2012

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 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.

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.

When the geologist Dr. Adrian Helmsley and his team discover that the core of Earth is heating due to solar radiation, he advises the North American President about his findings. The American Govern collects money from the worldwide leaders to build arks to save them with necessary people to rebuild civilization. Meanwhile, the unsuccessful writer Jackson Curtis (John Cusack) discloses that the world is near to end and tries to save his son and his daughter from the tragic end.

In the 70's, there was a "fashion" of disaster movies, in general with dramatic stories but the special effects in those years were very simple. "2012" is the opposite: state-of-art special effects and an imbecile story, i.e., a silly and corny disaster movie. The physical absurd are usually OK for the action, but stupid attitudes is something that is annoying like, for example, the decision to open the gates with less than five minutes to be reached by the tsunami, or swimming wearing tie. There are some posts in the Message Board listing the implausible or stupid scenes and attitudes. The Church in Brazil is suing Columbia Picture for using the image of the Christ Redeemer without previous authorization in an absolute absurd and nonsense; could the true reason be indeed an indirect reprisal for the scene with the destruction of the Vatican? My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): "2012"

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.