So we didn’t post it but I’m assuming that in passing most folks have heard something or other about Roland Emmerich’s upcoming film 2012 which from the title alone, I took to be some end of the world, Mayan calendar disaster movie. I was only partly right. You see, no one told me this would also be a direct ripoff of Deep Impact. So it’s not caves but spaceships. Seriously…what gives?
It stars John Cusack, Thandie Newton, Woody Harrelson, Amanda Peet, Danny Glover, Oliver Platt and the totally awesome Chiwetel Ejiofor and includes huge special effects which are bound to attract the big crowds but I just can’t get over the fact that this is such a rehash (of already rehashed stuff). And here I was hoping for something even mildly original. At some point, I’d love to see someone do a good 2012/Mayan Calendar story.
I won’t kid you though – hubby’s already marked the calendar and I’m going whether I like it or not. At this point, I’d rather poke my eyes out.
You can see the trailer over at Yahoo. Personally, I prefer the teaser trailer; it had more doom and gloom.
I think I dislike Emmerich (and he occasional partner in crime Devlin) more than Michael bay. Ouch, he is probably wasting more than a few good actors in the mix.
And The Patriot is one of the most doofus-violent pieces of claptrap ever assembled on film. OOof.
I agree, Kurt. And this looks absolutely dreadful.
Irwin Allen is spinning in his grave…again.
Fuck you guys. This trailer looks fucking awesome, hits all the right ridiculously over the top notes.
The film itself will be a fucking piece of shit though. Which is pretty consistent with Emmerich.
Meh. The effects look great and the 2012 end of world thing appeals to me but the rest of it? Not so much.
What is a claptrap? Kurt, I still do not understand why you do not like The Patriot. It has good cinematography, great music, good acting and a easy to understand story. Too violent? It’s fucking war. Too patriotic? It’s about as celebratory of America as Starship Troopers is of the military.
What good actors are going missing with this project?
This trailer looks awesome. The only thing that will be wrong with this project, is that it will have human beings talking to eachother, to make all the idiots interested. I would like this to be just 50 minutes of awesome computer destruction. Sadly, because of morons out there, the only way I will get this is to sit through 70 minutes of lame talking and crying scenes.
The Patriot has american militia shooting surrendering british soldiers through the eye. This is a more complex study of warfare that you get in Saving Private Ryan!
Swarez, I believe Andrew enjoys the heck of the CORE for exactly the same reasons.
Henrik – The Patriot hits all the maudlin family notes and even attempts to go the anti-war angle, before dropping all pretension and going for bloody over the top gore and violence on an ever more ‘relish-and-fetishization’ manner than Braveheart (another dreadful epic). And it was sold and packaged as a historical picture worthy of folks consideration. Ouch. So offensive. As usual movies of this ilk white wash the hero (and history) of slavery and whatnot, etc. etc. need I go on?
It also has perhaps the worst laughably out of context line in this type of period movie in the last 20 years (well, this side of Sam Raimi’s much different in tone (and 1000x times superior) Quick & THe Dead), and *drumroll* “CAN I SIT HERE? — IT’S A FREE COUNTRY, OR AT LEAST IT WILL BE” WahWahWah. Dumb. Or Funny. Or Both.
Have to chime in.
A) I like this trailer. I won’t see the movie. But I like watching the trailer. The awesome destruction I’ll never see in real life (hopefully) is pretty damn cool to look at.
B) Yes, I really like The Core. I actually like it more each time. Mostly for the characters and a couple of interesting (and scientifically possible) ideas about what is in the center of the earth (“guys, I’m dodging Diamonds the size of Cape Cop here.”).
C) My biggest problem (one of many) with The Patriot is that it is an exact replica of Braveheart. But lazily put together and as patriotic as I am, I’m not sure I entirely believe the cruel/evil light the British are painted in that film. And when I say exact replica, I mean just that.
You misquote. The line is: “It’s a free conuntry. Or at least it will be.” There is a beat between the two sentiments, which makes a difference.
It came out during the summer of 2000, who expected it to be historical? OFFENSIVE? What is offensive about it? That it’s violent? It’s exploitation, in the european tradition, where things aren’t always done with a hint to the audience that you’re supposed to laugh.
Devlin said he would rather make a hero out of one of the few people who decided not to have slaves, than a slave-owner. I agree this choice seems pathetic. This is a movie that has the love interest of the young protagonist die in fiery flames, then kills the protagonsit as he tries to avenge her. That doesn’t happen in Hollywood. Lines like “I’m not a child.” – “You’re my child” is more depth that you usually get from these films.
The movie does not fetichisize violence beyond tolerability. It does fetichize war, beautiful uniforms walking against eachother, fantastic imagery of the battles, but is no more guilty of this than say, Barry Lyndon, while the context is different, the imagery is the same. And it looks fucking awesome.
Violence in way movies is needed. You need blood and savagery. Nothing is worse than the sanitized, over-stylized violence you usually get from Hollywood. The ultimate is the assault in Dr. Strangelove. The Patriot has a much different style, but I keep coming back to comparing it to Saving Private Ryan. It’s because they are from the same writer, and share much of the same awfulness. But Emmerich manages to make it palatable because he keeps an ironical distance, and also because he doesn’t shy away from the childish fascination of tin soldiers in shiny uniforms, marching along to The British Grenadiers in a green field. He relishes the childish fascination with guns and cannons, whereas Spielberg tries to stylize it to the point of relevance, and just makes it seem fake and ridiculous. Mel Gibson and Heath Ledger have great scenes in the film, they share the same jovial yet serious approach to the material, and are grounded in their performances. I like The Patriot quite a bit, I think it’s a good movie, Tom Wilkinson and Jason Isaacs have great scenes as well, and Wilkinsons character is historically relevant enough to make the british seem tolerable in the film. What this film has msot of all, that Spielbergs doesn’t, is the childish fascination that is infinitely charming and pleasurable. If you ever played with toy soldiers, I don’t see how you can not take in The Patriot with a sense of joy. Also, it focuses on a part of the war that is not that well-documented, Spielberg of course, focuses on the most well-known part (parts, counting List) of the war, to gain the biggest effect from his inferior admirers.
Jonathan, you like history. Are you not fascinated by the aesthetics of warfare? The Patriot has few modern peers in portraying war as poetry. Combine that with the brutality of the piece, and you gain a balance that, in the minds of thinking people, create a sensation of war that feels authentic and explaining, in terms of how people want to go there, and how people do not want to go there.
“when I say exact replica, I mean just that.”
You’re fucking missing the point! There are no redcoats marching forward to The British Grenadiers in Braveheart! That makes all the difference Andrew. Besides, Gibsons characters are completely different. It’s more like Gibsons character in The Patriot is a continuation of his character in Braveheart – they start out in completely different places, under very different circumstances.
The wars are different as well. The scottish war is started by an oppressed people, wanting freedom from a foreign power. The American Revolution – unlike any other revolution in history – was started by the upper class, not wanting to pay taxes of their enourmous wealth to a foreign king. These are very, very different ways of approaching conflict, let alone war, and make the choices having to be made by people very different. I will argue, that if Russell Crowe had played the main character in The Patriot, you would never have compared it Braveheart.
Sorry for the typos. When I read my posts, it’s almost like english isn’t my first language :/.
Hahhahahahaha. You just compared The Patriot to Barry Lyndon. No two films could be further from each other. Even in the ‘glorification of the uniform.’ Please be a little more substansive when making such comparisons.
@Henrik “The Patriot has a much different style, but I keep coming back to comparing it to Saving Private Ryan. It’s because they are from the same writer, and share much of the same awfulness.”
Now we are on the same page
I compared the images Kurt. If you don’t see the comparison of Kubricks minutes-long presentation of marching uniforms set to variations of Mozarts aria of the military in The marriage of Figaro to Emmerichs – historically accurate – portrayal of redcoats marching to The British Grenadiers, I recommend you watch the movies again.
It find it way superior to Spielbergs copying Dr. Strangelove in his beach scene – the difference is taste. Some things you can stylize, and some things you can not. Something you definitely can not do, is stylize the documentary format, it will always feel fake and staged.
“Hahhahahahaha.”
I incorrectly thought higher of you. This the 2nd most retarted retord on the internet, beaten only by “Wow.”
“No two films could be further from each other.”
Are you really standing behind this? Otherwise, please be more substansive.
@Henrik, “Combine that with the brutality of the piece, and you gain a balance that, in the minds of thinking people, create a sensation of war that feels authentic and explaining, in terms of how people want to go there, and how people do not want to go there.”
Now it’s been a while since i’ve seen the film, but that statement is 10x ludicrous in terms of the maudlin and overbearing drama in this picture, not to mention the lack of history. I’ll take my ‘having fun with it’ and apply it to Verhoeven, who does have something to say in blockbuster-y format (heck, perhaps even with Showgirls, well maybe not) over the oversimplified –masturbatory– visuals of Emmerich. His fetisization of the uniform and the american-ness of the story is no different than a blunderheaded “Fuck Yea” michael bay picture. Well, if Bay makes movies for 8 year olds, Emmerich may make them for 10 year olds. Splitting hairs.
@Henrik “Are you really standing behind this? Otherwise, please be more substansive.”
You sir made the comparison initially, I’m waiting for you to justify it or move along…
The ball is in your court, for your off-the-wall statements.
Indulge me with your insight, Henrik.
The “hahaha” was put there in equivalent to a smiley. It’s not an ‘argument’ or ‘point’ it is merely a way to offer a little ‘body language’ and tone to the text.
Either way, Kubrick’s picture is so far different in tone and theme from Emmerich’s film that comparing a single scene and gauging intent is (IMO) not appropriate. If anything, Kubrick is rather acerbic in his presentation compared to Emmerich’s practical lip-smack-salivating.
Night. And. Day.
The only thing I have to prove is that they are closer together than any two films I can think of.
They both have uniforms in them.
They a closer than The Squid and the Whale and The Patriot.
Consider your statement disproven.
America is ultimately formed by the french, who do have to endure their share of typical pathetic american jokes in the film, but it is mentioned that without france, there would be no America. This is more credit than I would give Michael Bay, were he to make a film about the revolution. Then it would have been about two young recruits, fighting the war not as a cause, but as a means to get the heart of a young girl, desperately in love with the uniform, maybe she would even be a nurse, in order to gain a strong female perspective.
Puh-lease Kurt.
“Now it’s been a while since i’ve seen the film, but that statement is 10x ludicrous in terms of the maudlin and overbearing drama in this picture, not to mention the lack of history.”
I don’t really understand this sentence. I don’t know the word “maudlin” for one. Also, the lack of history? Even if the war was made up, the sentiment of the film still stands. How is overbearing drama worth considering when I am talking about the portrayal of war? Please explain.
“Kubrick’s picture is so far different in tone and theme from Emmerich’s film that comparing a single scene and gauging intent is (IMO) not appropriate.”
The images, Kurt, the images. Please, be reasoned when you read what I write. I am not your child.
With your agething, I will go along. But I will say Emmerich makes movies for 8year olds, and Michael bay makes them for 16year olds. The difference is that I find romance in being 8 years old, and no romance in being 16 years old. A 50year old man, who thinks of being 8 as a wonderful time is a romantic. A 50year old who thinks of being 16 years old as a wonderful time is delusional.
Still though, there is the grown-up no-bullshit portrayal of viciousness in The Patriot – something also on display in Shyamalans The Happening – that I respond to on a purely adult level. I think it is appropriate to display horrible deeds and disgusting violence in the camera, when portraying violence. The worst thing you can do is sanitize it by making it look cool (see Steven Spielberg). Unless it feels matter-of-factly, I tune out.
@Henrik: “The images, Kurt, the images. Please, be reasoned when you read what I write. I am not your child.”
Eisenstein on Montage/Context/etc: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_montage_theory
It’s not the individual images per say, it is how they are arranged and what context they are presented. Black in one movie can be White in another depending on how it is done (here is a halfway-decent analogy for what I mean: http://www.designmatrix.com/pl/cyberpl/cic.html)
I would argue that the version of violence in THE PATRIOT is the wanky-teen trying to play grown-up….but that’s just me.
I’m not going to defend Saving Private Ryan, it is maudlin and overbearing in the drama dept as The Patriot. I happen to think the opening scene is quite effective and brutal, but the rest of the film not so much. The framing device in SPR is about as clumsy as much of the connective tissue in The Patriot.
However, I think Emmerich’s jerk-off fetization is no better then Spielbergs ‘sanitization’ – I cry foul to both of ‘em as history lessons or an education of ‘real’ violence. Both are movies first. Everything else second.
I found the ‘violence’ in THE HAPPENING quite snicker-worthy.
Are you seriously telling me that the lion-bit on the iPhone was ‘adult’ or even ‘effective’?
The Happening works on the plane that it is a somewhat earnest, somewhat jokey film in the spirit of B-pictures (from The Sentinal to They Live)
…
Are you saying that Kubrick does not fetichize the beauty of soldiers in uniform marching in Barry Lyndon? He may use music and voice-over contrapunctually (I have no translation for this danish word, let me know if you do/do not know what it means), but there is no question that Emmerich stole images from Lyndon, just like SS stole from Strangelove. The difference, for me at least, is that Emmerich does so with love and affection for the childish fascination of the beauty, and SS tries to replicate the harshness reality, but does so with computer effects, sound effects, music and whatnot, completely missing the point, more than negating the effect.
Kubrick was a visualist, he saw the fucking potential beauty in the uniforms, just like in the spaceships, and created iconic images on screen. You are too caught up in trying to decipher the meaning, solving the riddle of the story and sensations, to see the obvious exploitation on display in Barry Lyndon. Exploitation used ironically, in The Patriot used unironically, but exploitation none-the-less. And, in the end – to quote Leni Riefenstahl (another unironic filmmaker, one of the best ever) – “You see only beauty.”
In The Happening I was thinking of the gunscene, as being particularly vicious. The Lion Attack is vicious enough, but seems a bit like a joke, not very effective, just entertaining. Shyamalan has a problem with balancing his newer films, it seems he always tries to throw something in to entertain the masses, but his sense of humor is inappropriate for his sentiments, and his sense of timing is way, way off.
His films are still interesting though.
Examples of art where the meaning is absolutely despicable, but the aesthitics are such that I surrender to them:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cr_iNfxZl0I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCSgWPZeNjc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BddVfcQX-v4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8SPeR60lRI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P93cI_u1mng
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0P6bmfhLO1E
“Irwin Allen is spinning in his grave…again.”
Oh please. If he had the tools back in the day this would be exactly what he wanted to pull off.
“Oh please. If he had the tools back in the day this would be exactly what he wanted to pull off.”
There is a charm and visceral action that is at the heart of these movies that Emmerich cant even come close to, a broader canvas of this type distances the relation of the charcters to the the actual goal set by the the event, and as a consequence it’s really hard to care. There is also the fact that these movies are spectacle as with Allen’s movies to be fair but CG actually kills any tension and watching these actors get a big fat pay check and not having fire and falling rumble all round is pretty lame.
I
No. They are exactly the same thing, just better done these day.
This is just nostalgia talking.
Have to agree with Swarez on Irwin Allen. Those movies were dreck back then, and their modern versions are pretty awful too. In away, the gaudiness of the modern incarnations are more tribute than insult to Allen’s legacy.
There are some films that really benefit from practical effects, the old Allen pictures look cheap despite their stars, and the tension isn’t there. You can hear the ka-ching of the paycheck for those actors back then, too.
Maybe it has little to do with nostalgia, but not for those movies per se but for practical effects and for the art of the stunt man. The CG spectacle just leaves me cold and even within this shoddy genre there was a kind of microcosm of humanity displayed in those early disaster movies that really isn’t present in these newer versions.
I’m not a CG hater or an Allen defender for that matter, but if it’s a quiet Sunday afternoon and say it was Poseidon adventure against the Day After Tomorrow on TV I think I’d have more fun going old school, and isn’t that the point within this genre. CG is a great tool when used correctly but it’s rare to see it as a tool among others rather than the primary tool.
Kurt you have a cold heart dude, no tension what about the Shelley Winters swimming scene in Poseidon that tore me up back in the day (Oscar nom as well for that role, not that it means much, but means more than it does today)
Anyway I’m off to see Transformers 2 (not really going to catch ‘Looking for Eric’ for the second time, which I can’t recommend enough)
@Lee “Kurt you have a cold heart dude, no tension what about the Shelley Winters swimming scene in Poseidon that tore me up back in the day (Oscar nom as well for that role, not that it means much, but means more than it does today)”
Well, sure, even in a mountain of mediocre there are moments of brightness.
I prefer the SCTV Parodies sketches of these films. Joe Flaherty slapping the back of his neck and declaring “DAMN! WHy do they have to build these things so high!” for the Towering Inferno takedown.
There are no shortages of stunt men and crumbling miniatures in these modern films. ID4′s destruction scenes were all models and physical effects. The Poseidon remake was all physical sets, water and fire. Emmerich is a fan of model work and knows how to use them with CGI augmenting the look, more debris and stuff like that. Wouldn’t surprise me that most of the destruction scenes in 2012 were miniatures because there are some things that computers still can’t do realistically.
Wouldn’t this film be a great double feature with The Road? Start with the destruction of 2012 and then end it with the drama of The Road.