User reviews

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.

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.

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

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.