|
I'm quite conflicted on this one. Going in, I had a disaster boner the size of Arizona Bay. The trailer footage wowed me, as I absolutely love man vs. nature disaster movies (even when they're cheezy). I'm not a big fan of the director, but I do think his movies are infinitely more coherent than those of Michael Bay. With the high budget, decent cast, and end-all premise, I was confident that we would get 2.5 hours of kinda sappy, well-done disaster porn. (WARNING I was late and arrived right before the title card. I have since seen what I missed, and it sucks arse. Do yourself a favor and pretend the movie starts with Cusack waking up.) Things kick off with IMO the best hour or so of the movie. It's largely the money shots we've seen in trailers, but it's even better in context. John Cusack plays The Best Driver Ever, kicking rear end without breaking a sweat. It really gets you pumped up and sets the bar pretty high for batshit action. I've been reading that the first stretch is slow setup, but I felt like the movie bogged down /after/ this section. It seemed like they ran out of gas post-Woody and decided to throw in a bunch of drama shite instead of getting right to more porn. Why event films like this run 2.5 hours is beyond me. Focus on the action, cut the fat, lower the budget, speed the production. Bay sets a really bad example with his bloated action pics IMO. The Arks are quite cool, and I was surprised to find out how they would be used. For movies like this, I try to avoid spoilers - I could have gone in blank had I not read some amateur reviews. All the same, I was still pleasantly surprised by details of the master plan. Good play on the part of humanity. The arks have a pretty strong Galactica feel to them. Overall, the effects are quite thrilling, though some of the compositing fails as the movie progresses. The epic tsunami shots never look real, but they do inspire unease all the same. Again, the early setpieces seem to have the strongest effects, though the scale of later shots is still quite impressive. Anyway, this is better than the majority of last summer's dregs (Terminator, Wolverine, Transformers, etc.) and gives you a /lot/ of meat for the money. It also avoids the dog-awful juvenilia of Bay movies while not being as humorless as Terminator:Salvation. I'm actually quite excited by the premise and I look forward to seeing how they develop it through further projects. EDIT: I wanted to add that I anticipate the eventual fan edit. I think a lot of the drama is so disconnected from the rest of the movie that it could be easily excised and result in a much more exciting journey. 3.5/5 the_psychologist fucked around with this message at 09:01 on Nov 23, 2009 |
#
?
Nov 14, 2009 03:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 02:34 |
|
|
special effects were pretty rad the story is loving atrocious but if you go to this for a story you're fuckin dumb 3/5
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2009 03:51
|
|
|
Edit: 2012 is as much a tech-demo as it is a disaster. A fitting tagline for this film would be "come watch a disaster". 2/5 clearly not a horse fucked around with this message at 02:30 on Dec 31, 2010 |
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2009 00:10
|
|
|
I'll reflect what the others said. This movie is all about HOLY poo poo CGI and not much else. They could have cut out any of the dramatic portions of this movie and left in the escape portions and destruction portions and got the same score. Maybe even a better one. However it was still pretty nice to see Los Angeles fall into the ocean. The drama at the end was not needed. Could have had more destructive landmarks though. Not very fun seeing Los Anageles sink and no Golden Gate bridge crumple like an accordien. All in all it was a fun ride and the CGI was good. Wide spread destrucetion is always better on the big screen. 2.5/5
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2009 02:18
|
|
|
I could write a long and detailed critique of Roland's latest blockbuster, but he already stole 2 hours of my life. He's not getting any more of my time. Every aspect of this film is a hackneyed trope/stereotype you have come to expect from Emmerich. poo poo Sandwich. 0/5 I watched this for free and I want my god drat money back.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2009 00:46
|
|
|
Dumb as hell, yet visually impressive. 3/5
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2009 22:03
|
|
|
Disaster movies are supposed to be a little scary. The whole point of them is to put you in the position of someone experiencing something terrifying. The characters are supposed to be likeable enough that you genuinely feel for their plight. I guess what Roland Emmerich did was try to give us a movie that does all of that, but unfortunately for him, the tone of this movie is too lighthearted and all of his character development and over the top style ruins the movie. It's as if he is the boy who cried "wolf" - in that each disaster scene has the characters slipping away from some impossible situation, and after 3 or 4 impossible situations you are left with the feeling that nothing is to be taken too seriously. I'm also not sure which was worse - the casting or the script. Many of the main characters are too cartoonish to be taken seriously. I'm really confused about whether or not we are supposed to take any part of this movie seriously or not. Was it supposed to be a lighthearted romp? (which is weird for a disaster flick) Was it supposed to be a heartwarming story about camaraderie? Was it supposed to blow my mind with never before seen ideas about the end of life as we know it? Was I supposed to cry? or was I supposed to laugh (which I did all too often)... I have no idea. What this movie needed was a more streamlined approach to what it was trying to achieve. Even if I could have suspended my disbelief fully for two hours it wouldn't have helped very much. Somehow it was all just a little "too much". Maybe the script was rushed through into development to get this movie made in a more timely manner or something. If you take away everything that is bad or average about this film, you are left with maybe 40 minutes of footage that means anything. I wish hollywood would bring back style and substance to films. This kind of popcorn flick is pretty much meaningless drivel that is intended to make a quick buck. Too bad the transparency of this film is so obvious - this movie could have been really good if it took itself more seriously. I think what probably happened here is that they realized there was no way to make this script work correctly so they just hammed it up. And now, I've had just about enough bacon to last me till 2012. 2.5/5 ajrosales fucked around with this message at 21:24 on Nov 28, 2009 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2009 18:06
|
|
|
This film would have been much better if Emmerich could just stay a little focused in his filmaking. New characters are introduced all the time that are either forgotten and then killed off later because there's nothing else to do with them, or they get pushed to the foreground suddenly and get a big soulful monolouge. Of course I could bitch about everything wrong with the characters and acting until the cows come home, but who cares about that, right? What about the SFX!?!? The special effects are great, I don't think anyone could argue otherwise. But after seeing the earth violently sinking into the ground and creating a mile-deep chasm for the 10th time all I could think was "Okay. Neat. Saw it already." Another example of Emmerich's cinematic ADD comes up here; he destroys monuments and cities left and right but sometimes forgets to explain exactly why they are blowing up or falling over. I can't remember for the life of me why Saint Peter's Basillica decided to fall over. The most ADD-addled and frankly disturbung part of the film was its tone. One of the absolute worst scenes in the movie is the "running from the earthquake in a limo" scene. Emmerich is making it very apparent that while Cusack and his brood are escaping from the collapsing ground thousands of othes aren't so lucky. One moment the death of thousands, probably millions of people is treated with some sort of somberness, but then a second later we get a poop joke in the form of Cusack's car getting sprayed with brown sewage. This sort of disturbing tonal shift happens all the time in this film; Emmerich can't decide whether he wants the extinction of humanity to be a pathos-soaked melodrama or a light comedy. I could rant about this insipid movie all day, but I think I've detailed its absolute worst traits. 1/5 fo sho.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2009 20:52
|
|
|
It was kind of annoying watching people almost die. I mean sure, there's some sort of cataclysmic event that they might have odds of about one in a million of surviving, but to have to sit through them one after another just got boring. They managed to kill off the WOW factor before they did anything interesting. I'm pretty sure they didn't though. Also, characters getting axed - there was a twenty minute period where two characters were just killed off for no reason - other than they had served their purpose. It really highlighted the lack of a decent pace, and considering the first ten minutes of the movie sees three loving years pass, the long, drawn-out action (which to be honest, looked a little dated at times) scenes followed by rapid and sudden kill-offs just left me disorientated and angry. Finally, for the record, when you write parts for non-English speaking characters, decide whether you want them speaking English or their native language. I haven't been that confused since Enemy At The Gate. Flicking between Russian and English for no loving reason? Sure, why not. Other brief comments: the science advisor was a better match for Obama than Danny Glover, the Step Dad was never NOT wearing scrubs (because he's a doctor, hurf durf), no one ever said if the population of Africa survived, and the thing that bugs me the most is that the ending raised more questions than any possible philosophical ones the film as a whole tried to pose - solely through poor execution. I would give this film some credit for it's action, but I wasn't even that convinced by that. loving abysmal. 0/5
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2009 12:04
|
|
|
There was a review on cracked.com that made this movie out to be absolutely awful. I still can't believe that it was word for word true. The thing that sticks out most for me was mentioned in their article. The kids were hardly defined as characters. Their defining characteristics is that one hates his dad and the other wets the bed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2009 17:39
|
|
|
Improbable plot, inadequate character development, needed more Woody Harrelson, too much Amanda Peet  , great disaster cgi, and cheesy happy ending.I still found myself interested in the movie, and it was enjoyable enough to the point I watched it a second time. I like John Cusack, and his presence helped keep my interest. 3/5
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2009 06:54
|
|
|
This movie should have been wall to to wall CG destruction but it sadly wasn't. Maybe they should have gone the way of Avatar and went with the 40/60 split of real time vs CG because when ever the mayhem stopped and the heads started talking this movie really dragged. I know its just a fun and games movie but some one should have told that to Ronald Emmerich because with all its monologues (like 20 minutes of them) and over the phone goodbyes to loved ones (5 of them!) and crying (everyone does at some point in this movie), 2012 takes itself way to seriously to be a good popcorn movie. 2/5
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2009 19:29
|
|
|
Finally, a flick that makes Independence Day look like A New Hope. And it's only 2 and a half goddamn hours! -1/5
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2010 21:55
|
|
|
This should be a movie with no main protagonists or character devolpment or an attempt to establish a cohesive plot within it. It is a movie which proposes that the Ancient Mayans have predicted to the year that the earth is going to boil over and the land will heave spasmically for a while and then fall into the sea. It should have introduced characters for five minutes, only to kill them in a prolonged and visually entertaining matter in a series of routines. Set a scene up, kill everybody, change location, repeat. Make it look stunning, convey a sense of total despair, and then do it again. Trying to eke a decent story out of a premise like this is impossible. It was just so stupid I couldn't bear to watch the whole movie. 1/5 just for the neato special effects.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2010 05:34
|
|
|
This movie annoyed the poo poo out of me. The title was preying on the popularity of the retarded "2012" theory for one. For two, the acting was kinda lovely. For three, and most of all for me, they really went over the top and tried way too hard to be a "HOLY poo poo loving ACTION MOVIE!!!". There were alot of those "OH MY loving GOD CLOSE CALL!" type moments. I call that "Indiana Jones-hatting". It had some cool visual effects, and it would overall be a way better movie if it were on mute. 2/5
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2010 09:23
|
|
|
Ahahaha. Neutrinos. Causing earth's core to heat up and boil groundwater. And only this one group of scientists has noticed, in the whole world. Oh, wow. Also, fifteen-minute action sequences where there's just scene after scene of (person) "Oh, look! A thing!" (everyone) "Whooooaaaaa!". (person) "Oh, look! Another thing!" (everyone) "Whooooaaaaa!". (person) "Now it's that first thing again!" (everyone) "Whooooaaaaa!". It's like a Universal Studios theme ride, without the ride. 1/5, and only because Woody Harrelson plays an all-out crazy hippie, so that's pretty good.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2010 21:07
|
|
|
Don't understand all the vitriolic hate for this movie, it's a disaster film at it's core (haha, get it?), but should reviewers really be tearing the movie apart based on it's science? It's a movie, movies don't have to follow the laws of astrophysics. Despite the sperglords, 2012 was terrific for a mindless action flick. The visuals of entire cities being pulled apart were impressive and the story, granting cries of its nonexistence, is one of survival. John Cusack's character really cares about the safety of his family, and his trek takes the audience for an acrobatic thrill ride. Unfortunately lacking in the character development dept; many of the film's main characters are forgettable. Great popcorn movie. 3.5/5
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2010 12:24
|
|
|
I didn't mind it as much as some people, but I wouldn't rate it very highly either. It's about on par with The Day After Tomorrow. The visuals were OK, but I think at this point I'm a bit desensitized to them. The plot was very weak since it's mostly an escape movie. The characters are stock and predictable. The dialog is stale, even for this type of movie. That said, watching it with friends on Netflix streaming was a fairly fun experience. We thought about some of the cliches we might expect to see before watching it and hooted and hollered as they inevitably occurred. A few we noticed: - "Go go go go go!" - (interrupting heart warming scene) "You guys gotta come up and see this!" (cue to epic visuals) - Loved family animal survives - Young people that are bad are redeemed. - and on and on it goes, you get the idea. If it were a drinking game, we'd all be dead. Still, like I said, it was fun to watch together and I'm not enough of a film snob to mock it any more than that. For the amusing night it provided me, I give it a 3/5.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2010 18:08
|
|
|
There are several loose ends in the movie. There are some movies that achieve wearing their own devices for suspense out. this is one of them. It seems that runways are chronically too short and airplanes have to fall over the side of cliffs to take off every time. Btw: How the hell were they supposed to land in Hawaii to refuel before they took off again when they had spectacularly destroyed the landing gear on their plane? The story is so stupid that I'm not going to comment on it. 1/5
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2010 15:23
|
|
|
Some of my friends enjoy watching bad movies as a rallying cry. Apparently watching good movies doesn't appeal to enough of us. 2012 is rather good at filling this role, largely because its not boring and provides a lot of discussion fodder. Those two points alone almost bring it up to a 3/5 for me, but not quite. I think it is almost certainly Roland Emmerich's worst film (a partial list), although I admit I have not seen Godzilla (1998) or 10,000 B.C. so I could be mistaken. It is noticeably worse than The Day After Tomorrow. It's longer, the characters are blander, and the special effects are more generic. Then again, maybe I just like snow themed disaster. v:)v This movie is notable for using every single cliche you can think of in a disaster movie. This happens at least twice that I can remember. It's actually predictable when it happens too. All the cues are there ahead of time. [generic touching conversation about how it's gonna be alright] [character walks in / down / up from other room] "Guys, you've gotta come see this." [special effects showing off destruction of or landscape] I'm just going to ruin the movie for you right now. The lovable dog lives. 2/5 EDIT: I just realized, I am a loving idiot and reviewed this movie twice. I thought that previous post sounded just like me. Ha, I gave it a 3/5 last time. What the gently caress is wrong with me? StickySweater fucked around with this message at 17:41 on Sep 13, 2010 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2010 20:22
|
|
|
On the upside, if Roland Emmerich's apparent wish that the world would end came to pass, there would be no more Roland Emmerich movies. 1.5/5
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2010 20:21
|
|
|
This is the stereotype of 'stupid American movie'. If you like this movie you are a loving idiot. CG hasn't been a reason to sit there for two hours since the 90s. -500/5
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 23:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 02:34 |
|
|
For me to judge 2012 I feel it is only proper to compare this abortion to it's twin, The Day After Tomorrow. I took the time to watch both films in order to write a good review. Unfortunately, because I have a habit of ignoring credits, I failed to realize one key fact: that bastard Roland Emmerich wrote and directed both films. I can accept the premise of a crappy or poorly received movie being remade by a different studio or director, but knowing this turd was create by the same person just makes me dislike it even more. Eat poo poo and die Emmerich, like all your other movies, this movie sucks and I feel ripped off.  out of 5
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 17:42
|
|