Looking for a specific film review? CLICK BELOW

0-9 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z / Trailers / DVD Store


July 30, 2010
Friday Rewind: 2012 (2009)
***Originally posted November 19, 2009***


Should I see it?

If your brain is not connected to your spinal column, then yes.


Short Review: It’s as bombastic as it is ill conceived, which is fancy way of saying its loud and stupid.


2012 movie poster
John Cusack is in his forties and is still playing half-man schlubs who can’t manage relationships. His character Jackson Curtis is broken down, broken-hearted and just plain broke. His ex-wife Kate (Amanda Peet) has left him. His kids loathe his mere presence. In a way, this film is like seeing Better Off Dead as done by Michael Bay.

This is a horrendous film.

Awful.

Lousy.

Thankfully it is also a bloated disaster movie so it doesn’t really matter. All the film has to do is flash lights to distract from its limping plot in order to be successful. The only reason to see this film is to watch the end of the world in glorious high definition. Writer/Director Roland Emmerich (Independence Day, Godzilla, 10,000 B.C.) promises to deliver the apocalypse with as few words as possible. He delivers on his promise.

What I found amazing is that Emmerich still bothers trying to shoehorn relationship issues into the end of days. At one point Jackson and Kate have a quiet moment together. She complains that Jackson spent too much time working and not enough time with his family. They literally just watched billions of people perish, the totality of human civilization has been destroyed and she is still nagging at the poor sap. I guess we can see why things didn't work out them.

The problem with trying to pull off character development in a film like this is that once you show the USS John F. Kennedy on a tsunami wave crashing into the White House and killing the President, it's a little much to ask us to care about the gripes from John Cusack’s ex-wife.

If you are only interested in seeing crashing buildings, ridiculous plot contrivances and perilous escapes, this will be a good pick. If you have the tendency to pause while watching movies and consider how reality actually works, you will probably still enjoy it because it’s dang funny from that angle.

I laughed constantly through the film. Here is a moment which sums up the film for me. Jackson is driving a limo through Los Angeles as the city is literally falling to pieces. A building crashes down in front of him. He jumps the limo into the side of the falling building, drives the car across a floor, speeding through a business office, crashes out of a window and manages to land safely on the highway on the other side. If you can handle that level of dumb, knock yourself out.


Worldview: I was struck by Emmerich's treatment of faith. Every once in a while someone would casually mention that “its time to start praying”. Other than these passing nods to the notion that some people may or may not possibly consider asking for mercy from something that maybe perhaps might be something kinda like a God or something or who knows what, there is a remarkable absence of any real faith. The President begins to quote scripture at one point, but he is cut off before he finishes. The world is ending, billions are dying, and the only references to Jesus Christ are when characters are cursing.

Emmerich is very deliberate in his presentation of religion in this film, particularly when it comes to the destruction of iconic places. Emmerich is given credit for popularizing the destruction of landmarks in action/disaster movies. The White House being blown up in Independence Day started the trend. Destroying the White House, Washington Monument, and other landmarks serves to pervert the “Death of God Image" I’ve discussed before.

In this film, Emmerich takes the Death of God Image and runs with it. He not only shows the Christ the Redeemer Statue in Brazil crumbling, but he stops the movie cold to spend time at the Vatican. Thousands of Catholics are crowded outside of Saint Peter’s Cathedral as the Pope looks down on them from the balcony. Inside, a collection of cardinals huddle in a circle praying. As the room begins to shake they look upward to see the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel (apparently its been moved). The ceiling cracks and splits, severing the famous fingers of God and Adam. Suddenly, the Saint Peter’s Basilica plops over on its side and rolls over all of the collected Catholics killing the faithful like a big rolling pin made out of cosmic irony.

Beyond the obvious “imagine if they did this to any other group” argument, I need to point out that Emmerich goes out of his way to avoid showing large groups of people in this film. All of L.A. is destroyed but we only witness a few dozen actual deaths. The crowds that are killed on screen are shown from vast distances or are represented by focusing tightly on the fearful face of a known character.

The deaths at the Vatican are the only crowd shown killed in a specific, almost devious way. This is not by accident. Emmerich himself admits that the destruction of religious locations is intentional – in particular his choice in showing Christians getting it.


When asked about destroying Christ the Redeemer Emmerich explains,

"Because I'm against organized religion,"

For those playing at home, here is the math: Catholics = Let's drop one of their most precious places on their stupid heads. Islam = Let's not upset the poor dears, otherwise they may start acting wonky and hurting people - can't imagine what that would be like.


Cautions: There's death and destruction. There's some foul language and a few instances of people taking Christ's name in vain. Beyond these infractions, there's not too much that is worth being cautioned over (regarding the content).



Once you see the film read what follows:

Two items:

Congratulations! The good news: you’ve been cast in a huge Hollywood blockbuster. The bad news: Your character arc is that you learn to stop peeing the bed at night.

So, the world’s elite are given the chance to buy a seat on the arks. In the end the world leaders come together to allow some stranded folk into their ships. This is used to show how we maintain our humanity. Yeah, about that, the stranded people are also rich elites who also bought their way onto the arks. So, other than some Chinese slaves, the survivors of humanity are all billionaires. Each have drained their resources from the rest of the world so they could comfortably survive the hell on Earth they left for everyone else. The worst of humanity gets to live. Nice message.


Click here to buy your copy of Scott Nehring Good News Film Reviews
You Are What You See:
Watching Movies Through a Christian Lens



Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,



Share






November 19, 2009
2012 (2009)
If your brain is not connected to your spinal column, then yes.


Short Review: It’s as bombastic as it is ill conceived, which is fancy way of saying its loud and stupid.


2012 movie poster
John Cusack is in his forties and is still playing half-man schlubs who can’t manage relationships. His character Jackson Curtis is broken down, broken-hearted and just plain broke. His ex-wife Kate (Amanda Peet) has left him. His kids loathe his mere presence. In a way, this film is like seeing Better Off Dead as done by Michael Bay.

This is a horrendous film.

Awful.

Lousy.

Thankfully it is also a bloated disaster movie so it doesn’t really matter. All the film has to do is flash lights to distract from its limping plot in order to be successful. The only reason to see this film is to watch the end of the world in glorious high definition. Writer/Director Roland Emmerich (Independence Day, Godzilla, 10,000 B.C.) promises to deliver the apocalypse with as few words as possible. He delivers on his promise.

What I found amazing is that Emmerich still bothers trying to shoehorn relationship issues into the end of days. At one point Jackson and Kate have a quiet moment together. She complains that Jackson spent too much time working and not enough time with his family. They literally just watched billions of people perish, the totality of human civilization has been destroyed and she is still nagging at the poor sap. I guess we can see why things didn't work out them.

The problem with trying to pull off character development in a film like this is that once you show the USS John F. Kennedy on a tsunami wave crashing into the White House and killing the President, it's a little much to ask us to care about the gripes from John Cusack’s ex-wife.

If you are only interested in seeing crashing buildings, ridiculous plot contrivances and perilous escapes, this will be a good pick. If you have the tendency to pause while watching movies and consider how reality actually works, you will probably still enjoy it because it’s dang funny from that angle.

I laughed constantly through the film. Here is a moment which sums up the film for me. Jackson is driving a limo through Los Angeles as the city is literally falling to pieces. A building crashes down in front of him. He jumps the limo into the side of the falling building, drives the car across a floor, speeding through a business office, crashes out of a window and manages to land safely on the highway on the other side. If you can handle that level of dumb, knock yourself out.


Worldview: I was struck by Emmerich's treatment of faith. Every once in a while someone would casually mention that “its time to start praying”. Other than these passing nods to the notion that some people may or may not possibly consider asking for mercy from something that maybe perhaps might be something kinda like a God or something or who knows what, there is a remarkable absence of any real faith. The President begins to quote scripture at one point, but he is cut off before he finishes. The world is ending, billions are dying, and the only references to Jesus Christ are when characters are cursing.

Emmerich is very deliberate in his presentation of religion in this film, particularly when it comes to the destruction of iconic places. Emmerich is given credit for popularizing the destruction of landmarks in action/disaster movies. The White House being blown up in Independence Day started the trend. Destroying the White House, Washington Monument, and other landmarks serves to pervert the “Death of God Image" I’ve discussed before.

In this film, Emmerich takes the Death of God Image and runs with it. He not only shows the Christ the Redeemer Statue in Brazil crumbling, but he stops the movie cold to spend time at the Vatican. Thousands of Catholics are crowded outside of Saint Peter’s Cathedral as the Pope looks down on them from the balcony. Inside, a collection of cardinals huddle in a circle praying. As the room begins to shake they look upward to see the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel (apparently its been moved). The ceiling cracks and splits, severing the famous fingers of God and Adam. Suddenly, the Saint Peter’s Basilica plops over on its side and rolls over all of the collected Catholics killing the faithful like a big rolling pin made out of cosmic irony.

Beyond the obvious “imagine if they did this to any other group” argument, I need to point out that Emmerich goes out of his way to avoid showing large groups of people in this film. All of L.A. is destroyed but we only witness a few dozen actual deaths. The crowds that are killed on screen are shown from vast distances or are represented by focusing tightly on the fearful face of a known character.

The deaths at the Vatican are the only crowd shown killed in a specific, almost devious way. This is not by accident. Emmerich himself admits that the destruction of religious locations is intentional – in particular his choice in showing Christians getting it.


When asked about destroying Christ the Redeemer Emmerich explains,

"Because I'm against organized religion,"

For those playing at home, here is the math: Catholics = Let's drop one of their most precious places on their stupid heads. Islam = Let's not upset the poor dears, otherwise they may start acting wonky and hurting people - can't imagine what that would be like.


Cautions: There's death and destruction. There's some foul language and a few instances of people taking Christ's name in vain. Beyond these infractions, there's not too much that is worth being cautioned over (regarding the content).




Once you see the film read what follows:

Two items:

Congratulations! The Good News: you’ve been cast in a huge Hollywood blockbuster. The Bad News: Your character arc is that you learn to stop peeing the bed at night.

So, the world’s elite are given the chance to buy a seat on the arks. In the end the world leaders come together to allow some stranded folk into their ships. This is used to show how we maintain our humanity. Yeah, about that, the stranded people are also rich elites who also bought their way onto the arks. So, other than some Chinese slaves, the survivors of humanity are all billionaires who drained their resources from the rest of the world so they could comfortably survive the hell on Earth they left for everyone else. The worst of humanity gets to live. Nice message.


Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,



Share






November 18, 2009
Movie Trailer: 2012
Do you really want to spend the end of the world hanging around John Cusack?





Screenwriters: Roland Emmerich (Godzilla) and Harold Kloser (10,000 B.C.)
Director: Roland Emmerich (Independence Day)
Actors: John Cusack (Better Off Dead), Thandie Newton (Rocknrolla), Woody Harrelson (No Country for Old Men), Amanda Peet (The Whole Nine Yards), Chiwetel Ejiofor (Redbelt), Oliver Platt (Casanova), Danny Glover (Lethal Weapon) and Morgan Lily (Henry Poole is Here)




Labels: , , , , , , , ,



Share






February 9, 2009
Rocknrolla (2008)
Should I see it?
No.


My one year old daughter will make a face or say something that gets a laugh from her mother and me. Flushed with the attention she receives, she will do the shtick again in hopes of getting the same reaction. Sometimes it works out for her. If so, she will then do a third, fourth and sometimes a fifth time. The longer the trick goes on the less effective it is. Unlike Guy Ritchie, my one year old daughter has the sense to stop her routine when it fails to get results.

This is the same old same old hyper-stylized, popping paced, snap edited "ain't we too cool for the room" dribble we've seen before. When writer/director hit the scene with Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels his style was exciting and new. He make a statement and his fresh voice was heard. When he broke and took the next step with his follow up Snatch he seemed like he was a notable rising power in cinema. A film maker with a talent for crime flicks. Like a British Tarantino but without the massive cranium and he didn't come across as someone desperately making up for his missing dad. Then Richie stagnated and hasn't grown one bit. If you have seen his first two films you've seen this one.

The thing that strikes me about this film is how immensely controlled it feels. Every shot is obviously carefully planned, the design work is obvious and the characterizations are calculated. I never felt as if I were doing anything but watching a very elaborate movie. This is not a good quality since it means I was never able to "get lost" in the movie. Ritchie's governing hand is seen the whole time, he may as well be heard yelling out direction in the background of all of his scenes.

The performances by the likes of Tom Wilkinson, Gerald Butler, Mark Strong, Idris Elba and Thandie Newton are passable. They all strut across the screen with appropriate confidence and toughness but it is all hollow. Their lines are contrived and sound like dialog not actual people talking. They may have done admirable jobs delivering their roles but the combined end product is completely soulless. This drains their efforts of any value.

Ritchie opens his film with a fat knot of facts, motivations and plot all delivered in a kinetic package. The opening five minutes is more flashy and distracting that most children's cereal commercials. One would expect the film to settle a bit as it moves forward so the audience can register the ideas presented in the flurry but Ritchie chooses to keep the flashiness up. We're given more characters, all are oh, so cool and posed, more conniving and more deliberate camera work. This continues throughout the film until Ritchie has devised a Rube Goldberg contraption for a plot that all fires off at once only to provide the uninspiring result of a lighter being snapped on. The problem with creating multi-layered, complicated narratives is that you had better make it worth people's time. This film doesn't meet that criterion.


Related Reviews:
Crime movies
Rififi (1955)
Layer Cake (2003)


Other Critic’s Reviews:
Hollywood Jesus
Den of Geek

Labels: , , , , , , , ,



Share






August 3, 2008
Movie Trailer: Rocknrolla
Guy Ritchie's style reinvigorated the gangster genre and produced two very clever and watchable movies (Snatch and Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels). Both were sharp and funny while also being foul and violent. Despite the low characters and amoral worldview of the films they were both well done and fun to view. Ritchie then got hooked up with Madonna and then in Lennon/Yoko Ono fashion, he veered off the course that made him notable and he released junk films that no one wanted to see. This film returns him to where he is strongest, making amoral English gangster flicks with plenty of editing tricks and cool music.

Obviously, this will be a violent and morally retarded affair. Ritchie's talents are plain to see but he chooses to spend them on promoting criminal behavior. In this sense he's like Tarantino but with better taste.






Screenwriter: Guy Ritchie (Snatch)
Director: Guy Ritchie (Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels)
Actors: Gerald Butler (300), Gemma Arterton (Quantum of Solace), Jeremy Piven (The Kingdom), Tom Wilkinson (Michael Clayton), and Thandie Newton (Crash)

Labels: , , , , , ,



Share






July 28, 2008
Movie Trailer: W
I can't think of anything more boring and tedious. Giving ol' W. a shot in the shins before leaving office, Oliver Stone has broken away from fawning over criminal dictator Fidel Castro long enough to make this completely unneeded biography of George W. Bush. Presidential politics is fascinating stuff, cheap gossip is not. Is it possible Stone isn't serving up just another Bush bash? Sure. Given that his trailer focuses on the weaker parts of Bush's character, it seems very unlikely however. The impressive cast couldn't look more ridiculous. I hope they're going to have name tags on the whole time so we know who they're trying to portray.

Sure, some may see making a film ragging on a sitting President in a time of war as being at best in bad taste. and at worst near treasonous. You have to admit, no matter how much of a hit piece this is it is a thousand times better than making a movie about Bill Clinton. First off, there would be the issue of trying to get around an NC-17 Rating. In addition, what do you call it? "You Put What Where?"

Check out the teaser trailer for Stone's very important and very serious movie below.


Return to the Movie Trailer Page


Screenwriters: Stanley Weiser (Wall Street)
Director: Oliver Stone (JFK)
Actors: Josh Brolin (No Country for Old Men), Elizabeth Banks (Zack and Miri Make a Porno), Ioan Gruffudd (Amazing Grace), Thandie Newton (The Pursuit of Happyness), and Ellen Burstyn (The Fountain),


Labels: , , , , , ,



Share






March 17, 2008
Movie Trailer: Run Fatboy Run
Click here for the official site



Click here to return to the Movie Trailer Page


Director: David Schwimmer (Yes, the guy from Friends)
Screenwriters: Michael Ian Black (Yes, Johnny Blue Jeans (there's an esoteric reference), Simon Pegg (Hot Fuzz)
Actors: Simon Pegg, Thandie Newton (The Pursuit of Happyness), Hank Azaria (Mystery, Alaska)


Labels: , , , ,



Share