Sound Off: Roland Emmerich's 2012 - What Did You Think?

November 13, 2009


Now that you've seen it, what did you think? The master of disaster is back! German director Roland Emmerich brings us the third and final film in his "disaster trilogy," 2012, this time addressing the belief that the world will come to an end and humanity will become extinct in the year 2012. But does it deliver? Is there a good story found within all the glorious big screen mayhem and destruction? Or is it just a mess of a movie packed with nothing more than cliches and bad CGI? Was it better than The Day After Tomorrow or not? Sound off below, leave a comment, and let us know what you thought of Roland Emmerich's 2012!

I just love Roland Emmerich. No one else can make movies like he does. And I'll admit that I had a blast watching 2012. I really had a great time watching this, watching the world get destroyed. There are a few good "money shots" of epic destruction, but what fascinated me the most was that it actually presents some interesting theories about control and what needs to be done to ensure that the human race lives on. As in, if we really knew the world was coming to an end, how would you react? What would you do? I loved that 2012 touched upon those issues. And as for the usual Emmerich mayhem, well, he delivers plenty of that as well!

What did you think of 2012? Best disaster movie this decade or an unenjoyable CGI mess?

Find more posts: Discuss, Hype, Sound Off



I saw the full trailer. Do I need to see the whole movie?

sumonesumtime on Nov 13, 2009


Hmm thats encouraging Alex, until your post Ive had minimal interest. I'll have to check it out and get back to ya 🙂

Mark D on Nov 13, 2009


Great CGI, effects and all the stuff, but I didn't like the funny climate, to many car-jumping-riding moments. Anyway love the idea (presented again by RE) that we're all the same, we live live on one planet and no matter what there's more than we think that connects us. I guess it was the first huge catastrophe movie when they haven't shown destruction of Manhattan - that's fresh! 8,5/10

Ralph on Nov 13, 2009


SPOILER ALERT I saw this movie last night and it was alright. It was too cheesy and long. It reminded me too much of Independence Day mixed with the Day After Tomorrow. The black scientist is like the scientist in Independence Day who takes his dad everywhere. Woody Harrilson (one of my favorite actors) sadly was like that crazy guy from Independence Day who flew into the space ship to kill them off. That stupid white guy that finally becomes the official President and want everyone else to just die is like that white guy from Independence Day who got punched either by the President or by someone on the staff. John cusac is like the Will Smith of the movie who SURVIVES A FREAKIN SUICIDE MISSION. LOL, HOW DO YOU SURVIVE A FREAKIN SUICIDE MISSION? WHY EVEN CALL IT A SUICIDE MISSION IF IT'S NOT HIGHLY LIKELY FOR YOU TO DIE WHILE ON THE MISSION? EPICALLY GAY!!! However, I digress. After the 30-45 minute to 1 hour ending of them "about" to die by either drowning in water or hitting a wall, I started rooting for them to just die. And then, what really was annoying was how the same group of ppl can escape THREE freaking disasters perfectly safe. THERE WAS NO LOGIC IN THIS MOVIE. JUST CRAP. I won't lie tho. This movie had me interested for a little when I thought everyone would die. Sadly they didn't. I wasn't disappointed the whole movie. Just the last 45 minutes to an hour, so I give it a 4, maybe 5 or 6 out of 10.

Chaos Theory on Nov 13, 2009


Wait people lived at the end? Pfft COME ON!!!! Was gonna see it but knowing that its gonna be all noahs ark bullshit Ill rent it, or wait for it to be on TV.

Cody on Nov 13, 2009


SPOILER ALERT I thought this movie was terrible. When John Cusaks character jumped that trench, then fought with that demon that came out of the trench, that was horrible CGI. Then to find out that the world didnt end because of some biblical prophecy but yet by mutated crab like people who have lived beneath the earth and were tired of how people were mis-treating the planet. Then when Stephen Baldwin got his arm shot off by that crazy shop keep. The cool part is we get to see that chicks bare ass, but how could she survive that third disaster? Being naked in ice water for that long, she would have died. Then at the end when they mated to keep the human race living on, that was pretty hot, then John Cusak and his friend stole that cow and his friend tried to make it with the cow! I wanna party with that guy. The two of us together? Forget it.

Jack n Jill on Nov 13, 2009


This film is only worth seeing to enjoy the visual effects on a big screen. If you want to see the movie, just watch the trailer.

Zachy on Nov 13, 2009


"then John Cusak and his friend stole that cow and his friend tried to make it with the cow! I wanna party with that guy. The two of us together? Forget it." Classic quote! +1

Citruscarb on Nov 13, 2009


Hey Alex No "to fuel the fire?" what the hell man!

xerxex on Nov 13, 2009


"Roger Ebert was enthusiastic about the film, giving it 3.5 stars out of 4, saying it "delivers what it promises, and since no sentient being will buy a ticket expecting anything else, it will be, for its audiences, one of the most satisfactory films of the year." Can wejust go ahead and say that Ebert is full of shit? At one point he insults people who like big dumb CGI action films then he changes and says "since no sentient being will buy a ticket expecting anything else, it will be, for its audiences, one of the most satisfactory films of the year." Alex I'm missing that "To Fuel The Fire" quote man, bring it back!

xerxex on Nov 13, 2009


For some reason the kid's face in the picture creeps me out. It almost looks like CG.

S on Nov 13, 2009


Seen it yesterday. Great visuals but.... Awfull. its not just bad beeing bad, its worst beeing 2 hours and 38 minuts!

Dave on Nov 13, 2009


I thought it was awesmome! lol just get the fact out of your head that this movie is suppost to happen in real life and just view it as a normal fantastic fun destructive movie and you will enjoy it.

Zinc on Nov 13, 2009


Its almost 2012 oh sh%^ ! Now its the mayan calander, don't they have a discovery channel dedicated to 100 ways the world is gonna end. you know whats funny is when i'm with a group of people or somethin that don't see too many great movies and they see somethin like this an they think its the ducks nuts lol.

subcelsious5g on Nov 13, 2009


What a minute, is 'Jack n Jill' serious? There were crab people? I think I wanna see this just because it sounds sooo bad.

Joshua m on Nov 13, 2009


The fire is not fuelled!! What do we do?! The end truly is nigh!

Digital Metaphor on Nov 13, 2009


#10 haha i agree completly

Jmill78 on Nov 13, 2009


LOL I love that people complained about Alex's quote "To Fuel the Fire" and now people are wanting it back. So silly.

Seductive Flamingo on Nov 13, 2009


Hell, after seeing Oprah's depressing 'Everyone jump on the Precious bandwagon with me because it's about a young black girl' last week, this grade A cheese full of amazing CGI from Emmerich was unexpectedly fun. How refreshing it to go to a movie this time of year and sticking it to the critics by enjoying it. Ebert is dead on in his description. 2012 is what it is and not pretending to be anymore than that.

Hattori Hanzo on Nov 13, 2009


Can anyone tell me if it was better than Day After Tomorrow??? i thought DATM was a 7 out of 10 movie

Dan on Nov 13, 2009


#18 Seductive Flamingo I don't see why people even complained, "To fuel the fire" was awesome and it needs to come back!

xerxex on Nov 13, 2009


I might go see this movie this week end.

Fisherr on Nov 13, 2009


"Can wejust go ahead and say that Ebert is full of shit? At one point he insults people who like big dumb CGI action films then he changes and says "since no sentient being will buy a ticket expecting anything else, it will be, for its audiences, one of the most satisfactory films of the year."" I think you're missing the biting sarcasm in that sentence. I think Ebert is frustrated that he's spent his life trying to inform people about film, and people are still swarming all over this kind of crap like flies on shit - literally - instead of using their brains. "It will be, FOR IT'S AUDIENCES, one of the most satisfactory films of the year." Translation: If you're dumb enough to enjoy 'big dumb CGI action films', you'll love this. He's basically just throwing up his hands and saying "Fuck it! You assholes like to watch shit blow up, then I'll grade it based on how good this movie is compared to other shitty disaster movies!" At least, that's what I get out of that review. "Is it a masterpiece? No. Is it one of the year's best? No. Does Emmerich hammer it together with his elbows from parts obtained from the Used Disaster Movie Store? Yes. But is it about as good as a movie in this genre can be? Yes." I have no doubt that there are moments of fun in this, but I'd probably not enjoy it. Not as much as I enjoyed the trailer, anyway. I still can't watch the trailer without laughing my ass off. The fact that this comedy is actually supposed to be a high-octane-action-thriller is just sad. This film looks more like a parody of Bay and Emmerich films in the trailer, up until the last part where they try to get all serious about it. For a brief while I thought maybe that's what Emmerich was going for, but doubtless he's just doing what he always does. If this had been treated like a parody, it could have been brilliant. Imagine a $200 Million parody of Bay / Emmerich films. I'd go to see that.

Squiggly_P on Nov 13, 2009


if you want impressive visual effects and hand clenching intense movements then you might enjoy some of 2012.. if you want a decent story go elsewhere this thing is ott, stupid, insulting and full of plot holes.

dom on Nov 13, 2009


This movie is full of CHEESE!!!! I found myself rolling my eyes at the stupid predictable recycled moments that are supposed to be "dramatic" and "emotional", followed by jokes and comic relief by those same characters that were heartbroken the second before. Its like they recycle the same script from Independnce Day, Armageddon, Transformers, and change the characters names and change the apocolyptic event and call it a new movie. If you are a bonehead, you will like it. The only great thing was the CGI scenes of chaos. That is worth the price of admission.

MIKET on Nov 13, 2009


In one word i can say its an excellent movie.. Excellent graphics..At the beginning of the movie after 10 minutes i saw my town name Vijayawada in Hindi letters. Buts its a long movie 2 hrs 30 min. Worthful to watch

sandeep on Nov 13, 2009


This movie is crap! Saw about half of it and snuck in to see Where the Wild things are again. I didn't ask for my money back but I should have. We are at an all time low as far as movies are concerned.

dee on Nov 13, 2009


Hey Squiggly_P When I read his review I just felt that he has given up on being a decent critic, so I'm assuming he gave it 4 out of 4 just to appease the audience, and I really do not want him too. I usually read his reviews and at times I agree and others I disagree, but he is a great critic and if he has thrown in the towel then fuck him, he needs to be honest and trash the film not give the fans what they want. I f he isn't willing to say "This film is an insult to the human race" then he lost me. I'll say that this film is a failure on epic porportions, plot holes, half-asses acting, and pitiful dialogue, I'm a fan of Peet, Cusack, Platt, and Ejiofor so thats maybe the only redeeming quality it has, but a good cast in a bad movie is still such a waste. My real beef is with Cusack he is a good actor yet he has really picked some bad films recently War, Inc for example but he can still really shine i.e. Martian Child, so I'm still pulling for him, but his performance in 2012 is just sad.

xerxex on Nov 13, 2009


anyone who's seen even just half of independence day or the day after tomorrow,and expects something more than pathetic dialogue,undeveloped characters and a movie that banks in most on overreaching paranoia and larger-than-life effects,is just plain dumb.that is,to go and watch this and have actual expectations that it will be unlike his previous work-meh,the director has a name and niche to maintain for himself,to him at least 2012 is an achievement. that said,alex kudos for avoiding "to fuel the fire"-ive never love you more,i want to suck your toes and send tubes of free sperm to your house.

twispious on Nov 13, 2009


Its enjoyable watching R.E films, but he needs more realism, its such an unjust balance. I mean look at the story, actually a great story-line to really keep everyone interested, good plot hooks to keep the audience intrigiued. However then it falls at the limb with scene's like the Limo doing that crazy driving scene - i can accept a car can do that! BUT NOT A LIMO! It was just too much.

Stuart Mellor on Nov 14, 2009


anyone who thinks that 2012 is a good movie is not a normal person.....

splinter on Nov 14, 2009


well im going to go c it any ways i dnt care how much yall think it sucked

Ashley on Nov 14, 2009


seen 2012 last night. typical ronald crap really. how he isd called master of disaster films is beyond me. 2012 was ok and shit. but did not touch the god or awsome catergory 4 me. the earthquake and volacanic eruption were the only two big destruction scenes and the rest was just little things. done at night so they could do cheap cgi. a few buildings here and there just crumbling down and thats it. film was no were near the destruction on a collosall scale that had been reported. bit like the first transformers film. desruction and violence never seen any of that . presidential speech .. all the emotonal goodbye calls . blah blah. yawn yawn.

keith on Nov 14, 2009


LOL. I'm curious how many of the haters here ACTUALLY went and saw the movie before posting? Not many to be sure.

kidgamer on Nov 14, 2009


I saw it last night, and I agree it was dull of cheesy parts, and at one point I just wanted the world to fall really apart so that he movie could end, it was way too long for me, I had to get out of the cinema so I didn't saw the end, but it couldn't we worse than wen the dog ran to the russian girlfriend.

Dani on Nov 14, 2009


Good golly Miss Molly, GO WATCH 2005/6 "Solar Attack"/"Solar Strike" with Lou Gossett Jr. as the black president (whereas "Lethal Weapon"'s Danny Glover plays it in "2012"), the SAME Stephen McHattie as the main ship admiral in both movies, as too-similar plot in only 90 minutes. ("2012" is 170 min?) John Cusack plays a writer again in 2012, but he's not in Solar Attack. Chiwetel Ejiofor largely reprised his 'operative' role from Whedon's 2005 "Serenity," except in "2012" he's the good guy scientist. Mark Dacascos played the good scientist in "Solar Attack." (Mark played the lead zombie hunter in "I Am Omega" which was the same story released one month earlier than Will Smith's 2007 "I Am Legend." Hollywood: What, me original thought? Sy-Fy network (the artist formerly known as Sci-Fi) is playing "Solar Attack" RIGHT NOW. BUT "2012" IS MUCH MORE EXCITING AND A-movie SPECIAL EFFECTS AND WHOPPING ROLLER-COASTER RIDE, as long as you can get past the much-stretched scientific concepts and endless chain of amazing coincidences. Big fun because I'm big dumb! Emmerich is the 18th highest-grossing director in the USA, bubba. Whee doggies. It's the Sun, stupid, not an asteroid or comet of alien. DON'T YOU agree Stephen McHattie looks a lot like Lance Henriksen, seven years Steve's senior? "That's great, it starts with an earthquake.... It's THE end of the world as we know it, it's THE end of the world as we know it.... and I feel fine"--REM, from the 1987 vinyl album 'Document'

Jorankin on Nov 14, 2009


The movie scared me. I liked it, but it was just to much. I'm scared for 2012 now.

Me. on Nov 14, 2009


Just got back from the movie and I highly recommend it. The special effects were awesome; there's nothing like seeing the city you live in being wiped out. Sure, there were lots of things that were unbelievable, but it's a movie folks! I go to movies to be entertained, and 2012 was extremely entertaining. Roland needs to do a sequel where he blows up the entire galaxy! And Jack n Jill, you need to give up the mind altering drugs.

EJP on Nov 14, 2009


This movie looks good, but, i have not seen it yet and i am planning on seeing it in december with someone in my family who does not live in the smae state as i do but, the thing about this movie that scares me is that the event in the movie about doomsday could actually happen in 2012, because its predicted to happen on december 21st, 2012. But at the same titme it could also just mean the begining of a new erra or a new type of begining in history, like when every time a doomsday happens on earth which is like every millions or billions of years, there is a catastrophy and then every thing on earth dies and then starts over, bt in our case we don't have that option so, our other choice is to, find a way to survive, like buildig a modurn day type of like "noa's ark" , if you get my drift at at all, do you???.

Sean on Nov 14, 2009


by the way, sorry for my mis-spelling some words in my comment before this one, i tend to mis-spedll when i'm typing fast!!!. Sorry, if that makes it harder to read my comment here before this one here!!!.

Sean on Nov 14, 2009


Just saw it, loved the disaster but it had its fair share of dodgy annoying moments. If you can get past the dodgy stuff, its a great film. 1 : Gov Arnie of California won't be Gov in 2012 because he cant run past 2010 due to term limits, plot hole 1. 2 : If Yellowstone blows with them a few feet away from it, there is no way in hell they are getting out, they would be vaporised in seconds by the pyroclastic cloud along with the whole state of Wyoming and the midwest and dont get me started of when he fell in the hole and then climbed out. Honestly guys lets face it, if this were to happen, there aint no running away from it, so just sit back with a whisky and a cigarette and take whats coming.

LA on Nov 14, 2009


Was it just me or was this movie a $200 million metaphor for toilet training?

Dave on Nov 14, 2009


You guys, this was no good, then not a single person would have gone a botherd to have even seen the movie in the first place!!!. The fact that people are going to see it at all, means it definately IS a good movie!!!!!.

Sean on Nov 14, 2009


I thought there was gonna be a scene where Cusack holds up a boombox to the all the destruction to make it stop. That ending would of been more entertaining and make more sense.

MagnoliaFan on Nov 14, 2009


I liked it. But, I went in not expecting to see an Oscar caliber movie. So, I wasn't disappointed and I enjoyed it. What is it with people who are so freakin hard to impress? I mean, really? It's a John Cusak movie. What kind of creative, rare, never-seen-before character did you guys think he was going to create? It's John Cusack! He plays the exact same character in every movie he does. Just as Jennifer Aniston, Vince Vaughn, Denzel, Will Farrell, and countless other actors. When you know who is in it and when you know the plot, how on Earth could you be disappointed when a movie is this freakin predictable? What did you critics expect? I think the movie buffs have to accept the fact that they are not the core audience of any "wide release" films. This movie is made for the masses, not for people who study the fine art of movie making and its historical or cultural relevance. Most folks have never even heard of the Mayan Calender ... until this movie came out. It's like the people who actually debate the validity of the Davinci Code. It's really not that serious. It's a movie, not a history lesson. If it was, the masses wouldn't go see it.

motorola59 on Nov 14, 2009


Let's not forget that back in 1975, Irwin Allen the King of Disaster films directed "The Towering Inferno" with an all star cast. The film received 8 oscar nominations and won 3. It set the bar for disaster films to come, but looking back on it, the movie was a smoldering turd much like Roland Emmerich's 2012. Following in Irwin Allen's footsteps, Roland Emmerich is a film maker who is all about the eye candy. He's not much of a story teller but he certainly knows how to deliver a blockbuster. American Showman P.T. Barnum said "There's a sucker born every minute" and Emmerich knows this all too well. Hack directors like Michael Bay, Brett Ratner, McG, Paul W.S. Anderson and Roland Emmerich are film school rejects just looking to cash in. I suppose they understand the true meaning of Show Biz "ka-ching" but they fail miserably when it comes to the craft of cinematic storytelling. They only know how to deliver forgettable box office flash-in -the-pan fluff which has no real substance and no reason to exist, except to make money, of course. Watching 2012 is like eating cotton candy: It is of little substance, 8-year-old boys love it and although it might taste good at first, ultimately it's not good for you.

Jack Novelli on Nov 14, 2009


I went through several different moods when I viewed this movie. They are below. Boring, this is getting bad, ok, things are picking up, LA getting destroyed is bitchin!, bored, bored some more, Holy shit, some major film company actually spent $200 million dollars on a film that TNT could produce for $5?!?!, really bored, whew...hope thing ends soon, glad that I didn't have to pay to see this.

escobar2248 on Nov 14, 2009


@ Motorola59: "I think the movie buffs have to accept the fact that they are not the core audience of any "wide release" films. This movie is made for the masses, not for people who study the fine art of movie making and its historical or cultural relevance." This is a really vague argument. I've loved a ton of 'wide release' films. The last film I loved was Where the Wild Things Are. I enjoyed Public Enemies, Taken, District 9 (Tho I have serious issues with it as well), Inglorious Basterds... All films from this year that I have enjoyed a lot. Those were all wide release films and generally expected to do reasonably well. Most of them did well enough. You're basically saying that SOME films, like 2012 and Transformers 2, appeal more to a massive audience for some reason, and thus do better. You're saying it's just this sort of movie that's appealing, but I think you're wrong. You'd be surprised how little penetration a lot of films' marketing campaigns get to some people. While I am a closet filmmaker / animator, I happen to have a 'day job' that is akin to a factory job. The people I work with had NO IDEA what District 9 was, and generally remain totally unaware of 90% of the films that get released. The films they all recognize? Saw. Transformers. Ice Age. Pixar stuff. Night at the Museum. GI Joe. Why? The marketing for most films doesn't directly target these people. These people go home and sit on their asses watching American Idol and America's Got Talent and whatever else people like that watch. Placing ads in those time slots is not cheap at all, and studios will sink the most marketing cash into the films that cost them the most to make in an effort to bring that money back to the theaters. The result is a ton of ads for GI Joe and Transformers blanketing every aspect of life, from TV to Fast Food to tie-in marketing deals with other large companies like pepsi and coke in exchange for product placement, etc. The simple fact is that most people aren't on the internet looking for movies to watch. While a lot of people have the internet, the majority of them just use it to goto a few different major websites. These people simply don't give a flying fuck about movies until a movie is able to penetrate their wall of ignorance and force them to notice it. Yeah, they might see an ad or two of the latest Tarantino movie or maybe one quick ad for something like "The Fantastic Mr Fox", they'll see countless ads all over the place for Transformers or GI Joe. It'll be on magazine covers in stores, on their happy meal box, on a billboard, in a number of TV ads, on the radio... Eventually they'll start thinking "Hey, this seems really popular!" Once they notice it, the odds of them going to see it go way up, and as you say, these people don't really care enough to notice plot holes and they are so ignorant of so much that most of the logic flaws in these movies go right past them. You can't spot a flaw in a film if you aren't aware of it being a flaw. The fact that so many people can shrug off so much stupid crap being thrown at them is simply due to the fact that they don't know any better. So basically you're justifying the existence of these films by acknowledging the fact that there are a lot of ignorant people who enjoy them. These same people whould love any number of GOOD movies, tho. The Matrix was a pretty big movie, and very popular, and it wasn't made for mass consumption. Saving Private Ryan was not at all a worthless film, and it made way above what it was speculated to earn at theaters. A super-violent R-rated film - something that most people tend to avoid in the theater - was the biggest financial success of the year. Terminator 2, Back to the Future, The Dark Knight... There are plenty of examples of 'big' movies that aren't poorly made. The fact that the people who made those films successful were largely not interested in their actual stories or characters so much as they were in the effects and action in them is exactly the reason that studios shouldn't be targeting the lowest common denominator. Making over $200 Million, or even $100 Million is not very common at all for theatrically released films. Even popular films don't often do it. You have to really market the fuck out of a movie to get it over $200 Million, and there are some levels of marketing that will guarantee you huge opening weekends and thus pretty much guarantee you rake in over $100 million. Wolverine made nearly $200 Million but was panned by just about everyone who saw it. It's considered a 'failure' by a lot of people, but the thing has earned well over twice it's budget. That's not a failure, and that's the reason they make these movies. Studios know they can market the hell out of something and still make their investment back and profit, even if the film is a critical failure. Cause you know those ignorant people? They don't read reviews, either. These same people are also why they make nothing but sequels and remakes. These ignorant 'masses' can't be bothered to give a shit about something new. Give them a name they recognize and you've already gotten half way through their wall of stupid. I'm rambling now, but yeah. Your argument doesn't really validate these films so much as it condemns them further.

Squiggly_P on Nov 14, 2009


@motorola59 I went into the theater wanting to be entertained and have a good time. Like you, I didn't expect anything close to a oscar caliber film or performances. What pissed me off was the fact that the film had great CGI, with a very mediocre story that did nothing to draw in the audience. The only times I felt drawn to the screen was during the disaster sequences. Everything in between the animation was garbage you'd see on SyFy's Saturday night movie. In addition to all of that, the movie was 30 min. too long. I knew that the film had lost the audience half way through once I began to see all of the cell phone screens pop up. This movie will have a huge dropoff next week.

escobar2248 on Nov 15, 2009


@motorola59 This movie is for what Jeffrey Wells calls the Eloi and Joe Popcorn.

EJP on Nov 15, 2009


All scenes when stuff is falling apart or exploding: awesome! All other scenes: terrible!

Thomster on Nov 15, 2009


HI, I am a Freelancing artist of Print media. I saw this movie. I dont have words left to express my feelings.........its simply gr8. The best movie I have ever saw. Thanks to to entire team of Making 2012. Thanks a lot lot lot.....tones of thanks. Is there any way to thank Mr. Ronald Emmerich personally??????? I am deing to say him thanks for his work. Plz plz plzplzplzplzplzplzzzzzzzzzzzzz give a chance to speak to him and to speak my heart out. Plzzzzz

Praveen Bhandary on Nov 15, 2009


You know what blows my mind, is that you people can be so opinionated and also be such shitty spellers. Yes the movie was nothing special. Being formulaic and predictable was to be expected. If you went into the theater expecting anything more, then you deserve that feeling of remorse and dissapointment that plagued the rest of your night. It was supposed to be a visually stimulating film with subtle moral conflicts, that also touched on environmental issues that need to be addressed. I enjoyed the film quite a bit. By no means will it be nominated for an academy award, but that was not to be expected. I loved that Emmerich touched on the complete absence of humanity, and that the few people left in this world with moral values can instill hope and inspire the gluttonous, greed stricken masses to realize without each other we are nothing.

Ham Sammy on Nov 15, 2009


@ Squiggly_P No, that's not what I was saying. Let me rephrase my point. People who are really, really, into film making basically waste their time and energy when they "expect" a movie that is budgeted to do more than 100 million to be "creative, historically accurate, and/or "deep". My point had absolutely nothing to do with the numbers it actually does at the box office. More-so, I was addressing the critics who expected more from a movie that was made for a wide audience. To further explain my point. Take music. Because I am a musician; to hear people compare Britney Spears to Aretha Franklin drives me up the wall. But, I don't bother arguing about it. Why not? It is because I know people who are really, really are into the art of music making will never ever make such a comparison. The market base who buys Britney, is not the same market base who buys Aretha. Do they sometimes cross over? Of course they do, but that's the exception as oppose to being the rule. So, for someone who is apart of the Aretha market base to complain about Britney's music ... makes no sense to me. It wasn't made for you in the first place. I wasn't justifying why certain films exist. I was asking why are people wasting their time tearing this movie apart, when it wasn't made for them. Sure, most (if not all) of the criticisms are valid. But you (not specifically, but the general) should have known the quality of movie you were going to see before you even went to see it. To go into a hole in the wall restaurant, and complain about the food, service, and decor simply confounds me. Just as people complaining about this film, with in depth analysis. It confounds me. If you re-read my original post with a different premise, you will clearly see that I was not validating, nor condemning the existence of any type of film. I was asking "Why are you wasting your time criticizing this movie? Did you expect something different?" @ escobar2248 I agree with you. THAT is what the movie was supposed to do .. .draw you in with the CGI. I guess we'll see what happens next week. @ EJP LMAO!!!! I love it! I think you are exactly right!

motorola59 on Nov 15, 2009


John Cusack is the new Nic Cage.

MagnoliaFan on Nov 15, 2009


For the consistent haters of these films, they're made to be entertaining, and that's it. If you want to pick it apart, then you obviously have more talent and imagination than the writers and producers, right? Let's see you submit your scripts and ideas to Hollywood. Then we'll find out if you're as smart as you think you are. By the way, oh bitchers, they still got your money and attention, didn't they?

OhPlease on Nov 15, 2009


Haters are ignorant a$$holes. Simple as that and biggest part of what I said is ignorant. They're simply too stupid to comprehend the idea behind the movie. The movie was awesome! I could not imagine any other way save IMAX!!! The destruction was great and lived up to everything I wanted. I paid to see the world be destroyed and I got it! Emmerich really knows how to create disaster. My g/f and I kept saying how cool of a ride that'd be as they flew in the airplane. Seeing Hawaii like that, LA fall apart, DC washed away, and Yellowstone....oh Yellowstone. Gotta like Woody Harrelson!

Tra la la la la di da on Nov 15, 2009


I have never laughed so hard in a film like this before. John Cusack had 100 million lives in this film, and how many times do we need to see a plane take off and then fall as it takes off and then come back up again and be totally surprised that it made it. The visuals were amazing, but that's about it. The Day After Tomorrow was a far better film!

Last Son on Nov 15, 2009


This could have been an awesome cartoon, much cheaper too.

Tom on Nov 16, 2009


so does this mean the gov't will follow footsteps and make an Ark for our 2012 fiasco lol #57 (Poking fun at my boy Tra la la la) well good thing for you, you and your gf might get that chance in a few years to actually see how that ride is in real life lol btw for those that will take this as me hating, I'm not. I expected to see what we all saw, I just would've prefer a real close to possible real life ending rather then Noah's sequel. For example, shit what if there was no Ark what now and what can it look like yada yada.

Blue & Orange NY on Nov 16, 2009


SPOILER: Cut the cruise ship scenes, cut the president dying, cut the entire scene with a giant 100 ton door being held in place with a hose and some plastic, cut the stepdad drama, cut the drama with the people on the loading dock and just edit together a scene that makes it look like everyone is rushing into the ship as the clock counts down. Do this and we'll be in business. 2012 is not a bad movie, it just makes some bad decisions. It's still considerably better than Day After Tommorrow or Transformers.

Carlos on Nov 16, 2009


#60 Only if we can learn to fly a plane and obtain one then. 😀 Also if we have writers that let us drive through buildings and fly under falling buildings and cracks int he earth without being hit by an insane amount of debris! lol We'd start from Africa again I presume. It wasn't perfect at least. They had like 9 arcs or something and only 3 were working so they did miss out on A LOT of extra room for people, supplies, and cultural icons.

Tra la la la la di da on Nov 16, 2009


Well, I liked the movie. Im a visual person and this movie was great for ME. Get it? For ME!!! All of you people calling us stupid and ignorant for liking this movie, guess what? How about you're stupid and ignorant for thinking that everyone is supposed to feel the same way you do. I care nothing about filmmaking and how a movie is supposed to be constructed. If the movie interests me, then Im going to see it regardless of who likes it. I don't even listen to critics in helping me to decide what movie Im going to see. Its all about what I like. I don't expect anyone to like the same things that I like and neither should anyone else.

toby on Nov 16, 2009


Thought it was utter toos, and way too long utter toss at that. The destruction pr0n was impressive enough I suppose, especially up to the initial airborne escape from California, but it did get more than a bit repetive after a while. Less said about the actual story the better as well. I know its a popcorn 'leave your brain at home' movie. Unfortunately I think my brain overheard the 'mutant neutrinos' line and reasserted control at that point. All power to you if you liked it, but I'd have been demanding my money back if I'd paid to see it!

Dave on Nov 19, 2009


Am I the only person who thinks this WAY TO CLOSELY resembled a large portion of Clive Cussler's "Atlantis Found". I thought naming the novel in the movie "Farewell Atlantis" (as well as that being the original working title) were a nod to the original novel - but unless I missed it in the credits I didn't see Clive's book credited. (Nor have I found any mention of it on the web so far.) Pace

Pace on Nov 22, 2009


I waited anxiously for this movies' release and was absolutely disappointed. I don't care how good the special effects were - the subject matter of this film could've had a fantastic storyline which was just like the continents in the film - unable to form a solid foundation for anything to survive. Absolute pants and a waste of an important context! COMPLETE RUBBISH!!!

Baz on Nov 25, 2009


i suppose that high expectations at first leave you disapointed in the end. I didnt have huge expecations at first, i just wanted to be entertained but i was pleasantly surprised at the quality of the script and acting so i loved every second. its very pulse pounding near the end and a lot of nice people die which sort of gives it a sad emotional effect. Definately for the dvd collection. it sort of makes you think about your humanity (if you get my meaning). Id say that its as good as Rolands freezing 'the day after tomorrow' but not as good as independance day. Watch it but remember to not expect good movies in the future so that you can be pleasantly suprised. aaaaaand i also like the mass destruction and mayhem. lol

yumyumfish on Dec 9, 2009


its nuthing but a ploy to draw more to there websites and forums. if anything did happen i kind of would like to see year around 80 degrees and allways sunny we can getb our water from mars

kerry on Dec 9, 2009


but what i really think of these 2012 websites especially those with that perturbed count down timer to 2012. that count down clock of there’s. is that its a front. and there’s another reason for all this 2012 thing there not telling. i don’t know what it is but its there. one 2012 site accuses the us gov of all sorts of lies. and has a page on buying weapons. and under ground bunkers. like the site knows what’s going to happen. yet in the whole website are predictions on what may or may not happen. i only been there 2 weeks and still don’t know why they wont delete my membership. that to is kind of suspicious

kerry on Dec 9, 2009


saw it last night. after watching RE's other over loaded CGI crap movies, i wasn't expecting much else. Both Independance Day and Godzilla were massive disapointments, and i didn't even bother with Day After Tomorrow. though i did like The Patriot.....a surprising non-CGI film. but i digress a little. once again, the acting/script was horrible, there were way too many sub-plots, and the ending was obvious and predictable. but if your just in it for the CGI stuff, then go see it on the big screen. there are some scenes that are worth it just for that.

chad on Dec 10, 2009


I am a scientist...... I am also perfectly capable of suspending my disbelief in order to enjoy a film that is (lets face it) pure fantasy. However, I expect to see a story that a) is at least logical without huge holes in it and b) does not insult me with unconsidered pseudo scientific claptrap. At least in Star Trek they invented a whole new type of scinece to explain transporters and warp drive and then they stuck to it.... This movie simply hoped that watchers were so blown away with the SFX that they forgot to keep tabs on the progression of the story!!!!!!!!!! Utter junk in my humble opinion!

FOOM on Dec 11, 2009


I especially enjoyed the scene where Cusack chugged a couple of 40's of Steel Reserve (211) and hung out the side of the small plane as he pissed into the lava filled crevice that L.A. had become and he put the fires out!!!! And then, when he stuck his hand outside the cockpit window to use the spinning propeller to cut slices of salami and gorgonzola for salami and gorgonzola on rye sandwiches for everybody!!!! Oh, the humanity.........

Merv on Dec 11, 2009


the movie sucked it made no sense worst planetary disaster movie ever

sam on Dec 15, 2009


i think when 2012 comes and nuthing happends the 2012 websites will look pretty dumb.. cant wait to see what excuse they come up with

kerry on Dec 29, 2009


@72: Idiot. Funny, but you are an idiot. No one in their right mind drinks 211. King Cobra, Schlitz, even Olde English 800. Fucking 211 coon piss.

Harry The Spammer on Dec 29, 2009


@#43 Wow.... I mean WOW... you're a fool. Of course people are going to see an overhyped movie, that doesn't mean it's good. You need to be stripped of your right to vote, because you are obviously a fool. You are the reason this movie made any money after the first week or in dvd sales. I hope what you typed was a joke. Idiot.

Seriously on Mar 5, 2010


Why was Sam Worthington not in this? Epic cheese movies are his forte. @72 - WTF???

Where's Sam? on Mar 5, 2010


@#76- No, what i said was not a joke!, so deal with it!.

Sean on Mar 5, 2010


@65, I started to realized that when the two boys said they tickets to a large ship, 'we will live, and you will die. . .' sounds like a hint to KARL WOLF TO ME!!

KINVAR on Jun 27, 2010

New comments are no longer allowed on this post.



Subscribe to our feed -or- daily newsletter:
Follow Alex's main account on twitter:
For the latest posts only - follow this one:

Add our updates to your Feedly - click here

Get the latest posts sent in Telegram Telegram