Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

2012

you know what to do

Looks interesting from what little showing there was....

Chiwetel Ejiofor is in it?!!! I'm so there.

I already saw this movie but i never made it through the entire thing.


Were they ever able to rescue that giant baby from the center of the sun?

It's just not a Roland Emmerich film without a big giant wave is it?

Originally posted by jaden101
It's just not a Roland Emmerich film without a big giant wave is it?

I was thinking the same thing. You always beat me to the punch!

ANOTHER end of the world movie? Damn, don't give Emmerich too much money, or else he'll just use it to destroy the world like a supervillain.

John Cusack!! The effects are pretty damn good though from the trailer.

Originally posted by SnakeEyes
I was thinking the same thing. You always beat me to the punch!

i apologise...i'll wait a while next time to give you a chance

Thanks, that'd be the considerate thing to do.

I'm hoping this movie will be better than The Day After Tomorrow (which I thought sucked). I don't have high hopes though, this'll most likely suck as well. That wave sure was impressive though.

yeah "the day after tomorrow" was a missed oppertunity for a good film...missed by a LONG way

hopefully this will be good in that everyone will die

Originally posted by jaden101
yeah "the day after tomorrow" was a missed oppertunity for a good film...missed by a LONG way

hopefully this will be good in that everyone will die
I sure hope so. The Day After Tomorrow made me mad because it seemed like at the end, everything just went away magically and all was well.

I laughed so hard when I saw this trailer. Not because the movie sucks or anything, just that of course Hollywood would try to capitalize on this, just like Y2K.

Here's the scoop:

People will die, the oh so awesome human spirit will prevail and romance will be there somehow.

I love how they've included a black president, as if to say "Look! Cultural relevance!". Mimi Leder beat you to it, Emmerich.

-AC

I love this trailer. I want to see this ASAP.

http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1810045661/trailer

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=497524&highlight=2012+forumid%3A2

Wonderful effects, because let's face it, you really watch the films from this guy to admire the effects, not hoping for a classic. That shot of the Christ redeemer collapsing was well done from what I could see in the short clip.

Majorrrrrrrrrrrrrr destruction. Oh and I like the cast listing, so at least there should be good acting.

Should be good for a laugh, i will rent it when it comes out.

I'll see it on IMAX just for the effects and sound.

Originally posted by darthmaul1
Should be good for a laugh, i will rent it when it comes out.http://www.tracker-analytics.com/track/img/3358/s09v0317fvxp/00.gif

That sounds about right. It looks visually appealing, but I know the story will be incredibly flimsy.

John Cusack.

Ill pass.

My cousin edited this movie, says it's a pile of shit.

It's just looks like another Knowing. Tho if they somehow manage to actually survive without the help of the whisper people ill be thoroughly pleased. Cuz an apocalyptic movie that actually ends in complete apocalypse is a waste of time.

Originally posted by omgchos
Cuz an apocalyptic movie that actually ends in complete apocalypse is a waste of time.

Disagree, if Armageddon had ended with McClane not saving the world and Ben Butt-****ing Affleck not getting to slip it some more to that sexy little nymph Liv Tyler, the movie would have been a notch above complete shit.

P.S. That avatar is sick, I was going to do it next, you bastard.

Trailer looks good, John Cusack FTW.

Originally posted by KidRock
John Cusack.

Ill pass.

Seen Identity? 1408?

Cause if you haven't your missing out.

i gotta know

I'll wait till dvd.

Originally posted by Robtard
Disagree, if Armageddon had ended with McClane not saving the world and Ben Butt-****ing Affleck not getting to slip it some more to that sexy little nymph Liv Tyler, the movie would have been a notch above complete shit.

P.S. That avatar is sick, I was going to do it next, you bastard.
But if the whole movie was, Here comes an asteroid, then we know how to stop it, then oh no we can't stop it, it would be a waste of time.

And thank you.

i may see this..

Originally posted by omgchos
It's just looks like another Knowing. Tho if they somehow manage to actually survive without the help of the whisper people ill be thoroughly pleased. Cuz an apocalyptic movie that actually ends in complete apocalypse is a waste of time.

I think it is very interesting if they completely get destroyed at the end of the movie, at least it is different, that is partially why deep impact was far better than armaggedon. Cause ALL the major characters die in deep impact and there is much more wide spread destruction, and in armaggedon they found out that we only had 18 days before it hit earth if this was true, we wouldn't have a hope in hell.

There is a 2 part show on ABC i think, called impact, part 2 is on on sunday. but after a huge brown dwarf hits the moon, it changes the moons orbit and it will impact the earth in 39 days. it is interesting and entertaining, but they will probably save the day in some stupid way but in reality they don't have any hope.

How can someone not like John Cusack!!

This film is going to make a lot of silly people panic, thinking the world will end in 2012... on December 21st apparently. So I will not get to celebrate my birthday in 2012, how rude!

Originally posted by omgchos
But if the whole movie was, Here comes an asteroid, then we know how to stop it, then oh no we can't stop it, it would be a waste of time.

And thank you.

Well, the premise would have to be that humanity thought it could stop it, but in the end, it fails. Though it would have to be a tightly kept secret, of the likes of Cloverfield, otherwise it would fail with audiences if they didn't have that surprise 'fail' ending

Originally posted by MildPossession
How can someone not like John Cusack!!


I enjoy him, but truthfully, he's a bit like OCstner, he plays the same role in just about every film.

Originally posted by deathbycorn
Seen Identity? 1408?

Cause if you haven't your missing out.

Uhhhhh.

Originally posted by Robtard
I enjoy him, but truthfully, he's a bit like OCstner, he plays the same role in just about every film.

Yeah, but don't you think thats the role he is cast to play? He does have diversity but in most films he does play John Cusack which leads me to believe that that is how he was directed? Maybe i've just become over-saturated with cinema but it seems like most of the marquee actors play the same character in every movie. I can understand this, too because if you have a big name actor that you're paying millions of dollars for you might want to play it safe and make sure that he portrays the character he's hired to play with similar characteristics that he exudes in all of his hit movies.

Originally posted by Robtard
I enjoy him, but truthfully, he's a bit like OCstner, he plays the same role in just about every film. Cusack has played everything from a high school geek, to a cattle rancher, to a paranormal researcher, to an assassin, to an FBI agent.

http://www.fandango.com/johncusack/filmography/p16329

I think he means it's more the acting, not the actual roles. He comes across the same if he plays a geek or a cool character and so on.

Guess he's never seen "the Jack Bull", or "The Thin Red Line", or "Midnight in the garden of good and evil", or "Eight men out."

Originally posted by BackFire
Uhhhhh.

Pretty informative post there you cool Moderator.

Both of those movies are mediocre at best. 1408 particularly.

This is going to be just The Day After Tomorrow Part II.

Identity was tolerable. 1408 was blah.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Guess he's never seen "the Jack Bull", or "The Thin Red Line", or "Midnight in the garden of good and evil", or "Eight men out."

good films

Originally posted by BackFire
Both of those movies are mediocre at best. 1408 particularly. Not the point.

It was my point.

I liked Identity, and 1408(so creepy in parts), but not really the best examples for excellent John Cusack films.

Sorry but if you think 1408 is shit you suck and don't know what a good horror movie is when you see one.

1408 is like Session 9 - one of the best horrors of the 00's.

Go back and watch Cannibal Holocaust or Texas Chainsaw Massacre again.

If you are on at Backfire, you obviously haven't looked at his profile for favourite films... he knows what good horror is. Plus, Texas Chainsaw Massacre is hardly in the rubbish department when it comes to Horror...

Yeah he likes all the 'classic' horror films. Just like everyone on every forum.

I like real horror. Stuff like Inside, Session 9, May

And? still doesn't mean he doesn't know what good horror is... oh and May is in his list, so he likes 'real' horror too.

Fair enough but saying 1408 is mediocre is pretty funny.

Its proper horror in my opinion.

Now that's stuffedddddddddd up.

OK!?

Bliss.

Anyway, someone mentioned this looks like The Day After Tomorrow movie, I think that's what most think when they see the trailer, especially with the massive wave. Naturallll.

Got too see that movie I believe 2012 is just the beginning

Originally posted by deathbycorn
Sorry but if you think 1408 is shit you suck and don't know what a good horror movie is when you see one.

1408 is like Session 9 - one of the best horrors of the 00's.

Go back and watch Cannibal Holocaust or Texas Chainsaw Massacre again.

A well reasoned argument, the kind I'd expect from a person who makes laughable and idiotic physical threats against directors of films that they didn't like.

Said mediocre, not 'shit'. Please read things before you respond, or continue looking the fool, doesn't really matter.

1408 is nowhere near Session 9. Not even close. I think it's a mediocre horror film, nothing more nothing less. Personally I thought there was nothing creepy or scary about it. The setup was neat but once he got into the actual room it was all business as usual. In fact it was so unremarkable that I saw the film less than a year ago and barely remember anything about it. Other than being completely unimpressed by it.

Yes, I like Texas Chainsaw Massacre, one of the best horror films ever made. Damn, you got me.

1408 was good, it's just that it tended to drag on and on and on.

And yes, Chainsaw Massacre pwns hard.

Originally posted by BackFire
A well reasoned argument, the kind I'd expect from a person who makes laughable and idiotic physical threats against directors of films that they didn't like.

Said mediocre, not 'shit'. Please read things before you respond, or continue looking the fool, doesn't really matter.

1408 is nowhere near Session 9. Not even close. I think it's a mediocre horror film, nothing more nothing less. Personally I thought there was nothing creepy or scary about it. The setup was neat but once he got into the actual room it was all business as usual. In fact it was so unremarkable that I saw the film less than a year ago and barely remember anything about it. Other than being completely unimpressed by it.

Yes, I like Texas Chainsaw Massacre, one of the best horror films ever made. Damn, you got me.

Turn you sarcasm detector up a notch buddy, I'll never see that director in my life.

I'm not the one trying to comback here bud, you are.

Watch 1408 again and realize what a good psychological horror is.

Its in the same ball park as Session 9.

Comeback what? You said that I said something that I didn't say. Presumably because you didn't read properly.

You're going to pretend that you were being sarcastic saying that you'd like to cause physical pain to people who make movies you don't like? Sorry, it's clear that there was no sarcasm in any of your posts. Or knowledge or wisdom, for that matter, just the kneejerk reaction of a simpleton.

Don't need to watch it again. Once was enough to know it was unremarkable. Session 9 is great, though. I'm not interested in lowering that film by saying a rudimentary thriller is on the same level.

Never understood the hype about Session 9, myself.

Originally posted by BackFire
Comeback what? You said that I said something that I didn't say. Presumably because you didn't read properly.

You're going to pretend that you were being sarcastic saying that you'd like to cause physical pain to people who make movies you don't like? Sorry, it's clear that there was no sarcasm in any of your posts. Or knowledge or wisdom, for that matter, just the kneejerk reaction of a simpleton.

Don't need to watch it again. Once was enough to know it was unremarkable. Session 9 is great, though. I'm not interested in lowering that film by saying a rudimentary thriller is on the same level.

You just did it again...

Please watch 1408 again.

Did what? Respond to you? Yes, that tends to happen on message boards.

Wash your mouth out with soap!

Until you both have a child of your own you will not realize the full power that lies within Session 9.

Trust me, after you have a child wait about 6 months and watch Session 9 again.

The movie is that real, its that scary.

You have a child...

Yes. A 2yr old daughter.

Hence why I think 1408 is a fairly disturbing film.

Anyway...................back to topic about the upcoming popcorn movie about death, destruction, and the end of the world with major SFX.......


I really dislike a lot of Emmerich's films. He just a lesser brand of Michael Bay, if you ask me. They're both all SFX and action, with hardly any substance. This movie looks to be another generic SFX blockbuster with a shitty plot line with no character development at all. (The Day after Tomorrow, 10,000 B.C., Armageddon, The Rock, etc)

I'll probably watch this when it airs on HBO, eventually.

Wasn't The Rock a Michael Bay film?

Originally posted by Impediment



I really dislike a lot of Emmerich's films. He just a lesser brand of Michael Bay, if you ask me.

Yeah he's done a few duffers in his time but Stargate and Independence day redeem him somewhat.

Looks stupid.

Originally posted by MildPossession
Wasn't The Rock a Michael Bay film?

Yeah. I was just giving examples of films by both directors.

Originally posted by jaden101
Yeah he's done a few duffers in his time but Stargate and Independence day redeem him somewhat.

I agree with Stargate. It's probably his best film. ID4 was just dumb, in my opinion, with some really bad acting.

Originally posted by deathbycorn
Yes. A 2yr old daughter.

Hence why I think 1408 is a fairly disturbing film.
Wait.. . . what??

All his movies are crap except Stargate and maybe unniversal soilder (but i haven't seen it in a long while).
At least they are good for a laugh, day after tomorrow especially.

I just go into his films for the effects and action, don't expect anything else, same for Michael Bay.

There is a difference between Emmerich & Bay...

Emmerich makes big budget popcorn disaster movies.

Bay makes big budget popcorn movies for 12yr old boys.

Hopefully this doesn't end up being as big of a dissapointment as "the knowing"

that was complete crap.

eZxBYItj2sM

Originally posted by jaden101
eZxBYItj2sM

love it.

Yeah that video came out a few days ago, lovelyyyyyyyyy effects.

Definitely looks spectacular. But then so did The day after tomorrow.

Originally posted by jaden101
Definitely looks spectacular. But then so did The day after tomorrow.

that wasn't a bad movie i thought...

Actually looks like one of the shittest films ever made.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Actually looks like one of the shittest films ever made.

-AC


Yeeeeah...,my thoughts exactly.


I know John Cusack isn't a stranger to big Blockbusters but this...,this is just to much. I can't say i lost respect for John after seeing this trailer because i never had any for him but i am a bit disappointed I may end up eating my words and if this movie turns out to be gold i will record myself eating an economy sized jar of hot mayonnaise and post it here on KMC.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Actually looks like one of the shittest films ever made.

-AC

The plot no doubt will be. The effects are quite spectacular though.

holy shit that exclusive clip was awesome

I don't care what anyone thinks about these big budget popcorn movies.... even if you hate them you have to give credit to the guys who do the fx. They're just incredible

I'll watch anything with John Cusack, dude is amazing.

This looks really stupid to me, that clip seals the deal....i aint wasting my time on this.....though i do like Cusack.....the whole premise is not interesting in the least..and that ridiculous clip is enough hillarity for me

Originally posted by jaden101
The plot no doubt will be. The effects are quite spectacular though.

would anyone seriously watch it for the plot though?

I would have thought most people go into these movies not expecting much in the script/plot department but to enjoy the action/effects, that's how I view these type of movies, and if there is excellent acting, a good plot then that's a bonus.

i'm going to watch it purely so that i can switch off for a couple of hours and watch stuff get wrecked. nothing more, nothing less, and this movie looks like it's going to deliver that...

If you, as a director, make the kind of film that needs the audience to "switch off" in order to enjoy it or for it to seem good, then you're doing a horrible job.

"Switch off" is just another term for "Ignore the fact that it's shit, just enjoy the effects.".

I can't do that. If a film is shit, it's shit. I am not gonna pay (Time OR money) to watch a movie that I have to dumb myself down for.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
If you, as a director, make the kind of film that needs the audience to "switch off" in order to enjoy it or for it to seem good, then you're doing a horrible job.

"Switch off" is just another term for "Ignore the fact that it's shit, just enjoy the effects.".

I can't do that. If a film is shit, it's shit. I am not gonna pay (Time OR money) to watch a movie that I have to dumb myself down for.

-AC

i disagree, tbh. not every movie has to have a great story or great acting so that it can be enjoyable. there will always be a difference between the audiences attracted by different movies. the same people who enjoy wolverine origins aren't necessarily going to enjoy the dark knight, and vice versa.

just because one person doesn't enjoy a movie doesn't mean it doesn't hold some value to someone else.

oh, and when i said switch off, i meant switch off. nothing else.

Originally posted by -Pr-
i disagree, tbh. not every movie has to have a great story or great acting so that it can be enjoyable. there will always be a difference between the audiences attracted by different movies. the same people who enjoy wolverine origins aren't necessarily going to enjoy the dark knight, and vice versa.

just because one person doesn't enjoy a movie doesn't mean it doesn't hold some value to someone else.

oh, and when i said switch off, i meant switch off. nothing else.

What does "switch off" mean to you, then?

Because that term is generally said to mean "turn your brain off".

If you have to do that, it's obviously shit. If you switch your brain off you can enjoy anything.

-AC

I remember when I saw "The day after tomorrow" at the theater, I was pissed that I spent good money on such a crap movie. 2012 has the same feel to me, I'll wait and DVD it, just like I did X Men Origins.

I don't mind spending money on a film when I have the effects to watch, I admire how they make such wonderful things come alive on the screen, I'm more than happy to watch a whole movie of it. To me, it's not a waste of money or time to watch such a thing. I paid to watch two actors walk through a badlands type scenary for a whole film(there was one scene where it must have been 20 minutes of the camera just following the two characters walking slowly... I can sit through anything lol. I got through it because I was concentrating on the cinematography).

But then I didn't spend any money on The Day After Tomorrow...

Originally posted by MildPossession
I don't mind spending money on a film when I have the effects to watch, I admire how they make such wonderful things come alive on the screen, I'm more than happy to watch a whole movie of it. To me, it's not a waste of money or time to watch such a thing. I paid to watch two actors walk through a badlands type scenary for a whole film(there was one scene where it must have been 20 minutes of the camera just following the two characters walking slowly... I can sit through anything lol. I got through it because I was concentrating on the cinematography).

But then I didn't spend any money on The Day After Tomorrow... I'm a Dennis Quaid fan haermm

I dodged a bullet when I decided to wait and DVD "Knowing."

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
If you, as a director, make the kind of film that needs the audience to "switch off" in order to enjoy it or for it to seem good, then you're doing a horrible job.

"Switch off" is just another term for "Ignore the fact that it's shit, just enjoy the effects.".

I can't do that. If a film is shit, it's shit. I am not gonna pay (Time OR money) to watch a movie that I have to dumb myself down for.

-AC

Why should the visuals in a film not be considered entertainment or art unto themselves. A basic plot and average acting can just be a vessel for showing a visually stunning piece of film?

Odd that some films are considered classics for their visuals without having anything else particularly standout (Hero for example) but others which are just as visually stunning, albeit in a different way) are considered crap because they don't have a complex plot or Oscar worthy acting.

I'm as sceptical as you are about this film. I don't think the plot will be up to much at all, especially if the line "CALIFORNIA IS GOING DOWN" is anything to go buy.

It won't be considered a classic but it will be visually amazing.

Originally posted by jaden101
Why should the visuals in a film not be considered entertainment or art unto themselves. A basic plot and average acting can just be a vessel for showing a visually stunning piece of film?

Odd that some films are considered classics for their visuals without having anything else particularly standout (Hero for example) but others which are just as visually stunning, albeit in a different way) are considered crap because they don't have a complex plot or Oscar worthy acting.

I'm as sceptical as you are about this film. I don't think the plot will be up to much at all, especially if the line "CALIFORNIA IS GOING DOWN" is anything to go buy.

It won't be considered a classic but it will be visually amazing.

Because that's not why I go to see movies.

When you consider that I have to dedicate money and an hour or more of my irretrievable time to this, I want to come out thinking it was worth it, and I'm way past being impressed solely by things that go bang and look nice.

I'm just...not impressed by visuals like that being the selling point of a movie. If a movie has amazing visuals as a bonus, swell.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Because that's not why I go to see movies.

When you consider that I have to dedicate money and an hour or more of my irretrievable time to this, I want to come out thinking it was worth it, and I'm way past being impressed solely by things that go bang and look nice.

I'm just...not impressed by visuals like that being the selling point of a movie. If a movie has amazing visuals as a bonus, swell.

-AC

It may well surprise us both. I think to immediately jump to the conclusion that it's going to be shit and so not go and see it is a bit of a narrow viewpoint though.

Past being impressed by things that look nice? Bit of an strange thing to say given that many mediums in art rely solely on looking nice. Movies can be made by that same principle and everything else is the bonus. Plot, acting etc.

Can't wait to see it! I don't know what it is but I love disaster movies.

It's hard to come up with a complex storyline for these sort of movies so expecting something more is asking to much.

Originally posted by kgkg
Can't wait to see it! I don't know what it is but I love disaster movies.

It's hard to come up with a complex storyline for these sort of movies so expecting something more is asking to much.

A plot doesn't have to be complex to be good.

Originally posted by jaden101
A plot doesn't have to be complex to be good. True. But these disaster movies all have similar plot. Can it be good? Sure Will it? Probably not.

Originally posted by kgkg
True. But these disaster movies all have similar plot. Can it be good? Sure Will it? Probably not.

I'm sure it'll be good for what it's aimed at. Visual entertainment. I don't think it's pretending to be a mentally stimulating movie. No doubt the conspiracy theorists will be chomping at the bit to see it and then come fuming that the director got it all wrong even though his 1st priority is to make entertainment and not pander to exceptionally boring horseshit conspiracy nonsense.

Personally i'd rather go and see this at the cinema than some cult movie with a deep plot because this is the kind of movie that is made to get the most out of the big screen experience...Full digital sound and large screen.

I've thought this movie was going to be pure shit, but I watched a preview yesterday when seeing Zombieland (which was surprisingly entertaining, start to finish) and the SFX is way the **** up there. Saw the scene where the plane is trying to escape a crumbling Los Angeles.

Might have to catch this one in the theaters.

It's a movie that is definitely a must see on the big screen anyway compared to watching it on a television screen to get the most out of the visuals.

Originally posted by Robtard
I've thought this movie was going to be pure shit, but I watched a preview yesterday when seeing Zombieland (which was surprisingly entertaining, start to finish) and the SFX is way the **** up there. Saw the scene where the plane is trying to escape a crumbling Los Angeles.

Might have to catch this one in the theaters. had to just be the movie because it was louder than normal here as well

Originally posted by MildPossession
It's a movie that is definitely a must see on the big screen anyway compared to watching it on a television screen to get the most out of the visuals.

So if I watch it on an iPhone or other 4-5 inch screen, you think I'd be missing out?

I'd have to think long and hard about that one. Not quite sure.

All this talk of "4 to 5 inches" and "long and hard" is making me all hot and bothered.

Originally posted by jaden101
All this talk of "4 to 5 inches" and "long and hard" is making me all hot and bothered.

Don't worry, in Antichrist, you get a nice close-up of Dafoe's hard 4-5 inches plunging in and out of a vagina in slow-motion.

AWESOME

I may (big emphasis on the "may" see this, but strictly as a popcorn flick with no expectations whatsoever as a credible movie. It's just another Armageddon/Deep Impact re-hash.

Seriously for all the people *cough*Alphacenturai*cough* saying that visuals can't carry a movie is sort of stupid. When I go to see a comedy for instance, I go to laugh. I don't care how stupid the plot is or how bad the effects are... the point of the movie is to make me laugh. If it does that, then its worth my time. Same thing goes to action movies for the most part, except this time the focus is on the visuals. The only thing is a movie like 2012 has to take itself more seriously than a comedy, and so it does need a plot and better acting.... but thats almost a bonus.

I saw transformers two a few months back...... GOD AWFUL movie. It would probably get a 4/10 on a film scale, but a 10/10 on an entertainment scale. But I knew exactly what I was getting myself into and I was fine with it.

the point I'm trying to make is that not every movie has to be some incredibly compelling, emotional experience. sometimes its nice to sit back and just enjoy it.

.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
What does "switch off" mean to you, then?

Because that term is generally said to mean "turn your brain off".

If you have to do that, it's obviously shit. If you switch your brain off you can enjoy anything.

-AC

it means that i can just sit, watch the movie and enjoy it without having to critique everything. a movie like this is never going to win oscars, but that's not the point of it, and i'm pretty sure the director knows that.

some movies, even if they aren't the most well made, can be fun to watch.

i assume you don't like 80s/early 90s action movies then?

I believe it was a stunt double, they had two porn star doubles for the graphic sexual aspects of the film. So don't be sad that you didn't see Dafoes.

Originally posted by Spartan005
Seriously for all the people *cough*Alphacenturai*cough* saying that visuals can't carry a movie is sort of stupid. When I go to see a comedy for instance, I go to laugh. I don't care how stupid the plot is or how bad the effects are... the point of the movie is to make me laugh. If it does that, then its worth my time. Same thing goes to action movies for the most part, except this time the focus is on the visuals. The only thing is a movie like 2012 has to take itself more seriously than a comedy, and so it does need a plot and better acting.... but thats almost a bonus.

I saw transformers two a few months back...... GOD AWFUL movie. It would probably get a 4/10 on a film scale, but a 10/10 on an entertainment scale. But I knew exactly what I was getting myself into and I was fine with it.

the point I'm trying to make is that not every movie has to be some incredibly compelling, emotional experience. sometimes its nice to sit back and just enjoy it.

You do realise I can see that you said my name, right? You typed it. You didn't disguise it as an actual cough.

Anyway, I never said they can't carry a movie...for you. They can't for me. I'm not even saying that a movie needs Oscar worthy plot, I'm saying that if I'm going to dedicate an hour or more of my time and money to sitting in a room and watching a movie, it needs to have more than explosions and action or I'll regret watching it.

I feel like I've wasted time when I watch a movie on TV that I felt was shit, much less paying for it.

Look at 300. The plot was simplistic, the acting wasn't great, but I personally found it very enjoyable. The visuals carry it there, but in a totally different way.

The visuals were crafted, choreographed and carefully planned (The only time Zack Snyder has done it well, in my opinion) out so as to make it enjoyable. It's something someone has planned and worked out.

Precisely the same as in the likes of, as Jaden said, Hero.

In say...I don't know, typical action flicks, the "visuals" are usually just explosions. That's it.

Do you see my point?

-AC

this movie looks retarded. i disagree with everyone who says that making a movie visually stunning makes it entertaining. This isn't the case, in the least bit. From the clips I've seen, the world just randomly begins to fall apart. RETARDED. It's a 2 hour movie about the world... breaking? And these main characters happen to witness ALL OF IT. Even though they took off in a plane at the beginning? Can't wait.

Originally posted by allofyousuckkk
this movie looks retarded. i disagree with everyone who says that making a movie visually stunning makes it entertaining. This isn't the case, in the least bit. From the clips I've seen, the world just randomly begins to fall apart. RETARDED. It's a 2 hour movie about the world... breaking? And these main characters happen to witness ALL OF IT. Even though they took off in a plane at the beginning? Can't wait.

While I don't have any measure of high-hopes for this film, I think you're making it out to be a bit more simplistic than it will be.

Besides the "retarded" end of the world aspect, they'll be a love story, human bonding in the face of peril, probably some warming moment with a loved pet or animal and some measure of redemption for the human race.

1 week people.

I got into a fight with my best friend over this movie. He claims it looks retarded, but then I reminded him that "Grandmas Boy" was his favorite movie for a year.

I won.

Seen a review for this the guy gave it 4 stars but it seems like it was more of comedy for him the way some of the lines are delivered.

Originally posted by Robtard
While I don't have any measure of high-hopes for this film, I think you're making it out to be a bit more simplistic than it will be.

Besides the "retarded" end of the world aspect, they'll be a love story, human bonding in the face of peril, probably some warming moment with a loved pet or animal and some measure of redemption for the human race.

Yeah but in my eyes it's for the average theatergoer who will pay to get into "dance flick" and "disaster movie." Something that doesn't challenge anyone intellectually, in the least bit.. and if anything, makes them dumber for seeing.

Originally posted by allofyousuckkk
Yeah but in my eyes it's for the average theatergoer who will pay to get into "dance flick" and "disaster movie." Something that doesn't challenge anyone intellectually, in the least bit.. and if anything, makes them dumber for seeing.

i can't believe you just compared those two movies to any other movie. at all. they were unbelievably shite. at least 2012 has the possibility of being some good popcorn fun.

Not every film in the world has to challenge people intellectually, there are films to watch just for fun entertainment. Just because people see a film to admire the effects and have entertaining fun while watching it doesn't mean they are dumb or an 'average' cinema person. There are other films to 'challege people intellectually'...

Hi..
Its really good trailer and i am eagerly watching for the movie.. I think Nicolus cage gonna to rock in the movie...

Hey wow... It's released now.
I was so excited to watch this movie and this weekend I have planned it with my friends for watching it.

This was a mediocre disaster movie. Nothing more.

Effects were okay. Seen better, though.

I am just going for the ride thats all......popcorn flick.

Just saw this.....I agree with Backfire.

Originally posted by BackFire
This was a mediocre disaster movie. Nothing more.

Effects were okay. Seen better, though.


It wasnt anything special.....It had no edge....nothing to keep me instrested or on the edge of my seat.


Other people were clapping at the end and at one point in the middle of the movie also.

Good actors though.

Honestly , I'm just going to pass on this. I really have no desire to see this in theaters . How many disaster movies about the same damm thing can one watch?

i liked it. minus the kids i felt that all the actors were likable in their roles and the dialogue and interaction were decent so actually it exceeded my expectations in that regard. The cgi was meh though.

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
i liked it. minus the kids i felt that all the actors were likable in their roles and the dialogue and interaction were decent so actually it exceeded my expectations in that regard. The cgi was meh though.


Really? It looked pretty impressive in the trailer on t.v. Not enough to get me to wanna spend 10 bucks too see it , . . .but just saying.

this was very disappointing... The Day After Tomorrow was MUCH better

Yup.

Some things 2012 was ok, but yes The Day After Tomorrow is a more thrilling movie.

Stargate was one of my all time favorites, 10,000 BC was a bit illogical but also good.

But they are different sort of movies than "2012" which is more like the ones I mentioned.

Originally posted by Bicnarok
Stargate was one of my all time favorites, 10,000 BC was a bit illogical but also good.

But they are different sort of movies than "2012" which is more like the ones I mentioned.


Well , I guess Alien Invasion ( Id4) kinda goes with the End of the world stuff . . . so okay , I gotch ya.

People actually liked 10,000 BC...

10, 0000 BC sucked big time.

10,000 BC sucked mammoth c*cks.

Now -- "One Million Years B.C." is f*cking awesome.

Raquel Welch !!WANK!!

movie is absolute garbage. Theres nothing good about this shitty movie. The only good thing about my experience watching this movie is the fact that i didnt't have to pay for it. I don't have a family so maybe that's why i can never understand these type of movies. It was just....,bad and what hurts so much is that it's obvious that the film tried to be bad so, we can't say that it's so bad it's good. It's just bad, awful. I'm going to go chew on some glass because i need to be punished for watching this movie. bash

So you're saying you did'nt like it?

I liked it. Awesome special effects and very entertaining BUT....

I just wish they could make a big budget disaster movie that was rated R for once. Too much stupid shit happens and lame jokes get thrown in out of nowhere. Like during the incredible LA destruction sequence.... everyting looks amazing, the sound is blasting and intense, and then they throw in the lame grandma joke. Really?

And then there's really little things that bother me. Like how the mom is giving orders to her kids after los angeles got completely destroyed. If that actually happened she would be hysterically crying and holding on to her kids for dear life. But its pg 13 and thats what we get unfortunately

you cant really say what a person would do for sure... people react differently to stress and danger.

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
you cant really say what a person would do for sure... people react differently to stress and danger.

They wouldn't act like they did. Cusack wouldn't immediately start ranting on about how its not just california and bla bla bla... he'd be in complete shock and horror. Think about it, they just witnessed god knows how many thousands of people dying

how can you say that? you know all 6 billion people in the world and know howd they act? would you say that no one person who is afraid of guns and violence would in the middle of a firefight deliberately run into the line of fire of a heavy machine gun dodging bullets and kill everyone in the machine gun nest? because someone has done so. people do crazy stuff when stressed out all the time.