The Blind Side (2009)

Absolutely.


Short Review: When you have a film that gets cursed by critics and praised by audiences, you know it has to be fantastic.


I adore this film.

The Blind Side tells the true story of Michael Oher (Quinton Aaron), a homeless black teen who has fallen through the cracks. Michael applies to a private school and is accepted through the successful campaigning by the school’s football coach. Michael's large build and quick feet make him a natural for the position of left tackle on the school's football team. Michael attends the school but remains homeless, friendless and still suffering from his miserable childhood in the projects.

One evening, Leigh Anne Tuohy (Sandra Bullock) and Sean Tuohy (Tim McGraw) see the teen walking in the rain. Leigh Anne, a very commanding woman, makes the choice to not only invite the stranger into their car, but also into their home.

Michael finds safety and love in the Tuohy’s home. Through their efforts and sacrifice, Michael discovers his athletic gifts and develops his scholarly abilities as well. Michael graduates from school and is swarmed by colleges hoping to get him on their teams.

The plot of the film may make this sound like yet another black kid(s) + sports = redemption movie (Remember the Titans, Glory Road, The Express, Pride, Coach Carter and on and on). This film above comparison to these films. The performances, the acting and the careful direction are all exceptional and the film looks beyond the racism elements. The story itself is so invigorating and inspiring that it transcends its genre.

The story offers a clear example of living the Christian life. The Tuohy’s are Christians who understand the faith isn’t just going to church and memorizing passages. The heart of the Christian faith resides in relationships. The faith lives in our relationship with Christ and allowing His love to reflect in our relationship with each other.

Much of the reaction to the film is focused on Sandra Bullock's infectious performance as Leigh Anne. Bullock, looking like a Kathy Lee Gifford clone, offers what is easily her best performance. Leigh Anne is a sassy, direct woman who obviously knows how to get whatever she wants. Bullock manages to keep the strong willed aspect of the woman at the forefront but allowing her maternal caring to peek through when needed. The duality of her strong will and her soft heart makes for a wonderful character to witness on screen.

In contrast to Bullock's assertive performance is Quinton Aaron as Michael Oher. Oher is notoriously introverted. Playing someone who avoids interaction is a challenging task. Aaron is able to present Oher's almost debilitating shyness while also making him endearing. It would have been easy to wind up having Oher be little more that a oafish prop living in Leigh Anne's shadow. Aaron's nuanced performance is the emotional anchor for the film and provides the context for the entire piece. His delicate performance deserves the credit for the film's success. If he wasn't so engaging on screen his Oher's transformation wouldn't have been as fascinating.

The old line “Dying is easy, comedy is hard” can be changed. "Dying is easy, inspiring others is hard." The attempt to inspire an audience is one of the biggest risks an artist can make. Inspiration reminds us of the good deep in our hearts and encourages us to open our better natures to the world. Inspiration promotes the higher ideals such as the Golden Rule of Matthew 7:12, “In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets.

When a filmmaker attempts to inspire they risk the sarcasm of misanthropes. As we have seen with the release of this film, the attacks come easily from those who think upbeat equates simplicity of thought. If you come across critics bashing this film for being racist or manipulative you can assume the critic is filtering their own personal issues through their writing. This is simply a great movie. It is honestly inspiring and challenges the audience to not only improve their lives but to improve the lives of those around them. The production promotes all that is good in us. In an age of torture-porn and filth-laden Hollywood blockbusters this film is an absolute must see (as soon as you can).


Final Note: If you enjoyed this film, I strongly suggest you search out a documentary titled The Heart of Texas. Like this film it is inspiring and presents one of the most incredible stories of forgiveness and love I have ever seen.


Related Reviews:

Sport movies
Facing the Giants (2006)
Hoosiers (1986)


Other Critic's Reviews:
The Phantom Tollbooth
Hollywood Jesus



Movie Trailer: Easy Virtue

Its okay to be a slutty instigator as long as you have a pretty smile. Got it.

Well, at least they're married. In an anti-morality world you have to be thankful for what you can get.







Screenwriters: Stephan Elliott (Eye of the Beholder) and Sheridan Jobbins
Director: Stephan Elliott (The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert)
Actors: Jessica Biel (The Texas Chainsaw Massacre), Ben Barnes (The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian), Kristin Scott Thomas (Life as a House) and Colin Firth (Nanny McPhee)




Movie Trailer: Faubourg 36 "Paris 36"

I love the look of the trailer. The film itself? Perhaps not my thing. But I love what I see of the shots here.

video




Screenwriters: Christophe Barratier
Director: Christophe Barratier (The Chorus)
Actors: Gérard Jugnot (A Day at the Museum), Kad Merad (22 Bullets) and Clovis Cornillac




The Manhattan Declaration

Click the logo below to sign the declaration.

The Manhattan Declaration

Christians, when they have lived up to the highest ideals of their faith, have defended the weak and vulnerable and worked tirelessly to protect and strengthen vital institutions of civil society, beginning with the family.

We are Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christians who have united at this hour to reaffirm fundamental truths about justice and the common good, and to call upon our fellow citizens, believers and non-believers alike, to join us in defending them. These truths are:
  1. the sanctity of human life
  2. the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife
  3. the rights of conscience and religious liberty.

Inasmuch as these truths are foundational to human dignity and the well-being of society, they are inviolable and non-negotiable. Because they are increasingly under assault from powerful forces in our culture, we are compelled today to speak out forcefully in their defense, and to commit ourselves to honoring them fully no matter what pressures are brought upon us and our institutions to abandon or compromise them. We make this commitment not as partisans of any political group but as followers of Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Lord, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.



h/t Julie D. at Happy Catholic



Movie Trailer: Me and Orson Welles

The trailer doesn't do much to tell us what the film is about or why we should see it. The fact that it has something to do with Welles gets my attention. Other than that, there's little call to see.






Screenwriters: Holly Gent Palmo and Vincent Palmo Jr.
Director: Richard Linklater (Bad News Bears)
Actors: Ben Chaplin (The Water Horse), Claire Danes (Shopgirl) and Zac Efron (17 Again)




Movie Trailer: Legion

This flick has as much to do with the Bible as Saw III has to do with Where the Red Fern Grows.

I tripled checked and I couldn't find the place in Bible where the angels fight each other with bazookas. Is this one of those Mormon things?







Screenwriter: Scott Stewart
Directors: Peter Schink and Scott Stewart
Actors: Dennis Quaid (Vantage Point), Paul Bettany (The Da Vinci Code), Kevin Durand (Smokin' Aces), Doug Jones (Hellboy II: The Golden Army) and Charles S. Dutton (Gothika)




MPAA Unveils Rating System Based On Old Testament

"There was some concern that our existing system was neither strict nor specific enough," MPAA President Dan Glickman said. "Hence, such improved ratings as B-M21 [Blasphemy Only To Be Viewed By Males Over 21] for Finding Nemo, as it was only given to Adam to name the animals."

Read the whole thing at The Onion.

Monsters vs Aliens (2009)

***Cross-posted at Theo Spark***


Should I see it?

If you’re a kid, sure.


This is a rare film: a non-Pixar animated film that isn’t irritating and avoids scatological jokes. While this still doesn’t compare to the brilliance of almost all of the Pixar films, its still better than 90% of the kids movies dumped into the culture every year.

Susan (Reese Witherspoon) is a meek bride-to-be who lives in the shadow of her narcissistic fiancee Derek (Paul Rudd). Susan is struck by a meteor on her wedding day. The radiation transforms her into a giant, later she is . Due to her monstrous size, she is captured by the government and renamed Ginormica. The government imprisons with other monsters: an amorphous blob named B.O.B. (Seth Rogen), a smart giant cockroach/scientist named Dr. Cockroach Ph. D. (Hugh Laurie) and a brutish monster known as The Missing Link (Will Arnett). A brood of aliens attack Earth and Ginormica and her new monster pals are enlisted to fight off the exterrestrial threat.

The plot for the film is predictable and a bit slow. On the upside, the script does have some bright spots in its characte work. This film is saved by its personality and light charm, that and it's a kid’s movie that’s actually safe for the kids. It is light on agenda and avoids crudity. Someone somewhere must have made a mistake.

While it is not a must-see, its also not a must-avoid-at-all-costs.



Related Reviews:
Animated movies
Kung-Fu Panda (2008)
Chicken Little (2005)


Other Critic’s Reviews:
Decent Films Guide
Roger Ebert

Movie Quote: American Splendor (2003)

Harvey Pekar
My name is Harvey Pekar - that's an unusual name - Harvey Pekar. 1960 was the year I got my first apartment and my first phone book. Now imagine my surprise when I looked up my name and saw that in addition to me, another Harvey Pekar was listed. Now I was listed as Harvey L. Pekar, my middle name is Lawrence, and he was listed as Harvey Pekar therefore his was a - was a pure listing. Then in the '70s, I noticed that a third Harvey Pekar was listed in the phone book, now this filled me with curiousity. How can there be three people with such an unusual name in the world, let alone in one city? Then one day, a person I work with, expressed her sympathy with me, concerning what she thought, was the death of my father, and she pointed out an obituary notice in the newspaper for a man named Harvey Pekar. And one of his sons was named Harvey. And these were the other Harvey Pekar's. And six months later, Harvey Pekar Jr. died. And although I've met neither man, I was filled with sadness, 'what were they like?', I thought, it seemed that our lives had been linked in some indefineable way. But the story does not end there, for two years later, another 'Harvey Pekar' appeared in the phone book. Who are these people? Where do they come from? What do they do? What's in a name? Who is Harvey Pekar?











Sleeping Beauty (1959)

Should I see it?
Yes.


While not the best, it is one of Disney’s more memorable films. This is a case where the villain outshines the hero. The villain Maleficent is a fully conceived, potent nasty who overwhelms the precious heroine Princess Aurora. Aurora is a wisp of a girl who has little going on other than her relationship with Prince Phillip.

The film is well structured and still entertains even in this age of hyperactive, screaming animated flicks. For a break from the breakfast cereal commercials with plots that comprise a bulk of the animated films released these days, this calm, intricately created classic is well worth your consideration.


Related Reviews:
Animated movies
The Care Bears Movie (1985)
The Incredibles (2004)


Other Critic’s Reviews:
Decent Films Guide
The Onion A.V. Club

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009)

***Cross-posted at Theo Spark***


Should I see it?

No.


Short Review: Transformers: Result of Our Fallen Civilization



I found it amusing that director Michael Bay kept making references and reviving characters from the original Transformers as if anyone would remember the details of that cinematic Twinkie. Like the original, the outing is little more than Bay hammering you in the face with a strobe light with sparklers taped on it while blaring feedback in your ears. There is no story. The entire film is a series of set ups and special effects.

To be fair, the expectations aren’t high with something like this. It was designed to be easy to gobble, not to offer substance. It is a meal made of Doritos and Mountain Dew put on the screen. Putting logic, narrative and any self-respect aside, this film still fails on the most basic levels. It is not entertaining; nor does it ’t offer any memorable sequences or images. It is a Super Bowl Ad with a longer running time.

If you do recall the original it will suffice to say this sequel actually makes it seem clever. If you don’t remember the original, don’t worry, it’s not worth storing in your gray matter. This is a cheap film made to turn a buck and get butts in seats. It is a roller coaster ride with some cleavage and swearing thrown in. Don't bother with it.


Worldview: Not surprisingly, there is little spirituality in the film. Like most big Hollywood McMovies, the characters live in a completely Godless world.

The universe of the film is an amoral place. Shia LeBouf’s character Sam is a likable enough guy, but he’s hardly “good”. He’s a tool pushed around by the Transformer robots. Likewise the other “good” characters don’t actually do anything honorable. Their goodness comes from the fact that they don’t do anything necessarily evil. We follow them not because they are worth following, but because they’re the only ones to watch.

The morality presented in the film is clearly secular and thus nebulous. Sam’s parents grope and curse casually. Sam’s girlfriend Mikaela (Megan Fox) slinks around dressed in tiny clothes and is apparently slathered in Crisco – anyone who is that shiny and isn’t covered in oils should probably see a doctor. The other characters also curse and drop sexual references. All of this and Michael Bay also felt the need to include crude shots of dogs humping, John Turturro ripping his pants off and flashing his bare bum at the camera and drug jokes.

The crude behavior and language may not seem out of place or upsetting to the average secular-minded audience member, but it is worth remembering this film is based on Transformers toys. The inherent audience for this film is very small children. Bay obviously has no regard for his potential audience and serves up content custom made for teens and college kids. If you have small children who are interested in seeing this film, please know that the movie is loaded with adult behavior and situations.

Bay’s lack of concern for his audience is hardly unique. It has become more and more common for movies rehashing toys and shows from the 70’s and 80’s to include shockingly crude behavior (Land of the Lost and Cat in the Hat are two good examples.) At this point it wouldn’t surprise me to learn they somehow manage to include a wet t-shirt contest into the next Scooby Doo movie.

Will the last person leaving the culture please turn off the lights?


Click on the chick to see the trailer

Cautions: As mentioned above, there’s a load of cursing, adult language and behavior. There’s drug references, sexual references and a number of butt cheeks.


Related Reviews:
Michael Bay movies
Transformers (2007)
Armageddon (1998)


Other Critic’s Reviews:
Need Coffee
Picture Show Pundits



Non-film Related Post of the Day: Star Trek: The Next Generation

I loved this show during its original run. This, ladies and gentlemen, is funny stuff:

Movie Trailer: Law Abiding Citizen

"Its gonna get Biblical..."

Yeah, me thinks someone didn't pay attention in Sunday School.




Return to the movie trailers page






Movie Trailer: Whiteout



Screenwriters: Jon Hoeber, Erich Hoeber, Carey Hayes (House of Wax) and Chad Hayes (The Reaping)
Director: Dominic Sena (Swordfish)
Actors: Kate Beckinsale (Underworld), Tom Skerritt (Alien) and Gabriel Macht (The Good Shepherd)




Movie Trailer: I Sell the Dead

Zombies and Ron Perlman? I'm in.

Obviously, this will be rather macabre.


video


Return to the movie trailers page


Screenwriter: Glenn McQuaid
Director: Glenn McQuaid
Actors: Dominic Monaghan (Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Rings), Ron Perlman (Hellboy II: The Golden Army) and Larry Fessenden (The Brave One)




Movie Trailer: Gentlemen Broncos

Jared Hess, writer/director of Napoleon Dynamite, appears to be sticking with that works for him = unfortunate geekery.

An awkward teen gets his sci-fi story ripped off by his novelist idol. If handled right, this could be an interesting quirky little movie. Despite Jemaine Clement's great haughty, drawl , I noticed I didn't laugh while watching the trailer - not a good sign.




Return to the movie trailers page


Screenwriters: Jared Hess (Napoleon Dynamite) and Jerusha Hess (Nacho Libre)
Director: Jared Hess (Napoleon Dynamite)
Actors: Sam Rockwell (The Green Mile), Michael Angarano (Lords of Dogtown) and Jennifer Coolidge (Robots)




Star Trek (2009) *Repost*

Originally posted June 3, 2009

Should I see it?

Yes.


Short Review: Anything that can possibility offend Trekkies and get them hyperventilating through their retainers is okay by me.



A production like this isn't new. Yet another Corporation continuing to recycle pop cultural baubles of previous generations, repackage it, and then sell it to quite possibly the dumbest generation to draw breath. This may be the case with this film. It may be a soulless McMovie rehash, but its a well made soulless McMovie rehash.

What is surprising is that it manages to achieve the balance of acknowledging its source material while still striking out on its own and finding its own voice. By the end of the film it is clear a new, individual franchise has been born. This is remarkable given that Star Trek is one of the most identifiable, dearly loved series in history. Producers have been trying to reboot the series for decades. After the surprise cult following in reruns, they began to pump out the popular films - oh but they were seriously awful . Honestly, they travel to San Francisco in the 1980's to save whales and we're expected believe Sulu doesn't go AWOL and stay behind?

As the actors aged, and the egos inflated and the internal conflicts boiled, the natural inclination to replicate the series took its course. Since the late 1980's there has been a continual string of syndicated television series attempting reignite the original series. The first outing, Star Trek: The Next Generation was good but not great. The remainder were stumbling affairs that never quite got over their derivative existences.

When JJ Abrams took over the franchise he smartly choose to break away from the failing model of retooling the Star Trek universe with new characters and instead chose the bigger risk of recasting the original characters. This isn't a small task.

It is easy to dismiss Star Trek given William Shatner's goofiness and the social abominations known as Trekkies, but this is one of the main myths of our civilization. Messing with Kirk and Spock is no different than recasting Darth Vadar, Luke Skywalker and Han Solo and trying to make them your own. Thousands of people flock to stupid conventions over this crap. They made up a ridiculous fake Klingon language for Pete's sake. In our pop culture based society, Star Trek is a sacred cow. Abrams took a huge gamble, he could have had a humiliating disaster on his hands. When the original trailer hit, I thought he had taken the simple road. I wasn't the only one.



The film, thankfully, isn't the hollow teen dreamy junk pile that the trailer made it look like.

Abrams delivers a carefully executed origin story for the series that, thanks to a overly convenient time travel plot, explains away the old series and makes way for the new. While fun and light, the film is also technically marvelous. The story is impressively tight and direct. Abrams and company had the challenge of reintroducing us to characters many of us knew inside and out. These characters are a part of our lives even if we've never seen a single episode of the show. Their catch phrases alone litter our culture possibly more than any other series in history.

Given the large cast, these introductions threatened to slow the story down every time someone new appeared on screen. Screenwriters Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman do a masterful job of weaving these introductions seamlessly into the story. On top of these introductions, they also managed to rewrite the characters in a way that enhances our memory of them. This is particularly true of Spock.

Leonard Nimoy's Spock is a cultural landmark. In this production, we are shown the young Spock, first as a promising professor and then as an officer on the Enterprise. Zachary Quinto, who appears to have been born to play the role, tackles the task of portraying this iconic figure. Quinto has to balance between marking the role as his own while also paying homage to Nimoy's classic portrayal. The script's conceits allow to present Spock as we know him while still giving him amble room to infuse his own details. His Spock is written not a mimicry of the earlier version of Spock but instead as a new angle on the old character.

The duality between the old and new is the approached used for the whole franchise. This is not an attempt to replace the old version, simply a new generation putting their own mark on things. This franchise isn't going to be the cultural standard that the original version has become. It's not that good, nor important. It is entertaining however and will provide some relaxing cinematic eye candy.

The downside of the film are a few poor choices that seriously break the narrative flow. If you've seen the trailer you have already have witnessed the amazingly stupid young Kirk stealing an antique car and driving it over a cliff. In this sequence, he is being chased down a dirt road by a cop. Young Kirk then turns on the radio and LISTENS TO THE BEASTIE BOYS. What? No one listens to them now, except musically illiterate morons, and we're expected to believe this is something a kid would turn to a few hundred years in the future? The entire sequence should have been cut. It is as poorly conceived as the jazz sequence in Spider-Man 3.

There are other choices that cut into the story as well, like having Scotty being transported into the water pipes, having Kirk illogically being sent down to an Arctic locale on a planet, and other items that act as sidesteps to the main thrust of the story. All of these diversions steal time away from the main story which does need some help.

The main villain Nero, a revenge obsessed Romulan, is pushed to the back burner for most of the film and only appears when its convenient to establish character for Kirk, Pike or Spock. Nero is the least developed character in the entire film and is given the least amount of attention. His whole reason for revenge is not given enough depth to have any real meaning so his actions are without context and therefore meaningless. This deficiency would kill most other stories, this production survives because it gets the audience so wrapped up in the interpersonal drama on the Enterprise that this exterior force is more of an annoying procedure rather than life threatening conflict.

This is a solid movie that succeeds well beyond expectation. This is easily the most fun I've had seeing a McMovie since Iron Man last year. This is fluff but it is very good, very entertaining fluff.




Related Reviews:
Star Trek movies
Star Trek: The Wrath of Kahn (1982)
Star Trek: First Contact (1996)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Happy Catholic
Need Coffee





2012 (2009)

If your brain is not connected to your spinal column, then yes.


Short Review: It’s as bombastic as it is ill conceived, which is fancy way of saying its loud and stupid.


2012 movie poster
John Cusack is in his forties and is still playing half-man schlubs who can’t manage relationships. His character Jackson Curtis is broken down, broken-hearted and just plain broke. His ex-wife Kate (Amanda Peet) has left him. His kids loathe his mere presence. In a way, this film is like seeing Better Off Dead as done by Michael Bay.

This is a horrendous film.

Awful.

Lousy.

Thankfully it is also a bloated disaster movie so it doesn’t really matter. All the film has to do is flash lights to distract from its limping plot in order to be successful. The only reason to see this film is to watch the end of the world in glorious high definition. Writer/Director Roland Emmerich (Independence Day, Godzilla, 10,000 B.C.) promises to deliver the apocalypse with as few words as possible. He delivers on his promise.

What I found amazing is that Emmerich still bothers trying to shoehorn relationship issues into the end of days. At one point Jackson and Kate have a quiet moment together. She complains that Jackson spent too much time working and not enough time with his family. They literally just watched billions of people perish, the totality of human civilization has been destroyed and she is still nagging at the poor sap. I guess we can see why things didn't work out them.

The problem with trying to pull off character development in a film like this is that once you show the USS John F. Kennedy on a tsunami wave crashing into the White House and killing the President, it's a little much to ask us to care about the gripes from John Cusack’s ex-wife.

If you are only interested in seeing crashing buildings, ridiculous plot contrivances and perilous escapes, this will be a good pick. If you have the tendency to pause while watching movies and consider how reality actually works, you will probably still enjoy it because it’s dang funny from that angle.

I laughed constantly through the film. Here is a moment which sums up the film for me. Jackson is driving a limo through Los Angeles as the city is literally falling to pieces. A building crashes down in front of him. He jumps the limo into the side of the falling building, drives the car across a floor, speeding through a business office, crashes out of a window and manages to land safely on the highway on the other side. If you can handle that level of dumb, knock yourself out.


Worldview: I was struck by Emmerich's treatment of faith. Every once in a while someone would casually mention that “its time to start praying”. Other than these passing nods to the notion that some people may or may not possibly consider asking for mercy from something that maybe perhaps might be something kinda like a God or something or who knows what, there is a remarkable absence of any real faith. The President begins to quote scripture at one point, but he is cut off before he finishes. The world is ending, billions are dying, and the only references to Jesus Christ are when characters are cursing.

Emmerich is very deliberate in his presentation of religion in this film, particularly when it comes to the destruction of iconic places. Emmerich is given credit for popularizing the destruction of landmarks in action/disaster movies. The White House being blown up in Independence Day started the trend. Destroying the White House, Washington Monument, and other landmarks serves to pervert the “Death of God Image" I’ve discussed before.

In this film, Emmerich takes the Death of God Image and runs with it. He not only shows the Christ the Redeemer Statue in Brazil crumbling, but he stops the movie cold to spend time at the Vatican. Thousands of Catholics are crowded outside of Saint Peter’s Cathedral as the Pope looks down on them from the balcony. Inside, a collection of cardinals huddle in a circle praying. As the room begins to shake they look upward to see the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel (apparently its been moved). The ceiling cracks and splits, severing the famous fingers of God and Adam. Suddenly, the Saint Peter’s Basilica plops over on its side and rolls over all of the collected Catholics killing the faithful like a big rolling pin made out of cosmic irony.

Beyond the obvious “imagine if they did this to any other group” argument, I need to point out that Emmerich goes out of his way to avoid showing large groups of people in this film. All of L.A. is destroyed but we only witness a few dozen actual deaths. The crowds that are killed on screen are shown from vast distances or are represented by focusing tightly on the fearful face of a known character.

The deaths at the Vatican are the only crowd shown killed in a specific, almost devious way. This is not by accident. Emmerich himself admits that the destruction of religious locations is intentional – in particular his choice in showing Christians getting it.


When asked about destroying Christ the Redeemer Emmerich explains,

"Because I'm against organized religion,"

For those playing at home, here is the math: Catholics = Let's drop one of their most precious places on their stupid heads. Islam = Let's not upset the poor dears, otherwise they may start acting wonky and hurting people - can't imagine what that would be like.


Cautions: There's death and destruction. There's some foul language and a few instances of people taking Christ's name in vain. Beyond these infractions, there's not too much that is worth being cautioned over (regarding the content).




Once you see the film read what follows:

Two items:

Congratulations! The Good News: you’ve been cast in a huge Hollywood blockbuster. The Bad News: Your character arc is that you learn to stop peeing the bed at night.

So, the world’s elite are given the chance to buy a seat on the arks. In the end the world leaders come together to allow some stranded folk into their ships. This is used to show how we maintain our humanity. Yeah, about that, the stranded people are also rich elites who also bought their way onto the arks. So, other than some Chinese slaves, the survivors of humanity are all billionaires who drained their resources from the rest of the world so they could comfortably survive the hell on Earth they left for everyone else. The worst of humanity gets to live. Nice message.


Movie Trailer: 2012

Do you really want to spend the end of the world hanging around John Cusack?





Screenwriters: Roland Emmerich (Godzilla) and Harold Kloser (10,000 B.C.)
Director: Roland Emmerich (Independence Day)
Actors: John Cusack (Better Off Dead), Thandie Newton (Rocknrolla), Woody Harrelson (No Country for Old Men), Amanda Peet (The Whole Nine Yards), Chiwetel Ejiofor (Redbelt), Oliver Platt (Casanova), Danny Glover (Lethal Weapon) and Morgan Lily (Henry Poole is Here)




powered by Blogger | WordPress by Newwpthemes