Review: 2012

by
Posted November 15th, 2009 at 9:26 am

20121113b

Director Roland Emmerich is well known for his penchant to wreck the earth in most spectacular ways possible. Independence Day, The Day After Tomorrow, and Godzilla are previous attempts at just that. He returns with 2012 as series of events result to the destruction of the world as we know it. The 12/21/2012 date is famous because the Mayan calendar ends on that day leading some believe that it signifies the end of the world.

While the movie stars John Cusack and Amanda Peet all the actors take a backseat to the special effects. Needless to say that aspect of the film was very impressive and likely to earn an Academy Award nomination. Even if you took the movie as just a series of destruction scenes it would arguably be worth the ticket price.

Unlike many disaster movies 2012 avoided the obligatory period of denial and the characters providing resistance which were welcome omissions. Early on the film goes through the initial discovery of the oncoming disaster but it doesn’t linger there. It gets into the action quickly as the year 2012 rolls in and signs of what is on the way begin to appear.

As to the story there really isn’t much of one until the final third of the film. That isn’t necessarily a bad thing as it was primarily all about survival as individuals, which given the circumstances is what everyone would be focused on. Witnessing people coming to grips with the reality of the situation and accepting their fate can be powerful while a handful of others hold on to a glimmer of hope and fight to survive.

While I generally try to keep from over-analyzing a movie such as this there were a couple things that stood out to me for the wrong reasons. The first is that there were so many close calls and convenient coincidences. Obviously some of those are needed for dramatic effect and it was alright in pushing the story forward. I was also annoyed by the use of cell phones no matter where the characters were or what the state of the world was at the time. They needed ways of communicating but when I think to myself that there is no way a cell phone would work in a certain place or how they’d continue to operate at all given the circumstances that is bothersome. For the most part I was able to look past all that though and just enjoy the movie for what it was.

2012 was largely able to escape without some of the cringe inducing moments that have become a standard of big budget event pictures. I was pleased with that until the final lines of the film which would have been better left out.

There were some intense moments of suspense but I didn’t feel attached to most of the characters which hurt it a little. After all billions of people were dying but we were expected to just root for a handful. The moments between disaster scenes dragged somewhat at times because of it and because of the length of the journey that had to be made. Once it hit that final third though it really picked up and I bought into it.

With the news that Emmerich is considering a “2013″ TV show I definitely see more potential for that now. Not only could it follow any survivors that made it through by luck or circumstance but it could also continue right from where the movie left off. There are a lot of ways they could spin that and create a good character show.

2012 delivers on the wild ride it promises. For a movie like this to be great though it has to make an emotional attachment with the audience as well. While I don’t anticipate having a strong desire to see it again it was well worth the first time through for the pure entertainment value.

Rating: ★★½☆☆

Tags:
  • KElleD

    It was what I expected a fun movie. Really liked how you could enjoy the special effects instead of the fast cutting methods in movies like Transformers.

  • KElleD

    It was what I expected a fun movie. Really liked how you could enjoy the special effects instead of the fast cutting methods in movies like Transformers.

  • Chris F

    A part that I enjoyed that wasn't mentioned above was Woody the man played his role perfectly. Provide some of the best lines.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/pastapadre pastapadre

      Yeah it was a delicate role cause it could have easily been way over the top. Woody definitely had fun with it but kept it from being ridiculous.

  • Chris F

    A part that I enjoyed that wasn't mentioned above was Woody the man played his role perfectly. Provide some of the best lines.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/pastapadre pastapadre

      Yeah it was a delicate role cause it could have easily been way over the top. Woody definitely had fun with it but kept it from being ridiculous.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Mo_Diddley Mo_Diddley

    I'm going to check out this movie sometime this week.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Mo_Diddley Mo_Diddley

    I'm going to check out this movie sometime this week.

  • http://www.2kfootballstrategy.com/ Valdarez

    This was a horrible movie. On opening night, half of the theater was laughing at the unending / unrealistic escape scenarios and some of the horrible writing. When Tamara died, someone shouted out 'there's no more Tamara' (sounds like 'tomorrow').

    Cusack really let his fans down on this one. He never should have done this movie. Unless you want to waste to hours of your life and throw away $10, I suggest avoiding this movie. Can't even see renting it unless you want to rip on it with some friends.

    • Tim

      Grow up dude. It wasn't that bad.

      • http://www.2kfootballstrategy.com/ Valdarez

        No. You grow up. It was that bad.

        See how silly that looks? :)

        I'm just telling you what I experienced at the theater. Great special effects with cheazy writing. If that's your thing, more power to you. People at the theater I was at were laughing at it, not enthralled at the world ending or captured by the ever so thin story line. I don't think the special effects will play out as well on the small screen (home TV), for big sequence events they typically don't. Take Titanic for example, the effects of the ship sinking at the end looked great at theaters but looked small / cheap at home on the small screen. Screen size matters for large scale special effects in movies that are primarily based upon them.

  • http://www.2kfootballstrategy.com Valdarez

    This was a horrible movie. On opening night, half of the theater was laughing at the unending / unrealistic escape scenarios and some of the horrible writing. When Tamara died, someone shouted out 'there's no more Tamara' (sounds like 'tomorrow').

    Cusack really let his fans down on this one. He never should have done this movie. Unless you want to waste to hours of your life and throw away $10, I suggest avoiding this movie. Can't even see renting it unless you want to rip on it with some friends.

    • Tim

      Grow up dude. It wasn't that bad.

      • http://www.2kfootballstrategy.com Valdarez

        No. You grow up. It was that bad.

        See how silly that looks? :)

        I'm just telling you what I experienced at the theater. Great special effects with cheazy writing. If that's your thing, more power to you. People at the theater I was at were laughing at it, not enthralled at the world ending or captured by the ever so thin story line. I don't think the special effects will play out as well on the small screen (home TV), for big sequence events they typically don't. Take Titanic for example, the effects of the ship sinking at the end looked great at theaters but looked small / cheap at home on the small screen. Screen size matters for large scale special effects in movies that are primarily based upon them.

  • fuck ea

    the picture itself shows how bad this movie was

  • fuck ea

    the picture itself shows how bad this movie was

Quantcast