Dr. Adrian Helmsley, part of a worldwide geophysical team investigating the effect on the earth of radiation from unprecedented solar storms, learns that the earth's core is heating up. He warns U.S. President Thomas Wilson that the crust of the earth is becoming unstable and that without proper preparations for saving a fraction of the world's population, the entire race is doomed. Meanwhile, writer Jackson Curtis stumbles on the same information. While the world's leaders race to build "arks" to escape the impending cataclysm, Curtis struggles to find a way to save his family. Meanwhile, volcanic eruptions and earthquakes of unprecedented strength wreak havoc around the world. Written by
Jim Beaver <email@example.com>
In the movie, New York City was flooded in summer 2012. In real life, New York City was flooded due to the effects of Hurricane Sandy in October 2012. See more »
Described as the AN-500 on the ground, in the air it is an AN-225. The AN-225 loads all cargo into the nose of the aircraft. It has no rear loading deck, therefore, making it impossible for the cars to drive out the rear of the aircraft. See more »
The opening scene of the movie shows the years and events leading up to 2012 (2009...2010...2011). The title card not only states the movie's title, but also seems to indicate, "And in the year 2012..." See more »
Good cataclysmic Action, but waayyy to much bad kitsch
I loved the first half of the movie with Roland Emmerich seemingly back to form (from his disastrous "10,000 B.C."). But as the movie drags on, even the smallest character gets his "i have to say goodbye to my loved ones"-scene - which becomes quite annoying after you've watched this for the 5th time in a row. then comes a great destruction scene and then we're back in soap-opera territory. don't get me wrong, basically that can be said about most of Emmerich's movies - they are just popcorn cinema - leave your brain at the ticket counter. still, i enjoyed the likes of "Independence Day" or even "The Day After Tomorrow". But the one thing, he can't do properly is "good"-emotional cinema - which works fine in some of his other movies when his pathos-laden, goofy dialogue writing doesn't get in the way of the big explosions - it fit's, makes them funnier to a point. unfortunately this doesn't work for 2012. if somebody could actually cut this movie down to 90minutes running time, i'd even be lining up for a second ticket.
191 of 307 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?