A few weeks ago I posted my thoughts on the movie 2012.  The movie hadn’t been released yet, but I was nonetheless surprised by all the “2012 apocalypse” hyp surrounding its release.  True to my word, I went to see the movie this past weekend with Alex and Heather.  And now I have many more thoughts!

Would I call 2012 a good movie?  No.  Was it entertaining enough to be tolerable?  Yes.  The special effects were cool, which was why we donated way more money than we would have liked to the movie industry to see it.  The problem I had – and the problem I usually have, which is why I haven’t seen a science-based movie since The Core – is that this movie was about as far from plausible as you can get.

***** WARNING!!! SPOILER AHEAD!!!! *****

If you want to see 2012, I don’t advise you read any further, because it will give away some important details of this movie.

Here is my list of reasons I felt 2012 was definitely not the greatest movie ever:

1. The premise was really, really dumb. I tried to think of a way to say that nicely, but there just isn’t a nice way to say that!  In this Hollywood end-of-the-world scenario, Doomsday is caused by neutrinos on steroids.  In real life, neutrinos pass through the Earth, and us, everyday with no effect on human life.  But in 2012, the solar maximum and subsequent increase in solar activity (translation = nasty bad storms on the sun) has caused the normally negligible neutrinos to mutate into flying particles of human death.  They bring about the end of the world by heating up the Earth’s core, melting it, causing the Earth’s crust (the part we walk around on) to break apart, the poles to reverse themselves, and life-devastating tsunamis to circle the globe.  The problem is that blaming all this on neutrinos is really far-fetched.  And while you might tell me you have to “suspend your disbelief” when you watch movies, I just think that if movie studios are going to spend millions upon millions of dollars on a movie, they could have come up with a better premise than neutrinos.  No offense to the neutrinos, though!
2. 2012 = Deep Impact, take 2.  Seriously.  Halfway through the movie I leaned over and asked Heather if she had ever seen Deep Impact, because I felt like I was watching the same movie.  In both movies, the human race is facing extinction from a source over which they have no control.  The solution?  Government leaders build secret bunkers/arks that can only accommodate a small number of people, and then choose who gets to survive the coming apocalypse.  Guess who is generally included in the “saved” list in both movies?  The rich and famous. Which of course means someone is about to get really humanitarian on an authority and have a soliloquy about how what’s being done is wrong.  Said soliloquy always brings about a last minute change of heart, which in the case of both movies, saves the butts of the main characters.
3. The thing about Yellowstone… So 2012 is about the end of the world, right?  OF COURSE they had to blow up the Yellowstone supervolcano as part of the destruction of mankind – right?  And they DID!  This was something I was rather pleased about, because it’s true that if Yellowstone blows up we’re all pretty screwed.  Then I saw the completely impossible way John Cusack and company escaped the supervolcanic explosion.  Sorry, you can’t out-run a pyroclastic cloud in a camper. Or in a small propeller plane.  Not if you’re AT YELLOWSTONE when the eruption happens.  And it’s not because movies don’t get this right – because Dante’s Peak actually did a pretty good job when it comes to volcanic eruptions.  They really could have blown up Yellowstone once they were gone.
4. I laughed too much. Like I said before, the special effects were pretty good in 2012.  The problem was that the scenarios surrounding them were so improbable and ridiculous that Alex and I actually laughed out loud more than once.  Laughing out loud at a movie that is supposed to be making you nervous and on the edge of your seat = bad.
5. The characters were hard to sympathize with – all of them. I hate to say this, but I was not especially invested in any of the characters in 2012.  I had no real need to see any of them survive the movie.  This surprised me because I think John Cusack is pretty likeable in movies.  So, I attribute this to bad writing, not bad acting.  I mean, it’s hard to believe Jurassic Park and Armaggedon, too, but I did care about whether or not those characters were going to survive to see another day, or at least a sequel.

I am glad we went to see it, in case you were wondering.

T7P6FGNA48BN

G4Y5ESD2G3Y2

© 2009, The Table Has Shoes (and Other Ambiguities). All rights reserved.

When I sat down at the computer to write this blog, I had intended to write about my recent trip to Aruba with Alex.  It was a great trip, very relaxing, and filled with loads of entertaining anecdotes I intended to share with my blog readers.  For example, I wanted to expound upon the wonder that is Aruban beef cuisine.  The trouble is, when I sat down to look in my trusty blog moleskine to see what I wanted to say about the trip, all I could focus on was the little note I made about a movie I watched three times the week we went away: He’s Just Not That Into You.

I suppose I ought to explain why I watched it three times in a week.  I borrowed the DVD from my dad and watched it on my own one night with a glass of wine.  But I thought there were some pieces that were so very true that I made Alex watch it with me the next night.  And then JetBlue had the same movie as the feature on our flight from Aruba to NYC.  Oops.  That’s what always happens, isn’t it?

The trouble is, by the time I got to my third viewing, I was pissed off at the movie.  I felt it was rather disappointing in its message.

In case you haven’t seen the movie, I advise you to not read any further because what I am about to say will be a spoiler for you.

He’s Just Not That Into You is a movie based on a book written by Greg Behrendt and Liz Tuccillo by the same title.  I’ve read the book.  I think I still own a copy of it.  The whole point of the book is to explain why women should get over guys that don’t show interest, because it’s OK that not every guy is interested.  It also gives hints to identify this behavior in men you might be currently involved with.  The movie picks up this theme, and weaves together a bunch of storylines that all involve some variation of “he/she’s not that into you.”  One of the male characters has a sort-of mantra: you’re the rule, not the exception.  Just because girls tell each other stories about a friend of a friend of a cousin who had some guy be a total jerk but then wound up getting married to the jerk and being happy doesn’t mean life will go that way for you, because that’s the exception, not the rule, he says.

I think this is fantastic for women to hear.  I know I spent way more time than I ever should have making excuses or reassuring myself with some story about someone else’s life that gave me hope for my loser of a boyfriend.  Most women fall into that trap.  I think that’s why the book was so successful when it was published – successful enough that a self-help book was turned into a major motion picture with actors like Scarlett Johansson, Jennifer Aniston, Ben Affleck, and Jennifer Connolly to boot.  I also have pretty strong opinions about Hollywood conditioning women to expect “the fairy tale” when it comes to love, and how that can actually sabotage real-life relationships, so I had high hopes for this movie.  (See blogs here and here if you are curious about my opinions on fairy-tale love expectations.)

So you can imagine my disappointment when He’s Just Not That Into You turned out to be merely another example of a cheesy Hollywood ending, where the main characters turn out to be the exception, not the rule, and everyone is happy in the end.  WTF?!  Even the male character (name happens to be Alex) who insists most people are the rule ends up making an exception!  It’s the worst cliche ending!  This movie is not appropriate for Anti-Valentine’s Day parties at all – which is exactly what it was marketed as, because it was released just in time for Valentine’s Day 2009.

To be fair, I did watch the movie 3 times, so obviously there must have been something about it that at least entertained me.  And there was.  The truth behind some of the characters’ frustrations was incredibly funny to watch and relate to.  Social media networks for finding romance, the silly things girls do when a guy hasn’t called them yet, and guys do when they are playing “the game” … all these things make the movie fun to watch once.

I’m just not sold on it being a movie for people who are single and looking for an escape from the typical romantic comedy.

© 2009, The Table Has Shoes (and Other Ambiguities). All rights reserved.