I hate errors like this in films, it often ruins them.
I remember when I first watched The Shawshank Redemption. I was absolutely loving it till right at the end. The bullet hole in the wardens neck was in completely the wrong place...
2012
Re: 2012
True true. Another thing about the film is that they always seem to miss everything by millimetres. Like the guys running away and when he lifts his back leg up while running, a second after, the floor crumbles away. Or when they are goin down the runway in the plane, the lava just reaches them when they lift off so they miss it. And a guy gets killed just as he finishes some sentence that he says throughout the film a lot. etc etc. They made it a bit OTT, could have toned it down a little.skeletor wrote:I hate errors like this in films, it often ruins them.
I remember when I first watched The Shawshank Redemption. I was absolutely loving it till right at the end. The bullet hole in the wardens neck was in completely the wrong place...
I'm back 
-
Revolver
- Posts: 2935
- Joined: Sun 19 Nov 2006 8:42 pm
- Xfire Username: aoprevolver
- Location: Leicester
- Contact:
Re: 2012
OK, reasons why I won't bother with this until its on Sky movies.
1. It was always going to be a stupidly made up non-science story about how it all came about and then America saves the day (nor not, whichever).
2. The whole world will be falling apart but obviously the worst of it is happening in New York/Chicago/Seattle/Washington D.C. Of course there will be news clips of the Eiffel Tower being toppled or Big Ben falling over and everyone will gasp at these shocking news features of whats happening "around the world". Then cut back to the disaster that is America falling apart for the rest of the film....
3. John Cusack is not a good enough actor for this kind of film. The fact he is in it already shows that this film cannot be taken seriously.
I think without watching 2012 i can say i enjoyed "Knowing" better (except for the ending, bloody awful) which had disasters in and did them well.
1. It was always going to be a stupidly made up non-science story about how it all came about and then America saves the day (nor not, whichever).
2. The whole world will be falling apart but obviously the worst of it is happening in New York/Chicago/Seattle/Washington D.C. Of course there will be news clips of the Eiffel Tower being toppled or Big Ben falling over and everyone will gasp at these shocking news features of whats happening "around the world". Then cut back to the disaster that is America falling apart for the rest of the film....
3. John Cusack is not a good enough actor for this kind of film. The fact he is in it already shows that this film cannot be taken seriously.
I think without watching 2012 i can say i enjoyed "Knowing" better (except for the ending, bloody awful) which had disasters in and did them well.
"USP'd in the face from miles away Peter. You should be embarrassed." - Floodie 13/03/2012
Re: 2012
Knowing was a bit of a hit and miss film, it was alright until the ending and has some nice eye candy in it. (init bruv)
-
Revolver
- Posts: 2935
- Joined: Sun 19 Nov 2006 8:42 pm
- Xfire Username: aoprevolver
- Location: Leicester
- Contact:
Re: 2012
Hit and miss yes. It would have been so much better if there was a scientific explanation. Not the bull they came up with.skeletor wrote:Knowing was a bit of a hit and miss film, it was alright until the ending and has some nice eye candy in it. (init bruv)
"USP'd in the face from miles away Peter. You should be embarrassed." - Floodie 13/03/2012
Re: 2012
Perhaps if they ended it with some religious explanation...God perhapsRevolver wrote:Hit and miss yes. It would have been so much better if there was a scientific explanation. Not the bull they came up with.skeletor wrote:Knowing was a bit of a hit and miss film, it was alright until the ending and has some nice eye candy in it. (init bruv)
Re: 2012
Still haven't seen the alternative ending of that yet.