Finally watched 2012....Worst movie EVER

Post Reply New Topic

Seriously. I never turn a movie off before it ends. NEVER. But this movie is just awful. It started out ok, but then when everything started falling apart it was just so pathetic. This movie was all people talked about when it came out. Seriously? People LIKED this movie? I might watch the rest of it (I still have an hour and 15 minutes to go) but I doubt I'll make it 10 minutes.

Sorry. Just had to vent.

Legend has it that NASA has used the movie Armageddon as an examination for senior engineers; they are challenged to spot all the technical and scientific inaccuracies in the film. (Current record, I am told, is somewhere in excess of 200, mostly having to do with ballistics.) I think that if Congress ever re-establishes the Office of Technological Assessment, all prospective senior personnel should be subjected to a similar test involving 2012.

You really should go back and try to watch the movie again, Katatonic; but do it in the correct spirit. That is, treat it as a comedy. I mean, really, a plane has taken off, but can't get altitude because the ground is falling away beneath it? Waves that hit the tops of the Himalayas?? The "hero" is right in the end to endanger all surviving humans so he can try to save another five or six people??? (I'm sorry, but the "villain" was right - the "hero" very nearly caused the extinction of all humanity for reasons of sentiment.)

Well, I agree. I'm sure the movie is full of bunk as it was intended to entertain, but on some of those points....

1. A plane needs a given amount of speed to have proper lift. A plane can get off the ground at X velocity but need Y velocity to climb, and that figure can change based on weight being carried. I was under the impression the plane barely got enough speed to get off the ground when the ground started collapsing out from under it, and the plane was at it's load limit. Then, add in dodging debris and stuff and I just presumed the plane was struggling to get enough "level flight" to work on building its speed to climb above the carnage. If you know anything about resistance and velocity, every turn, no matter how minor, scrubs off speed, so dodging debris and stuff was the opposite of what that plane needed to be doing in order to gain altitude. I don't know if ground collapsing out from under the plane could create a "suck down" effect in air flow. If it can (like down drafts from thunderstorms), then the idea was not implausible. Frankly, the limo ride to the airport was a lot more problematic.

2. Waves hitting the top of the Himalayas? Possible IF you consider what was happening was violent tectonic shifts that was making sections of the sea/ocean floor rise to the surface and dry land sink below sea level. It does beg the question of how or why anyone would think the Himalayas would be the LAST place to succumb to flooding or why they'd be boarding anywhere close to the last minute as they did. In fact, if the continental shelf was sinking, I'd assume (but could be wrong) that just that event would cause significant earthquakes at the evac site.

3. That one ship wasn't the only ark. If it went down, thousands would die but there were something like 8 arks being launched? The debate was that they could let them die or risk to save them...it was a question of preserving their humanity by taking the risk. As it was, did not the danger ultimately come from a tool being lodged in the gearing for the doors?

You could make more fun of the silly things....That Yellowstone explodes and anyone flew away from that (if it went up, several states would be washed away). That they get to Las Vegas and the airport's still working with much of what's already going on.

It was a bad movie...just like Day After Tomorrow. Go in expecting it to be bad and you can laugh at it.

I'm waiting till after the event to watch the movie, I don't like spoilers.

Actually, zer0, that was one of the funniest bits - all of the Yellowstone supervolcano erupting at once and someone survived? I also liked the part where the limo was sufficiently flimsy that hitting an empty plastic garbage can at low speed was enough to tear off a door - but it was able to plow right through a collapsing office building without even picking up a dent.

I've seen worse films, like for example "Snakes on a plane" which I turned off.

The worst film I've ever seen in my life was called "Ed" and featured Matt LeBlanc (of friends) and was about a baseball playing chimp. (spot the dwarf in a monkey suit ) I had to watch the film to the end, just had to see if it could possibly get any worse. It could.

Ok so I watched the movie all the way through again......its still stupid in more ways that you can imagine, but I guess it wasn't all that bad. I've seen plenty worse.

The film is just mindless entertainment. Not really meant to be taken serious.

That said, I am currently analyzing it as part of an essay I am writing to submit to a cinema journal (since the topic involves talking about films you wouldn't usually talk about in a scholarly fashion).

What makes both 10,000 BC and 2012 awesomely awful is how much money was obviously put into them. Those movies gush money in every other scene. And it seems the writers were paid in coupons once you look at the quality of the dialogue, script and the sheer number of plot holes so big you could sail one of those huge ships through it. Everything Roland Emmerich directs is like that. I love him, he manages to out do Michael Bay when it comes to the 'eh, just make it go boom, no one cares about the plot anyway - we'll just put some technical sounding words together and call it science' approach to movies.

I mean when you have next to no budget you can make some awful movies, it's practically expected. Making something with a massive budget and oodles of special effects so awful it's become a comedy without intending to - that takes a true (lack of) talent, and I admire and respect that. I'd never buy one of his movies... but my family's been told that should they want to give me DVDs I do appreciate just how mind-numbingly stupid his movies are and if I were to find one in a Christmas present perhaps I could find a conveniently empty space in the 'astonishingly stupid action movies' section for it.

I helped deliver rushes for 10,000 BC and still haven't seen the movie. So 2012 -- worst movie ever, huh? Worse that American Beauty?? Worst than White Chicks??!?!?! Wow. That's saying something.

Haven't seen 2012 either so can't really judge whether that's true, actually. hahaha. Didn't look bad in the previews but it did look pretty mediocre.

2012 is easily one of the worst films i have ever seen

Yes, it and 2012 Supernova are the worst movies in the history of the universe for the entire span of eternity and beyond.

Roland Emmerich and his disaster comedies... I hate the whole 2012 Doomsday crap. This movie actually gave that New Age garbage a lot of publicity it doesn't deserve. Honestly if you want to enjoy watching 2012, mute it and make up your own dialogue with your friends after having a few beers or smoking a joint or something.