2012: Movie Review

People like disaster films and that is the truth. Some may argue that it was just a fad mostly from the late Nineties but disaster films have been steadily coming out since then. Problem with disaster films though is that they are predictable as more emphasis is given on the disaster than anything else. The year 2012 specifically December 21, 2012 has always bothered modern man. The Mayan long count ends at this date and some even contest that not only sages but even computers have predicted that something will definitely happen on this date. It comes to no surprise then that a film out of the disaster genre was made about the year 2012. Can "2012" be more than your average disaster film? Read on to find out.

The year is 2009, an Indian scientist discovers that a solar flare has caused an abnormality in the Earth's interior. Soon they discover that this rise in temperature of the Earth's core will lead to its inevitable destruction. In 2010, the G10 leaders are told about the problem and they begin a secret project to save a portion of humanity. Fast forward to 2012, Jackson Curtis (John Cusack) is going camping with his kids. When they arrive in Yellowstone National Park, they discover that the lake has dried up. They meet a man (Woody Harrelson) who tells Jackson that the end is near and that the government has always known about it. He shrugs off the man as crazy but soon, a massive earthquake destroys L.A. and Jackson and his family barely escape. Jackson now knows that the man was telling the truth. Can he and his family survive?

We feel that the whole 2012 story was irrelevant throughout the movie - they could have set the disaster time in 2011 or 2013 and it wouldn't have made a difference. There was nothing about "2012" that makes it special as the movie's main point is to just show massive worldwide destruction. "2012" may be your typical disaster film but even though this was the case, the film never got boring. Disasters you'll witness from start to finish will leave you awestruck for sure. Some people may see the film though as repetitive and unimaginative. For example, they had to ride a plane to get out of disaster - THREE times! The setting was different but can't they think of anything else? The acting was good at most parts but some of the dialog just became too cheesy for our tastes. Also, there is a big moral dilemma towards the end of the film that just did not make much sense to us (which some people may find otherwise). In the end, it just boils down if you are too serious of a watcher or not. If you expect this film to be a realistic look into humanity's struggle for existence, then it will fall flat on you. But if you will watch this not expecting much than what is typical, then you will enjoy it hands down. "2012" is not for everyone - we wished it could have been executed a lot better than your typical Nineties disaster film but we cannot deny that it was enjoyable on some end.

Rating: 3 reels

Why you should watch it:
- destruction and chaos were all breathtaking
- never gets boring with all the action on screen even with a running time of two hours

Why you shouldn't watch it:
- scientists at heart would have a hard time accepting this film as reality
- becomes too repetitive even with the outcomes of the disasters
- really predictable - if you have seen other disaster films, then this is not much different

Do not forget that you can subscribe for FREE to our RSS Feed via Email
You can also follow us at our Twitter Account by clicking here
You can also add our site toolbar for FREE by clicking here



  1. Nice review. I use this articles on my blog
    2012 movie review
    thank you

  2. Thanks for sourcing our review. We appreciate it and actually feel really flattered!

  3. Hi,
    The 2012 movie is brought to us by master of disaster Roland Emmerich, director of ID4, Godzilla, The Day After Tomorrow and 10,000 B.C. The preview is trying to sell us on effects awesomeness. Let’s strip away the bulls**t and see it for what it is - a likely sign of the moviepocalypse.

  4. I love disaster movies, and this one was a lot of fun. There is no plausability, but most of them are pretty implausable by their very nature. I don't feel bad about spending the $20 bucks for me and the wife. If there is anything Roland Emerich knows how to do, it's blow up things.