Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Keep On Trekkin! You are currently viewing our forum as a guest. In order to join in on community discussion and enjoy other member-only features, you must first register an account. Once your registration is complete, you will be able to continue your Trek here at KOT.


Click Here To Register and Join Our Community!

Please contact us HERE if you have any questions or you need assistance with your registration. Posted Image


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Mult-Quote Post Mult-Quote Post
Add Reply
The movie "2012"
Topic Started: Dec 14 2009, 11:04 AM (369 Views)
24thcenstfan
Member Avatar


I went to see the movie “2012” this past weekend. I didn’t have high hopes because it is a disaster movie and it was staring John Cusack. The same with the Director’s work (Roland Emmerich). However, the movie turned out to be somewhat interesting/entertaining.

“2012” is loosly based on the ending Mayan calendar cycle and the potential for cataclysmic events when this happens. The movie starts a couple of years before 2012 when scientists notice certain major geological changes. These changes are happening rapidly and they calculate that by 2012 the world was going to end as we know it ((major earthquakes, land masses changing, the world’s inhabitants all being killed…). All of the major world governments keep this knowledge secret for the next two years while certain life saving plans are made for a select group of people.

The move fast-forwards to 2012 after they set the story up a bit. For the rest of the movie, we have John Cusack's character ("Jackson Curtis") trying to save his family as natural disasters begin to destroy everything and another group of people (a geologist working for the President and others working to enact the final plans started two years ago to save some of Earth’s inhabitants).

John Cusack’s role was not totally dislikeable. The character and his family weren't vital to the movie though except to give it more of a personal touch in regards to how the events were affecting people.

The geologist (“Adrian Helmsley”) I mentioned, is portrayed by Chiwetel Ejiofor. Ejiofor turned out to be the surprise actor in this movie for me. I had seen him in a couple of other movies, but I never imagined him to have this range. I would consider him to be the lead actor in the movie even though focus was split with “Jackson Curtis”.

There were some recognizable/major stars in smaller roles. Some of those roles were hit and miss. Woody Harrelson's role as Charlie Frost was a "miss" IMO. He portrayed a wacky conspiracy theorist type. He was supposed be comedic relief, but that sort of fell flat. Oliver Platt was the jerk off (do what has to be done type). He successfully portrayed his role. Danny Glover was the US President. I thought his role was mediocre. His actions towards the end were note worthy though. Thandie Newton portrayed the US President’s daughter. She wasn’t particularly strong in this role, but she didn’t detract from the movie. Amanda Peet portrayed Jackson Curtis' wife. Nothing strong about the character portrayal, but again not a major detractment from the movie. There was one scene where she was asking another mother for help that was kind of emotion tugging. That's about it.

As far as action and CGI are concerned, there were a few “yeah right” moments, but there were other very good visual moments when for example landmasses were being enveloped by the ocean and other occurrences. There were also “things” (trying not to give it away) that were CGI and very impressive. They surprised me somewhat because I was expecting them to be “something else”.

I definitely think this movie was worth the $5 movie ticket. It ran a little long (158 minutes runtime), but the story ended up being more thought provoking than I thought it would be. It wasn’t just a "mentally check out" action/CGI flick. I woke up early the next morning not being able to sleep wondering about the ramifications of such events and how I thought our governments would act in similar circumstances. I think they would do the same if they could manage to bring together those kinds of resources (in reality). With the backing of that many countries and their resources, it might just be possible. Certain things also happened after the disasters began to die down that made me wonder as well. The events in this movie also saddened me some because I know that I wouldn't be one of those to survive this.

I was going to give this movie 3.5 stars, but for ultimately being more than just your basic action flick, I am going to push the movie up to 3.95 stars. :)
PM Offline Member Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
24thcenstfan
Member Avatar


I came across this article a little while ago. It does not surprise me that the movie has done well there considering the role China plays in the movie '2012'.


'2012' sets box office record in China

Quote:
 
HONG KONG – A publicist says the Hollywood disaster movie "2012" has become China's best-selling movie in history.

A spokesman for state-owned film importer China Film Group told The Associated Press that "2012" has made 460 million Chinese yuan ($67.3 million) as of Dec. 23, eclipsing the previous mark of 450 million yuan set by another Hollywood blockbuster, "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen."

Weng Li also said in third place is the Chinese propaganda movie, "The Founding of a Republic," also released earlier this year.
PM Offline Member Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ImpulseEngine
Member Avatar
Commodore
I have been planning to see this movie, but I'll probably wait until it's out on DVD. I don't believe one tiny bit in the prophecy, but it looks like it could be a good movie. It's nice to hear that you liked it well enough especially after you weren't expecting much.
PM Offline Member Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
24thcenstfan
Member Avatar


ImpulseEngine
Dec 28 2009, 11:29 AM
I have been planning to see this movie, but I'll probably wait until it's out on DVD. I don't believe one tiny bit in the prophecy, but it looks like it could be a good movie. It's nice to hear that you liked it well enough especially after you weren't expecting much.
I don’t think the movie will receive any Academy awards, but I didn’t think it was a total waste of time. :D


Re: The Prophecy.

I’m highly skeptical, but I might stay close to home that day just to be on the safe side. :P

PM Offline Member Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TribbleMom
Member Avatar
Rear Admiral
24thcenstfan
Dec 28 2009, 06:57 PM
Re: The Prophecy.

I’m highly skeptical, but I might stay close to home that day just to be on the safe side. :P

I may hold off on my Christmas shopping that year until the last minute. ;)
PM Offline Member Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
24thcenstfan
Member Avatar


TribbleMom
Jan 1 2010, 11:49 AM
24thcenstfan
Dec 28 2009, 06:57 PM
Re: The Prophecy.

I’m highly skeptical, but I might stay close to home that day just to be on the safe side. :P

I may hold off on my Christmas shopping that year until the last minute. ;)
:lol:

Yep, "the big day" is just two days before Christmas.
PM Offline Member Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
24thcenstfan
Member Avatar


This is an interesting turn of events. I didn't think you could sue over something like this.

I wondered why (then and now) the Director had chosen to focus more on the destruction of Christian symbols/places in the movie...

Church upset Roland Emmerich destroyed Jesus in 2012

Quote:
 
Posted Image

Remember when director Roland Emmerich was too afraid to destroy an Islamic landmark in his disaster movie 2012 but was OK with smashing Christian symbols, such as Rio de Janeiro's famed Christ the Redeemer statue?

Guess he should have thought twice about that one, too, at least in light of a lawsuit announced Wednesday by Brazil's Catholic Church, the AFP reported:

Rio de Janeiro's archdiocese is demanding unspecified damages and interest from Columbia Pictures for showing the iconic landmark being destroyed in a worldwide apocalypse in a film that came out last year, the archdiocese's attorney, Claudine Dutra, said.

The archdiocese manages copyright issues related to the 40-meter (130-foot) high statue erected in 1931, which overlooks Rio with its arms outstretched.

Under Brazilian law, copyright resides in the author of a work until his death, and then is passed on to his heirs or estate or successor entity for another 70 years.


Reportedly, Columbia asked for permission to depict the statue but was rebuffed, then went ahead and used it anyway. The studio and the church have supposedly been talking about a settlement without success.

What next? The Vatican suing because Emmerich destroyed the Sistine Chapel as well?
PM Offline Member Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · Science Fiction · Next Topic »
Add Reply


DISCLAIMER (Click and Scroll to read): Keep On Trekkin’ is a Science Fiction discussion community. We are not officially associated with, or endorsed by, Paramount Pictures Corporation, CBS Studios Inc. or Viacom Inc. Star Trek®, in all its various forms, is a registered trademark of Paramount Pictures Corporation (CBS/Paramount Television and CBS Studios Inc.). Any Star Trek® image used at this website will be for decorative or informational purposes only. Star Trek artwork 2008 PARAMOUNT PICTURES. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. All other trademarks and copyrights are the property of their respective holders. All themes used here at Keep On Trekkin' (unless otherwise notated on the theme) were created by 24thcenstfan. Special thanks to everyone who has provided emoticons, graphics and other services used for the creation of this website. Opinions expressed by the membership here at Keep On Trekkin’ do not reflect those of the Administrator of this Board or ZetaBoards.