2012
RYAN: I’m so excited about “2012” because the special effects look so amazing… but sadly, I missed this screening with you. I’m sure you would have been grabbing my arm the whole time. How was it?
CAROLINE: Actually, it kind of stank. I was anticipating great special effects too, which it does have; but the script is so bad that the audience was laughing out loud at inappropriate moments.
RYAN: Was it really that poorly written?
CAROLINE: It’s just full of clichés and everything you’ve seen before in a disaster movie. I was never engaged and I didn’t really care what happened to the characters, which is never a good thing.
RYAN: That’s a problem. But did it ever make you think that maybe this Mayan prophecy could happen? Like, what if this all came true?
CAROLINE: Not really because it was all so over the top with the earthquakes, tsunamis and various other crises. The special effects are amazing and very real-looking, but it’s too much. There’s never a dull moment but not in a good way. I think I would have appreciated the effects more if they only appeared in a few exciting sequences. But as it is, you’re just sitting there thinking, “Oh, another disaster scene. I get it.”
RYAN: What a buzzkill. How is John Cusack in the Will Smith role?
CAROLINE: He’s fine, but he so clearly did this for the paycheck. It’s just not a very good movie. I forgot it the minute I left the theater.
RYAN: I’m seriously disappointed. It seemed like a summer blockbuster coming out in the fall, and I was in the mood for great effects on top of a great story.
CAROLINE: You should still see it if you want awesome special effects. I just think you’ll get desensitized to them after a while because almost every scene has them.
— BOTTOM LINE —
CAROLINE: It’s well made and the effects look great, but it’s such a weak plot. The fact that the world was ending and people were dying and I didn’t care at all was not good. I didn’t hate it and I didn’t laugh at it, but I sort of understood why everyone else did. I think we’ve seen this movie many times before.
— RATING —