|
2012 (Two-Disc Special Edition) [Blu-ray] | ![2012 (Two-Disc Special Edition) [Blu-ray]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51TluPMQkZL._SL160_.jpg) | Director: Roland Emmerich Actors: John Cusack, Amanda Peet, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Thandie Newton, Oliver Platt Studio: Sony Pictures Home Entertainment Category: DVD
List Price: $39.95 Buy Used: $12.35 as of 7/28/2010 16:41 CDT details You Save: $27.60 (69%)
New (35) from $16.98
Seller: newbury_comics Rating: 450 reviews Sales Rank: 591
Format: Color, Dolby, DTS Surround Sound, Subtitled, Widescreen Languages: English (Subtitled), French (Subtitled), English (Original Language), French (Original Language), French (Dubbed) Rating: PG-13 (Parental Guidance Suggested) Media: Blu-ray Region: 0 Discs: 2 Aspect Ratio: 2.40:1 Running Time: 158 Minutes Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.4 Dimensions (in): 6.7 x 5.4 x 0.7
MPN: COLBR29221 UPC: 043396292215 EAN: 0043396292215 ASIN: B001OQCV2O
Theatrical Release Date: July 10, 2009 Release Date: March 2, 2010 Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
| |
| Similar Items:
| |
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description Studio: Sony Pictures Home Ent Release Date: 03/02/2010 Run time: 88 minutes Rating: Pg13
Now this is how you destroy the world. Roland Emmerich's 2012 pounces on a Nostradamus-style loophole in the Mayan calendar and rams the apocalypse through it, gleefully conjuring up an enormous amount of Saturday-matinee fun in the process. A scientist (Chiwetel Ejiofor) detects shifting continental plates and sun flares and realizes that this foretells the imminent destruction of the planet. Just as the molten lava is about to hit the fan, a novelist (John Cusack) takes his kids on a trip to Yellowstone; later he'll hook up with his ex (Amanda Peet) and her new boyfriend (Tom McCarthy) in a global journey toward safety. If there is any safety. The suitably hair-raising plot lines are punctuated--frequently, people, frequently--by visions of mayhem around the globe: the Vatican falls over, the White House is clobbered (Emmerich's Independence Day was not enough on that score), and the California coastline dives into the Pacific Ocean. Unlike other action directors we could name, Emmerich actually understands how to let you see and drink in these vast special-effects vistas--and they are incredible. He also honors the old Irwin Allen disaster-movie tradition by actually shelling out for good actors. Cusack and Ejiofor are convincing even in the cheesiest material; toss in Danny Glover (the U.S. president), Woody Harrelson (a nut-bar conspiracy-theorizing radio host), Thandie Newton, and Oliver Platt, and you've got a very watchable batch of people. Emmerich hasn't developed an ear for dialogue, even at this stage in his career, and the final act goes on a bit too long. This is a very silly movie, but if you've got a weakness for B-movie energy and hairbreadth escapes, 2012 delivers quite a bit of both. --Robert Horton
Stills from 2012 (Click for larger image)
|
| Customer Reviews:
Showing reviews 1-5 of 450
Skip it. July 28, 2010 John B. Ludwick (Indianapolis, IN United States) I was in the mood for a wild, special effects extravaganza - but I didn't know I'd be renting this bomb of writing, directing, and choice special effects.
The director is Roland Emmerich - you'll know him for 'excellent' fare such as Independence Day, Godzilla, The Patriot, The Day After Tomorrow (only Roland would make a global-warming movie about the earth freezing!), and so on. What these movies all have in common is an incredibly-hard-to-swallow over-the-top Karmic irony which sees bad character punished by random, action-oriented coincidence. Horrific disaster is treated like a sort of wonder-of-nature amazement (drinking game: every time they say something like, "you gotta see this!"). You can see the special effect coming from a mile away! The dramatic irony isn't subtle or thought-provoking, it's just obnoxious. One of these days, one of Roland Emmerich's films is going to come true, and he's going to rightfully say, "YOU GOTTA SEE THIS!"
MAYAN PROPHECY MEETS HAB THEORY PLUS BAD SCIENCE July 27, 2010 Michael Ledo (Windsor, SC United States) The theory of shifting crusts is not new, but if it did occur, the theory also states that the crust shifts around certain centers which will be unaffected by the shift. Mutating neutrinos? What is that? Once you get by the gibberish, you get into a bad script. The actors did what they could to save it, but when the script goes south, Cusack couldn't carry the load. There are long drawn out ridiculous scenes where Cusack barely saves his family as the world collaspes only inches behind him. Limos and Winnebagos do not handle like NASCARs. Woody Harrelson as a modern day conspiracy prophet gave us some good moments, they should have killed off Cusack instead and kept him. This movie plays on the hype of 2012. It is for suckers.
Popcorn + End of World = Emmerich July 26, 2010 Scott Asher Years ago, when Independence Day came out this end-of-the-world genre was mind blowing for me. Now it is what you expect from director Roland Emmerich (Independence Day, The Day After Tomorrow, and Godzilla): paper-thin story sets up massive destruction and devastation across the world, while one small group struggles to survive. If you arent familiar with the genre this movie probably isnt for you. For the rest of us who know what to expect the movie performs well.
Who cares about 2012? Who cares about Danny Glover or the scientist that was so important to me that I can't even remember his name? Who cares, really, about John Cusack, who after a while you start to feel that maybe he would be Better Off Dead. (I couldn't resist!) What people who watch this film care about is seeing the world get destroyed. (As an aside, I believe that Emmerich's goal is to cinematically show every major city or landmark destroyed in one his films - and I was glad to see Los Angeles get the treatment this time.)
Get some popcorn and clear 2 hours for a complete waste of time. In a good way.
Mass murder, beautifully rendered July 26, 2010 Michael J. Tresca (Fairfield, CT USA) We all know the plot by now: the world as we know it ends by 2012. Exactly why or how it ends is irrelevant - it ends and Roland Emmerich has used this opportunity to combine every one of his previous disaster movies into one big orgy of destruction.
2012 takes two divergent paths: that of the people in power (the upper class) and that of everyday folks just trying to get along (the middle class). John Cusack is Jackson Curtis, author of a prophetic book titled Farewell Atlantis, has fallen far short of his dreams. He's a limo driver for a Russian billionaire, is divorced from his wife, and estranged from his kids. Calamity strikes while Curtis is on a camping trip to Yellowstone National Park with his kids, and it just so happens that he finds a prophet of the apocalypse (Charlie Frost, played by Woody Harrelson) Park is the site of a government coverup. Armed with a map of the elites' plan for survival, Curtis returns home to rescue his wife from certain doom by driving a limo across gaping chasms, through collapsing buildings, and around thousands of dead bodies.
Sorry, did we not mention the dead bodies? With all the talk of how fun and exciting the special effects are in 2012, it's easy to miss that the film depicts thousands of people dying. They fall off boats, plunge out of buildings, get hit by cars, are crushed by tsnumais, and burned by explosions. They are all displayed in tiny, minute detail by Emmerich's special effects team. This is mass murder, beautifully rendered.
Meanwhile, the heads of state from around the world plan to escape - not by spaceship, but by ark, just like Noah. The American President (Danny Glover) acquits himself admirably but his minions do not, and it's a dog eat dog battle as politicians vie for dominance over the military. There's also the matter of having to buy a ticket to get on the arks, fewer than planned because the apocalypse came a bit earlier than expected. The irony is that the only country capable of marshalling this level of manufacturing might is China.
2012 seems to run out of ideas about halfway through and then just starts recycling them. There isn't one but two races for survival as improbable vehicles jump gaping chasms (first a camper, than a limo). There isn't one but two planes escaping from collapsing ground and dodging falling debris. 2012 has one shtick - escape by the skin of your teeth - and plays it over and over.
When that gets tiresome, and without the special effects on the big screen it gets tiresome quickly, issues are invented. The improbable climax in the ark rivals the stupidity of everything that's gone before, including: a huge gear that powers a titanic door getting stuck by a power cord, the ark is built so that "if its doors aren't closed the engine won't start," and the fact that, in light of a scientist's plea to treat the unruly masses left behind more ethically, even more die as a result of his altruism.
Emmerich has a point to make, and he makes it by blowing up religious and political icons everywhere. The President won't save you. America won't save you. Even God won't save you. The only thing that will save you is a little luck, a lot of perseverance, and Roland Emmerich as your director.
This isn't really a film so much as a series of set pieces. Every disaster is choreographed in slow motion so we can take in every detail. As a special effects demo it's great, but as a movie it's merely mediocre.
The fat Russian said I could go!! July 25, 2010 Rev. E. Antonio Hernandez I'm happy to say I usually don't review disaster movies; may I also say in the same sentence that I'm feeling a serious ambivalence about director Roland Emmerich (10,000 B.C. see my review, INDEPENDENCE DAY, THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW, all minor favorites, plus INDEPENDENCE DAY II and III in the pipeline).
Now comes 2012, which I suppose is a reference to the end of the Mayan calendar--in this case, a reference to the end of the world. Anyway, author Jackson Curtis (John Cusack), meet scientist and super-serious humanity savior Adrian Helmsley (the shape-shifting Chiwetel Eijofor). Maybe between the two of you, well, I don't know, Emmerich has opted to destroy the whole damned planet this time...what can you super-dudes do to help??
Someone should have helped a bit with the soggy disaster scenario: it's harder to understand than REAL science.
It was very moving for me to see Danny Glover back in action--as the President of the United States no less--a very nice guy and as I told the wife, I think he's supposed to be President-Obama-as-old-man. He lends this film some of his awesome powers, and the effects are good (not chilling, just good). Overall I don't think there's much that can elevate this film from what it is: an ever-bigger-budget apocalyptic disaster film. They are getting to be ho-hum as hell.
Perhaps 2012 tries to be different by making everyone superhuman when it is convenient, as well as the suspension of the laws of physics when they get in the way of the storyline. Example: the pointless appearance of George Segal is in itself a suspension of the laws of physics.
My wife, who was bored to tears but watched it anyway, jumped when she saw Woody Harrelson (as loony radio host Charlie Frost) because she hates him, then she said, "They'll let anybody into this movie." To which I had to silence her by saying, "DANNY GLOVER!!"--and it worked.
The idea that the government had constructed arks was cool. We thought they were spaceships until I thought how silly it would be to duplicate what was done in WALL-E...however it was a surprise to see how these arks would work. I'll leave that to you if you haven't seen it. If you've seen it, don't spoil for your pals the one cool thing this film has besides Danny.
One final note: somehow I resent the use of a Buddhist monk standing in front of the Himalayas as the cover art for this. What is it with Hollyweird and Buddhists lately? Do they think I suffered all those years and wear the silly robes because I aspired to be in pictures??
Showing reviews 1-5 of 450
|
| Worthwhile Reading | Retirees Face Serious Longevity Risk By Shelby Smith
Longevity risk: the risk of outliving your money...that is, the risk of running out of money before you do breath. This is the number one fear of most retirees...and for good reason. Retirement can last thirty years or longer, is the time of life when very expensive medical emergencies may strike or a sudden meltdown of the market could rob you of your financial resources. When you add in the uncertainties of the shrinking purchasing power of your fixed savings caused by inflation, rising property taxes, lower interest rates and your inability to work, it is easy to understand by Longevity Risk is top-of-mind for most retirees. Not much we can do about inflation and taxes except use our votes wisely to selecting honest, caring political representatives. Health can be controlled somewhat by eating right, exercising and not abusing our bodies by excessive smoking and drinking. Not much we can do about being excluded from the labor market nor can we control the economic cycles and interest rates. In fact about the only thing we can control for certain is how much risk we take with our retirement money.
If you have your retirement money in a risky place like the stock market and there is a meltdown, you'll probably suffer a significant loss with no way and no time to make it up. In fact, if you lose your retirement money because you gambled in the market and lost, there will be no second chance...you'll be dependent on the government, your children or a welfare organization. Not a pleasant thought and probably the main reason most retirees say living longer than their money is their number one fear. Unfortunately, far too many retirees have not taken steps to reduce their investment risks by heading for the safe places. Why is that?
First, you're bombarded with advertisement, advice and promises that encourage you to keep your money in the market. You're told that 'longer term' you'll do a lot better with stocks, bonds, mutual funds, diversified portfolios and other risky investments than if you keep your money in safe places like bank CDs, government bonds and fixed annuities. You're presented with slick graphs and charts showing that here's how much better you'll do with your money at risk. The entire brokerage industry is dependent upon you to put your money at risk in the market and they're working very hard to make sure you do. You can't read a newspaper personal advice column, watch the news or read any of the thousands of magazines or newsletter devoted to investing without being told you'll be much better off by placing your retirement money with Wall Street for safe keeping. You're never reminded of the market meltdown of 2000-2003 or the early 1970's nor are you reminded that currently Wall Street is awash in losses from their profligate activities. The incessant calls from your broker are about how now is the time to buy at bargain prices. What about the losses you already have? You're scared into believing that unless you put your money at risk you'll not make a reasonable return. In fact, you're told that if you keep your money super safe you'll realize your greatest fear of outliving your money. The truth is, you're a lot more likely to outlive your money by taking risks you can't afford than you are keeping it super safe and earning an interest rate that goes with safety. Remember that risk and reward are always traveling companions: if you have a chance to make a big return, it is certain that you are taking risks of loss. On the other hand, if you take zero risk of loss, your earnings will be positive and certain but not above market. So which do you prefer: the possibility of great growth but also the possibility of great losses OR absolute safety and a low but certain return? As Will Rogers once said, 'I'm more interested in the return of my money than the return on my money'. I think Mr. Rogers had it right when it comes to the average retiree.
The current state of the economy is less than reassuring: unemployment is rising, dollar is very weak and falling, oil is teetering near $100 barrel, housing market is totally depressed, sub-prime credit problems are spilling over into autos and credit cards, inflation is heading higher and there is widespread talk of recession. The Federal Reserve - the nation's guardian of monetary policy - is obviously scared stiff judging from the drastic moves they've made in recent weeks to rapidly force short-term interest rates into the basement. Most economists - including me - are skeptical that a nosedive of the economy can be avoided: recession is heading our way is what I see. Yet, you probably have most of your retirement assets in mutual funds [check your 401(k)], portfolios containing stocks and bonds and other risky investments. Have you forgotten what happened when the dot.com bubble burst? Have you thought about what you'd do if the market drops drastically? Do you realize you'll not have a second chance if you lose too much of your retirement money? What can you do?
One option is to look into locking in a guaranteed lifetime income you can't outlive. You see, there is insurance for longevity risk: insurance companies which are among the world's largest, strongest and oldest financial institutions are willing to guarantee you a lifetime income you can't outlive if you'll deposit with them some of your retirement money. They will take the risk associated with the markets, stocks losing value, real estate crashing and other unforeseeable developments that can erase your retirement money. You'll still be left with taxes, inflation, health issues and non-investment risks but you'll not be able to outlive your money. How can insurance companies make such guarantees? The same way they are able to insure your home, car, health, life, business and other valuables: the law of large numbers and spreading the risks. If you live too long and they lose money on guaranteeing you a lifetime income there is someone else in your cohort group that didn't live as long as they were expected. So, over time the numbers average out and the insurance company is able to manage the risk and make a profit. You, on the other hand, got protection from your most feared risk in retirement: outliving your money.
How do you find out more? Ask your financial advisor to talk to you about a guaranteed lifetime income secured by an insurance company. By the way, if your advisor starts talking about 'variable annuities' tell him or her that you want something without risk: mention a fixed annuity without downside risk and one that allows you to start, stop or store your guaranteed lifetime income. You don't have to give up control of your money to get a guaranteed lifetime income because in the past couple of years insurance companies have begun offering new products that specifically take care of longevity risk faced by retirees. These new plans allow you to change your mind if your circumstances change. Insist on flexibility and insist on no market risks. If you choose not to investigate this option but instead keep your retirement money exposed to the market, make sure you have a good answer for the following question: 'What will you do if the worse case becomes a reality?'
You've got once chance to get retirement right - check out the Retirement Pros website http://www.theretirementpros.com/ for free e-Reports, Calculators, Video Seminars, Safe Money Advisory newsletter and more.
|
|
|
|
|
CERTAIN CONTENT THAT APPEARS ON THIS SITE COMES FROM AMAZON SERVICES LLC. THIS CONTENT IS PROVIDED ‘AS IS’ AND IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE OR REMOVAL AT ANY TIME. | | Retirement Facts | In the private sector, participation by type of retirement plan has largely reversed over the past quartercentury: 'Traditional' defined benefit pension plans were dominant in 1979, but have been overtaken by defined contribution (401(k)-type) plans. The share of workers who are in both a defined benefit and defined contribution plan has remained fairly constant over the years.
|
|
|
|