Tuesday, October 27, 2009

We Were Warned (about a crap film)

True believers of this Mayan calendar nonsense annoy me a great deal, so it annoys me even more that a film about it is being made, which envisions all the cataclysmic events that the nuts propagating this impending Armageddon get a woody for.

In case you're wondering what set me off - this rigged poll on Facebook was to blame:

Quarter of a million people bothered with this drivel? Criminy. I voted, but only to get the results (not that I reckon too many people take these things seriously):




Over the course of this crummily edited trailer, it manages to tick all the boxes for a genre flick like this - the shots of random foreign cities and their inhabitants looking concerned and feeling tremors to push the 'globalness' of the catastrophe; the use of planes, trains, automobiles and ships to escape the inevitable destruction (represented as a big cloud of debris following them); the struggle of the few good men inside the governmental cover-up fighting to do the right thing, and of course, the demolition-porn of major monuments. This trailer alone shows the Washington Monument breaking apart, Rio de Janeiro's Christ the Redeemer Statue getting a powerful dose of leprosy, (what looks like) the DC Capitol building tumbling to the ground, and even the White House (which still has the lights on) being crushed under a great big freakin' tsunami carrying the USS John F Kennedy.

€5 says that either leading man John Cusack, or director / disaster-flick mogul Roland Emmerich will, in an interview about the film, enthuse about how the heart of the film is the family unit that acts as a 'microcosm' for humanity in the middle of such a global catastrophe.

I know that Roland Emmerich likes using CG to show things crumble, but did he really have to piggyback on the 2012 stupidity? Not only will the film age about as well as anything from the 90s named " 2000", but now we're going to see the same stupidity as when Close Encounters of the Third Kind came out, prompting the enlargement of the stupid fringe of alien abduction claims, leading to more 'open-minded' twats pulling on their goatees and 'discussing the possibilities' of such rubbish.

Gwaaaah.

(On a side note - if there's nothing else out on the weekend this releases, I may well go see it - darn my affinity for John Cusack's everymanness)

14 comments:

Jacob (ROK Sojourn) said...

Not only is it John Cusack, it's Amanda Peet and Chiwetel Ejiofor. I love all three of thos actors, so I have to see this movie now.

John and Amanda were also in Identity together, so I wonder if they are friends or something now.

Eoghan said...

Is this movie not just an amalgamation of "The Day After Tomorrow" and "War of the Worlds"?
Thats what I see.

Also,I'll take that bet Sully.

Finally...FUCK THIS NOISE!
Go see "The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus" instead. Wonderful movie.

Jason said...

See you down at Arizona bay...

Superstitious people seem to have a hard on for the idea of the earth coming to an end, if the countless failed predictions throughout history tell us anything.

aineolach said...

Not only will the film age about as well as anything from the 90s named " 2000"...
...or a book written in 1948 called 1984? ;)

Eoghan. said...

Oh-Ho!
Shes Got you there Sully!

Also,I hear the Virgin Mary is set to appear in Knock on Saturday at 3pm.
Theres an article in the times on it.

I expect a rant in the next 2 days.

Jason said...

You gonna be there, Eoghan?

Jason said...

"...or a book written in 1948 called 1984?"

Except... 1984 wasn't written in the 90s and it didn't have 2000 in its title.

Eoghan said...

Why would I be Jay-Jigga?

Also, I believe Aineolach was referring to the fact that 1984 is timeless, even though it was written in 1948 and science fiction.
The film in Sully's piece is none of these things,except for science fiction.

Jason said...

Yeah I know what she was referring to.

aineolach said...

I'm a boy. (._.)

Eoghan said...

Really?

And you used a "full face smiley"?

Check again...Look Down...

Sully said...

Just for the benefit of everybody here, 'aineolach' is an Irish word meaning 'ignorant'. Not a girl's name.

@Aineolach - good point, but I'm pretty sure that since 1984 was written so far in advance of the eponymous year, it doesn't fall under the category of "things that tap into the zeitgeist of 'cool'".

@Eoghan - isn't the Virgin Mary apparition some nutbag making predictions and whining that the Catholic Church won't endorse him? I read about him in some tabloid a few weeks back that made reference to his previous predictions, but offered no insight as to their veracity. I'm more likely to rant about supposedly sensible people giving nutters column inches than I am to bemoan the insipid rambling of a religious twat... That said, I may be guilty on occasion of picking on an easy target...

Also - can you share your smiley to gender identity index with the rest of the class? I occasionally use :-P when texting my girlfriend, and I'd like to know how manly my shorthand is.

strange-young-man said...

Sully,The paper I read the piece in was "The Irish Times".
If that doesn't fall under "sensible people giving nutters column inches", then I don;t know what does.

Using Smiley's is not manly at all.
Never use them if you have a penis and/or scrotum.That is all.

Jason said...

http://img202.imageshack.us/img202/7273/252189560706991aea68o.jpg