Comments on: Why I’m not seeing 2012, and INDEPENDENCE DAY sequel moves closer

By: Peter Willis

Peter Willis — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 23:43:26 +0000

Just out of the cinema after seeing this. And there is only one thing on my mind…

“We’re gonna need a bigger plane”.

2012 took all the cliches from the past 100 years of cinema, threw in some stunts even James Bond would be proud of, injected it with every imaginable stereotype and ended up with a money-printing crowd pleaser.

Fair play.

By: VideoRaider

VideoRaider — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 15:33:05 +0000

Dude,

You insult Roland, you insult Germany. Nuff said.

By: TONY

TONY — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 01:47:23 +0000

I always bitch about movies I’ve never seen. Because I just have a feeling it’s crap. Or I read other reviews about the film. It’s not such a big deal to write a article bitching about a shitty movie Matt will never see.
I’ve been making fun of 2012 since the first trailer was released. Sometimes you just know when Hollywood makes a stinker and it’s fun to belittle these films.

By: Bob

Bob — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 01:01:17 +0000

“Everything else just gets in the way, dialogue, human emotion etc, and it’s fascinating to see the characters in Emmerich’s movies get less and less and less important as his filmography progresses.”

May not be a full blown review, but that’s a rather specific opinion to have for a film that you haven’t seen.

By: Peter Willis

Peter Willis — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 23:02:44 +0000

But chase – this isn’t a review?

By: Chase Adams

Chase Adams — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 22:14:15 +0000

Gotta agree with Bob. You can’t review a movie based on trailers and past film work. That’s like reviewing a Larry David starring The Producers based on Gene Wilder’s performance.

Look, I don’t like horror film, but for me to trash Saw 22 based on previous Saw movies is just bad form.

By: Mike Edwards

Mike Edwards — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 15:53:49 +0000

Jeez, what’s the frenzy over Matt’s opinion here? He’s basically written that he doesn’t like special effects for their own sake, and therefore won’t watch 2012. I don’t see why that’s amateurish or particularly bad. As to ‘going out of his way’ Bob, he likes to write about film: hence running a film site. How is typing what he thinks ‘going out of his way’?!

By: Bob

Bob — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 12:04:07 +0000

It’s one thing not seeing a movie, it’s another thing going out of your way to write an opinion piece based on a trailer. Just reeks of amateur.

By: Norbert

Norbert — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 11:03:33 +0000

Bob it depends on the way the movie site wants to create itself. Maybe Matt is not really into the blow up everything blowupness and than I see no reason to review one. Also what makes this movie more needed to see than others? More chash spent on ads?

By: Ray

Ray — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 04:32:36 +0000

The flick has terrific special effects, which are, after all, the only reason to make this film or see this film. Anyone who protests this film based on story or characters has missed the point entirely.

Here’s my review:

http://sammyray.com/662/2012/

By: Andy

Andy — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 13:34:32 +0000

Is there anyone out there even bothered about the characters? When I see it I shall be focused solely on the effects. There are a lot of post-apocalyptic films out there, but Emmerich is a rarity in that he loves to delve into how the apocalypse happens. Probably because he’s one of the few who can get the budget to display what’s inside his mind. Call me strange, but I can’t wait to see the world collapse on film, and the fact I’m not forced to care about anyone (hopefully) makes it even better viewing.

By: Bob

Bob — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 13:19:40 +0000

Sorry, but one would assume that a movie website (especially one in its infancy) would not have this petty diva attitude when it comes to major tentpole releases. If, as a casual fan, you don’t intend to see it because it doesn’t interest you, fine, that’s your god given right. But to even begin to critique a film based on a TRAILER is just incomprehensible. I say slam a film all you want if you have seen it. If you haven’t, then why are you even bothering? In fact, why write for this site at all with that attitude?

By: Norbert

Norbert — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 23:23:56 +0000

Bob – besides the marketing campain Matt clearly states he has seen his previous movies. It’s like you bashed people for not watching more of Uwe Boll or Retners movies and still bashing them even though they have a long history of crap.
Do you really think they HAVE to see every movie that is realeased? I tried to do that once but even though I’m very hard to bore when I’m in a cinema (compared to itunes on the laptop or a tv in my flat) they were still some horrible experiences that might have been avoided just by simple thinking. Be reasonable man.

By: Matt Holmes

Matt Holmes — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 20:40:07 +0000

Bob,

Everything I said in the article was spurned on from the feelings I have taken away from the trailers and the overall marketing campaign for 2012, which I believe I made clear.

The other slamming for Emmerich comes from his past filmography, which again I believe I made clear in the article.

And I would have seen 2012 if I had been invited to see it but because Obsessed With Film write about movies we want to write about, and don’t pander to P.R. companies during the film-making and promotional stages…. they didn’t offer us a seat for fear of a bad review, presumably.

But I’m not paying for it, which is my given right. And I’m just telling you why in the article. I did the same with A Christmas Carol too…

http://www.obsessedwithfilm.com/movie-news/rolling-over-in-their-graves.php

And to be fair… the article wasn’t really a slam (although the headline would suggest as much).

It’s the biggest film of the weekend and as I like to do, I’m giving a general consensus from critics around the web, along with a few choice quotes from my favourite reviewers, and details of how much the movie is expected to make.

I dare say the article, if anything, helps promote the movie.

By: Miranda Fox

Miranda Fox — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 17:15:38 +0000

It looks like full scale porn.

Emmerich has invented a new sub-genre: disaster porn!

Anyway, I’m not seeing it. The end-of-the-world film I want to see is The Road.

By: Bryan

Bryan — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 15:17:18 +0000

Amen bob.

By: Bob

Bob — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 14:01:45 +0000

So you write an article slamming a film that you haven’t seen, and don’t intend to see?

And this is why this website will never be anything more than a shoddy fanboy wanksite with no real critical merit.

By: Peter Willis

Peter Willis — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 12:04:14 +0000

I have much respect for my hard earned cash – which is why I will be spending £6.60 of it to go and see 2012!