 Oh swell, when the world ends, we're gonna save *all* the politicians. |
| Review Date: November 14, 2009 |
| Reviewer: Rosemary Thornton, Norfolk, VA |
So, when the world ends, it's the politicians and bureaucrats that we're gonna save, and the writers and the artists and the spiritual leaders are left behind to deal with the apocalypse. That was the most depressing element of the movie. What will the world look like if we only save the "important people" in Washington? Heaven help us. Seriously. If the future world is to be populated with the slimy-dog politicians and their ilk, I think I'll take my chances with eternal life, thank you very much.
Sitting in the darkened theater watching 2012, I was reminded of "The Bunker" at White Sulphur Springs (in West Virginia). Construction on the 110,000-square-foot bunker was started under Eisenhower's watch, when we were worried that the USSR might blow us up into lots of radioactive pieces. Turns out, our beloved elected officials were prepared to push The Red Button that'd end the world as we know it, and then turn-tail and run into their bunker, slam the blast-proof door behind them and emerge 90 days later when the danger had passed. And the most amazing part: The Bunker is outfitted with gee-whiz features that'd lead the unsuspecting public to believe the lawmakers were still comfortably ensconced in Washington, DC. In other words, The Bunker was *designed* to perpetrate a fraud on the American people.
Watching "2012" I thought about The Bunker and realized, this movie is probably right. If and when the world ends, it'll be the politically important that are given seats on the lifeboats. And it's probably right that if there is a cataclysmic event, the Powers That Be will not tell the unwashed masses what's going on, lest they try and steal one of those seats on the lifeboat.
That's just depressing on so many levels.
But I digress.
This movie is definitely impressive on the big screen, and the soundtrack has plenty of bass (which I like). But the script and the writing was a little sappy for my tastes. And as to believability - well - this movie fell short on that score, too. I don't want to spoil the plot, but NO ONE can drive a limousine *that* well. On the plus side, the graphics are truly amazing and scarier than anything I've ever seen before. I had to turn away from the screen to avoid some of the scary-as-hell images. It's a pretty intense flick, and it does a good job of drawing you in.
A nice side effect: After watching this movie, I'm a lot less worried about getting those pesky credit cards paid off. Does make you think a little more about enjoying every day, and appreciating the simple beauty in our world.
In conclusion, it's an interesting flick with awe-inspiring graphics, and it'll hold your attention - if you can suspend disbelief for a couple hours. |
This is why we go to the movies
|
| Review Date: November 14, 2009 |
| Reviewer: Annihilatrix1138, |
I think people judge these movies very unfairly. It surprises me when a movie like 2012 comes along and it's ripped apart before it's even released. "This movie's gonna blow, it's two and a half hours of things blowing up." I have to play back the sentence in my mind and figure out what was negative about that concept. These movies are meant to be fun, and usually nothing more than that.
I say "usually" because sometimes you get a movie that has absolutely no other reason to exist than to make things explode and momentarily lower your IQ (Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (Single-Disc Edition) is out now. Fun movie.) but occasionally you get something like 2012, which not only offers the calculated mayhem that fans of the action genre desire, but it also offers a surprisingly deep philosophical undertone. Go figure, right?
The movie opens with a fifteen minute montage that sets up the events that will eventually transpire on 2012, and gives us a look at the backroom dealings that occur in the wake of this disturbing discovery concerning the fate of humanity. Once that's over with, the movie picks up rather quickly, introducing us to the main character, Jackson Curtis, his more-than-dysfunctional family and a grab bag of supporting characters. After a botched camping trip, things kick off rather quickly.
What follows are two hours of absolute chaos. The CG in this movie is astounding, and I cannot stress this enough. The action is relentless, creative, and satisfying on the whole. The LA sequence alone will have you smiling, then you will realize you still have a lot more movie to go, and it never disappoints. The pacing is excellent in this regard. I was in awe the entire way through.
That's the bottom line: If you love action movies or a good old fashioned thrill ride, the disaster sequences alone are worth the price of admission (unless you're an astrophysicist, in which case you might be crossing your arms and groaning at this film all the way through).
But what I liked the most about this film was its underlying religious theme. People might be quick to pick up on the major references to this, such as (POSSIBLE SPOILER, though it's in the trailer): the crack forming between Adam and God on Michelangelo's "Creation of Adam" at the Sistine Chapel, the destruction of Christ the Redeemer, Vatican City, and the Buddhist temple. With these and other biblical references that you will miss if you blink, Emmerich seems to postulate a world in which you don't need God for miracles, and where everyone is back on even ground again.
Another theme that Emmerich sets up is the social borders that divide us more than we think. In a world that is coming to an end, it's not the strong who survive, only the smartest and the wealthiest. The film argues against utilitarianism on several fronts, going so far as to say that to embrace such a concept to an outrageous extent, even to save mankind, would result in a race of humans deprived of its humanity.
Now, I could be wrong. I'm not saying that my interpretation of the movie is spot on, but the movie did make me think, and that's what I found remarkable returning home from watching a film in which I thought I was just going to watch things blow up for two hours.
I walked in knowing that no one makes disaster movies better than Roland Emmerich, but I ended up watching something that entertained me immensely, made me think, and spurred on a very long conversation between my friends and I. THAT'S how a movie more than earns the price of admission. |
Jaw-dropping destructive CG mayhem, but storyline dumb as a bag of hammers
|
| Review Date: November 23, 2009 |
| Reviewer: buru buru piggu, New York, NY USA |
Sir or madam, if you came for intelligent, thought-provoking sci-fi, please leave right now. If you know anything about Roland Emmerich, you know that he likes his CG... and lots of it, and usually at the expense of believability and good storytelling sense, even for the far out science fiction genre where audiences expect the usual. If instead, you came to see lots of glorious CG mayhem and stuff getting destroyed in spectacular fashion, you are in for a good time. 2012 is unabashedly dumb sci-fi and elevates the art of apocalyptic destruction to new heights. His over-the-top CG-driven films like Independence Day, The Day After Tomorrow, Godzilla have grossed hundreds of millions of dollars around the world, so why change a winning, if uninspired, formula, right? After the abysmal 10,000 B.C., Emmerich went back to doing what he does best: blowing famous places up. This time, he blows up the entire world. A master of subtlety he is not.
The story takes too long to ramp up, and for the first 35 minutes, I was waiting for the destruction to begin. Never mind the paper-thin premise of the Mayan prophecy. It's only mentioned in passing. We don't get any explanation of that besides a 60-second Flash animation made by Charlie Frost (Woody Harrelson), a survivalist, conspiracy nut and amateur radio personality. I didn't care about the predictable and cliche exposition about the discovery by scientists of Earth's impending doom and preposterous scientific explanation that follows. We've seen this already in Day After Tomorrow, The Core, or Deep Impact, and countless other disaster movies. The idea of solar flares heating up the Earth and dire predictions of destruction are similar to Knowing. You can sleep through the first 1/4 of the movie and not miss anything. It's all background exposition about characters we don't care about, including Jackson Curtis (John Cusack), a writer who works part-time as a chauffeur to a rich Russian businessman, Curtis's estranged wife and 2 kids, or her new plastic surgeon boyfriend, and other dysfunctional relationships between father and son, etc. Everyone is pretty much a throw-away character with throw-away performances by a seemingly laryngitis-afflicted Danny Glover as the unconvincing President, Thandie Newton as his daughter, etc, but you didn't come for the human drama.
In 2012, Emmerich is up to his old tired tricks again. Jackson Curtis is rapper 50 Cent's name backwards. In 10,000 BC, the protagonist is named D'Leh, which is "Held" backwards, German for "hero". He likes to re-use character stereotypes. We get a nutty disposable character, Charlie (a waste of Woody Harrelson's talents), who is the same kind of character as the homeless guy from Day After Tomorrow. We also have the same tireless scientist trying to convince world leaders. We get a dog running to its owner and leaping to safety at the last possible moment just like in Independence Day. One of the kids is named Noah, a corny reference to the later plot element. Lastly, we get a heavy-handed, trite, and preachy speech at the end about humanity and compassion like in Independence Day. It's all very kid-friendly PG-13 stuff and it's OK that the rest of the humanity gets completely annihilated as long as the main characters escape impossible odds by the skin of their teeth, right?
The story is safe, very average, and wholly predictable, but that's what makes it profitable. If you're going to see this, you are probably in it for the CG anyway and not for the quantum leaps of logic required to follow the story, and that's where I can find no fault. The CG is extravagant and you've never seen terrestrial destruction this fantastical before! With top-notch cinematography and set designs, 2012 really sets the bar very high for future apocalyptic films to come and takes us to new levels of ridiculosity. Entire continents get ripped up, whole cities go down in flames, an aircraft carrier demolishes the White House! And of course, our heroes flee in a Russian Antonov An-225, the largest fixed wing aircraft ever built, because fuel economy and maneuverability is no big deal when escaping the end of the world, and of course, 10 people really do need all that leg room. And naturally, such a plane would be filled with Bentleys, Ferraris and other luxury cars that they don't jettison, because you never know when you might need them. Don't you know how hard it is to find voice-activated ignition and genuine all-leather interiors during the end times?
Remember to turn off your brain. Sit back and enjoy! Everything fall down, go BOOM. |
BIG! HUGE! COLLASSAL! GIGANTIC and UTTERLY MASSIVE!
|
| Review Date: January 18, 2010 |
| Reviewer: A.P. Fuchs / Canister X, |
4.5 out of 5
The Mayans warned us thousands of years ago that 2012 would mark the end of the world as we know it.
They were right.
We just didn't listen.
Jackson Curtis (John Cusack), separated dad and smalltime novelist, goes for the ride of his life when him and his family are caught up in the end of the world in the year 2012.
Dr. Satnam Tsurutani (Jimi Mistry) stumbled onto the truth of what was really happening to the earth back in 2009. He showed his friend and colleague Adrian Helmsley (Chiwetel Ejiofor), who in turn told Carl Anheuser (Oliver Platt), who in turn told the President (Danny Glover). Plans were made. Research done. Even some advancements were made . . . but all for naught.
Catching wind from lunatic conspiracy theorist and radio broadcaster Charlie Frost (Woody Harrelson) that all the rich folks in the world plus those who would create the perfect gene pool were to be held up in a series of arks till the disasters ran their course, Jackson Curtis takes his family on an adventure to head them off and get onboard themselves.
Disaster after gigantic natural disaster ensues and the Curtis family narrowly escapes with their lives, that is, until they find the arks somewhere in China and learn that the powers that be have other plans in mind for humanity's survival.
If there was any one word that I would use to describe this film, it would be "big." Actually, not just "big," but "BIG!!!!" HUGE! COLLASSAL! GIGANTIC and UTTERLY MASSIVE!
At the time of this review, this movie is still in the theatre. It definitely is a must-see-at-the-theatre movie. You need that big screen and surround sound to do it justice.
Everything is big scale in this one: the collapsing buildings, the giant earthquakes, the mountains crumbling, land folding over itself and falling a zillion feet to the earth's core, the tsunamis, the dust clouds--the list is endless, and everything is done HUGE. The whole time I was just sitting there with my mouth hanging open going, "Whoa . . . whoa . . ."
Sure, there are a few convenient plot devices and a few impossible odds are overcome, but I went into this thing expecting a popcorn blockbuster with over-the-top special effects and that is exactly what I got. I left the theatre with a huge smile on my face.
Though I personally don't buy into the world ending in 2012, this is still one worth seeing.
Go see it. You'll love it. Good times for all.
A.P. Fuchs
Canister X |
Made for TV Quality script, nice graphics
|
| Review Date: November 18, 2009 |
| Reviewer: SereneNight, California, USA |
====REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS=====
I admit I was very disappointed in this film. In general I like disaster movies, but this film had a `made for TV movie' level of plot, combined with movie-level graphics. I just wasn't feeling the love. In particular I was frustrated by the main protagonist who somehow, we are supposed to feel sorry for. He neglects his family, has no clue about what's going on with his own children, and then takes his kids to Yellowstone, not once, but twice, during a time when the park has heightened volcanic activity. Yep. Dad of the year. To make matters worse, the actor never really seems excited about anything. He goes through major trauma, with no worries at all. He was a poor choice for that role. At least put some eye candy if I'm going to have to watch the character sleepwalk through his role.
Plot devices seemed to have been lifted from War of the Worlds, including the divorced dad with the estranged kids, the newly involved wife, etc. I honestly could care less whether his daughter was potty trained or not and yet that was the comment we get to hear and nod at in the end. And of course the divorced dad and mom will get together at the end because, you know we need that sappy happy ending and the hero really suddenly now is daddy material. Yuck.
The plot was quite juvenile. Particularly the ending with the speech by the scientist which was eyeball-rollingly sappy and wasted more time than the characters had. The deaths of non-essential characters made no impact. It was like they took an edgy film and dumbed it down to make the PG13 rating. I am glad they saved the dog.
|
Day After Tomorrow was much better
|
| Review Date: November 17, 2009 |
| Reviewer: Sergio Morales, Levittown, NY United States |
So far being Roland Emmerich's poorest disaster movie, 2012 tries very hard to touch your heart, but will mostly just blow your eardrums and make you laugh a few times.
What makes this film fail is the fact that Roland uses the same disaster movie formula once again yet with a different destruction template... it's all been done better before, yet what this film does excel in is giving you blind, dumb and mindless entertainment.
Independence Day was good because it basically introduced the "disaster film" and had to do with an alien race which people always find interesting. The characters were deep, relatable and actual good recognizable actors. The script was inspiring, giving us a glimpse of what it would be like for all the world's cultures and countries to come together to fight for a cause (with of course the USA being on top, but that's expected). The Day After Tomorrow was good because of again, good characterization and young and vibrant actors. Sure the actual acting was at times subpar, but the quality of the script gave you a feeling of what might actually happy if such an intense storm were to strike the world. There were plenty of characters and each was given their own unique stories and backgrounds, loves, fears, etc.
These two movies succeeded because they were about the characters in the disaster, not simply the disaster itself and the character's running away from it.
In 2012, the disaster is the star of the show, and the pitifully poor casting did nothing to help the stale characterization of the movie. You have your noble protagonist, your "comic relief" protagonist (John Cusack, who JUUUUUST saves this from being a total casting disaster), your selfish bureaucratic fat guy, yous kids (who of course survive), your female love interests who do nothing but stand there being pretty-faced love interests, and your government extras. There simply weren't enough main characters in this movie, and the ones who are there aren't given enough screen time for any of them to be known or cared for. There really isn't any "society" character either (as in, barely any news broadcast scenes, scenes of flocks of people trying to avoid disaster, etc), so one doesn't really feel like the disaster is REALLY affecting the entire world.
Sure the special effects are fantastic and thrilling, but how long do those last? 2, 3 minutes? This is a 2 and 1/2 hour movie, and I mostly forget what all of it was filled with.
Emmerich has been doing this so long that I guess he figures doing it half-baked will go unnoticed and the movie will still rake in millions, which it probably will considering the quality of the special effects. But if you're looking for a quality character-based film you'll remember, don't count on it with 2012. |
A Big Mash Up Of Every Disaster Movie Ever Made
|
| Review Date: January 7, 2010 |
| Reviewer: Karen Joan, Texas |
I am a disaster movie junkie. Really, I can't get enough of them. An evening with popcorn and a good disaster movie sounds perfect to me. And 2012 should have been the grandest disaster movie ever made. Instead, 2012, while visually magnificent, leaves something to be desired.
2012 is the retelling of the Biblical flood story. Scientists detect the coming of the greatest solar event in the history of man, and realize that the world as we know it will come to an end. They tell the president and other heads of state, who, of course, keep it secret from the rest of the world. In a grand attempt to save mankind, great arks are built, in secret. But who will be selected to man these arks? Will the human race survive?
As stated earlier, this movie is visually stunning. The disaster effects are amazing and actually feel believable. I loved California falling into the Pacific. However, 2012 tries to be every cheesy disaster movie ever made, instead of being its own story. There are remnants of Earthquake, Volcano, The Poseidon Adventure, Airport, Tidal Wave, Deep Impact, and pretty much every cheap disaster movie made for television by the Sci Fi, pardon me, SyFy channel. It also borrows quite a bit of story line from the classic When Worlds Collide. I really wanted 2012 to be its own story in its own right. Instead, it was just a remix of, well, everything. And seriously, John Cusack must be the luckiest man alive. To survive disaster after disaster after close call gets a little monotonous. The audience stops caring. Especially since none of the characters are particularly engaging.
Overall, if you like high impact action/adventure with incredible visuals, you will like 2012. If you want a little more story with your disasters, then this may not be a film for you. It is flawed, clichéd, and leaves you wanting more.
|
AWESOME! Don't understand the bad reviews from critics!
|
| Review Date: February 2, 2010 |
| Reviewer: Amazon Fan, |
| As soon as I saw the preview for this I couldnt wait! Then the critics gave their opinion and they didnt care for it! I saw it anyways and it is non stop action through the whole movie! Most films like this one will have 1 or 2 action scenes then the rest is boring, but not this film! What a roller coaster, good script, good cast, amazing visual effects and it gives the affect that you are in the movie. I actually kept getting dizzy watching this in the theater and it wasent 3D or Imax! I can't wait to buy it! And I was sceptical at first about John Cusack in this movie but he did a decent job. Woody Harrelson has a small part he did good in as well. |
Movie does inspire people to think and open up
|
| Review Date: January 23, 2010 |
| Reviewer: Veriseeker, |
After talking to 8 people, I got about 8 different streams of thought about what the movie inspired in them. From being upset at how politicians and power brokers would actually use our tax money to save themselves, to thinking about what is coming in the real 2012, to it just being a well done and thrilling flick.
Nobody was bored or thought it was not well executed. The acting fit the director's intended mood of not letting the disasters depress the audience too much. The effects were among the best ever done in cinema. The plot moved along at a brisk pace, and it did make you talk with those who saw it with you about a myriad of subjects and ideas.
Questions of morality will come to mind but the director does not slant them to pander to emotion. Roland wants the viewer to contemplate what 'the right thing to do' may or not be in situations of high stress. You will be giving some thought as to how you might react to life and death situations.
Less weighty but as important, was Woody Harrelson's portrayal of the Endtimes conspiracy expert. He wants the front row seat and gets it. I know, having comedy in a mass destruction film seems out of place, but it does work thanks to Woody's enthusiastic performance.
In real life, the powered elite have and continue to build deep underground bases complete with high speed monorails to link them. They have evolved way beyond just secret bunkers. They again used taxpayer money to get the best of the best for themselves. Many contractors have spoken out about them. They want to be ready for any number of supposed disasters coming around 2012. Huge solar flares, the lining up with the center of the universe, and/or Nibiru with asteroids are all predicted.
For us regular folks, watch this movie and reflect positively on how you would prepare your soul for a great disaster. Or just get a second bag of popcorn and watch it again for the thrills. |
Apocalypse Maybe! Emmerich Does It Again!
|
| Review Date: December 29, 2009 |
| Reviewer: Scotman, St. Louis, MO |
Emmerich films have been a bit uneven for me. He created a whole universe with Stargate, but then twisted history a bit with Mel Gibson in The Patriot. He created a great film in Independence Day and wiped out the World Trade Center before anyone thought about it, yet made a hammy, cheesy flick called Day After Tomorrow. His 10,000 BC had potential, but there were too many plot holes.
2012, despite its viral marketing campaign (or because of it) hyped the film to include the Mayan predictions and how we were all gonna experience a disaster in 2012, yet the Mayan prediction stuff was maybe two minutes of the film.
But I digress. John Cusak decently plays our divorced pal who has issues with his wife and new boyfriend (gosh, where have I seen that before?). Little daughter bonding (War of the Worlds remake); bratty son who has no respect and little sympathy from the audience (Day the Earth Stood Still remake); only the rich folks will get on the arks (with one guy saying the mobs will be fine and the critics saying "You think everyone will hold hands and sing Kumbaya?" (great line by the way) When Worlds Collide from the 50s had a similar storyline). Yet Emmerich puts it together!
Best scenes: Driving a Chevy around giant fissures and through buckling parking garages. Driving a van in a zig zag fashion, dodging fireballs; all the space scenes with sun flares!
Clearly Roland has watched the same films as me! The film took a little bit of every science fiction plot I've seen from the Fifties onward, and yet made a joyride out of disaster films.
I knew I was in trouble when the kid in the beginning of the film was playing with a model of the Titanic (does Cameron get a kick-back?).
[Possible spoiler] Little girl at the end, when everyone is safe, asks, "Daddy, when are we going home?"
Damn, wasn't that kid paying attention??
But seriously: California realistically sliding into the Pacific made me look at housing prices in Denver, CO. Giant tsunamis and floods made me consider waterfront property on Mt. Everest!
Yes, my review is silly -- but it's silly because the film tries so hard to bust out of its cardboard characterization and become something never done before -- and it has been done before -- but damn, what style!
Thanks Emmerich. Next time, give me more Mayans and less crazy radio guy in the mountains. (That was derivative too, if you know of the man who refused to evacuate during the Mt. St. Helens' eruption in 1980, but I digress)!
Must see in the theater to get the full effect like I did.
Emmerich films:
Independence Day [Blu-ray]
Stargate (Extended Cut) [Blu-ray]
The Patriot (Special Edition)
10,000 B.C.
The Day After Tomorrow (Widescreen Edition)
|
|
No details are available for this product
While it may not be feasible to subtitle all movies; but spending some extra money to gain audiences during primetime could be a differentiator for the channel, as well as advertisers.