2012

Le potentiel divertissant exploité à plein régime. Bien que les scènes soient clichées, dans leur ensemble elles empruntent des chemins pas tout à fait prévisibles et apportent plus que les bandes-annonces. À aucun moment je n'ai eu l'impression que le film se prenait plus au sérieux qu'il ne le devrait - Roland Emmerich compense astucieusement le degré de chaque absurdité avec une dose appropriée d'humour (le tour en limousine à Los Angeles qui se termine par une douche de réservoir à excréments est un pur délire comique qui n'a rien à voir avec un thriller catastrophique) tout en pouvant surprendre immédiatement après (les vagues de marée impressionnantes). Mais ce qui m'a le plus surpris dans 2012 et pourquoi je lui donne 4 étoiles (non, ce ne sont pas les effets spéciaux moyens par endroits, et encore moins le look bon marché de la caméra numérique dont nous devrons apparemment nous accommoder même dans les superproductions tape-à-l'œil) c'est son approche politique. Le personnage le moins éthique de tout le film est un haut responsable du gouvernement américain, les riches sont critiqués pour se sauver au détriment des travailleurs et le salut du monde ne passe plus par le drapeau américain, mais par une carte déployée sur tout l'écran avec l'inscription "CHINA". Le drapeau américain est ridiculisé ici en relation avec le personnage comique Woody Harrelson (au fait, la scène géniale sur la colline avec vue sur la vallée). Chaque grande nation/continent est représenté ici soit par un personnage bien écrit et bien joué (le trio russe + leur chien), soit par un symbole symbolique qui ne peut pas être oublié (l'Afrique...). 2012 est un film catastrophique tellement populaire qu'il a gagné toute ma sympathie grâce à son niveau élevé de divertissement. Et le fait que Mona Lisa regarde l'Eiffel Tower depuis la fenêtre du Louvre ne me dérange pas. ___ Deuxième visionnage : si Emmerich était dans la politique mondiale, il n'y aurait pas de guerres et nous nous tiendrions tous la main amicalement (et irions au cinéma). Dans ce film, on ressent le plus comment il aime le vieux bon Hollywood de catastrophe et d'aventure. Le plaisir coupable ultime. (05/11/2009)

Five minutes of fun are always ruined by half an hour of boring and incredibly dull bollocks. Where are the days of Independence Day and Godzilla? They didn’t have such megalomaniac destruction, but their stories held together and they were fun and tense throughout. If we consider the contents, the runtime of 2012 is so excessive that by the end (or rather, the last hour) it was hard for me to refrain from doing something else and leave the film on as background noise. Maybe it’s good for the undemanding audience craving for a CGI orgy, but I’m unable to turn off my brain thoroughly enough to say the same. (03/12/2009)

For the first two hours, I figured I wouldn't give it full stars just because the American president Roger Murtaugh didn't declare "I’m too old for this shit!" at the sight of a rolling wave. During the third hour, I wondered why Emmerich had to add a bonus to his "best-of" that would make it hard for me to give it three stars. Yet my happy feelings prevailed. Together with Kloser, they know how to make fun of themselves, foreign policy, and genre mischief, which they’ve pulled off countless times before. Although the ending (the most boring thing this "most American German" ever made) will stay with me for a long time, the over-the-top special effects orgy, fine actors, and actually the whole overblown atmosphere will keep it at four stars. However, a second watch on DVD doesn't add to that. (19/11/2009)

You're quite a guy, Roland. For my fifty, I enjoyed the Himalayas of royal entertainment. Several family action scenes also attack the master of spectacular idiocy Michael Bay, but best of all: Roland has learned to poke fun at himself. Whether it's the engagement of the bristled Cusack, the figure of the Russian oligarch (his "it´s Russian" aspires to be the line of the year), or small jokes with animals. At times, I felt like I was watching a parody of The Day After Tomorrow. Of course, to put it bluntly, 2012 is a typical Roland destructive exhibition, beautifully pointed out in the author's guileless optimism. The 3 hours flow by quickly, and during wooden conversations, hard-core fans of Emmerichisms will be satisfied in a solid state, the effects suggest that water is still not quite where it needs to be, and authentic digital will say that Roland wants to go with the times. He essentially does his own thing. I hate to say it: I used to like him because I was able to make fun of him, but now, after his best Hollywood film, which 2012 undoubtedly is, I simply like him. He is so beautifully and peculiarly PURELY... fill in the noun according to your opinion. (13/12/2009)

Flashy, but not enough to be effective. Silly, but not enough to reach guilty pleasure status. A mish-mash of everything, where in the end there is nothing. Most of all, though, it is not fun. It’d be OK if it was dull and cheap, but at least if it was something. (15/11/2009)

A lot of nice effects popped up, but the stupid story is just unforgivable. The whole world revolves around John Cusack, who drives under a falling skyscraper to escape all manner of disasters on air, land and sea by a hair’s breadth a hundred different times. Not to mention the unnatural reactions of his entire family. A long, long waste of time. A weak 2 stars. (22/12/2012)

Emmerich as a director cannot be surprised, because he is essentially monothematic. His strengths and weaknesses are intimately known to the audience, so even his latest film should be avoided by anyone expecting something more than bombastic effects and action. His conception of the end of the world can be immensely attacked and ridiculed from intellectual positions. As is traditional for him, he resigns on even the most basic logic in his storytelling, boldly using the most cliched genre schemes, unabashedly stuffing his film with all possible pop-cultural symbols from Princess Diana to Mona Lisa. The dialogues are stupid, and as is customary for him, it is heavily American patriotic, permeated with family values, the plot is predictable, and the characters are clearly readable. From the very beginning, experienced viewers can infer which characters will survive and which will be deservedly punished for their "sins." On the other hand, if one looks at his film with detachment, despite all its stupidity, it is entertaining, decently ticking along, and well cast both in terms of types and acting performances. It's definitely not a film I would have the slightest desire to revisit in the future, but as a popcorn treat, it is bearable in one viewing. Overall impression: 50%. (13/12/2009)

I always enjoyed Emmerich’s megalomanic demolition of our Mother Earth, and the promise that this time destruction would be ultimate left my humanity-hating self excited to the max. The trailer massage did not disappoint and the movie in itself came up to my expectations. Don’t get me wrong, it is complete bullshit, with a stupid script, but it has a certain charm. The “last minute" escapes are just mouth watering. The whole driving through L. A. scene is so ridiculously cheesy and cool, it may well make it into my TOP movie scenes. When there’s no destruction going on, we have great actors who are fun to watch. I strongly recommend watching 2012 in a movie theater. Same as with all destruction movies. - Whoa, that’s a big plane. - It’s Russian. (20/11/2009)

Less monumental than I expected, much less than Independence Day, for example. The theme is partly to blame for that, after all, the end of the world is slightly less attractive than the arrival of Aliens. But the much worse and less remarkable musical component is also to blame. Unfortunately, even the actors in the main roles are not that great, either. Where did tough guy Vince Larkin go, that is a mystery to me, John Cusack is really not up to the task. The excellent Oliver Platt and a few Russian actors save it – excellent accent and lines. The visual effects are decent, some ideas are excellent, the volcano explosion is fantastic. But overall, it lacks drive and has too many directorial ideas. You are not afraid for the protagonists because you don't care about them. And I’d rather not speak about the overall and somewhat annoying family feeling that was present throughout the whole film. This is no Emmerich. This modern disaster film is pure average. (06/12/2009)

Better than The Day After Tomorrow and a tiny bit weaker than Independence Day. You have to accept Emmerich's game of "let the protagonists escape everything and solve everything at the last second", watch the screen, marvel and have fun. This film can be best described as: A perfect visual and sound orgy. The special effects are something truly unreal (and let's face it, they're the ones that attract most people to 2012) - the destruction of California, the Yellowstone volcano eruption, the flight and landing of a giant Russian plane, the Ark... Of course there are the ubiquitous allusions to the Bible, God and religion of all kinds (my favorite is the crack in the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel that appears between "those two fingers"), but the actors are also a delight. Cusack is standard, therefore good, Woody Harrelson enjoys his "nutcase" perfectly, Glover's president is quite folksy, but you still feel authority from him. Unforgettable, however, is the Russian Zlatko Burić (and his two prides - Antonov and Bentley)... Bottom line: 2012 is one of the funniest clichés I've ever seen, and I'll definitely go see it again and gladly. The 158 minutes went by suspiciously fast. Avatar, you lost this one. (13/11/2009)

The guilty pleasure of the century, though actually only from the point of view of how that “realistic” catastrophe takes on enormous fantasy dimensions in Emmerich’s hands. In terms of narration and direction there’s not much to complain; the story is incredibly brisk, it exploits the potential of the epic premise in an entertaining way, putting ordinary and helpless people in the middle of a huge natural disaster, and holds itself together thanks to its traditionally wide communicativeness and the systematic work with deadlines that go from micro-events (escaping from the city, escaping on a plane from an erupting volcano) to the motivations of the main story (getting the necessary information, a map for rescue and means of transportation, boarding on time and fixing a defect that could kill everyone). It’s full of clichés and last-second escapes, but that serves to intensify the massive mark it leaves in the history of the genre, also making clear that we aren’t supposed to take it seriously. On the one hand, that’s a shame because the premise calls for an intense experience, but you can’t really complain when the result is so entertaining and original in the details. Notwithstanding its lapses in logic, I love watching 2012, such a formally mastered and self-aware over-the-top blockbuster is not something we get every year. (29/01/2019)

Roland Emmerich embarked on a disaster movie associated with the end of the world in 2012. I saw the movie during its premiere at the cinema, and I must say that it made a good impression on me. All that destruction simply looked good, and I'm glad that I could see it in the cinema, where it looked better than on the screen. Additionally, at that time, I still liked digital effects a lot, which I'm starting to dislike now. (23/12/2013)