Last film you watched and your rating

Wedgie wrote:Woody's face of delight when gooseberry fool was going on around him was completely priceless though.

Everytime he was on the scene he stole it. He was terrific actually.

Dblock wrote:The movie 2012.

Just a quick question . When they were in the ship the barriers started closing, how come the russian chick who was in the middle drowned but the whole family nearest to the water didn't. If you seen this film you know what I mean. So many bullshit moments but the cinematic was pretty nice. 7/10

Saw this too. It's a shame I wasn't watching it in HD as some of the effects shots looked amazing. Sterile, but amazing. These were hampered however by one of the worst scripts I've ever seen put to film.

I was listening to a Mark Kermode review the other day that stated that as long as events are presented believably in the universe in which they occur they can be as ridiculous as you like and the audience will still be willing to suspend their disbelief and go with them. It's all about consistency. 2012 is the least consistent film I've ever seen. People make decisions for no reason expect that the script requires them to. These raise many questions including (but are not limited to):

Why would the President stay behind knowing 1) He'd never be needed more than aboard the Arks and 2) he'd known this was coming for years?
Why would the Russian oligarch bring his girlfriend all the way to China just to abandon her?
Why would the scientist who had worked to save the world for 3 years potentially abandon it to save 3 people he'd met once before?

Also, was it just me or would the Arks been much better off had the "heroes" not been there at all? They're the ones who strawberry floated the gate in the first place, meaning that throughout the last half an hour I had no sympathy for them and couldn't care less if they lived or died. "You're the ones who did this in the first place!" I kept thinking. "Serves you right, you almost destroyed humanity!" The "government bad guy" was the one I kept rooting for and the only one who seemed to realise that the entirety of the human race was at stake, and yet we were meant to boo and hiss because he killed a gallery owner who would have instigated international chaos!

Anyway, that's more analysis than this turd deserves. Awful, awful film.

3/10

3/10 That's a bit harsh. I thought the side effects, the cinematics etc were brilliant. Woody was fantastic. There was some humour in it. The whole president thing is understable though isn't it? It is always about the captain not abandoning his ship and earth was his. In other words it was a sublimenal hidden message to the viewers that American presidents own this world and are solely captain of it. The Russian knew the affair she was having and wanted to spite her. I think his plan was to leave the both of them the girl and her lover at the gate with no way of getting in. Revenge at it's best I believe. But the scientist had to go back in there because he felt he didn't do enough for a lot of people like his friend in India, so this was his way of relieving that guilt by saving the family when in actual truth the ship would have sunk like you said thanks to them but without them fixing the issue they all would have died.

3/10 is incredibly harsh.

You're right.

I would have given it 1/10

Agreed. Awful piece of gooseberry fool of a film.

Dblock wrote:Woody was fantastic. There was some humour in it.

No he wasn't. He was awful. I forgot about the humour actually and it ties in with the inconsistency: there were some huge mood shifts in the film. One minute we're looking at the world literally falling apart where we can see crowds of people plummeting to their deaths, the next we're making slapstick jokes about one character being a gooseberry fool pilot a la Wacky Races. The "humour" as it was made the thing much, much worse than if it'd been played straight.

The whole president thing is understable though isn't it?

It might have been if it was presented correctly. However, it was shown as a last minute decision so he could be with his dead wife. This after 3 years of meticulous planning. Again, no consistency.

The Russian knew the affair she was having and wanted to spite her. I think his plan was to leave the both of them the girl and her lover at the gate with no way of getting in. Revenge at it's best I believe.

If he'd been presented as an absolute monster throughout the film then this would have worked. However, in the plane we got to see his softer side and that he actually wasn't all that bad of a guy. Then he leaves his girlfriend and new acquaintances to perish. Again, no consistency.

But the scientist had to go back in there because he felt he didn't do enough for a lot of people like his friend in India, so this was his way of relieving that guilt by saving the family

Do I even need to explain this...inconsistency rules again.

3/10 is incredibly harsh.

I was actually being lenient. It's a 2 - 3/10 film really.

It's a piece of brainless popcorn blockbuster work, not something you should sit back and over-analyse it.

It is a terrible film, yes... But there are much worse films than this.

2012 is much in the same vein as Independence Day. Terrible movie but a good lazy film to sit back and watch.

Wedgie wrote:2012 is much in the same vein as Independence Day. Terrible movie but a good lazy film to sit back and watch.

ID4 had people acting like people for the most part. There were no reaction or decisions that seemed wrong in the context of the events portrayed. That, coupled with the amazing SFX made for a decent popcorn blockbuster. In 2012, people act completely irrationally and the suspense of disbelief is shattered. It's also almost 3 hours long. It's not fit to light ID4's cigar.

Sure, the aliens flow millions of light years, and got undone by a simple computer virus.

Calling it ID4 makes me think I've somehow managed to sleep through three sequels.

Wedgie wrote:Sure, the aliens flow millions of light years, and got undone by a simple computer virus.

Once more, it's not the event alone it's the event in the context of the film. In the context of ID4, attacking the aliens with a computer virus the same way the aliens had used the human's satellites against them has a certain poetic circularity (not to mention being a reference to War of the Worlds). It's ridiculousness is over-ridden by its consistency with the world it's presented in. If 2012 had had a similar situation, Goldblum's character would have volunteered to go alone and changed his mind at the last minute, travelled to the mothership and tried to talk the aliens out of invading before sacrificing himself to save a plucky alien child from the final human attack.

(Edited multiple times for kicks innit.)

Tafdolphin wrote:

Wedgie wrote:Sure, the aliens flow millions of light years, and got undone by a simple computer virus.

Once more, it's not the event alone it's the event in the context of the film. In the context of ID4, attacking the aliens with a computer virus the same way the aliens had used the human's satellites against them has a certain poetic circularity. If 2012 had had a similar situation, Goldblum's character would have volunteered to go alone before changing his mind at the last minute, travelled to the mothership and tried to talk the aliens out of invading before sacrificing himself to save a plucky alien child from the final human attack.

Would have made it more enteraining though.

Dblock wrote:The movie 2012.

Just a quick question . When they were in the ship the barriers started closing, how come the russian chick who was in the middle drowned but the whole family nearest to the water didn't. If you seen this film you know what I mean. So many bullshit moments but the cinematic was pretty nice. 7/10

More importantly, who designed a ship with engines that don't start when the back door is open due to a fault. Or back up doors to keep the water out?

Fatal Exception wrote:

Dblock wrote:The movie 2012.

Just a quick question . When they were in the ship the barriers started closing, how come the russian chick who was in the middle drowned but the whole family nearest to the water didn't. If you seen this film you know what I mean. So many bullshit moments but the cinematic was pretty nice. 7/10

More importantly, who designed a ship with engines that don't start when the back door is open due to a fault. Or back up doors to keep the water out?

strawberry floating Idiots ??

The Russian woman dying was the icing on the cake, for me. Three separate chambers yet only the chamber in the middle completely fills with water. Then no body seems to care that she's dead. I mean, when the doors opened all the water must have drained and then everyone in the end chamber must have had to walk passed her dead body, right? Did they just leave it there?


Wayne's World 2 - yetanotherclassic/10
The Truman Show - 10/10

The Truman Show (ie, the show within the film) really does creep me out. Brilliant film.

Probably got ate by the dog, who also disappeared.

Wedgie wrote:It's a piece of brainless popcorn blockbuster work, not something you should sit back and over-analyse it.

It is a terrible film, yes... But there are much worse films than this.

2012 is much in the same vein as Independence Day. Terrible movie but a good lazy film to sit back and watch.

Leave-your-brain-at-the-door Fun™

yawn

Source Code - 8/10

Don't know what else to say other than that I really enjoyed this. Idea was cool and the acting was good I thought. Ending was a little silly but better than something boring.

Could make a cool game in the style of the original Splinter Cell: Conviction stuff but it would be hard to get it right, as it'd need really good AI and be well designed to prevent you fluking it on the first go.

Precious- 7/10

Igor wrote:Wayne's World 2 - yetanotherclassic/10

Yes! Wayne's World 2 is very underrated.