:2012

Ah, Roland Emmerich. Like Michael Bay, he's obsessed with CGI-infested explosions and end-of-the-world scenarios. The only difference between the two? One's a bad director with a cool name, and the other is a terrible demotions expert with a last name that's three letters long. Moving on, though, I didn't expect anything from 2012 and, as expected, I didn't get anything from 2012 either.

The film follows a variety of individuals - politicians, failed authors, monks, and more - as they attempt to survive the onslaught that befalls the world on the dreaded year of 2012. 2012, according to a maybe-accurately-read prophecy made by the Mayans, would spell out the end of the world as we know it.

I'd say more about the plot, but let's not kid ourselves. Aside from a couple of paper-thin narratives that a prepubescent boy could have come up with, 2012 is all about effects, big explosions, and more effects. There's nothing interesting about any of these people in the story, mostly due to how poorly written they all are. I don't care what actors are in this movie, whether it be Woody Harrelson or John Cusack, no performance can make up for writing this bad. "Oh, honey, nothing can split us apart", says the doctor, the ground splitting the two apart. What are the odds, am I right? "We are going to live, and you're going to DIE" says a fat kid with a bad Russian accent, going onto an airplane that later crashes. Again, what are the odds?

It's bad from the start, really. So bad, in fact, that if you have a few friends over and you've all got a good sense of humor, you could easily make a decent MST3K session. Or, to be more understandable, it's so bad that it's good. I'll even give you a starter - when you see Woody Harrelson, make a Boo Radley reference. Hilarity ensues.

Even if you're only looking for good effects in 2012, you'll be quite disappointed. All of the action, explosions, and what have you, are infested with bothersome CGI. I don't hate CGI, but it fills this film to the point of nausea. What happened to the days of real explosions? Are we too good or too cool for that now? I mean, everything effects-wise looks so fake in 2012, that it's actually kind of disappointing. There are really only two scenes that are visually-striking, both of which appear toward the end.

Another thing I'd like to complain about is how long this movie is. 2 1/2 hours of paper-thin characters and fake explosives? Even MST3Kers are going to find it difficult to keep their attention on the film, as there's virtually nothing of interest ever happening in the film.

Paper-thin characters, nauseating CGI-infested effects, and a dragging pace, 2012 has little to nothing to offer. I mean, really, this film was only made to capitalize on the latest "end of the world" theory. The only good thing about it is how much fun MST3K fans will have with this film.

2/10 - Terrible





Join the Discussion

This article has 2 comments. Post your own now!

iNFATUATED said...
Apr. 6, 2010 at 1:02 pm
The movie, i will agree with you, was a little horrblie. i wouldn't watch it again or even buy the dvd. let me just this, the effects where amazing.
 
itms123 said...
Mar. 30, 2010 at 11:23 am

this movie was actually good!!! Listen, i understand that you have your opinion but this movie ROCKED and your opinion sucks!!!!! So no one cares if you think its horrible almost everybody thinks its awesome

 

 
bRealTime banner ad on the left side
Site Feedback