the movie

Don't waste your $ on it. Another movie that could've been something, with a quality director/producer....ahem, Spielberg. Instead, we got what I feared for the last 3 years...awesome special effects with misinterpretations of theories and overdramaticized and cheesy God-aweful acting. First movie I've ever considered leaving the theater early. I just think that films about relevant and real-life applicable themes should be given atleast a feeling of a little seriousness and not a damn "Independence Day" circus.

I was so disappointed with the movie. Then again what do you expect, it is hollywood. I didn't watch the trailer before i saw the movie, so i didn't know what i was going to see. I just turned out to be one big GCI overloaded movie. Silly stunts and crap acting. I aint into graphcs and CGI that much. Though i do love the Aliens and Terminator movies.

Just like junk food, it's a junk movie!

IMO...don't waste yer money!

Tsom87

I agree. The last time i was at the movies before 2012 was to see 300, I only go to movies that i think i'll enjoy, so it's not too often, but i was beyond disappointed with 2012. It irks me so much to see these movies really be made for american audiences alone. I wanted to see more science behind why it was happening (in the movie, that is - i'm not a believer in the 2012 happening whatsoever i wanted more effects and the lovey dovey family happy message really gave me the s***s. I really don't care if he gets back with the ex wife and whatnot. Always with the cheesy one liners. Ugh.
But i did like that adorable little dog (i'm female - what can i say )

Oh and i thought Woody's role in it was really stupid. Plus i was under the impression that if Yellowstone blew it's top, it wouldn't just knock woody over to begin with and you wouldn't be out driving it in your camper van no? Maybe my imagination of this monster caldera was too much?

[edit on 19/12/2009 by bkaust]

First, please allow my apologies for my own imagination.. some days it gets away from me. Also for the spoiler if you haven't already watched the movie.
When I watched this film, I did look at things the way the director intended them to be seen. Of course, there's always cheesy parts in every movie I've ever watched. I learn to look over them, to see the idea the director/writers wanted us to see. I honestly don't think the writers/director wanted this movie to be a documentary or a NatGeo special of sorts. I think it was meant for your imaginative humanitarian side.

The plot: A guy finds out that "life as we know it" will end and the only way to save himself and his family is to get to the safety of what the govt's of the world have built in order to survive.

Here's a few questions though, maybe you can help me out:
Question 1: Are the govt's of the world building things to protect the few lucky people and animals of the world? Are there government Spaceships?? Arcs???
Question 2: Can neutrinos from sun bursts actually heat up the earths core causing the surface of the earth to displace? If so, are there any studies out there and what's happening now?
Question 3: (For imagination's sake) IF the earth's crust displaces like that of the movie, how would ANYONE survive the devastation? Where could you be in the world if that amount of devastation happens? With massive volcanoes erupting throwing ash clouds darkening the sky and blanketing the world which will snuff out all oxygen. Tsunami's blasting high enough to cover Mount Everest raising the sea level to cover most of the world continents .... there is NO survival if, in fact, this actually happens.

I think the movie was meant to "touch" your humanly imaginative spiritual side in order for the "unlucky" people of the world to make peace within themselves prior to the SHTF. It was meant to make people realize that the continued path we're on just might get ripped out from under our feet one day without time to repent and find our inner peace. But, then again, this is just my observation.

I hate it when they make a movie with lots of effects and that it makes so much money despite the fact that the movie sucks. Also I went to see the movie to see the reason why people didn't like it, did people hate it because of a stupid reason like they don't believe in 2012? or that it was actually a bad movie...turns out it was a bad movie...

I actually liked it, but I guess that is just me...

It was made to be an action/adventure sci-fi flick, not a real life docudrama on an already fictional scenario (IMHO) anyways. I was a little worried the acting wasn't going to be that good at first but it seemed alright to me. I also thought the special effects were awesome. I guess a lot on this thread won't be anticipating the series "2013" that ABC is supposed to start next year (as a follow up to the movie).

I think they made it bad so that any one that wanted to discuss 2012 to somebody they would think of the movie and think thats what your theroy is about. The should of focused less on the chacters and more on the disasters. What you expect from them though.

So I assume your all talking about "2012" the Movie, it was OK, I did (with my friend) come to the conclusion that John Cusacks character and his family were the luckiest people in the entire universe, running away from destruction then driving away from destrucion then flying away from destruction, they may as well have called the movie "Damn Lucky".