2012

A lot of nice effects popped up, but the stupid story is just unforgivable. The whole world revolves around John Cusack, who drives under a falling skyscraper to escape all manner of disasters on air, land and sea by a hair’s breadth a hundred different times. Not to mention the unnatural reactions of his entire family. A long, long waste of time. A weak 2 stars. (12/23/2012)

The guilty pleasure of the century, though actually only from the point of view of how that “realistic” catastrophe takes on enormous fantasy dimensions in Emmerich’s hands. In terms of narration and direction there’s not much to complain; the story is incredibly brisk, it exploits the potential of the epic premise in an entertaining way, putting ordinary and helpless people in the middle of a huge natural disaster, and holds itself together thanks to its traditionally wide communicativeness and the systematic work with deadlines that go from micro-events (escaping from the city, escaping on a plane from an erupting volcano) to the motivations of the main story (getting the necessary information, a map for rescue and means of transportation, boarding on time and fixing a defect that could kill everyone). It’s full of clichés and last-second escapes, but that serves to intensify the massive mark it leaves in the history of the genre, also making clear that we aren’t supposed to take it seriously. On the one hand, that’s a shame because the premise calls for an intense experience, but you can’t really complain when the result is so entertaining and original in the details. Notwithstanding its lapses in logic, I love watching 2012, such a formally mastered and self-aware over-the-top blockbuster is not something we get every year. (01/29/2019)

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)

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. (11/14/2009)