2012

El potencial de diversión se aprovecha al máximo. Las escenas individuales son clichés, pero en conjunto llevan la historia por caminos no del todo predecibles y nos brindan más de lo que hemos visto en los avances. En ningún momento tuve la sensación de que la película pretendiera ser más seria de lo que debería haber sido - Roland Emmerich esta vez compensa sorprendentemente con habilidad el grado de cada absurdo con una dosis adecuada de humor (el paseo por Los Ángeles en una limusina, que entre otras cosas, recibe salpicado por el contenido de un succionador fecal, es una comedia pura que no tiene nada que ver con un thriller de catástrofes), pero también es capaz de impresionar (maremotos asombrosos). Pero lo que más me sorprendió de 2012 y me hizo darle cuatro estrellas (y no, no fueron los efectos especiales, a veces mediocres, y definitivamente no el aspecto de cámara digital barata a la que quizás tengamos que acostumbrarnos incluso con películas llamativas de gran presupuesto) es el enfoque político. El personaje menos ético de toda la película es el pez gordo del gobierno estadounidense, los ricos son criticados por salvarse el cuello a expensas de los trabajadores, y esta vez la salvación del mundo es no la bandera estadounidense, sino un mapa de pantalla completa con la palabra «CHINA» escrita en él. La bandera estadounidense queda bastante ridiculizada gracias al personaje cómico interpretado por Woody Harrelson (en una gran escena en una colina con vista al valle, por cierto). Y cada nación/continente importante está representado aquí o bien por un personaje secundario adecuadamente escrito e interpretado (la troika rusa y su perro son mis favoritos), o al menos mencionado simbólicamente (África...). 2012 es una superproducción de catástrofes tan amigable para el público que, junto con su alto valor de entretenimiento, logró colarse en mi corazón. Y no me importa que Mona Lisa mire por la ventana del Louvre a la Torre Eiffel. Después de verla película por segunda vez: Si Emmerich se dedicara a la política mundial, no habría guerras y todos iríamos de la mano amigablemente (e iríamos al cine). Esta película está rebosante de su amor por las viejas películas de aventuras y desastres de Hollywood. Ultimate guilty pleasure. (05.11.2009)

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)

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)

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)

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)