Fan Fare

Entertainment behind the scenes

“2012″: where’s Homeland Security when you need them?

November 16, 2009

2012(Reporting, writing and video by Marc Price)

Director Roland Emmerich blew up the White House in “Independence Day” and froze New York City in “The Day After Tomorrow,” so you’d think the U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security would be watching out for him. But in his latest effort, disaster movie “2012,” he destroyed the entire world!

And global box offices with it. The movie raked in a whopping $225 million at global box offices with its debut this past weekend. (Read about that here.)

It proved to be the perfect “popcorn movie,” as they say in Hollywood. It’s just pure fun; not much to think about. Emmerich destroys cities and countrysides with earthquakes, explosions and floods. Leading man John Cusack is able to escape one of these natural disasters JUST in the nick of time with his family — all unharmed. Sheesh!! But the thing is — and what’s good about good popcorn flicks — is that while Cusack’s denying all the laws of physics, we think you’d be saying, “Oh, that could never happen,” but instead you’re saying “Come on, John. Go!! Go!! You can make it!!!.

Woody Harrelson provides some comic relief and Amanda Peet offers up a subplot about family and love and all that other touchy, feely stuff. But if you’re going to “2012″ for the plot … well, we think it’s better to focus on the special effects. In the screening we were at over the weekend, audiences liked the movie, alot. It seemed like they had fun and they left smiling. Click below to see what fans had to say. And then, if you think about it, how would you live differently if you only had about two more years?

Comments

You’ve got to be kidding! Special effects and unrealistic escapes are not the foundations of a compelling story. It’s too bad because the 2012 topic is incredibly interesting. The movie barely touched on the many reasons that conspiracy theorists are convinced of a 2012 armageddon — only once did it reference the Mayan calendar ending in 2012. Instead, Hollywood tries to manifest a moral dilemma: As though world leaders — who had planned for the SURVIVAL of the human race for 3 years — would have failed to ponder the fate of the billions expected to die and then risk the entire project for a few thousand screaming to be saved.

Posted by Chad | Report as abusive
 

If Felt serious about “The End” I would just move back home with my parents and grandparents, where I started.

Otherwise Id move to a tropical setting and drink, smoke , and party my way to oblivion

ands I already live in hawaii lol

Posted by Jhonny Rox | Report as abusive
 

Hollywood is notorious for making these types of movies, but what it all boils down to is this: People love viewing adrenaline producing movies. If folks would read their Bible’s, they would see this kind of movie scenario could never be. I know Americans like to be entertained, Hollywood is always there to deliver. If Hollywood were to make an end-time movie that is believable, then they need to turn to the Biblical scriptures. In Matthew chapter 24, it gives a detailed explanation as to how the world will end and the signs that precede His coming. “His” referring to “Jesus second coming.”

Posted by Colleen Jeffries | Report as abusive
 

A lot is two words, not one.

Posted by karen | Report as abusive
 

If I knew the world were ending, I would just eat.

Posted by Wendy Liebman | Report as abusive
 

Too bad Emmerich didn’t make more of an effort to accurately portray the science like he did in the Day After Tomorrow. There’s quite a pile of facts to play with here, as another reader commented. Anyone interested in exploring the predictions of ancient cultures and environmental scientists should check out all the History Channel programs concerning 2012. For a compilation of articles and websites online (including disaster monitoring sites around the world), follow the 2012 link at thecityedition.com.

 

Post Your Comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
  •