What is Digg?Sponsored by Bing
Need a Vacation? view!
bing.com - Bing(tm) scans 1 billion+ airfares to locate the ones that meet or beat the record low. Check every day.
178 Comments
- aVaultDweller, on 11/14/2009, -0/+146I thought Transformers 2 already proved this?
- telepwn, on 11/15/2009, -10/+71what's wrong with just wanting to see ***** get destroyed for a couple hours once in a while?
- Khirzask, on 11/15/2009, -4/+51I saw 2012 tonight, loved every minute of it. But that's because I went into the theater wanting to see a whole lot of ***** blowing up and cities around the world getting wrecked. And man, that's what I got! I know that the Yellowstone supervolcano would probably never look like the biggest hydrogen bomb ever detonating over forest, but did I care? Nope. In fact, that was one of the sickest explosions I've seen in a while.
I left the theater thoroughly entertained and not at all disappointed. The way I see it, if you walk into 2012 or any comparable disaster porn movie looking for groundbreaking acting and sophisticated plot, you're GOING to be disappointed. Instead, just sit back and watch the world get wrecked. It can be therapeutic after a long day. - MacroDaemon, on 11/15/2009, -4/+51It's an emmerich disaster porn movie. If these reviewers were reviewing anything but the cg, they were idiots.
This sums it up:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZW2qxFkcLM0 - Browzer, on 11/15/2009, -5/+38Roger Ebert actually liked it. He gave it 3.5/4 stars.
I saw the movie today, and it delivers exactly what it promises. My biggest complaint is that some of the coincidences stretch the bounds of credibility. I don't care about how messed up the science is or whether a volcano looks like an A-bomb. But when you have characters that just happen to meet each other at exactly the right moment....that is lazy story telling. Or when a famous aircraft carrier smashes directly into the White House....or when a huge boat rashes into Mt Everest...etc... It's like these geographical landmarks have some type of special gravity that makes everything smash into them. - BrandonJM, on 11/14/2009, -2/+30This is news?
- searcade, on 11/14/2009, -8/+31I actually watched it for the effects, the story sucked and i knew it would have... plus there wasn't much left for me to watch.
- wesball, on 11/15/2009, -3/+26It's called spectacle.
Audiences have always payed well for it... - Leakey, on 11/15/2009, -6/+28Maybe American audiences don't pay much attention to reviewers. Sometimes, especially if I've been busy, I'm happy to see a movie that may be unbelievable, but is fun - so that I don't have to think too hard.
- Averness, on 11/15/2009, -1/+21Reviewers said that Independence Day was a bad movie. ***** that *****. It was awesome, and most people agree. This is why people don't trust reviewers.
- tgc1, on 11/15/2009, -12/+30This proves only one of two things. People are REALLY *****' bored on a friday night and need entertainment. At any cost. OR that people are getting REALLY ***** stupid.
- DrNemo, on 11/15/2009, -1/+19Reviews are relevant to people who love cinema, but not so much for those who just looks for easy entertainment. I don't think a movie like Aguirre would appeal to the audiences who go see 2012, even though Aguirre holds a score of 97% on RT while 2012 holds one of 39% currently.
- monkeyrun, on 11/15/2009, -6/+23If Paranormal Activity gets 85% on rottentomato, then 2012 should at least get 90%.
- DaviDTC, on 11/15/2009, -1/+17Well they got 3 years to remake this 200 times. History channel and syfy have been running shows on 2012 for a while now. One of them was even saying we are already seeing the effects of 2012. Unless I am confused, we are seeing the effects of this year and the previous years. What happens in 2012 hasn't done anything to us yet, except for the Large Hadron Collider that keeps coming back in time to stop itself from working.
- Stoyanov, on 11/15/2009, -3/+18My thoughts exactly. Take the movie for what it's worth. It delivers.
- counterplex, on 11/15/2009, -0/+15It's official! Diggers comment despite poor rewards.
- ArrowheadAddict, on 11/14/2009, -6/+18Movie critics idiots? I almost never disagree with Peter Travers, and anything under 40% on Rotten Tomatoes is guaranteed to suck, with basically no exceptions. They usually get it right, if you ask me. Reading movie reviews is no diferent than running CARFAX when getting ready to buy a new car. Or asking around when you meet a new girl/guy. It's smart to keep yourself from getting a lemon.
- DeathfireD, on 11/15/2009, -1/+12Rotten tomatoes shows a perfect example of what critics think vs what people think. The majority of the time what critics vote as being amazing is really *****. Press "RT community" to see what real people think. I bet you'll see it being the opposite of what the critics think.
- ArrowheadAddict, on 11/15/2009, -4/+14Here’s how I break down what kind of films you get at what percentages on RT:
90-100: Always at least very good, if not classic. Pretty much impossible not to at least appreciate films in this review range.
75-89: Strong, strong film. Sometimes even great or classic. Almost everyone is going to like almost all of these films.
60-74: Typically enjoyable, but flawed. Most of the time most people will enjoy these films.
40-59: I still go see films in this review range if I really want to see them, and sometimes I even enjoy them (Terminator Salvation). Once in a blue moon, the critics will screw up and score a movie too low, i.e. 2006’s The Fountain (51). Most of these films, however, are bad.
30-39: I’d say that maybe a couple out of every hundred in this range, a handful tops, are worth a damn on any level.
20-29: A really good movie in this range is almost like a winning lottery ticket, except less common.
0-19: Uwe Boll might as well have directed it. - Golarian, on 11/15/2009, -2/+11It's not bad movies, it's movies with hundreds of millions of dollars spent in special effects. Delicious CGI.
- ptheroux, on 11/15/2009, -5/+13I don't care what the elitist reviewers say. The movie was awesome. A thoroughly enjoyable 2 1/2 hours.
- istoner, on 11/15/2009, -4/+12I paid my money and I was entertained, partly by its stupidity and partly but the special effects. Rotten Tomatoes can suck my balls.
- Ansemx2, on 11/15/2009, -2/+10Isn't that what porn's for?
- SAOSiN, on 11/15/2009, -1/+8The movie isnt bad if you take it at face value. Its a "blow ***** up" movie, and it succeeds at that. Its almost a 3 hour long movie, and doesn't seem like it.
- chokoboii, on 11/15/2009, -6/+13Critics are rarely on par with the general public, probably because they look for elements that the public does not care about (e.g. symbolism and foreshadow)
- Zook024, on 11/15/2009, -1/+7We love massive destruction, simple as that.
- burgerboy06, on 11/15/2009, -6/+11You win my favorite comment ever award. you win nothing.
- notadiggtard, on 11/15/2009, -0/+5.....And the second weekend proves they shouldn't have!
- nublet, on 11/15/2009, -5/+10oh please people, 2012 isn't that bad, stop acting like it's the worst movie ever made:
http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/2012 - hardeep1singh, on 11/15/2009, -4/+9"American audiences love bad movies."
Or probably Critics don't know their job. - nyxerebos, on 11/15/2009, -2/+6I find reviewers often like or dislike films for different reasons than I do, so I usually disregard them. It may be crap, I may be expecting it to be crap, but there are other reasons to go out with friends to the cinema. It's kinda like how I know how junk food I buy on my lunch break is not excellent food, but I'm still going to buy it.
If I want great cinema I can stay home and watch a classic, 2012 is the equivalent of pop music. - GorfTron, on 11/15/2009, -9/+13And church.
- geoffreyireland, on 11/15/2009, -3/+7Its not that bad. Its what it is. Huge CGI cities getting destroyed with a lame story thrown in.
I wasn't disappointed. - deftone1516, on 11/15/2009, -2/+6Yeah that was my problem to. I'm sure those in the Science community had a much tougher time watching it. My intelligence was more offended by stuff like the cable getting stuck in the big gears inside the largest boat ever, a huge bay door is prevented from closing because of this cable....then John Cussack just wiggles that ***** around and BAM! no more stuck cable. And WTF was the reason for the switching back and forth to digital video 3/4's of the way through the movie? Was anyone else very distracted by that? All the costumes and the set became very apparently just costumes and a set.
- strebalicious, on 11/15/2009, -3/+7And Spider-Man 3 years before that.
- inactive, on 11/15/2009, -0/+3I don't get the whining over this movie. Big budget disaster movies with little plot have been a staple of Hollywood for decades.
What I am more upset about is when studios spent 200 million on a perfectly respectable comic book license or cherished book and just totally rape it, it's easier to accept trash if the source material isn't sacred to begin with.
I also take issue to the assertion "American audiences love bad movies", you find plenty of trash all around the world, a good majority of Bollywood movies are 2 hours of dancing and cliche romance plot, but of course if you export them over here and an American watches them he is a "cultured man who enjoys independent foreign cinema" - Solkre, on 11/15/2009, -2/+5So because a movie critic, a guy who's paid to nit-pick movies, says something is bad I shouldn't judge it for myself?
- denizen42, on 11/15/2009, -1/+4It's both, if they receive dumb crap, they get dumber.
- joker927, on 11/15/2009, -1/+4AMAZING trailer.
- nard3456, on 11/15/2009, -1/+4and that's why Bay is rich.
- BerateBirthers, on 11/15/2009, -2/+5And even then, the 0-19 ones are great for their own unintentional comedy.
- skellener, on 11/15/2009, -0/+3It's a 158 minute effects demo reel. There is no movie here.
- Haz3rd, on 11/15/2009, -0/+3They advertised it so much, that's why people went to go see it. You could advertise a product where it just hits you in your balls, and if you advertise it long enough, people will think it's awesome.
- Klisk, on 11/15/2009, -2/+5If I'm spending 14.50 on a movie ticket, plus another 12 for a drink and popcorn, I'm going to read every review available and make SURE I really want to see that movie a lot. I mean, a *real lot*. I see maybe 1 or 2 movies a year, and there's been a few years (1999-2006) where I just plain out refused to set foot in a movie theater at all.
If it isn't something I urgently want to see then I'll wait for the DVD release. Most of the time seeing a movie in a theater ruins the experience and enjoyment of the movie. All those people making noise and kicking your seat..... Man. I'm paying almost 30 dollars for that? I could be home watching my 55" Samsung. Bluray is absolutely better quality than the typical movie theater setup, both visually and audio-wise. - hitchhiker009, on 11/15/2009, -2/+5Now that was excellent.
- rolf, on 11/15/2009, -1/+4I don't think it's that. On opening day, the people who really wanted to see it in the first place are going to see it, despite reviews. It's like how every new Star Wars released was crack cocaine for some fans, no matter how bad that individual movie turned out - they HAD to see it and on opening day.
What will tell the tale is how fast it fizzles out in the theatres. - CA5TIEL, on 11/15/2009, -2/+4I never read reviews for any movie I go see. I'd rather form my own opinion and go in not expecting anything.
- Chooxo, on 11/15/2009, -2/+4Perhaps you could pick a more representative lineup of films from both countries to make a better comparison, rather than reaching all the way back to 2001 to find a critically acclaimed family film to compare to a 2009 critically-bashed disaster flick.
- hatdrop, on 11/15/2009, -0/+2but they had too many villains and venom/brock's character got completely killed both design and story wise
- LarkStew, on 11/15/2009, -1/+3That should have been the official trailer ;-)
-
Show 51 - 100 of 180 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is