Wednesday, June 2, 2010


"When typhoons, earthquakes and other disasters suddenly threaten to destroy the world, Jackson (John Cusack), his estranged wife, Kate (Amanda Peet), and others surmise that the secret may lie in ancient Mayan prophecies that describe global calamity in the year 2012. Roland Emmerich co-writes and directs a star-studded ensemble cast that also includes Thandie Newton, Oliver Platt, Woody Harrelson, Chiwetel Ejiofor and Danny Glover." courtesy of netflix
I actually really enjoyed this movie but I'm a sucker for anything John Cusack. The fact that "2012" is a really theory and is truly based off of Mayan Prophecies makes it so much more interesting obviously this is an exzaggerated Hollywood version but you can seek the truth on your own. I love Danny Glover's character in this movie and the government is all too predictable and believeable in this film. I don't want to say much else because I'll spoil it but I definitley do think its a good watch.


  1. This movie was so absurdly out of whack with the laws of nature and physics that I got a cramp in my willful suspension of disbelief.

    The special effects were awesome though...expecially in a big screen theater with surround sound. It's the kind of movie that is best approached as a thrill ride. THAT it does.

  2. haha yeah I mean the theory is real but the way they portrayed it its hardly believeable

    can i just say though -- if you havent seen the movie, skip this paragraph. anyways, why did they think ark's were a good idea? obviously planes or spaceships or something airborne would be much more sufficent. i was thorougly disappointed in that

    although the price and government was probably portrayed correctly with the million $ price tag and the suite rooms lol

    but it was entertaining and the special effects were amazing. it satisifed that.

  3. **spoiler alert**

    Planes and spaceships require a place to land, and sufficient fuel to remain aloft for however long it took. Without that, they would be useless.

    The arks could be safe and self sufficient for as long as they are provisioned.

  4. well technically spaceships could orbit in space the way the arks would float in water but you're right any flight option would need a place to land and sufficent fuel - and who knows whats sufficent in that kind of situation.

    although with the arks - they still needed fuel or energy to steer around -- whatever they did to not crash into the top of mount everest lol

    what i kept thinking of, if it ever happened the way it did in the movie (unlikely) it really should be more like a submarine type of ark - whatver prevented that thing from just tipping over and staying upside down?

    but again- like you said in the beginning it defyed (defied?) all laws of nature and physics and every other realm of science haha