In his review, Ebert said, “The most unexpected thing about the movie is not that it’s funny, which we expect, but that it’s sweet. Ebert raved about “Junior”, giving the film three and half stars. It must have been a down year for comedies and musicals. Despite the tepid response, Schwarzenegger and Thompson were nominated for Golden Globes for their performances.
Most thought it was a nice change of pace for Schwarzenegger and was a cute comedy with a been-there, done-that joke scheme and premise. Overall, “Junior” had a lukewarm reception, with a 42 percent approval rating from the critics on Rotten Tomatoes. Emma Thompson, the most believable doctor of the three, stars as well. Danny DeVito also stars as a obstetrician and gynecologist. the Governator, stars as a research geneticist who undergoes male pregnancy as part of a scientific experiment. I cannot defend Roger on this one, and Gene and him can watch “Speed 2” in heaven without me.Īrnold Schwarzenegger, aka. He has spoken about the difficulty of making films such as this, on something that is always moving. The review has inspired more disbelief than any of his others. Since when was goofy part of the summer thriller genre? Sandra Bullock, who thankfully recovered from this, looks crazy and initially lost some credibility from this film.Įbert’s review of the film, along with Gene Siskel’s, are the only positive reviews on the film on Rotten Tomatoes, hence the 2 percent approval rating. Ebert, on the other hand, saw the film as fun and goofy, perfect for a hot summer evening. If it wasn’t for Willem Dafoe’s unhinged performance, this film would have no redeeming factors. This film is simply ridiculous, the action is poor, and it’s on a slow-moving cruise ship, not a fast-moving bus, where you feel every movement a character makes. I know right?! Who? With respect to Patric’s roles in “Sleepers” and “The Lost Boys”, he was a sorry replacement here. Keanu Reeves isn’t in it, which already takes the film down a notch as he actually gave a quality performance in the first film, a rare feat for Reeves. There was nothing thrilling about this sequel. There is no substance behind “2012”, so I disagree strongly with this rating.Ĭruise control was right.
No matter how great the effects are, as Ebert raves throughout most of his review, there has to be some substance. However, I disagree with how Ebert credits the film with his star system. He is saying that the rating may be a shock, but not to compare to others so literally. He argues that this is not a masterpiece, it is not one of the best of year, but it is a quality example of what a disaster film can be. I will give Ebert credit with the end of review. There is no characterization or much a plot, it’s just cool set pieces and special effects for 158 minutes, which is a super long time to have no real plot and a terrible script, but that’s nothing new for a Roland Emmerich film. So, I wouldn’t be writing this if Ebert gave it a two or two and a half stars, it’s because he gave it three and a half stars. There’s some beautiful technical work going on here, and as Ebert mentions, “2012” delivers what it promises.
I don’t think it’s bad in fact, I would give the film a mixed review, especially coming from the second place king of explosions, Roland Emmerich. Hopefully, that was his thought process behind giving “2012” three and a half stars. If it is for kids or for teenage boys, he might give the film a higher rating if he thinks the film has served that audience well. Ebert is great at keeping the intended audience of the film in mind.