Movie Review: 2012
Director Roland Emmerich (Independence Day, The Day After Tomorrow) has returned to the disaster film genre with 2012. With an ensemble cast including stars John Cusack, Amanda Peet, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Thandie Newton, Oliver Platt, Woody Harrelson, and Danny Glover; this movie follows various characters in the midst of an apocalyptic world scenario. The movie is based on the Mayan legend that predicts the end of the world to occur in the year 2012. Essentially, the movie is about survival and what governments and individuals will do in order to survive in the face of impossible odds.
There is good news and there is bad news. The good news is that 2012 is a visually stunning film. It’s a great special effects movie that is fun and entertaining to watch. It’s especially amusing to see Roland Emmerich destroy famous cities, and symbols of humanity, like he does in many of the films he directs. I fully understand why Emmerich directed this film; it makes perfect sense if you’ve seen The Day After Tomorrow (2004), Independence Day (1996) and Godzilla (1998).
The bad news, which isn’t necessarily bad news depending on how you look at it, is that the film conforms to what you would expect from a Roland Emmerich film; it’s cliché. His movies involve seemingly random strangers that are somehow connected to each other, regardless of power and influence, who are trying to survive some type of cataclysmic situation. And let’s not forget that there’s always a message thrown in his films, which center around humanity working together and being nicer to one another. The only differences between his films are the characters and the disaster scenario. By the way, how many more different ways can Roland Emmerich destroy the White House?
I’m being a little more critical of Emmerich than I need to be, but his movies are predictable and somewhat preachy. I just want to say that Independence Day follows his formula the least, and is the best film he has done. Additionally, Bill Pullman is by far a better president than Danny Glover.
The film was entertaining and the acting was decent enough for this type of movie. It’s a great movie to go to if you don’t want to think, or expect any big twists. Other than that, there’s really nothing else to say about the film. Did I already mention that it was a great special effects film?
Fanboyz Grade: B-
4 Comments
This movie sucked so bad. It was 3 hours of bad cgi and horrible acting. I don't see how you could give this crap a B-.
Look if you went into the movie expecting cinematic gold, than that's your fault. The movie is supposed to be over the top and unbelievable. As for the CGI, it's never perfect in any film. Would you've prefered physical models being destoryed? If so take it up with Roland Emmerich. The acting wasn't great, but it was decent enough for the type of movie it was. If you wanted an academy award winning performance you went to the wrong movie. Your expectation were too high going into the film, next time don't expect brillance.
Got to agree with you there. It was like "The Day After Tomorrow" meets "Noahs Ark"
I'll side with the reviewer on this one.
I can (an do) go see movies for the visual effects or stunning scenery and have been underwhelmed somewhat by actor performances or even the story itself to some degree. That said, this was the case here. I can honestly say the acting was not particulary memorable, yet in contrast to the quality of the effects, I'm not sure that was the intent nor would have paid huge divdends in the long run.
Many disaster movies hit the mark on the special effects and sometimes, that alone. That 'era' started the mid 1970's when Surround Sound was born.
btw; With todays instant news/reviews, there is no reason to go see a movie without some precursor or insight on what to expect. If you do, you are likely to gamble 3 hours of your personal time (as suffered by a previous victim).