Columbia Pictures | Release Date: November 13, 2009
5.4
USER SCORE
Mixed or average reviews based on 639 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
254
Mixed:
206
Negative:
179
WATCH NOW
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
8
MovieGuysSep 20, 2013
2012 is a great disaster movie, and will keep you entertained the whole time. The CGI and effects in this movie are amazing, and everything that Emmerich shows you on the silver screen is gold.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
ZilcellMay 11, 2012
I get the feeling that people give this film bad ratings because they are scared of 2012. Don't give it bad ratings unless you think its really a bad movie, not because you are scared of the year 2012. This disaster movie is pretty chaoticI get the feeling that people give this film bad ratings because they are scared of 2012. Don't give it bad ratings unless you think its really a bad movie, not because you are scared of the year 2012. This disaster movie is pretty chaotic with the effects and there is quite a bit of character development, even if the story is a tad bit wobbly. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
oxanaAug 24, 2014
I went into the theater not expecting much of this movie - and was positively surprised.

The film looked as good on big screen - if not even better - as it looks in the trailer. The special effects were beautiful, huge, effective and
I went into the theater not expecting much of this movie - and was positively surprised.

The film looked as good on big screen - if not even better - as it looks in the trailer. The special effects were beautiful, huge, effective and haunting. Sometimes there was almost too much going on, because there was so much movement on the screen that you could not possibly look at it all.

Of course there were a lot of surreal surviving skills performed by the cast, but a disaster movie is nothing without its core-characters surviving, right? So let's skip the obvious errors and just enjoy the destruction/re-shaping of the planet Earth.

There was more plot into this than I thought possible, and many human dilemmas. Some of them were a bit too underlined, but all in all there were many emotions that really should move the audience. There was also undeniable and well-placed humor within the story, getting many good laughs out of me. I had to roll my eyes surprisingly little during this movie, all in all.

I think this movie deserves its four stars because despite some obvious errors in physics and laws of nature - not to mention the insane amount of pure luck - this movie manages to look beautiful and massive all the same, and bring us a story of survival and compromises.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
9
MovieLonely94Nov 7, 2010
Roland Emmerich is very good at making a movie that has something to do with the end of the world in 2012 according to the mayan calendar, but its not going to happen.

i'm getting ahead of myself. the visuals were great, and the acting was
Roland Emmerich is very good at making a movie that has something to do with the end of the world in 2012 according to the mayan calendar, but its not going to happen.

i'm getting ahead of myself. the visuals were great, and the acting was excellent.

Rating: 9/10
Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
7
RikiegeDec 22, 2012
The idea of the film is well made, but it is a movie that appeals to you.
0 of 2 users found this helpful02
All this user's reviews
7
Khunter4382May 31, 2011
A visual spectacular of Earth-shattering events! Lots of fun to watch, but ultimately turns to pure cheese in the third act making me say to myself, "No way! Whatever!" This film could have been great, but that third act forces it inevitablyA visual spectacular of Earth-shattering events! Lots of fun to watch, but ultimately turns to pure cheese in the third act making me say to myself, "No way! Whatever!" This film could have been great, but that third act forces it inevitably into the good category. Still worth a look to see the world ripped to pieces! Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
JonnyFendiJan 10, 2011
2012 like I predicted before, It will be a controversial movie. If we talked about the end of the world, issue about some religions was avoidable. Thiz movie itself started with a major box office world-wide. People came to the theaters2012 like I predicted before, It will be a controversial movie. If we talked about the end of the world, issue about some religions was avoidable. Thiz movie itself started with a major box office world-wide. People came to the theaters wanted to know how the world ends. Thiz is totally just theme-victory. The Director is Roland Emmerich, who I called The Master of Apocalypse. Before 2012, Emmerich often brings the topic about the end of the world, such as: â Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
jotaesecheAug 11, 2014
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. In 2012, two things constantly coexist: exquisite special effects, and poor and undeveloped stories that end up enclosing tedious clichés and obvious solutions. Sometimes you forget the flaws and just get overwhelmed by the standouts; sometimes the opposite happens. At the end, you get as lost as the characters in the new world, without knowing how to feel: whether pleased or very disappointed. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
MichaelDDec 31, 2010
It's a good movie. The special effects were just unreal. But it's a little repetitive because of the movie The Day After Tomorrow. Still it's an awesome movie and I would recommend this to anyone.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
avamiller21Apr 25, 2016
I loved every second of this over the top completely ridiculous movie. But then again I like end of the world flicks.

Watch it here for free http://www.watchfree.to/watch-52b4-2012-movie-online-free-putlocker.html
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
juliankennedy23Jun 9, 2014
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. 2012: 8 out of 10: I love disaster movies. I love “good” disaster movies such as The Towering Inferno and The Poseidon Adventure. I love “bad” disaster movies such as The Swarm and Independence Day. I even enjoy, if not love, “Horrible” disaster movies such as Syfy channel stalwarts Megafault and Magma: Volcanic Disaster.

2012 is solidly in the “good” disaster movie genre. As I have stated before in my The Core review “Disaster movies always seem to do better when the disaster is local in scope. A city threatened by avalanche, a tower threatened by an inferno, a Poseidon threatened by an adventure, that kind of thing. Earth killer movies are always a harder road.” 2012 dodges this bullet slightly by having neutrinos from a massive solar flare penetrate the Earth and cause the temperature of the core to increase rapidly. “Like a microwave” one scientist very helpfully explains. Of course why these same neutrinos don’t cause the oceans to boil is a plot hole that the movie delightfully ignores. Still compared to The Core or The Day after Tomorrow, 2012’s science is practically textbook.

Now since the core is expanding this causes the earth’s crust to erupt in different directions (think a Jiffy Pop container). This allows disaster footage from all over the earth. And we all know where disasters strike first. That’s right monuments. Vegas, Washington DC, Vatican City, Los Angeles, Yellowstone, Hawaii, and others get their turn in the special effects blender. The set pieces are generally well thought out often with sly commentary attached. (A giant rolling donut in LA, A slick atheist “Where is your God now” rub at the Vatican.). The special effects are all magnificent.

I will briefly talk about the actors in a minute (Generally speaking they all do fine) but the star is the effects. The detail work (as can be seen in the disaster porn pictures below) is simply amazing. Director Roland Emmerich puts his 250 million dollar budget on the screen. For once the buildings that collapse have people in them. The disasters do not happen in the rain or at night and the camera doesn’t jerk around as if directed by an epileptic sugar glider.

Both the location work and the disasters are very creative. (Let’s face it a tsunami driving an aircraft carrier into the White House is imagination at work.) In addition, the story is a fairly grounded version of that old When Worlds Collide plot where all the smart, rich and good looking people get on a spaceship and escape Earth while all the less attractive people all die horribly.

The movie halfheartedly tries to address the unfairness of “who gets chosen” but we really didn’t come for a civics lesson and honestly there are worse ways to go than just picking attractive rich people. We also didn’t come for the acting, but unlike many of its contemporaries, the acting in 2012 seems solid across the board.

Some of the various side plots do fall a little flat (for example taking into consideration 2012's two and a half hour length, the old guys on the boat subplot should have been jettisoned in its entirety.) On the plus side Zlatko Buric as the Russian billionaire ex-boxer and Woody Harrelson as the crazy mountain man (doing his best Matthew McConaughey impression mind you) are the stand outs among an above average cast.

Overall we came for the disaster porn and simply put 2012 delivers some of the best disaster porn ever seen on screen, and manages this feat with fewer of the bad acting and horrible storyline distractions that usually accompany such films. Bravo.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
10
Annoymous1Jan 7, 2013
2012 is a great disaster movie showing all the possible endings of the world. Unlike the other crap disaster movies like Apocalypse now or something this delivers great graphics, top quality voicing and even a lot of real life aspects (2012 is a great disaster movie showing all the possible endings of the world. Unlike the other crap disaster movies like Apocalypse now or something this delivers great graphics, top quality voicing and even a lot of real life aspects ( Ferrari and Bentley in the plane) and lots of famous brands ( Coco-Pop can be seen when the supermarket grows a sinkhole). This also introduces new technology to us and has been great at showing that not all the end of the world movies are set in USA ( The ending takes place in China) and lots of emotional moments. If you are a fan of disaster flicks this should be watched. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
7
Mad_Hatter91Jan 2, 2013
2012 is a disaster movie of 2009 directed by Roland Emmerich. The plot is about Adrian Helmesey, a geologist at the White House in 2009, with the help of his Indian friend, he finds that solar storms are heating up the earth's core liquefying2012 is a disaster movie of 2009 directed by Roland Emmerich. The plot is about Adrian Helmesey, a geologist at the White House in 2009, with the help of his Indian friend, he finds that solar storms are heating up the earth's core liquefying the outer casing. Thus began a plan to save humanity, while in 2012 a writer Jackson Curtis discovered by chance this plan and will do anything to rescue his family. Although in the film there is a criticism of the people in power, 2012 is a fun movie and entertainment thanks to the spectacular special effects, exaggerated but well used. The only flaw in the film are the script too simple and the theory that they used to end the world. Expand
0 of 2 users found this helpful02
All this user's reviews
7
DibbHansenJul 16, 2013
The visuals dazzle, the acting is pretty good- but the escapism gets old after about the tenth getaway. It just starts to get blah. But the action still entertains and dazzles, but the story just starts to get tired and runs out of ideas.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
WriteFilmLive21Nov 30, 2012
"2012" is another high-tech disaster epic from the always-enjoyable Roland Emmerich, and this time he pulls no punches as he delivers onscreen the literal end of the world, based upon the conspiracy theory of the Mayan calendar. Though this"2012" is another high-tech disaster epic from the always-enjoyable Roland Emmerich, and this time he pulls no punches as he delivers onscreen the literal end of the world, based upon the conspiracy theory of the Mayan calendar. Though this doesn't carry the emotional weight or strength of characters found in "The Day After Tomorrow" or "Independence Day", this is a purely visual powerhouse. The special effects are breathtaking, and particularly the scenes in Yellowstone and Las Angeles are fantastically exciting. It does drag a bit through the second act, but when it gets to the climax, Emmerich gives us a formulaic (and absolutely delightful) extended climax in the spirit of all great disaster movies - one where almost anything that can go wrong, does go wrong, and they survive a plethora of close cuts and scrapes by the skin of their teeth. Is it realistic? Hell no, but that's not why you watch a disaster movie. Is it Emmerich's best? Certainly not. But it is nonetheless a very fun ride. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
8
FilmClubMar 27, 2016
The notion of playing God is implicit in the job of a film director, and rarely has the sense of a wrathful, vengeful deity at the helm, albeit a pagan one, been so comprehensively felt as in “2012.” For demolition maestro Roland Emmerich,The notion of playing God is implicit in the job of a film director, and rarely has the sense of a wrathful, vengeful deity at the helm, albeit a pagan one, been so comprehensively felt as in “2012.” For demolition maestro Roland Emmerich, “Independence Day,” “Godzilla” and “The Day After Tomorrow” were mere appetizers for the lip-smacking smorgasbord of global annihilation laid out here.

Hooking their doomsday scenario on an interpretation of a Mayan calendar that points to an earthly catastrophe in 2012 — specifically on 12-21-12 (what movie will pin its release to that date?) — Emmerich and writing-producing partner Harald Kloser begin by dumping Los Angeles into the sea and follow with the destruction of Las Vegas, Yellowstone National Park, Washington, D.C., the Vatican, India, Tibet and a giant cruise ship.

Anyone who stops to think about it between grabs of popcorn might pick up the hint that Emmerich is taking particularly gleeful aim at the United States (which other director has destroyed the White House in his films not once but now twice?) and Catholicism (he goes out of his way to detail the collapse of St. Peter’s and Rio’s Christ the Redeemer statue), while no other religion gets taken to task. But then, that would be taking this eye-popping display of movie pyrotechnics far too seriously. Or not.

Coming up with halfway decent characters with which to populate disaster films has always proved an almost insurmountable problem, but Kloser and Emmerich have brought a measure of wit to the enterprise. Pic’s Everyman is Jackson Curtis (John Cusack), a rumpled author whose most recent unsuccessful novel happens to have been called “Farewell Atlantis,” and who never paid enough attention to sexy ex-wife Kate (Amanda Peet) and their two young kids (Liam James and Morgan Lily). He’s now forced to look on as Kate shacks up with Gordon (Tom McCarthy) while he scrapes by as a limo driver for L.A.-based Russian billionaire Yuri Karpov (the very engaging Zlatko Buric).

As SoCal hopes for the best amid an alarming upswing in tremors and cracked streets, government scientist Adrian Helmsley (Chiwetel Ejiofor) alerts U.S. President Thomas Wilson (Danny Glover, almost too predictably grave) that increased solar fires (happily, for a change, not man-made global warming) are about to turn the Earth inside out in a way not experienced since the day the dinosaurs died.

Unfortunately, it’s not easy scripting the final act of a movie about the end of the world when you don’t really want the final image to be a charred rock. Let it be said that “2012” plummets from reasonably distracting spectacle to sheerest silliness when, in the pointlessly protracted final reels, it tries to maintain interest in the (confusingly staged) jeopardy of a handful of characters when much of the world’s population has already been wiped out or is about to be. Never has Rick’s observation in “Casablanca” been more true, that the problems of a few little people don’t amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world.

On any level other than as sheer visual sensation, “2012” is a joke, for the simple reason that it has no point of view; the film offers no philosophical, metaphysical, intellectual and certainly no religious perspective on the cataclysm, just the physical frenzy of it all. But to ask this would be taking the picture far too seriously. Or not.

In Cusack and Ejiofor, “2012” has two actors who convey above-the-norm intelligence for characters in this sort of fare, although even they can’t keep up the pretense as the film degenerates. Most casting choices are agreeably offbeat down through the ranks, with Woody Harrelson supercharging his scenes as a wackjob radio sage who issues on-the-air reports from the front lines of destruction.

Except for some patchy work when St. Peter’s crumbles, the visual effects are pretty sensational, delivering the cutting-edge CGI goods auds want and expect. It will be hard to watch “Earthquake” ever again after this one.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
MetalMan95Oct 28, 2010
Typical disaster movie, yet still entertaining. The destruction of Los Angeles is beautiful. There is no really deep characters. Once you get used to the destruction, its a meh movie. But I was still entertained to the end. But if you want toTypical disaster movie, yet still entertaining. The destruction of Los Angeles is beautiful. There is no really deep characters. Once you get used to the destruction, its a meh movie. But I was still entertained to the end. But if you want to watch destruction that forces you into the moment, watch until they team up with the russian dude. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
10
TheNewSpielbergMay 1, 2011
2012 is possibly the single most impressive CGI epic ever released in recent years. As the title obviously states, the movie is about the end of the world and it does a damn good job of portraying it. Sure, the acting and all that other stuff2012 is possibly the single most impressive CGI epic ever released in recent years. As the title obviously states, the movie is about the end of the world and it does a damn good job of portraying it. Sure, the acting and all that other stuff is bad but even if you hated Independence Day you have at least got to appreciate the CGI in this one. Its so good that I have given this movie a perfect 10 simply based on the effects. Expand
0 of 3 users found this helpful03
All this user's reviews
8
KayVen17Aug 27, 2016
Deutsche Review - Kritik

Story: 18/25 Punkte
Schauspieler: 24/25 Punkte
Technik/ Bildbearbeitung: 23/25 Punkte
Sound: 18/25 Punkte

Gesamtpunktzahl

83/100 Punkte
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
AlexanderLuthorAug 1, 2014
If you went into this film expecting academy performances and a compelling script, blame yourself. This is a popcorn film that gives you just what you'd expect, action, thrills, and adventure and campy one liners.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
SachiNov 13, 2011
2012 was a nice movie, maybe there were a few elements that need to be fixed but other than that no. The plot maybe needed some fixing but visual effects and the script were mostly fine. The movie is stil a movie worth watching for a quick2012 was a nice movie, maybe there were a few elements that need to be fixed but other than that no. The plot maybe needed some fixing but visual effects and the script were mostly fine. The movie is stil a movie worth watching for a quick entertainment fix so it may have flaws but it is still worth watching.
Breakdown for 2012, Presentation: 8, Plot: 7, Acting: 8, Script: 8, Lasting Appeal: 7. Overall Score: 7.9 out of 10 "Good"
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
JAM123Dec 2, 2011
If you ask me, this movie isn't all that bad. It's actually one of my favorites. I don't understand why it's getting so much crap. The special effects were some of the best I have ever seen and are great for 2009 and just this time. I saw itIf you ask me, this movie isn't all that bad. It's actually one of my favorites. I don't understand why it's getting so much crap. The special effects were some of the best I have ever seen and are great for 2009 and just this time. I saw it in theaters and it astonished me at how our film industry has evolved computer animation. the part in the film where John cusack and his family are escaping L.A. in the plane and in the limo is just spectacular and in a strange way, beautiful (even though the earth was crumbling around them). But enough about that, the storyline I thought was good too. It wasn't the best but still kept my attention throughout the whole movie. I was on the edge of my seat when the action began and stayed that way. It seemed scientifically accurate but I'm not a scientist or anything so that's not for me to judge. It was funny at times and just plain awesome. But every movie has it's ups and downs. The storyline was good, trust me, but kinda empty and stale. A divorced father trying to get a better understanding of his kids who don't exactly like him (especially his son) and then begins a race with time to save his family after he gets inside knowledge from a crazy radio show host (Woody Harrelson) that the world is going to end on the date of 12/21/12 which the Mayans prophecized of millions of years ago. So the storyline isn't the best part of the film, also some parts of the film made you just shake your head. But not every movie is perfect, right? So this movie is not the worst movie ever made and if you ask me, one of the best. Well, not the best but you know what I'm getting at. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
moviefreak12Jan 17, 2011
great movie for the family. the best disaster movie ever made, special affects one the best of 2009. The acting sucks but thats not why i went to go see it i went because this does what hollwood is supposed to do entertain me. so if you havegreat movie for the family. the best disaster movie ever made, special affects one the best of 2009. The acting sucks but thats not why i went to go see it i went because this does what hollwood is supposed to do entertain me. so if you have nothing to do on the weekend go but or rent 2012 and enjoy yourself. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
10
JoseRochaPTOct 3, 2011
Actually I'll just wait for the day that supposedly the world will end, to make my criticism, then I'll have more critics where to get the facts. For now leave this brief message to remember.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
9
MediaCriticOct 19, 2011
This movie was a joy to watch. However it didn't have the best plot/story. It didn't have a proper story to it really, apart from the world ending. You get to meet some interesting characters along the way, but there's no real emotionalThis movie was a joy to watch. However it didn't have the best plot/story. It didn't have a proper story to it really, apart from the world ending. You get to meet some interesting characters along the way, but there's no real emotional connection with them like you do with characters in other movies. The CGI and visual effects are stunning, unlike anything I've seen before. Most of the movie was done digitally and most of the landscapes they were on were computer generated. The ending was okay, and the action scenes were stunning. It shows the true force of mother nature at her worst and just how easy it can tear apart a single planet. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
RedShadowHatDec 30, 2012
Good story line and movie in general but to me there wasnt enough violence. By violence I mean people attacking other people with knives, guns etc. not natural disasters. The ending was the only bad part to me, it lasted way too longGood story line and movie in general but to me there wasnt enough violence. By violence I mean people attacking other people with knives, guns etc. not natural disasters. The ending was the only bad part to me, it lasted way too long otherwise I would have given the movie a 10. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
8
hacmiu36Jan 7, 2013
2012 is the nice movies. It describes the thing thay may come to us in 21-12-2012, it has earthquake, tsunami, volcano. It has nice effect,, but the story is just to familiar
1 of 4 users found this helpful13
All this user's reviews
10
ricky1121Oct 8, 2014
Very good effects especially during the Los Angeles earthquake! The volcano eruption in Wyoming is amazing and very realistic. Roland Emmerich never let's me down!
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
DoctorFilmMar 31, 2016
The notion of playing God is implicit in the job of a film director, and rarely has the sense of a wrathful, vengeful deity at the helm, albeit a pagan one, been so comprehensively felt as in “2012.” For demolition maestro Roland Emmerich,The notion of playing God is implicit in the job of a film director, and rarely has the sense of a wrathful, vengeful deity at the helm, albeit a pagan one, been so comprehensively felt as in “2012.” For demolition maestro Roland Emmerich, “Independence Day,” “Godzilla” and “The Day After Tomorrow” were mere appetizers for the lip-smacking smorgasbord of global annihilation laid out here.

Hooking their doomsday scenario on an interpretation of a Mayan calendar that points to an earthly catastrophe in 2012 — specifically on 12-21-12 (what movie will pin its release to that date?) — Emmerich and writing-producing partner Harald Kloser begin by dumping Los Angeles into the sea and follow with the destruction of Las Vegas, Yellowstone National Park, Washington, D.C., the Vatican, India, Tibet and a giant cruise ship.

Anyone who stops to think about it between grabs of popcorn might pick up the hint that Emmerich is taking particularly gleeful aim at the United States (which other director has destroyed the White House in his films not once but now twice?) and Catholicism (he goes out of his way to detail the collapse of St. Peter’s and Rio’s Christ the Redeemer statue), while no other religion gets taken to task. But then, that would be taking this eye-popping display of movie pyrotechnics far too seriously. Or not.

Coming up with halfway decent characters with which to populate disaster films has always proved an almost insurmountable problem, but Kloser and Emmerich have brought a measure of wit to the enterprise. Pic’s Everyman is Jackson Curtis (John Cusack), a rumpled author whose most recent unsuccessful novel happens to have been called “Farewell Atlantis,” and who never paid enough attention to sexy ex-wife Kate (Amanda Peet) and their two young kids (Liam James and Morgan Lily). He’s now forced to look on as Kate shacks up with Gordon (Tom McCarthy) while he scrapes by as a limo driver for L.A.-based Russian billionaire Yuri Karpov (the very engaging Zlatko Buric).

As SoCal hopes for the best amid an alarming upswing in tremors and cracked streets, government scientist Adrian Helmsley (Chiwetel Ejiofor) alerts U.S. President Thomas Wilson (Danny Glover, almost too predictably grave) that increased solar fires (happily, for a change, not man-made global warming) are about to turn the Earth inside out in a way not experienced since the day the dinosaurs died.

While Wilson’s chief of staff, Carl Anheuser (Oliver Platt), readies the evacuation of the elite and the president deliberates about how to preside over the planet’s final chapter, Curtis leads his kids on a series of escapes and near-misses worthy of Indiana Jones — in a limo, RV, private plane (flown by nonpilot Gordon), giant Russian cargo jet and, ultimately, the biggest vehicle ever built. The action is preposterous by any standard, but that’s designed as part of the fun; eye-popping indeed are the sights of the streets of Santa Monica rippling like so many ocean waves, molten meteors spewing out of Yellowstone, the sea claiming a ship the size of a football field and a six-engine jet crash landing on a Himalayan glacier.

Unfortunately, it’s not easy scripting the final act of a movie about the end of the world when you don’t really want the final image to be a charred rock. Let it be said that “2012” plummets from reasonably distracting spectacle to sheerest silliness when, in the pointlessly protracted final reels, it tries to maintain interest in the (confusingly staged) jeopardy of a handful of characters when much of the world’s population has already been wiped out or is about to be. Never has Rick’s observation in “Casablanca” been more true, that the problems of a few little people don’t amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world.

On any level other than as sheer visual sensation, “2012” is a joke, for the simple reason that it has no point of view; the film offers no philosophical, metaphysical, intellectual and certainly no religious perspective on the cataclysm, just the physical frenzy of it all. But to ask this would be taking the picture far too seriously. Or not.

In Cusack and Ejiofor, “2012” has two actors who convey above-the-norm intelligence for characters in this sort of fare, although even they can’t keep up the pretense as the film degenerates. Most casting choices are agreeably offbeat down through the ranks, with Woody Harrelson supercharging his scenes as a wackjob radio sage who issues on-the-air reports from the front lines of destruction.

Except for some patchy work when St. Peter’s crumbles, the visual effects are pretty sensational, delivering the cutting-edge CGI goods auds want and expect. It will be hard to watch “Earthquake” ever again after this one.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
10
SyFyMovieGuyNov 19, 2014
Ah yes the beautiful director from Independence Day (1996), and The Day After Tomorrow (2004) comes in with a beaiutiful face-slapping and gut wrenching heart of special effects. 2012 is one of my favorite movies of all time and the one ofAh yes the beautiful director from Independence Day (1996), and The Day After Tomorrow (2004) comes in with a beaiutiful face-slapping and gut wrenching heart of special effects. 2012 is one of my favorite movies of all time and the one of the best disaster films in the book. It wasn't so hard to do, Roland Emmerich is the king of destruction without a doubt. "2012" is the literal end of the world where a family struggles to survive as the world everywhere crumbles . Earthquakes, Volcano's , the ultimate tsunami's, land shifting here and there. Its pretty much a crumble and crunching time here and there but the movie isn't just that, its much more.

The earthquake scene in Los Angeles is the best, Lilly, the little girl was my favorite in this movie., the "escapes" John Cusack did in the Limo wasn't stupid, it was silly in a very funny entertaining way and felt like something in a dumb cartoon but in this case, if you have a crumbling city devastation fest with funny remarks, its a scene I was watching and STILL am over and over again. Roland Emmerich is awesome!

there's plenty of other stuff, but thats it for now.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews