"The world, as we know, will come to an end soon."...( read more) Emmerich has clearly taken Newman's words to heart, as his career has been built almost exclusively on disaster films; allowing movie-goers to vicariously experience the destruction of Earth via aliens in Independence Day, an atomic-spawned monstrosity in Godzilla and an ice age in The Day After Tomorrow. Why the obliteration of our world is so enjoyable in the eyes of the movie-going public is probably best left to theologians and psychologists, but Emmerich is visibly in tune with it and knows how to exploit it. And for his latest opus, 2012, the director has considerably upped the ante by imagining a true end-of-the-world scenario packed with an incredible assortment of catastrophic destruction. The film operates under the assumption that if we enjoyed seeing isolated mayhem in other disaster flicks, movie-goers will really love witnessing widespread global destruction. Thankfully, it works - this is awesome entertainment.
In his book Apocalypse Movies: End of the World Cinema, author Kim Newman noted that "The more complicated a civilization becomes, the more fun it is to imagine the whole works going up in flames". Roland
2012 plays with the theory of the Mayan calendar that the world will end on December 21, 2012. But by conducting a little research on this topic, one will find that there were several other calendars devised around the time of the Mayans, yet only one contained lithographs that appear to be a warning. The only thing scientists can agree on about this calendar is that it simply ends on the feared date before it begins again from zero. There's simply no evidence to suggest the apocalypse will be brought on - doomsayers are just always looking for the next possible date for Earth's destruction (wasn't the world meant to end in the year 2000?). However the Mayan theory is hardly mentioned in this film - it's just a selling point, as well as an excuse for the end of the world to be brought on. From there, the filmmakers have devised a few stabs at hard science that seem convincing on the surface but probably wouldn't pass muster in a high school science course. But all this justification is just smoke and mirrors, because the money is instead in the grandiosity of the disaster.
Speaking from a narrative perspective, 2012 adheres closely to the '70s-era Irwin Allen-style of disaster movies in which a broad array of characters are brought together because of a disaster. The representative Everyman here is divorced, fledging novelist Jackson Curtis, whose ex-wife Kate (Peet) is dating successful plastic surgeon Gordon (McCarthy). Jackson's kids even prefer Gordon over him (notice the clichés so far). As for the earnest professional who discovers the impending destruction of Earth, there's government geologist Adrian Helmsley (Ejiofor). The science behind this apocalypse is simple: the Earth begins to heat up from within due to being pelted with intensifying radioactive particles from the sun, causing the planet's crust to break apart and shift. Cue the rollicking silliness. This includes plenty of conventional scenarios that have played out in films since 1980: the eleventh-hour miscalculation that results in the timer speeding up for the impending disaster, the noble daughter who outlives her father, the divorcee who falls back in love, and the character with two days of pilot training who is perfectly able to repeatedly fly everyone to safety.
Too many simultaneous plotlines have always been a key weakness of disaster movies, and 2012 is no different. At about 150 minutes, the length of this movie is indefensible. The script is an appalling concoction of cheesy expository dialogue, painful chunks of ham-fisted character development and blatant contrivances designed solely to bring the characters together and advance the plot. Adding insult to injury, the action doesn't start until about 45 minutes of the runtime have passed! Over-explaining the ludicrous science unfortunately results in both sheer boredom and a chance for the audience to mentally dissect the holes in the theory. Since this is meant to be a big Hollywood disaster movie, it's a considerable problem that it takes so long for the action to start. As a side note, the concept of destroying the world is a non-starter from a dramatic perspective. After all, if the story sticks to its guns and the planet is destroyed, it would end on a depressing note that denies viewers the climactic catharsis they'd be expecting. And if the film concludes on a happy note, the whole thing feels as if it was crafted by a studio system willing to sacrifice the integrity of the premise. Alas, the film ends with a tacked-on, embarrassingly saccharine-coated Hollywood ending.
Of course, the average movie-goer doesn't care about the characters or the script, which is good since both are flimsy in the case of 2012. The driving motivation for anyone to see this movie is the mayhem... And boy does Emmerich get that aspect right. As a film which delivers epic destruction, 2012 is unparalleled. Absolutely everything one could want in a disaster epic can be found in this film. Everything. There are earthquakes, volcanos, collapsing skyscrapers, tsunamis, capsized ocean liners, plain crashes, and more. Normal disaster movies kill thousands, while 2012 kills billions without breaking a sweat. The money shots are impeccably sold by the special effects crew who deliver vast images of doom with remarkable detail - the CGI is amazingly close to photorealism. There's some truly multiplex-rocking action to behold within this flick, such as the jaw-droppingly orchestrated and utterly gripping "California is going down" sequence. Reports of the budget for this film range from $200 million to $260 million, and no money went to waste. While plenty of action and a weak human element is a basis to hopelessly hate a movie, Emmerich has an advantage over films like the latest Transformers - he's a good filmmaker. Emmerich has sound knowledge of how to construct breathtaking imagery and action without resorting to a dozen camera edits in a matter of seconds or distracting shaky-cam. He allows his audience to actually watch the mayhem rather than opting for cinematic techniques that induce headaches.
The disaster sequences, while nail-biting, are also preposterous and far too Hollywood. As the destruction commences, Jackson and his family manage to outrace it all without a single hiccup. Later, the concept of outrunning a fireball is reduced to the level of a nursery school feat. The Hollywood-style split-second precision grows irritating rather quickly, with planes taking off at the exact moment the ground gives way. And when the protagonists arrive in Vegas, networks are still broadcasting on television...are the power grids unaffected by the chaos? More stupidity arises when the government commissions the construction of massive arks to save what is left of the human population: these structures are built extremely close to each other, so guess what will happen when all the flood waters rush in at extreme velocity? On top of all this nonsense, there's improbable cell phone reception, an awful Arnold Schwarzenegger vocal imitator, and surveillance cameras with unlikely range.
Is there any reason to care about the characters? Absolutely not - they are caricatures saddled with threadbare motivation and bad dialogue. The cast is more formidable than one might expect from a glorified B-movie, but the acting is still pretty below-par. Thus, 2012 only works when it immerses viewers in the epic action set-pieces rather than trying to develop characters or dole out exposition. It's a highly enjoyable, paint-by-numbers disaster movie which contains some absolutely breathtaking popcorn moments.
John Cusack, Woody Harrelson, Thandie Newton
An academic researcher leads a group of people in a fight to counteract the apocalyptic events that were predicted by the ancient Mayan calendar.
Stats: 25,107 reviews
Your Rating
Flixster Reviews (25,107)
-
November 30, 2009"The world, as we know, will come to an end soon."
...( read more)
In his book Apocalypse Movies: End of the World Cinema, author Kim Newman noted that "The more complicated a civilization becomes, the more fun it is to imagine the whole works going up in flames". Roland -
-
November 28, 2009On the edge of my seat John Cusack entertainment. This flick was much better than I thought it was going to be. I knew it was going to be ridiculous, and it was (the disaster movie to end ALL disaster movies), but the 2nd half of the movie was actually fresh and incredibly inte...( read more)
-
November 21, 2009Really enthralling story. It keeps you fixated from start to finish. Loved it!
-
November 21, 2009Dont really care for disaster movies, and this was no exception, and despite the Star power, it was just a mess of CGI and a bad script.
What is with these doomsday movies?? I thought The Day After Tommorrow would be the last, but alas I was wrong... and here we are again with ...( read more) -
November 30, 2009Like real effects but "empty stories & characters", bad stories
Watched in Blitz Grand Indonesia in 14 November 2009 -
November 30, 2009A tout miser sur ses effets spéciaux, certes époustouflants, 2012 en oublie de donner une consistance à son scénario et à ses personnages. Les dialogues sont d'une bêtise affligeante et le message complètement niais. Quant à la morale de l'histoire, seuls les riches s'en sortent,...( read more)
-
November 30, 2009Semoga Film ini menjadikan suatu panutan bahwa dunia nantinya pasti akan seperti apa yang dimaksudkan sehingga kita akan mawas diri dan bertambah beriman kepada Sang Pencipta Dunia Dan Seisinya
-
-
Critic Reviews
2012 is so long, and its special effects are at once so outrageous and so thunderously predictable, that by the time I lurched from the theatre I felt that three years had actually passed and that the... full review
Why does Roland Emmerich enjoy killing off humanity? full review
This oafish epic about the End of Days -- as predicted by the Mayan calendar -- operates in a dead zone roughly equidistant between parody and idiocy. full review
The movie is an undeniable visual spectacle, but just as unequivocally a cheesy, ridiculous story. full review
Roland Emmerich is an apocalypse chef. In 2012 he cooks America till it boils, adding live meat to the process at judicious intervals. full review
Beware 2012, which works the dubious miracle of almost matching Transformers 2 for sheer, cynical, mind-numbing, time-wasting, money-draining, soul-sucking stupidity. full review
The effects are expensive-looking and impressive enough while you're watching them, although whatever awe they inspire doesn't last long: When you've seen one Washington Monument fall to bits, you've ... full review
People talk about "formula" almost always as a pejorative, but formulas get to be formulas because they work, and there's something to be said for a formula picture done almost to perfection. full review
Films of this sort are plotted shish kebab style: disaster, change of scenery, new disaster. But on the level of spectacle, 2012 is top-notch. full review
Comments
-
November 28, 2009Watch at Dalster com all videos working, you do have to fill out a quick survey, but It's well worth the 30 seconds.
-
-
November 25, 2009it's the greatest movie i've ever seen !
el 3ama ma ajmalo !
it's really an amazing movie ! wow
and he's really a wonderful director! :P -
November 24, 2009
This movie is very stupid because the world is not going to come to an end in 2012, Not even jesus the son of God is going to know when, so they need to stop all their petty allegations and just trust in the word of God. For all we know it could be tomorrow or the day after and so on, no one except God himself knows and they will pay for all this blasphemey they are bringing to Gods name and the way they are leading Gods people astray. (Proverbs 28:10); Whoso causeth the righteous to astray in an evil way he shall fall himself into his own pit but the upright shall have good things in possession. And whether they believe it or not God is real and all man would have to give an account to him for everything they ever said or done whether it is good or bad.
-
-
November 23, 2009
found this movie over at http://dalster.com after doing that quick little survey thing.
-
November 19, 2009Wow. It sounds a little bit idiotic in my mind... I don't know. One of my friends was on MSN with me while watching this and was telling me how bad it was and how much he hated it and almost laughed because it was so ridiculous.
"OF COURSE SOME RELIGIOUS LADY TELLS EVERYONE TO GO TO A TEMPLE! THE WORLD'S ENDING OF COURSE THAT'S GOING TO HELP!"
I definitely do not want to see this movie. It sounds ridiculous. -
-
November 15, 2009first off yes very good effects has you on the edge of your seat....but the hole reason i hated this film is because 1 just the media and fear mongers alone have struck fear into so many peoples hearts especially children that are worried about the end of the world and then this? a major block buster? just for amusement? hollywood is starting to loose all sense of morality....my 7 year old brother came home from school scared about this topic.....roland emmerich should be ashamed and if this does happen kick his ass off the boat take care
-
November 15, 2009This year's wonderful mega block buster movie and the only movie i can say and i can point out by arguing with the whole world cinema is this film 2012... What a production and what a roles for everyone who acted and what kinda joints between the roles into the whole film... They started this film in India and by that way am really proud to see this film because its my country... and They finishes it by showing only Africa and it made me to think about the world's reconstructions by the nature... wow it was tremendous effort for the whole unit who worked in this film and there was a thin back line tag story into this film and that is the LOVE AMONG HUMANITY...It was a great feel to watch this movie in big screen and yes they have shown the masters destruction all among the world... wow the Tsunami and the earth quakes the volcano's wow wow wow the spaceships that was great and i was speechless when i see this movie with my friends in the big screen it hit the whole audience as those destruction's comes into the theater it was the real feelings to watch this kinda picture the digital sounds and graphics have been used as masters and it never been seemed that they used graphics because the airplanes the whole city and the whole world they have shown in such a wonderful way... Thanks and i salute to all those who have taken much efforts to make this film out to the universe and thanks to the producers and the director Rolland Emmerich he proved once again he is the master... In one word 2012 is "FABULOUS"....
Critic ratings and reviews powered by RottenTomatoes.com
Fresh (60% or more critics rated the movie positively)
Rotten (59% or fewer critics rated the movie positively)
All Rotten Tomatoes content is used under license from Rotten Tomatoes. Rotten Tomatoes, Certified Fresh, and the Tomatometer are the trademarks of Incfusion Corporation, d/b/a Rotten Tomatoes, a subsidiary of IGN Entertainment, Inc.
