blow this up
November 25, 2009
I don’t think I need to establish my movie cred. Cuz for every Doomsday I keep as a guilty pleasure, I also love a Tarkovsky or a Bergman. On the other hand, I would watch any James Bond film again, even Never Say Never, and I loved Hudson Hawk. Don’t hold that against me, I could also watch Virgin Spring and Solaris again. I’m all over the map.
And I like a good End of the World movie as much as the next guy. While I thought Armageddon sucked, I liked Deep Impact, and I even liked, kind of, The Day After Tomorrow.
So when a guy like Roger Ebert calls a movie “The mother of all disaster movies (and the father, and the extended family)” I pay attention.
On the other hand, Ebert also hated Raising Arizona. So maybe I should have been on my guard.
I tried to get the kids to go. Do you think when your 11 year old and 14 year old boys say “I dunno Dad, it looks kind of dumb” that maybe you should listen?
But the San Francisco Chronicle said “There’s something to be said for a formula picture done almost to perfection. In 2012, Emmerich gives you everything you expect, but gives it to you bigger.”
I wanted to see stuff get blowed up. Real good.
So I got the brothers in law together, and we fired up a late show guys night.
When we finally left the theater, I found myself apologizing over and over, to guys, about the movie.
I shouldn’t have to do that. What would be a better guys movie than 2012? It’s the literal end of the world. It stars John Cusack. Everybody except my brother loves John Cusack. The master of disaster, Roland Emmerich, directed it.
In the words of William Hurt’s Richie Cusack, “How Could You F@#& that up?”
And yet. Roland found a way to make the end of the world boring.
We would have been better off seeing New Moon. Twice. I am not even kidding.