2012: Supernova (2009)

I'll tell you why so serious

An Exercise In Nonsense

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

I laughed so hard during this movie that I had an asthma attack. That's when it hit me the beginning scene of the Mother and Daughter watching The Ring must have ended up on the cutting room floor. Before the reason for the movie even gets near earth Mom and daughter almost die no less than 7 times. Mother nature hits them with everything from lightening storms that cause rock slides and fire to a tornado they hide out from in a house with no windows. How 2 people could have this much bad luck is beyond me but I can see why Dad left to go into space and try to take out the supernova it was prolly safer out there than anywhere near his calamity prone kin. Don't even get me started on the acting, special effects, and lighting. I should have known it was going to be bad when I saw the white lighter guy from charmed as the lead. Bad bad and worse. Only good for a laugh.

I disagree with many of the other reviewers ... though, as I've explained elsewhere, I'm a fan of bad movies ... da badda da bettuh! This, though, had fine special effects for a low-budget movie, the action sequences were exciting (though the fight scenes got terribly repetitive) and, except for the actor who portrayed the Russian, the acting was actually rather good. The stunt men/women who performed the driving sequences did excellent jobs. Like, wow! Plot holes? Close-on Tommy-gun fire is considerably more effective than portrayed. People who have tall stacks of crates toppled upon them rarely are nimble afterwards. People who have been repeatedly hit in fights end up bruised: these didn't. The underlying "science": yuk, yuk, yuk !!! And the identity of the Head Bad Person was a bit obvious. It's always enjoyable to see "2012" computer equipment in earlier films. The readout for when the full effects of the supernova were expected to strike Earth was delightfully retro. I look forward to a 2013, 2014, or 2015 movie who's starting point is that the world really was destroyed on 12/21/12, and which will then go on to explain why we didn't notice.

I'd love to pick holes in the science in this movie, but it's pretty difficult to pick holes in a vacuum. They use quite a few scientific sounding words and phrases, but the sound is pretty much as close as it gets to actual content. That wouldn't be so bad - there are many movies out there whose writers knew little about science and yet still managed to create an entertaining movie. Sadly, this is not one of them. As vacuous as the science is, it still beats both the rest of the plot as well as the acting ability exhibited in this movie.You see, we can excuse the writers for failing to know elementary physics - it's not their primary job skill. But when the story fails in pretty much every other area as well, the writers have no such excuse. It's obviously not because they're using the story as a device for showing off pretty special effects, as special effects movies require a budget which is orders of magnitude larger than we see spent on this one. Nope, the story just plain sucks. It fails to be dramatic, thrilling, or even interesting.And then we get to the actors. Now, I know they can do better - they have in the past. Here, however, they fail. Were the lines truly as excruciatingly painful as their expressions suggest? Are they overacting in every scene, or is the disaster they are reacting to actually the effect on their careers from being in this film? Hmmm, possibly so. I would like to rate this movie as the worst movie this century, but with 90 years to go, I'm sure there will be bigger turkeys that this one. In the previous 10 years, however, there are few that can challenge this movie for its position near the bottom.

I read lots of comments on this film along the lines of Worst Film Ever, and I say this to you:The camera rests steadily on a tripod except when being hand-held is necessary in an action sequence; The film is in focus and correctly exposed; There is some nifty stunt driving; Many of the effects are passable.With these qualities in mind, I refer naysayers to "Aquanoids". I don't recommend watching it, oh no: I am not a cruel man and I couldn't, in all conscience, make that recommendation to anyone, entirely on humanitarian grounds. But I have watched Aquanoids so that you don't have to, and I am here to tell you that if you had watched it, there is no way you could accuse poor old 2012: Supernova of being the Worst Film Ever - it doesn't approach Aquanoids' lamentable standards on a technical or artistic level.Having said that, 2012: Supernova ain't very good.Which tells you something about Aquanoids.