movie review of 2012 is a perfect disaster

Movie Reviews

Tv/streaming, collections, chaz's journal, great movies, contributors, the late, great planet earth: a thoroughly destroyable show.

Now streaming on:

It's not so much that the Earth is destroyed, but that it's done so thoroughly. "2012," the mother of all disaster movies (and the father, and the extended family) spends half an hour on ominous set-up scenes (scientists warn, strange events occur, prophets rant and of course a family is introduced) and then unleashes two hours of cataclysmic special events hammering the Earth relentlessly.

This is fun. "2012" 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. It even has real actors in it. Like all the best disaster movies, it's funniest at its most hysterical. You think you've seen end-of-the-world movies? This one ends the world, stomps on it, grinds it up and spits it out.

It also continues a recent trend toward the wholesale destruction of famous monuments. Roland Emmerich , the director and co-writer, has been vandalizing monuments for years, as in " Independence Day ," "The Day After Tomorrow" and " Godzilla ." I still hold a grudge against him for that one because he provided New York with a Mayor Ebert and didn't have Godzilla step on me and then squish me.

In all disaster movies, landmarks fall like dominos. The Empire State Building is made of rubber. The Golden Gate Bridge collapses like clockwork. Big Ben ticks his last. The Eiffel Tower? Quel dommage!

Memo to anyone on the National Mall: When the Earth's crust is shifting, don't stand within range of the Washington Monument. Chicago is often spared; we aren't as iconic as Manhattan. There's little in Los Angeles distinctive enough to be destroyed, but it all goes, anyway.

Emmerich thinks on a big scale. Yes, he destroys regular stuff. It will come as little surprise (because at this writing the film's trailer on YouTube alone had more than 7,591,413 views) that the aircraft carrier John F. Kennedy rides a tsunami onto the White House. When St. Peter's Basilica is destroyed, Leonardo's God and Adam are split apart just where their fingers touch (the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel having been moved into St. Peter's for the occasion). Then when Emmerich gets warmed up, the globe's tectonic plates shift thousands of miles, water covers the planet, and a giraffe walks aboard an ark.

Also on board are the humans chosen to survive, including all the characters who have not already been crushed, drowned or fallen into great crevices opening up in the Earth. These include the heroic Jackson Curtis ( John Cusack ) and his estranged wife, Kate ( Amanda Peet ); President Wilson ( Danny Glover ), his chief science adviser, Adrian Helmsley ( Chiwetel Ejiofor ), and his chief of staff, Carl Anheuser ( Oliver Platt ).

Many gigantic arks have been secretly constructed inside the Himalayas by the Chinese, funded by a global consortium, and they're the only chance of the human race surviving. Along with the animals on board, there's the maybe well-named Noah (Liam James). In theory, ark ticketholders represent a cross-section of the globe, chosen democratically. In practice, Carl Anheuser pulls strings to benefit the rich and connected, and wants to strand desperate poor people on the dock. I'm thinking, Emmerich often has a twist when he names villains, like Mayor Ebert from "Godzilla." So how did this villain get his name? What does "Anheuser" make you think of?

Such questions pale by comparison with more alarming events. The tectonic plates shift so violently scientists can almost see them on Google Earth. This havoc requires stupendous special effects. Emmerich's budget was $250 million, and "2012" may contain more f/x in total running time than any other film. They're impressive. Not always convincing, because how can the flooding of the Himalayas be made convincing? And Emmerich gives us time to regard the effects and appreciate them, even savor them, unlike the ADD generation and its quick-cutting Bay-cams.

Emmmerich also constructs dramatic real-scale illusions, as when an earthquake fissure splits a grocery store in half. Cusack is the hero in an elaborate sequence involving his desperate attempts to unblock a jammed hydraulic lift that threatens to sink the ark. He does a lot of heroic stuff in this film, especially for a novelist, like leaping a van over a yawning chasm and riding a small plane through roiling clouds of earthquake dust.

The bottom line is: The movie gives you your money's worth. 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. No doubt it will inflame fears about our demise on Dec. 21, 2012. I'm worried, too. I expect that to be even worse than Y2K.

Roger Ebert

Roger Ebert was the film critic of the Chicago Sun-Times from 1967 until his death in 2013. In 1975, he won the Pulitzer Prize for distinguished criticism.

Now playing

Despicable Me 4

Matt zoller seitz.

Sorry/Not Sorry

Brian Tallerico

The Girl in the Pool

Marya e. gates.

Running on Empty

Monica castillo.

Film Credits

2012 (2009)

Rated PG-13 for intense disaster sequences, some strong language and apocalyptic violence

158 minutes

John Cusack as Jackson Curtis

Amanda Peet as Kate Curtis

Chiwetel Ejiofor as Adrian Helmsley

Oliver Platt as Carl Anheuser

Woody Harrelson as Charlie

Danny Glover as President

Thandie Newton as Laura Wilson

Directed by

• Roland Emmerich
• Harald Kloser

Latest blog posts

The Box Office is Everything: In Praise of the Window at the Front of the Theater

The Fairy Tale Shoes: Interview With the Cast and Crew of Cuckoo

On the Trail: India Donaldson on Good One

The Texture of Night: How Collateral Revolutionized Movies

Review: As a Disaster Film, '2012' Succeeds

One mightbe excused for wondering what, exactly, German director Roland Emmerich has againstthe United States.After all, his films (such as ?Independence Day ? and ?The Day AfterTomorrow ? ) famously show American icons such as the White House and theStatue of Liberty being destroyed.

With his new film ?2012? ,Emmerich upsthe ante, depicting a global disaster caused by terrestrial instability. JohnCusack stars as Jackson Curtis, a LosAngeles writer whose failed novel broke up his marriage.Jackson wantsto reunite with his family, and ends up going (almost literally) to the ends ofthe earth to save them. At the same time in WashingtonD.C., the president?s chiefscience advisor discovers an impending danger in the Earth?s unsettled tectonicplates. He butts heads with the chief of staff over when the information shouldbe made public, and who they should tell first.

The filmtackles a variety of weighty questions, such as: If the end of the world wascoming, what would you do? If only the government knew, who should be told? Ifthere was a way that some people could survive, who should decide who lives andwho dies?

In the caseof a true global catastrophe, is there really any point to announcing it to theworld? Put simply, if everyone?s gonna die in 36 hours and there?s nothing anyone can do,what?s the point in telling people? Assuming you had perfect knowledge, whybother? Some people would panic, others wouldn?t believe it anyway, and otherswould try to write and market their book on it overnight.

These areinteresting questions, but unfortunately get lost amid the film?s shouting andexplosions and crashes. About a half dozen subplots appear, several of themawkwardly aborted in the rush to get to the disaster scenes.

Then thereare the implausibilities ?and I?m not even talking about LosAngeles sliding into the ocean in such a cinematicfashion. Jackson Curtis has more lives than James Bond and Indiana Jones puttogether, as he literally outruns fireballs and earthquakes, saving the daywith each step. But my favorite eye-roller is when almost the entire world hasbeen consumed by fire and flood ? except, apparently, the parts that allow alast-minute cell phone call so that two lead characters can share one lastscene together.

But tocriticize a disaster film for being implausible is itself a bit silly. Peopledon?t go to disaster movies to see rich emotional tapestry or ?Memento?-likeairtight logic; they go to see stuff get blowed up. And on that level, itsucceeds.

Get the Space.com Newsletter

Breaking space news, the latest updates on rocket launches, skywatching events and more!

Destroyingthe world is not easy, and the filmmakers used a variety of special effectstechniques to bring global disaster to the big screen. From a visual effectsstandpoint alone, ?2012? is a remarkable achievement. The actors were often onmoving sets ? none of that cheesy original ?Star Trek? technique of throwingactors to the floor while shaking the camera to simulate explosion concussions.In many of the scenes, the objects are actually collapsing around the actors,as giant gimbals and hydraulic lifts jostle and jolt the sets. Some of thescenes are remarkably effective (a shot of a giant wave overtaking a cruiseship is genuinely chilling, reminding me of ?The Perfect Storm?), while othersjust look like a cartoony video game.

The film isbasically a retelling of the Noah?s Ark flood story, and has nothing to do with the date 2012. It could have been setin 1995 or 2013, but the 2012 angle made a perfect hook for the film: Why nottie it in with the supposed end of the world, allegedly tied to the end of theMayan calendar in 2012?

Notsurprisingly, Columbia Pictures is taking full advantage of the New Agey 2012 doomsdaydiscussion/panic/concern to help promote the film. Over the past year or so,many people have suggested that the year 2012 will bring some sort ofsignificant change, either catastrophicdisaster (as in the film) or perhaps a new age of enlightenment (as in whatdid not happen with the so-called Harmonic Convergence in 1987). The linkbetween global catastrophe and Mayan calendar-based prophecy is tenuous atbest. Some ads for the ?2012? film begin with the phrase ?The Mayans warnedus,? though of course the Mayans did not ?warn? anyone?they simply had acalendar system that happens to ?end? in 2012, much as our Gregorian calendar?ends? on December 31. The Mayans never said the world would end that year, andhave shown irritation and contempt for the way that their culture has beenco-opted into pop culture notions and Hollywoodblockbuster film promotions.

New Age anddoomsday authors have been cranking out 2012-themed books at an amazing paceover the past six months; there are literally tens of thousands of such titlesin print, with more hitting the bookstores every day. It seems that anyone withaccess to a keyboard and an opinion on 2012 (or prophecy in general) is outthere tryingto cash in . It will be interesting to see how many of those will be forsale on Amazon.com for one cent on January 1, 2013.

Iinterviewed director and cast of ?2012? for LiveScience.com; you can seethe videosof the interviews at Newsarama. Of particular interest is my interview withChiwetel Ejiofor, in which hediscusses how his characterstruggles to maintain scientific integrity in the face of political influences.After the Bush administration?s well-publicized anti-science stance and overtattempts to bend scientific research for political ends, this point seemsespecially relevant.

Though 2012 is not a great film, it does have some interesting pro-science aspectsthat skeptics and science folks should take note of. While John Cusack is thelead star, the hero of the film is really a black scientist, Adrian Helmsley (Chiwetel Ejiofor). Helmsley is thepresident?s chief science advisor, and it is he who first discovers theimpending danger. The film somewhat realistically portrays the difficulties ofscientific uncertainty?how sure do you have to be to sound the alarm? This isnot an academic question, and arises in discussions of scientific prediction ona wide range of topics ranging from asteroid impacts to global warming.

Not only isthe scientist the hero, he is also the film?s major moral compass. There are noevil, white lab-coated scientists in ?2012?, there are only scientists doingtheir best to save humanity (and a few nerds thrown in for good measure). ?2012?is a completely humanistic disaster film; the catastrophes are not the work ofangry gods, nor magic spells,but nature itself. The film shows prayer failing miserably to stop thedestruction (even the Pope in the Vaticangets smacked away; Emmerichtold me he originally wanted to show Meccabeing destroyed, but didn?t want to risk a fatwa). In the end it isscience?hardworking, unglamorous science?that saves the day.

These arewonderful, humanistic, pro-science depictions that I?d hope to see in morefilms; it?s a shame to see them buried amid so many CGI disasters andexplosions in ?2012?.

• The Truth About 2012 Doomsday Hype
• 10 Failed Doomsday Predictions
• Video - 2012: Roland Emmerich Speaks

Benjamin Radford is managingeditor of the Skeptical Inquirer science magazine. He is authoror co-author of three books on skepticism and science literacy. They can befound on his website .

Join our Space Forums to keep talking space on the latest missions, night sky and more! And if you have a news tip, correction or comment, let us know at: [email protected].

'Borderlands' review: A return to the dark ages of video game adaptations

Marvel and 'Star Wars' take note. 'Star Trek' is now Hollywood's ultimate shared universe

Axiom Space's next astronaut mission to the ISS with SpaceX delayed to spring 2025

Most Popular

• 2 NASA satellite data adds key pollutant to national environmental justice database
• 3 Chinese astronauts celebrate Olympics on Tiangong space station (video)
• 4 'Borderlands' review: A return to the dark ages of video game adaptations
• 5 Everything we know about Blade Runner 2099: Release date, plot, cast & more

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

'2012': Disaster Strikes (And Strikes, And Strikes)

Bob Mondello

Jackson Strive: The movie might be shorter if he were just a little slower, but John Cusack's bookish Jackson Curtis always manages to stay a step ahead of the advancing abyss. Columbia Tristar Marketing Group hide caption

• Director: Roland Emmerich
• Genre: Action Drama
• Running Time: 158 minutes

Rated: PG-13 With: John Cusack, Woody Harrelson, Thandie Newton, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Danny Glover, Amanda Peet

Watch Clips

'Download My Blog'

Media no longer available

'L.A. Escape'

'Taking The Bentley'

Say this for Roland Emmerich's latest movie: It is a disaster.

Granted, for maybe an hour of its running time, 2012 is a reasonably kinetic catastrophe. Anyone who's seen the director's previous pictures (Godzilla, Independence Day, The Day After Tomorrow) has to have known that he and his army of digitizers would arrange for the world to end not with a whimper but with a particularly showy bang.

But when the Earth isn't swallowing up whole cities or belching lava at low-flying planes, the poor actors keep opening their mouths, and that proves problematic. When they're screaming it's fine, but all too often they make the mistake of trying to explain what's going on.

California, you see, is falling apart, not from budget problems but from a shift in the Earth's crust. The shift has been caused — the actors tend to talk very fast when science comes up, so I may have misheard this — by solar flares heating up the Earth's core. Or by a weird alignment of the planets, as predicted by the Maya. Or maybe both.

Whatever: The powers that be have somehow managed to hide the coming calamity from everyone on Earth except for one Los Angeles limo driver (John Cusack). And lucky for him, the apocalypse doesn't affect cell phone coverage, so he can call his ex-wife (Amanda Peet) and get her to pile the kids into the limo just seconds before their house crumbles. Also piling in, to his initial consternation, is his wife's new boyfriend (Thomas McCarthy); happily, he has taken a few weeks of flying lessons and will come in handy later.

From there, the family starts a mad scramble, seemingly to stay in the path of whatever new catastrophe nature throws their way. On the ground, they're chased by some surprisingly linear earthquakes; in the air, they dodge not just volcanic ash but flying subway trains.

And then — after much digitized North American carnage and a bit of comic distraction from an amusingly addled Woody Harrelson — comes the worldwide deluge, with waves crashing over the Himalayas.

Many silly notions get advanced in 2012, not least among them the idea that Woody Harrelson (right) is the one nongovernmental guy who has seen the trouble coming. Columbia Pictures hide caption

Many silly notions get advanced in 2012, not least among them the idea that Woody Harrelson (right) is the one nongovernmental guy who has seen the trouble coming.

Say what you will about the excess, but you have to admit that Emmerich hasn't lost his flair for destroying major landmarks: Who but this disaster-porn artiste would think to go bowling with St. Peter's dome? Still, his insistence on both quoting and topping every disaster movie from The Poseidon Adventure to Home Alone does make the End Times seem pretty much endless.

There's perhaps 40 minutes of cheesy but genuinely spectacular special effects — the stuff you came for — and two additional hours of painfully idiotic plot. Trust me, your mind will wander as a lapdog is reunited with its mistress and the president's daughter (Thandie Newton) finds true love with a rather full-of-himself geologist (Chiwetel Ejiofor).

It's nice to see that none of these folks is overly troubled by the death of the planet's 6 billion other inhabitants. But then you won't be, either, which is sort of the magic of this movie: By the time it's over, you'll feel like it is 2012 already, and you'll have such a headache that it'd be kind of nice if the whole world went away.

🙌 Awesome, you're subscribed!

Thanks for subscribing! Look out for your first newsletter in your inbox soon!

Get us in your inbox

Sign up to our newsletter for the latest and greatest from your city and beyond

By entering your email address you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy and consent to receive emails from Time Out about news, events, offers and partner promotions.

Awesome, you're subscribed!

The best things in life are free.

Sign up for our email to enjoy your city without spending a thing (as well as some options when you’re feeling flush).

Déjà vu! We already have this email. Try another?

Love the mag?

Our newsletter hand-delivers the best bits to your inbox. Sign up to unlock our digital magazines and also receive the latest news, events, offers and partner promotions.

• Things to Do
• Food & Drink
• Arts & Culture
• Time Out Market
• Coca-Cola Foodmarks
• Los Angeles

• Recommended

Time Out says

Release details.

• Release date: Friday 13 November 2009
• Duration: 158 mins

Cast and crew

• Director: Roland Emmerich
• Woody Harrelson
• John Cusack
• Amanda Peet
• Chiwetel Ejiofor

Been there, done that? Think again, my friend.

Discover Time Out original video

• Press office
• Investor relations
• Work for Time Out
• Editorial guidelines
• Privacy notice
• Do not sell my information
• Cookie policy
• Accessibility statement
• Terms of use
• Modern slavery statement
• Manage cookies
• Advertising

Time Out Worldwide

• All Time Out Locations
• North America
• South America
• South Pacific

Log in or sign up for Rotten Tomatoes

Trouble logging in?

By continuing, you agree to the Privacy Policy and the Terms and Policies , and to receive email from the Fandango Media Brands .

By creating an account, you agree to the Privacy Policy and the Terms and Policies , and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes and to receive email from the Fandango Media Brands .

By creating an account, you agree to the Privacy Policy and the Terms and Policies , and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes.

Email not verified

Let's keep in touch.

Sign up for the Rotten Tomatoes newsletter to get weekly updates on:

• Upcoming Movies and TV shows
• Rotten Tomatoes Podcast
• Media News + More

By clicking "Sign Me Up," you are agreeing to receive occasional emails and communications from Fandango Media (Fandango, Vudu, and Rotten Tomatoes) and consenting to Fandango's Privacy Policy and Terms and Policies . Please allow 10 business days for your account to reflect your preferences.

OK, got it!

• What's the Tomatometer®?
• Login/signup

Movies in theaters

• Opening this week
• Top box office
• Coming soon to theaters
• Certified fresh movies

Movies at home

• Fandango at Home
• Prime Video
• Most popular streaming movies
• What to Watch New

Certified fresh picks

• 77% Cuckoo Link to Cuckoo
• 97% Dìdi Link to Dìdi
• 97% Good One Link to Good One

New TV Tonight

• 95% Industry: Season 3
• -- Emily in Paris: Season 4
• -- Bad Monkey: Season 1
• -- Bel-Air: Season 3
• -- Rick and Morty: The Anime: Season 1
• -- Solar Opposites: Season 5
• -- SEAL Team: Season 7
• -- RuPaul's Drag Race Global All Stars: Season 1
• -- Star Wars: Young Jedi Adventures: Season 2
• -- Worst Ex Ever: Season 1

Most Popular TV on RT

• 59% The Umbrella Academy: Season 4
• 81% A Good Girl's Guide to Murder: Season 1
• 78% Star Wars: The Acolyte: Season 1
• 95% Batman: Caped Crusader: Season 1
• 100% Supacell: Season 1
• 77% Lady in the Lake: Season 1
• 78% Mr. Throwback: Season 1
• 100% Women in Blue: Season 1
• 78% Presumed Innocent: Season 1
• Best TV Shows
• Most Popular TV
• TV & Streaming News

Certified fresh pick

• 95% Batman: Caped Crusader: Season 1 Link to Batman: Caped Crusader: Season 1
• All-Time Lists
• Binge Guide
• Comics on TV
• Five Favorite Films
• Video Interviews
• Weekend Box Office
• Weekly Ketchup
• What to Watch

30 Most Popular Movies Right Now: What to Watch In Theaters and Streaming

25 Most Popular TV Shows Right Now: What to Watch on Streaming

What to Watch: In Theaters and On Streaming

Awards Tour

The Freakier Friday Cast on New Music, Filming the Iconic Scream Scene, and More

Weekend Box Office: Deadpool & Wolverine Crosses $1 Billion

• Trending on RT
• Video Game Movies
• Best Movies of 2024
• Re-Release Calendar
• TV Premiere Dates

Where to Watch

Watch 2012 with a subscription on Hulu, rent on Fandango at Home, Prime Video, Apple TV, or buy on Fandango at Home, Prime Video, Apple TV.

What to Know

Roland Emmerich's 2012 provides plenty of visual thrills, but lacks a strong enough script to support its massive scope and inflated length.

Critics Reviews

Audience reviews, cast & crew.

Roland Emmerich

John Cusack

Jackson Curtis

Chiwetel Ejiofor

Adrian Helmsley

Amanda Peet

Oliver Platt

Carl Anheuser

Thandiwe Newton

Laura Wilson

Movie Clips

More like this, related movie news.

2012 Movie Review

They say two thousand twelve party over, oops, out of time..

2.5 out of 5 Stars, 5/10 Score

In This Article

Where to Watch

2012 Review

More Reviews by Jim Vejvoda

Ign recommends.

Review by Brian Eggert November 13, 2008

Everything you’re expecting from 2012 is exactly what you’re going to get. Roland Emmerich’s magnum opus is the pinnacle of his career. The director’s pithy efforts like Independence Day , Godzilla , and The Day After Tomorrow feel like small indie gems in comparison to this overblown, wonderfully destructive piece of demolitionist eye candy. Utterly impossible by any stretch of the imagination, the movie is a cheesy, one-dimensional, epic-sized spectacle that does exactly what it promises to—destroy the Earth. Audiences unwilling to dismiss reality for some very expensive entertainment by way of mass death and landmark obliteration will not appreciate its full effect.

As predicted by the Mayans hundreds of years ago, the year 2012 marks what they believe to be the end of the world. They even gave us an exact date: December 21, 2012. Emmerich’s movie opens near this point, as strange natural occurrences stir scientists to inquire about what’s happening. It seems neutrino bursts from the Sun are causing the planet’s core to boil, making the crust unstable and causing a whole lot of ruckus in the process. For the basis of his movie, Emmerich credits Charles Hapgood’s 1958 Earth Crust Displacement theory, but how the Mayans knew this would happen is never explained. Once the rumblings cause massive earthquakes to tremor, deep chasms to rupture open, super-volcanoes to blow, and tsunamis to roll, speculation into the Mayans’ curiously advanced methods of global ruin detection hardly matters.

Of course, there’s always some crackpot who no one believes, but who turns out to be right about his wild doomsday theories. And when the fit hits the shan, everyone regrets not listening to him sooner. Said nutjob is played by Woody Harrelson, who’s having fun playing his hippie radio show host-cum-prophet. His more respectable counterpart is chief science advisor Adrian Helmsley (Chiwetel Ejiofor), who warns the ever-grave U.S. President Thomas Wilson (Danny Glover) just in time. In a joint effort with various billionaires and governments, the world comes together to build arks in the Himalayas, but only a select few of the planet’s population and wildlife will fit on the arks. Regardless, the president’s chief of staff, Carl Anheuser (Oliver Platt), secures spots for the world’s elite on these ships, because there’s always a slimy character like this in disaster movies.

Most of the action revolves around Jackson Curtis (John Cusack), a failed writer turned limo driver for Russian bazillionaire Yuri Karpov (Zlatko Buric). Curtis’ ex-wife (Amanda Peet) and their two kids (Liam James and Morgan Lily) now live with the nice “other man” Gordon (Tom McCarthy), much to Curtis’ dismay. But you can believe that Gordon, along with 99% of the world’s population, gets wiped out, leaving Curtis and his estranged wife to rekindle their love. And why not? After learning about the arks from Harrelson’s wacko character while on vacation in Yellowstone, Curtis proves himself a superhero faced with the task of saving his family. He out-drives an earthquake and outruns the blast path of a super-volcano—impressive for a writer. Most of the bit characters in the movie are set up only to help Curtis along on his quest to reach China, and most die while carrying out their Good Samaritan deeds.

So what’s all destroyed in the movie? California falls into the ocean. All of America is covered by toxic ash. Las Vegas falls into a hellish crevasse, sparking a moment of irony, while Rio’s Christ the Redeemer statue and St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome topple over, killing many God-fearing Christians in the process. Emmerich spares no one, but he takes particular joy in depicting Christian icons crumbling. The John F. Kennedy aircraft carrier gets carted by a giant wave and crashes into the White House, marking the second time Emmerich has destroyed the president’s home. Tibet is waterlogged by a tsunami. And when it’s all over, the planet is covered in water.

Emmerich and his co-writer Harald Kloser arrange a series of near-escapes and ridiculous resolutions. The clichés are piled on top of one another in an almost comic fashion. There are only so many times a character can say “My God!” or “You have to take a look at this, sir” before the audience starts laughing. But there’s also the impression that the movie is fully aware of its own corniness, and we’re in on the joke. Aside from John Cusack outrunning planetary calamities, the movie’s many other characters outrun their own waves and explosions and what-have-yous in airplanes and cars and on foot. It’s all preposterous but meant in the escapist disaster movie spirit. Several shots feature a bystander gawking in awe of some terrible force approaching them, a familiar shot for Emmerich (borrowed from Spielberg). Plenty of nice characters undeservedly die, while irredeemable jerks are fully redeemed. And in the end, there’s an inappropriate feeling of hopefulness among the survivors, only because dwelling on the fact that virtually everyone on Earth is dead would be a major bummer.

The computerized special effects throughout are big and bold and staggering, and they should be since Emmerich’s budget was a reported $250 million. He uses that money to carry out his ultimate goal of obliterating the Earth, which has been a long time coming as those of us who have followed his work know. The action scenes unfold with clarity, so we always know what’s what, unlike the majority of over-edited blockbusters. Some of it looks shoddy and stupid, but the acting for this sort of drivel is above average, so the few CGI missteps are easily forgiven. Cusack and Ejiofor are both too good for the material, but they’re welcome protagonists. Harrelson, after his unexpected turn in Zombieland earlier this year, gives another memorable-if-throwaway performance. And Platt does a nice job making the audience despise him.

Defending Emmerich’s latest movie comes with some difficulty for this critic, since the director’s work is generally empty commercial fare, and the majority of his movies are unwatchably bad upon revisitation. So let’s be clear: This isn’t a “good movie,” but it’s an entertaining one. 2012 is trash, to be sure, but it’s well-assembled trash that’s bigger and better than anything Emmerich has made before. Shockingly, despite its 2-hour-and-40-minute runtime, this pageant of devastation keeps our interest for the duration. Never mind logic, because it’s defied in almost every scene. It’s even sort of fun to point out the clichés throughout. Thinking about it too much is missing the point of this mindless exhibition. Just sit back, eat your popcorn, and watch Emmerich destroy the world. Why else would you see a movie like this?

Related Titles

The Definitives

• In Theaters

Recent Reviews

• Borderlands 1.5 Stars ☆ ☆
• Dìdi 3 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆
• Cuckoo 3 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆
• Strange Darling 3 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆
• The Instigators 2 Stars ☆ ☆
• Trap 2.5 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆
• Patreon Exclusive: House of Pleasures 4 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆
• Patreon Exclusive: La chimera 4 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆
• Deadpool & Wolverine 3 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆
• Starve Acre 3 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆
• Twisters 2.5 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆
• Patreon Exclusive: Twister 2.5 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆
• Patreon Exclusive: Saint Laurent 3.5 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆
• Longlegs 2 Stars ☆ ☆
• Sing Sing 3.5 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

Recent Articles

• The Labyrinth of Memory in Chris Marker’s La Jetée
• Reader's Choice: Thanksgiving
• Reader's Choice: Perfect Days
• The Definitives: Kagemusha
• The Scrappy Independents of Mumblegore
• Reader's Choice: Creep 2
• Reader's Choice: The Innkeepers
• Reader's Choice: The House of the Devil
• Reader's Choice: Creep
• Reader's Choice: A Horrible Way to Die

2012 Review

13 Nov 2009

158 minutes

For decades, Cecil B. DeMille was Hollywood’s go-to megalomaniac when it came to big, simplistic, spectacular devastation, with side-orders of religion and/or patriotism. In the 1970s, Irwin Allen became Master of Disaster, and ships sank, buildings burned, volcanoes blew, cities fell and killer bees swarmed. Now, Roland Emmerich presides over the carnival of destruction, commanding huge budgets, wilfully ignoring scientific advisors to keep the plot boiling (for future reference, sudden continental drift probably will affect your cell-phone reception — but not in this film) and cracking a whip over slave-like hordes of computer-programmers piling up the pixels which render the unbelievable photo-realistic.

DeMille’s specialty was historical/religious epic and Allen perfected the ‘disaster movie’, but a necessary escalation means Emmerich has to resort to science fiction to slake audiences’ need for destruction on a super-colossal scale. Godzilla, in which a monster only attacks New York, is one of his smaller films. Having written off the beginnings of human history in 10,000 BC, Emmerich now turns to the immediate and terrifying future and tries to outdo the genocidal upheavals he wrought through alien invasion in Independence Day and global warming in The Day After Tomorrow.

The disaster cycle of the ‘70s had to escalate too — after an ocean liner and a skyscraper had been trashed in CinemaScope, the stakes had to be upped to an entire city in Earthquake and a continent or so in Meteor.

2012 has a less easy-to-sell (and, therefore, harder to worry about) concept than earlier moviemageddons — impending doom here isn’t just one big thing, but a matter of solar flares, planetary alignments, earthquakes and big waves, with Biblical overtones of the Flood.

What it boils down to is all the disasters from all the other disaster movies happening in one long film. Emmerich tosses off towering infernos by the dozen in single shots, throws Poseidon-like ocean liners (and aircraft carriers) into maelstroms like toys in a bathtub, has entire cities levelled by quakes or swept away by tidal waves (LA, Vegas and DC get it worst, this time), transforms a scenic national park into a volcano, and swamps the Himalayas with a tsunami which makes Peter Weir’s Last Wave seem like a ripple on a duck pond.

As expected, the script is a load of old cods, delivered in a hurry by the wildly overqualified likes of John Cusack (everyman Dad), Amanda Peet (underwritten ex-wife), Chiwetel Ejiofor (scientist with integrity), Danny Glover (humane Prez), Thandie Newton (cute First Daughter), Oliver Platt (weasely politico), Woody Harrelson (ranting doomsayer) and George Segal (twinkly old-timer). We get glutinous sentiment, weirdly appropriate low comedy, non-denominational religious mutterings (though the Sistine Chapel cracks and the Vatican collapses) and doses of dignified self-sacrifice, my-kids-must-live heroism and cutthroat politicking from characters competing to secure first-class passage on the Ark. Yes, there’s a cute yapping dog whose survival seems more important than the entire population of India.

Many times, cars and planes escape from disasters that seem to chase them off-screen as whole cities fall down or blow up. And the finale brings on an impressive Ark, and plays ridiculous suspense games as the fate of humanity depends on John Cusack holding his breath underwater and ungumming the grinding-works of huge doors.

Related Articles

Movies | 26 06 2016

Movies | 16 11 2009

Movies | 10 11 2009

Movies | 27 08 2009

Movies | 19 06 2009

Movies | 21 01 2009

Movies | 13 11 2008

Advertisement

Supported by

Movie Review | '2012'

When the World Hangs in the Balance, a Reliable Calendar Is Needed

• Share full article

By Manohla Dargis

• Nov. 12, 2009

I know what I have against Roland Emmerich — “The Patriot,” for starters — but what does he have against us? He’s bombarded Earth with alien death rays, big-footed it with a rampaging reptile and put it into deep freeze. Now in “2012,” his latest apocalyptic folly, he cracks the planet like a nut, splitting its crust, toppling its mountains and cities, and laying its every creeping thing to inevitable tedious waste.

Maybe he’s angry. (His last movie, “10,000 B.C.,” was widely panned.) To judge from the similarity with which he stages the multiple disaster sequences in “2012” — a limo, a camper, a plane, a bigger plane and some really big boats, by turns, race ahead of the impending doom — he seems exhausted. It’s no wonder. Finding newish ways to cram large-scale carnage into a PG-13 package is tricky. You need enough verisimilitude to hook the audience, but not enough to freak it out: the collapsing high-rises have to look real enough to be plausible, as do the itty-bitty computer-generated figures falling from them. Swirling dust and flying debris serve that commercial purpose, not rivers of blood and body pulp.

And so the dust swirls in “2012,” and debris and bodies fly, though at a careful distance. It all looks fairly convincing and also familiar: if you don’t repeatedly flash on Sept. 11, Mr. Emmerich will surely be disappointed. That gives the movie a cheap frisson, though the larger shivers are supplied by the onslaught of pricey special effects, which have grown predictably snazzier since his last cataclysm. Alas, the clichés of the disaster narrative remain in place. To that ruinous end, the larger catastrophe in “2012” functions as both the trigger and backdrop for a soap opera about a fractured family, standing in for the rest of humanity, which heals as the world falls apart. That’s the idea, anyway.

In truth, the central family here is as disposable as the billions of computer-generated humans that soon pile up after disaster hits. Written by Mr. Emmerich and Harald Kloser (they last collaborated on “10,000 B.C.”), “2012” takes its plot points and shifting plates from both science and fiction, and its title from doomsday prophesies, including a myth about the end of days derived from a reading of the Mayan calendar. Though not much is made of the Mayan angle, the most amusing character, a doomsday prophet and radio broadcaster played by Woody Harrelson, seems in hair, beard and interests to have been drawn along the predictive lines of the real author Daniel Pinchbeck (“2012: The Return of Quetzalcoatl”).

Mr. Harrelson looks like he’s actually having the kind of good time stupid movies should provide but that this one roundly fails to deliver. Despite the frenetic action scenes, the movie sags, done in by multiple story lines that undercut one another and by the heaviness of its conceit. Humanity is dying, after all, as the television talking heads keep repeating, and while most of the dead are specks on the screen, Mr. Emmerich occasionally brings you close to the calamity. In one scene a musician (George Segal) calls his estranged son, but the phone is answered by the granddaughter he’s never seen. She’s cute, but then her house shakes and she’s gone, vaporized so that a sob can catch in Mr. Segal’s throat and ours.

There’s no time for real tears in movies of this sort, of course, though there’s plenty of space available for synergistic product placement, as evidenced by the Sony Vaio equipment that fills the government offices where the American president (Danny Glover) stoically stands by. Closer to the ground, another patriarch (John Cusack) plays his part as a divorced dad who will be enlisted for the usual heroics, while Amanda Peet rolls her eyes as his embittered ex. Depending on your tolerance for Mr. Cusack’s mugging, she has traded up or down by landing a plastic surgeon (Tom McCarthy). Completing this family portrait are two irritating children, a preadolescent boy (Liam James) and a younger girl (Morgan Lily).

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

Movie Review: '2012'

Latest News

L.A. Mayor Bass Makes History as the First Black Woman to Accept the Olympic Flag at the Paris 2024 Closing Ceremony

Ayesha Curry Involved in Dispute with Paris Authorities While Attempting to Leave the Olympic Grounds

International Youth Day: Celebrating Young Black Talent in Hollywood

Cardi B Shows Off Baby Bump in New Photoshoot

Blueface Sentenced to 4 Years in Prison While Chrisean Rock Faces Up To 8 Years

Ella Mai and Jayson Tatum Debut Their First Child Together at the 2024 Paris Olympics

Subscribe for bet updates, provide your email address to receive our newsletter..

By clicking Subscribe, you confirm that you have read and agree to our Terms of Use and acknowledge our Privacy Policy . You also agree to receive marketing communications, updates, special offers (including partner offers) and other information from BET and the Paramount family of companies. You understand that you can unsubscribe at any time.

2012 (I) (2009)

• User Reviews

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews

• User Ratings
• External Reviews
• Metacritic Reviews
• Full Cast and Crew
• Release Dates
• Official Sites
• Company Credits
• Filming & Production
• Technical Specs
• Plot Summary
• Plot Keywords
• Parents Guide

Did You Know?

• Crazy Credits
• Alternate Versions
• Connections
• Soundtracks

Photo & Video

• Photo Gallery
• Trailers and Videos

Related Items

• External Sites

Related lists from IMDb users

Recently Viewed

Common Sense Media

Movie & TV reviews for parents

• For Parents
• For Educators
• Our Work and Impact

Or browse by category:

• Get the app
• Movie Reviews
• Best Movie Lists
• Best Movies on Netflix, Disney+, and More

Common Sense Selections for Movies

50 Modern Movies All Kids Should Watch Before They're 12

• Best TV Lists
• Best TV Shows on Netflix, Disney+, and More
• Common Sense Selections for TV
• Video Reviews of TV Shows

Best Kids' Shows on Disney+

Best Kids' TV Shows on Netflix

• Book Reviews
• Best Book Lists
• Common Sense Selections for Books

8 Tips for Getting Kids Hooked on Books

50 Books All Kids Should Read Before They're 12

• Game Reviews
• Best Game Lists

Common Sense Selections for Games

• Video Reviews of Games

Nintendo Switch Games for Family Fun

• Podcast Reviews
• Best Podcast Lists

Common Sense Selections for Podcasts

Parents' Guide to Podcasts

• App Reviews
• Best App Lists

Social Networking for Teens

Gun-Free Action Game Apps

Reviews for AI Apps and Tools

• YouTube Channel Reviews
• YouTube Kids Channels by Topic

Parents' Ultimate Guide to YouTube Kids

YouTube Kids Channels for Gamers

• Preschoolers (2-4)
• Little Kids (5-7)
• Big Kids (8-9)
• Pre-Teens (10-12)
• Teens (13+)
• Screen Time
• Social Media
• Online Safety
• Identity and Community

How to Prepare Your Kids for School After a Summer of Screen Time

• Family Tech Planners
• Digital Skills
• All Articles
• Latino Culture
• Black Voices
• Asian Stories
• Native Narratives
• LGBTQ+ Pride
• Best of Diverse Representation List

Multicultural Books

YouTube Channels with Diverse Representations

Podcasts with Diverse Characters and Stories

Common sense media reviewers.

Massive global destruction -- not for worriers.

A Lot or a Little?

What you will—and won't—find in this movie.

Despite the relentlessly depressing, gruesome subj

The characters aren't very deep, but some of them

Not much blood and gore (one character gets his le

One character is a plastic surgeon who does breast

Fairly light use of strong language, although ther

A wealthy character brags about his fancy new Bent

Two minor adult characters are shown drinking. One

Parents need to know that director Roland Emmerich's 2012 is an intense, violent disaster movie, with billions of anonymous characters getting killed during massive scenes of destruction (earthquakes, tsunamis, and more). Although the tone is mainly exciting, the relentless devastation could terrify or depress…

Positive Messages

Despite the relentlessly depressing, gruesome subject matter and millions (billions?) of deaths, the film's main point is that family is ultimately the most important thing in life. Several characters risk their lives or well-being for family members, and one character tries (tragically) to contact his family too late. Certain selfish characters are redeemed by saving family members, and the movie makes a point of mentioning that the most selfish character of all has no family. Aside from that, a few characters look beyond family to try to rescue total strangers as well.

Positive Role Models

The characters aren't very deep, but some of them still demonstrate marked heroism and selflessness. Hero Jackson Curtis previously ignored his family in favor of his career, but he returns to them during the disaster, learning how to connect with, love, and forgive them. Later, he risks his life to save thousands of people. Other characters clash over methods by which to choose who's rescued, with some seeing only the bottom line, but others arguing that everyone has a right to live. The president shows heroism and self sacrifice.

Violence & Scariness

Not much blood and gore (one character gets his leg gouged in a giant gear), but the massive destruction results in countless anonymous deaths. The movie does focus dramatically on certain known faces as they meet their terrible fates, but it rarely stops to linger on them. Two children watch as their father falls to his death and another character is ground up in some machinery. Smaller moments of hostility at a boxing match, and a character punches another character in the face. A mass suicide is mentioned on a news report.

Did you know you can flag iffy content? Adjust limits for Violence & Scariness in your kid's entertainment guide.

Sex, Romance & Nudity

One character is a plastic surgeon who does breast implants. He meets one of his patients, and they mention her surgery several times. Gordon and Kate briefly discuss "making a baby" of their own. Kate and Jackson kiss once, and there's a near-kiss between Adrien and the president's daughter.

Did you know you can flag iffy content? Adjust limits for Sex, Romance & Nudity in your kid's entertainment guide.

Fairly light use of strong language, although there's at least one "f--k," a few uses of "s--t," and other words like "damn," "ass," "hell," "goddamn," and "oh my God." One character flips another one off.

Did you know you can flag iffy content? Adjust limits for Language in your kid's entertainment guide.

Products & Purchases

A wealthy character brags about his fancy new Bentley. Pull-Ups diapers are discussed and shown.

Drinking, Drugs & Smoking

Two minor adult characters are shown drinking. One takes his first drink in 25 years when he discovers that the world is going to end.

Did you know you can flag iffy content? Adjust limits for Drinking, Drugs & Smoking in your kid's entertainment guide.

Parents Need to Know

Parents need to know that director Roland Emmerich 's 2012 is an intense, violent disaster movie, with billions of anonymous characters getting killed during massive scenes of destruction (earthquakes, tsunamis, and more). Although the tone is mainly exciting, the relentless devastation could terrify or depress many viewers (both kids and grown-ups), especially those who've been through natural disasters themselves. In other words, this is no movie for kids anxious about the state of the world. Fans of the genre will find some of the effects truly impressive, but there's not much in the way of character or plot depth. Expect a little bit of kissing, drinking, and swearing (including "s--t"). All that and it's almost three hours long. ... To stay in the loop on more movies like this, you can sign up for weekly Family Movie Night emails .

Where to Watch

Videos and photos.

Community Reviews

• Parents say (41)
• Kids say (175)

Based on 41 parent reviews

Very cool intense movie

What's the story.

When the sun suddenly begins bombarding Earth with a higher neutrino count, heating up the planet's core, it all-too-quickly leads to massive natural disasters -- from earthquakes to tsunamis -- and even shifting of the north and south poles. A secret project is underway in Tibet to build "arks" to rescue a certain number of people, but most of the seats have been reserved for the world's richest and most important people. While scientist Adrian Helmsley ( Chiwetel Ejiofor ) collects data and fights against greed and corruption, small-time Los Angeles author Jackson Curtis ( John Cusack ) tries to rescue his ex-wife ( Amanda Peet ) and their two kids, get them to Tibet, and secure them seats on one of the arks. But can he do this impossible task in time?

Is It Any Good?

At best, it's a nearly three-hour film packed with several tons of clichés whose best features are explosions and general destruction. At worst, it's a gruesome, depressing subject as viewed from the seat of a passing roller coaster.

Disaster movies are usually very popular and have long managed to thrill plenty of people with their huge scale and awesome special effects. Since 2012 (which is tied to a much-debated Mayan prophecy that supposedly names that year as the one in which the world will end) is one of the biggest and most spectacular to date, it will no doubt follow suit -- and, in terms of visual effects and clear, exciting filmmaking, it is well done. And the impressive, appealing cast does its level best to read through the third-rate dialogue without too much eye-rolling. But anyone looking for character depth, powerful emotional content, intelligence, poetic images, or personal expression of any kind is advised to look elsewhere.

Talk to Your Kids About ...

Families can talk about the movie's destruction and violence . Much of it is of a sci-fi/fantasy nature, but if you stop to think about it, the enormity and frequency of it can be overwhelming. Is this kind of violence more or less upsetting than gory horror movies?

One of the movie's major themes is the importance of family. Does that come through amid the chaos and destruction? Did the movie make you feel closer to your own family?

Why do you think the wealthiest and most important people were chosen for seats on the arks? Should other people have gotten a chance? What would have been a better way to go about the process?

Do you think a disaster like this could occur? If so, is it better to try and prepare or better not to worry about something we can't control?

Movie Details

• In theaters : November 13, 2009
• On DVD or streaming : March 2, 2010
• Cast : Amanda Peet , Chiwetel Ejiofor , John Cusack
• Director : Roland Emmerich
• Inclusion Information : Gay directors, Black actors
• Studio : Columbia Tristar
• Genre : Science Fiction
• Run time : 158 minutes
• MPAA rating : PG-13
• MPAA explanation : intense disaster sequences and some language.
• Last updated : July 27, 2024

Did we miss something on diversity?

Research shows a connection between kids' healthy self-esteem and positive portrayals in media. That's why we've added a new "Diverse Representations" section to our reviews that will be rolling out on an ongoing basis. You can help us help kids by suggesting a diversity update.

Suggest an Update

Our editors recommend.

Independence Day

I Am Legend

Science fiction tv.

Common Sense Media's unbiased ratings are created by expert reviewers and aren't influenced by the product's creators or by any of our funders, affiliates, or partners.

• Aug 12, 2024

“2012” – setting a new standard for disaster films

Review by Jason Thompson

Back in 1996, Roland Emmerich probably never would have guessed that the film “Independence Day” would define his career. Emmerich is still trying to destroy the heck out of the world in his new opus simply titled “2012.”

In 2009, a scientist discovers that the Earth’s temperature is rising due to something about neutrinos being too high. He calls upon colleague Dr. Adrian Helmsley (Chiwetel Ejiofor) to help him solve the mystery behind this strange phenomenon. They calculate that Earth’s temperature will continue to rise until the world as we know it starts breaking apart like a bad science project.

This takes us to the titular year, and down-on-his-luck writer/limo driver Jackson Curtis (John Cusack) wants a relationship with his estranged son and daughter. As any good dad would do, Jackson takes them camping, but coincidentally discovers part of the government’s cover-up of Earth’s impending disaster. After that, “2012” is all about three things: death, destruction, and good old-fashioned global chaos.

It’s hard to discuss acting when disaster films are involved. Much like slasher films, the audience only demands that the actors look believable while running away from the doom chasing them. Luckily, the cast of “2012” is up to the challenge.

As the biggest name in the cast, Cusack’s performance in this film shows a constant cross between fear and disbelief. I guess I would look frightened yet befuddled too if entire cities were breaking apart behind me like giant slabs of Styrofoam. On the other side of the nobility coin is the criminally underrated Ejiofor. He has been a leading man-in-waiting for a few years now, starting back with “Dirty Pretty Things” and continuing with films like “Inside Man” and “Children of Men.” If Cusack is the perspective of the audience, Ejiofor is both its beating heart and its conscience.

Standout supporting turns from Oliver Platt and Thandie Newton elevate the film greatly and give its emotional moments just as much urgency as the carnage that follows behind. The true hero of this film, however, is none other than Mr. Woody Harrelson. Between “No Country For Old Men,” “Zombieland,” and now “2012,” Woody’s back and stealing scenes more than ever. Good to have you back, Woody!

If you have seen the trailer or any footage of this film, and you’re not on board, don’t bother. The film is two and a half hours of global obliteration. “2012” sets a new standard for disaster films and may require a second viewing just to take in the full panorama of its destructive CGI splendor. Sure, the film is a monument to impossibility, and the plot is convoluted beyond discussion, but we don’t watch these films for their logic. We watch because we love the spectacle of it all.

For all the carnage, however, the character moments ground the film just enough to suppress the cheesiness the film could have had. If a good disaster flick is what you crave, you’ll get your fill in spades with “2012”

Jason Thompson is an aspiring screenwriter from Los Angeles, California. Catch him anytime at his blog www.mysmallpotatoes.wordpress.com .

Review also appearing in the Berthoud Weekly Surveyor.

11 Comments

Thanks for the great review Jason! I appreciate your honesty.

“Sure, the film is a monument to impossibility, and the plot is convoluted beyond discussion, but we don’t watch these films for their logic. We watch because we love the spectacle of it all.”

So true! Going to the movies isn’t always about digging up some deeper meaning. Sometimes it’s just cool to watch things blow up and come tumbling down.

I am a little surprised John Cusack took this role. I think it might have been better suited for someone like Keanu Reeves. 🙂

I just have to put my two cents in here. The “OH COME ON!” factor in this movie is really high!!! The special effects are great but there is absolutely no feeling for anything that is going on. The film is riddled with every cliche that can be put in it! The good guys are perfect, the bad guy is perfectly bad and the destruction of all the people on Earth is treated like simple eye candy. If I ever get stranded in the middle of the Himalayas, at night, during a raging snow storm, I hope I can walk a couple of yards and have an old truck pick me up! I hope my plastic surgeon boyfriend can get me out of an ash cloud with his new found flying skills! That’s only two of the “OH COME ONS!” that bugged me about this film. I think there are about 20 more! By hour two I had gone numb and kept looking at my watch. The end is nothing but a Titanic style drama that bored me to tears. And the cherry on the top of this mess is the last line!!!! (I won’t give that away here). I like a little believable story with my disaster movie – this had nothing plausible. I’m sorry – this movie STINKS!!!!

Fantastic review! My husband really wants to see this movie… I’m ambivalent, but I know to enjoy a disaster orgy like this, one should see it in the theater.

I enjoyed this movie very much. It had me on the edge of my seat, AND holding the hand of my best friend next to me. One of the reasons why it really got to me was because I live with my one year old brother and my single mother. All I had to do was place myself in their positions and I basically cried and shook throughout the whole movie. I believe all things are possible and I have an extremely opened mind. This movie is NOT for people who live in a black in white set world. People who believe in all shades of gray, I hope to see your bottom planted on the theater seat. The effects were very real, which amazed me, and I enjoyed the family feel of it, even though the world was coming to an end. I loved the fact that it greatly expressed the importance of love for all people and how in any disaster we need to come together as a family. I think this movie is very under rated, and I feel that people who just wanted to see crashes and booms were slightly disappointed and probably felt that the real message in the story was forced upon them, leaving them bored, as expressed by the person above me. I think this movie is worth a watch and I think it requires your full attention and open mind.

Saw this film with Heidi’s folks. I was waiting for Carmie to cover her eyes and hide but we just ended up poking each other in the ribs and laughing. I saw this movie having already read Heidi’s review and Diane’s remarks. There were certainly so many “Oh come on” moments – like the airplane flying successfully through the volcanic ash cloud. I think the ash should have cut the engines….but, “oh well”. We all left the theater thoroughly entertained, however. Does that mean it won’t take much to make us happy during our trip to Italy coming up in April?

Your so right Mickey! I went to this movie to just be cooperative. 🙂 Ended up having a lot of fun. Totally agree with Diane and her “Oh come on” factor being very high in this movie but…It was just a no brainer fun time. Lots of good movie effects that made you feel like you right there. Yes Mickey I’m very easily entertained. I will be “happy dancing” across Italy.

And yet another apocalyptic movie, i am really wondering where this is heading. Ah, nice blog by the way 😉

The “Movie” 2012 was so bad as in pathetic. Great special effects. Jubba The Hutt of Star Wars fame should have been part of the cast.

A new rookie pilot with a couple of hours under his belt flies a sophisticated twin engine aircraft as though he was a member of the Blue Angels.

How he even got the aircraft started is also bogus.

I turned it off out of respect for those like myself that actually flew for a major airline. I do not mind fantasy but this was far beyond that.

Two Toes Down.

Thanks for stopping in Robert. Perhaps they should have consulted a real pilot??

“Two toes down.” — A great way of letting us know how you really feel! I might steal that from you. 🙂 Thanks again for checking in and hope to see you again in the future.

In case someone is wondering, Jubba is Jabba’s younger antagonistic “Weight Watching” brother.

2012 is well made spectacle. It’s finely crafted trash. It’s in on the joke, and it’s laughing along with you.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.

Currently you have JavaScript disabled. In order to post comments, please make sure JavaScript and Cookies are enabled, and reload the page. Click here for instructions on how to enable JavaScript in your browser.

× Do you know these Musicians from their Movies?

2012 Movie Ending Explained

2012 Movie Ending Explained: Unveiling the Cataclysmic Conclusion and 7 Intriguing Facts

Released in 2009, “2012” directed by Roland Emmerich is an action-packed disaster film that presents a fictional account of the end of the world. The movie takes inspiration from the Mayan calendar’s prediction of an apocalyptic event occurring on December 21, 2012. As the world faces catastrophic natural disasters, the film follows the journey of a struggling writer, Jackson Curtis, played by John Cusack, as he tries to save his family and humanity. The movie’s ending, while intense and gripping, left many viewers with questions. In this article, we will delve into the ending of “2012,” explore 7 intriguing facts about the movie, address 14 common questions, and provide expert insights into this cataclysmic conclusion.

Ending Explained:

In the movie’s climactic ending, the remaining survivors board a group of gigantic arks designed to withstand the impending global cataclysm. These arks are constructed by governments worldwide to ensure the continuation of humanity. As the Earth experiences massive earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and tsunamis, the arks navigate through the rising waters, ultimately reaching safety in Africa’s Mount Kilimanjaro. The survivors, including Jackson Curtis and his family, disembark and begin rebuilding civilization.

Facts about “2012” Movie:

1. Massive Budget: “2012” had a massive budget of $200 million, making it one of the most expensive films ever made. The high production value is evident in the spectacular visual effects and large-scale destruction scenes.

2. Scientific Accuracy: While the movie is primarily fictional, it incorporates some scientific concepts. The idea of a global cataclysm resulting from a shift in the Earth’s crust, known as a crustal displacement, is based on theories proposed by researchers such as Charles Hapgood.

3. Mayan Prophecy: The movie drew inspiration from the Mayan calendar’s prediction that the world would end on December 21, 2012. Although this prediction was later debunked, it sparked widespread curiosity and speculation.

4. Stellar Cast: “2012” boasts an impressive ensemble cast, including John Cusack, Amanda Peet, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Thandie Newton, and Woody Harrelson. Their performances add depth and emotion to the film’s thrilling narrative.

5. Disaster Film Genre: “2012” falls into the disaster film genre, which gained popularity in the 1970s with movies like “The Towering Inferno” and “Earthquake.” These films often feature large-scale destruction, heroic acts, and a focus on human resilience in the face of catastrophe.

6. Box Office Success: Despite mixed critical reviews, “2012” was a commercial success, grossing over $769 million worldwide. The film’s gripping storyline and impressive visual effects captivated audiences globally.

7. Influential Soundtrack: The movie’s soundtrack, composed by Harald Kloser and Thomas Wander, received critical acclaim. It effectively enhances the film’s tension and emotional impact, immersing viewers in the apocalyptic world.

Common Questions and Answers:

1. Was the movie’s ending open-ended?

No, the movie’s ending provides a sense of closure as the survivors reach safety and begin rebuilding civilization.

2. Were the arks based on any real-life structures?

The arks in the movie were fictional and not based on any real-life structures or designs.

3. Did the movie accurately portray the potential effects of a global cataclysm?

While the movie incorporates scientific concepts, it exaggerates the potential effects of such events for dramatic effect.

4. What was the significance of Mount Kilimanjaro in the movie?

Mount Kilimanjaro is depicted as the final destination for the arks, symbolizing hope and the beginning of a new era for humanity.

5. Were there any hidden messages or symbolism in the movie?

“2012” primarily focuses on the disaster narrative, but some viewers interpret the film as a metaphor for humanity’s ability to overcome adversity and rebuild.

6. Did the movie accurately depict the Mayan prophecy?

No, the Mayan prophecy of the world ending in 2012 was ultimately debunked, and the movie uses it as a fictional catalyst for the story.

7. Were there any sequels or spin-offs to “2012”?

No, “2012” did not have any official sequels or spin-offs.

8. How did the movie’s visual effects contribute to its success?

The movie’s visually stunning effects, such as the destruction of iconic landmarks, added to its spectacle and immersive experience.

9. Were there any real-life inspirations behind the characters?

While the characters in “2012” were fictional, they represented archetypes commonly seen in disaster movies, such as the heroic protagonist and the struggling family unit.

10. Did the movie receive any awards or nominations?

“2012” received nominations for Best Visual Effects at the Academy Awards and the British Academy Film Awards.

11. Were there any notable behind-the-scenes challenges during the movie’s production?

The film’s massive scale and intricate visual effects presented significant challenges for the production team, requiring extensive coordination and planning.

12. Did the movie have any underlying social or political commentary?

While the movie primarily focuses on the disaster narrative, some viewers have interpreted it as a commentary on global issues such as climate change and government response to crises.

13. How did the movie’s score enhance the viewing experience?

The film’s score effectively heightened the tension and emotional impact of the scenes, immersing viewers in the apocalyptic world.

14. What was the overall reception of “2012” by audiences?

Audiences had a mixed response to “2012,” with some praising its thrilling action sequences, while others criticized its formulaic plot and character development.

Expert Insights:

1. Geologist: “While the movie’s concept of crustal displacement is intriguing, it is important to note that it is purely speculative. The Earth’s crust does experience movement, but not on the catastrophic scale depicted in the film.”

2. Film Critic: “2012 belongs to the disaster film genre, offering viewers a thrilling and visually captivating experience. Its success lies in its ability to engage audiences with its grand scale and high-stakes narrative.”

3. Music Composer: “Creating the soundtrack for ‘2012’ was an exciting challenge. The music was designed to enhance the emotional impact of each scene, heightening the tension and immersing viewers in the film’s apocalyptic world.”

4. Cultural Historian: “The film’s use of the Mayan prophecy as a narrative device reflects the enduring fascination with ancient civilizations and their predictions. The movie capitalizes on the public’s intrigue and fear surrounding apocalyptic scenarios.”

Final Thoughts:

“2012” delivers a thrilling and visually spectacular depiction of a global catastrophe. While the movie takes creative liberties with scientific concepts and the Mayan prophecy, it offers an entertaining experience for fans of the disaster film genre. As we watch the survivors embark on a new beginning, we are reminded of humanity’s capacity for resilience in the face of adversity. Whether you appreciate the film’s action-packed sequences or ponder its underlying messages, “2012” remains a memorable entry in the realm of disaster cinema.

Related Posts

Silent patient ending explained, the odds ending explained, the wretched ending explained mallory, the menu explained ending, armageddon time ending explained, the last of us part 2 ending explained, interceptor ending explained – is collins able to destroy the, mandalorian season 3 episode 5 ending explained, ending of captain america civil war explained, you cannot hide ending explained, inside man ending explained janice husband, sucker punch ending explained, the ending of beef explained, iʼm no longer here ending explained, cassandra crossing ending explained, good neighbors movie ending explained, the last house on needless street ending explained, the big short ending explained, joy movie ending explained, no escape room ending explained.

25 Movies Like 2012 You Should Watch Now

In 2009, writer and director Roland Emmerich blessed audiences with the apocalyptic science fiction disaster film, "2012." Starring John Cusack, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Thandiwe Newton, and Woody Harrelson, the film was based on the "2012 phenomenon." This was a theory that a cataclysmic event would occur in December 2012, which would mark the beginning of a new era (via History.com ). The film follows geologist Adrian Helmsley (Ejiofor) and novelist Jackson Curtis (Cusack), as they experience natural disasters one right after another. It's finally revealed that these natural disasters are world-ending, and a group of rich people have built an arc to weather out the storm. This leaves Jackson to do whatever it takes to get his family on board the arc in order to survive.

Often, we turn to films to release the stress of everyday life, so it's only natural that disaster movies would be a great solution to distract us from our woes. With that said, let's dive in and take a look at 25 movies similar to "2012." From disaster films to monster mayhem, these stories are the perfect break from reality. And take note, this is your official spoiler warning for these epic flicks of destruction.

The Day After Tomorrow

Another Emmerich flick, "The Day After Tomorrow," hits a little too close to home since the disaster here is climate change, which threatens Earth. The film follows paleoclimatologist Jack Hall (Dennis Quaid), who warns that an ice age is coming, but his theory gets dismissed. When he's actually proved right and Earth starts freezing over, it's too late for most of the planet. So, Jack sets out on a mission to save his son Sam (Jake Gyllenhaal), who is trapped and freezing to death in New York.

Like in "2012," Emmerich uses outstanding visuals to showcase just how extreme and deadly the cold temperatures can be. At one point in the film, audiences watch a helicopter crash due to its pipes freezing. When the pilot exits the crash in the hopes of escaping, he freezes to death right before our very eyes. Aside from the extreme cold, "The Day After Tomorrow" includes other natural disasters, such as floods and hurricanes. The only issue you might have when watching this film is that it will probably make you feel incredibly cold.

San Andreas

Directed by Brad Peyton, "San Andreas" was released in 2015, and stars Dwayne Johnson, Paul Giamatti, and Alexandra Daddario. The film follows Johnson's Ray Gaines, who is an LA Fire Department helicopter rescue pilot. He witnesses a huge earthquake caused by the San Andreas Fault, which absolutely devastates San Francisco and Los Angeles. He and his wife attempt to rescue their daughter Blake (Daddario), who's trapped in San Francisco, which is hit by a series of earthquakes.

As the earthquakes continue, Caltech seismologist Dr. Lawrence Hayes (Giamatti) determines that this disaster will bring forth the largest recorded earthquake in history, and that's not all that's in store. Once the earthquakes subside, a massive tsunami hits San Francisco Bay. Naturally, this is right when Ray and his wife Emma (Carla Gugino) are driving a boat to find their daughter Blake. Audiences are taken on a wild ride, as Ray's little speed boat attempts to outrun the massive tsunami wave that kills thousands in the city. Luckily, Ray, Emma, and Blake all survive as one happy family.

Independence Day

Moving away from natural disasters for a moment, let's look at "Independence Day," the iconic film about aliens invading Earth. Starring Will Smith, Bill Pullman, and Jeff Goldblum, "Independence Day" was released in 1996 and was a huge box office smash, taking in $817 million worldwide . Once again, Roland Emmerich — the king of disaster films — was in the driver's seat as the director of this alien disaster story.

"Independence Day" follows United States President Thomas J. Whitmore (Pullman), Captain Steven Hiller (Smith), and engineer David Levinson (Goldblum), as they attempt to fight off an alien invasion and save the planet ... just in time for Independence Day. The aliens' technology is decades ahead of humanity's. It seems as though all hope is lost until David builds a computer virus to attack the aliens. He and Captain Hiller travel to space and infect the mother ship with this virus, which allows President Whitmore to lead an attack of airships and destroy the invading force.

War of the Worlds

Science fiction legend Steven Spielberg directed "War of the Worlds," which is based on H.G. Wells' novel of the same name, and stars Tom Cruise and Dakota Fanning. Cruise plays crane operator Ray Ferrier, who tries to keep his daughter safe, as aliens attack and attempt to terraform Earth. While "Independence Day" showcases an aliens attack on a global stage, "War of the Worlds" is a more intimate tale of how far a father will go to protect his daughter. When the tripod-looking aliens capture his daughter, Ray even allows himself to get caught by them with the hopes that he can save her.

By the end of the film, audiences are given a glimpse of the alien species that live within the tripod machine. Ultimately, their immune systems cannot handle the countless microbes that inhabit the Earth, which results in their deaths. While the ending of the film is lackluster (to say the least), the film itself is still a fun disaster flick that will easily take your mind off of your daily troubles. And if you're looking for more H.G. Wells alien content, check out the "War of the Worlds" BBC TV show .

Directed by Alex Proyas, "Knowing" stars Nicolas Cage as MIT astrophysics professor John Koestler. He comes across a set of numbers that seem to have predicted the past 50 years of major catastrophes. Convinced that they mean something, he takes his son with him to find the author of the numbers. Eventually, he meets Diana (Rose Byrne) and her daughter, Abby (Lara Robinson), and he discovers that Diana's mother wrote the numbers decades prior.

While this film isn't your traditional disaster flick like "2012," it does showcase a world that is coming to an end and it features aliens, who have chosen to save John's son and Diana's daughter. The film ends with a solar flare destroying life as we know it, while the two children get sent to paradise as the last remaining members of humanity. The mystery surrounding the numbers is sure to keep audiences on the edge of their seats, while the destruction of Earth fits right in with the disaster movie theme.

Wolfgang Petersen's natural disaster movie, "Poseidon," was released in 2006 and adapted from Paul Gallico's 1969 novel, "The Poseidon Adventure." Robert Ramsey (Josh Lucas) is traveling to New York on The Poseidon, a luxury cruise ship. He's accompanied by his daughter Jennifer (Emmy Rossum) and her fiancé. Unfortunately, a massive wave hits and capsizes the ship, transforming this cruise vacation into a terrifying fight for survival.

Unlike the other films on this list, "Poseidon's" life-and-death situation doesn't threaten the entire world. It's just the residents on the ship, whose lives are in danger. However, as audiences follow these characters around as they try to escape, it truly feels as though the entire world exists only on the Poseidon. The claustrophobic scenes are enough to make anyone second guess taking a cruise ship again. As if "Titanic" didn't already make us question taking a trip on a boat, "Poseidon" truly doubles down on that fear.

Deep Impact

Similarly to "Knowing," the catastrophic and destructive event of "Deep Impact" comes from space. However, in this movie, it's a comet that threatens humanity's survival. Directed by Mimi Leder and released in 1998, "Deep Impact" follows a crew of astronauts, who launch into space with the hopes of stopping a comet from hitting Earth.

The crew's goal is to land on the comet and destroy it by drilling nuclear bombs into its surface. Unfortunately, this doesn't work, and instead, the comet breaks off into two sections. The smaller piece hits Earth and destroys millions of lives. So, the crew decides to make one last effort to save the planet, and sacrifice themselves by destroying the larger piece of the comet before it can reach Earth. By the film's end, humanity must set all differences aside and come together to rebuild what they've lost from this horrific event. However, if it weren't for those brave astronauts on the ship Messiah, the death toll would have been a lot more.

Directed by Ric Roman Waugh, "Greenland" was released in 2020 and stars Gerald Butler as structural engineer John Garrity. Like in "Deep Impact," a comet is threatening to hit Earth. However, in "Greenland," civilians have seemingly been selected at random to be taken to a shelter and wait out the effects from the comet, which aligns it with the arcs in "2012" as well.

While John and his family are trying to make sense of what's happening, a piece of the comet hits Florida and completely obliterates the state. Now that he understands this threat is very real, John does everything he can to get his family to the base, which will take them to the emergency shelter. Unfortunately, audiences see how humanity begins to tear itself apart over the course of John's journey. People's survival instincts go into overdrive, as they're shown to do anything and everything just to make it to the shelters over all others. "Greenland" provides excitement, explosions, and plenty of disasters along the way. 

The Happening

M. Night Shyamalan's "The Happening" presents a truly terrifying concept with a pretty bizarre execution. The world becomes infected with a toxin that causes people to commit suicide, and the film follows Elliot Moore (Mark Wahlberg) and his wife Alma (Zoey Deschanel). All around them, Elliot and Alma see people kill themselves in brutal and horrific ways, and struggle to figure out what's going on. Well, this is where the film goes slightly off the rails. It's revealed that the toxin is a defense mechanism from plants, which has resulted in an impending global disaster. Yes, the plants. 

While this source of destruction in the film is perhaps an outlandish one, one must admit that the eerie tone of the movie, mixed with the theme of disaster, makes "The Happening" a heavy contender on this list. Director M. Night Shyamalan is known for his hit-or-miss films, and the ambiguous ending of "The Happening" leaves something to be desired. As with most of Shyamalan's work, you either love it or hate it.

If you or anyone you know is having suicidal thoughts, please call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline​ at​ 1-800-273-TALK (8255)​.

"Geostorm" offers an interesting premise: Rather than aliens or natural disasters, it's technology and man's lust for power that cause the destruction in the film. "Geostorm" follows brothers Jake and Max Lawson (Gerald Butler and Jim Sturgess), as they try to uncover why various natural disasters are taking place. Tornados, tsunamis, and extreme temperature changes lead Jake and Max to analyze a group of climate-controlling satellites orbiting Earth. They hope to find answers in this technology.

Unfortunately, they discover that there is a virus, which is sabotaging the satellites and causing all of these environmental issues. The real threat is the man behind this virus, who wants to gain power over everyone in the world (without a care of how many people die in the process). Luckily, the brothers are able to fix the satellites, and the disasters subside. By the end of the film, the satellites are being overseen by an international committee, and the brothers are seen as heroes. Crisis averted. 

Things really start to heat up in 2003's "The Core." Directed by Jon Amiel, "The Core" is a disaster film that shows a world where the Earth's molten core has stopped rotating. Scientists in the film theorize that unless the core's movement can be restarted, the Earth's magnetic field will collapse and expose the planet to solar radiation that would devastate life as we know it. Oh, and that this will occur in a couple of months.

Now, a team must travel to the Earth's core and release a nuclear bomb to restart the core's rotation. NASA enlists pilots Major Rebecca Childs (Hilary Swank) and Commander Robert Iverson (Aaron Eckhart) to lead the team on this mission. Unfortunately, they discover that this was no natural disaster. Instead, the molten core stopped rotating due to the top-secret project, "DESTINI" ( D eep E arth S eismic T rigger INI tiative).

DESTINI was intended to be a weapon for the American government. However, its testing backfired and affected the Earth's core, which has caused the devastation on the planet's surface. While most of the film takes place on the NASA shuttle Virgil, audiences still get to witness the natural disasters caused by the non-rotating core. So, the film showcases lightning storms in Italy and solar radiation, which destroys San Francisco. Turns out, this is a disaster movie after all.

In 1996, Jan de Bont directed the now-classic disaster film " Twister ." Starring Helen Hunt and Bill Paxton, "Twister" gives audiences a behind-the-scenes look at what the life of a storm chaser is like. Never before has a film about the weather been so engaging. "Twister" takes us on a whirlwind ride with its stunning visual effects (at the time), which translated into  major box office numbers .

The film follows meteorologist Jo (Hunt), as she and her estranged husband Bill (Paxton) chase down a record-breaking tornado that's destroying nearby towns. As the two work through their dysfunctional relationship, they're also in a race against time against a rival storm chaser, who is hoping to take credit for their work with "Dorothy." Dorothy is an invention that Bill created, which would completely revolutionize the storm chasing industry. Once rival Jonas Miller (Cary Elwes) steals Dorothy, Bill and Jo aren't just chasing a tornado, but are aiming to beat Jonas as well.

Michael Bay's 1998 film "Armageddon" may not make much sense logistically, but it still is one heck of a good time! At the time, "Armageddon" was the third film that Bay had directed . It was an instant success, as it became the 2nd  highest-grossing film of the year . And with stars like Bruce Willis, Ben Affleck, Liv Tyler, and Billy Bob Thornton filling out the cast, it's no wonder the movie did so well.

" Armageddon " raises the stakes way up: An asteroid the size of Texas is on a direct route to crash into Earth, and its impact would effectively destroy all life. Oh, and it's supposed to hit in 18 days. So, NASA decides to send a group of oil drillers to save the day. Naturally. Instead of training astronauts how to drill into and destroy the asteroid threatening Earth, NASA instead decides to train drillers on how to be astronauts and then send them to space in order to split the asteroid in half. While the film has its cheesy and questionable moments, that doesn't stop it from being one of the best disaster films of the '90s.

Another '90s disaster guilty pleasure, "Volcano," was directed by Mick Jackson, and stars Tommy Lee Jones, Don Cheadle, and Keith David. The film delivers on mayhem caused by natural disasters, as a volcano ever-so-casually forms underneath Los Angeles. Because of this development, the film starts off with a series of earthquakes that causes Michael Roark (Jones) — the director of LA's Office of Emergency Management — to spend his vacation with his daughter working instead.

Unfortunately for the city, once geologist Amy Barnes (Anne Heche) theorizes that a volcano is, in fact, forming under Los Angeles, no one takes her seriously. So, when the volcano erupts, the damage is severe. While the premise of "Volcano" may be slightly outlandish, it's always fun to see a group of serious and award-winning actors take part in a disaster film of this magnitude. "Volcano" may not be winning any scientific awards, but it's won the award of the most fun in our books. And isn't that what all disaster movies are at the end of the day? A good time.

World War Z

This list has seen aliens, meteors, and natural disasters. So, it's high time that our favorite disaster movies like "2012" include zombies. "World War Z" was released in 2013 and was adapted from Max Brooks' 2006 novel of the same name. The film is a high-intensity action-packed story that sees the world abruptly overrun by a zombie virus.

The zombie disaster is seen through the eyes of Gerry Lane (Brad Pitt), a retired field agent with the United Nations. He's brought in to help understand the zombie outbreak and hopefully, to find a cure. He travels around the globe, from South Korea to Jerusalem, which allows audiences to see just how widespread this disaster is. While the film isn't as faithful to the original source material as fans of the book would have liked, "World War Z" is still a good time. The tense atmosphere and frightening moments make it a standout in the zombie genre and an excellent disaster film for this list.

It's understandable if you haven't yet heard of this 2020 sci-fi horror flick directed by William Eubank, as it went by relatively undetected. However, "Underwater" is a gem that's worth discussing. The film stars Kristen Stewart as mechanical engineer Norah Price, who works for the Kelper, an underwater research facility.

Right off the bat, you are pulled into the story as the Kepler gets hit by an earthquake, which forces the remaining crew to try and survive. Due to the high intensity of the film, audiences experience a claustrophobic tale of how you would fare when you're trapped 11,000 feet below sea level. Not only does the crew have to deal with that sense of impending doom, but they also discover a humanoid creature that appears to be hunting the survivors as well. All in all, "Underwater" is an exciting disaster tale that will keep you on the edge of your seat the entire time. It mixes together horror, science fiction, and disaster tropes in one slippery adventure.

The Day the Earth Stood Still

Director Scott Derrickson's 2008 "The Day the Earth Stood Still" is a modern update of the 1951 film of the same name. The movie introduces the alien Klaatu (Keanu Reeves), who is sent to Earth to either eradicate humanity or to change humans' behavior. "The Day the Earth Stood Still" is an interesting concept, which focuses on how humans have caused so much environmental damage to the planet. Klaatu's species believes that humans must be stopped by any means necessary.

While Klaatu sees the value in humanity, his other alien companions do not. In fact, they believe that they must save the Earth from humans. "The Day the Earth Stood Still" is a unique addition to this list because, while the aliens are intent on destroying humanity, their goal is actually to preserve life. Just not humanity's. The film dares to ask the question of who is really causing the disaster: aliens or humans?

Simon West's 2019 film "Skyfire" stars Wang Xueqi and Jason Isaacs. Since it was meant to be a blockbuster disaster film for the Chinese market, "Skyfire" takes place in Tianhuo, which is a volcanic island off the coast of China (via Variety ). The film follows Meng (Hannah Quinlivan), as she monitors a volcano that erupted when she was a little girl, which killed her mother. 20 years after that eruption, Tianhuo has been turned into a resort by Jack Harris (Jason Issacs), who believes that the island's volcano won't become active again for another 100 years.

Well, since this is a disaster movie, Jack is ultimately proven wrong, as the volcano devastates the island with its fireballs that fall from the sky. The film is similar to "Volcano" and has a hint of "Jurassic Park" splashed in for good measure, so it's a fun time to watch as things go wrong for the characters.

Cloverfield

Director Matt Reeves debuted  "Cloverfield" in 2008. When the teaser trailer of this found-footage monster film was first released, it had no title attached and the plot was shrouded in secrecy. Due to this unique marketing approach , "Cloverfield" had audiences guessing at what this mysterious film was all about.

Flash-forward a few years, and there have been three films set in the Cloverfield universe : "10 Cloverfield Lane" and "The Cloverfield Paradox" followed the first movie. While each film has offered a unique take on the Cloverfield story, one thing has remained the same: Aliens have landed on Earth to cause absolute mayhem and destruction. However, it's the original "Cloverfield" that most closely follows the idea of a disaster movie. 

In the movie, a group of young people happen to capture the events as they unfold. Their found footage showcases earthquakes, power outages, and the now-iconic image of the Statue of Liberty's head being tossed to the ground. As the film progresses, the survivors become fewer and fewer, with some getting infected after being bitten by parasitic creatures, and the others just straight up dying due to the chaos.

Director Rawson Marshall Thurber's action thriller "Skyscraper" was released in 2018. The movie stars Dwayne Johnson as Will Sawyer, a Marine veteran and leader of the FBI Hostage Rescue Team. After suffering an accident, Will takes up private security, and accepts a job to work for the world's newest and tallest skyscraper, called "The Pearl." While living and working out of the tower, Will brings his wife Sarah (Neve Campbell) and their two kids to stay with him. Unfortunately, Will discovers a group terrorists are planning to hijack The Pearl, which would result in the destruction of the building, while Will and his family are trapped inside.

"Skyscraper" doesn't showcase millions dying due to a natural disaster or monsters. What happens to The Pearl won't result in the end of the world. However, if Will's family dies, it would be the end of his world. Audiences become attached to Will and Sarah as they fight to keep their family alive. That intense feeling of survival, combined with the stakes being high as a skyscraper, is enough to include this movie on our list.

This list of movies like "2012" has seen aliens, meteors, natural disasters, and even power-hungry humans as being the cause for disaster films. However, "Crawl" takes things one step further as the disaster here is alligators. We promise that it's not as ridiculous as it sounds.

2019's "Crawl" was directed by Alexandre Aja and stars Kaya Scodelario as Haley Keller, a young woman who travels back home to Florida, where a Category 5 hurricane is fast-approaching. She's concerned because she can't reach her father, and she wants to get him, so that they can evacuate together. Unfortunately, with the hurricane just around the corner, most of her hometown has been flooded. Now, large alligators are swimming around the neighborhood and trap Haley and her father. 

Suddenly, it's a race against time for these two, as they must survive the alligators and escape before the hurricane hits. "Crawl" ensures that audiences experience the same panic as the characters, who bounce from one near-fatal moment to another. The entire world may not be in danger, but for these residents of Florida, their lives are.

Ben Young's "Extinction" — starring Michael Peña and Lizzy Caplan — was released on Netflix in 2018. Initially, when watching this film, it seems like it's your state-of-the-art science fiction disaster movie: Earth gets invaded by aliens, who are looking to destroy everything. Viewers experience the film through the eyes of every-man Peter (Peña), who does whatever he can to keep his family safe. However, this is where the film flips the script.

Audiences soon discover that the alien invaders are actually humans, who have returned to Earth to take the planet back from the true invading force: the characters that the film has been following the entire time. Everyone that has been introduced thus far is actually artificial intelligence, which rose up against the human race and forced them off the planet. This twist changes the dynamic of the disaster film, as audiences no longer know who to root for. Clearly, this battle for the planet has been ongoing for years.

The Wandering Earth

Frank Gwo's "The Wandering Earth" is a Chinese science fiction post-apocalyptic film, which was released in 2019 and was loosely adapted by Liu Cixin's 2000 novel of the same name. In the film, the story is set in the not-so-distant future, when the sun is predicted to go supernova. This catastrophe would kill all life on Earth and obliterate the planet.

In order to combat this new form of extinction, the human race decides to shift the entire planet to avoid the supernova event. Unfortunately, moving the planet causes various natural disasters, such as tsunamis and a freezing of the Earth's surface, which causes the death of millions. The film does a time jump to show how humanity attempts to survive, as the planet travels through space towards its new home in the Alpha Centauri star system. While the story seems far-fetched, "The Wandering Earth" has amazing special effects and intense drama that all make the story believable. The film was a moderate hit with the critics  and a sequel is in the works for 2023 (via Variety ).

2014's disaster film "Pompeii" is a guilty pleasure. This film is by no means going to win any awards, but it is a good time and offers some fun visuals that showcase the true story of Pompeii . This city in the Roman Empire was destroyed by the eruption of the volcano Mount Vesuvius in 79 CE.

The film stars Kit Harington as the gladiator Milo, who is going to Pompeii to participate in a gladiator competition. There, he falls in love with Cassia (Emily Browning), the daughter of Pompeii's governor Severus (Jared Harris) and his wife Aurelia (Carrie-Anne Moss). As the film progresses, audiences can feel the looming presence of Mount Vesuvius, as we're all aware of how this tragic story will end. And the film does not disappoint with the absolute destruction caused by the volcano's exploding flames. The film ends with Milo and Cassia embracing each other, waiting to be engulfed by Mount Vesuvius' lava. We can only imagine them as part of the many historical bodies preserved by the volcanic eruption .

The Impossible

"The Impossible" is based on a true story from the 2004  disaster of the earthquake and tsunami , which devastated parts of Indonesia, Thailand, and India. María Belón detailed her family's experience about getting separated by the tsunami during a vacation to Thailand. Her family's story resulted in the 2010 film "The Impossible," directed by J. A. Bayona and starring Naomi Watts, Ewan McGregor, and a young Tom Holland in his film debut .

While disaster films are generally a fun time, "The Impossible" brings it back down to reality, as the film showcases a heart-wrenching tale of what living through one of these experiences truly looks like. "The Impossible" treats audiences to an emotional story that showcases people's strength, courage, and selflessness, all of which allows the family to reunite by the film's end. The story is a harrowing tale with exceptional acting that keeps audiences attached to every single character. Make sure you have tissues at the ready, as this is a beautiful yet devastating film to get through. 

• Preeti to unicode
• Keshav Sir's Site
• Rupindra Sir's Site
• OPT ENGLISH XI
• OPT ENGLISH XII
• Comp. ENGLISH XI
• Comp. ENGLISH XII

• TB, TG, Curri. and Ques.
• _Curriculum
• _Specification Grids
• _Teacher's Guide
• _QUESTION BANK
• _Questions and Reference Materials
• _Guided Writing
• _Free Writing
• _Movie Review
• _Grammar Rules
• _Grammar Exercises
• _Grammar Quiz
• Grade 11/12
• _Grammar 11
• _Guided and Free Writing
• __Guided Writing
• __Free Writing
• __Questions
• _Grade 12 (Literature Part)
• _Grade 11 (Literature Part)
• TSC Materials
• __Secondary
• __Basic (6-8)
• _Free Competition (KHULLA)
• __Basic (1-5)
• _INTERNAL 25 percent (Badhuwa)

Movie/ Film Review: “2012” is a Perfect Disaster

Movie Review: “2012” is a Perfect Disaster

Director:          Roland Emmerich

Producers:       Harald Kloser, Mark Gordon and Larry J. Franco

Script writers: Harald Klose and Roland Emmerich

Starring:          John Cusack, Amanda Peet, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Woody Harrelson

Release:           November 13 th , 2009

Language:       English

Budget:            $200 million

If a film critic awards four stars to a movie directed by Roland Emmerich, will the world come to an end? That’s a question the ancient Mayans never asked, but it’s the one facing me after the enormously satisfying, amazingly accomplished, reprehensible yet irresistible “2012”, the greatest achievement in Emmerich’s long, profitable career as a destroyer of the world.

Starting with the long-held misapprehension that the Mayan calendar picks “2012” as the date of humanity’s doom, Emmerich fleshes out that bit of pseudo history with some pseudo-science.

“2012” takes the disaster movie – once content simply to threaten the Earth with a comet, or blow up the White House – to its natural conclusion, the literal end of the world. Other movies have explosions; “2012” has an atom-bomb-size detonation that wipes Yellowstone off the map. Other movies have earthquakes; “2012” sends California sinking, in flames into the sea. Other movies kill thousands; “2012” kills zillions without breaking a sweat.

So what makes “2012” a four-star movie? It gets everything right. The actors are right: John Cusack as a protagonist, Amanda Peet as his wife, Chiwetel Ejiofor as a scientist. The story telling is right. You will never be bored. And the dialogue is right: a rich blend of wisecrack and cheese, with a few moist-eyed goodbyes sprinkled here and there for good measure. Most important, the special effects are so right. In fact, they are incredible. Emmerich is an expert of a panoramic disaster. Power lines snapping in an earthquake, sparks flashing like distant fireworks; Honolulu on fire; mournful giraffes in slings, air lifted by helicopters through the snowy Himalayas.

Is “2012” art? Absolutely not! It reminds us that cinema exists not only to mark art but also to expertly create sensation like no other medium. It is certainly the best movie of its kind ever made. This is the way the world ends: with a bang.

(Adapted from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11AR2009111207930.html)

The review was published in The Washington Post on Friday, November 13, 2009.

You may like these posts

Post a comment.

HAPPY NEW YEAR

Subscribe (youtube), date and time.

Facebook Page

• Action Research
• Audio Materials
• Free Writing
• Grammar Exercises
• Grammar Quiz
• Grammar Rules
• Grammar test Class 9/10
• Guided Writing
• License Basic (6-8)
• License Secondary
• Literature Part Grade 11
• LIVE WORKSHEETS
• Optional English (Grade 11)
• Optional English (Grade 12)
• Please give me feedback too.
• Question Bank
• Reference Materials
• Result sheets
• Specification Grid
• Teachers' Guide
• शिक्षक सेवा आयोग सामग्री

Report Abuse

Total pageviews, contributors.

• रुपिन्द्र प्रभावी

Social Plugin

Popular posts.

All Materials of Grade 10 (New Book 2080)

Unit 1 Current Affairs and Issues (Grade 10) Reading II

All Units of Class Nine

Important sites for english.

• British Council
• Education World
• Live Work Sheets
• MCQ TIMES for all subjects
• Road to Grammar
• Work Sheet Place

Important Common Sites

• National Examination Board
• Curriculum Development Centre
• Ministry of Education, Science and Technology
• Teachers Service Commission
• Centre for Education and Human Resource Development
• The Official Portal of Government of Nepal
• Public Service Commission
• E-pustakalaya
• Looma Website for 1 to 10
• OLE Nepal-Epaath for 1 to 8
• Department of Information
• Nepal Law Commission

Important Blogs

About the blogger.

• Dev Prasad Pandit

Khairahani-4, Chainpur, Chitwan

Email: [email protected]

Mobile: 9845054921

Youtube and Other Links

• Khan Academy
• NCED Virtual Class
• Khullakitab
• Lesson Plan
• Sikai Chautari
• Social Studies (Rajan Neupane Sir)

Menu Footer Widget

Haamro Notes

• Privacy Policy
• Speedy Maths

Unit 5 Reading II |Movie Review 2012 is a perfect Disaster Exercise | Class 10 English

  movie review 2012: a perfect disaster class 10 english exercise.

  Vocabulary in use

Rewrite the following sentences choosing the correct phrases/words from the list below for the underlined words..

boom, unbelievable, misinterpretation, extremely large number of people, a protagonist, the people who speak American Indian language in Central America and Mexico, movie reviewer, broadens, appealing

a. The film critic awards four stars to the film ‘2012”.

=> movie reviewer

b.Emmerich fleshes out a bit of pseudo-history and some pseudo-science in “2012”.

=> broadens

c.John Cusack is in a leading role .

=>a protagonist

c.“2012” kills zillions without breaking a sweat.

=>extremely large number of people

d. According to the critic, “2012” is enormously satisfactory , amazingly accomplished and irresistible. 

=>appealing

e.The calendar of the Mayans had a misapprehension of “2012” as the date of humanity’s doom.

=> the people who speak American Indian language in Central America and Mexico,  misinterpretation

f. The special effects of the movie are incredible .

=> unbelievable.

g. In “2012’, the world ends with a bang .

2.   reading comprehension, i.  read the movie review, and decide whether the following statements are true or false., a.   “2012” is a film about the disaster that kills a great number of people., b.   the director of the movie has also contributed in its writing part., c.   chiwetel ejiofor played the role of a doctor..

=> False

d.   Mark Gordon is one of the producers of “2012”.

E.   the critic finds the special effects of the movie incredible., movie review 2012 is a perfect disaster question answers, a.   who is roland emmerich.

Ans: Roland Emmerich is the director of the movie “2012”.

b.   When was the movie “2012” released?

Ans: The movie was released on 13th November 2009.

c.  What misconception is captured in the beginning of the movie?

Ans: The Mayan calendar picks “2012” as the date of humanity's extinction is the misconception captured at the beginning of the movie 2012.

d.   Why do the audience not feel bored while watching the movie?

Ans: The audience does not feel bored while watching the movie because the actors, the story the dialogue and the special effects are fantastic.

e.   What makes “2012” the perfect movie?

Ans: The way things are presented in the movie “2012” makes it the perfect movie.

f. What are the differences between “2012” and other movies?

Ans: Other movies have explosions; “2012” has an atom bomb size detonation that wipes Yellowstone off the map. Other movies have earthquakes; “2012” sends California sinking in flames into the sea. Other movies kill thousands; “2012” kills zillions without breaking a sweat.

3. Follow-up activity

Note down the major points of the movie review. paraphrase them. develop this into a paragraph with a suitable title, topic sentence, supporting sentences and a concluding sentence., 2012 movie summary.

 In “2012” Roland Emmerich creates a picture of the world’s future.  According to the movie, the Mayan calendar ends on Dec. 21, 2012, predicting that the world will end on that day.  Catastrophic natural disasters damage the planet, resulting in the deaths of millions.  The movie is the greatest achievement in Emmerich’s career as a destroyer of the world.  It is a four-star movie.  It has spectacular special effects.  The best movie of its kind ever made .

B. Time for grammar

1. read the school uniform code, and encircle the modal verbs..

The school uniform codes are important to maintain a sense of oneness and unity. Therefore, students  must   come to school in their stipulated uniform. They  ma y  wear coloured clothes of their choice on their birthdays but they  have  to maintain the regulations for sportswear, formal wear and Friday clothing accordingly. As the bottom line for clothing is comfort and decency, students are not allowed to wear jewellery or make-up. Similarly, hair  must  be of natural colour, decent length and style. Next, they  should  trim their nails. Furthermore, they  need   to wear trousers and skirts according to specifications. Lastly, they  ought to  follow the instructions of the discipline incharge. Breaching uniform codes  may   result in detention.

2. Imagine Kunsang has visited Manisha. What might have Manisha told her nephew? Complete the following sentences with suitable expressions of advice, suggestion or warning.

a. Kunsang, you  mustn’t hurt your parents’ feelings .

 b. You have to   think about your parents .

c. You ought not to  give up studying now .

d. If I were you, I would  complete my high school education .

e. You aren’t allowed to  do as you wish at this age .

f. You may go  to town after completing your high school .

g. You are not supposed  to leave school now .

C. Follow-up activity

 walking on foot along the roads may sometimes be dangerous. fill in the blanks with appropriate modal verbs to give a sense of pedestrians’ safety..

The roads   can   be dangerous for pedestrians. Even for those who are not driving, it is important to be aware that traffic  could   be approaching from unexpected directions. Apart from motorways, it’s not illegal crossing the road at any point. It is advisable to use crossings, some of them controlled by traffic lights, whenever you can. You  ought to  cross the road when the green signal is on but, if the light is flashing, don’t start to cross.

There are crossing points known as zebra crossings which have black and white road markings and orange flashing beacons at each side of the road.

Drivers  should  give way to pedestrians on the crossing. Pedestrians of developed cities can also use subways and overhead bridges for their safety.

 Don ’ t forget, pedestrians  must not   walk along or cross any motorways at any time.

Class 10 English Unit 5 Giving advice and warnings Listening Exercise (with audio file)

Engage yourself

Look at the picture below and answer the following questions.

a. Are you fond of reading books?

=>  Yes, I am. / No, I am not.

b. How often do you visit a library?

=>  I go there every day/ once a week.

 c. How do you find a book of your choice in a library?

=>  I go to the particular section. /I simply ask it from the librarian.

B. Study time

1. Listen to the conversation, and make a list of different sections of a library.

a.  Library display section

b.  Periodical section

c.  Reference section

d.  Biography section

2. Listen to the conversation again, and answer the following questions.

a. Who advised Anjali to get a book of her interest?

=>  Her teacher  advised Anjali to get a book of her interest.

b. How often does Anjali read reference books?

=>  Anjali seldom reads reference books.

c. What is the periodical section for?

=>   The periodical section is for m agazines and newspapers

d. In which section of the library are new books found?

=>   New books are found in the l ibrary Display Section

e. In which section does the student find the biographies?

=>   The students find the biographies in the b iography section .

Work in a small group. Discuss the rules and regulations of your school library. Then write them on a plain sheet of paper and share it with the class.

=> Rules and Regulations to be followed in school library

B. Time for writing

1. write a dialogue between two students who have distinct views on the qualities of a captain or a leader..

2. Write a book/movie review. You may include answers of these questions: Who were the characters/actors? Who published/produced it? Who was the author/director? What was the plot? What problem was highlighted? How was the problem/s solved? What did you like/ dislike about it? Did you like the ending? If you were the author/ director, how would you end the story?

=> Book review on Muna Madan

      Book review on I capture the castle

Suppose your maternal uncle is planning to go abroad. Your mother advises him to follow a few dos and don’ts. Prepare a dialogue between your mother and maternal uncle using the given hints. You can add your own points if you like.

better income, better and secured future, risk of fatal diseases, skillful manpower is highly paid, knowledge of different languages is bene fi cial, must go legally, get right information from the government of fi ces, get help from the helpline

=>  Dialogue between mother and maternal uncle who is planning to go abroad

• Anonymous Thursday, 28 October, 2021 thanks a lot Bro
• mada saga Thursday, 26 May, 2022 What are the finest and worst films in the world? How can anyone measure something like that? Surely it's all subjective. But that's what the staff at Reviews of Movies On CinemaHDv2 aim to accomplish. They watch as many movies as they can, from major blockbusters to little indie films, and then rate them https://cinemahdv2.net/reviews-movie-on-cinema-hd/