Pulp Fiction Review: The Movie is Fiction, the Hype is Real.

Pulp Fiction is easily one of the most recognizable and infamous films, especially of the last decade or so. But why? So many times I've been asked "What makes Pulp Fiction so fantastic?"

I'll tell you what.

Pulp Fiction features such an array of genre-blending moments and set pieces to keep you interested, simply on the brink of delving into its real prowess. It's all too easy to remember "that one scene," and anyone and everyone will recognize it and join in your reminiscing. From Jackrabbit Slim's to Dead Nigger Storage, Pulp Fiction relies heavily on quirkiness and offbeat, dark and satirical comedy and does so masterfully. He creates his own universe, as he does with most of his works, giving him free reign to do things as he pleases. One of the reasons people even watch movies is to escape the reality of our world, and placing a story in a totally fictional environment yet still believable is just what most people will love in any movie, especially this one. Thurman, Travolta, Walken, Jackson and Willis all give lasting, memorable performances in the film; it also created possible career-making roles for Thurman and Jackson. Travolta's career was completely revamped due to this masterpiece (on the list of the American Film Institute's top 100 American films of all time), and had it not been for this Fiction of the Pulp variation, we may not see him around as much.

Good or bad as that may be, Pulp Fiction still sets itself as the iconic 90's noir film. It takes elements from several different cinematic sources and blends them ever so perfectly, creating a visceral experience not by sight, not by sound, but by involvement. The tangled web the plot weaves seems to go in circles at times, which you would think would be a negative aspect of it, but toward the end, everything is wrapped nice and neat with a bloody Tarantino bow on top. In essence, Pulp Fiction sets in all this uneasiness and mystery with the story as a whole, and the pay off at the end is so gratifying, playing off itself. Yes, by the time Pulp Fiction reaches its end, it has enough material to play off itself. Simply put, that's genius, and leave it to a masterful director such as Tarantino to pull it off exquisitely.

Pulp Fiction is half comedy, half noir-gangster drama, but all clever. Each character is easily up for a "favorite" from the film itself (or Tarantino's repertoire) just because they're so damn interesting and leveled. The dialogue, although pointless at times, is spot-on hilarious. When you can make a cheeseburger sound infinitely more interesting than murder, you've got a real gem on your hands. This is also just one of those films that is impossible to overrate; too many times have I ranted and raved about a film I thought was nearly flawless, only to show someone and have them say "it wasn't THAT good." That's quite the bullet to the chest for a reviewer or any real film person, for that matter. But Pulp Fiction stands the test of time itself and is still such a fun experience, no amount of reverence can offshoot someone's personal expectations for it.

Those who don't enjoy Pulp Fiction will probably just not get it. It's like telling a multi-layered joke to someone who smirks just because the rest of the group is hysterically bursting out in laughter. Pulp Fiction retains elements of drama, self-reflection, revenge, physical comedy, involving dialogue, memorable set pieces and a fantastic overall performance by the entire cast. Why Pulp Fiction didn't win Best Picture in 1994 is beyond me. If it hadn't at least been nominated, there would probably have been a heavy revolt and retaliation against the Academy.

To this day, there's nary a film to match Pulp Fiction's level of sophisticated comedy and plot machinations. There's simply been too many copies are cash-ins due to Pulp's success, and mockery is the most sincere form of flattery. Pulp Fiction is, to this day, Quentin Tarantino's tour de force of filmmaking. Yes, all of his directed films are par for the course, but it is this shining, early brilliance that established him as one of Hollywood's highest ranking directors.

The rare 10/10.

-Kyle Shelton

The Fall Review: Majestic.

Tarsem Singh, known for his cult hit "The Cell," returns to the silver screen with his independently funded visual parade of color, "The Fall." Certainly one of the most underrated films of the year, The Fall is a beautiful and encouraging story of revenge and heroism on a truly epic scale. This scale, however, is awkwardly balanced, and although magnificent to view, its not without its series of faults.

Anyone who's seen The Fall will tell you the same thing: it's stunning eye-candy, beyond almost anything you can comprehend in modern filmmaking. What Tarsem does with the cinematography, costume design and set pieces is transform what would ordinarily be just a desert, just a hospital, or just water...he turns it all into beautiful bewilderment for the senses. While the scheme of colors will certainly transcend what you may be used to, on par with it is the performance by one-time star Catinca Untaru. If you get the DVD or somehow find interviews with cast and crew, you'll find some neat fun facts, mostly revolving around her character. Most of her dialogue is completely improvised because the crew wanted her to believe what was happening on set was actually real, such as Lee Pace's character being bed-ridden because he broke his leg. On a side note, Lee Pace provides a very intriguing and memorable performance as Roy, a failed and loveless stuntman.

Roy proceeds to tell a large-scale, stunning story of unwavering love and justified revenge, but stops at the most crucial moments, forcing young Alexandria (Untaru) to get him medication he wants. The film is basically split into two intersecting stories: the one Roy tells Alexandria and the real-life story of Roy's illness and Alexandria's defiance and perseverance. The story that Roy creates is vividly imagine by Alexandria in a series of semi-narrated sequences, all brilliantly played out and orchestrated.

So what's the problem? Depth. The Fall lacks depth. In what could easily have underlying themes and real emotional value, there is almost none. The Fall falls barren and flat by the end, and as beautiful and interesting as it is, none of the characters really have any interesting layers to them. The back-stories of the 5 protagonists and the main antagonists are barely touched on, and they're mostly very interesting. Its sad to see lifelines of potentially incredible characters cut so short. Although the whole "story" within the story is completely made up of the top of Roy's mind as he's on several forms of medication, there are parts towards the middle-end that either trail off into nothing or don't really make sense. The Fall is quirky and an odd film, to say the least, but by the end, you'll feel a strange mix of uneasy dissatisfaction and a thematic orgasm.

The Fall's greatest strength, though, is a great strength that still has yet to be paralleled in my view. Every single shot taking place within the faux story is simply jaw-dropping, and to know that no special effects or fake transitions were used is just another mind-blowing gratification. What The Fall lacks in its narrative, it more than makes up for in its skin-deep beauty. In fact, imagine The Fall as an angelically attractive person with emotion and ambition who ultimately just isn't good at any of his/her talents he/she tries to evoke. The Fall looked to be like an Academy Award-grabbing escapade, and in its costume and set departments, it should be. However, The Fall could have been a spectacular overall film if only the script had been focused on a little more. If the plot and characters had been revisited a little more, or to the degree of the bombastic visuals, The Fall would have been perfect.

8.0/10
-Kyle Shelton

Add, Adapt, Repeat: Holistic Hollywood's Never-Fail Formula

On this day of Thanksgiving, I chose to reflect on a few things: my career and future, my family and friends, and the quality of the cinema today. Perhaps not all directly related to each other, that last section is what struck me the most: the quality of cinema today. Most of today's movies range from perfect to downright awful, but they all have one thing in common: lack of originality. An easy comparison would be Slumdog Millionaire, winner of the Academy Award for Best Motion Picture vs. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, a despicable escapade of special effects and product placement. Both are adaptations of other works of art, Slumdog being a direct adaptation of the book "Q & A" by Vikus Swarup, Transformers being both an adaptation of the original "Transformers" tv show and line of toys as well as a sequel to the simply-titled "Transformers" back in 2007.

Problems lie within these kinds of titles. Yes, there exist plenty of films that may be adaptations, remakes or sequels and are commercially and critically successful, but personally, I sense a strong inclination of overseeing the huge, overlying predicament Hollywood faces: ideas. There's a fine line between originality and creativity: originality is being able to derive source material from one's own mind and creativity is the ability to make anything, published or not, into your own work. Directors, actors and writers are constantly churning out creativity in the movie market today, but who sees a truly original, truly individual, truly stand-out work of art? Nearly no one. The foreign markets seem to be gleaming in the lime light of originality (namely the Swedish made "Home" or the Japanese "Big Man Japan" or even the disturbing Hungarian "Taxidermia"), but not much more than the U.S. agenda's spotlight of commercial cash-in. This year alone, it wouldn't be difficult to name 50 films off the top of your mind that are, in some way, adapted, remade, or added from/to another work. The most global and historically recognized and successful films all fall prey to this legitimate truth: Gone with the Wind was a book, Titanic was a historical event and countlessly adapted into novels and other films, the Spider-Man series is adapted from the famous comic books by Marvel, The Dark Knight is simply a different take on the already-popularized Batman culture from DC Comics, the Twilight series is based on the famous series of tween novels, and Pirates of the Caribbean was originally based on a Disney ride in California (only to spawn sequels that build off initial premises). These allegations, in themselves, serve as an homage to our money-hungry leaders, particularly the producers in movie studios who jump at any opportunity to seduce the feeble minded and mass market into throwing money into a trivial trap that is "the movies."

In fact, you could see any given film and it's about 85% likely to be a sequel, adaptation or remake.

Maybe I am being a little too harsh in this observation, though. Personally, the cinema is a grandiose gift to humanity, a way of producing any given work into its own separate entity, injecting excitement and posing new ideas, concepts and ventures from already-made books, plays and stories. Movies are a glorification of practically any work, being able to turn even the most mundane and melancholy novel into an energetic or emotional thrill of a story. Sticking to source material or not, movies just have that special something that make us pay attention and believe what is on screen is real. They pull you in and never let go.

And therein lies the base for the creativity conundrum. The strength of films are their ultimate demise; the fact that a movie can be so irresistible and fantastic (to each their own) completely deludes the human mind. Sure, Academy Award-winning pictures could be great, but the trend we see today is rarely touched upon: they're all unoriginal. Luckily, studios like Disney and Pixar produce original works; that is to say, many animated features that are released are original for the most part. Take the film "Up" for example, by Pixar Studios. Up is the kind of film that you couldn't dream up in your wildest imaginations, and on top of its originality and creativity, it became both commercially and critically successful, earning rave reviews from critics and the general public alike. Its cute, its witty and clever, but most importantly, its not a copy.

Now if only we could adapt the ideology of originality that some studios put forth rather than adapt more New York Times Bestselling Novels, the people's minds wouldn't be so convoluted. We've come to a point where people mostly say "I can't wait til they make that [book, play, musical, ride, tv show, event, etc.] into a movie!" Remember a time when kids and grown-ups alike would come up with a preposterous yet infinitely intriguing concept and say "Yeah...they should make that into a movie!" ? Those were the days.

Now, I hope no one believes that I'm personally chewing up the film industry and spitting them on the street simply because they are making tons of unoriginal works...well, maybe I am; however, I do enjoy plenty of films that are taken from other publications like Slumdog Millionaire and even my most prized choice film of all time, The Lion King. The Dark Knight makes my top list as well as A Clockwork Orange, but the films that truly inspire me and send me into a state of awe are the films that don't have concrete source material. Tarantino's films come to mind, as they're all incredibly original as well as creative. Sure, Pulp Fiction, Kill Bill and Inglourious Basterds are examples of films that have roots in other ideas, genres and publications, but they're not entirely cookie-cutter carbon copies of them. Pulp Fiction is a tongue-in-cheek satire of the noir style of film, Kill Bill builds on several different anime/manga/Japanese filmmaking concepts but mixes them perfectly into a masterpiece milkshake, and Inglourious Basterds takes elements from war films, particularly WWII films, and satirizes them while giving it that pulpy B-Movie flare that he's known for. Or many of the indie films that most of us never hear about: those tend to win over the audiences that actually do see them and the critics that they tend to. Tarsem Singh's "The Fall," Marc Webb's "500 Days of Summer," or Darren Aronofsky's "The Wrestler" and "Requiem for a Dream" are all independent films that the masses perhaps weren't keen to, and they got it right. Even Paranormal Activity, seemingly taking a candle to Cloverfield and The Blair Witch Project, was wholely creative and fantastic in execution. It seems that the biggest offenders here are main-market, audience pleasing big-budget blowouts. What am I bashing? Let's review:


Transformers (Adaptation)
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (Adaptation, Sequel)
My Sister's Keeper (Adaptation)
Disney's A Christmas Carol (Adaptation, Remake)
Twilight (Adaptation)
Twilight: New Moon (Adaptation, Sequel)
Harry Potter (All of them) (Adaptations, Sequels)
The Road (Adaptation)
Amelia (Historical)
Astro Boy (Adaptation)
The Lord of the Rings (Adaptation)
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (Adaptation, Sequel)
The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King (Adaptation, Sequel)
Pirates of the Caribbean (Adaptation)
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (Sequel)
Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (Sequel)
The Boondock Saints: All Saint's Day (Sequel)
Halloween (Remake)
Halloween II (Sequel)
Friday the 13th (Remake)
A Nightmare on Elm Street (Remake)
The Ring (Remake)
The Grudge (Remake)
When a Stranger Calls (Remake)
Mirrors (Remake)
One Missed Call (Remake)
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (Remake)
Ice Age: The Meltdown (Sequel)
Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs (Sequel)
Julie and Julia (Adaptation)
The Men who Stare at Goats (Historical)
Pirate Radio (Historical)
The Stepfather (Remake)
Saw II - VI (Sequels)
Surrogates (Adaptation)
Watchmen (Adaptation)
The Time Traveler's Wife (Adaptation)
Whip It (Adaptation)
Where the Wild Things Are (Adaptation)
Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans (Remake)
The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 (Remake)
2012 (Historical)
The Da Vinci Code (Adaptation)
Angels & Demons (Adaptation)
My Bloody Valentine 3D (Remake)
The Pink Panther (Remake, Adaptation)
The Pink Panther 2 (Sequel)
Street Figher: The Legend of Chun-Li (Adaptation)
Alone in the Dark (Adaptation)
Crank 2 (Sequel)
Transporter 2 and 3 (Sequels)
Race to Witch Mountain (Remake)
12 (Remake)
Funny Games (Remake)
The Haunting in Connecticut ("Historical")
The Fast and The Furious 2, The Fast and The Furious: Tokyo Drift, Fast and Furious (Sequels)
Poseidon (Remake)
Fame (Remake)
Terminator: Rise of the machines (Sequel)
Terminator: Salvation (Sequel)
Max Payne (Adaptation)
The Punisher (Adaptation)
The Punisher: War Zone (Adaptation)
X-Men Origins: Wolverine (Adaptation, Prequel)
Underworld: Rise of the Lycans (Prequel)
Underworld: Evolution (Sequel)
The Kite Runner (Adaptation)


And these are only more recent films. Tons of films from beyond the current generation retain the same sequel/remake/adaptation style that we see today, as well as plenty of confirmed future projects; unfortunately, its the rate at which these copies simply churn out of the producers' factories that plague our industry. And just to reiterate, I'm not saying any given film that happens to be a sequel, remake or adaptation is bad or not enjoyable, but its simply a sad situation to be in when all anyone hears about are films based on numerous other sources and publications. I do appreciate the volumes of books that have been adapted onto the screen; there are plenty of titles out there today that I would love to see turned cinematic. However, the majority of films today fall into that specific "recycled" idea, and I'd rather see a year full of completely original, non-cliche films than even my most anticipated adaptation.

An entirely separate encyclopedia could be written based solely on movies that may not be carbon copies of a specific work, but are simply rehashes of every other movie. You may go through a list and see plenty of films that fit my accusations, but also many that may not. Lest we forget that Romantic Comedies, J-Horror, Torture Porn, Noir/Pulp, Masculinity and Disaster sub-genres all tend to blend within their groups as extremely identical, and each contain glaringly blatant similarities among themselves that catch the attention of the average movie-goer. I guess you could say a film like "Ghosts of Girlfriends Past" or "Fighting" aren't remakes...but they aren't exactly original either. My focus in this article is concentrated on sequels, adaptations and remakes but isn't limited to these only. There exist too many films that, although not specifically copying another work, are far too familiar and use themes and ideas from too many other works to really be considered "original" or "creative." For example, most romantic comedies take one or two celebrities, force them with an unyielding, cliche-ridden script, then market the film NOT as a great film, but simply as a star-vehicle for the main protagonists (or antagonists). That's simply an example, and as time goes on, I'm sure I'll write another speculative observation on the redundancy and laziness of Hollywood on the gimmicky front, but for now, similar problems lie within the realm of remakes, adaptations and sequels as well as the rehashes among genres.

This is where I'm going to disagree with all the PSA's and educational groups: Kids, don't read a book. Write one.



-Kyle Shelton

The Fourth Kind Review: The Worst Kind

Okay, before I even talk about the film, let's get the one big thing out of the way first: the "true story" allegations behind it. While it's difficult to verify Dr. Abigail Tyler's true involvement in the film and whether or not the "home video" style footage was real, there was a slew of (poor) viral marketing used to promote the film before it was released. By poor, I mean rushed and futile in the shadow of Paranormal Activity. The Fourth Kind's biggest mistake was attempting to capitalize on the kind of advertising put forth by Paranormal and Cloverfield. It succeeded to get audiences and media hype because of its wishy-washy stance on its own "true story," but one statement revealed in the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner stated:

"On November 12, 2009 Universal Pictures agreed to a $20,000 settlement with the Alaska Press Club 'to settle complaints about fake news archives used to promote the movie.' Universal acknowledged that they created fake online news articles and obituaries to make it appear that the movie had a basis in real events."


I can't say without 100% doubt that the film is completely fake, but that's the direction that I'm leaning in, especially with Universal admitting that they created a huge fake database as the source for most of the film's citation.

With that out of the way, The Fourth Kind is pretty bad. It follows the story of Dr. Abigail Emily Tyler (Milla Jovovich, Abigail Tyler), a psychologist who resides in Nome, Alaska. After sessions with several different patients, she notices a strange trend and continuity in their stories that assert the witnessing of an owl or owl-like figuring either inhabiting their homes or stalking them outside. When put under hypnosis, these patients soon show signs of psychosis, schizophrenia, etc...but more importantly, they all seem to be deathly afraid of some kind of invasion in their home. Several events take place, and Tyler decides to call in her colleague, Dr. Abel Campos (Elias Koteas) to witness and assess the patients alongside her. She then notices a strange language being spoken and calls another professor, Dr. Awolowa Odusami (Hakeem Kae-Kazim) to interpret.

Well, hell ensues. As you probably could have guessed, alien abduction becomes the main suspect in the various cases. The premise (including the marketing) is certainly interesting and doesn't fail on its own, but the problem lies within the execution. The Fourth Kind retains a few choice moments that will send chills down your spine (including the police investigative videos and the ending sequences), but overall, it's a bore. One, long, painful-at-times bore. At some point, you'll wish you'd get abducted from the theater to save the intermittent "plot points" to connect the shock shots.

Perhaps I'm being a little cruel; at least some of the crucial plot points occur within the scary moments so they're not JUST for show. In the end, though, The Fourth Kind is extremely shallow and falls prey to the basic horror formula. Scares are incredibly predictable, but not in that fun way that they were in Paranormal Activity. One of my biggest gripes about a lot of horror films is the "loud noise" that occurs in order to scare the audience. Without such a sound effect, the moment would not have been nearly as scary or threatening and it's just a cheap and artificial maneuver to grab some gasps. Time and time again, it works, but I have a feeling even the most scared, attention-grabbing sorority damsel in distress will tire of these cheap tactics.

There's also no momentum in the film to really propel it forward. You're looking forward to one event the entire time: the advent of the aliens. Similar to the propulsion used in M. Night Shyamalan's "Signs," you just want to see the damn extraterrestrials already. I don't want to give away anything, but I'll just say that the plot ending is pretty disappointing. If we're going to talk about the ending, though, the last few scenes are full of sheer terror and relatively inventive filmmakin; nothing too exciting, but worth mentioning. I have a bias to be scared of anything dealing with the paranormal or extraordinary (like ghosts and aliens), so I couldn't sleep for a while...but that doesn't necessarily mean the film was good or highly effective in its attempts.

Milla Jovovich does a surprisingly good job playing Dr. Abigail Tyler, and alongside the attention-catching gimmick, she provides the main source of intrigue in this film for me. I may not be her biggest fan, but she pulls quite the dramatic punch with her performance in The Fourth Kind. Again, nothing to write home about...

And that remains the problem. The film is full of interesting ideas and concepts and handles them poorly at times but only moderately well at others. The Fourth Kind is shoddy and becomes uninteresting halfway through. In fact, it feels like a chore; it draws you in with its remnant of a storyline and then just bores you to tears. It's bitter-bitter: you want to leave yet you can't...attributing to this may be the promise of a hugely shocking scenario. Early on the film, you witness one specific scene (just wait for the police-car footage) that makes you think the rest of the film will be just as intense and disturbing...then you realize that it's not.

All in all, The Fourth Kind has its share of chilly spine-tinglers, but has somewhat of a glass ceiling over itself that it never breaks through. Believe what you will, but there's no denying that The Fourth Kind just didn't live up to its own hype. We may now face an alien invasion due solely to the fact that any otherworldly race may feel insulted by this.

4.0/10
-Kyle Shelton

2012 Review: Doomsday...now in Beautifully Rended CGI!

If you haven't quite marked your calendars for the end of days as we know it, you might have been anxious enough to look forward to the release of the film foreshadowing our demise, "2012." Whether you're a believer or not, chances are that your visual and thrill senses were tickled when you first saw the trailer for 2012 due to its sheer beauty retained in tsunamis, earthquakes, lava rain, fireballs, blizzards and explosions. When you get right down to it, no one was expecting 2012 to win any Academy Awards or even have a completely coherent plot; that includes the makers of the film. With that being said, 2012 is a dazzling spectacle of true computer-generated prowess...and not much else.

2012 is an overcooked cliche story about a washed up author (John Cusack) who wants to take his kids camping for a weekend. Being divorced from his wife (Amanda Peet), he's almost forced to see his children at least once in a while, which means having to see his ex-wife's new husband (Thomas McCarthy). Before this part of the story, however, the "scientific" explanation for the coming events is briefly reviewed as a breakthrough and devastating discovery is made in India. With this information, geologist Adrian Helmsley (Chiwetel Ejiofor) travels to the United States to alert the government. With that, disasters start building up around the world as all the various governments try to grasp what little real power they have left before all hell ensues.

2012 can be many things, but one thing its not is intelligent. The little scientific evidence the movie uses to make realistic forthcoming events is not only boring, but completely unnecessary. In fact, I can personally look at 2012 and think of a vast array of ways for 2012 to have been a cult classic, at least. Most highly is the droll and unimaginative storytelling and directing used to draw out the two-and-a-half hour exploit. There's nothing here in the way of creativity; it's mostly riding one gimmick and one gimmick only the entire way. It would have been infinitely more interesting to turn 2012 into a framework story or a more personal anecdote rather than a simple third-person "Oh shit" yarn. Overall, 2012 is just one big sadistic guilty pleasure. Sure, the CGI and real-world scares are one thing, but what a lot of people won't admit to being excited for are the millions of deaths and worldwide tragedies to be shown in such a film.

To its credit, 2012 does have a few moments of intensity and suspense...but not in a good way. In fact, 2012 is so cliche-ridden that every single moment of climax can be seen coming from 2000 years away. The inevitable cliffhangers that last for a whole minute, the big "decision-making" scenes, deciding who's going to die and who's going to survive...all of this is sheer amateurish at best. 2012 takes elements from other disaster films like "The Day After Tomorrow" (directed by Roland Emmerich just as 2012 was) and "The Perfect Storm" and then flattens them out to a shallow and mediocre work. The characters in the film are such cookie-cutter catastrophe contestants that its hard to really get attached to any of them. The film does try to mix in humor with sympathy, but ultimately fails. The love lies solely within the technology. So many tweaks could have been made to really make 2012 stand out as more than just a conspiracy cash-in, but that remains its fate for now.

The script is incredibly weak, the acting is sub-par if anything, the plot is riddled with cliche's and stupidity...alas, 2012 does have its one gambit. Its one ace-in-the-hole. Its one gimmick that works: disaster. 2012's CGI and computer effects are stunning and brilliantly executed. Usually, I am not a fan of films that rely heavily on the artificial art of computer engineering (Transformers 2...), but 2012 pulls off such sequences involving shattering buildings and crust destruction perfectly. The film's action portions feel like roller coaster rides and, to be completely honest, I wouldn't be surprised if Universal or Six Flags picked up a contract to build a 2012-themed coaster.

With a tv-show being produced and in talks, its no surprise that 2012 started a huge hype and will probably last for a while. 2012 definitely put a stranglehold on the disaster movie sub-genre; it placed barriers to entry for any other film posing identical events because all anyone cares about now is the rapture that is supposed to take place in 3 years. Luckily, 2012 is a disaster movie without being a disaster; if it hadn't been for Emmerich's flashy CGI, 2012 would have been pretty drop-dead terrible. Unfortunately, 2012 is still pretty bad, even for what it was aiming for. The masses may enjoy it, but the individual may not. 2012 is just an exercise in missed chances in the same way Zombieland was.

5.0/10
-Kyle Shelton