roland Emmerich has always been able to do.

2012 is a debated subject that dates back since Y2K. The end of a mayan calander and the scientific shift in our galaxy so to speak. A lot of evidence puts forth the inevitable and a lot of evidence for the hoax. Its never liable until the actual date. But forget controversies and speculation. Its a Sci Fi thriller, enjoy it. I have despite being meticulous on scientific theories and whatnot. But hey, who doesnt want to watch earth die simultaneously while explained why. Well, in a animated sequence of course. Its fun when balls of fire are thrown at our heroine or when quakes completely devour cities. Its like playing a video game, where you choose how to completely dissolve earth into nothing but a lump of rock. Or to entirely drown everything that even Mount Everest wont stand a chance.

As fun as it can be, it has problems and yes old problems. But cant we just enjoy it? Not always the case. Little things like love get in the way and a attempt at being moral just blinds the audience into believing this as being preachy or religous. Or just making our humans act so barbaric and completely lost at touch of conscience or for a lack of better term, humanity. Often being politically correct was also an issue but its a movie where the rich conquer and the fat white guy get the say. Little problems, but enough to bother a crowd.

John Cusack plays as Jackson Curtis, a writer and driver. Who is divourced and has a estranged relationship with his kids. Something so common in films, it has become a social hollywood epidemic. As if every father is almost incapable of being one until waning moments strike. Its almost obvious on how this subplot is going to emerge and ultimately end. Well Jackson is one part of the film. The other is a geologist called Adrian Helmsley (Chiwetel Ejifor). Who answers to the whitehouse about plate shifts and weather changes. I guess he’s the local weather guy for the men in suits. Aside from the joke, something comes up. Solar Flares are acting up and the core is heating up. Upon so, Adrian makes his move and the political parties around the world make thier move before the inevitable of 2012. Obviously, we need one normal guy to run the show so why not have John Cusack drive like a pro across California with ground literally falling before him and buildings collapsing in front of him. Also, flying is nice. Nothing but a slew of events to showcase special effects but for the moment, it works.

He’s not really saving the world per se, he’s saving himself and his family. I guess its the righteous way and it certaintly helps the issue of estranged relationships. Want your wife back? Get the world to end and save her life. That will do the trick. Nothing is to special in this film exept trying to look soft with the president and his “speech” before everything goes to hell.

” Yeah, thanks for the help, we’re gonna die now, and what do we get? A seminar about facing the darkness? How about some light? Or some evacuation? Nope. Wont even bother to make enough ships for anyone exept the dudes with a million euros “

A lot of sentimental moments happen in this film, some that share nothing with the audience exept giggles. Like kissing scenes just before a ship will literally collide. But its not the giggly gesture that makes this bad but the fact that is old and overly used. How many times does a kissing scene occur during a difficult situation. 2012 is not just a disaster movie, but a subplotted worthless romantic sellout. Sometimes you wonder if these blockbusters will ever live without romance. Answer is no, America is to melodramatic.

2012 is known to be the end of time (for some people) while for Roland, its reproduction and cliches. Never had I imagined the ending would be as it is but then again, we like those results. Because it shows faith and never does anyhing end. Its a cycle. A circle of events that occur to stable evolution or possibly growth. Roland doesnt show growth from his previous films as he continues to do the same but his uncanny ability to make them as fun as possible is quite remarkable.

Is it oscar worthy? No. Is it 5 stars? No. But its a hell of a ride that tempers with nature and humans alike. Nothing ties people together for a koom bye ya moment then 2012 and its amatuerish attempts at being cute and sad. But hey, it works out.

2.5/5

Written By: Xou Xiong

I’ve been eagerly anticipating Roland Emmerich’s recent 2012 for quite some time now.  One of the first previews for the film released early this last year showed a Tibetan monastery high in the Himalayas being engulfed by gigantic waves.  This and other previews seemed to promise a spectacle of global destruction heretofore only hinted at, a disaster so large and frankly absurd that even the highest point on Earth wouldn’t be immune from its sublimely catastrophic effects.  Except for the strangely missing nuclear referent, Emmerich has tackled most of the major versions of global apocalypse and epic disaster.  He gave us aliens destroying the White House and the Empire State Building in dramatic fashion in Independence Day (1996); attempted and failed to revamp the monster movie in Godzilla (1996); gave us a global warming eco-apocalypse based on ridiculously sketchy science in The Day After Tomorrow (2004); and even gave us a pre-history apocalypse—in the sense of massive civilization change—in 10,000 BC (2008) (btw, for those who are following, yes that is two movies in a row whose titles are dates).[1] W/ 2012 I could only imagine that he would go above-and-beyond the all-out destruction of those previous films, as he would have to simply go bonkers-overboard to top them.  I even permitted myself to hope that he might actually deliver on his and our desire to see it all end spectacularly on the big-screen in all the CGI glory he could muster.  In all earnestness, I was excited for 2012 not because it would be some genre-bending, metacinematic commentary on apocalyptic tropes, nor would it be some prophetic warning to humanity,[2] nor would it be some careful and subtle exploration of a post-apocalyptic situation. . . no, I was excited for 2012 for the sheer spectacle of the thing: no substance, just everything going to hell.  And in that, it was pretty successful.

Don’t get me wrong, 2012 is an awful film that even the intrepid John Cusack couldn’t save.  Like all of Emmerich’s films, rather than the disaster taking center stage, he inevitably only uses it as a background to tell a laboriously clichéd, trite, normative, banal “family” narrative that barely holds together.  For all the quite visually captivating death and destruction, the entire film culminates in Cusack having to free a stuck gear.  That’s it.  A wire is coiled around a gear that is preventing the gate from closing on one of the arks.  And it takes twenty minutes for this to resolve in the manner we were all expecting in the first place—i.e. Cusack fixes the gear, the gate closes, everyone is saved from drowning, he reunites with his ex-wife[3] and kids, etc. etc.[4] Up until that point, the narrative was simply a convenient vehicle to transport us from one site of disaster to the next, with ridiculous, last minute escapes from each: L.A. falling into the San Andreas Fault and the Pacific Ocean, Yellowstone Park blowing up (largest volcano ever),[5] the proverbial waves coming over the Himalayas, etc.[6] (I won’t even get started w/ all the other convoluted, unnecessary plot points except to mention the whole thing still ends up being conservatively “moral” at the end and the science is even worse than The Day After Tomorrow: gigantic solar flares have caused a new (new! how does he get away w/ this shit!?) radioactive element in the Earth’s core, and it is heating up the entire planet, causing the tectonic plates to massively shift and, you know, sorta melt.  Clear?)  But for all that, my anticipation was still satisfied.  L.A. dropping into the San Andreas fault was perhaps one of the most captivating images of massive destruction yet “captured” on film.  I won’t even really try to describe it, and really anything less than the big screen won’t do it justice, but I will say that the detail is so fine one can actually see tiny people falling through the smashed windows of toppling skyscrapers.

My desire to see this film was simply a desire to see how he would pull off more destruction.  Mercifully, this film was (fairly) free of big, famous, historic landmarks blowing up or being encased in ice (w/ the one exception of an aircraft carrier smashing into the White House riding the back of a Tsunami[7]; I wish I could say it was some sort of commentary on the military industrial complex or perhaps New Orleans, but frankly Emmerich probably thought it just looked cool.[8])  What this film appeared to promise (and almost fulfill) was disaster w/o context, disaster simply for the sake of it, w/o warning, narrative, or meaning.  This was ultimately what his previous work bordered on, but the obvious eco-guilt-trip parts of The Day After Tomorrow, the strange patriotism of ID4—esp. considering Emmerich is German[9]—prevented this.  These films were still part of the Hollywood-summer-blockbuster ethos that you can only show disaster to this extent if the end result is uplifting for the human spirit or whatever.  2012 is not a summer blockbuster.  It came out in November for chrissakes.  It skirts the “human spirit,” but ultimately the moral question it asks—who gets saved and why if we can only save a percentage of a percent on the ark—seems tacked on at best, and completely opaque and mishandled at worst.[10] The moral dilemmas raised by the film are an afterthought, something to “justify” the rest of it.

And this is ultimately Emmerich’s problem.  His films don’t need justification.  If he took a Koyaanisqatsi approach to disaster filmmaking (70mm visuals w/ Philip Glass music), he would finally achieve what he’s been trying to all this time because at this point no one cares about the who, what, when, where, why, how, etc.  We just want the image.  An anti-narrative apocalyptic disaster film w/ a Hollywood Budget, now that would be something.  He comes mighty close to this in 2012, perhaps the closest because it is arguably the worst film out of them all (or best. . .) in that it is more difficult than ever to care about any of the loosely constructed characters, but it ultimately fails because you could tell exactly the same story w/ [insert disaster, however minor (say, a broken leg), here].  His films try so desperately for substance, pulling every possible heartstring and using the rhetorical gravity of global catastrophe to do so, but always ultimately ignore what is so enticing and brilliant about them: their special effects.  Nothing else.  If he was faithful to what he was actually doing, making a film which resided completely and only on the surface, he might actually achieve some depth.  Rather than trying to insert meaning w/ whatever hackneyed father has to save his children bullshit that winds up in every one of his films, if he simply eschewed meaning, gave up cause-and-effect, morality, messages of warning, the human spirit. . . really everything except the special effects, he’d really be on to something.  I know we’ll never get this film, but hey, we do have 2012.

[2] There isn’t any, b/c this film reverts to an apocalypse wholly outside of human control.  It is destined, prophesied in the old traditional style.

[3] Who, not ten minutes before this had lost her current husband, and poor-ole Amada Peet acts like it never happened once Cusack comes through.

[4] I feel no guilt if I’ve “spoiled” the movie here.  This is sorta the point.  The narrative doesn’t matter at all.  We already know what is going to happen.  It is moot.  My question, why even bother w/ a narrative at all in such a film?

[5] Though Woody Harrelson does have a delightful cameo here as the crazy End-is-Nigh guy.

[6] Actually, for the global nature of the disaster in 2012 we get quite a limited version of it.

[7] Literally.

[8] It did.

[9] He also made The Patriot (2000) w/ Mel Gibson, btw.

[10] I.e. the governments of the world knew about this impending disaster 3 years beforehand, but kept it under their hat so the world wouldn’t descend into anarchy, secretly building 4 arks to save government members and the fabulously rich.  When one of the arks fails near the end the major moral question is: do we let these 100,000 people on knowing that it might endanger those already here.  This is of course to gloss over the fact that everyone might have been saved if the initial decision was to tell the planet and mobilize the entirety of global production toward one single goal: survival.  Where to enter this morass, or even worse why one would enter it, is beyond me.  No one could take this film seriously enough to seriously answer the moral questions it tentatively raises.

Um aquecimento anormal da temperatura do interior da Terra acarretará numa catástrofe jamais vista na história da Humanidade. O resultado será o surgimento de vulcões nos lugares mais inusitados; deslocamentos de placas tectônicas capazes de criar abismos inimagináveis em todo o planeta.

Uma dupla de jovens cientistas (um americano e outro indiano) foram responsáveis pela previsão desse acontecimento no ano de 2009. Uma vez avisadas, as maiores potências mundiais tratam de iniciar um projeto com intuito de ‘preservar a espécie humana’: a construção de versões high-tech de arcas de Noé na planejada e bem estudada região de cadeias de montanhas na China. Tais embarcações teriam o propósito de resistirem aos piores efeitos que esse possível acontecimento poderia causar.

Nos EUA temos o escritor workalcholic Jackson Curtis (vivido por John Cusack, de 1408), separado da mulher, indo curtir um fim de semana com os filhos num parque florestal, que para a infelicidade deles, será um dos epicentros dessa crise global. Mesmo distante de seus familiares, caberá a Jackson a missão de salvá-los contando com o apoio inesperado de certas pessoas e utilizando-se de tudo que os possiblitem sobreviver em meio a esse caos.

O longa retrata de variadas formas a destruição em massa dos pontos mais conhecidos do planeta: seja a destruição do Cristo Redentor e da Capela Sistina; o Himalaia e Washigton sendo atingidos por enormes ondas criadas a partir da movimentação anormal dos leitos oceânicos; a formação repentina de um vulcão em plena reserva florestal e a consequente ‘chuva’ de bolas de lava num raio de vários quilômetros ou ainda, cidades inteiras sendo engolidas por abismos que surgem de repente no asfalto, transformando edifícios em grandes peças de dominó, caindo um após o outro.

Trazendo os mesmos clichês de sempre: magnatas que conquistam tudo a base do dinheiro; cientistas que tentam convencer as autoridades a investir na sua pesquisa e salvar a humanidade; presidente americano com um grande sentimento de solidariedade, 2012 sempre, ora ou outra, perde a sua atmosfera de tensão, insistindo em inserir humor (se é que se pode chamar tais cenas de humorísticas) onde não deveria.

Além das piadas, grande parte do elenco também é fraco, muito pouco convincente em seus papéis e que não contam com o auxílio do roteiro que muito pouco se preocupa em desenvolver os personagens. E o destaque negativo fica com John Cusack (que em certos momentos lembra a atuação de Tom Hanks na pele de Robert Langdon em O Código da Vinci e mais recentemente Anjos e Demônios), que não tem carisma para carregar um personagem, ao meu ver, de grande intensidade emocional que um longa como esse precisaria ter. E Cusack combina menos ainda com um personagem carismático e com uma veia humorística que 2012 ambicionava ter.

Além dos personagens, o script também erra em abusar da imaginação do espectador e ‘forçar a barra’ em determinadas situações surreais como nas cenas de fuga da família Curtis ou estender desnecessariamente a duração do filme (longo por sinal) na parte final, na sequência que se passa no interior de uma das arcas. Embora, faço aqui um adendo: as quase três horas de ação de 2012 passaram despercebidas

Muito bem vendido pelos trailers, 2012 surpreende em seus efeitos especiais, que prende a nossa atenção com sua magnitude e de gigantescas proporções, mas tem um enredo completamente esquecível. Afinal, efeitos especiais (por excelentes que sejam) não garantem um bom filme por si só.

COTAÇÃO: 2/5.

Ich habe den neuen Roland Emmerich Film bereits vor knapp 2 Wochen gesehen, bin bis jetzt aber einfach nicht dazu gekommen, etwas dazu zu schreiben. Um was es geht, und die ganze übliche Auflistung von Darsteller- und Crew etc. pp, lasse ich hier komplett weg.  Wer immer noch nicht mitbekommen haben sollte, was 2012 für ein Film ist, der muss schon gaaaanz weit hinter dem sprichwörtlichen Mond leben. Ausserdem bin ich niemand mit jounalistischen Ansprüchen, sondern ich will hier einfach nur meine persönlichen Eindrücke schildern.

Wer es trotzdem wissen will:

Links: 2012 – Film (Wikipedia), IMDB

Wie wars? Ich hatte gehofft mit 2012 einen 2,5 stündigen Katastrophen-Porno zu sehen, bei dem man einfach mal das Hirn abschalten kann: “Story, Logik…pfff…ach hör doch auf!!! Wenn man so etwas sehen will, kann man sich einen anderen Film anschauen, also echt jetzt!”

Nun ja, in den ersten eineinhalb Stunden reihen sich tatsächlich die Szenen, in denen Sturmfluten, Erbeben etc. die Menschheit in den Abgrund reissen, sehr schön aneinander und es gibt viel Zerstörungswerk zu bestaunen. Eine der ersten richtigen Katastrophensequenzen, in der die Hauptdarsteller mit dem Auto durch L.A. rasen, während rings um sie herum buchstäblich der eine Teil der Welt im Erboden versinkt, während der andere über ihren Köpfen zum Einsturz gebracht wird, ist dabei auch gleich meine Lieblingssequenz. Wäre das alles noch in 3D…, ach die Herrlichkeit wäre wohl nicht zu überbieten! Leider verliert der Film ab diesem Zeitpunkt auch schon wieder an Fahrt, und die gefühlte ganze letzte Stunde ist dann nur noch sehr zähflüssig, wobei das Tempo zum Ende hin ständig  weiter abnimmt. Hätte man mindestens die ganze letzte halbe Stunde (Arche, Kabel-Problem, “OMG – wir werden doch noch sterben, es sei denn jemand opfert sich für die Gemeinschaft”…etc. ) einfach weggelassen, dann hätte aus 2012 noch ein ganz guter Popcorn-Disaster-Action Film werden können. Aber dieses angehängte “viel zuviel” am Ende reisst dann alles wieder runter. Schade!

Die Hauptdarsteller agieren so, wie man es bei einem solchen Film erwartet: entweder totales Understatment, oder ganz weit “over the top”. Aber die Figuren sind eben auch nur da um…irgendwie von Punkt A nach Punkt B zu kommen. Der Grund, warum man sich einen solchen Film überhaupt anschaut sind doch die Katastrophenszenen, und nicht weil man glaubt, dass die Darsteller eine oskarreife Leistung abziehen werden, oder?

Die Filmmusik ist zwar da, aber  total unspektakulär. Rein gar nichts was einem im Gedächtnis bleiben würde. Das war aber auch nicht zu erwarten, denn Harald Kloser ist eben kein Ersatz für David Arnold (STARGATE, ID4)! Das konnte man schon bei DAY AFTER TOMORROW und 10.000 BC mitkriegen.

Für mich würde eine perfekte Emmerich-Film-Disaster-Orgie einfach aus einem Zusammenschnitt aller Katastrophenszenen aus ID4, DAY AFTER TOMORROW und 2012 bestehen; ordentlich gewürzt mit einer starken Prise, thematisch eingängiger und breit orchestrierter Musik, aus David Arnolds Feder! Ich bin so einfach zufrieden zu stellen!

Ein wenig Philosophisches, oder eher Psychokram?: Warum eigentlich habe ich (und unbestreitbar viele andere Menschen mit mir, wie es die ganze Kinogeschichte immer wieder gezeigt hat) Vergnügen daran, mir fiktive Katastrophenszenen anzuschauen? Warum macht mir das im Kinosessel nichts aus, wenn Leute in Erdspalten fallen, von Lava verbrannt oder von gewaltigen Flutmassen ertränkt werden? Im Bewusstsein ist sicherlich der Fakt vorhanden, dass das ja keine richtigen Menschen und keine echten Katastrophen sind, die man auf der Leinwand sieht.  Aber trotzdem komme ich nicht umhin, mir die Frage zu stellen, ob ich mich nicht eigentlich dafür schämen müsste, dass ich mir derlei Szenarien gerne anschaue? Da gibt es doch bestimmt schon Untersuchungen drüber, oder?

Bemerkenswert: nach nur 12 Tagen hat  der Film weltweit bereits über 460 Millionen Dollar eingespielt. Man darf hier also durchaus von einem Erfolg für Herrn Emmerich sprechen.

Also: richtig schlecht fand ich den Film nicht, aber eben auch nicht wirklich gut, vor allem weil die letzte Stunde einfach “über” war.  Da rücken die Weltuntergangsbilder in den Hintergund und es wird versucht das “menschliche Drama” künstlich hochzupuschen, was natürlich komplett (wie bei allen Emmerich Filmen) in die Hose geht!

Soviel zum Film. Nun wenden wir uns kurz noch der ganzen “2012- Weltuntergangs-Maya Kalender etc. ” Geschichte zu.

2012 wird die Welt untergehen? BULLSHIT!!!

Blogger Florian Freistetter ist Astronom und er erklärt auf seinem Blog, warum die ganzen 2012 Theorien und Legenden, reiner Bullshit sind!

Außerdem haben sich die beiden US Komiker Penn & Teller mit dem Thema auseinandergesetzt, auf ihre Weise…

Teil 2 (weil Teil 1 schon wieder futsch ist!):

Teil 3:

Roland Emmerich’s disaster flick 2012 is a traumatic experience. The earth surface cracks; hot lava explodes into the air; merciless tidal waves flood entire cities; the North and South Poles reverse; the earth’s crust shifts as the core bubbles. It’s fire and brimstone, people! Now, as I lounge in front of the fireplace in the quiet, rural town of Staunton, Virginia, the wall clock ticking peacefully in the background, I can imagine the waters of the Atlantic ocean hurtling over the Blue Ridge mountains in the distance into our fair valley washing me away in an instant. According to the Mayans, this exact scenario will occur in two years. Nowhere is safe. Not Virginia. Not even Wisconsin. There’s nothing we can do but repent and meet our maker. I don’t know about you guys, but I’m storing up my lethal dose of morphine now.

How is all this death and destruction depicted on the silver screen? CGI, of course. I may be old-fashioned, but, to me, computer generated images are cartoon-like and unrealistic. Watching a video game that you can’t control really isn’t that fun. This movie isn’t a lot of fun either, even with addition of real live actors like John Cusack and Woody Harrelson. The fantastic, intricate models of vintage George Lucas made films more realistic–not to mention better for the economy. Think about all the sets and costumes that had to be manufactured! 2012 could have been a public works project for the recession. At least it would have had more impact that way.

I think people are getting tired of CGI, and low-budget, box-office surprises like Paranormal Activity are a testament to that. There are a few scenes at the end of 2012 that are shot tight and close in digital video with a handheld camera, and these are the most frightening and compelling. Computer images are merely crude simulations of reality. Reality is much, much scarier.

BEIJING — When the apocalypse comes, China will save the world.

Or at least that’s how Chinese audiences are interpreting “2012,” Hollywood’s latest blockbuster disaster movie.

“It’s about time the world sees us as a dominant ally,” says Liu Xinliang, 27, a Beijing computer programmer who watched the movie twice.

In the nearly 3-hour movie, which opened Nov. 13 in China, Earth’s core overheats, threatening humanity. Leaders of the world embark on a mission to build an ark in the mountains of central China to hold people and animals that can repopulate the planet.

Liu grinned as he watched Chinese troops escort wealthy and important citizens onto the ark.

Chinese netizens on popular blogs have been quick to note other scenes perceived as having pro-China messages: Chinese military officers saluting American refugees entering China, China being one of the first nations to agree to open the ark’s gates to admit more refugees, a U.S. military officer saying that only the Chinese could build an ark of such size so quickly.

“I felt really proud to be Chinese as I was watching our (military) officers rescue civilians in need,” says Zhang Ying, 26, an advertising executive in Beijing. “The movie … made me realize that China has become a respected country on the world stage.”

Chinese audiences are used to seeing negative Hollywood portrayals of the communist nation. In “Red Corner,” starring Richard Gere, an innocent foreigner faces a corrupt Chinese legal system. Martin Scorsese’s “Kundun” highlights China’s rule of Tibet.

Scenes with Chinese bad guys were cut from “Mission Impossible III,” and Warner Bros. decided not to release its hit 2008 blockbuster, “The Dark Knight,” in China because of “cultural sensitivities.” The latest Batman movie sees the masked hero nab a Chinese criminal in Hong Kong.

As China’s economy continues to expand, Hollywood has set its sights on the nation of 1.3 billion, though it can share profits on only up to 20 releases every year. That makes it crucial for studios to reap as much as they can with each movie.

“China has a legitimate movie market that’s growing, but Hollywood is learning that movies portraying us as poor or the enemy will not make money in China,” says Shen Dingli, director of the Center for American Studies at Fudan University in Shanghai.

It is unclear whether “2012″ director Roland Emmerich intentionally inserted the China element into his movie to gain wider viewership in the country.

Steve Elzer, a spokesman for Columbia TriStar Motion Picture Group, declined to comment on the China element or whether any scenes were cut from the movie.

BY CHI-CHI ZHANG
ASSOCIATED PRESS

Acest film are toate sansele sa castige Oscarul, asta daca Academia Americana de Film o sa introduca o noua categorie la decernarea premiilor, si anume “World’s Best Driver”. John Cusack este fenomenal in acest film, este aproape providential. Cu o limuzina de peste 7 metri lungime reuseste sa se fereasca de bucati care se desprind din cladiri, de masini care produc accidente in lant, reuseste sa treaca la milimetru pe sub poduri care se prabusesc, este mai rapid decat lava unei eruptii vulcanice, face inconjurul lumii, reuseste sa supravietuiasca in Himalaya in haine de vara sau poate sa isi tina respiratia sub apa cat timp vrea el.

Roland Emmerich nu face din 2012 un film prost, dar nu este niciun film care sa faca parte din categoria capodobera. Este un film pentru care timpul petrecut in post productie a fost de 4 ori mai mare decat timpul alocat efectiv filmarilor, bugetul de peste doua sute de milioane de dolari permitand realizarea unor efecte speciale cu adevarat deosebite. Probabil ca din aceasta suma imensa s-ar fi putut face 2-3 filme mult mai bune. Un bun exemplu in acest sens este Deep Impact, un film care trateaza aceeasi tema, cu un buget mult mai mic, dar care totusi depaseste productia lui Emmerich. 2012 este plin de clisee: o familie despartita, dar care se uneste in fata pericolului, relatia America-Rusia, mici glumite care se fac chiar inainte de o tragedie si multe alte care sunt introduse si distribuite neinspirat pe parcursul filmului.
Prestatia actorilor din distributie este aproape modesta, insa se poate accepta acest compromis, avand in vedere ca 2012 a fost creat special pentru box-office si nu s-a dorit sa urmareasca interpretari de geniu ale unor actori cu adevarat mari.

Pentru a savura cu adevarat efectele speciale, 2012 trebuie vazut neaparat la cinematograf, orice alta locatie minimalizand mult din impresia pozitiva pe care o poate produce filmul. Momentan evolutia filmului in box-office se incadreaza in grafic, avand toate sansele sa intre pe profit.

Aici trebuia sa fie postul meu despre filmul pe care l-am vazut aseara, insa, nu stiu cum am reusit, dar atunci cand am pus imaginea nu a mai ramas nimic din ce am scris. Asa ca am pierdut tot textul. Scrisesem mai multe despre filmul asta, asa ca acum o sa fac rezumatul: aveam asteptari mai mari de la filmul asta, speram sa vorbeasca mai mult despre calendarul maya, speram sa abordeze mai adanc ideea asta, a sfarsitului lumii, probleme de etica, salvam obiecte de arta sau oameni, de exemplu. Filmul insa se opinteste sa prezinte cum o familie incearca sa isi salveze viata. Se opinteste, pentru ca folosesc o groaza de efecte speciale, extrem de realiste, insa scenariul le face sa para rupte din desene animate: masina merge iar in urma ei drumul se prabuseste, avionul se opreste pe marginea prapastiei iar dupa ce pilotul respira usurat pica in ea… In plus, nici ideea filmului nu e una revolutionara, am mai vazut filme pe tema apocalipsei, doar ca sfarsitul era provocat de un asteroid ce provoca tsunami si undeva prin Marele Canion se facea un buncar in care era salvata o parte din populatie pentru a putea perpetua specia.

Pe la finalul postului pierdut deja cadeam in teoria conspiratiei, era vreo 1:30 cand il terminam, se intelege. Asa ca ma intrebam daca nu cumva am fost avertizati prin acest film. Daca asa va fi? E, asta e, mai devreme sau mai tarziu, toti ne ducem…

CLICK FOR TRAILER

What?

Mayans predict the end of the world in 2012…it happens. We follow Cusack and some other two-dimensional characters until the end where the world is totally screwed.

I wrote that Plot outline myself because there wasn’t one anywhere on the internet, I’m guessing because the film doesn’t really have a plot…

Where?

Watford Vue.

With?

Your standard cinema audience who weren’t idiotic enough to go and see New Moon.

Why?

I love Disaster Movies, I love them to pieces. I love them to the point that I struggle to see their faults and concentrate purely on the melodrama and explosions. So naturally, I had to see 2012.

I also quite like Emmerich, 10,000 BC aside, he has made consistently entertaining movies that do exactly what they set out to do and with 2012 I’m expecting fun fun fun.

Worth It?

Yeesh, what a mess. As I mentioned before, I can forgive the disaster movie genre for a lot of its faults, but 2012 took absolute liberties.

Sure, whilst everything was going mental, it was a total eyegasm. The effects were great and you could really tell a lot of money was spent, but as soon as Emmerich slows things down, 2012 becomes an awful, sappy load of pish.

Every character seemed to have been written in about 46 seconds and Emmerich aims to put them all through hell just to tug on our heart-strings when it all slows down, only they don’t tug on the heart-strings because you just don’t care about them. And even the explosions got boring. Personally, when I watch a disaster movie, I get sucked in by hope. Specifically the hope that the hero will save the day and the world will be alright (Armageddon is a prime example, that movie gets me) but with 2012, we already know everyone but the rich people are screwed so I didn’t really feel like pulling for them.

Oh well, another 2009 blockbuster fails to live up to its billing, I’m hoping Avatar won’t go down this route. I think I’ll cry.

4.5/10

NOTA : 7 RECOMANDAT

Download subtitrare 2012

Trailer 2012 :