And it's why Roland Emmerich will always pull me back into the theater (unlike Michael Bay, who I've given up on) no matter how many crappy Touching Moments between "characters" that you don't give a shit about that he shoehorns into these disaster flicks of his. Via Ebert's review:"The tectonic plates shift so violently scientists can almost see them on Google Earth. This havoc requires stupendous special effects. Emmerich's budget was $250 million, and "2012" may contain more f/x in total running time than any other film. They're impressive. Not always convincing, because how can the flooding of the Himalayas be made convincing? And Emmerich gives us time to regard the effects and appreciate them, even savor them, unlike the ADD generation and its quick-cutting Bay-cams."
What I don't get is how this movie can not be playing in IMAX. WTF, Roland Emmerich? Or even 3D! IMAX 3D! Can you imagine? I'm being entirely serious here, by the way. I want to see the entire population of Los Angeles slide into the ocean RIGHT AT MY FACE AND TEN STORIES TALL. But no! I am denied. That's just cruel, Roland Emmerich.
.
Posts
1 comment:
I saw "2012" Friday night and...I LOVED it. It was one of the better movies in the disaster genre that I've seen in the past decade.
I absolutely do not get why this film is getting such bad reviews. Especially when I think about the decent reviews that The Day After Tomorrow got; 2012 was a 100x better than that movie.
The special effects were great. Especially compared to the ones used in "Avatar" that I saw in the previews before. I just don't get it.
Post a Comment