2012 (2009)

Everybody has heard about the 2012 so-called “doomsday prophecy” and even those who live within the depth of caves have heard of the Roland Emmerich disaster film that was released last year,  “2012”.

The film is self-explanatory really, and it surrounds a family (divorced parents, two kids, jealous new husband, that sort of thing) who are trying to survive the elements as the world as they know it collapses around them, while they are trying to find these so-called “spaceships” that are supposed to take all the rich, famous and “important” people in the world to safety. Now, as everyone knows, Roland Emmerich is famous for his array of disaster movies, for example “The Day After Tomorrow (2004)”, which I thoroughly enjoyed, so when I heard that “2012” was coming to the big screens, I had set the bar high for hope that it would exceed my expectations.

Which it, to be quite honest,  didn’t really.

I am firm to the point of screaming at people that the 2012 “end of the world” crap is a complete myth. The “doomsday prophecy” was created by us, the Western society, not the Mayans. The Mayans, indeed, created a calendar that is supposed to end on the 21st December 2012, but only for the reason that it is the end of an age of the Earth. Not the apocalypse. The Mayan’s also have INSISTED that the prophecy is not true. Mostly I scream at the people who believe that the events depicted in the film are actually going to happen. I mean, how stupid can you get? It’s a film for crying out loud!! Roland Emmerich doesn’t know these things.

I didn’t go to see the movie for the terror factor,  I went to see it for the pure enjoyment of watching an fast-paced action/adventure disaster movie. The special effects are fantastic to the point of being unbelieable in parts, like when Jackson Curtis (John Cusack) drives the limo down the streets of Los Angeles while buildings are collapsing here, there and everywhere around him. Even more so where he successfully attempts to fly through a collapsing glass building. Even with that though, I still thought the movie was well-constructed, even if it was a bit crap at times. John Cusack is one of my favourite actors, and his performance in this film, even though it wasn’t his best, was still enjoyable to watch, and as usual, uses his trademark deadpan humour. Danny Glover put on a good show as well as the President.

My overall opinion of the film is that it is a just above average action flick, even if the concept was ludicrous. It wasn’t a very memorable movie  in my opinion, considering you’ll have forgot most of the dialogue and the action by the end of the week.

Watch or Avoid: Don’t spend considerable amounts of money on getting it, watch it when it comes on television or rent it on DVD, watching it a second or third time doesn’t really make it any more memorable.

7 thoughts on “2012 (2009)”

  1. This was an awfully boring movie. The CGI was lackluster. And, it was about 2 hours and 38 minutes too long.

  2. Roland Emmerich is a director with hits (Patriot, Independence Day) and a hellaton of misses (Day After Tomorrow, 2012). 2012 was doomed from the beginning because it was a stupid premise with the idea that we could survive the apocalypse. Talk about some Hollywood bs, the movie was dreadful, 1 out of 5.

  3. I do think that the fact we could apparently survive the apocalypse is stupid, and the fact that it’s always based on one family and they ALWAYS survive.

    I gave it a 3 because it was sort of enjoyable up until a certain point, and the fact it had some pretty amazing special effects. Even though special effects don’t make a good movie, I thought it sort of helped it a tiny bit. Also the fact they cast John Cusack in it, and he didn’t ruin his career by being in it. He still had his usual sense of humour and he didn’t become all “high and mighty” by being in it. I’m sort of glad though that Roland Emmerich made this his last disaster movie, I think he would’ve done a lot worse than 2012 if he continued.

  4. The movie is indeed baseless as far as the 2012 theory is to be applied. Its unfortunate that the story was so bad because this topic would make for a great movie. Maybe hollywood directors need to re-address the ‘depth of intellect’ in action movies these days. Woody Harrison and the character he portrayed was the best and only good thing about this film.

  5. njs, I completely agree, and maskofsanity, I think that the movie had basic graphics compared to what can be done now a days, and that the whole story was just a wrap-up on how politicians don’t care about the people (which they don’t, but still) and it didn’t focus on how we were going to (realistically) survive the event.

  6. I enjoy Emmerich films normally, mainly because they are ridiculous (Day After Tomorrow being a prime example), but 2012 just didn’t do it for me. It’s way too long, and it’s just kind of boring – any film about the world blowing up should NOT be boring!

  7. This is definately my least favorite Roland Emmerich film. I dug his earlier works like Independence Day and even Day After Tommorrow…and the disaster scenes in those earlier flicks I could get behind way more than this film. I just didn’t buy into much with 2012, the acting didn’t impress me much. I was pretty dissapointed with it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Post