They had all the money, actors and special effects they needed so how did they manage to screw this one up? Obviously they thought exiting moments were more important than developing deeper characters and that's why this story that had great potential stayed so shallow. The dialog was always cheesy and none of the 'hero's' in this film really showed any real emotions nor did they give any of those speeches that give the audience goose bumps. Another thing that really bothered me was that so much was almost going wrong the whole time. Every second of the film had a 'close call' which made the film seem totally unrealistic. Examples are planes taking off just before the runway collapses or driving just fast enough to not get hit by an explosion. This can be very cool if it doesn't happen 100% of the time and I have never seen a movie abusing this way of creating excitement to this extent. So to sum up: If you feel like turning your brain off and watching special effects and big explosions with a very shallow storyline then this movie is for you. But if you feel like watching a movie with a bit of depth then go and see something else.
923 Reviews
Fun For the Kids
samkan8 March 2010
I had a lot of fun taking my 12 year old son and two of his friends to this movie. 2012 was no more far-fetched than; e.g., Independence Day, The Abyss, Armageddon, The Core.... I could go on and on. Further, the "Gremlins"-like touches of humor made 2012 go down much easier than the afore-mentioned films, which mildly insult by pretending to be plausible science fiction. I get annoyed reading the showy displays of "brilliance" by reviewers who point out that the events are ludicrous, melodramatic, over-the-top, etc. OF COURSE THEY ARE. So was King Kong in 1933. Such critics remind me of sullen adolescents who've just learned the moon isn't really made of green cheese. I recommend they have young children and take them to a Saturday matinée featuring a Jane Austen flick. I'm sure it'll be a swell time for all.
And the public gets what the public wants.
hitchcockthelegend14 November 2015
Roland Emmerich was armed with a $200 million budget, and this is what it produced. It's an easy film to dislike from an intellectual level, artistically as well, while the science fiction boffins no doubt had kittens where the science was concerned. It's also easily one hour too long in length, and come the second half of the marathon it starts to sag. There's only so many times you can watch your lead protagonists escape crumbling carnage - via various modes of transport - before the fun factor begins to wane. However.
The carnage effects are grade "A" stuff, eye popping and ear splintering, Emmerich is a master at this sort of thing, and with a likable cast comfortably chewing through the safe disaster film making screenplay, it's a very decent popcorn blockbuster. It also isn't afraid to explore some dark moments, all of which - while not all being a surprise - strike strong emotional chords. It knows its disaster movie roots and is happy to tug on them.
2012 made a $500 million profit, that's a figure not to be ignored. The blockbuster movie loving public lapped it up, they often love this stuff, they just want to see the world exploding and chases and crashes and humans imploding or being heroic. If you have to strip it bare on any sort of cerebral level, then of course it's naked. But fully clothed, attired purely in modern film popcorn clobber, then it's grand dramatic and exciting fun. And this even as you have to massage your buttocks at the two hour mark. 7/10
The carnage effects are grade "A" stuff, eye popping and ear splintering, Emmerich is a master at this sort of thing, and with a likable cast comfortably chewing through the safe disaster film making screenplay, it's a very decent popcorn blockbuster. It also isn't afraid to explore some dark moments, all of which - while not all being a surprise - strike strong emotional chords. It knows its disaster movie roots and is happy to tug on them.
2012 made a $500 million profit, that's a figure not to be ignored. The blockbuster movie loving public lapped it up, they often love this stuff, they just want to see the world exploding and chases and crashes and humans imploding or being heroic. If you have to strip it bare on any sort of cerebral level, then of course it's naked. But fully clothed, attired purely in modern film popcorn clobber, then it's grand dramatic and exciting fun. And this even as you have to massage your buttocks at the two hour mark. 7/10
It's the end of the world, not anybody's career
polombob15 November 2009
Anybody going to this movie to learn about the Mayan prophecies for 2012 or for any true science, is going to be sadly disappointed. But, that is not why we go to movies anyway, is it? That is like going to see Godzilla expecting to learn something about giant lizards that vomit radioactive spray. Emmerich has taken a fictitious subject he knew would be controversial and woven some drama into it. People who tend to be slightly paranoid will no doubt be even more so after seeing the world destroyed according to interpretations of prophecy. The people who sell the books promoting the fear make money, just like the movie producers. So what? I didn't see this movie to pick up any information I haven't learned from the History Channel, nor do I believe any more than I did before, that anything bad is going to happen on December 21, 2012. Did I go expecting to be highly entertained by great CGI and action? Yes! And I wasn't disappointed! One thing many reviewers haven't been picking up on while watching this movie is the very slight tongue-in-cheekiness of the subject that Emmerich cleverly wove into the plot. He obviously doesn't believe any of the prophecy any more than most of the rest of us do. You can see it in the actors' performances too: Woody Harrelson, to wit. It is the same as a weatherman who can deliver his forecast each night without laughing because he truly doesn't know with certainty what is going to happen, but he tries to make us believe nonetheless.
See this movie if you love cinema. Enjoy the things about cinema that make it great. Take a small pillow for your butt cheeks because almost 3 hours of sitting in an uncomfortable theater seat will make you wish you had. But fear not. There is so much non-stop action you won't notice the discomfort too much.
The film has obvious flaws, trite clichés, and phony science, but if you are a fan of 50's sci-fi, you will love this movie. And remember, don't take it too seriously folks, just enjoy it. The end of the world isn't going to happen in 2012, there really aren't any giant grasshoppers, ants, or lizards roaming the Earth, and no one's career is going to end because of their role in this movie. It is Hollywood having a good time with a controversial subject. Nothing new there.
Enjoy the show!
See this movie if you love cinema. Enjoy the things about cinema that make it great. Take a small pillow for your butt cheeks because almost 3 hours of sitting in an uncomfortable theater seat will make you wish you had. But fear not. There is so much non-stop action you won't notice the discomfort too much.
The film has obvious flaws, trite clichés, and phony science, but if you are a fan of 50's sci-fi, you will love this movie. And remember, don't take it too seriously folks, just enjoy it. The end of the world isn't going to happen in 2012, there really aren't any giant grasshoppers, ants, or lizards roaming the Earth, and no one's career is going to end because of their role in this movie. It is Hollywood having a good time with a controversial subject. Nothing new there.
Enjoy the show!
Great roller-coaster ride
andony6320 November 2009
Okay, the first thing I'd like to say is, ignore those comments from members who belong to 'the worst movie ever club!!' These members think it is way cool to label every slightly disappointing movie as ' the worst movie ever' and emphasize their juvenility with tons of exclamation marks. They think it is way cool to trash movies.
The movie just isn't that bad. It's not that great either so ignore those who gush and tell you how awesome it is and rate it 10 out of 10.
This is a film best viewed in the movie theaters on the largest screen possible to enjoy the thrilling sensation of cities breaking up, tsunamis and volcanic eruptions. This is indeed a thrilling roller-coaster ride. It is best to leave your brain at home, however, as you will cringe at the clichés, the schmaltz, and the absurdities. That doesn't make it the worst film ever, though. So go for the ride and enjoy the CG effects.
The movie just isn't that bad. It's not that great either so ignore those who gush and tell you how awesome it is and rate it 10 out of 10.
This is a film best viewed in the movie theaters on the largest screen possible to enjoy the thrilling sensation of cities breaking up, tsunamis and volcanic eruptions. This is indeed a thrilling roller-coaster ride. It is best to leave your brain at home, however, as you will cringe at the clichés, the schmaltz, and the absurdities. That doesn't make it the worst film ever, though. So go for the ride and enjoy the CG effects.
What happened to the Mayan prophecy?
ridley_coppola11 November 2009
I went to an advance screening of 2012 a few nights ago and I have to admit that this movie was entertaining at best and that's it. The whole movie is almost entirely comprised of special effects. Of course you'll see all of the lead characters survive scenarios that a regular human being would not. Some of the scenes are so ridiculously unbelievable that you want to laugh at the fodder that's being expected of you to believe. Emmerich certainly pushes "suspension of disbelief" to its limit.
John Cusack and Woody Harrelson are the only actors that attempt to hold the film together, while Danny Glover and Thandie Newton were an utter and complete let-down considering their previous work history. You won't see any remotely Oscar-worthy performances here. The casting of this film seemed off and poorly executed. You could tell the bulk of the financial budget went to the special effects and not the actors.
The thing that I found thoroughly disappointing about 2012 is that it's almost entirely lacking of any interesting backstory or intellectual substance whatsoever. There's very little mention of the Mayan calendar, Mayan history, or any of the prophetic wisdom that has foreseen the supposed end of days. The fear, analysis, curiosity, and everything else you've ever wondered about this new mysterious year that is quickly approaching is almost entirely removed from this film. That would have and could have made this film closer to a 10 if I didn't feel like my brain was utterly wasted on this CGI and special effects bonanza. They try to cram so many explosions, eruptions, earthquakes, and natural disasters into two hours that I might be a little desensitized to the real thing if it ever happens. After awhile nothing felt realistic or interesting about it at all.
It's novelty entertainment at best and that's it. You won't wince at how painfully awful this movie is, and you won't walk away knowing anything meaningful about 2012, but hopefully you'll help repay Sony pictures for the exorbitant amount of money that they and Roland Emmerich spent on their special effects budget. Don't say you weren't warned.
John Cusack and Woody Harrelson are the only actors that attempt to hold the film together, while Danny Glover and Thandie Newton were an utter and complete let-down considering their previous work history. You won't see any remotely Oscar-worthy performances here. The casting of this film seemed off and poorly executed. You could tell the bulk of the financial budget went to the special effects and not the actors.
The thing that I found thoroughly disappointing about 2012 is that it's almost entirely lacking of any interesting backstory or intellectual substance whatsoever. There's very little mention of the Mayan calendar, Mayan history, or any of the prophetic wisdom that has foreseen the supposed end of days. The fear, analysis, curiosity, and everything else you've ever wondered about this new mysterious year that is quickly approaching is almost entirely removed from this film. That would have and could have made this film closer to a 10 if I didn't feel like my brain was utterly wasted on this CGI and special effects bonanza. They try to cram so many explosions, eruptions, earthquakes, and natural disasters into two hours that I might be a little desensitized to the real thing if it ever happens. After awhile nothing felt realistic or interesting about it at all.
It's novelty entertainment at best and that's it. You won't wince at how painfully awful this movie is, and you won't walk away knowing anything meaningful about 2012, but hopefully you'll help repay Sony pictures for the exorbitant amount of money that they and Roland Emmerich spent on their special effects budget. Don't say you weren't warned.
Great campy fun
cpbadgeman23 November 2009
It was pretty much inevitable that someone would make a movie based on all the 2012 hoopla. Nor is it surprising when that someone is disaster maven Roland Emmerich. His latest effort adheres closely to the formula established by his earlier films "Independence Day" and "The Day After Tomorrow"- in other words we get to watch a typically flawed-but-lovable American family (headed by John Cusack and Amanda Peet), along with a range of supporting characters, attempt to survive the end of the world.
That's all there is to the basic plot. The real stars of the film are the truly spectacular special effects. Emmerich really pulls out all the stops and creates some truly awesome set-pieces of destruction. In order to ensure that the main characters have endless perilous situations to escape from, we get to see a bunch of natural and man-made wonders get totaled by Mama Nature. Highlights include Los Angeles falling into the sea, Las Vegas being swallowed by the desert, and the Himalayas being submerged by tidal waves.
Improbable? Definitely. Ridiculous? You bet. But none of that matters since "2012" is exactly the film it was intended to be- a great big popcorn movie that offers big laughs, big thrills, and a lot of good old fashioned fun.
That's all there is to the basic plot. The real stars of the film are the truly spectacular special effects. Emmerich really pulls out all the stops and creates some truly awesome set-pieces of destruction. In order to ensure that the main characters have endless perilous situations to escape from, we get to see a bunch of natural and man-made wonders get totaled by Mama Nature. Highlights include Los Angeles falling into the sea, Las Vegas being swallowed by the desert, and the Himalayas being submerged by tidal waves.
Improbable? Definitely. Ridiculous? You bet. But none of that matters since "2012" is exactly the film it was intended to be- a great big popcorn movie that offers big laughs, big thrills, and a lot of good old fashioned fun.
Classic Emmerich, You will get what you pay for.
kungfugirlsclub9 November 2009
If you've seen Independence Day, Titanic, or any recent vintage of the well-worn disaster film genre, you will not be disappointed at all with any of 2012. Its 2.5 hour+ running time moves at a great clip, and there's enough science and pseudoscience running around to give the film a certain of-the-moment wonder and clarity. The many destruction sequences throughout the film are absolutely breathtaking to behold, and one wonders if Roland Emmerich starts every film imagining how he will destroy the White House. Like all of his other films (except for The Patriot) it has big names but no huge names and really is a blast to watch. It has just the right balance of action and melodrama, often, as with all good films of this genre, in the same scene. The audience I watched it with was laughing and cheering throughout, and I'm sure it will be the definitive event movie of the holiday season, critics be damned.
Heavy and absurd..
Steefx11 November 2009
After watching this movie I really needed time to figure out what to think of it. I heard a lady sharing her first comment to her friend: 'That dog sure was ugly'. What else was there to say? After a while I found out:
The action was truly formidable, demonstrating the power of 'mother nature'. Collapsing buildings, jumping flaming cars, planes falling down and manage to pull up a second before touchdown, it was a real trip and a feast for the eyes and ears.
But then again... the acting wasn't that good, a bit over the top. In one scene in the movie, where every wasted second could be the cause of a terrible disaster, *they* waste their time being...ROMANTIC! At times like that the acting became very juicy, making me think I was watching 'Titanic' instead.
One point of advise: Do not take this movie too seriously. It's almost stuffed with jokes instead of showing us the real drama of an earth that is about to be destroyed. But keep this in mind and you'll have a heck of a 2 hours and 40 minutes(!) in a movie that is made for the cinema.
The action was truly formidable, demonstrating the power of 'mother nature'. Collapsing buildings, jumping flaming cars, planes falling down and manage to pull up a second before touchdown, it was a real trip and a feast for the eyes and ears.
But then again... the acting wasn't that good, a bit over the top. In one scene in the movie, where every wasted second could be the cause of a terrible disaster, *they* waste their time being...ROMANTIC! At times like that the acting became very juicy, making me think I was watching 'Titanic' instead.
One point of advise: Do not take this movie too seriously. It's almost stuffed with jokes instead of showing us the real drama of an earth that is about to be destroyed. But keep this in mind and you'll have a heck of a 2 hours and 40 minutes(!) in a movie that is made for the cinema.
Funniest tragedy ever
dfranzen703 December 2009
There is now a long, grand history of disaster films in Hollywood. The best of the lot have combined suspense with cutting-edge effects to keep your adrenaline pumping. The worst combine cheesy CGI with shallow characters whose deaths won't affect you much.
Here's 2012, summed up: Look, some recognizable landmark! Kablam! Look, a giant wave! Wooo! Do our intrepid Good Guys have enough time to outrun the imploding planet and foil a plot to save only the pretty, rich people? Probably! It's pretty clear what happened to bring us to this point. Roland Emmerich, who's made such cinematic classics as Independence Day, The Patriot, Godzilla, and The Day after Tomorrow, was asked if he wanted a quintillion billion bazillion dollars to make a movie about the end of the world, and he said sure. Then he took parts of each movie's script, filmed them mostly with CGI, and pocketed the rest. Viola! Greatest movie! (A quick break to sum up the plot. Apparently, the sun and the planets have all aligned with the center of the galaxy, which winds up causing the Earth's crust to break up, which then causes the tectonic plates to shift. Mass hysteria! Dogs and cats, living together! The End.) See, there are two ways Emmerich could have gone with this movie. He could have given us characters to follow whom we cared a little about, thus involving us in their plights, and mixed in some convincing special effects. Or he could have said, "The heck with the characters, give me blowy-uppy thingys." This sometimes works: See Independence Day, a movie that made me feel pretty good when I left the theater after seeing it but that ultimately, frankly, was pretty bad.
Emmerich chose the latter. Which would have been fine, but the effects themselves are wildly unrealistic and often take so long to set up that you completely notice how godawful they really are. For example – and if you've seen the trailer, this is in there – there's a scene in which the Sistine Chapel falls, crushing thousands of spectators. Because the toppling is so slow to complete, it becomes painfully obvious that it's just a film running on a screen behind people running away. Sad and unintentionally hilarious.
And you can forget about the plot, really, because most of it makes no sense anyway and would happen only in a Big Movie like this. Of COURSE John Cusack is divorced from his hot, bitchy wife (Amanda Peet) and of COURSE she's hooking up with a plastic surgeon who of COURSE winds up having had some flying lessons that of COURSE will save them all and of COURSE Cusack's young son will somehow save the day as well and of COURSE there is a Russian businessman who used to be a boxing legend and of COURSE he punches someone out. And of COURSE people say "My God!" a lot, because that's what people do in crappy disaster films. And of COURSE the president is black, because in Hollywood black people get to be president only if disaster is a-coming.
At least the acting isn't horrible. Because everyone just runs from place to place in an effort to escape the horror, there aren't any subtle, low-key scenes that would allow good actors to flourish. Cusack is good in general, but what the heck is he doing in here? He's usually so good at picking projects, and he chose this? Willingly? Oliver Platt plays the kind of role that Bruce McGill typically gets, the hamhanded, I'm-in-charge, Al-Haig-like politician. I can't even remember his title. Danny Glover gets to be president and does get the best dialog in the film, even if his role isn't a big one. Woody Harrelson, as a crazed DJ deep in Yellowstone is also a lot of fun, although he's not the kind of guy you'd want to sit next to on a transatlantic flight.
Final verdict: Yikes. Yikes, yikes, and yikes. If you dare watch this travesty, you might find yourself laughing hysterically at things – and this is important – that were not meant to be funny. If that's your thing, this is your movie. I managed to see this as a matinée, so I'm not out the $10-$15 that some people are right now, so at least I got that going for me. Best advice: Watch it for free at home on a big-screen TV to fully appreciate the magnitude of suck.
Here's 2012, summed up: Look, some recognizable landmark! Kablam! Look, a giant wave! Wooo! Do our intrepid Good Guys have enough time to outrun the imploding planet and foil a plot to save only the pretty, rich people? Probably! It's pretty clear what happened to bring us to this point. Roland Emmerich, who's made such cinematic classics as Independence Day, The Patriot, Godzilla, and The Day after Tomorrow, was asked if he wanted a quintillion billion bazillion dollars to make a movie about the end of the world, and he said sure. Then he took parts of each movie's script, filmed them mostly with CGI, and pocketed the rest. Viola! Greatest movie! (A quick break to sum up the plot. Apparently, the sun and the planets have all aligned with the center of the galaxy, which winds up causing the Earth's crust to break up, which then causes the tectonic plates to shift. Mass hysteria! Dogs and cats, living together! The End.) See, there are two ways Emmerich could have gone with this movie. He could have given us characters to follow whom we cared a little about, thus involving us in their plights, and mixed in some convincing special effects. Or he could have said, "The heck with the characters, give me blowy-uppy thingys." This sometimes works: See Independence Day, a movie that made me feel pretty good when I left the theater after seeing it but that ultimately, frankly, was pretty bad.
Emmerich chose the latter. Which would have been fine, but the effects themselves are wildly unrealistic and often take so long to set up that you completely notice how godawful they really are. For example – and if you've seen the trailer, this is in there – there's a scene in which the Sistine Chapel falls, crushing thousands of spectators. Because the toppling is so slow to complete, it becomes painfully obvious that it's just a film running on a screen behind people running away. Sad and unintentionally hilarious.
And you can forget about the plot, really, because most of it makes no sense anyway and would happen only in a Big Movie like this. Of COURSE John Cusack is divorced from his hot, bitchy wife (Amanda Peet) and of COURSE she's hooking up with a plastic surgeon who of COURSE winds up having had some flying lessons that of COURSE will save them all and of COURSE Cusack's young son will somehow save the day as well and of COURSE there is a Russian businessman who used to be a boxing legend and of COURSE he punches someone out. And of COURSE people say "My God!" a lot, because that's what people do in crappy disaster films. And of COURSE the president is black, because in Hollywood black people get to be president only if disaster is a-coming.
At least the acting isn't horrible. Because everyone just runs from place to place in an effort to escape the horror, there aren't any subtle, low-key scenes that would allow good actors to flourish. Cusack is good in general, but what the heck is he doing in here? He's usually so good at picking projects, and he chose this? Willingly? Oliver Platt plays the kind of role that Bruce McGill typically gets, the hamhanded, I'm-in-charge, Al-Haig-like politician. I can't even remember his title. Danny Glover gets to be president and does get the best dialog in the film, even if his role isn't a big one. Woody Harrelson, as a crazed DJ deep in Yellowstone is also a lot of fun, although he's not the kind of guy you'd want to sit next to on a transatlantic flight.
Final verdict: Yikes. Yikes, yikes, and yikes. If you dare watch this travesty, you might find yourself laughing hysterically at things – and this is important – that were not meant to be funny. If that's your thing, this is your movie. I managed to see this as a matinée, so I'm not out the $10-$15 that some people are right now, so at least I got that going for me. Best advice: Watch it for free at home on a big-screen TV to fully appreciate the magnitude of suck.
Better than I expected
Mister_Anderson26 December 2009
If you've seen any of Roland Emmerich's previous disaster titles, you probably know what you're in for with this one. That being said, I felt 2012 had better acting and a more exciting storyline than the others.
In order to enjoy this film, you have to ignore the ridiculously absurd premise about neutrinos and the sun catastrophically altering the earth's crust (forget about the Mayan prophecy, which is hardly mentioned). If you can overlook why the world is ending, this is actually an captivating film with some spectacular effects scenes. Yes, there are several perilous close calls that stretch the notion of "luck". Yes, the actors from all parts of the world become interconnected in what stretches the notion of "coincidence". No, it's not going to receive any best acting or screenplay nominations. Nevertheless, it's engaging.
Cusack is great as the everyman hero. Ejiofor grabs your attention as the young government scientist trying to prepare for the inevitable. Glover and Harrison are also effective in smaller roles: Glover as the resolute President, and Harrison as the wackjob conspiracy theorist who might not be so crazy after all. Many other characters are merely stereotypes (like the Russian) or one dimensional (like the wife), but let's be honest, it's not the characters that we're coming to see. If you are, you'll probably be disappointed.
2012 is not great but it entertains as a doomsday thriller. IMO it's better than Godzilla, Day After Tomorrow, and 10,000 BC. Worth a rental if you're into disaster flicks.
In order to enjoy this film, you have to ignore the ridiculously absurd premise about neutrinos and the sun catastrophically altering the earth's crust (forget about the Mayan prophecy, which is hardly mentioned). If you can overlook why the world is ending, this is actually an captivating film with some spectacular effects scenes. Yes, there are several perilous close calls that stretch the notion of "luck". Yes, the actors from all parts of the world become interconnected in what stretches the notion of "coincidence". No, it's not going to receive any best acting or screenplay nominations. Nevertheless, it's engaging.
Cusack is great as the everyman hero. Ejiofor grabs your attention as the young government scientist trying to prepare for the inevitable. Glover and Harrison are also effective in smaller roles: Glover as the resolute President, and Harrison as the wackjob conspiracy theorist who might not be so crazy after all. Many other characters are merely stereotypes (like the Russian) or one dimensional (like the wife), but let's be honest, it's not the characters that we're coming to see. If you are, you'll probably be disappointed.
2012 is not great but it entertains as a doomsday thriller. IMO it's better than Godzilla, Day After Tomorrow, and 10,000 BC. Worth a rental if you're into disaster flicks.
All the wannabe critics and their 1's smh
Top_Dawg_Critic19 April 2020
Firstly, anyone who gave this film 5 or less needs to give their head a shake and learn how to review a film. The scale isn't just a 1 or 10. Yes this film wasn't a 10, but for the production value alone, plus the decent s/vfx and all star cast, no way anyone besides a wannabe critic could give this film anything less than a 6. Sure it had its flaws, but it was still epic. Great casting, cinematography, directing and conceptual story of a modern day Noah's Arc. It's a well deserved 8/10 from me. Click on my username to see more of my 900+ reviews and read my profile to learn how to properly review a film and give credit to where credit is deserved.
A Silly and Corny Disaster Movie
claudio_carvalho27 February 2010
When the geologist Dr. Adrian Helmsley and his team discover that the core of Earth is heating due to solar radiation, he advises the North American President about his findings. The American Govern collects money from the worldwide leaders to build arks to save them with necessary people to rebuild civilization. Meanwhile, the unsuccessful writer Jackson Curtis (John Cusack) discloses that the world is near to end and tries to save his son and his daughter from the tragic end.
In the 70's, there was a "fashion" of disaster movies, in general with dramatic stories but the special effects in those years were very simple. "2012" is the opposite: state-of-art special effects and an imbecile story, i.e., a silly and corny disaster movie. The physical absurd are usually OK for the action, but stupid attitudes is something that is annoying like, for example, the decision to open the gates with less than five minutes to be reached by the tsunami, or swimming wearing tie. There are some posts in the Message Board listing the implausible or stupid scenes and attitudes. The Church in Brazil is suing Columbia Picture for using the image of the Christ Redeemer without previous authorization in an absolute absurd and nonsense; could the true reason be indeed an indirect reprisal for the scene with the destruction of the Vatican? My vote is six.
Title (Brazil): "2012"
In the 70's, there was a "fashion" of disaster movies, in general with dramatic stories but the special effects in those years were very simple. "2012" is the opposite: state-of-art special effects and an imbecile story, i.e., a silly and corny disaster movie. The physical absurd are usually OK for the action, but stupid attitudes is something that is annoying like, for example, the decision to open the gates with less than five minutes to be reached by the tsunami, or swimming wearing tie. There are some posts in the Message Board listing the implausible or stupid scenes and attitudes. The Church in Brazil is suing Columbia Picture for using the image of the Christ Redeemer without previous authorization in an absolute absurd and nonsense; could the true reason be indeed an indirect reprisal for the scene with the destruction of the Vatican? My vote is six.
Title (Brazil): "2012"
Good cataclysmic Action, but waayyy to much bad kitsch
eilfurz12 November 2009
I loved the first half of the movie with Roland Emmerich seemingly back to form (from his disastrous "10,000 B.C."). But as the movie drags on, even the smallest character gets his "i have to say goodbye to my loved ones"-scene - which becomes quite annoying after you've watched this for the 5th time in a row. then comes a great destruction scene and then we're back in soap-opera territory. don't get me wrong, basically that can be said about most of Emmerich's movies - they are just popcorn cinema - leave your brain at the ticket counter. still, i enjoyed the likes of "Independence Day" or even "The Day After Tomorrow". But the one thing, he can't do properly is "good"-emotional cinema - which works fine in some of his other movies when his pathos-laden, goofy dialogue writing doesn't get in the way of the big explosions - it fit's, makes them funnier to a point. unfortunately this doesn't work for 2012. if somebody could actually cut this movie down to 90minutes running time, i'd even be lining up for a second ticket.
The End of the World: The New Family Therapy?
jacksonjackson24 December 2009
Who knew the end of the world could be such a bummer? In "2012," the first and certainly not the last big-studio bid to cash in on the supposed coming apocalypse, Roland Emmerich once again lays waste to Earth and its assorted famous landmarks, but this time it's with a touch of exhaustion, an almost routine finality. Maybe it's middle age (it's his first apocalypse since he turned 50). Or, maybe, it's because to a consummate destroyer of worlds (four doomsdays and counting), the true end of days is really just the final dreary step. Few images, after all, beat that of the California coast crumbling into the ocean like a sinking aircraft carrier, or of the subsequent barrage of flaming volcanic rock that pummels the earth when Yellowstone finally goes kaput, blowing its literal top and the audience's already torpid movie-going mind.
Both of those sequences are given high prominence in "2012," though neither is predicted by the end of the Mesoamerican long-count calendar, from which this movie takes its name if not much else. Weaving escapist fantasy into scientific fact has long been the prerogative of high-concept vehicles like "2012," which omit most of the finer factual details (the Mayans never actually wrote of the end of the world, for starters) to make their own pseudoscientific conceits appear frighteningly plausible. That may explain why "2012" takes a nominally more scientific approach to the cataclysm (neutrinos, crust displacement, blah, blah, blah), though even Chiwetel Ejiofor, as the president's scientific adviser, seems to know that it's all one big joke long before Woody Harrelson, as some sort of apocalyptic hippie fanatic, can pop his eyeballs and declare, "It's the apocalypse, man!"
Mr. Harrelson's character doesn't figure much into the story beyond the usual wise fool archetype, though at least his bug-eyed mugging gives oomph to what is otherwise a pretty unremarkable disaster flick. The real selling point of "2012" is, of course, the annihilation of our planet and most of our species, and, if nothing else, the destruction here can hardly be called boring. That's to be expected, seeing that Mr. Emmerich is certainly an old hand in the industry, having already vaporized, trampled, flooded and frozen the planet solid, not to mention raked in a collective ten-figure sum at the domestic box office. Considering the worldwide scale of "2012" and Mr. Emmerich's incurable tendency to one-up himself, it's also no surprise that here he works so relentlessly to cover all his catastrophic bases, from the pulverization of the Vatican to the inundation of D.C., to the purely extraneous sight of a cruise ship keeling over, Paul Gallico-style, upending the galley and its many digitally- rendered flailing human bodies.
But, seriously, what's the point anymore? Like most apocalyptic trifles, "2012" trades on the doomsday scenario to stake the usual forgettable claims at the resilience of the human spirit (and the American nuclear family) but mostly it just wants to watch the world burn, sometimes literally. The human race is ending, after all, and if that end never really resonates in "2012," it's because not even Mr. Emmerich seems interested in examining it beyond the visceral level. Although he duly taps his emotional well by occasionally bringing you close to the calamity – the tiny human bodies tumbling from a collapsing freeway are certainly frightening – it's hard to feel awed by or even care at all about any of it when all the man wants to do (and wants us to do) is have a good time.
"2012" is a pretty much a romp, then, and, for its first ruinous hour at least, a reasonably satisfying one. The sturdy B-movie screenplay by Mr. Emmerich and Harold Kloser actually picks up in 2009, giving time to introduce a few of the leading men and women who will figure into the imminent end, some of them likable (Mr. Ejiofor), others abhorrent (Oliver Platt as a blustering government bigwig), most of them just plain boring. Three years later, as the cracks in the Earth and the story become wider and more worrisome, more people come into play, in this case an everyfamily (John Cusack, Amanda Peet and their two burdensome children) we're meant to follow while modern civilization crumbles around them, in increasingly spectacular ways.
But the spectacle wears off and the movie soon drags, done in when Mr. Emmerich's exuberant flair for devastation gives way to his seriously underwhelming affinity for family soap operatics and teary moments of worldwide harmony. Part of the problem with movies like "2012" is that even with the latest brand of pricey computer-generated effects at their disposal, such wizardry tends to undercut itself when you stop and realize that almost none of what you're seeing is really there, really happening. Mr. Emmerich is not entirely to blame, of course, though it's nonetheless a wonder that after three stabs at destroying the planet, he still can't avoid the disconnect between human tragedy and worldwide destruction that runs through "2012" like a fissure and keeps even its most realistic-looking disasters from ever feeling remotely real. Which may make it the perfect tonic to this particular ploy of the paranoia market.
Both of those sequences are given high prominence in "2012," though neither is predicted by the end of the Mesoamerican long-count calendar, from which this movie takes its name if not much else. Weaving escapist fantasy into scientific fact has long been the prerogative of high-concept vehicles like "2012," which omit most of the finer factual details (the Mayans never actually wrote of the end of the world, for starters) to make their own pseudoscientific conceits appear frighteningly plausible. That may explain why "2012" takes a nominally more scientific approach to the cataclysm (neutrinos, crust displacement, blah, blah, blah), though even Chiwetel Ejiofor, as the president's scientific adviser, seems to know that it's all one big joke long before Woody Harrelson, as some sort of apocalyptic hippie fanatic, can pop his eyeballs and declare, "It's the apocalypse, man!"
Mr. Harrelson's character doesn't figure much into the story beyond the usual wise fool archetype, though at least his bug-eyed mugging gives oomph to what is otherwise a pretty unremarkable disaster flick. The real selling point of "2012" is, of course, the annihilation of our planet and most of our species, and, if nothing else, the destruction here can hardly be called boring. That's to be expected, seeing that Mr. Emmerich is certainly an old hand in the industry, having already vaporized, trampled, flooded and frozen the planet solid, not to mention raked in a collective ten-figure sum at the domestic box office. Considering the worldwide scale of "2012" and Mr. Emmerich's incurable tendency to one-up himself, it's also no surprise that here he works so relentlessly to cover all his catastrophic bases, from the pulverization of the Vatican to the inundation of D.C., to the purely extraneous sight of a cruise ship keeling over, Paul Gallico-style, upending the galley and its many digitally- rendered flailing human bodies.
But, seriously, what's the point anymore? Like most apocalyptic trifles, "2012" trades on the doomsday scenario to stake the usual forgettable claims at the resilience of the human spirit (and the American nuclear family) but mostly it just wants to watch the world burn, sometimes literally. The human race is ending, after all, and if that end never really resonates in "2012," it's because not even Mr. Emmerich seems interested in examining it beyond the visceral level. Although he duly taps his emotional well by occasionally bringing you close to the calamity – the tiny human bodies tumbling from a collapsing freeway are certainly frightening – it's hard to feel awed by or even care at all about any of it when all the man wants to do (and wants us to do) is have a good time.
"2012" is a pretty much a romp, then, and, for its first ruinous hour at least, a reasonably satisfying one. The sturdy B-movie screenplay by Mr. Emmerich and Harold Kloser actually picks up in 2009, giving time to introduce a few of the leading men and women who will figure into the imminent end, some of them likable (Mr. Ejiofor), others abhorrent (Oliver Platt as a blustering government bigwig), most of them just plain boring. Three years later, as the cracks in the Earth and the story become wider and more worrisome, more people come into play, in this case an everyfamily (John Cusack, Amanda Peet and their two burdensome children) we're meant to follow while modern civilization crumbles around them, in increasingly spectacular ways.
But the spectacle wears off and the movie soon drags, done in when Mr. Emmerich's exuberant flair for devastation gives way to his seriously underwhelming affinity for family soap operatics and teary moments of worldwide harmony. Part of the problem with movies like "2012" is that even with the latest brand of pricey computer-generated effects at their disposal, such wizardry tends to undercut itself when you stop and realize that almost none of what you're seeing is really there, really happening. Mr. Emmerich is not entirely to blame, of course, though it's nonetheless a wonder that after three stabs at destroying the planet, he still can't avoid the disconnect between human tragedy and worldwide destruction that runs through "2012" like a fissure and keeps even its most realistic-looking disasters from ever feeling remotely real. Which may make it the perfect tonic to this particular ploy of the paranoia market.
Not the best disaster movie, not the worst.
gmatgerlich19 November 2020
So I'm a HUGE disaster movie buff. Absolutely love them, especially when it's made by Roland. This one is probably my least favorite Roland disaster, but I still really enjoy it. Just like in most disaster movies, there's of course going to be unrealistic scenarios. Because well, it's a movie. If you're one of those people who dissect every scene & try to decide if it's realistic or not, then you just simply lack a creative mind, and this movie is not for you.. or any adventurous movie if you're like that. However, there are a few parts where I could see it happening if the world did come to an end this way, such as the arks.
If you go into this expecting a perfect, flawless flick with no goofs, A ++ acting & dialogue, then of course you're going to be disappointed. Overall, the acting was definitely good for the most part & I would give it a B. This is how I would grade it personally.
Acting: B+ Writing: B Directing: B+ Editing: A Sound: A
I'm not gonna rate every little category but usually when I want to watch something new, I look at those 5 specifically.
As I wrap this review up, there is one thing that I would like to mention that surprisingly, I haven't seen anyone else bring up yet. The one thing that absolutely drove me insane & wanting to rip my skin off my face was the little girl, Lilly who is Jackson's(Cusack) daughter, SCREAMING Daddy throughout the entire movie. There has to be at least 20 times if not more where she's screaming it! It's absolutely ear piercing the way she does it. I'm sure most of them were done in post rather then during filming. But they could've taken at least 17-18 of those out and I still would've enjoyed the movie.
Hope you enjoyed my review. Take care.
If you go into this expecting a perfect, flawless flick with no goofs, A ++ acting & dialogue, then of course you're going to be disappointed. Overall, the acting was definitely good for the most part & I would give it a B. This is how I would grade it personally.
Acting: B+ Writing: B Directing: B+ Editing: A Sound: A
I'm not gonna rate every little category but usually when I want to watch something new, I look at those 5 specifically.
As I wrap this review up, there is one thing that I would like to mention that surprisingly, I haven't seen anyone else bring up yet. The one thing that absolutely drove me insane & wanting to rip my skin off my face was the little girl, Lilly who is Jackson's(Cusack) daughter, SCREAMING Daddy throughout the entire movie. There has to be at least 20 times if not more where she's screaming it! It's absolutely ear piercing the way she does it. I'm sure most of them were done in post rather then during filming. But they could've taken at least 17-18 of those out and I still would've enjoyed the movie.
Hope you enjoyed my review. Take care.
great addition to the end of world movies
sam_smithreview28 May 2016
It's always amusing to read and/or hear people going on about the realness (or better lack of it) of event movies like this. Something along the lines like: That (stunt) couldn't really happen in real life! Really? Is that all you got about this movie? It's not real? Isn't a movie "not" real by definition?
Writer/director Roland Emmerich sacrifices dialogue and depends on an almost comical story line to wow viewers with mega destruction. Sure the CGI, sound and special effects will sell a lot of popcorn and soft drinks. Even word of mouth will put people in theater seats. Just leave any semblance of real intelligence at the box office, lean back and hold on...and let your eyes feast on the powerful scenes of devastation.
A geologist(Chiwetel Ejiofor)has the facts and figures that prove validity in the ancient Mayan belief that the wold will come to an end in 2012. He at first will have trouble convincing the President's(Danny Glover)people of the pending doom; but a novelist(John Cusack), who just so happens to have written a book about the lost Atlantis, is an easier believer...and the story line has him and his family out driving and flying the massive earthquakes and tsunamis. And somehow cell phones periodically still work. The finale is actually clever; and as the story eases into salvation, heroic feats of bravery run from sappy to bittersweet. You do end up thinking you got multiple big bangs for your buck. As for entertainment, I really enjoyed it.
Writer/director Roland Emmerich sacrifices dialogue and depends on an almost comical story line to wow viewers with mega destruction. Sure the CGI, sound and special effects will sell a lot of popcorn and soft drinks. Even word of mouth will put people in theater seats. Just leave any semblance of real intelligence at the box office, lean back and hold on...and let your eyes feast on the powerful scenes of devastation.
A geologist(Chiwetel Ejiofor)has the facts and figures that prove validity in the ancient Mayan belief that the wold will come to an end in 2012. He at first will have trouble convincing the President's(Danny Glover)people of the pending doom; but a novelist(John Cusack), who just so happens to have written a book about the lost Atlantis, is an easier believer...and the story line has him and his family out driving and flying the massive earthquakes and tsunamis. And somehow cell phones periodically still work. The finale is actually clever; and as the story eases into salvation, heroic feats of bravery run from sappy to bittersweet. You do end up thinking you got multiple big bangs for your buck. As for entertainment, I really enjoyed it.
Great American Cheesy Fun!
jeffreyjets9 March 2010
I was so very glad that it wasn't a preachy global warming flick. I liked this movie for a few reasons that are not good reasons. 1.)Great graphics, mostly. Great to see California fall off into ocean..now that I am not living there. 2.) Like John Cusack and finally liked Amanda Peet in a movie and the kids were great. 3.) I did like like Oliver Platt and the way they handled the attempts to keep the secret. 4.) I want to be Charlie (Woodley Harrelson's character.) That was a good role for him and he played it perfectly. Iagree that there was an Indiana Jones Adventure feel to the stunts chases and such, but that's what made it fun for me. I think it was headed for a 5 or 6 rating until the end action moments and they picked it up to a 7, although I liked it more than a 7, I don't think the movie as a whole is better than that. The cheesiest moment came towards the end with the not open/do open door speech.
Overall, it was good cheesy fun, which may not be what you want in a world will be destroyed movie, but it tries to take itself serious at times.
Overall, it was good cheesy fun, which may not be what you want in a world will be destroyed movie, but it tries to take itself serious at times.
Enjoyable Action Movie
nick-6439019 April 2021
2012 a total disaster
craigsomerville19 November 2009
Well I'm just back from watching this movie at my local multi-plex. So what did I think? oh dear where to start.
This had to be one of the most enduring movies experiences of my life. 2HRS 30 MINS, are you kidding me? I have to be honest the only reason I went to see this movie was to see the quality of the CGI on the big screen. I didn't go to see it because I wanted or thought I would see, intense character development, an intriguing story with an intelligent script, fantastic direction with a epic world class score. Thank goodness I didn't because none of these things are on show.
So why did I hate this SO MUCH?
No logic to the build up of the chaos.
Cardboard cut out character with ZERO likability or progression. Were they all based on cartoon characters.
OTT close shaves........CONSTANTLY.....
FAR to many clichés, everyone possible for a disaster was thrown in there. Some originality please.
Did I mention 2 AND A HALF HOURS.
Poor script wrote I assume by a 5 year old?
Forgettable score
Ridiculous over sentimental moments of intimacy between cardboard characters. Sorry but I don't care about them because of the poor story telling.
Last 30 Min's dragged and was extremely dull, oh and how long can some of these characters hold their breath?
I could go on.....but won't.
What did I like.
Not much, however there are a couple of AWESOME CGI scenes of destruction.
Unfortunately thats not enough, not even close enough to make this an enjoyable experience, EVEN if your brain is in neutral.
1/10 For the CGI and only for the CGI.
This had to be one of the most enduring movies experiences of my life. 2HRS 30 MINS, are you kidding me? I have to be honest the only reason I went to see this movie was to see the quality of the CGI on the big screen. I didn't go to see it because I wanted or thought I would see, intense character development, an intriguing story with an intelligent script, fantastic direction with a epic world class score. Thank goodness I didn't because none of these things are on show.
So why did I hate this SO MUCH?
No logic to the build up of the chaos.
Cardboard cut out character with ZERO likability or progression. Were they all based on cartoon characters.
OTT close shaves........CONSTANTLY.....
FAR to many clichés, everyone possible for a disaster was thrown in there. Some originality please.
Did I mention 2 AND A HALF HOURS.
Poor script wrote I assume by a 5 year old?
Forgettable score
Ridiculous over sentimental moments of intimacy between cardboard characters. Sorry but I don't care about them because of the poor story telling.
Last 30 Min's dragged and was extremely dull, oh and how long can some of these characters hold their breath?
I could go on.....but won't.
What did I like.
Not much, however there are a couple of AWESOME CGI scenes of destruction.
Unfortunately thats not enough, not even close enough to make this an enjoyable experience, EVEN if your brain is in neutral.
1/10 For the CGI and only for the CGI.
The case of when the special effects overshadow the script and the acting
TheLittleSongbird3 April 2010
Roland Emmerich is like marmite, we love him or we hate him. Personally I don't admire him, then again I have nothing personal against him, other than to say I do sometimes find his directorial style murky and unfocused. So what about 2012? To put it simply, there is a lot wrong with the film, but I actually found it surprisingly watchable. The best thing about 2012 is without doubt the special effects. They are utterly mind-blowing, and the equally astounding sound and fluid cinematography added to the authenticity. The music score is great, and the idea of the story is intriguing. However excellent special effects can mean that the script and acting aren't as good, sadly that is the case. The acting was nothing special really, but John Cusack, Woody Harrelson, Amanda Peet, Danny Glover and Oliver Platt do try their hardest with shallow characters as do the kids and it does show. I did think Zlatko Buric as Yuri was very one note though. These talented actors are cursed by mostly awful dialogue that is clichéd and stale, and the film did come very unrealistic in places. It also doesn't help that the pacing is too stodgy and the film is half an hour too long. Overall, not a waste, and visually mind-blowing, but nothing great. 6/10 Bethany Cox
Strangely enjoyable
MAYESY-4414 March 2021
I'm the first person to critique a film when it is to far fetched and unrealistic but I can also se past it when the acting parts are good and the actors portray the main part of the story really well. Feel this would be a guilty pleasure film as it is not the greatest compared to others like the day after tomorrow but I still enjoyed.
2012 A Decent Disaster Movie With Some Flaws
tburke855 March 2010
2012 is a decent disaster movie with flaws which I'll get into later from director Roland Emmerich whose been known for making films of this genre like The Day After Tomorrow and Independence Day to name a few. Emmerich is admirable in making this movie giving audiences state of the art special effects with good performances from the cast for the most part. John Cusuak is solid as the lead Jackson Curtis a struggling writer and limo driver who tries to save his estranged family from the global cataclysm that brings about the end of the world. It has to do something with the earths core heating up because of solar flares from the sun causing massive volcanic eruptions unlike anything you've ever seen, destructive earthquakes that level cities, and giant tsunamis that destroy everything in it's path. The rest of the supporting cast are decent in their roles including Chiwetel Ejiofor, Amanda Peet, Thandie Newton, and Oliver Platt. Danny Glover and Woody Harrelson make the best of their small roles in the film. Glover is convincing as the President whose faced with many difficult choices. I felt Harrelson went a little over the top with his character at times but he still turns in an humorous performance though. The serious mood of the film worked considering it's about the end of the world and there's some humor that could've been better but thats all right. There were many yeah right moments when Cusuak and his family were barely escaping one disaster after another within minutes of each other but I was willing to suspend my disbelief for the sake of the movie. As I mentioned before the special effects are pretty amazing even if you can tell it's obviously CG. The movie is nearly two and half hours which made it a little long, the dialog wasn't the best occasionally, and there were some predictable moments, but overall 2012 isn't that bad. For the first half hour or so Emmerich introduces us to the main characters developing some of them with strange things happening which foreshadows that the worst has yet to come. The last two hours I'd say is pretty much non stop action with Earth getting relentlessly hammered by earthquakes that take out cities in minutes, volcanic eruptions that shoot clouds of smoke and ash into the sky with massive fire clouds miles high, and gigantic tsunamis which engulf everything in it's path. The global cataclysms caused by the solar flares end up killing billions of people around the world with only a fraction surviving which does make the movie sad at times because you know none of them stood a chance against mother natures destructive power. If this does indeed happen one day I hope I'm not around for it because none of us would probably survive catastrophes like the ones shown in 2012. If Emmerich had trimmed the running time a bit, cut out some of the humor that didn't really seem to work with the serious mood, then I might have enjoyed it more than I did. Overall though 2012 was a decent disaster film but I wouldn't call it a classic. This film however is sure to please almost any fan of the genre. The movie has amazing special effects, plenty of action, drama, and good performances by the cast (Cusuak and Ejiofor) who make 2012 worth watching at least once if you can get past the overlong running time first.
Visually Stunning but scores low on content.
bobbysing16 November 2009
When you are going to see a movie which has already impressed you with its outstanding trailer, then it's obvious to expect something great and out of the ordinary. That was the state I was in while entering the theater to watch 2012. Excitingly waiting for the movie to start, I had many questions in mind about how the director will tackle the various ongoing problems of the world while showcasing the Ultimate End of our civilization? And majorly what will be his take on the famous religions of the world when the characters will be talking about their Final Moments? And to my surprise the movie took off from our part of the world in 1999, where an Indian Geologist religiously named Dr. Satnam, discovers that the Earth is heating up to an extent that is causing a shift in its tectonic plates. He passes on the news of this deadly discovery to his American friend Dr. Adria, who straight away takes it to the White House as an emergency situation. Coming back to the future in 2012, the movie plunges into the amazing graphical world where the earth is sinking due to the high density earthquakes and all the historical monuments are falling left and right like lifeless toys.
Visually it's a fabulous portrayal of the End of the World from the director "Roland Emmerich" who is known for his mesmerizing work in his earlier movies such as "Independence Day", "The Day After Tomorrow" and "Godzilla". The moment you witness the first shattering sequence of the earth making a huge wide gap and everything falling into it, you get transported into a gripping enigmatic world altogether. The spectacular special effects unfolding every 15 minutes in the movie, just keep you glued to the screen with your jaws wide open. The disastrous happenings worldwide, the enormous water tides coming over, the burning volcanic eruptions and ugly tsunamis spreading over the world map just bring on the viewer to the edge of his seat.
Hence, if you are in for some great Computer Graphics and want to see a few terrific nail biting scenes where the heroes are just climbing up before the earth sinks in, then this is the perfect choice to spend your valuable time.
But if you are expecting a great movie, rich on emotional and futuristic content as suggested by the impressive body of work by its director, then you may remain quite unsatisfied at the end. In simple words, 2012, undoubtedly scores high on technical and graphical terms but content wise it falls short of the earlier disaster movies from the director. It lacks the emotional depth in its characterization due to which the viewer is not able to relate with any of the characters fighting with the unwanted situation. In order to cover more number of people on the screen, the script fails to develop any one character in particular, which as a result leaves a very cold kind of impact on the viewer. The movie also tends to become a bit slow at times but bounces back with every new destruction sequence on the screen.
The entire cast delivers fine performances as required by the subject, but they are also handicapped by the poor characterization in the script. John Cusack is pleasant to see but has nothing great written for him in particular. Amanda Peet is just there to give her constant looks of amazement. Danny Glover as the president, Thandie Newton as his daughter, Oliver Platt as the president's chief of staff and Jimi Mistry as Dr. Satnam simply play their parts as directed. Only Chiwetel Ejiofor looks like more concerned about the humanity factor in the movie and makes an impact.
2012 also tends to be repetitive in few sequences which strongly give you a feeling of "seen before". The movie even reminded me one of the early 80's disaster movies called "Earthquake". In fact this time, Emmerich also seems to be inspired by his own masterpieces from the past. He surely surpasses them all in terms of mass destruction of the globe, but talking about the rich emotional quotient of those Hit movies, 2012 comparatively scores quite low. Emmerich, intentionally skips many important questions related to various countries and religions practiced by different people residing all over the globe.
The main drawback of the movie is that even though it revolves around the concept of end of the world and its civilization, still it is unable to frighten you with the scary thought. The movie keeps on impressing you with its exceptional execution constantly but at the same time, fails to take you in on emotional grounds. In a nutshell, it's a film very rich in the Cinematography and Computer Graphics department, but is also quite unimpressive in its content.
Interestingly the movie ends with a clear message to the World and its entire population. It simply says that "Now is the time that we all have to unite together at the earliest or else the nature will unite us deliberately in its own destructive way."
Visually it's a fabulous portrayal of the End of the World from the director "Roland Emmerich" who is known for his mesmerizing work in his earlier movies such as "Independence Day", "The Day After Tomorrow" and "Godzilla". The moment you witness the first shattering sequence of the earth making a huge wide gap and everything falling into it, you get transported into a gripping enigmatic world altogether. The spectacular special effects unfolding every 15 minutes in the movie, just keep you glued to the screen with your jaws wide open. The disastrous happenings worldwide, the enormous water tides coming over, the burning volcanic eruptions and ugly tsunamis spreading over the world map just bring on the viewer to the edge of his seat.
Hence, if you are in for some great Computer Graphics and want to see a few terrific nail biting scenes where the heroes are just climbing up before the earth sinks in, then this is the perfect choice to spend your valuable time.
But if you are expecting a great movie, rich on emotional and futuristic content as suggested by the impressive body of work by its director, then you may remain quite unsatisfied at the end. In simple words, 2012, undoubtedly scores high on technical and graphical terms but content wise it falls short of the earlier disaster movies from the director. It lacks the emotional depth in its characterization due to which the viewer is not able to relate with any of the characters fighting with the unwanted situation. In order to cover more number of people on the screen, the script fails to develop any one character in particular, which as a result leaves a very cold kind of impact on the viewer. The movie also tends to become a bit slow at times but bounces back with every new destruction sequence on the screen.
The entire cast delivers fine performances as required by the subject, but they are also handicapped by the poor characterization in the script. John Cusack is pleasant to see but has nothing great written for him in particular. Amanda Peet is just there to give her constant looks of amazement. Danny Glover as the president, Thandie Newton as his daughter, Oliver Platt as the president's chief of staff and Jimi Mistry as Dr. Satnam simply play their parts as directed. Only Chiwetel Ejiofor looks like more concerned about the humanity factor in the movie and makes an impact.
2012 also tends to be repetitive in few sequences which strongly give you a feeling of "seen before". The movie even reminded me one of the early 80's disaster movies called "Earthquake". In fact this time, Emmerich also seems to be inspired by his own masterpieces from the past. He surely surpasses them all in terms of mass destruction of the globe, but talking about the rich emotional quotient of those Hit movies, 2012 comparatively scores quite low. Emmerich, intentionally skips many important questions related to various countries and religions practiced by different people residing all over the globe.
The main drawback of the movie is that even though it revolves around the concept of end of the world and its civilization, still it is unable to frighten you with the scary thought. The movie keeps on impressing you with its exceptional execution constantly but at the same time, fails to take you in on emotional grounds. In a nutshell, it's a film very rich in the Cinematography and Computer Graphics department, but is also quite unimpressive in its content.
Interestingly the movie ends with a clear message to the World and its entire population. It simply says that "Now is the time that we all have to unite together at the earliest or else the nature will unite us deliberately in its own destructive way."
waste of money
vazicao23 November 2009
I could talk about this movie all day, but it already consumed too much of my time. They should have burned the money, and film it, the fire would be a much better show... I really do not want to believe that it is allowed to call this a movie. Shame on all the great actors who participated in this... I wouldn't even say that the effects are stunning, because they are just expensive and they do not serve any purpose. Everything is so pointless. All the "emotional" scenes made me wanna throw up. The lines are... don't know how to describe them. I think that you can hear the "Mister president" line, about a hundred times which is present in every single one of Mr Roland's movies. Music is so cheesy, every now and then the sad strings come up to pump up the heroics of brave individuals, or to make you cry or at least to make you realize the importance of the situation , and all they do is making it even more disgusting and eventually you end up actually wanting the world to end. The box offices keep telling us that this is the way to make a "good" movie and that, my friends, won't be the end of the world, but it will surely be the end of 7th art!
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
