This is a disaster movie in every sense of the word...
Directed by Roland Emmerich Written by Roland Emmerich and Harald Kloser
Cast
John Cusack ... Jackson Curtis
Amanda Peet ... Kate Curtis
Chiwetel Ejiofor ... Adrian Helmsley
Thandie Newton ... Laura Wilson
Oliver Platt ... Carl Anheuser
Tom McCarthy ... Gordon Silberman
Woody Harrelson ... Charlie Frost
Danny Glover ... President Thomas Wilson
Liam James ... Noah Curtis
Morgan Lily ... Lilly Curtis
Zlatko Buric ... Yuri Karpov
Beatrice Rosen ... Tamara
Alexandre Haussmann ... Alec
Philippe Haussmann ... Oleg
Johann Urb ... Sasha
Rated PG-13 for intense disaster sequences and some language.
Noah’s Ark is a Biblical story that introduces us to a vengeful God who sets out to destroy the wicked world and start over with only Noah, a righteous man, his family, and a male and female of each animal to start over. God then sent a great flood to drown the world and only Noah and the crew he brought aboard his Ark survive the catastrophe.
2012 is a loose retelling of this story using scientific ideas that the Earth’s interior is heating up and the plates are shifting, causing all hell to break loose. It also happens to coincide with the Mayan Calendar predicting the Earth’s demise. Actually, what 2012 is boils down to Roland Emmerich wanting to blow shit up good.
What results is the worst movie I have seen in a long time.
The film starts with a look from outer space that then flies down where we see volcanic activity. The music swells to an annoying level and then we switch to an overlong prologue. We see some people switching out the Mona Lisa with a fake, to protect the original. We see someone trying to buy something for one billion Euros. We meet a scientist named Adrian (Chiwetel Ejiofor, Children of Men) who is taken a long freaking way underground to see that things are getting hot under there and all shit is about to break loose. We also meet Jackson Curtis (John Cusack), a divorced father of two and an unsuccessful novelist about to take his two kids camping.
It all comes down to this. Adrian knows the end is near and reports it to his White House contact Carl (Oliver Platt), who then takes him to the President (Danny Glover). Then the World’s governments begin a secret plan to build “Arks” to protect themselves and a select few when the end does come. Everyone else gets to die, with little to no warning.
2012 is the most nihilistic, mean-spirited, hateful movie I have ever seen. Roland Emmerich comes across here like a little boy who likes to burn the wings off flies with a magnifying glass. I understand it is important to oftentimes kill a major character to make the danger to our heroes seem more realistic. Emmerich goes overboard and seems to kill anyone and everyone in this movie with a lack of respect and a disdain for the audience. He allows you to care for someone and then wipes that person out in a split second. By the end of the movie, I no longer wanted to care about anyone. I may give some minor spoilers here but I really can’t say it matters for this movie.
Jackson is divorced from Kate (Amanda Peet) and has two kids, a bratty boy and a sweet little girl. Kate has a new boyfriend named Gordon who comes across as a smarmy prick at the start but soon proves to be a good person, who only wants to have a family to call his own. He also means the world to Jackson’s son and soon Jackson discovers that for himself. Then Gordon dies and no one mentions him or seems to care about his death again after that. This movie makes you care about a character and then wipes them out of existence, like I said, just to be mean spirited.
Moments like that make me hate this movie.
However, even if you don’t care about who lives and who dies, and just want to see shit get blown up, there is still a reason to hate this movie. If you have seen the trailers you know this movie destroys the world. It starts off in California and then moves to Yellowstone and then Vegas. It moves on to Washington DC and South America. We get to see Roland Emmerich destroy the world. The graphics are over-the-top, yet competently done, and the score is loud, bombastic and annoying. If you want to see things blow up this movie succeeds at that.
But there is over-the-top and there is ridiculous. This movie is ridiculous, unbelievable and has so many stupid moments that even I, a person who loves dumb blockbusters, can’t get into this movie. John Cusack, with conveniently earthquake-created ramps jumps a limo and later a freaking RV over giant holes in the ground. Gordon (the boyfriend) flies a small plane through a plate glass window of a falling skyscraper and out the other side. Then they have another big stunt with a giant airplane. Then they drop a car out of an airplane and allow it to skid to safety on ice while other cars crash around it. There are enough stunts in this movie that could never, ever happen to make Michael Bay have wet dreams for the rest of his life. This movie makes Bad Boys II look realistic. Give me stupid stunts that make me cheer but don’t give me a movie full of nothing but stupid stunts because it numbs the viewer and by the time it ends - TWO AND A HALF FREAKING HOURS LATER - you don’t care anymore.
Emmerich also destroys the White House - again - but if you want to see that go back to the man’s movie from 13-years ago (Independence Day), where he actually did it right.
That brings me to the dialogue. If anyone complained about the dialogue from the Transformers movies, watch this one and your head will explode. This has some of the worst, simplistic dialogue ever devised for a movie. The characters explain what you are seeing. The characters explain what you are supposed to be feeling. There is one point where a character tries to call his son, who he has not spoken to for years, and before his son can say anything he is blown up. The old man drops the phone and then later tells his friend, “I called, but I was too late.” No shit, Einstein. Roland Emmerich must know he is making this movie for the lowest common denominator because he doesn’t trust his audience to come to any conclusions on their own.
And this plot is horrible. I spoke earlier of the Noah’s Ark comparison. In this case there are a number of Arks and the only way to get on is to buy your way, so only the rich and powerful are allowed. There is a loophole at the end when someone finally says it isn’t fair and talks everyone into opening their hearts and the doors. It is too little, too late. By this time we have already seen entire populations killed in earthquakes, volcanoes, monsoons, ship wrecks, and more. We see good people and families crushed under tidal waves. It is all too much.
I was willing to give some good points for minor things. Woody Harrelson is awesome as a conspiracy theorist pirate radio DJ who knows exactly what is coming. He takes horrible lines and a stupid premise and chews scenery with reckless abandon. Thandie Newton, who I hated in W, was very good in this film as well. John Cusack, who is an amazing actor, seems to just be taking a paycheck here but he makes anything he is in better.
Except 2012.
There is a moment where the rich and powerful are entering the “Arks” and Carl, now serving as the voice of the United States, mentions the President of Italy is staying with his country, trusting in prayer. The movie then shifts to a scene where the Sistine Chapel is destroyed and everyone praying for help at the Vatican dies a horrible death. At that moment I knew this movie may have been based on the Biblical story of Noah’s Ark but it then turned around and shit all over it. This movie is trash and there are no redeeming factors in it at all.
The 411: 2012 is the worst movie of the year and might be the worst movie of the decade. Roland Emmerich is the king of disaster movies. I went into this movie expecting a good time, watching things get blown up, but what I got was beyond reproach. Any good will Emmerich still retained (Independence Day, Stargate) was flushed down the toilet with this movie. The dialogue is horrible, the plot is slammed over your head and Emmerich kills anyone and everyone without a care in the world. I don’t care if this is what he thinks the end of the world will look like. I go to a movie to be entertained. This movie did not entertain me, enthuse me, or make me think. This movie repulsed me. Avoid at all costs.
Yes! This is exactly what I was hoping for. You just made me ten times more excited to see this movie. It's time to laugh again!
Posted By: Jim Ross (Guest) on November 12, 2009 at 11:11 PM
Now THIS is how you write a review. Shawn just put on a clinic!
Thanks for confirming what I thought and saving me the money (and time) I was about to waste!
Posted By: stevethegoose (Registered) on November 12, 2009 at 11:17 PM
Looks like someone is exaggerating. It can't be as bad as you say... I read reviews to be entertained. This review did not entertain me, enthuse me, or make me think. This review repulsed me. Avoid at all costs... Oh, see what I did there? By the way that is a rhetorical question.
Posted By: puba516 (Guest) on November 12, 2009 at 11:31 PM
Man I knew it wouldn't all that good, but I guessed it would be at least watchable...Ebert gave it a good rating, after all. Sucks to see that the disaster movie to end all disaster movies is such a failure.
Posted By: Joseph Lee (Guest) on November 12, 2009 at 11:47 PM
The movie is a metaphor for the 2012 movement..
It's complete nonsensical shit that just wants money and fear from people.
Posted By: MichiyoYoshiku (Guest) on November 13, 2009 at 12:02 AM
I've never been as angry or annoyed as I was when I left this movie.
I HATE THIS MOVIE
Posted By: Shawn S Lealos (Registered) on November 13, 2009 at 12:15 AM
sean is the exact opposite of bryan kristopowitz. this man deserves an award.
Posted By: nice (Guest) on November 13, 2009 at 12:40 AM
LMAO. Lealos, you are the man. Puba516 can shove it.
Posted By: Guest#4813 (Guest) on November 13, 2009 at 12:59 AM
I'm just glad I have a friend who works at a movie theater. Free movie! Free BAD movie too!
Posted By: Nick (Guest) on November 13, 2009 at 01:05 AM
Well I don't like you either!
Posted By: 2012 (Guest) on November 13, 2009 at 01:19 AM
Worst. review. ever.
"This movie makes you care about a character and then wipes them out of existence, like I said, just to be mean spirited."
Seems you can't handle dark movies.
the m,ovie is about the end of the world. It's not supposed to be about Happy happy Endings.
The way youd escribe it the movie sounds awesome because it's so obvious youd ecided to go over the top with the criticism, and even reading your review there is no way the movie is 0.0 as you praise the acting. Acting is part of a movie so if the acting is good that should garner a decent amount of points.
And, completely unbelieveable which is the worst kind.
Seriously, this is April Fool's Joke cause this has to be a troll review....
Posted By: Volourn (Guest) on November 13, 2009 at 01:21 AM
if Emmerich fondled a drugged out child & put it in her butt, I bet you would consider this a masterpiece compared to Independance Day... if enough time had passed that is. But to each their own!
Amanda Peet has Hobgoblin teeth but she can rock a short skirt! Cusak is the man in anything!
Oliver Platt owns all scenes he's in & Danny Glover as President??? FTW!!!
Great review!!!
Posted By: Alloh!!Yaaa! (Guest) on November 13, 2009 at 01:26 AM
This is the seventh film to get a 0 out of 10 in the entire seven year history of 411 Movies.
Posted By: 411 Historian (Guest) on November 13, 2009 at 01:41 AM
Personally, I ENJOY the fact that they kill off people left and right. It's a pleasant change of pace.
Posted By: Guest#4452 (Guest) on November 13, 2009 at 01:55 AM
Oh for f*cks sake. Get your head out off your ass. Its a movie.
Posted By: Guest#3425 (Guest) on November 13, 2009 at 02:30 AM
Shawn S. Lealos.
thank you.
thats all.
Posted By: marc (Guest) on November 13, 2009 at 02:53 AM
Ir's got John Cusack. You knew it would be bad.
Posted By: iomis (Guest) on November 13, 2009 at 03:09 AM
Wow. Needless to say, I really want to see this movie now.
Posted By: ggrgh (Guest) on November 13, 2009 at 03:26 AM
I told people back in January this would end up being the worst film of the year and nobody believed me. Thanks for this review, I'm gonna start passing it around.
Posted By: Alex Ewing (Guest) on November 13, 2009 at 03:44 AM
So I guess you didn't like it???
Posted By: Krajton (Guest) on November 13, 2009 at 03:58 AM
It might be bad, but don't you DARE call it the worst movie of the year, when another Twilight movie about to come out.
Posted By: Guest#5868 (Guest) on November 13, 2009 at 05:18 AM
Shawn S. Lealos now sets his morning alarm 2 hours early just so he can get in more hating-time for this movie.
I already thought it looked like a less good Day After Tomorrow (as if that was possible). Thanks for the alert to avoid.
Posted By: LOL (Guest) on November 13, 2009 at 06:38 AM
For those of you who think this movie can't be that bad... watch the trailers for it again. It looks like a complete piece of shit. I'm hoping this movie barely cracks the top ten when it opens and if it does, I'm hoping word-of-mouth sends this thing to non-profit city. Fuck it.
Posted By: Zingy (Guest) on November 13, 2009 at 08:14 AM
I didn't think this movie looked good from what I read about it long ago and after seeing that clip online of Cusack driving his limo through LA that was out a month or so ago I knew it would be a terrible movie. No way will I give my money to these idiots. There is a fine line between getting away with a fun action popcorn movie and making a stupid movie. 2012 looks stupid.
Posted By: Jeremy S (Registered) on November 13, 2009 at 08:30 AM
Great review. I still want to see the film, though!
Posted By: Owain J. Brimfield (Registered) on November 13, 2009 at 08:50 AM
So am I off the hook now??
Posted By: Wolverine (Guest) on November 13, 2009 at 09:00 AM
you had me until "john cusak is an amazing actor"
that dude has as much range as nick cage or keanu reeves. how he's snowed hollywood all these years is beyond me
Posted By: Guest#6001 (Guest) on November 13, 2009 at 09:05 AM
I didn't really have hope for a 2009 John Cusack movie anyway.
Posted By: Acid (Guest) on November 13, 2009 at 09:11 AM
most movie critics agree with this review...it's at 30% on rotten.
Posted By: tones (Guest) on November 13, 2009 at 10:11 AM
Well gerd dangit this movie is true and entertaining you horrible reviewer!
Posted By: Religious Zealot (Guest) on November 13, 2009 at 11:22 AM
This film would have to go a long way to be as bad as Day After Tomorrow, which had absolutely zero plot and no characters I could care about. The only thing DAT had going for it was some fun destruction sequences, but even those were done better in other films.
Posted By: Michael L (Guest) on November 13, 2009 at 11:26 AM
Now THIS is how you write a review. Shawn just put on a clinic!
Thanks for confirming what I thought and saving me the money (and time) I was about to waste!
Posted By: stevethegoose (Registered) on November 12, 2009 at 11:17 PM
No, this is NOT how you write a review. I in no way plan to see this movie, nor am I defending it, but this review is what is wrong with the internet. Reviews are meant to be fair and unbiased, this review is not either of those things.
Posted By: Guest#4640 (Guest) on November 13, 2009 at 11:58 AM
No, this is NOT how you write a review. I in no way plan to see this movie, nor am I defending it, but this review is what is wrong with the internet. Reviews are meant to be fair and unbiased, this review is not either of those things.
Posted By: Guest#4640 (Guest) on November 13, 2009 at 11:58 AM
Obviously, you are unaware of the mindset of creating a film review. There IS going to be a bias. The reviewer already goes in knowing what he/she considers to be a good movie. If a film doesn't hit that criteria based on their OWN BIASES, they have every right to trash it as they see fit.
Do some journalism (actual REAL journalism, not classes, not theories and exercises in journalism) and you'll find everyone from Pauline Kael to Bosley Crowthers to Siskel and Ebert to Shawn all enter with a bias.
That's how it's done.
Posted By: The 8th Samurai (Registered) on November 13, 2009 at 12:12 PM
Did we watch the same movie? 0 - r u fuckin kiddin me!? Obviously someone didn't let the hair down and went as a poor misguided critic!!! This has to be one of the best disaster movies ever!
Sit back enjoy and relax - stop over analyzing and complicating matters!
Posted By: jason jones (Guest) on November 13, 2009 at 12:44 PM
Obviously, if you send a classically trained orchestra director to review a concert consisting of hardcore death-metal bands, they're probably going to write an unfavorable review. From the tone of the article it sounds like Mr. Lealos would've been much happier reviewing Bridges of Madison County or Twilight or Pride and Prejudice, so it's a fair bet that his opinion of a mindless disaster flick where EVERYBODY DIES AND EVERYTHING BLOWS UP is going to be pretty poor. Why doesn't 411 parcel out its reviews by preferred genre of its writers? Why isn't there an "Action/adventure movie" guy, a "Drama" guy, a "Comedy" guy, etc?
I guess what I'm getting at is, if the reviewer knew he would hate this movie before even going to see it, because he doesn't like this sort of thing, then WHY was this review written at all? It's like asking a rabbi to review Mein Kampf, or a redneck to cover a soccer match, or a devout Muslim to compare and contrast bacon products by brand.
Just reading the first couple paragraphs I can tell that I have nothing in common with the reviewer's taste in movies and I know that reading any further is likely a waste of time (and it was). There's a good number of people out there who LIKE brain-dead massively destructive action movies, and it's probably a good idea to find one of their number to review brain-dead massively destructive action movies so they can at least compare & contrast in a meaningful way instead of just condemning the movie out of hand because it treats its characters with callous disregard (it's about the END OF THE WORLD FOR F#CK'S SAKE, nobody will walk into this movie looking for character development!).
...I don't know why I even bothered to write this long of a post, I just hate to see this sort of completely dismissive writing that makes it clear that there was no way in hell this movie would elicit anything but a profoundly negative reaction from this particular reviewer.
Posted By: Meh (Guest) on November 13, 2009 at 01:21 PM
Sheesh its on a movie people, its not like its the end of the world or anything...
Posted By: Chips (Guest) on November 13, 2009 at 01:29 PM
I'm sure this review is an extreme exaggeration. I see it got a B in EW. That's a lot better than I was expecting. I have been waiting for this movie since I saw the first teaser trailer last Dec. Then when I saw the full trailer before Zombieland I stated, "I think 2012 is already my favorite movie ever", just based on the 2-3 minute trailer. I am seeing it Saturday morning and I can't wait.(despite what the haters say)
Posted By: matrix1004 (Guest) on November 13, 2009 at 01:44 PM
"Obviously, if you send a classically trained orchestra director to review a concert consisting of hardcore death-metal bands, they're probably going to write an unfavorable review."
Sure they most likely won't like it, but with their training they would praise the metal band for their skills with instruments and such. And if the metal band had no skill and was just making noise, then the critic will call it out as such.
Posted By: Guest#4806 (Guest) on November 13, 2009 at 02:10 PM
No, this is NOT how you write a review. I in no way plan to see this movie, nor am I defending it, but this review is what is wrong with the internet. Reviews are meant to be fair and unbiased, this review is not either of those things.
Posted By: Guest#4640 (Guest) on November 13, 2009 at 11:58 AM
Obviously, you are unaware of the mindset of creating a film review. There IS going to be a bias. The reviewer already goes in knowing what he/she considers to be a good movie. If a film doesn't hit that criteria based on their OWN BIASES, they have every right to trash it as they see fit.
Do some journalism (actual REAL journalism, not classes, not theories and exercises in journalism) and you'll find everyone from Pauline Kael to Bosley Crowthers to Siskel and Ebert to Shawn all enter with a bias.
That's how it's done.
Posted By: The 8th Samurai (Registered) on November 13, 2009 at 12:12 PM
Oh thanks, I am glad you are here to teach me how to do real journalism, with all your experience and credibility.
Posted By: Joel Yeomans (Guest) on November 13, 2009 at 02:13 PM
It would be awesome if 8th samurai was Rogert Ebert..then Joel Yeomans would have to suck some dick
Posted By: tones (Guest) on November 13, 2009 at 03:45 PM
the world is ending and you are looking for a character plot, the previews clearing show things blowing up and the earth being completely destroyed, you fail for expecting a top of the line movie. Im stilling going to see this movie just for the special effects alone.
Posted By: timbo (Guest) on November 13, 2009 at 03:46 PM
I can't believe there's a movie that's worse than Van Wilder: Freshman Year. Now I have to check out 2012 and see how bad it is.
Posted By: Guest#0683 (Guest) on November 13, 2009 at 03:49 PM
"Seems you can't handle dark movies.
the m,ovie is about the end of the world. It's not supposed to be about Happy happy Endings."
Tell that to the director! Sure they kill millions of people and main characters with no remorse in the film, but throughout the whole film while doing these horrible acts they pollute the dialogue with cheasy one liners trying to be funny and trying to lighten the mood up. THIS FILM IS FAR FROM DARK. I wanted a dark film, but this is a HOLLYWOOD BLOCKBUSTER. It's dumb and tries to be funny way to often with such a dark setting. WORST MOVIE OF THE YEAR AND MAYBE EVER.
Great review by the way. You nailed it.
Posted By: Marcus (Guest) on November 13, 2009 at 03:53 PM
haha torture but i think an abomination would sound better
Posted By: Guest#2863 (Guest) on November 13, 2009 at 04:00 PM
After reading this review, I have to see this movie.
Posted By: Comment Board Poster (Guest) on November 13, 2009 at 04:41 PM
Now I know why it looks like a complete rip off of TDAT; it's because the same hack came up with this one too.
Again, guy...seriously?
I hope this movie bombs worse than Jennifer's Body.
Posted By: Nick (Guest) on November 13, 2009 at 04:47 PM
This is, by far, one of the worst reviews I've ever read on this site. I know there's a certain level of biases when it comes to reviews of anything, but there is a certain level of professionalism that the reviewer SHOULD inject into their review. That didn't happen here. This came off as a sloppy, incoherent ramble that did nothing to help me decide whether or not to see this. Maybe the reviwer's tastes are too high, maybe he didn't want to review this movie and got stuck with it, who knows? Some of the negative points are absurd. Characters you cared for died? Guess what? It's a movie about the end of the world. That's going to happen. There is no happy ending for this subject. I like the idea that the film makers took the time to flesh out the characters instead of just throwing them in our lap and expecting us to care what's going on (I'm looking at you 'The Happening'). The end of the world is meant to be an emotional roller coaster.
Posted By: Chris Stone (Guest) on November 13, 2009 at 05:15 PM
There seem to be two divergent thoughts expressed here in comments. Either the commenter predicted this movie would suck and is happy to see Shawn confirm his/her opinion, or he/she is planning on seeing this movie regardless of the critics' perception and is upset that a critic has panned it.
Unfortunately, neither of these two types of commenter are the intended audience of a movie review like this one as neither type can be persuaded to change his/her opinion. Why these people decide to read a review in the first place and then comment angrily on it is perplexing.
Posted By: EricVonErich (Guest) on November 13, 2009 at 05:25 PM
Well I don't like you either!
Posted By: 2012 (Guest)
/\
this
Posted By: faceman802 (Guest) on November 13, 2009 at 05:30 PM
I just saw this film and it was the biggest glossy, dumb down, cliched hollywood non thought prevoking stupid dull etc etc negative words you can think of movie I've ever seen.
I think you overrated this movie a little at ZERO... it should be on minus points.
FUCK hollywood... has no one got the balls to follow through with an original movie over just producing junk to make money these days?
Posted By: Andrew Barbarash (Guest) on November 13, 2009 at 09:05 PM
This movie was so bad it was unbelievable. Right on the mark with the review.
Posted By: Guest#5707 (Guest) on November 14, 2009 at 01:51 AM
Woo Hoo! In your face, Ed Wood!
Posted By: Homer J Emmerich (Guest) on November 14, 2009 at 02:26 AM
Maybe...... JUST MAYBE..... Roland Burris (I mean Emerich) made this movie INTENTIONALLY stupid for people who believe the world is going to end in 2012.... Because they are stupid.
Other than that glimmer of hope, this sounds like the worst movie I have ever heard of. The review was incredibly well done though, because I DID think the dialogue in Transformers 2 (the only one I saw) was a hair's width from unwatchable. If this is miles worse, I would have torn my ears off in the theater, just based on principle and also so the screaming of other movie patrons would drown out the dialogue.
Good God's ball gravy!
Posted By: James (Registered) (Guest) on November 14, 2009 at 02:47 AM
"..I don't know why I even bothered to write this long of a post, I just hate to see this sort of completely dismissive writing that makes it clear that there was no way in hell this movie would elicit anything but a profoundly negative reaction from this particular reviewer. - Posted By: Meh (Guest)"
I gave Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen a decent review (7/10), so you are very mistaken about the types of movies I like. There is nothing good about 2012.
Posted By: Shawn S Lealos (Registered) on November 14, 2009 at 04:13 AM
"...I don't know why I even bothered to write this long of a post, "
Neither does anyone else.
Posted By: DBB (Guest) on November 14, 2009 at 05:52 AM
I had absolutely NO desire to see 2012. None at all.
Then I read your review.
If it is even half as bad as you say, I have GOT to see this piece of shit for myself... WITH a group of friends! There is nothing more fun than seeing an abortion of a movie with your buddies.
Posted By: David O (Guest) on November 14, 2009 at 06:42 AM
I still don't see how anyone was expecting this to be a GOOD movie. It's another "Global Warmin Gonna Kill Us AWL!" bullshit flick. Might as well have called "Manbearpig: The Movie".
Posted By: David O (Guest) on November 14, 2009 at 06:46 AM
"Just reading the first couple paragraphs I can tell that I have nothing in common with the reviewer's taste in movies and I know that reading any further is likely a waste of time (and it was). There's a good number of people out there who LIKE brain-dead massively destructive action movies, and it's probably a good idea to find one of their number to review brain-dead massively destructive action movies..."
Posted By: Meh (Guest) on November 13, 2009 at 01:21 PM
So rather than have the film reviewed by someone who is predisposed against it and gives it a 0, you'd prefer to have someone predisposed in its favour giving it a 10? That's about the logic I'd expect from someone who identified an activity as a waste of his time and then did it anyway.
Posted By: Owain J. Brimfield (Registered) on November 14, 2009 at 08:30 AM
saw it last night. Reading this review first helped because I had no expectations and the movie was entertaining at alot of points. The destruction of California was glorious and the "chase" scenes were fun albeit "escaping at the last moment" some 5, 6 times was a bit much. I won't call it a masterpiece but it deserves better than a 0. I'd say a 5 1/2, maybe 6. Trim down 30 minutes and it'd been much better, kind of like the last act of Transformers 2. Just kind of drug out a bit. In this movie, when they said "we have 28 minutes to impact," you got 28 legit more screen minutes.
Posted By: JP (Guest) on November 14, 2009 at 10:57 AM
Dude I don't know what the hell your problem is.. I do agree the movie should of been 2hrs and 35 minutes. But i think what the director wanted to get across was how the world was going to end. This is one movie the actors were secondary to the events that transpired in the movie. Your probably 14 years old and dont understand the historical facts behind this.. GO review something like the power rangers movie. I know you'll give that 10 stars
Posted By: Guest#5173 (Guest) on November 14, 2009 at 11:54 AM
"Your probably 14 years old and dont understand the historical facts behind this.. GO review something like the power rangers movie. I know you'll give that 10 stars - Posted By: Guest#5173 (Guest)"
I think the movie was made as a joke. I think this post is unintentionally funny. There is no "historical facts behind this" movie. At all. None... Maybe this movie was made for you. It sure wasn't made for the actual scientists who have publically laughed at its "science"
Posted By: Shawn S Lealos (Registered) on November 14, 2009 at 02:14 PM
This movie was not a zero sorry to say. It wasn't very good either, but jesus, it wasn't any worse than Transformers 2. Heres a fair comparison. The acting was just ok, like Transformers possibly a little better. Cusack phones it in though, agreed there. The CG world ending special effects were excellent (especially California being destroyed) much like transformers CG was. The dialoge was piss poor though, just like Transformers. I would go as far as to say that Transformers has better dialoge, given how poor it was in this movie. The writing was really dumbed down, like Shawn points out in his review.
All things said and done, I'd give this movie about the same score as I'd give Transformers, roughly a 5. It's not the best movie out there, but it's far from the worst.
Posted By: Guest#8270 (Guest) on November 14, 2009 at 05:32 PM
So movie reviews are supposed to be unbiased? That doesn't make any sense. A movie review offers the writer's opinion on the movie, so the review is biased toward the writer's opinion of the movie. Maybe you mean the reviewer is supposed to watch the movie with no previous bias. That doesn't really make much sense either. Even if the person is classically trained in the cinematic arts and uses the Movies 101 textbook's checklist for what quantifies a good movie, subscribing to that checklist gives the movie reviewer a bias toward their classical training. Either way, this review is what's great about the Internet. Give 'em hell, Shawn.
Posted By: Bill (Guest) on November 14, 2009 at 10:10 PM
11-14-2009 saw it today, wait for the DVD release.
Posted By: Hoosierjim500 (Guest) on November 14, 2009 at 10:15 PM
This movie sounds fun as hell, just for how horrible it is.
Posted By: Big Lantern Ghost (Guest) on November 15, 2009 at 02:38 AM
This movie was so bad. I found myself laughing through out the whole thing with how bad the acting was. The lines they had and the scenes left so much to be desired. Plus I have to agree about it being mean spirited all the way around. I mean jesus talk about having very little faith in the government (not that I do) but come on. This movie could have been so much better and I really wish it had been.
Posted By: Landis (Guest) on November 15, 2009 at 03:14 AM
it's a movie..it's a review..get over it
worth 1billion euros if you ask me
Posted By: 22-bit (Guest) on November 15, 2009 at 05:40 AM
Had a blast!
Posted By: The Great Capt. Smooth (Guest) on November 15, 2009 at 09:48 AM
It might be bad, but don't you DARE call it the worst movie of the year, when another Twilight movie about to come out.
Posted By: Guest#5868 (Guest) on November 13, 2009 at 05:18 AM
Yep I agree
Posted By: The Real Vamp (Guest) on November 15, 2009 at 02:57 PM
When pure shit like this and The Core can be made AND a moviegoing audience *enjoys* films like this and The Core, it makes me weep for audiences who want to be challenged, who want to be entertained who want GOOD FUCKING MOVIES instead of dreck like this.
Fuck 2012, fuck Roland Emmerich, and fuck anyone who pays money to see this "film".
Posted By: Anonymous Smart Mark (Guest) on November 15, 2009 at 04:38 PM
I enjoyed it. Had a few "wtf" moments (like how do their cell phones continue to work?) but not nearly as many as Transformers 2 did. The effects were suitably spectacular, especially the collapsing city landscapes.
This was definately not worse then Transformers 2. Not much better, but better.
You start this review on a horrible foot, complaining that characters you liked die. Frankly, almost none of the characters were likable enough to care about when they died. I didn't care when the stepdad died, because he was a 2-d character (no depth), which is exactly what I expected with this movie. Your not supposed to care when these guys die. If you feel something when a character is killed, that means the movie succeeded.
If anything, the deaths should have been spaced out. No one important dies in the first 1:45 or so, then main characters start falling left and right. Spacing it out a bit would probably have reliefed some of your frustration.
Or maybe not, you seemed determined to hate this movie and blow every little problem out of proportion to justify yourself.
Posted By: August (Guest) on November 15, 2009 at 06:15 PM
"Or maybe not, you seemed determined to hate this movie and blow every little problem out of proportion to justify yourself. - Posted By: August (Guest)"
But I wasn't determined to hate it. My wife and I both have been looking forward to it because we love dumb, fun, popcorn flicks. This movie just annoyed me more and more as the time ran on. I wanted to like it, I really did but I left the movie angry with what I saw and my review reflects this.
Speaking of which, I just bought Roger Ebert's "I Hated, Hated, Hated This Movie" and might add some of my favorite Ebert lines in future Alternate Take columns as a bonus. The guy can be brutal to movies he hates. An example is "I Spit on Your Grave" - "I Spit on Your Grave is sick, reprehensible, and contemptible ... a film without a shred of artistic distinction." This is a fun book if anyone likes this kind of stuff!
Posted By: Shawn S Lealos (Registered) on November 15, 2009 at 10:11 PM
I wish the studios would retire Rolo
Emmerich like they did Michael Cimino. The movie started out like a Spielberg thriller but they should have distributed barf bags for what comes after the plane ride through the destruction. Watching an aircraft carrier some crashing down on the Whitehouse with president
Danny all covered in white ashes looking like Al Jolson was repulsive.
Posted By: papajon (Guest) on November 15, 2009 at 10:35 PM
Dear Internet,
Who gives a fuck what someone else thinks of a movie. I like reading reviews, too (and this one was a blast), but really, who cares? The movie is #1 despite the fact that most critics agree with Lealos. America loves stupid movies. If this one is stupid enough, maybe word of mouth will kill it fast. I doubt it, since, as a culture, we're so obsessed with death and destruction. Hell, we watch racing (I mean, I don't, but clearly someone does, since it gets better ESPN coverage than the NHL).
Good and bad are relative terms, so stop getting up people's asses when their definitions conflict with yours. Thanks.
Posted By: Talon (Guest) on November 16, 2009 at 12:48 AM
Did anyone expect this movie to be good?
I mean, just the commerical reeked pure shit.
Posted By: Morgan Fisher (Guest) on November 16, 2009 at 01:33 AM
Lealos was right on with his review. Disaster move? I'll say, this movie was fuckin disaster!
Posted By: Guest#2690 (Guest) on November 16, 2009 at 01:37 AM
I dont know what's worse, this movie or these comments.
He has an opinion. He stated it. It's not wrong nor terrible just because you disagree with it.
Posted By: Mike (Guest) on November 16, 2009 at 01:57 AM
The Transformers 2 comparisons are bullshit. Transformers 2 is a fictional world. I mean we are dealing with 100 feet tall robots. 2012 is completely set in reality and fails to handle it. The point where Cusack runs at 80 mph to catch a plane is a downright insult to intelligence. I hate this movie so much because it has fantastic potential, but capitalises on absolutely none of it. My worst movie of the decade, if not ever.
Posted By: Guest#5247 (Guest) on November 16, 2009 at 01:57 AM
Too bad your review came out after it made $62 million
Posted By: X (Guest) on November 16, 2009 at 04:08 AM
Wow. Someone caught a lot of shit for their review. Rather than blasting someone for their opinion, perhaps the very fact that it is just his opinion(which he's entitled to,) should be kept in mind before jumping all over him for not giving the movie a fair chance.
And for the person that said a critic more attuned to this genre should have reviewed it? Please. A genre critic would be distortingly biased, given his affection for said genre before watching the movie or writing the review. Critics are best suited to be lovers of film in general, as they can speak as a voice to the casual moviegoer and appeal to the moviegoing public at large, which is what most movies are meant to appeal to.
Posted By: Joe (Guest) on November 16, 2009 at 07:25 AM
This is the most nihilistic, mean-spirited, hateful review I have ever seen.
Posted By: dweeby (Guest) on November 16, 2009 at 07:27 AM
Hahaha, this reviewer dropped the big leg on this film, man. :D
I don't get people who defend mindrape like this "movie" by saying crap like "it's just a film". Er, what? Films are supposed to be more than just a random collection of explosions. An action film can be mindless, or it can be masterfully done like Die Hard.
This film was build on a scientifically flawed premise, so it set sail for fail right out of the gate. Similar reasons to why I don't like horror films, characters are the best thing about films and having films set up entirely just to kill them off is a complete waste of time.
Seriously, it's 2009. Are there people who are STILL impressed with tons of effects? Hasn't George Lucas ruined that for everyone now?
Posted By: Frank (Guest) on November 16, 2009 at 09:55 AM
"This film was build on a scientifically flawed premise, so it set sail for fail right out of the gate."
I think you meant "built." More importantly, that sentence doesn't make sense to me, because films are about suspension of disbelief. A LOT of things that happen in a LOT of movies are totally outside the realm of possibility. So do you hate science fiction as a genre?
Posted By: Talon (Guest) on November 16, 2009 at 02:24 PM
"Too bad your review came out after it made $62 million - Posted By: X (Guest)"
Actually the review went live at midnight last Thursday before the movie opened
Posted By: Shawn S Lealos (Registered) on November 16, 2009 at 03:03 PM
I didn't say you did go into the movie determined to hate it. But the tone of your review made you sound that way. Stuff like this:
"The characters explain what you are supposed to be feeling. There is one point where a character tries to call his son, who he has not spoken to for years, and before his son can say anything he is blown up. The old man drops the phone and then later tells his friend, “I called, but I was too late.” No shit, Einstein"
The scene wasn't there to tell the audience what happened, it was to show the relationship between the two old men.
You say things like the graphics are "competent" and compliment some of the actors (but not Oliver Platt, who's character was the only interesting one in my opinion), but then end it with a 0.0 and calling saying it has "no redeeming factors at all." That makes it sound like the decent-to-good parts of the movie don't matter, the only thing that mattered was you hated it.
Posted By: August (Guest) on November 16, 2009 at 05:41 PM
This is the seventh film to get a 0 out of 10 in the entire seven year history of 411 Movies.
Posted By: 411 Historian (Guest) on November 13, 2009 at 01:41 AM
Here's a question...what were the others?
Posted By: MissyNEVERWearssocksWithShoes (Guest) on November 17, 2009 at 06:12 AM
Dear 411,
Please get SOMEONE ELSE on your Movies staff to review 2012. I happened to catch 2012 this weekend and found it to be a quite decent disaster movie. Not excellent or an instant classic by any means, but certainly a movie you MAY ACTUALLY ENJOY if you remember to check your brain at the door, sit back, and enjoy all the glorious doomsday scenarios (and ludicrously implausible attempts to escape said doomsday scenarios) brought to life with amazing CGI special effects. The Governateor cameo right before the shit hits the fan in LA and Woody Harrelson (as a doomsday conspiracy theorist) literally counting down the minutes until Yellowstone erupts at one point during a live radio broadcast were especially brilliant.
Sure, some of the destruction sequences were uncomfortable, especially the earthquake at the Vatican. Not to mention the uncomfortable-at-times underlying theme of the rich only saving themselves doesn't get turned on its head until the final act, and the director could have gone further with it. As long as you don't take those scenes TOO SERIOUSLY though and just sit back and enjoy the ride, they WILL NOT ruin 2012 for you (which they obviously did for the original 411 reviewer).
My biggest complaint about 2012 is that the final act on the Arks dragged on at least 15-20 minutes longer than it probably SHOULD have. At that point, you KNOW most of the surviving characters are probably going to make it out alive, even if there is one final Titanic-like threat that threatens to doom the Arc and the entire human race. I also feel that one of those characters should have MADE THE ULTIMATE SACRIFICE to save everyone on the Ark instead of escaping certain death at the last possible moment; it would have made the ending more powerful.
These complaints aside, 2012 was fairly enjoyable for the most part. The very last scene in the movie even provides a glimmer of hope and shows that there WERE pockets of survivors who DO NOT HAVE the resources of the rich and wealthy. I even found 2012 to be more enjoyable than The Day After Tomorrow, if only because the disasters and special effects in this movie were far more impressive.
It's obvious that the original 411 reviewer was pissed off by the way the Vatican was destroyed and/or the underlying concept of the rich and wealthy paying 1 billion Euros to buy a pass on the Ark. They RUINED THE MOVIE for him, to the point where he was nonobjective and gave 2012 a 0.0 simply because he was so offended and pissed off. While those scenes are uncomfortable, they alone DO NOT JUSTIFY a 0.0 rating for 2012. I DEMAND a second opinion from a more objective reviewer, and if I were reviewing 2012 I'd give it a 6.5-7.0; it's not perfect by any means, but it certainly is an entertaining disaster movie.
Posted By: 2012 - Final Score: 6.5 or 7.0 (Guest) on November 17, 2009 at 10:27 PM
it is still better than Funny People
Posted By: Darth Mortis (Guest) on November 17, 2009 at 10:27 PM
THat black guy was so damn annoying. If he cared so much why didn't he give up his ticket or get off the arc in protest. Fuck this movie. Why were the kids and wife so happy after their step dad died?
Why did the russian chick die? John Cusack should have died, and the arc should have crashed, then i'd be happy.
Posted By: basicdugganomix (Guest) on November 18, 2009 at 04:54 PM
seen it today and you know what? i didnt mind it , at the very least i was entertained all the way thorugh it.
Posted By: vijayB5 (Guest) on November 18, 2009 at 06:06 PM
I agree with the reviewer's thoughts on this movie. For some reason, I totally thought this was a different movie at one point and then added the brief "2012" references regarding the Mayan suicide cult. I think this movie had way too many characters and failed to make me care for anybody. Watching the original Poseidon Adventure and the Towering Inferno are better in terms of their story and plot compared to this movie. The movie dealt with so much information about "plate tetonics" that I totally forgot it was supposed to be about how the Mayans calendar predicted the end of the world on 12/21/2012. In fact, thinking about it now, the movie really did not occur on that date did it? After all, there was no cold weather in Washington D.C. and nobody seemed to be in the mood for holiday shopping. I think we got totally squirrelled on this movie and it must have been a different movie at one point with a different title. I think they realized they could capitalize on the 2012 rumors and went back and added a few extra shots to make it seem that there was a very loose connection to the Mayan calender. Dumb movie. I want my money back.
Posted By: CrazyAs ASoupSandwich (Guest) on November 22, 2009 at 12:03 AM
