2012

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. (18/11/2009)

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)

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)

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)

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)