2012 (2009)

The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

It is encouraging that the film ends so strongly.Otherwise, it wouldn't have been a particularly memorable film

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

First of all, this is a "Disaster movie" with one thing after another to keep the audience "on their feet". What is surprising given the attention to detail is that several characters (male) are pictured in WHITE shirts that remain WHITE no matter what disaster or how many disasters they get into. For me having sat thru 2.5hours, I wont be doing it again - this is an "end of the world movie, with survivors"....they survive in vessels known as "Arks"! I for one didn't have to look too far to see where they got that idea from....DONT Bother, in short its not worthy of your time despite some really good casting, especially Woody Harrelson

Underwhelming disaster film from none other than the director of Independence Day and The Day After Tomorrow, beginning in the year 2009 with some top scientists discovering that Earth's geological disturbances could potentially lead to disastrous results for the human race. Fast forward three years into the future where said disturbances do begin to occur, thus creating a frantic race for a handful of characters as they attempt to survive. Clearly director Emmerich has overplayed his hand in this genre, but no one will complain as long as the special effects are good and he's able to create a fun moviegoing experience; unfortunately this project has that "been there, done that" feel to it, as an intriguing premise is overrun by one preposterous, over-the-top action scene after another, and any potentially poignant ideas are lost in the film's excruciatingly long running time. Overlong, overblown, and not nearly as suspenseful or as exciting as it thinks it is. **

I'm truly fascinated with how many reviews of this movie start off acknowledging that as a Roland Emmerich vehicle, they went in expecting cheesy dialogue, terrible characters and spectacular visuals.... and then appear utterly SHOCKED that they had to sit through a movie with cheesy dialogue, terrible characters and spectacular visuals. Honestly, I would probably be pretty PO'd too if I was stupid enough to pay see a movie of this nature in its release. You put on a movie like this when you want to kill a few hours with some mindless action and good CGI. You don't go to see a movie you expect to be bad and then write reviews of it patting yourself on the back for your observation. Leave Roland alone.

Short and Simple Review by WubsTheFadgerAt best, it's a nearly three-hour film packed with several tons of clichés whose best features are explosions and general destruction. At worst, it's a gruesome, depressing subject as viewed from the seat of a passing roller coaster.Disaster movies are usually very popular and have long managed to thrill plenty of people with their huge scale and awesome special effects. Since 2012 (which is tied to a much-debated Mayan prophecy that supposedly names that year as the one in which the world will end) is one of the biggest and most spectacular to date, it will no doubt follow suit -- and, in terms of visual effects and clear, exciting filmmaking, it is well done. And the impressive, appealing cast does its level best to read through the third-rate dialogue without too much eye-rolling. But anyone looking for character depth, powerful emotional content, intelligence, poetic images, or personal expression of any kind is advised to look elsewhere.Overall Rating: 1.3