Drama protagonizado por Will Smith que interpreta un sufrido sujeto que debe ayudar a un grupo escogido de personas de maneras y razones que nos vamos enterando a medida que transcurre la película.

Si bien, la cinta se sostiene por la curiosidad de saber más del protagonista y su pasado. que se va descubriendo a través de reiterados flashbacks, la conclusión no deja del todo conforme. ***

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

three popcorn tubs out of five.

Bienvenue à Zombieland sort mercredi (25 novembre). Et le numéro de décembre de GQ en profite pour vous aider à compléter votre vidéothèque avec les meilleurs films de morts-vivants. Voici les bandes annonces de quatre de ces films cultes.
Par Arnold Derek

La nuit des morts-vivants, de George A. Romero (1968)
Moins axé sur le consumérisme que ne le sera, dix ans plus tard, Zombie, La nuit des morts-vivants créa néanmoins son petit électrochoc dans l’Amérique encore conservatrice des années 60. En noir et blanc, caméra à l’épaule, le film renvoie aux reportages télé sur le bourbier vietnamien…

L’enfer des zombies, de Lucio Fulci (1979)
Comme à leur habitude, les Italiens surfent sur la vague des succès du box-office américain pour en croquer un peu. Lucio Fulci, maître incontesté de l’horreur transalpine, injecte à son film une surdose d’énucléations, démembrements et autres éventrations… (pour public averti)

Shaun of the dead, d’Edgar Wright (2004)
Dans l’industrie du cinéma, on rigole plus en famille qu’entre amis. Edgar Wright, Simon Pegg et Nick Frost l’ont bien compris lorsque l’Angleterre s’esclaffait à l’humour très référencé de leur série Spaced. L’esprit de famille se perpétue dans Shaun of the dead, clin d’œil à Dawn of the dead (Zombie en VF) de Romero…

Bienvenue à Zombieland, de Ruben Fleischer
On y croyait mollement mais le film, avec Woody Harrelson en tueur
de zombies, a cassé la baraque au box-office US grâce à un mélange inédit :
un peu comme si Woody Allen réalisait 28 jours plus tard (de Danny Boyle)…

What can I say? Zombieland is the perfect zombie movie. A potent mix of horror, gore, action, comedy and buddy movies, the film works on all levels and is seriously the most fun you can possibly have at the movies.

Movie Review – Zombieland
By [http://ezinearticles.com/?expert=Bill_Bonfanti]Bill Bonfanti

ZOMBIELAND – REVIEW

10 out of 10

What can I say? Zombieland is the perfect zombie movie. A potent mix of horror, gore, action, comedy and buddy movies, the film works on all levels and is seriously the most fun you can possibly have at the movies. It made me jump, made me laugh and also made me genuinely care about the characters. The film is a visually arresting, highly stylized treat that entertains all the way through and will leave you wanting more. The premise of the film is relatively simple. The world has been overrun by zombies and the few survivors of the human race are constantly on the move trying to find someplace safe to lay their heads at night. The movie starts out brilliantly with Columbus (Jesse Eisenberg) telling us about his rules for survival in post-apocalyptic zombie filled America.

The opening credits ensue and we are shown various scenes of people running from zombies in the slow motion technique popularized by Watchmen. From there we are introduced to Columbus who explains what has happened to the world and why he has managed to survive so long. Being an introvert by nature, Columbus has managed to stay alive by sticking to his self created rules such as cardio good, avoid bathrooms and the double tap (always shoot twice). More rules are introduced as the film plays and the gag never grows old. Columbus decides to head towards Ohio in hopes that he will find his parents alive and well. On the way he hooks up with Tallahassee (Woody Harrelson), the most bad ass zombie killer you can imagine. Just to clarify, the characters call each other by their destinations, not by their actual names. Tallahassee explains that it’s easier not to grow attached to each other that way.

The pair are complete opposites which allows for some great buddy movie comedy and from here on in Zombieland plays like a road trip comedy on acid. Attacked by zombies at every turn, the two soon meet up with two sisters (Emma Stone and Abigail Breslin) who have managed to survive and after a few false starts; the foursome begins to trust and like one another.

Woody Harrelson as tough guy zombie slayer Tallahassee is ideally cast and it is the best role of his career. Harrelson is hilarious in the film, displaying his impeccable comic timing while also showcasing his tough guy swagger. Watching him kill zombies is as pleasurable for the audience as it is for the character. Harrelson shares great chemistry with Jesse Eisenberg as Columbus, in effect portraying the Odd Couple as zombie killers. Eisenberg is solid, perfecting the nerdy, wimpy guy and he reminds me more than a little bit of king of the dweebs, Michael Cera. In fact Cera must be kicking himself for turning down this role (I’m assuming he was offered it). Emma Stone as tough older sister, Wichita, is quite good and I believe she has a bright future on the silver screen. Abigail Breslin as her little sister, Little Rock, is one tough little cookie and proves that she is much more than Little Miss Sunshine. There is also a side-splitting cameo from… I don’t want to ruin it… let’s just say it is a brilliant cameo from a comedy god.

First time director, Ruben Fleischer, does a great job of moving the film along at a breakneck pace while also mining the comedy gold out of every situation the characters find themselves in. He has a wonderful visual style that borrows heavily from Zack Snyder (Dawn of the Dead remake, Watchmen) and he is certainly a director to watch in the future. It’s not an easy thing to make something fresh out of a zombie flick, but Fleischer takes the genre (sub-genre?) to a whole new level.

To sum it up, Zombieland is a splatteristic, gory, jump out of your seat horror film that also happens to be one of the funniest films of the year. Anchored by terrific performances, Zombieland is a must see horror/comedy delight. Better than Shaun of the Dead or Zack Snyder’s Dawn of the Dead remake, Zombieland is the definitive zombie movie.

Bill Bonfanti is FilmGo.net’s movie critic and Box office analysis. http://www.filmgo.net Every week you will find new reviews and box office predictions for the current crop of films in the theater.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Bill_Bonfanti http://EzineArticles.com/?Movie-Review—Zombieland&id=3242040

After doing a little work at the house work tonight, I decided to start my vacation.

So, it’s official. I’m engaged to married, about to start a new job, and about round another decade.

When I do things, I like them to be big. And in threes. Not necessarily in that order.

These thoughts about the goings-on of day-to-day life folded into big commitments, new horizons and depth of love do bop around in my head, and none of the three make me nervous or anxious – as some others may profess in the medium of a blog. You know, because these are narcissistic spaces, after all.

Nope, all three are sources of challenge, satisfaction, hard work and happiness. You can’t have one without the other.

10 Words says: Woody Harrelson wants Twinkies, and whacks zombies with a banjo!

Hippies will be happy to know about my latest problem. Too much beer. Not an abundance of beer, but a plethora. And in this time of plenty, in one of my favorite holidays of the season, I feel that I’m simply playing my role in what should be good about a holiday. I’m keeping in season. See, after a little zombie flick this evening I stopped by the Harris Teeter for veggies, eggs and a big beer.

Zombieland is worth seeing in a theater. Especially if you live in Greensboro and are into a fun, mindless zombie flick. Like zombie movies should be. I’ll put it up there with Shaun of the Dead. Thanks, In 10 Words, for the Zombieland photo.

So lunch for Kathleen and I is done tomorrow – I’m going to make some fake pho: Sautee/soften Brussels Sprouts in a saucepan with carrots and garlic and a touch of butter. Pour in water, boil, add flavor packet from ramen Oriental flavor, a squirt or two of Siracha, noodles, top with bean sprouts. Filling for a rainy day and healthy if you don’t drink all the broth (too much sodium). Add a little smoked salmon.

I was quasi-inspired by the NPR story I heard the other day about instant ramen and what goes into it, how it was invented and what others put into ramen. Neato! New perspectives that aren’t from here! Exchanging ideas! Globalization is good!

Maybe I’ll surprise her for lunch, I think, while I’m shopping in Harris Teeter. As for the fakeness of the pho, I have no idea. A friend told me when he did it, now I’m telling you. So there. Pass it on. Teach somebody something today.

So I’m full of zombie love, and freshly finished with listening to a hot Phish set through my iphones while ishopped. I arrive home to put up the on-sale potatoes and some animal cookies and then to sick my Arrogant Bastard Ale in the beer fridge (this shows the household commitment to beer).

And see that my old sticker-covered college fridge nearly full! Brimming! Full of sweet, sweet love from Heaven! This is a good thing.

Because here’s what’s in it:

Wolaver’s Alta Gracia coffee porter.

Duck-Rabbit porter.

Cottonwood Pumpkin Ale.

Highland Cold Mountain (which has been cellared since 2008).

High Life.

PBR.

Samuel Adams Octoberfest.

Red Oak amber.

Oh, there are a few others, homemade wine and some Belgian outtake of some sort, but I’ll stop.

Now, we’re not drunks over here, but lately the house has begun to accumulate beer. Not that it’s a bad thing. Let’s dig into the list, though. See, half of those are from N.C. – and if you count High Life, which is brewed in Eden, most of those are N.C. beers.

Hot damn!

I chose to go with the Duck Rabbit Porter, which compliments the chocolate animal cookies that I bought nicely. The Arrogant Bastard kind of set me off, and I have options, so why not?

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I need to get back to my vacation. Don’t expect too much of me over the next few days. I have some lounging to handle. And some beer sippin to do. Maybe a hike. Maybe a little book readin. Burn a CD or two. Whatever for the next three days or so.

You know, Zombieland got me thinking so much about zombies, I figured I’ll throw in some Shaun of the Dead for ya:

Because I’m listening to a live stream from a Panic show in Milwaukee.

Arrrggghhhh…

Ok.

So I don’t necessarily like Sci-Fi-y things.

And I don’t necessarily like Sci-Fi-y things that last about two and a half hour longs.

And I don’t necessarily like hearing about the whole 2012 theory again.. and again.. AND again.

It’s not that don’t believe it.. well, I don’t know whether I do or not.. but like I keep telling Spaz, as long as your right with your god then it doesn’t matter when the world ends

But this whole 2012 thing is getting a little out of hand. Any night of the week you can find SOME kind of documentary on it on cable.

At any rate.. the movie.

So we watched it tonight and other then the “Independence Day” level of special effects, it sucked.

Sucked so bad that I didn’t even finish watching it.

It’s the same old story..

Goofy loser dad (John Cusak) takes his kids camping only to stumble upon a wacked out under-grounder (Woody Harrelson) who tells him all about the conspiracy that the world is ending and OH! Here’s a map of secret places in CHINA that will keep you safe. Government knows ALL about it but chooses NOT to let the information out until the very last minute when California slides into the ocean.

It was just bizarre.

The only part that I found slightly entertaining :: enough to get a slight giggle :: was a few lines that the Russian billionaire uttered.

But I mean.. I guess as far as disaster movies go.. and if you’re into that kind of thing.. you wouldn’t think it sucked as bad as I did.

Awards season is almost here.

In some ways, the inanity of it all gets you.

A whole year full of movies and indie producers and pushers expect you to pay attention for just about a span of one month.

Is the Academy to blame? Sometimes. They certainly do pick shitty movies to win their awards from time to time (Read: Crash, Slumdog Millionaire) but in honest and in earnest, it would seem, they’ve attempted a feat of getting people to see-slash-consider more movies throughout the year by expanding their roster of “Best Picture” nominees to 10. This means that good movies from the summer that might be partially forgotten by the time academy season rolls around (Read: The Hurt Locker) might actually not only be in contention for an Oscar, but with a potential split between Oscar-hogging movies, might actually sneak in and win an award.

It’s exciting, in a way. But still, the fact remains: unless you are unemployed, down on friends and are hell-bent on depleting whatever savings you might have left on going to a theater to sit in seats where you’re lucky if what you just stepped on was gum, you haven’t seen most of the movies worthy of consideration in this small time.

Who could possibly have such an insane bent, such an aversion to daylight, anti-social behavior and participation in murky, unsavory activities?

If you guessed one of the vampires from that new-fucking Vampire-hyphen-Werewolf movie that made a lot of money while maintaining Mormon value overtones, you probably guessed incorrectly: I’m a jew.

Anyway, here are the films.

***

I’ve been a fan of Andersonian melodrama ever since Rushmore, which appealed to the stifled low-performing nerd in me, and The Royal Tenenbaums, which still stands for me as Anderson’s masterpiece. I discovered Bottle Rocket afterwards and deemed it a worthy debut, if not overly affected by the Reservoir Dogs fever of the day. I panned the last two films he’s made, justly as it would seem the community has vindicated those choices (though mob-rule doesn’t always speak right). The Life Aquatic seemed to airy to me, too focused on style, too obsessive about Anderson’s own love of his wacky compositions: too concentrated on the quirkyness of his story as opposed to the story itself. The Darjeeling Limited suffered from the same sort of flaw, an attempted homage to Indian cinema that was all about Whitey, as brashly colonial and ignorant of its surroundings, as the Brit-influenced train of the film’s title. In short, Anderson had drank his own Kool-Aid, embraced his own narcissistic qualities, sometimes abetted by fellow hep-cats Noah Baumbach and Jason Schwartzman. The Fantastic Mr. Fox offered him a way out of that narcissism, a chance to create a movie of pure imagination without branding it as a “Wes Anderson” movie in a way that drew attention to itself. Like Tim Burton, he could lose himself in animation every so often to rejuvenate his sense of the possible. I admit worry when I saw Meryl Streep and George Clooney heading up the cast for Fox, but they were fine in the film and I shouldn’t have worried about Streep particularly, an actress capable of disappearing when the part calls for it, like she did in Mamma Mia!. The movie itself felt fun and mostly sly and glib and occasionally triumphant as a movie about a fox (or a Roald Dahl book) should. But what it wasn’t was great. Like Where The Wild Things Are (the superior of the two, by a bit), Fox suffers from some poor music choices, rock and brit-invasion stuff, that Anderson peps in. There’s also some stuff about karate that feels tacked in, a weird character called Kristofferson and a bumbling subservient (like Pagoda or the kid whose mom Max wants to bang in Rushmore). In short, Anderson has made Fantastic Mr. Fox into a Wes Anderson movie, to its detriment. Every element is composed and planned: wacky, but only ever in the exact way Anderson intended it to be. There is no joy of discovery to be had as we had meeting the Things in Wild Things, nor are their ways to think about the way that memory evolves, like the best animated film of they year, Up!. Instead, we get what we planned for, what we paid for, nothing more. Anderson would be a better filmmaker if he took more risks and let a wacky world evolve from his characters organically, even a little bit. Instead he’s only a good-kind of children’s storyteller:

The one who tells the children what he wants to tell them and not what they want to hear.

***

The Messenger feels like the exact sort of movie I wouldn’t see in an off-year. An “American indie” with its street-cred from Oren Moverman (I’m Not There, Jesus’ Son), it tackles “difficult” “contemporary” “issues” with some hottie Shia LeBoeuf wannabe and a fat Samantha Morton. And what I described is essentially just accurate. But those missing The Messenger will miss the best performance of the year so far and one of the most sympathetic portrayals of a man left behind by history I’ve ever seen. Sgt. Stone, as portrayed by Woody Harrelson, is a veteran of Desert Storm, “the first Gulf War” who speaks admiring of Kuwaiti prostitutes as he tilts back in forth between nights of pretty bartenders and messy alcoholic binges. He is required by his duty, as he’s assumed, to inform the relatives of men killed in action that their child is gone, a task he is both perfect for and which destroys him utterly. A soldier, a “POG” as Ben Foster accuses him of being in the film, who is a victim not of gun-fire or PTSD, but of the Army’s machismo: that he joined to be a hero, but never got the chance. Instead he crawls with envy, hatred, sympathy and distance as he coldly approaches the designated Next-of-Kin. He is the most complciated non-warrior I’ve seen in cinema and it’s Mr. Harrelson’s performance (and to a lesser degree, Mr. Moverman’s writing) that has created him. If the only the movie was aboout Mr. Harrelson’s Sgt. Stone as opposed to the over-acting Mr. Foster’s wounded private and his relationship with a terribly miscast Samantha Morton. Still, to see Harrelson act in such a movie and such a way, is something retro in a good way, a call back to when good actors worked in hack jobs for money in the sort of films that got made because they were on schedule to be made and for little other reason.

***

I almost feel like side-stepping the controversy around Precious. In all honestly, I don’t feel qualified to speak about it. Perhaps I’ll just put it my two cents and then just bow out. As I might have noted before, Lee Daniels, the director of the film, had what amounted to a monstrous portrait of himself and his movie in The New York Times (“The Audactiy of Precious”) which seemed to be entirely justified in its villainy of him. It depicted him as an opportunistic joker, accosting Helen Mirren when she broke her shoe in the sidewalk and looking at his watch hand to see how long/hard a European audience would clap for an “authentic” portrayal of “American black folks”. In short, it seemed like exploitation and those often guilty of such things (Oprah, Tyler Perry) joined in with endorsements, making it seem all the more true.

All of this seemed to be at odds with the film I saw, which while melodramatic and over-the-top, seemed to strenuously avoid exploitation and condescension to its obvious target protagonist. Terrible thing are heaped upon Precious–two unasked-for children, thrown TVs, sexual-abuse from all sides and AIDS just for starters–but in a seemingly non-forced way, she just never gives up. As a protagonist, her strongest resemblance is to Jake LaMotta of Raging Bull, whose only real obstacle was his own lack of character and intelligence, but is the only other leading character I can remember with such believable tenacity. Precious doesn’t give up because she realizes her own strength, because she is able to accept and experience everything that happens to her. Because she sees and is articulate. Obviously, she is a symbol that transcends race and position, a metaphor for the need of self-expression and transcending obstacles and boundaries.

How it does it without feeling exploitative? I couldn’t tell you. Except there seems to be humor and reality in Precious’s classroom and none of her desires seem absurd. The actress Gabourney Sidibe portraying her plays it easy and never assumes an “acting” stance.

Honestly, I’m befuddled. I don’t know how to reconcile the Daniels I read about with his film. But as it is is going now, he could be the first gay or black person to win best director or best picture. Hollywood does love that sort of story.

***

What can I say? Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans?

Well.

It was fun.

As my friend Rob-Mostly-Gotten-Back-His-Beardo pointed out, like its predecessor (in whatever way), it was a well-done B-movie with an ace leading performance. Is Harvey Keitel a better actor than Nicholas Cage? I would say yes, or at leas the’s more to my tastes, though Cage is often excellent and here especially.

Cage has a devotion in BL:POCNO that verges on the insane, something that Werner Herzog is, well, perfectly poised to understand. All I can really say is good job Edward R. Pressman. I’m sure a million fucking people told you were absolutely bonkers to make a sequel to an indie NC-17 B-movie wihere a nun gets raped and devirginized by a crucifix, also with none of the same cast. But somehow–SOMEHOW–you got a pretty perfect combination here of wacky actors and wacky directors, all using their style in good harmony with the script. In short, you made a good movie.

Bravo.

Are their problems? Of course there are problems! It’s a B-movie! I assume as in Entourage, Werner Herzog didn’t give Eva Mendes any direction because he thinks she sucks (and thus she does, a self-fulfilling prophecy). Also, the script is often questionable, verging on the fact that this “bad lieutenant” is particularly sanitized from Abel Ferrara’s mad-cap Catholic fuck-a-thon. He’s not actually that bad. He saves peoples’ lives at great risk to himself, he gets his criminals, he even gets his hooker girlfriend on the straight-and-low. He doesn’t murder anyone and there aren’t even the crazy-long shooting-up scenes from the first film. “Unorthodox and Probably Insane but Pretty Damn Effective Lieutenant” could have been the title of this movie, if not for space constraints.

In the end though, a simple question, one often asked to movie critics: Should you see this?

Answer: Of course! Where are else are you going to get crazy Nic Cage antics, Werner Herzog-induced fish-eye iguana-shots and a cackling performance by mid-level rapper Xzibit?

I bet my friend Jason Lee just creamed in his pants.

***

One last note.

I recently saw The Brother-Sister Plays over at the Public Theater with curly-gurl Christa (for the first one) and my sister (for all three). I was glad I found people to see them with, which was difficult even after Brantley compared the playwright to Eugene O’Neil and Sam Shepard in the same paragraph. As I expected, the comparison is not really true, or at the least, overstated. Both of those artists have an emotional connection in their dialogue that push pin-pricks and stabs into the audience’s mind. They are unafraid to grab at your thoughts and hold them against the wourld they are trying to show you, a twisted tableau out of their minds that you know, when translated, might echo back to you. Another obvious comparison to the playwright of these plays, Alvin McCraney, might be the non-naturalist Suzan Lori-Parks, who is also black and whose plays tackle with ebullient style “the issues” as they might be.

Mr. McCraney doesn’t have that skill yet. He’s only 29. But what he does have is storytelling ability, the ability to connect myth to reality and sprinkle in history and family too, in a way that might be attributed to his old master August Wilson, or probably more accurately, to another gay minority artist, Tony Kushner. Mr. Kushner is above all else an alchemist, spinning the many worries of Jews and men into concoctions that are often funny and outrageous and always broadly ambitious. If Mr.McCraney doesn’t dream on this scale yet, he’s on his way with The Brother/Sister Plays. The first play, The Red and Brown Water is the weakest, but still memorable, a tale of a young runner and the things she can’t escape. The second and third plays, The Brothers Size and Marcus involve family and the search for identity. All of them involve the issues of the world, the details of everyday life and the inter-connectedness of community.

To my peers, the plays are only 20 dollars a piece (40 for all three). They can be seen all on a Saturday, a Sunday or both as I did.

Theater is a throwback which stirs thoughts inside you. It may not always be as crafted as film. But unlike film it is immediate and cannot be denied.

Depois de “Shaun Of The Dead”, ainda tinha gente que duvidava de que é possível rir e render milhões com um filme de comédia sobre zumbis? “Zombieland” é a prova cabal disso. Aliás, não só simplesmente rir, estamos falando de uma ótima comédia com toques de ação e terror. E também, não só render milhões. A produção do diretor estreante Ruben Fleischer, que estreou nos EUA em 2 de outubro e tem lançamento previsto para 4 de dezembro aqui no Brasil, já se tornou o filme sobre zumbis mais rentável da história, arrecadando em bilheterias mais de US$ 60 milhões em 17 dias, desbancando o remake “Dawn Of The Dead” de 2004.

Na história, Columbus (Jesse Eisenberg, de “Adventureland”) se vê obrigado a unir forças com o cowboy badass motherfucker Talahassee (Woody Harrelson) enquanto atravessam os EUA devastados por uma massiva proliferação de zumbis. No caminho, eles topam com as irmãs Wichita (Emma Stone, de “Superbad”) e Little Rock (Abigail Breslin, “A Pequena Miss Sunshine”) que, após demonstrarem seus meios pouco ortodoxos de sobrevivência, os convencem de seguir para um parque de diversões na Califórnia onde, até onde se sabe, os zumbis ainda não chegaram.

Na verdade, enquanto todos lutam pela salvação, Talahassee está em busca do último ‘twinkie’ (tipo um bolinho Ana Maria) do planeta. E num mundo infestado de humanos infectados transformados em cadáveres ambulantes, o personagem de Woody Harrelson vai chutar bundas com estilo para continuar vivo em sua jornada pelo ‘twinkie’ perdido (há!). Sem dúvida, esse veterano em meio a um elenco de jovens estrelas ascendentes, se destaca e dá um brilho a mais ao valentão Talahassee.

Outro destaque de “Zombieland” é o guia de como sobreviver num mundo infestado por zumbis de Columbus. São algumas pontuais regras que lembram em muito o conteúdo do livro “Guia de Sobrevivência Aos Zumbis” de Max Brooks. Até o final do filme, a lista soma trinta e três regras, mas só algumas são expostas, e de forma bastante irreverente, assim como feito também em teasers durante a campanha de divulgação da produção.

No início de dezembro, portanto, o Brasil terá a oportunidade de conferir um dos melhores lançamentos de 2009, que promente agradar a fãs do terror, comédia e ação, contando com ótimos efeitos, divertidíssimas cenas de destruição e extermínio de zumbis, personagens carismáticos e uma edição primorosa. Temos ainda como a cereja do bolo a participação brilhante de Bill Murray interpretando a ele mesmo. E pros ogros, como eu, deleitem-se com a sequência inicial de “Zombieland” que tem como trilha sonora “For Whom The Bell Tolls” do Metallica.

Finally got to watch Zombieland and I must say it was splendid! Simply lovely! I was throughly entertained and laughed my ass off. This movie has restored my faith in Woody H. and anytime your debraining zombies I am amused. I have no clue why you would choose to go to an amusement park to avoid zombies, like at the end of the movie, but it was very enjoyable to see the zombie clown get killed, to quote Murderface “his face was smashed!!” This is a must see for any Zombie/horror fan

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

Cast: John Cusack, Amanda Peet, Woody Harrelson, Oliver Platt, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Thandie Newton.

Director: Roland Emmerich

In 2009, (crikey that’s now) scientist Adrian Helmsley (a pious Chiwetel Ejiofor) discovers the earth’s crust is heating up thanks to recent solar flare activity and the end of the world is nearing.

So when he goes to the President of the USA (Danny Glover) to relay the information, plans begin for the end of the world. However, what the plans don’t necessarily allow for is the full scale survival of the human race.

Throw into this mix, John Cusack’s Jackson Curtis, estranged from his wife Kate (Amanda Peet) and 2 kids (yes the uber-moppets, along with a step-father are here and ready for the apocalypse) who’s always suspected the final days are on their way.

On a camping trip with his kids in Yellowstone, Jackson finds crazy old Charlie Frost (a wild performance from Woody Harrelson) knows about the conspiracy behind the end of days – and more importantly, how to get through it.

So, when the earthquakes increase in intensity, the nuclear family does what it has to to survive as Jackson does his best to save the day.

But when nature’s worst is unleashed, the human race may not make it….

What can you say about 2012, the latest disaster film from the man who blew up the White House when the aliens attacked in Independence Day?

Check your brains at the door and you’ll pretty much enjoy it – there are all the pre-requisites of any disaster films; terribly cliched one liners, check; major landmarks being destroyed, check; family under peril – from both nature and the new love, check; evil Government conspiracies and nasty Russians who get last minute redemption, check; massive explosions, check; lots of improbable escapes; check; bloated running time, check- they’re all here for you to enjoy over some 150 minutes.

And yet, during some moments in 2012, there are some deeper moments which elevate it from the usual disaster, USA promoting pap. There’s an apparent dark conspiracy (though the Princess Diana reference is appallingly misjudged) which runs through and there are moral questions about whether those in power have the right to make all the decisions to prolong the species rather than save all; unfortunately though, those are slightly over-milked by the repetitive sanctimonious speeches made by Eijofor’s character. There are moments which will irritate some – the saccharine goodbyes that some family members get to make on phones, the depiction of the Queen with her corgis….

John Cusack emerges with his credibility in tact at the end of this – it’s all fairly predictable stuff; but once again with his continuing charisma and old school cool, he makes it through – even though everything’s falling apart around him.

If you fancy seeing a film with the world going to hell in a handcart, then 2012 is the perfect getaway – the effects are par for the course and not too bad in places.

However, I do have one plea – I know it’s a symbol for Americans, but can Roland Emmerich please just deal with his issues over the White House and stop blowing it up now?

— Well Folks…. this is for today.. ……. will be updating the blog as and when required and soon enough too… Catch you people soon… …

Till then… cya… have a nice time… —— PM

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.

Oscar season is upon us, so The Messenger is a movie you’re probably going to hear about more and more. Oddly enough, it won’t be from commercials, as this seems to be one of those movies that just shows up one day. Ben Foster and Woody Harrelson play Will Montgomery and Tony Stone, two casualty notification officers for the US Army. While being taught the ropes of his new job, Foster becomes involved with the wife of a fallen soldier.

The first few minutes set the movie up to be very different than it turns out to be. When they first meet, Foster and Harrelson walk around, silent and brooding, generally pissed off. Foster feels as if landing this assignment is some sort of punishment, and Harrelson is more than happy to oblige his preconceptions. Slowly, they learn to work with each other, and Foster discovers what it is he thinks Harrelson is doing wrong.

How is this different from what I was expecting? I thought I was in for two hours of these guys yelling at women and hitting things. I was wrong. What develops is a friendship that is probably one of the most real we’ve seen on screen in a long time. Both characters have their shortcomings and help each other through a job that in many ways is worse than the war itself. You really expect that to happen, but the movie moves into it a lot faster than you’d expect.

What worked for me: The relationship between Foster and Harrelson. After just seeing him in Zombieland, man, Harrelson’s got range. Foster’s the star – and really leads here like he hasn’t done before – but you keep your eyes on Harrelson. Once he’s able to break through the front he’s put up, you get a good look at how these guys keep their heads while doing what is undoubtedly one of the worst jobs on the planet. The movie’s funny when you aren’t expecting it to be, and more touching than you’d think.

What didn’t work for didn’t exactly not work for me, if that makes any sense. Foster’s relationship with Samantha Morton was underplayed. Which is good or bad depending on how you look at it. There’s nothing inappropriate about it, but then again, there’s nothing inappropriate about it. Because of that, it never really feels like it’s a dilemma that Foster’s facing. And that sort of non-problem translates to the rest of the movie. Foster hates the job. He and Harrelson fight. They both have conflicting feelings about duty and the price you pay for doing it. And in the end, things just sort of work out. At the risk of overstating it, it’s a little anticlimactic.

The Messenger is easily one of the best movies of 2009. A nice addition to a Fall that, with the exception of just a few movies, hasn’t been incredibly memorable. With the release of The Road, Up in the Air, and Sherlock Holmes, that may change in the next month, but we’ll see. In the meantime, this one is definitely worth your time. Foster and Harrelson make you want to feel the pain they feel, if only to understand it. A

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 /

During a recent episode of The Colbert Report, Stephen Colbert shaved Woody Harrelson’s head. In honor of the troops, both sang the Star Spangled Banner while Colbert worked the clippers.

(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.

posted by: gcallejo

Ya es cuestionable incluso el hecho de reseñar esta película en Scenas, porque ciertamente no sé si merece tanta atención. Bueno, en sentido estricto quizá sí la merezca, pero desde luego no por su guión. La crítica ha sido bastante unánime a la hora de condenar sus fallos y elogiar sus escasos puntos fuertes.

El argumento es de sobra conocido, tanto por su simpleza como por la frecuente aparición de tramas catastróficas análogas en las carteleras. Aquí la fecha clave es el 21 de diciembre de 2012, cuando el núcleo de la Tierra, recalentado más de la cuenta por unos neutrones, desatará desórdenes geológicos apocalípticos. ¿Buenos efectos especiales? Sobrecogedores. ¿Secuencias frenéticas? Sí, unas cuantas. Pero los diálogos son esquemáticos y tipiquísimos, la historia no tiene más y el reparto protagonista -con grandes actores como Thandie Newton, John Cusack o Danny Glover- tampoco deja mucho que desear. Sólo el gracioso papel de Woody Harrelson resulta relativamente eficaz, y sin embargo su aparición en la pantalla es muy breve.

En realidad, lo que 2012 consigue es que el espectador, después del estupor y de las emociones que le han sacudido durante los casi 160 minutos de metraje, caiga en la cuenta de qué importante es un buen guión y de que los efectos especiales no son nada -absolutamente nada- al margen de una historia bien armada, con personajes creíbles y carismáticos. Parece que eso se le olvida fácilmente a Emmerich. El entretenimiento, por muy articulado que esté, es efímero por definición; lo otro es lo que perdura.

Podría dejar el trailer, pero está muy visto. Prefiero un clip de uno de los poquísimos momentos en el que las actuaciones son convincentes.

2012. USA ( 2009)

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

Calificación 3 estrellas

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

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

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

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

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

Lo mejor:

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

Lo peor:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5.9/10

Trailer:

CLICK HERE TO VIEW

A cowardly shut-in named Columbus (Jesse Eisenberg) is forced to join up with a seasoned zombie-slayer named Tallahassee (Woody Harrelson) in order to survive the zombie apocalypse. As Tallahassee… A cowardly shut-in named Columbus (Jesse Eisenberg) is forced to join up with a seasoned zombie-slayer named Tallahassee (Woody Harrelson) in order to survive the zombie apocalypse. As Tallahassee sets out on a mission to find the last Twinkie on Earth, the duo meets up with Wichita (Emma Stone) and Little Rock (Abigail Breslin), two young girls who have resorted to some rather unorthodox methods to survive amidst the chaos. Reluctant partners in the battle against the undead, all four soon begin to wonder if it might be better to simply take their chances