Which part did you like in the film BKB? How does it compare to other disaster movies for you?

It looked a lot less digital than any of the previous similar shots as far as I can think of.

And how real the effects can really get with a plane and a car going through what they were going through? The action was cartoonish but it suited the movie well for what it was.

Exactly. I thought they'd be many more money shots left but frankly there werent any other than Yellowstone.

I assume 2001's complaints are about the film being shot on digital, not film. And from the sound of things, it wasn't much of an issue for anyone else.

Personally, I thought it was a big improvement on The Day After Tomorrow, but it's clear Emmerich will never, ever top Independence Day. The silly plotting and hammy dialogue was not that much of an issue - if it really is for someone, they must not be a fan of disaster movies. I liked the huge array of side characters - they gave the film plenty of opportunities to show off disaster scenes that are 100% extraneous. It's unabashedly stupid fun. Nothing new, but all anyone should have really expected out of this.

The only part of the entire movie I actually disliked was when the kyoot blonde Russian chick needlessly died. I was so rooting for her and Gordon to get together, since it was obvious that John and Amanda's characters were going to get back together. It was very wtf and weird. She was in the middle chamber. Why did the water rise there faster than the other? She was in a sealed off middle compartment, whereas everyone else was in a compartment with a tunnel to the OCEAN. Did the water come into her compartment through the plot hole?

Her death was sad, I guess they wanted to evoke sadness at that moment, but it was so needless. That slut was fun.


And why did the world not actually end? I thought the core was heating up and causing all of this destruction. Why would it just kind of stop?

So stupid, but it was good mindless fun.


out of

I was dissapointed by this movie. See I like Roland Emmerich's films except 10,000 BC which was utter shit. 2012 is way better but frankly speaking they showed all the money shots in the trailers. For a 200+M budget movie I was expecting more destruction, which I didn't get. Other than that it was fun movie with some decent emotional scenes but I was expecting a lot more of destruction.

Anyways Roland is still the king of disaster movies. But his best films in my opinion are

1) ID
2) The patriot
3) Stargate
4) TDAT
5) 2012
6) Godzilla
7) Universal soldier
8) 10000 BC

B+

The only thing that I hated about this movie was the russian chick dying, she just had her big moment and like 5 minutes after she died.

And no one remembered her or cared.

Ya kinda felt bad for her. I hated how the second husband died.

The LA escape played a little better on the big screen for sure. Some pretty crazy scenes. Overall, I liked the characters way more than The Day After Tomorrow. I especially enjoyed Woody Harrelson and the Yellowstone explosion. I only wish they would have addressed more of the end of current humanity and its effects, instead of so many emotional scenes which made it a bit long like these type of movies tend to be. I was definitely seeing the Russian chick and the stepdad/doctor/pilot guy together, but no luck. And why wasn't the 2nd "President" killed?

B

C

There are fun disaster scenes in the movie for sure. But I guess that's just not enough for
me anymore. The dialogue in this movie is just aweful. The last 1/4 of the movie I was rolling
my eyes at the dialogue the whole time, it was ridiculous. I didn't care about any of the characters. And why can't Emmerich, if he's going to use science as a cause or explanation of
disaster, or even as a basis for the plot, actually get it right? I'm not a geologist, but if the Earth's core was heating up to the point of causing a shift of the crust, which is significant enough to cause the eruption of Yellowstone, there would be so many massive volcanic eruptions across the planet that the resulting ash would block out the sun for at least 100 years.

Still, not even close to as ridiculous as 10,000 B.C.
Seriously, pyramids being built in Egypt in 10,000 B.C. (oldest would be 3,000 BC in reality) with people using mammoths as beasts of burden (what?), with giant predatory birds hunting in the forests (these birds died out several hundred thousand years ago (if not a few million) and only lived in the Americas). And that's just scraping the surface. Moronic. So much potential squandered.

2012 - 5/10 ( C )

Kinda boring. Natural disaster movies just aren't my thing. They were only exciting when I was a kid. I did like the scenes of destruction, but didn't care for the technical mumbo jumbo. That is not why I would watch a movie like this. Simply too much talking, which doesn't bother me in movies where the talking interests me, but this does not.

This movie is fucking trash, this should have been Disaster Movie with its absurdity. Effects don't mean shit when the characters are this bad, I can't see how anyone enjoyed this movie. Its a collection of bad movie montages of cliches in these films.

Cliches used:

Airplane engulfed or free falling only to be revealed to be fine (3 times)
SIngle Person staring at his impending death (5 times, all equally atrocious)
Dog is rescued (2 times)
Person sacrifices themselves for the rest (4 1/2 times as Cusack had the other (Extremely long reveal to be fine Cliche)
Vehicle (Camper and Limo of all things) outruns quakes, fireballs and tsunamis
Political Power Struggle
Anti Russian Message (How is it that there are 3 Compartments in order the remaining characters are stuck in, and only the one in the middle fills all the way up killing the Russian Paris Hilton?)
And of course the most advanced ship in the world, almost destroyed by a flashlight stuck in a gear, and no manual override)

And the most cringeworthy moment that happened 5 times. The "smartest" character in the film has read John Cusack's failed book about Atlantis, and finds multiple scenes to reference it. Hell I don't think he goes a scene without doing it. What the fuck?

And then the movie was over.

So yeah D- (Even the visuals and John Cusack are too over the top)

It's interesting that, six years after its release, this movie actually starred John Cusack, Amanda Peet and a pre-Oscar nominated Chiwetel Ejiofor. Cusack is so the antithesis of movie star, and maybe that was what Emmerich hoped would be the appeal, but I felt like Cusack gave it his all and accepted a hefty paycheck, fully realizing that he was essentially stealing money. All that's missing is him glancing at the camera with a "Can you believe I'm starring in a big budget popcorn flick?!" stare.

That aside, 2012 is one of many movies affected by long-itis. At two and a half hours, it's impossible to not get bored at times, especially by the cookie-cutter plot. Oh, the world is going to end?! Must save my ex-wife, my kids that don't call me Dad and my ex-wife's goofy albeit harmless new man! So of course what would save an especially-long film is some great action. But the action feels too ridiculous this time around. From the guy that brought us Independence Day, The Day After Tomorrow and Godzilla, he knows his way around huge action sequences, but things border on parody, especially as Cusack drives a limo with his family through a decaying California.

If 2012 weren't so deadly serious, I would assume it was actually a long wink at the audience, acknowledging our pre-existing knowledge of disaster flicks.

The assets of the movie are, sadly, few and far between. I love John Cusack, but he's horribly miscast as the hero. Good for him to score this kind of role in his career. And he never puts forth a bad performance. But buying Cusack as the lead in 2009, I would have had to assume a lot of people passed on it.

Once the film comes to a long-overdue end, I felt nothing for the saved. I guess I'm glad that many recognizable faces have survived and a few villains bit it along the way, but honestly I'm just glad I'll never have to watch this again. I sure hope Roland Emmerich gives us something bigger and better next year with ID2.

C-

A similar thing happened with San Andreas. Didn't think of it until reading your review.

Haven't seen it yet. Give me six years and I'll watch.