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.
Add a Review
-
bennog11 November 2009
-
samkan8 March 2010I 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.
-
polombob15 November 2009Anybody 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! -
andony6320 November 2009Okay, 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. -
cpbadgeman23 November 2009It 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. -
ridley_coppola11 November 2009I 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. -
bragant13 November 20092012 cost 260 million dollars and is 158 minutes long. At roughly 2 million dollars a minute, one might at least expect a thrill-a-second work of exciting entertainment, since one does not go to a Roland Emmerich movie expecting either art or deep meaning. Unfortunately, the many millions spent on this bloated, overblown "B" genre programmer could not guarantee the filmmakers a good script with a tight plot and interesting characters. Emmerich treats his own screenplay (co-written by Harold Klausner) with a level of seriousness customarily reserved for the Holocaust or biopics of figures like Jesus Christ or Mahatma Ghandi. There is no plot to speak of - Jackson Curtis (John Cusack) learns of the impending end of the world and has to rescue his offspring and ex-wife from danger. That's all that happens in the entire movie - for over 2.5 hours! By the 4th or 5th time we have seen Jackson and his gang escape death (whether by earthquake, plane crash, volcanic eruption, tsunami, etc., etc.) the whole thing has become so turgid and wearisome that one finds oneself rooting for the tsunami to kill them all just so the movie can end and one can go home. The thin plot might not be all that bad if the film were better-paced and more exciting, but Emmerich wants you to know that he is A Serious Auteur and that 2012 is an Important Film About Our Time, so every sequence keeps going WAY past its sell-by date. Watching this movie is like being hit in the head with a wooden plank multiple times - one is eventually stunned into abject submission. Emmerich does everything at least twice, and his respect for his own material seems to have convinced him that 2012 could not have been shorter by one second, when at least 45 minutes of useless sub-plots involving disposable minor characters as well as repetitive sequences of cities collapsing, flames covering the sky, 1500 meter waves drowning everything in sight and famous monuments crumbling into depthless chasms could and should have been left on the cutting-room floor. By the time Jackson saves the high-tech ark containing what's left of North American civilization (don't ask), apparently by channeling Shelley Winters' swim scene from The Poseidon Adventure, any sense of awe which the sight of huge waves washing over the Himalayas should generate in the audience has been replaced by a numb wish that the whole thing will be over soon and a prayer that one's brain death will only be temporary. After watching a whole lot of cities get destroyed again and again, one simply becomes mentally and visually exhausted by the whole bloated mess. Surprisingly strong performances from a thoroughly professional cast are wasted on tissue-thin characterizations - but believe me, these performers earned their money just from being able to say the bland, clichéd lines they are given with a straight face. Furthermore, despite the appearance of realism thanks to some technically flawless CGI, there is no blood or gore - there should be body parts raining down from the sky during the destruction of LA, but somehow no one seems to be on the streets. On the other hand, a lot of blood and gore might have reminded the movie audience that one is in fact watching a film about the extinction of literally billions of living things, but why should something so petty be more important than seeing whether John Cusack will get back together with his ex-wife and become a hero so his whiny, spoiled son will accept him? In any case, what does it say about contemporary society that a movie showing nothing less than the destruction of the entire world is rated "PG-13"? As far as the "science" and "facts" behind this utterly ridiculous bit of piffle, the less said about that, the better. Of course, this piece of overblown trash will probably turn hundreds of millions for its makers and secure Emmerich's position as one of the top commercial directors of the day. At least if the world actually ends in 2012, all copies of 2012 will be destroyed.
-
katiemccloskey-6181821 June 2021If (like me) you watch disaster films for awe-inspiring visuals, this is the film for you.
Has it got clichés and awful politics and characters that make you cringe? Yes.
But has it got supermarkets cracking in half, exploding volcanoes, huge tidal waves, massive ships falling sideways and airlifted giraffes? Yes.
Also, the dog does not die.
Great stuff. -
hitchcockthelegend14 November 2015Roland 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 -
kungfugirlsclub9 November 2009If 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.
-
Steefx11 November 2009After 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. -
funwsin29 November 2009The 2012 idea offered a great opportunity to make a true global disaster movie. The plot is imbecile. The characters are black and white. Typical stereotyping. Except for the White House staff. They are, of course, morally pure. The effects are good, but there are very few scenes with actual destruction and hi-tech effects. If the movie were an hour shorter,it would have been better and the story would be more fluent. The personal relationships took most of the suspense out of the movie. The dialogues are idiotic and simply annoying. Nobody in the Universe would talk like those pathetic characters in a global meltdown.
The film is full of standard characters. Everything is so predictable. The main characters miraculously survive disasters, land in high mountains and get saved in the last millisecond. 20-30 minutes of superior effects cannot compensate for shallow story and unrealistic characters. -
changmoh10 November 2009WE WERE WARNED: Roland Emmerich's '2012' would be the disaster movie to end all disaster movies. We sneered a bit, but we believed. Emmerich has been vying to be Hollywood's Demolition King since his "Independence Day" (1996), "Godzilla" (1998) and "The Day After Tomorrow" (2004). Now, with the aid of superior CGI, he seems to have done it. Basically, "2012" is about the Earth melting at the core! The ancient Mayans knew about this and researchers say they have even pinpointed the date to 12-21-12 - or December 21, 2012! Scientifically, though, mutant neutrinos have boiled the Earth's core like a microwave, causing quakes, spilling lava and shifting the Earth's crust. That's right. This means our land mass moves about so violently that we may find Wisconsin right on the South Pole! A few people are privy to this info about the imminent end of the world. One person who stumbles onto the truth is writer Jackson Curtis (John Cusack) and he goes all out to get his ex-wife (Amanda Peet) and kids (Liam James and Morgan Lily) to safety. The authorities (represented by Danny Glover as the US President, Oliver Platt as the Chief of Staff and Chiwetel Ejiofor as Adrian Helmsley, the American scientist who alerts the White House) must use the time they have to prepare for Doomsday - and a Brave New World! What can I say about a disaster movie that has all the best bits of all the other disaster hits like "Earthquake", "The Poseidon Adventure", "Airport" and "Armegeddon"? The CGI effects look so real and involving that they keep us on the edge of our seats. Those, plus the Indy Jones-type escapades of Cusack's Jackson who always manages to be just inches and split-seconds away from danger and mayhem. Some of these, like the underwater bid to undo a mechanical problem (a'la Poseidon films), may be old stuff but they mainly keep us occupied for the two-and-a-half hour roller-coaster ride! The subplot about Jackson's family set-up is engaging enough but many of the plot turns and situations are utterly preposterous. However, Emmerich makes it clear that he knows how silly they are - by showing some of them in a tongue-in-cheek manner. It is all a theme park extravaganza - a thrill ride through one spectacle after another. I can imagine the fun Emmerich must be having, demolishing national icons like the White House (for a second time), the Christ statue of Rio and even St Peter's of Vatican City. It's no great cerebral fare, but as an End-of-the-World flick, it gets you there! - by LIM CHANG MOH
-
dfranzen703 December 2009There 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. -
Mister_Anderson26 December 2009If 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. -
chimera-413 November 2009I don't know what I was thinking going into 2012. I guess I hoped it wasn't as generic as the trailers made it seem. Every trailer I'd ever seen for the movie made it look pretty much exactly like The Day After Tomorrow and it pretty much was.
Famous landmarks getting destroyed, mass destruction, hero outrunning/driving/flying mass destruction, family rifts that get healed up at the end, Inconvenient spouses offed and then completely forgotten about/ignored for the sake of reconciliation with exes. All the cliché trademarks are all present and correct, doing their duty by merely showing up. To be fair it's a competent enough, if silly, disaster movie which offers no surprises whatsoever while laying on more (admittedly impressive looking) empty spectacle for the sake of empty spectacle.
It felt way too long at nearly 3 hours and at least half of that was the build up. Predictable and seen it all before buildup at that. We've all seen it before. Strange geological anomolies. Nerdy tech guys coming up with unbelievable numbers that mean bad sh*t is gonna be going down. Officials that don't buy it then eventually do, the crazy survivalist dude that everyone thinks is nuts that really knows what's going down (here played by a very entertaining Woody Harelson, probably the best thing about the movie) etc.
You can pretty much go with your impression of the trailer for this movie. What you get here is what you expect to get from what the trailer shows you.
At best 2012 is totally by the numbers and at worse absolutely ridiculous, cliché and even a bit insulting really..... -
ComedyFan201021 September 2017I must say I love disaster and end of the world movies. And Roland Emmerich is just the best in our time doing them. I hope we will more contributors to the genre soon to have a more diverse type of movies. But 2012 is my favorite among his movies.
One always sees crazy reasons for negative reviews. "Oh it wasn't realistic". No sh*t, Sherlock. It wasn't a science lecture on the end of the world that has no scientific backup since it isn't supposed to happen outside of the movie. And yes, the family in the movie is damn lucky. If they went for the more "realistic case" the movie would be over after half an hour when their car would fall into a hole in the Earth.
If you are going to a disaster movie expecting something highly intellectual instead of entertainment than you are not smart enough for intellectual movies anyways.
Many complain about "character development".Yes there is none. You know why? Because it isn't the goal of the movie. The goal is to show the viewer exciting visual effects. Dramatic soul searching not just takes time of it but also is for a different kind of mood than these movies are.
So I went to see a disaster movie and got the best out of it. The visual effects are incredible. And they are all over the movie! There are some breaks where we have some cheesy stories, but they are there only to give us a little break and go on to see some great destruction. -
claudio_carvalho27 February 2010When 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" -
eilfurz12 November 2009I 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.
-
jacksonjackson24 December 2009Who 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. -
gmatgerlich19 November 2020So 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. -
mark-440113 November 2009I was looking forward to this movie coming out. Went tonight, and what a let down.
1. Was very slow at that start. Took forever to get going. Yes, you have to supply an intro to get acquainted with the characters, and a base for the story. But it took forever! Needless useless dialog. Way too much information, and typical bs that can be found in all disaster movies.
2. Speaking of disaster movies, this one follows all the others in cheap storyline and thrills.
a. Typical disorganized hero with an estranged wife and kids. b. Typical step-father (who ends up being left out) Remember the fiancée in Twister? c. Typical African-American President. In Hollywood ALL Presidents must be African-American... Unless they are evil... then they can be white. d. Bad guy turns good in the end... then is killed. e. Super smart scientist that convinces the world and saves the day. f. Government holding secrets from the populous.
3. VERY UNREAL storyline. Just some really... I mean really STUPID scenarios.
4. How many times do you have to have a runway drop out from under you before you decide it is not a good idea to land?
5. Take a few flying lessons and you can not only fly... but navigate a Queen Air!
6. A lot of coincidences that are just way too hard to believe!
7. Story drags... and drags.... and drags and goes on dragging for 2.5 hours! After a while you just end up saying yourself... "Just end the world... I need relief!"
8. They just tried to jam too many (already done) disaster scenes. A combination of Poseidon Adventure, Deep Impact, Hard Rain, Airport, Armageddon, etc, etc, etc.
Anything good??? Special effects were "ok". At least kept me awake.
Whatever you do.... Save your money don't pay $10.00 to see it. Don't spend money on the DVD either. Don't even pay a $1.00 at the cubical to rent. Wait for it to come out on TV... then if you have nothing else to do... watch it for the special effects! -
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. -
MatthewInSydney17 November 2009Yes, I walked out on this movie, 20 minutes before the ending. I've seen lots of films that were crapper, but this one was so damn aggravating. And unfortunately I went to see it by myself, so I couldn't relieve the tension by turning to a friend to say 'I HATE this film and want these characters TO DIE'.
To start with the okay things first - some of the disaster sequences were hugely excessive and brilliantly creative in their way (9 or 10 out of 10), it's ambitious in size, and the cast was mostly good. I enjoyed the comic Russians, even though they were clichéd. I've enjoyed slightly silly disaster films in the past, like Knowing and The Day After Tomorrow, so I try not to take a snob attitude towards them.
Now for some of why I HATED this - *SPOILERS* * Other people have commented on the 'heroes' (ie the dysfunctional white family) escaping every disaster at the last moment, more unbelievably than Indiana Jones ever did. While everyone else screams & falls down, continents literally move across the globe for this family's convenience! This is amusing once or twice, but then just gets silly. The emotional problem with this is that you can then only take this as being enjoyable action-comedy. But at the same time BILLIONS OF PEOPLE ARE BEING KILLED (there's no gore, but it's clear everyone on the planet is violently killed), and then even more amazingly you are meant to care whether this dull dysfunctional family gets back together. No, I wanted them DEAD! * This family is AWFUL. Despite the world going to hell, they care for nobody but themselves. They even take their escapes for granted, and all they can give the dying people around them are blank stares and then go back to talking about their personal issues. At least their young girl has the decency to sob once or twice (okay, I take back wanting her dead, but not the others). At a point later in the film, where the mother begs someone to save her kids, I wanted them to ask her what she'd ever done for anyone else's? What a cow. Drown em. * There's nothing wrong with depicting world disaster through the eyes of an ordinary family, but the story isn't actually told through their eyes only, so their importance is never explained. Why am I meant to care? * Did every African-American have to be so bloody noble? EVERY SINGLE ONE? * Having all the non-Americans get the secondary roles left a nasty taste. Because the rule in disaster films is that most of those secondary characters are just there to be killed off. The WORLD is ending, not just the US. But everyone takes orders from the US President, everyone is happy to talk English, and if you're a character from outside the US in this movie, say your prayers. Or rather, don't even bother. * What was the point of filling ships with billionaires? Their money would help build the things, but once everyone else on the planet dies, crusty old billionaires are not only not the best people to hang around with (they're generally not known for their manual labour or scientific skills), but after the world is destroyed so will 99% of their wealth! Their assets will be wiped out. There is no bloody point! A possible plot-line would have involved SOME billionaires bribing their way on board. But boatfuls of them? I have a low opinion of billionaires, but am certain most would be way too smart to think that was a good idea. * This film is kind of insulting to other nations. Even though plenty of US Presidents have been creeps, not all of them have been, and I can accept a heroic US President in a film. BUT, it's insulting to have other world leaders follow him blindly, and have him behave so nobly, going down with his country, while then portraying the Queen of England as one of the loathsome billionaires buying her way out - considering that the Queen Mum made a point of staying in London during the blitz, it's an insult. There's another uncomfortable point where a character expresses exasperation at the type of people they're saving - just as the camera catches sight of a smug middle-eastern billionaire. It comes across as an insult, whether intentional or not, but this film doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt. Oh, and killing everyone in the Vatican, weird. This kind of mild nastiness could have been fun if the whole film had've been more wicked and bitter, maybe making John Cusack a lovable sleazeball, but no, it has to attempt to pull on our heart-strings too. We are simply meant to love the dull white American family, and want to see them get back together, because Hollywood films take that for granted, and to accept that all African-Americans are amazingly noble, because that's Hollywood being PC.
Where I walked out - started to get the urge when the mother begged the Chinese guard to save her children. Would have loved the Chinese guard (oh look, he speaks English) to explain to her why her family didn't deserve his help in the slightest. Where I did walk out - when one of the noble African-Americans made a god-awful speech about why they should try to save more of those horrid billionaires, that those people deserved a chance to live etc. No, I was not going to let these characters try to regain my sympathy so easily after hours of callous behaviour. And I just knew it would be a matter of minutes before John Cusack's character would attempt something similar, through some heroic action (and the plot synopsis on Wikipedia tells me I was right!). -
nick-6439019 April 2021Lots of great action in this movie. The family dynamic is odd. And some of the side plots don't mix together with the movie. But it's was a fun movie to watch.