2012 - Bad acting is the apocalypse

2017-01-02

Roland pulls out all the stops in the disaster genre by blowing up the entire planet (sorta). Bad science and bad acting abound in one heck of a production, but does that translate into a good time? Lets just start by saying this film is way too long. By the 3/4 point even the diehard dumb movie viewer is tired and bored of the "excitement". It just keeps going and going and going. That would be ok if you could possibly be emotionally invested in the characters in anyway. But you just want them all to...

Roland pulls out all the stops in the disaster genre by blowing up the entire planet (sorta). Bad science and bad acting abound in one heck of a production, but does that translate into a good time?

Lets just start by saying this film is way too long. By the 3/4 point even the diehard dumb movie viewer is tired and bored of the "excitement". It just keeps going and going and going. That would be ok if you could possibly be emotionally invested in the characters in anyway. But you just want them all to die.

The acting is awful. Woody Harrelson steals the show with his terrible hippie Art Bell. But he's not alone. John Cusask shows us why he went straight to VOD after this. His Jackson Curtis is about the least likable character in all of film. He's a giant douche who at no point redeems himself. Amanda Peet (who somehow manages to keep her top on) does nothing to thrill us. Danny Glover looks quite confused throughout.

The action/disaster sequences though...wow. If they were an amp, they would go to 11. But as mentioned they eventually become stale, bogged down by the surrounding idiocy of the script. Too much is such a thing....

So 2012 was a sure disappointment on second viewing. This one is best left in the $2 bin at the pawn shop.

Comments (3)