2012

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.

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.

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.

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.