New at BOP: Review: Matrix Resurrections Movie Review: Moonfall Movie Reviews: Scream The #1 Movie in America November Forecast The Many Saints of Newark October Forecast New Trivia Question All site updates Share & Save   Tweet Print this column

Sean Collier: Perhaps crowds just wanted one further big, stupid thrill before Oscar season begins in earnest. I thought this genre was dead, but clearly I was wrong - especially considering the imposing runtime and lack of star power. A shame when we're congratulating a studio for tricking people into seeing a dreadful movie, but Sony did that very well this week.

Tom Macy: At the risk of being unoriginal, I say it's the trailer. When it comes to Ronald Emmerich and his desire to see the world destroyed I am as cynical as anyone, but after seeing the preview, which I was subjected to several times, all I could say was "wow." We've seen the end of the world before, but this just looked spectacular.

Jason Lee: Frankly, I think audiences welcomed the chance to turn off their brain and enjoy a film that doesn't purport to be anything other than a cheesy popcorn flick (mmmm, cheesy popcorn). Our economy is still in the dumpster, people aren't happy with the health care debate, retailers began foisting Christmas on shoppers before Halloween hit in a desperate attempt to boost sales, and unemployment is at a 26-year high. If that doesn't make people wanna see things get blowed up real good, then I don't know what will.

Reagen Sulewski: The important thing that Emmerich and Sony did is to not go for any half measures. The stakes have been raised such that any disaster movie pretty much has to have the entire frigging world be destroyed for anyone to care. While I don't think this is the end of disaster movies any more than Saw was the end of torture porn, I do think we've seen Emmerich's magnum opus.

Max Braden: Screen size still matters, I think. A lot of movies can be put off for the less expensive convenience of watching at home, but if there's a movie that begs to be seen on the largest screen possible, it's this catastrophic end-of-the-world movie. Everything about it screams huge. I don't remember if there were significantly alternate trailers for 2012, and even if there were, I think they went the right route in repeated a couple money shots endlessly without giving much else away. Sometimes that can indicate that there isn't anything else to see, but in this case I think it worked as bait.

Les Winan: We're all going to die!!! AAAHHHH!

What else can we blow up?

Kim Hollis: Does the success of 2012 indicate that there is enough distance from the events of 9/11 that such monument porn is now palatable?

Josh Spiegel: It's worth pointing out that The Day After Tomorrow came out less than three years after 9/11 and destroyed lots of monuments with the killer weather and did very well. 2012 is, of course, a little different in that it feels like Roland Emmerich is solely interested now in making movies where every single thing, short of the boom mike, turns into an explosion. Frankly, with the ADD style of pop culture, I can't say that I thought too much of 9/11 when I watched the ridiculous trailers for this movie, but there are others who may feel different. Either way, mainstream audiences are obviously forgiving enough.

Continued:       1       2       3