13
Nov
09

“2012”: Why did I even bother?

I really had no intentions of seeing 2012. None. I knew from the previews that it was going to be impossibly lame. Bad characters. No plot. Just big disaster after big disaster, with characters impossibly escaping tragedy after tragedy.

And that’s what it was, for almost 3 hours.

Three hours of my life that I could have productively spent scraping wallpaper or downloading porn or napping or something — cause anything would have been better than this movie.

Luckily, they didn’t get into all the “2012” hype — like the Mayans and every other ancient culture has apparently predicted the end of the world in 2012 due to the solar system’s alignment with the center of the Milky Way or some-such. That all earned a brief mention. Oh, there’s some sciency hogwash that they throw in about huge solar flares unleashing altered neutrinos that somehow superheat the Earth’s core and cause the crust to slip and slide, but it’s just so impossibly stupid that I decided to shut my brain down during those moments.

“2012” is really just disaster scene after disaster scene after disaster scene, followed by snotty emo kid making a comment to his dad, his dad being sad, and then more disaster. It’s eye-stabbingly cliche when there wasn’t a disaster scene going on — but luckily for the audience, it’s 90% disaster scenes.

Here’s the type of person who would love this movie :

  • You think “Two and a Half Men” is brilliant, award-winning comedy.
  • You loved the scene in “Independence Day” when the dog evades the flaming doom in the tunnel by jumping in the little service nook because it was totally believable.
  • You cried during “Deep Impact,” and it wasn’t due to the acting.
  • You screamed “Run!” when the icy chill was closing in on everyone in the library during “A Day After Tomorrow.”
  • You are the type who would make Isaac Newton cry because of your complete disdain of physics. (“What is this ‘physics’ thing you speak of?”)

But if you’re like the rest of us who just want your physics to be not laugh-out-loud bad, just watch this video and save yourself the $5-$10.

Or better yet, if I saved you the time and money, donate what you would have paid to Burgh Baby’s Christmas Crazy fund. Do something good other than line Roland Emmerich’s pockets. I think I have to donate just for penance.

Unless you like your disaster movies with a healthy heap of cheese, there is no reason to see this flick. I mean, it’s astoundingly bad — and I enjoy bad movies. As a good buddy of mine always says, “Roland Emmerich makes Michael Bay look like Stanley Kubrick.” And you know, I think he’s right.

Advertisements

4 Responses to ““2012”: Why did I even bother?”


  1. 1 JermCool
    November 13, 2009 at 5:40 pm

    Now I have to go see it! I love the really, really bad. I am still trying to convince Trace to buy Twilight.

    And you die more.

  2. 2 Mike
    November 13, 2009 at 5:51 pm

    I laughed out loud when you described the people who will love the movie.

  3. 3 Lightweight
    November 13, 2009 at 8:11 pm

    Boo! I’m a fan of Two and A Half Men, but you couldn’t buy my ticket and popcorn for me to go see this movie!

    • November 13, 2009 at 9:09 pm

      I stand by my “Two and a Half Men” slur.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow me, Twittering fools!

Archives

Blog Stats

  • 27,977 hits

%d bloggers like this: