2012

I liked The Rock with Alexandra Daddario more than the unlikeable John Cusack with his annoying family. As for the visual effects, they're decent except for the Yellowstone volcano eruption, I didn't like those visual effects much, but the first destruction or the ending on the ship had quite a bit of spark, though it's not very adrenaline-pumping. The running time is a problem, a lot of time is spent on the family relationships, which I don't find very appealing. 65%. (04/26/2016)

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)

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)

Five minutes of fun are always ruined by half an hour of boring and incredibly dull bollocks. Where are the days of Independence Day and Godzilla? They didn’t have such megalomaniac destruction, but their stories held together and they were fun and tense throughout. If we consider the contents, the runtime of 2012 is so excessive that by the end (or rather, the last hour) it was hard for me to refrain from doing something else and leave the film on as background noise. Maybe it’s good for the undemanding audience craving for a CGI orgy, but I’m unable to turn off my brain thoroughly enough to say the same. (12/04/2009)