55. 2012 (2009)



Roger's Rating :


Should be :


If you are going to make a bad movie please keep it short. This disaster of a movie went on for 158 minutes. I was really cheering for the world to end much, much sooner.
I very seldom see a movie with this low of a rating on IMDB (5.9), but Roger gave it 3 1/2 stars so I figured I had to see it.
I like sci-fi and I especially like apocalyptic movies. I also really like John Cusack, so I was hoping to like this movie, but I didn't. It was slow and boring.
In his review Roger said : "This is fun. 2012 delivers what it promises, and since no sentient being will buy a ticket expecting anything else, it will be, for its audiences, one of the most satisfactory films of the year. It even has real actors in it. Like all the best disaster movies, it's funniest at its most hysterical. You think you've seen end-of-the-world movies? This one ends the world, stomps on it, grinds it up and spits it out."
At Rotten Tomatoes the critics have it at 39%. Peter Travers from Rolling Stone said "Beware 2012, which works the dubious miracle of almost matching Transformers 2 for sheer, cynical, mind-numbing, time-wasting, money-draining, soul-sucking stupidity."


2 comments:

kuss bebe said...

It is an end of the world film, why the hell are critics and people want a great story with amazing characters like the godfather in an end of the world movie. These movies are just for watching the world get destroyed, and Ebert is right about it, it had amazing CGI and some great moments, and kind of wrapped its story amazingly. Just because it doesn't have a twist at the end, or great acting doesn't mean it is a bad movie.

John Mikkiah Thompson said...

I actually enjoyed 2012! I loved the visuals & I actually like the acting in this movie & I gave it 3 out of 4 for this movie! Roland Emmerich is a genius!


Roger's Facebook Post

Roger's Twitter

Total Pageviews