2012 was a lot like Mission: Impossible III in its apparently overwhelming need to be a ridiculous action movie. The special effects which showed the destruction the disruption of Earth's crust would bring were amazing, but, nevertheless, screamed "I am fake!" But perhaps that's just because it's incredibly difficult to believe anything like that would ever happen, and one scene-the volcano's eruption-was particularly well-done, despite my criticism.
The acting was decent. I was very happy to see that they decided to cast less well-known actors (at least to me). John Cusack and Danny Glover are somewhat well-known, but not as iconic as Bruce Willis, Tom Cruise, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sandra Bullock, or Tom Hanks, for example. I feel the presence of better-known actors can pull attention away from the plot and towards the super-stars, making it a Bruce Willis movie, to pick on him, instead of a movie about whatever.
I thought that a much better end-of-the-world type movie was Children of Men. Both films commented on the sanctity of life, but I believe Children of Men did so much more convincingly with its gentle but strong suggestion that life is precious; babies need to be protected so the human race can continue, and fertility is inherently important to civilization. The movie was also less popular; I don't believe it was released to regular theaters, or at least not as long as other films tend to be. (Please correct me if I am mistaken.) Children of Men encouraged viewers to be emotional to the point of crying, whereas 2012 inspired the occasional "NO!!!" but nothing more.
Here's the link to Children of Men's page on IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0206634/
and the link to 2012: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1190080/
I'm sure Angel has a lot to say about the movie as well, so stay tuned for a diatribe :P
Did anyone else see it who wants to comment on it?


