2012

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.

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.

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.

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"