2012

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.

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"

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.

Roland Emmerich was armed with a $200 million budget, and this is what it produced. It's an easy film to dislike from an intellectual level, artistically as well, while the science fiction boffins no doubt had kittens where the science was concerned. It's also easily one hour too long in length, and come the second half of the marathon it starts to sag. There's only so many times you can watch your lead protagonists escape crumbling carnage - via various modes of transport - before the fun factor begins to wane. However.

The carnage effects are grade "A" stuff, eye popping and ear splintering, Emmerich is a master at this sort of thing, and with a likable cast comfortably chewing through the safe disaster film making screenplay, it's a very decent popcorn blockbuster. It also isn't afraid to explore some dark moments, all of which - while not all being a surprise - strike strong emotional chords. It knows its disaster movie roots and is happy to tug on them.

2012 made a $500 million profit, that's a figure not to be ignored. The blockbuster movie loving public lapped it up, they often love this stuff, they just want to see the world exploding and chases and crashes and humans imploding or being heroic. If you have to strip it bare on any sort of cerebral level, then of course it's naked. But fully clothed, attired purely in modern film popcorn clobber, then it's grand dramatic and exciting fun. And this even as you have to massage your buttocks at the two hour mark. 7/10