2 + 0 + 1 + 2 = 5 (out of ten)

Rating: 5/10 (2 January 2020)

Here I am, punished again by the Sky Movies alphabetically ordered film gods. Next on the run through was "2012", the disaster movie from 2009.
The film is about a devastating destructive event that occurs to the Earth in 2012 and a number of characters who work to try and ensure their survival. Amongst them is author Jackson Curtis (John Cusack) who is estranged from his wife Kate (Amanda Peet) but has their children when the disaster begins. Adrian Helmsley (Chiwetel Ejiofor) is one of the scientists that first understands the depths of the disaster that will befall them, so has to work on getting a plan for Human survival in place.
There is only one real positive to the film. The effects are generally pretty good, even a decade later the scenes of destruction hold up. It does show you some genuinely memorable things, subway trains plummeting from broken tunnels, aircraft carriers crushing the White House. But they are outweighed by the negatives and then some.
The film is looooooooooooooooooong, so very long. Both in terms of its runtime and how the film feels. To be able to fill that length with something so intrinsically dull, is almost impressive.
A film like this really needs to you care about the characters, and their survival and unfortunately for this film, I did not. The central family aren't particularly interesting, and their separation just seems immediately like something that will be over by the end of the film. Particularly telling about how much you should invest in the relationship issues is how quickly Kate moves on once Gordon meets his fate. Other characters are given screen time despite not having any real effect on the plot, Thandie Newton, John Billingsley, the old (awful) singers on the cruise liner are all there just as emotional pressure points for other characters.
Technically solid, but lacking in wit, flair, humour or relatability "2012" is not worth your time.