I'm one of those few "idiots" who liked and enjoyed this movie!

Rating: 7/10 (28 January 2018)

Firstly some qualifications for this review, and some may hate it. I'm not a conspiracy theorist! I didn't believe any of the 2012 theories. I wasn't expecting this to be some onscreen representation or vindication of the lunatic fringe. Secondly, i'm not a fan of all such disaster, over-the-top Roland Emmerich movies. There were many i thought were really bad and hated. But thirdly, i did NOT watch this movie hoping to debunk the 2012 end of the world mayan prophecies and calling it out for its stupidity if the movie did support that!
I watched this movie i think in a very different way. As science fiction disaster movie. Ok, it remains of course a popcorn flick. Scientifically and philosophically, it isn't deep and profound! There are no stand out performances in acting and nothing particularly memorable. Thematically, it was quite simple. There were the usual tropes and ideas of hope, survival, life, sacrifice and friendship, but they were surprising toned down and none of it was particularly emphasised. But as i will come on to say, this actually helped the movie!
So why did i like it, and thinks it warrants another watch and perhaps continual rewatches? Firstly, because it was watchable! It didn't take its themes too seriously (though it may have tried), and that the tone was far more mellow. Why do i say this? It was more a survival movie, than "we save the day" movie. Indeed, there was no real hero! Because of this, no part of this movie felt forced, overdone, cheesy, or jingoist, unlike Independence Day and Day After Tomorrow. One example of this is the presidential speech made by Danny Glover. It was actually cut short. Emmerich could have done a whole silly ID speech, but he chose not to and this created a sense of realism.
Secondly, the acting though not sublime or profound, wasn't actually bad. Everyone played their character well. I'm not sure if this was conscious and perhaps because of the unintentional deemphasis, there was little overacting or personal drama. There were some stereotyping, but it was surprising tame and well-handled. Chiwetel Ejiofor was a diligent scientist. Believable and not a hero. John Cusack was just a normal family man. The Russians were a little more standard Hollywood, but it can be overlooked. The Tibetan monks were spiritual (i wonder whether that monastery on the himalayas existed!), but again it was tame.
Thirdly though, and this is personal, i think the premise does work and steps into interesting! Why? Without consideration of scientifically accuracy (none whatsoever!), I think the idea of global catastrophe as depicted in the movie is much more believable. Its works far better than say an earthquake, or freak weather like in The Day After Tomorrow. We know that those weather patterns and earthquakes won't happen the way they are depicted. They are borderline comical! Now, will something like 2012 happen? Again, with no consideration of science...probably not! We know that geological processes are slow. Just as you can't grow an arm in 5 seconds, the earth won't just explode. BUT i guarantee you a science buff has asked the question, "what if the Earth suddenly stopped spinning"! An exceedingly rare geological event will have almost the effects portrayed in the movie! And 2012 does do this! Not brilliantly or in a profound way, but it does! It does it in remarkably evenly handled way and one that is intentionally global in scope. It is also done commanding Emmerich's usual resources in CGI, which have never been bad!
So i would argue that this movie is one of those that were good and enjoyable (possibly unintentionally) for me. I do have misgivings with regards to those silly references to the Mayan prophecies. Those should've be more coincidental and comical. Also, the stereotypes give the movie a mundane, routine appearance. But i maintain, the movie isn't half bad and can be an interesting experience!