2012

I always enjoyed Emmerich’s megalomanic demolition of our Mother Earth, and the promise that this time destruction would be ultimate left my humanity-hating self excited to the max. The trailer massage did not disappoint and the movie in itself came up to my expectations. Don’t get me wrong, it is complete bullshit, with a stupid script, but it has a certain charm. The “last minute" escapes are just mouth watering. The whole driving through L. A. scene is so ridiculously cheesy and cool, it may well make it into my TOP movie scenes. When there’s no destruction going on, we have great actors who are fun to watch. I strongly recommend watching 2012 in a movie theater. Same as with all destruction movies. - Whoa, that’s a big plane. - It’s Russian. (11/20/2009)

The potential for fun is utilized to the maximum in 2012. The individual scenes are clichés, but as a whole they take the story through not entirely predictable paths and give us more than we’ve seen in the trailers. I didn’t feel for a moment that the movie tries to look more serious than it should – Roland Emmerich is surprisingly able to balance every absurdity with an adequate dose of humor (the ride through L.A. in a limousine that, among other things, gets splashed by the contents of a gully sucker, is a pure comedy that has no place in a disaster movie), but he’s also able to impress (amazing tidal waves). But what most surprised me about 2012 and made me give it four stars (and no, it wasn’t the special effects, which were mediocre in places, and definitely not the cheap digital-camera look that we might have to get used to even with big-budget eye-candy movies) is the political approach: the least ethical figure in the film is the US government big shot, the rich are criticized for saving their necks at the expense of the workers, and this time the world’s salvation is not the American flag, but a full-screen map with the word “CHINA” written on it. The American flag is rather ridiculed thanks to the comical character played by Woody Harrelson (in a great scene on a hill with a valley view). And every big nation/continent is represented by either an aptly written and cast supporting character (the Russian family of three and their dog are my favorites) or at least symbolically mentioned (Africa...). 2012 is a blockbuster disaster flick that is so audience-friendly that it, together with its high entertaining value, managed to worm its way into my heart. And I don’t give a crap that Mona Lisa is overlooking the Eiffel Tower from the Louvre in the film. ___ Second viewing: I wish Emmerich was a big shot politician – then there’d be no wars and everyone would just amicably hold each other’s hand (and go to the movies). This movie is just overflowing with his love for old Hollywood adventure/disaster flicks. The ultimate guilty pleasure. (11/05/2009)

Better than The Day After Tomorrow and a tiny bit weaker than Independence Day. You have to accept Emmerich's game of "let the protagonists escape everything and solve everything at the last second", watch the screen, marvel and have fun. This film can be best described as: A perfect visual and sound orgy. The special effects are something truly unreal (and let's face it, they're the ones that attract most people to 2012) - the destruction of California, the Yellowstone volcano eruption, the flight and landing of a giant Russian plane, the Ark... Of course there are the ubiquitous allusions to the Bible, God and religion of all kinds (my favorite is the crack in the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel that appears between "those two fingers"), but the actors are also a delight. Cusack is standard, therefore good, Woody Harrelson enjoys his "nutcase" perfectly, Glover's president is quite folksy, but you still feel authority from him. Unforgettable, however, is the Russian Zlatko Burić (and his two prides - Antonov and Bentley)... Bottom line: 2012 is one of the funniest clichés I've ever seen, and I'll definitely go see it again and gladly. The 158 minutes went by suspiciously fast. Avatar, you lost this one. (11/13/2009)

You're quite a guy, Roland. For my fifty, I enjoyed the Himalayas of royal entertainment. Several family action scenes also attack the master of spectacular idiocy Michael Bay, but best of all: Roland has learned to poke fun at himself. Whether it's the engagement of the bristled Cusack, the figure of the Russian oligarch (his "it´s Russian" aspires to be the line of the year), or small jokes with animals. At times, I felt like I was watching a parody of The Day After Tomorrow. Of course, to put it bluntly, 2012 is a typical Roland destructive exhibition, beautifully pointed out in the author's guileless optimism. The 3 hours flow by quickly, and during wooden conversations, hard-core fans of Emmerichisms will be satisfied in a solid state, the effects suggest that water is still not quite where it needs to be, and authentic digital will say that Roland wants to go with the times. He essentially does his own thing. I hate to say it: I used to like him because I was able to make fun of him, but now, after his best Hollywood film, which 2012 undoubtedly is, I simply like him. He is so beautifully and peculiarly PURELY... fill in the noun according to your opinion. (12/13/2009)

Emmerich as a director cannot be surprised, because he is essentially monothematic. His strengths and weaknesses are intimately known to the audience, so even his latest film should be avoided by anyone expecting something more than bombastic effects and action. His conception of the end of the world can be immensely attacked and ridiculed from intellectual positions. As is traditional for him, he resigns on even the most basic logic in his storytelling, boldly using the most cliched genre schemes, unabashedly stuffing his film with all possible pop-cultural symbols from Princess Diana to Mona Lisa. The dialogues are stupid, and as is customary for him, it is heavily American patriotic, permeated with family values, the plot is predictable, and the characters are clearly readable. From the very beginning, experienced viewers can infer which characters will survive and which will be deservedly punished for their "sins." On the other hand, if one looks at his film with detachment, despite all its stupidity, it is entertaining, decently ticking along, and well cast both in terms of types and acting performances. It's definitely not a film I would have the slightest desire to revisit in the future, but as a popcorn treat, it is bearable in one viewing. Overall impression: 50%. (12/13/2009)