2012

2012

Destruction is nice and all, but the rest is a bit weak.



"This is how the world ends, not with a bang, but with a whimper." Director Roland Emmerich would whole-heartedly disagree with T.S. Eliot on that point. Emmerich destroys the planet in the loudest possible way he can and when he's showcasing the planet's destruction, 2012 works and is entertaining. When Emmerich tries to build characters and emotional connections; not so much.

2012 takes the ending of the Mayan calendar (12/21/12) and shows the doomsday scenario that some people believe in (though most everything I read or watch concerning the date now try to stray away from claiming the apocalypse is near). If you've seen the previews, you know what you're in for: mass destruction and a bunch of close calls for John Cusack and company. Cusack is trying to get his ex-wife, two kids, and their stepfather across the world to China in the hopes of catching a ride on some kind of ship being built by the world powers. Of course he's always just one step ahead of the spreading destruction. His escapes (especially the one featuring a limo) are quite ridiculous, but they look great for the most part. Emmerich, after Independence Day and The Day After Tomorrow, has become quite good at staging destruction.

Destruction scenes are nice and all, but it helps if you actually care about the characters running away from the danger. I didn't care one way or another about them (which is the problem I had with The Day After Tomorrow, along with the awful CG wolves in that film). I normally don't like John Cusack in anything he makes, so that didn't help matters for me. It also might have something to do with the fact that I've seen all of this before. The characters seem like they didn't make the cut for Independence Day. Of course Cusack is divorced, but there still seems to be something between him and his ex (Amanda Peet). His son kind of hates him, but if the end of world can't bring father and son together, what can? Forming the government/science side of the characters are Chiwetel Ejiofor (a waste in such an effects driven movie) as the scientist with a code of honor, Oliver Platt as the scientist without it, Thandie Newton as the president's daughter, and Danny Glover as the president. All standard doomsday movie characters, but Woody Harrelson, as the conspiracy nut, stands out and makes his short but sweet scenes genuinely fun.




The rest of the film is a series of tearful goodbyes, missed opportunities to reconnect, and characters saying variations of, "I think you should see this." Seriously, count how many times a character says a line like that, it's insane. I wanted to yell at the screen, "Hey, just stay in the room with the guy because something is probably going to happen every five minutes!" I guess it's all to be expected in a film like this and maybe the emotional scenes will actually work for some people, but it was all lost on me. One thing that wasn't expected, though, was the running time. This film lasts nearly two hours and forty five minutes. It basically pounds you into submission before letting you go with this formula: destruction, tearful goodbye, destruction, minor character death, destruction, tearful phone call, etc. It's just tiring and I was glad to leave the theater.


I suppose 2012 never really had a chance with Emmerich behind it. He made a fun summer movie with Independence Day but his latest two films don't allow for much fun. Comic relief or light hearted moments just seem wrong in a movie featuring the deaths of billions of people. How can you root for a Russian trophy wife's tiny dog to survive when you know people are dying all around? It just doesn't work, but hey, it looks impressive and it's all just a movie. It just made me want to watch Independence Day again. But it was better than The Day After Tomorrow, so that's something, I guess.

Eric Harris - www.canneltoncritic.com

2012

This will  be a quick review, for there is simply not much to be said about 2012. I  had no major interest to watch it, but I said what the hell, it is the  newest blockbuster so I decided to give it a try, not expecting much.  And the movie met my expectations.

So, the ancient Mayans predicted „the end of time“ in the year 2012.  That's the entire premise of the movie – the Earth is gonna blow in a  series of earthquakes, volcano eruptions, tsunamis etc. And Jackson  Curtis (John Cusack) and his family are caught in the middle of it. So  they decide to go to China where there is some kind of ultra secret  government project to save mankind. And that's it. The whole movie of  two and a half hours consists of evading explosions, earthquakes, flying  debris and more explosions. There is almost no character development  (here I consider this bad), except the usual guy reunites with his  family/another guy gets the girl type of clicheised crap.

Only two things are good about the movie: CGI effects and support  actors. The CGI is fucking awesome, but that's expected considering the  200 million$ budget.
Then, we have two actors who stand apart from the rest – Woody Harrelson  as Charlie Frost, a mad conspiracy theorist, who, imagine, is right  about everything, from the prediction of the end of the world to  government covering it up. He doesn't have a big role, but at least his  acting is on par with the role. The second actor is Zlatko Burić as a  Russian billionaire Yuri Karpov. Burić is a Croat-Danish actor, and his  portrayal of Yuri is badass. Too bad he now lives in Denmark,because we  could use a guy like him here in Croatia in some of the movies. On the  other hand, if he stayed here he would probably be on some stupid  sitcom, but in Denmark, as I understand, is some kind of B-movie hero.  Goddamn.

Anyway, whatever the hype, 2012 isn't much of the movie, and I laugh  when I see which direction is Hollywood going.

Rating: 6/10 (6 just because of the massive explosions, otherwise  it would be a 5)

- review by Magnum

External links:

  IMDb

(Read Less...)

Recommendations:

Last updated: 2010-04-14 09:20:21 by CoolAwesomeDuo

2012

Roland Emmerich must really hate humankind.

Having already unleashed an alien attack, a giant dinosaur and a new ice age on civilisation as we know it, he's now plotting to set the entire planet collapsing around us. Dr. No had nothing on this guy.

Drawing upon the Mayan prophecy that the world will end on December 21, 2012, Emmerich's latest disaster movie aims squarely for the biggest disaster of all time: the demise of life as we know it. The Towering Inferno looks like a stray firecracker in comparison.

Of course, it takes a while for the apocalypse to come, but Emmerich is keen to dive into the doom and destruction as quickly as possible. After a brief dalliance with Chiwetel Ejiofor's surprisingly clean-shaven geologist, 2012 introduces us to our hero - failed writer Jackson Curtis, played with scatty enthusiasm by John Cusack.

Except, of course, this is one hero who won't be able to save the day. According to Emmerich's script the Earth is hurtling towards oblivion thanks to unparalleled solar flares that are sending out mutated neutrinos, and rapidly microwaving the planet's core. Or something.

The details aren't as important as the explosions, though, and once the Earth's crust begins to shift on the molten sea beneath it those come thick and fast. Needless to say, Cusack is distressingly helpless against this onslaught of tectonic shifts, supervolcanoes and towering tsunamis. It's not as if he's Bruce Willis or anything.

Curtis's - and mankind's - salvation lies in the hands of Dr. Helmsley (Ejiofor), who has been monitoring the recent geological activity and helping the US government (President Danny Glover and his self-serving aid, Oliver Platt) put an evacuation plan in place. He's also been keeping a sleazier eye on the President's daughter, Laura (Thandie Newton).

When crazed blogger Charlie Frost (Woody Harrelson) tells Curtis that they have a flotilla of ships waiting to rescue he planet's most wealthy and powerful, it just remains for John Cusack to rescue his estranged family, get them to China, and somehow sneak aboard a top secret military vessel.

Easy, right?

The first half hour of the movie is promising enough, but 2012 quickly writes itself into one of the tightest corners in movie history. When the entire world's coming to an end, what chance do our handful of characters have?

Emmerich's answer is to have them spend the majority of their screen time running away - from earthquakes, lava flows, volcanic eruptions, and even a giant donut. By the time the script finally settles into an old fashioned disaster aboard one of the rescue ships, we've grown so numb to the constant jeopardy that it's hard to care at all.

Still, as overblown disaster movies go, 2012 is actually rather fun at times, especially if you like seeing major world monuments destroyed by a sea of rampaging computer graphics. After the loincloth-clad silliness of 10,000 BC, it's good to see Emmerich back doing what he does best - wrecking civilisation. You'd have to imagine that this one only has a short shelf life, though.

Booze Revooze: A Drinker's Skewed View of 2012

Ramblings:  Consider Yourselves Forewarned

Final Proof: 3 (baby) Shots

You know how you get drunk and go to Disneyland? You walk around siphoning Jim Beam into your Coke Zero and having a good time on a sunny day because you know what’s in store for you. The rides are cool, right? You get your kicks, you loop the loops, you ride the beast and almost lose your lunch in Spaced Mountain. You get a taste of “safe excitement” which is like sex when you’re married: what you expected but dependable and better than staying at home playing solitaire. Still, your buzz is best before you get there because the thing you remember about Disneyland only after you leave is the lines.  Standing around under the tedious sun is a buzz kill and, sure, the rides are a blast, but immediately after the attraction becomes a distraction when you find yourself stood up in line again. This whole monotonous rush, this reliable thrill, this Disney McDonald’s is kinda like 2012.

i’m giving this movie 3 Shots but it’s a limited time offer. i’m pretty sure i’m gonna come back here in a couple days, after the effects have worn off, and downgrade it a half-shot or two.

Because 2012 is all about the special effects. ‘Action Movie’ in so many modern films means moving crap so fast it feels the cameraman is a tweaker on a trampoline. You don’t get to actually see anything, though. In 2012 you get to watch California fall off the edge of the earth. You get to see the Himalayas drown. You get to witness Sin City go to hell, literally and in hi-def.

The only drawback is the line you have to suffer through to get to the attractions. There are romantic lines, boring lines, and there  are ridiculous speech lines between each of the rides that kill your buzz worse than someone slipping you a virgin margarita in a mexican whorehouse. It’s not really a huge surprise, though. The guy who directed this piece of work, Roland Emmerich, is also to blame for Independence Day and The Day After, which flaunt the same flaws as 2012.  A real guy would learn from his mistakes.

The acting doesn’t really help here. That John Cusack has moved far, far away from Grosse Pointe Blank is a Sure Thing. Here, he basically has to Say Anything that will fill the spaces between action sequences. Woody Harrelson was apparently too drunk on the Pabst he drinks in his trailer to hit the mark as a conspiracy theorist who is proven right. The brightest light in this shadow cast is budding 9-year-old Morgan Lily, who plays little Lilly Curtis. A toast to her future, may it be as bright as her eyes…

Sex: 0 Shots

The only thing that even smelled a little remotely like sex in this whole thing was the predictable and completely unnecessary rekindling going on between Jackson Curtis (John Cusack) and his ex, Kate Curtis (Amanda Peet). No nudity. No bikini shots. What does PG-13 stand for?  Praise God? Purity Galore? Pretty Gay?

At least the actresses are hotter off screen than on…

Amanda Peet:

Thandie Newton is hotter than bit of Bush or stiff Clinton as First  Daughter, Laura Wilson:

Finally, there’s Beatrice Rosen who plays Tamara, a Russian stacked doll:

Drink: ½ Shot

A couple of booze references…

1. At a Washington DC fund raiser, they drink a champagne toast to raising a lot of money.
2. Charlie Frost (Woody Harrelson) drinks Pabst and offers a couple cans to Jackson Curtis. On his way out of the motor home, Jackson asks if he can have another, Charlie says the one he’s drinking is the last one, Jackson thanks him and grabs it as he leaves.
3. Blu Mankuma (and if i die i want to come back as someone named Blu Mankuma) plays jazzman Harry Helmsley, who has been on the wagon for 28 years before finding out the world’s going to end and starting his new, if brief, life as a reborn drinker by swigging a double Jack Daniels (Black Label).

Rock & Roll: 4 Shots

The only hint of rock music we get is the above song. So yeah, no real rock.
As far as the special effects go, however…total balls out  hard as hell rock. Like i said before, the space between the songs may be a little long but man, when they kick out the jams your jams are thoroughly kicked.

Boring Technical Crap

Written by: Roland Emmerich & Harald Kloser

Directed by: Roland Emmerich

Starring

Morgan Lily – Lilly Curtis

Amanda Peet – Kate Curtis

Thandie Newton – Laura Wilson

Beatrice Rosen – Tamara

John Cusack – Jackson Curtis

Bottom Line

Don’t see it. Unless you’re thinking about waiting until it comes out on DVD. If you’re gonna see it, see it on the big screen.
Oh all right, a bonus shot of Thandie…

(Read Less...)

Al K Hall<br />
Functional Alcoholic Slurperson<br />
(No, REALLY. Google &amp;quot;Slurperson&amp;quot; if you don't believe me.)

Last updated: 2010-03-31 20:20:05 by user08

2012

Okay, the world is about to end, the earth’s core is too hot, the government’s behind a grand conspiracy. I’m with you so far, and then you had to mention about the “space ships”. Now, I’m finding that a little hard to believe...

One Word Movie Review: GOOD

2012 gives you a front row seat to witness the world crumbling to dust, the death of billions of people and all for the sake of glorious entertainment and by God, it works as a spectacle beyond anything you’ve seen before. The same thrill-seeking voyeurism that makes people chase fire engines or crawl past car crashes drives this epic tale of the collapse of civilization under the awesome power of unbridled nature.

You know a movie has touched a nerve when NASA feels compelled to issue a debunk of the scientific malarkey behind 2012, where the alignment of planets create massive solar flares which heat up the earth’s core to the point where the continental crusts we all live on separate and slide around like pads of butter on a hot skillet, causing massive earthquakes, volcanoes and tidal waves. It is truly the end of time, as predicted by the Mayan calendar for the winter solstice in 2012 (Dec. 21 for those who are unsure when the solstice is).

The movie keeps a scientific straight face throughout, inventing just the tiniest neutrino fiction to explain why the earth’s core is heating up and then, it is just logical progressions and people’s reactions. The government has a plan, of course. The citizens do not know the plan, of course, because the government fears a mass panic. The plan requires a chosen few to survive and to kill anyone who tries to leak the truth to the public. The extremely wealthy know, because they can afford a seat at 1 billion euros each (wisely, the organizers behind the massive space ark program didn’t peg the ticket prices to the dropping U.S. dollar – as if any currency will have any value after the world ends…)

Our hero also knows the truth because he’s out camping with his kids, jumps a retricted fence and gets captured by the military. He meets up with Crazy Charlie who has a map of where the “space ships” are located. As the insane become keepers of the truth, the cracks in the world begin and the race is on to save yourself, call your loved ones to say good-bye and stay one fireball ahead of Armageddon.

Although you may be thinking, gosh this all sounds cheesy and contrived, well you have to see it and it really is “fun” to watch the world’s landmarks disintegrate before your very eyes. The effects are completely over the top, which in this type of movie is a good thing. The characters have their moments, including some humor amid the heroics. There is even a bad guy or two to deflect our minds from mean old Mother Nature and her bad sun which is the true villain in 2012.

The Story

The movie starts with the surface of the sun, where giant solar flares erupt into giant question marks, setting the ominous mood as we scan across the universe to all the planets aligning for the first time in 640,000 years (although movie fans know it happened just a few years ago in the first Lara Croft Tomb Raider movie). From there we meet the scientist who will spill the beans to the President, create a master schedule of doom and work with the mercilessly efficient Administrator of the Apocalypse, Carl Anheuser (played by Oliver Platt).

We also meet the “hero”, a writer. Yes, how fantastic is that? Poor Jackson Curtis (John Cusack) is a writer with low sales, a wife who’s moved on to a plastic surgeon and two kids who agree with mom that their dad spends too much time in front of his computer. While trying to camp out, they meet Crazy Charlie (played by Woody Harrelson who’s been on a roll lately with some juicy characters you can’t forget) who provides the thread of hope for our hero. Yes, there is a secret government plan to whisk a select few away from the earth in space ships just before the world ends. Jackson retrieves the map (filed in Crazy Charlie’s conspiracy bookshelf between Roswell and Marilyn Monroe) just as a super-volcano erupts. He drives to the rescue plane, with the volcano on his tail. He drives a lot in this movie. Yes, he is a limo driver (day job) and a writer (creative pastime) and most of all, a father who protects his family even if they don’t love him any more.

From the volcano, we move around to Vegas, Washington, Rome and Paris, all leading to the mountains of Tibet where the mother ships are being prepared for take-off. As one wise monk notes, “to see the light of wisdom, you must first empty your cup”. Presumably there is a hole in the bottom of the cup you can look through to see the wisdom light. In this movie, you really need to empty your popcorn because there’s so much getting destroyed while you chomp away. Look, there goes the Sistene Chapel, the Washington Monument and, whoops, the White House smashed by the JFK aircraft carrier!

Hey, who ate all the popcorn?

The Genre

The disaster movie was popular in the 1970’s during the recession and now, the current recession has seen the box office reward more disaster movies, this time about the end of the world. Knowing hit #1 in March, where the world ended according to prophecy and the kids were saved by aliens in space ships. Watchmen was #1 in March as well, with the threat of nuclear destruction avoided by the wipe-out of New York. Last December was the remake of The Day The Earth Stood Still where aliens start destroying the world and recently we had 9, with the world already ended and only puppets remained to keep mankind’s memory alive.

The bigger question is why we like to witness disasters? Does it represent our desire to see the world’s order overthrown? Are we resigned to our fate, as so many religions have predicted the end of days in one form or another? Is it just the Lion King’s circle of life resonating with audiences? For a variety of reasons, we seem drawn to disasters and the hope of survival against impossible odds, like the person who survives for days under the rubble of a collapsed building. We have little control over our lives but we need hope to keep us going. After the economic collapse of last fall, people are still unsure of the future so anything that gives hope, even if it is “gosh, at least it wasn’t the end of the world” on the worry scale, is a good thing.

In these movies, the hero is the human spirit, our collective will to survive as a species. We see enough extinction of other species around us, yet optimistically we think we will be here forever. Is it luck, our ability to adapt, our clever brains harnessing nature’s bounty or just the hope of another day? You leave these movies thinking, heck I better stop putting off that hike along the coast or that family reunion because we could all be dead tomorrow.

Then, of course, there is the other school of thought that if the entire universe collapsed around us, it would only kill you once.  So get on with what you were doing.

The Overall Quality

2012 is a visual treat. Rarely has so many familiar monuments crumbled so splendidly as in this movie. The director, Roland Emmerich has made a career out of destroying the White House but in this movie, he crushes it under a tidal wave carrying the John Kennedy aircraft carrier. In most landmark crushes, Emmerich tosses in a bit of cheek, as in splitting the Sistene Chapel down the middle, between God’s finger and Adam’s in the act of Creation. The scale of destruction is truly epic, with LA cracking along fault lines and sliding into the Pacific Ocean. Not just with shading on a map, but you actually see the coast tilt down and down into the depths.

The actors make it as real as can be expected, given the silliness of the goings-on around them. To actually outrun an exploding super-volcano in an old Winnebago with fireballs landing everywhere but on your roof is absurd but somehow John Cusack pulls it off with a straight face, as Amanda Peet hangs out of the airplane door with her hand reaching out for him to grab, oh so anxious for him to run faster, faster. Which he will, or the movie is over.

The script also gives some characters a choice, whether to try and survive or face the obvious death with dignity and a shared community of acceptance. The President stays behind, to comfort the nation and those around him as the end closes in. We all need those moments of choice, to decide how to face our moment of death. Unfortunately, the script dances around this decision by making the government party to a secret conspiracy to hide the truth until the very end, robbing their own citizens of any chance to prepare themselves for the end.

My vote for best destructive scene has to be the eruption of the super-volcano with Crazy Charlie on the hilltop, broadcasting live over the radio to his listeners, embracing the fury of the end. Others have had movie moments like this, back to Jimmy Cagney in White Heat, “Made it, Ma! Top of the world!” Woody will be up there with Cagney in my books, arms out, beard flowing and a big smile of exultation as he expires in a blaze of white volcanic heat.

Movie/Market Analysis

MarketBOB’s sentiment indicators, the GQS (Genre, Quality, Story) rate 2012 an emotional BULL. If you take this movie at face value (and there isn’t any other way to enjoy it – please don’t think this has any prophetic insights) it is a fun, cool ride through the worst day on earth, ever. This movie gives you many reasons to remain optimistic about the future. If Hollywood is willing to spend millions on a story where everybody dies and the world is destroyed, figuring we’d enjoy a movie like this, they must be on to something about the nature of the human spirit, willing to watch the wipe-out and remain hopeful about the future and our place in it. As the theme of the movie is summed up by one character, “I thought we’d have more time…” we all realize we may or may not have all the time in the world so let’s get on with it before it’s too late.  I mean, it was only a few weeks ago we were watching Michael Jackson dance and sing, the greatest recording artist of all time. Now out of time.

So, after you read this or watch the movie, go out and do something you promised yourself you were going to do but hadn’t got around to doing yet. Move it, buster! The world could end any day now.

Last updated: 2010-03-30 01:53:25 by marketbob

2012

Remember those disaster movies from the 1970s and 80s where simplistic characters worked out their personal issues with cheesy dialogue inside a burning building. Now imagine that the Towering Inferno is the entire planet and then you’ll have an idea of what 2012 is like: One big apocalyptic spectacle.
Chiwetel Ejiofor plays a scientist and John Cusack plays a science fiction writer who, along with half a dozen other people, are caught up in a scenario where the Earth is being bombarded by subatomic particles; end of time prophecies; government conspiracies; and a whole lot of other trouble indicating that the end is near.

Even though this movie runs about one hour too long, there’s still plenty of action packed scenes that take place before the grand finale on board large metal arcs. A lot of landmarks crumble and burn — we see Los Angeles totally destroyed — and you’re emotionally skating by the deaths of countless millions without a second thought while rooting for the survival of a handful of actors.

This movie really stretches the boundaries of believability. There are just too many unbelievable scenes where you can’t help thinking to yourself, “Oh, c’mon.” For example, there’s a scene where John Cusack is outrunning an earthquake in a stretch limo. If it sounds unrealitic, that’s because it is.

2012 is truly a disaster.

(Read Less...)

Recommendations: The Godfather (1972), Schindler's List (1993), Pulp Fiction (1994)

Joshua Flaugher

2012

Jackson (Cusak) is a writer turned limo driver who is separated from his wife who now has a live in boyfriend staying in the home with his kids. The weekend he takes his kids for a camping trip out in Yellowstone strange things start to happen. An earthquake, a crack in the earth, and a kooky radio dj up in Yellowstone are all clues that something devastating is about to happen to planet earth and even worse that the government has known all along. Suddenly it is a race against time to try to save himself and his family from certain death as the world as we know it comes to an end.

• Yep, it's another disaster movie. It's not the first, it won't be the last and I liked it.
• This movie was full of action from start to finish. There were "just in the nick of time" moments for everyone throughout.
• Great acting all around.
• The special effects were great and the intertwining of various story lines showing the end of the world from different perspectives made it interesting all the way through.
• I have loved John Cusak since his "Say Anything" and "Sure Thing" days in the 80's (yes, I consider those classics) and was thrilled to see him in such a huge big budget film.
• The morality question of who should live and who should die is raised. The whole world can't be saved and no matter how you slice it there is really no good way to decide.
• Incidentally, back in 2003 I the fledgling actress was approached by a fledgling movie producer with a script and plans basically to make this movie. Unfortunately for myself (and him) it never came to fruition but I always knew if not him then SOMEONE would make this film. I can't help but wonder if he is sitting somewhere thinking that he could have done it better.

Just Me

2012: Movie Review

 

People like disaster films and that is the truth. Some may argue that it was just a fad mostly from the late Nineties but disaster films have been steadily coming out since then. Problem with disaster films though is that they are predictable as more emphasis is given on the disaster than anything else. The year 2012 specifically December 21, 2012 has always bothered modern man. The Mayan long count ends at this date and some even contest that not only sages but even computers have predicted that something will definitely happen on this date. It comes to no surprise then that a film out of the disaster genre was made about the year 2012. Can "2012" be more than your average disaster film? Read on to find out.

The year is 2009, an Indian scientist discovers that a solar flare has caused an abnormality in the Earth's interior. Soon they discover that this rise in temperature of the Earth's core will lead to its inevitable destruction. In 2010, the G10 leaders are told about the problem and they begin a secret project to save a portion of humanity. Fast forward to 2012, Jackson Curtis (John Cusack) is going camping with his kids. When they arrive in Yellowstone National Park, they discover that the lake has dried up. They meet a man (Woody Harrelson) who tells Jackson that the end is near and that the government has always known about it. He shrugs off the man as crazy but soon, a massive earthquake destroys L.A. and Jackson and his family barely escape. Jackson now knows that the man was telling the truth. Can he and his family survive?
We feel that the whole 2012 story was irrelevant throughout the movie - they could have set the disaster time in 2011 or 2013 and it wouldn't have made a difference. There was nothing about "2012" that makes it special as the movie's main point is to just show massive worldwide destruction. "2012" may be your typical disaster film but even though this was the case, the film never got boring. Disasters you'll witness from start to finish will leave you awestruck for sure. Some people may see the film though as repetitive and unimaginative. For example, they had to ride a plane to get out of disaster - THREE times! The setting was different but can't they think of anything else? The acting was good at most parts but some of the dialog just became too cheesy for our tastes. Also, there is a big moral dilemma towards the end of the film that just did not make much sense to us (which some people may find otherwise). In the end, it just boils down if you are too serious of a watcher or not. If you expect this film to be a realistic look into humanity's struggle for existence, then it will fall flat on you. But if you will watch this not expecting much than what is typical, then you will enjoy it hands down. "2012" is not for everyone - we wished it could have been executed a lot better than your typical Nineties disaster film but we cannot deny that it was enjoyable on some end.

Rating: 3 reels Why you should watch it:
- destruction and chaos were all breathtaking
- never gets boring with all the action on screen even with a running time of two hours

Why you shouldn't watch it:
- scientists at heart would have a hard time accepting this film as reality
- becomes too repetitive even with the outcomes of the disasters
- really predictable - if you have seen other disaster films, then this is not much different

(Read Less...)

Recommendations:

Last updated: 2010-03-12 02:34:01 by user06

2012

I give the film: 4.0/5

Film critic gods, please don't scold me. I know by critical consensus (37% on rottentomatoes.com) that 2012 'sucks', but I did really enjoy this disaster flick, silly storyline plus extravagant effects and all. I am going as far to say that in this decade of Hollywood, I am probably hailing the film as this generation's Jurassic Park, in terms of visual effects, that is.

Probably until James Cameron's Avatar come along. But more on that later.

2012 is based on the prophetical premise that the world will come to an end on that titular year, since the Mayan calendar concludes at that time, too. The film portrays this by explaining that the Earth's core will melt due to solar explosions on the surface of the sun, and this results in the movement of the tectonic plates, and you don't have to take Geography to imagine how that will turn out.

The myriad of characters that litter the show are mainly stereotypical, but its universal themes of love will undoubtedly move people. This is another reason, besides the effects, to catch this in the cinema. It's the collective company that matters, and it will definitely improve your movie experience, as it did mine.

And now for the star of the show. I've proclaimed on Facebook that 2012 is "going to be a shoo-in for Oscar's Visual Effects", and nobody can refute that. And judging from the lacklustre trailers of the reportedly US$500million Avatar, I am rooting for this to win.

[reviewer adds: Guess there wasn't any love for 2012 this Oscars. And actually, Avatar did deserve its Visual Effects prize.]

I walked into 2012 expecting 'just another blockbuster', but look how I have rated the movie.

FINAL SAY:

I forgot how many times I've said 'wow' during the film. It's a solid, terrifying and technically groundbreaking movie. What is stopping this from becoming this generation's Titanic? ProbablyTwilight: New Moon, which I still don't understand why.

Wilson Ng - http://wilsoniscurious.blogspot.com/

Last updated: 2010-03-13 23:26:49 by wilsoniscurious

2012

2012

Starring:

John Cusack, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Thandie Newton, Amanda Peet, Oliver Platt and Danny Glover

Director: Roland Emmerich

Genre: Action, Dramal, Sci-Fi

Rated: PG-12

The sun is in a rare alignment with the planets that is causing it to heat up the core of the earth, That is the basic rundown on the reason for the pending destruction,

Jackson Curtis (John Cusack) is a divorced dad and failed writer when he takes his kids to Yellowstone on vacation he meets the host of a conspiracy radio show who tells him about the coming destruction. At the same time Dr Adrian Helmsley (Chiwetel Ejiofor) is working with the government on what the time frame for impending destruction is.

The best part of 2012 is the destruction LA goes into the ocean, Vegas gets destroyed, Yellowstone park erupts, Hawaii becomes a pool of Lava a Tidal wave hits DC and that is just in America.

Unfortunately with a running time of two hours and thirty eight minutes you need more than just destruction primarily some characters you care about.

Watching Jackson race the family through LA always an inch in front of the cracks in the earth while everyone around him dies is interesting.

When Jackson gets to the airport with his family and they have to once again race against the cracks in the earth to get airborne not as interesting. (For some reason catastrophe creates stunt pilots, for there is no other reason as to why you would fly an inch off the ground and almost get swallowed by the destruction rather than fly away from it.)

Jackson and his family get to Yellowstone this time they have to race the crumbling ground in a Winnebago. New mode of Transportation same old scene.

After Yellowstone we do a new version of the airplane scene,  just barely able to take off? This time in Vegas with a bigger plane.

This type of thing goes on for close to three hours, the film is all visuals and no substance, Billions of people are dying and we watch Cusack’s clan? It would have been better if they focused on multiple families trying to survive instead of one ridiculous tail.
If only Roland Emmerich could understand that less is more then he could have made a very entertaining hour and a half disaster flick instead of a 2 hour and 38 minute disaster of a flick.

(Read Less...)

Last updated: 2010-03-12 12:15:36 by Cinemaassassin

2012

i’m a little late getting this review out.  but hey, i been busy.  i just now got around to seeing this film and i can honestly say it didn’t suck.  it’s way better than the day after tomorrow.  which did suck and was the last movie by director roland emmerich.  wait, i take that back.  his last movie was 10,000 BC.  which also sucked.  but anyway…

they should have named this film 20012: an apocaliptic odyssy.

this thing is not really strong in the story department, but these catastrophe films rarely are.  not enough time for any good plot when all you are doing is trying to run from the destruction of the earth.  the special effects are what this film is all about.  but you also have some very likeable actors to make this thing run along quite smoothly.

who doesn’t love john cusack?  and everyone loves danny glover.  amanda peete is great.  the chick that plays danny glover’s first daughter is super hot and reminds me of thandie newton.  oh wait, that’s because it is thandie newton.  and even though i can’t pronounce his name, chiwetel ejiofor is one of my favs.  he plays the role of the scientist.

and it is great to look at.  watching the ocean roll over the himilayas is pretty awesome.  as is all the destruction.

bottom line this is a big budget hollywood blockbuster type of disaster film.  with a special appearance by woody harrelson.  and it flows along nicely as i’ve just said.  it doesn’t seem near as long as it’s 2 hour and 45 minute run time.  just go easy on the large soda or you might miss seeing hawaii as a giant volcano.

i’m probably not going to run out and buy this when it comes out on dvd like i did star trek last week, but this is a very enjoyable movie perfect for the big screen.

three popcorn tubs out of five.

Cal Reed

2012: Mayan Shmayan

The world is coming to an end — again. Will movie makers ever tire of hokey apocalyptic flicks? The Movie Slut sincerely hopes not.

So here we go: The requisite early meager character development; the looming danger; the Earth-destroying event(s); the flight; the desperation; the displays of selfishness and humanity; the ultimate resolution when the good guys win to begin life all over again with the hope they've learned from their mistakes. Yeah, right!

Come to think of it, isn't this "Groundhog Day" all over again?

This time doom was predicted by the Mayan calendar and Jake Gyllenhaal is the misunderstood man who saves the day — and the Earth while he's at it. 

2012 has more edge-of-your-seat moments than a woman in a Christian Lacroix pouf dress and it won't fit into your closet either.

(Read Less...)

See you at the movies, The Movie Slut

2012

I want to rip Roland Emmerich. I really do.

Emmerich's made some of the worst Hollywood movies of the last decade, including "Godzilla," "The Patriot" and "10,000 B.C." I would've thrown "Independence Day" in there too, but lots of you yahoos seem to like it, so I showed restraint. (I'm kidding. Relax.)

But I can't rip Emmerich. Not totally. 2004's "The Day After Tomorrow" was a surprisingly effective disaster flick, and the same is true of last weekend's big box office winner "2012."

The movie is predicated on an ancient Mayan prophecy of global doom scheduled to kick into high gear on December 21, 2012. Personally, I'd be impressed if the ancient Mayans could name next year's Super Bowl winner -- never mind the apocalypse -- but the movie is canny about staying away from mystical mumbo jumbo. It references the Mayans but does not bog itself down with any questions, let alone answers, about Mayan weather forecasting techniques.

Instead it pursues a simple scientific course. A massive solar flare has altered the mass of solar neutrinos from zero to something slightly greater than zero. This has the unhappy result of boiling the Earth from within like a burrito in a microwave. 

This is rationally bankrupt, of course, but it does enable the earth's crust to shift about haphazardly, which allows for not just one spectacular catastrophe but EVERY spectacular catastrophe. We've got volcanoes, tsunamis, earthquakes, you name it. And in cinematic terms, that's pretty cool.

What's also cool is Woody Harrelson's comic turn as an eccentric radio broadcaster in Yellowstone National Park. Harrelson is rapidly turning into his generation's Dennis Hopper, someone who can play weird without creeping anyone out. (Well, excessively, anyway.)


The narrative focus of "2012" is twofold. There's the scientist who tries to warn everyone about the crisis, played by the consistently enjoyable Chiwetel Ejiofor -- good job for not adopting a stage name, by the way! -- and the more easily pronounceable John Cusack, who plays a limo driver trying to escape various calamities with his estranged family.


These plots, and several others, converge on a secret location in China, where vast ships have been built in preparation for the end times. In a good twist -- spoiler alert -- the ships aren't spacebound vessels but boats designed to endure what will be a very biblical flood. 

Hence humankind will survive the events of "2012" and rebuild, but the question of which specific characters will make it to the boats before the gates have closed is a question that sustains our dramatic interest to the end of the story.

It's telling that "2012," which opened day and date nearly everywhere in the world to a massive $225m take, contains no A-list movie stars. For that matter, neither did any of the other smash hits this year, including "Transformers 2," "Star Trek" or "The Hangover." The idea that movie stars are necessary to open movies is suffering from a reality deficit problem.

The money that would've gone to star actors in "2012" was spent on special effects, which are solid all the way through the film's considerable -- and yes, somewhat too long -- two hour and thirty-eight minute running time.

As a result of special effects excellence, some sound storytelling and a bit of directorial fluorish, "2012" feels big at all times. It feels epic, and that's a critical delivery on the promise of bigness the movie promotes.

This is going to hurt to say, but...

Good job, Roland Emmerich.

Ouch!

SCORE

How Accomplished: 71/100

How Much I Enjoyed: 75/100

How Much I Enjoyed Enjoying it: 06/100

2012

When a battleship squishes the President of the United States, you know you’re watching a Roland Emmerich movie. The same man who introduced the world to Will Smith by having Big Willie knock-out an extra-terrestrial; the same man who had Jake Gyllenhaal fend off the next ice age with a campfire; the same man who gave you Ferris Bueller versus Godzilla(!!!) brings you this: the end of the world as we know it (unless you’re a hard-up character actor, or a cute kid, or a giraffe, or a Tibetan monk). For shear, insane, eyeball-trampling spectacle, Emmerich deserves a medal. For story-telling (and everything else), he deserves a punch.

As predicted by the ancient Mayans, the world goes tits-up in 2012. Solar rays melt the Earth’s core. This is pretty f—ing bad news for six billion people, but (on the plus side) it does mean John Cusack will get back together with his ex-wife. In vintage Irving Allen disaster movie fashion, the Apocalypse is really just the cue for broken-hearts to get mended, for small girls to overcome incontinence, and for a cute dog to escape death… by a whisker! Scant attention is paid to the enormous loss of life (or to the laws of physics), as a ragtag group of disparate survivors struggle with their personal problems, weep for countless extras, and teach us how to love.

Saying this movie is ridiculous is like saying a hurricane is loud. You think Roland Emmerich doesn’t know his movie is ridiculous? In 2012, the Earth’s crust moves just so John Cusack and his family will have someplace to land a stolen plane. It’s a movie where a drowning monk gazes up at a forlorn giraffe; where the Chinese army airlift an elephant onto a steel ark in the Himalayas. Woody Harrelson seems sane in this movie. We’re talking about a magnitude of crazy that exceeds all grasp. By the time Oliver Platt confesses to assassinating the director of the Louvre (for being “an enemy of humanity!”), the word “ridiculous” feels puny.

John Cusack acts like the painkillers have just kicked in. He looks like he’s trying to block the movie out. But Cusack’s deadpan delivery comes in for a rough ride in 2012, because even the drollest f—er on the planet would have a hard time looking nonplussed as Los Angeles explodes around him. Cusack’s job for most of the movie is to run away while another landmark goes kabluey. His dialogue mostly consists of saying “now” (as in “we have to go now”), or giving his kids bogus assurances that “everything’s gonna be ok” as Hawaii burns in the background. As a father, he’s about as plausible as the science of2012, but he kisses Amanda Peet like he means it and he seems to drive a limo like a bat out of hell.

Most of the cast deserve a mention just for their death scenes. Danny Glover: crushed by the Washington Monument. Woody Harrelson: obliterated by a super-volcano. Thomas McCarthy: eaten by a big cog, and completely forgotten by the end of the movie, even though he’d been a perfect step-father to Amanda Peet’s children and in all ways an excellent second husband to her. (Literally, his wife and step-children seem to forget him about five minutes after he dies.) George Segel: killed in a Poseidon Adventure sub-plot. The entire population of L.A., Las Vegas and Washington D.C.: annihilated in the hope someone would find their deaths “awesome”.

By the time a gigantic steel ark is veering towards Mount Everest, you’re either enjoying this nonsense or you’re not. 2012 trades in a kind of porno death hysteria that doesn’t offer a middle ground. The key thing is to enjoy the lunacy of the premise. Roland Emmerich isn’t the go-to guy for psychological realism, or dialogue a human being might say; he’s into cataclysm. People in his movies are like ants trying to evade a magnifying glass. Think: beetles for the legion of cars (and drivers) who meet their doom. You could feel ashamed for whooping at this fun-packed holocaust, but why bother? If one thing is certain: Roland Emmerich has no shame.

(Read Less...)

2012

Writer and Director Roland Emmerich sure doesn't make small movies! He is the creative force behind many Hollywood Blockbusters like "Independence Day" and now the gargantuan "2012". I hated "Independence Day" because it was smug, stupid and a rip off of "Star Wars". I expected to hate "2012" but I was completely surprised and actually thought it worked. Maybe because John Cusack was in it or maybe it had a good cast who do a good job of selling what could have been a goofy movie. The dialogue is mostly hokey and dumb but you will be too busy watching the special effects to notice. Compared to the lackluster "War of the Worlds" this actually creates tension, scares and thrills. I would not take a small child to this movie. John Cusack does a better job here than Cruise did in "War of the Worlds" because he is more identifiable and more likable. At first I thought he was miscast but he actually convinced me he could help save the World. The supporting cast is also excellent selling this especially Oliver Platt in a scene stealing performance.

Cusack's character like Cruise in "War of the Worlds" is estranged from his wife who is seeing someone else. The son calls his Dad by his first name and is estranged from his father and likes Mom's boyfriend better. Cusack has to repair his family at the same time he has to save the World when it is about to be swallowed up. You know the plot already and the theme is how all the Countries pull together besides their differences to save the Planet. There is a wonderful roller coaster like action set piece as Cusack and his family have to drive then finally fly through mass destruction. I might be sick here but I think it would make a great ride at an amusement park with chunks of Earth, cars and debris flying at you as you try to get to safety. The movie is fun and suspenseful and the special effects are amazing and look kind of real. Cusack, Harrelson and Platt are great and I don't think you will be bored despite the 2 hour 40 minute running time. This movie gets the job done and is probably the best disaster, End of the World movie I have seen recently. Get yourself a big tub of popcorn, sit back and strap yourselves in and have a good time as long as you don't think too much.

Vincent Snavely

2012 (review published November 2009)

When I saw some of the shots in the trailer and particularly in the 5 minute escape from LA scene that was posted online, my jaw must have been about mid-chest. To see such a thorough obliteration of a city with the visual details that were in that scene was downright terrifying. Consequently, I was legitimately excited to see this film, if only for the look of it. The problem with that mindset is that it only paves the way for disappointment later on.
 
I suppose "2012" is almost like a trophy date: fun to look at, but once you become acquainted the luster diminishes. If collapsing freeways, an exploding national park, and converging tsunamis large enough to consume entire continents ever could be described as lush, this is it. But for something that looks so rich how is it that I end up feeling cheap by the end of it?
 
I was not only ok with the protagonists narrowly escaping LA during a cataclysmic earthquake, I was thrilled by the excitement of it. In fact it was necessary to establish these main characters, out of all 6 billion people in the world, as being worthy of our attention. But to have yet another narrow escape in the same plane after the eruption of the Yellowstone caldera and again in Las Vegas when the ash cloud catches up to them is simply annoying and quite honestly, dumb.
 
The fatal flaw is that while the buildup was indeed ominous, the Mayan prediction of the 2012 phenomenon, the one thing that is responsible for this film being considered, seems to have only been included as an initial thought to give the rest of the movie a little extra credibility. The last two hours proceeds to have it shoved to the back burner. There is not even a mention of any dates during the course of the plot other than that it is the year 2012. The winter solstice never plays a role. The galactic alignment that will occur is mentioned briefly and the predicted solar maximum is included, but everything else seems to orbit around crust displacement theory.
 
"2012" insults the Mayan's abilities as astrologers by giving their prediction of the "end of the world" the ultimate Western treatment. The destruction of the Earth is not my problem. My problem is that there is no theme to support it. The Mayans merely predicted the end of our current cycle to occur in 2012. New Age theories talk about a shift in attitude, particularly Western materialism. The film sort of, kind of, perhaps, maybe explores these ideas. The people who do make it aboard the "arks" that are built to save humanity are those who are privileged enough to purchase tickets so of course, there is a sense of elitism and some conflict between a couple main characters calling for a more humane attitude. But by the time the credits roll, there isn't any real hope for change in the human species. More importantly it doesn't leave the audience to ponder anything fresh about our current 2009 society and what kind of changes we might like to see.
 
Maybe that’s asking a bit much.

(Read Less...)

2012 (2009)

BOTTOM LINE: Director Roland Emmerich delivers his best money shots to date in this epic disaster movie about the end of the world, but there is something very undignified about what watching billions die as a piece of entertainment (as long as our heroes survive) as well as the fact that it is all completely ridiculous.

THE GOOD: The disaster flick has become Roland Emmerich’s speciality genre, and in many respects, this film follows the same template as his previous films, save only the premise of what causes the destruction. In this instance, the end of the world is caused by an unusual planetary alignment which creates the conditions for the sun to microwave the Earth from the inside out. As the core heats up, the land masses and continents become unstable, causing massive earthquakes, tsunamis and the rest. Given the sheer scale of destruction in this premise, Emmerich treats us with some of the most spectacularly rendered computer destruction you are likely to see. The first sequence where Jackson (John Cusack) escapes Los Angeles with his family is jaw-dropping, almost to the point where you can forget how ridiculous it is that they manage to escape. In respect to these sequences, 2012 delivers on its promise of cataclysmic destruction. For the most part, Emmerich has assembled a likeable cast to take us through the tour of destruction, with Chiwetel Ejiofr, Thandie Newton and Danny Glover in particular lending a noble presence in the face of such dire circumstances. 2012 is a “check your brain at the door” movie and as long as you do that, the film is somewhat enjoyable.

THE BAD: The film falls apart on many levels. First off, and this is to be expected with any of Emmerich’s films, what is presented on screen is completely ridiculous, and not just the concept. The first scene of destruction in Los Angeles, while breathtaking to watch, is still laughable when you see how Cusack manages to drive his way over the collapsing ground beneath him, just managing to stay in front of it. Unfortunately, by the time Emmerich takes us to the second wave of destruction, the whole thing becomes tired. The second destruction scene in Las Vegas is a virtual repeat of the first, but instead they have a bigger plane to escape in. Ironically however, the ridiculousness of what we are watching is not the film’s main fault. Unlike Emmerich’s previous films which had a noble, if very clichéd, core to their characters, 2012 is built upon a foundation of cynicism and undignified behaviour, along with the clichés. Rather than tell the people of the world what will happen when scientists discover the coming apocalypse, governments conspire to keep it a big secret and kill everyone that threatens to expose it. People with the biggest cheque books can buy tickets on the arks that will house those worth saving. And if all of that were not enough, in each sequence where there is massive destruction, we actually see people falling out of skyscrapers, burnt alive by molten lava, drowned by tidal forces and consumed by ash clouds; but the music hits the crescendo as soon as our likeable cast manage to escape, and that is okay right? After all, as long as they survive, who cares about the billions dying below them? The cast suffer from this problem as well, with John Cusack copping the brunt of it with one of the most bored and uninspired performances he has given in his career. The subplot with the rich Russian is deplorable, and the clichéd Carl Anhauser (Oliver Platt) character as the guy who inherits the US government when the President stays behind is despicable to watch. As all of these ideas and character form the spine for this film, it is hard to see it as an enjoyable piece of entertainment, no matter how spectacular the money shots are.

RATING: 5/10

Todd Murphy <br />
http://www.allaboutmovies.net

2012

***This review has some spoliers in it, so if you don't want to be spoiled, I suggest reading the article after viewing the film. Sincerely, Rammfan518***

When I asked my friend Cory (the only one who reads this damn blog) what I should write for my next blog post, he said “Write that 2012 review”. I groaned like he had just said “listen to a lecture on photosynthesis for twenty-four hours.” He then asked “Not in that type of mood?” to which I replied “No, I’m fine. I just don’t like that movie.”

I might have exaggerated my love for Roland Emmerich’s last film in my review for 10,000 B.C. Truth is, the German dubbing covered up the bad acting, making it a way better film. When I saw 10,000 B.C. a second time with its original English soundtrack, ‘twas not as cool.

When I first saw the trailer for “2012,” and saw that huge wave climb over the Himalayas and wipe out a temple, I wasn’t impressed. When I saw the trailer a billion more times, I still wasn’t impressed. I mean, seriously, haven’t we seen this before? And from Roland Emmerich? Didn’t he do this in “The Day After Tomorrow” just five years ago? I was planning on skipping out on this visual-effects-fest (which I pretty much got the gist of in the trailer), but when my friend asked me if I wanted to go, how could I say no?

The movie begins like EVERY OTHER DISASTER MOVIE IN HISTORY with some geologists or some people in some random, remote scientific place looking at charts and measuring the Earth’s crust and saying “Ohhh mmyyyy goooddddd.” The main scientist dude, played by Chewitel Ejiofor, rushes off to the White House and tells some other famous dude about what is going on. We have the famous scene where one guy says “You must read these reports” and the other guy responds “I am busy. Bring it by my office on Monday” to which our hero says “I think you better read these NOW!” Melodramatic much? So yea, they eventually go to the President (Danny Glover. . .seriously?) and he’s like “Oh, crap.”

Then we go to Los Angeles (because everyone important lives in Los Angeles or New York) and meet Jackson Curtis (stupid name), a failed writer and a lame father. Apparently he wrote some book that sold only 419 copies (a fate I forsee for myself), lost his wife and the respect of his kiddies. His wife and kids now reside with the dweeb of the century, some doctor or pilot guy named Gordon. Seriously, this guy is the biggest lame-o I’ve seen in a movie lately. He’s got a big forehead and goofy glasses. John Cusack’s wife left John Cusack for THIS guy?

To shorten up the plot (or non-plot) of this two hour and thirty-eight minute movie (yes, it is THAT long), I’ll sum up the rest of the movie in as short as possible. John Cusack takes his kids to Yosemite to get some legit father-time and Yosemite explodes. He then escapes with Gordon and his old wife and kids and there’s this Russian guy and who knows what’s going on? The governments of the world have been building Arks (such a STUPID biblical reference) that are big metal boats that house thousands of people and screw over everyone else. All the important people get on the Arks. There’s some dumb jokes, some arguments about life and being fair, and yea. . .then it’s all over and people (the important people) are safe. The final shot is of the Arks sailing around on one of the new oceans, sailing towards the sunrise.

I sigh when I think about this film and the hours of my life I spent watching it. It is seriously such a stupid, unnecessary movie. It really is only an experiment in visual effects. John Cusack and crew escape from cracking, crumbling highways, fly through skyscrapers falling over, dodge volcanic fireballs in a Winnebago, and make it China somehow to get on one of the Arks. –sigh- this movie is so stupid. One thing I didn’t like about the movie (besides everything) is that it showed many scenes of destruction in wide-shots. I can understand that Roland Emmerich wanted to show the epic-ness of the events happening onscreen, but what happens when his massive wide-shots don’t make me go “oh my godddd” or “wwhhooaaaaa”? Actually, those wide-shots kind of removed me from the story. If we’re supposed to be experiencing this story through a washed up writer and his family, then why are we suddenly fifty bajillion miles above them, looking down at everything like some omniscient being? Totally removes us from the characters, but that’s a bit of filming theory I won’t totally geek out on.

In closing, this movie sucked. Some people liked the visual effects. I’ll admit, the visual effects look good, but after seeing so many lately, there’s nothing “special” about them anymore. Perhaps it was just the stupid story I couldn’t get into. Such a stupid story. I would call this film “The Day After the Day After Tomorrow” or “The Day After Tomorrow 2” but I cannot, because it’s simply “The Day After Tomorrow” again. Seriously, the same movie. C’mon Roland. . .come on. . .

John Cusack’s character in the film is named Jackson Curtis. This is rapper 50 Cent’s name, Curtis Jackson, backwards. Apparently Emmerich is a huge fan of the rapper and wanted to name the character after him. *most massive facepalm of all time*

(Read Less...)

Recommendations: (500) Days Of Summer (Marc Webb, 2009)

2012

Loosely based on the theory of the world ending in the year 2012, the film opens up with scientists discussing different sources of evidence that could lead up to this predicted event. After this intro, the audience is then introduced to the character of Jackson Curtis (John Cusack), who is separated from his wife, Kate (Amanda Peet) who is now living with her new husband, Tom (Gordon McCarthy). When Jackson decides to take his kids out to the countryside for a camping trip, he meets an overly eccentric radio guy, Charlie Frost (Woody Harrelson) who warns Jackson about the supposed end of the world that will occur in only an amount of hours. After Jackson is warned, he rounds up his kids, and his ex-wife and her husband, to save them from the destruction that is about to ensue.

I guess I could complain about many of this film’s faults, such as some of its cheesy and sometimes unnecessary dialogue, and how the film itself is very generic, whether it be its plot structure or its characters. But that would be unnecessary. Roland Emmerich, along with his co-writer Harald Kosler, don’t seem like they want to make 2012 to be a deep and sophisticated film, at least on the most part. All they want to do is just entertain audiences by making them watch shit blow up and crumble as the people we see on the screen flee for their lives – and they succeed very much in doing so. Right from the first scene, which involves Jackson and his family fleeing from the city of Santa Monica as it literally falls to pieces, you’ll know you’re in for a ride. The film contains many action scenes like that and they are also quite memorable. That’s right, memorable action scenes created by Hollywood, something they do not do very often these days. This is because today they are relying way too much on either a constant use of quick cuts, shaky camerawork and/or CGI. 2012 has none of that. Okay, maybe it does have a lot of CGI but it looks fantastic and it really does add quite a believable and maybe a horrific sense of realism to the film. Even if you are one of those people who is not a fan of CGI, such as myself, you cannot deny that it really makes the action scenes great in terms of visuals and suspense.

But just when you cannot ask for more from this film, you also have some fairly funny moments, enough to make this film itself a comedy, and also some good performances, even though some involve god-awful impersonations of Russian accents. John Cusack, in particular, acts out his character with a lot of charisma and it really does show the underrated actor he is.

Whilst I shouldn’t complain about the film’s generic and maybe cheesy nature, as previously explained, I can complain about how it is filled with so much destruction throughout that you may start to feel exhausted by most of the film’s second last scene, which is supposed to be a suspenseful one, but it does not deliver as well as it should. I can also complain about how the film can occasionally lose its fast pace as it tries to make room for developing unnecessary characters and character relations that did not serve any purpose to the film’s plot. Sometimes it even asks us to care for characters who really serve no purpose to the plot. Hell, some of those characters are not even developed anyway. But these flaws are rather minor in comparison to what makes this film so enjoyable. Sure it's not perfect nor groundbreaking (so to speak), but it certainly does make for good entertainment.

Signing off.

Last updated: 2011-05-05 08:19:46 by Maxie

Movie Review: 2012 (2009)

2012
 
(the movie not the year) is pretty much what you would expect from a US$200 million blockbuster about the end of the world directed by Roland Emmerich (Independence Day, The Day After Tomorrow).  Eye-popping special effects, an epic storyline, a multitude of characters, cliched dialogue, bad jokes, cringe-worthy moments and cheesy one-liners.

And yet, for all its flaws, 2012 is surprisingly absorbing.  It is somewhat overlong at a whopping 158 minutes, but it’s never easy for such films to be short these days.

The plot – well, pretty self-explanatory.  Do I really need to say anything?  I am glad to say that they didn’t try to milk the whole Mayan calendar thing.  It was not much more than a passing reference in the end.

The science of it all was sketchy in my opinion, but I’m not sure they really cared.  As the film rolled along, it became clear that suspension of disbelief was imperative to an enjoyable experience.  Too many things were either implausible or impossible or simply didn’t make sense.  The sooner you realised that this was going to be the norm the better.

Of course, epic movies like 2012 require a lot of characters.  Sure, most of them were cliched and cardboard stereotypes (especially the minor ones), but what I liked about it was that they were all linked in one way or another.  It wasn’t just a random bunch of people who had nothing to do with each other.

The characters were portrayed by a great ensemble cast led by Chiwetel Ejiofor and John Cusack, together with Amanda Peet, Thandie Newton, Oliver Platt, and a bizarre appearance by Woody Harrelson.  The only notable weakness was Danny Glover as the President of the United States.  It was just a laughable performance.  Think of an old and tired Barack Obama who has lost his voice and charm after being disillusioned with being in office for 30 years straight.

Although entirely predictable, sentimental and silly, 2012 still managed to eke out some thrills and excitement.  As I said before, if you can suspend disbelief and just go along for the ride, the film is pure pop-corn fun.  Even if you can’t, there’s at least the special effects to enjoy.  More impressive than Independence Day, The Day After Tomorrow, Deep Impact, Armageddon, The War of the Worlds and The Day the Earth Stood Still, the visuals in 2012 are the most spectacular I’ve ever seen.  If 2012 (the movie) turns out to be prophetic, none of us will have the time or mood to witness the destruction of the earth, so this film is the best opportunity we have.

3.5 stars out of 5!

(Read Less...)

PJM

Last updated: 2010-01-05 08:59:26 by user04

2012

(not too concerned with spoilers in this review, I must warn)

In a certain moment of “2012″, in the Himalayas, a surprisingly advanced onboard computer claims they are in a collision course with something that is 8.840 km high. To which a character actually asks “What could be 8.840km high?”. Because there are so many 9 km high things to choose from, and in the Himalayas. Then another character says what it is ominously (I will not “reveal” it because I don’t want to insult your intelligence). This is how Roland Emmerich builds suspense. And this is why I am absolutely convinced “2012″ is a comedy that, if directed by Emmerich with the help of Jerry Zucker, would have achieved its full comedic potential. It’s a shame that in the moment the president played by Danny Glover adresses the nation, he does not start screaming, “We are all gonna DIIIIIEEEEEE!”, even though what he says is hilarious in a less hysterical way. Paraphrasing slightly because I can’t remember the exact words: “I believe what I will say next is true for every religion: the Lord is my shepherd…“

“2012″ is the result of an entire career’s worth of warming up with films like “Independence Day” and “The Day After Tomorrow”. This is the film Roland Emmerich always wanted to make, and I hope his apparent grudge against planet Earth has now ended, otherwise Emmerich’s next film will be about the destruction of the Milky Way (and consequently Earth, again) because of a collision with Andromeda, happening “much earlier than we thought it would!”, a specialist possibly played by Dennis Quaid would say.

The plot of “2012″ is, well… it’s 2012. According to the film (and worryingly, millions of real people who actually believe this), the Mayan calendar doesn’t stop because the Mayans just kinda got bored with it or something, but because the world will end then. The film depicts that the planets will align causing the sun to emit too many neutrinos (or vice-versa, don’t ask me to understand physics the way Emmerich does), but the point is that the center of the Earth rises in temperature dramatically, causing the tectonic plates to shift position, which causes earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanos, pretty much everything short of zombies and dinosaurs, which finally causes a broken family to come together again, and a boy who calls his father by his name to start calling him “dad” once again because that kind of emotional arc is so original.

“2012″ doesn’t take itself seriously. It plays like a drama but has several moments that reveal its true farcical nature, like the change of magnetic poles that results in the new South Pole being located “somewhere in Wisconsin”. Not to mention how blatantly the film uses convenient character traits to make its unbelievably stupid disaster scenes seem even mildly believable, like the protagonist being a “writer and a limousine driver” and the boyfriend of his ex-wife being a “plastic surgeon and a plane pilot”. Sure, the latter constantly says he only took a few plane lessons, but mate, if you can take a plane off the ground as that very ground breaks open beneath you, then dodge falling buildings, debris and fireballs — you’re a fucking pilot. Shut the fuck up.

Another sign of the film’s sense of humor are the characters that clearly represent real people, like the rich blonde girl with a dog that reminded me of Paris Hilton. And it’s especially hilarious how the film kills all of its supporting cast in increasingly over-the-top ways, and how blatantly the film provides catharsis with the gratuitous death of particularly unlikeable characters.

Therefore, complaining about cliches, inconsistences and coincidences in a movie like this is pretty much missing the point: it’s just plain fun. Unlike Sam Raimi in “Drag Me To Hell”, which couldn’t decide between comedy and horror, Roland Emmerich opts for comedy disguised as drama and shares the fun with us, not only indulging himself but the audience with his amazing ability to find the best possible way of filming something’s destruction. And Emmerich adds to the hilarity by always destroying a famous thing with another famous thing. I gasped from laughter when a character sees a large object riding a tsunami towards them and says, “Sir, that’s the Air Force One.”

Even better, Emmerich spares no-one. After extracting humor from painfully obvious symbolism (the Sistine Chapel’s ceiling being cracked apart right where the hands of Man and God almost touch), he proceeds to destroy the Vatican right when the Pope is giving a speech. Leaders of other religions and countries suffer the same fate.

And this is good, because a movie trying to take the Mayan calendar bullshit seriously would just be sad to see. Emmerich satirizes it constantly with Woody Harrelson’s character, a crazy radio broadcaster who turns out to be right despite being clearly insane, in an irony so improbable I just had to laugh. Speaking of the talented Harrelson, he’s fortunately not the only one to know he’s in a comedy, since the also talented John Cusack doesn’t hesitate to be histrionic and shouty during action scenes. The rest of the cast seems to take the movie more seriously though, but this ends up being even funnier.

So, is “2012″ good? Well, if I’m right and Emmerich’s intention was to make a comedy about the world’s destruction in 2012 and disguise it as a drama, then yes, it’s excellent and delivers. And if his intention was to deliver a serious, emotional drama, then “2012″ is a wonderful mistake. Either way, it’s an entirely forgettable, but very fun time. And really, I can’t actually believe this film is serious: on one of the final scenes, with inspiring “everything worked out okay” music, people leave their arks (yes, there are arks) to be met by the wonderful sight of… a destroyed world covered in water. But look at that beautiful sunset!

But now that he’s had his fun, Roland Emmerich should start a new part of his career where he dedicates himself to more serious films, because maybe if he actually tries, he can make a movie that’s not only fun but also memorable.

Which, okay, sounds less likely than the world ending in 2012, but still.

Written by André Navarro on November 22nd 2009 

http://andrenavarro.wordpress.com/

Last updated: 2009-12-22 13:33:22 by andre_navarro