Leofwine_draca Although that doesn't make the movie great. 2012: ICE AGE is a typical Asylum disaster flick, heavily copying THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW in its tale of a breakaway 'rogue' glacier that heads towards the Eastern Seaboard of the USA, bringing snowstorms and wreaking havoc as it approaches. The usual bunch of scientists and their assorted family members have to dodge disaster staples while the boffins try to figure out what to do.You know the story here if you've seen any of the other endless Asylum disaster flicks: lots of low rent mayhem involving freezing clouds, sudden snowstorms, and landmarks being destroyed on a very small budget. All of the FX mentioned above are brought to life by very dodgy CGI, which isn't too poor, but the CGI vehicles (planes, cars) are something else entirely; computer game quality, if that.The cast is populated by various non-entities and haggard-looking actresses and despite the constant danger the characters find themselves in there's no real suspense or tension at any point. Thus it's business as usual for The Asylum, and torture as usual for any viewers unlucky enough to be watching. And for the record, 2012: ICE AGE isn't as bad as Miami MAGMA and JET STREAM.

mcguin71 There are some bad movies out there...and this is one of them!You expect some dodgy science in the low-budget movies, and also some not-so-great effects. And here you get it in spades and in fact 'poor' would be overstating the quality!So can you rely on the basic story, writing and screenplay?..well unfortunately not as these too are below par with some real cringe worthy moments throughout.And to make it so much worse the continuity people must have been on holiday during filming and post production because errors abound. If you are even slightly interested in military hardware or procedures please please please do not watch this farcical presentation - and the rest isn't much better! (Ive never seen a movie page with so many goofs and so little trivia!)The only reason this isn't a flat 1 score is that iv e seen worse acting. Let me clarify that I don't feel the acting is good, merely mostly adequate. At least I only want to cover my eyes and not my ears as well! ... So there's no denying this is a bad movie and I don't think k I will set the alarm to rewatch in a hurry....**2/10**

Salem Evans Bad acting, bad effects, general stupidity. It's a cheap knock-off of "The Day After Tomorrow" and it's really not worth seeing. The logic is flawed, where a minivan can outrun a glacier said to be 200 mph. And the teenage son, Nelson, apparently gets internet. While flying in the air during an "ice age" where a glacier has wiped out a lot of places. Wouldn't everything, including power and all of that, go down?Nelson seemed to be more like a spoiled ten year old than whatever age he's supposed to be. His laptop was more important to him than anything else and concerning the danger that they were supposedly in ... The father seemed like the person you should not go to when in crisis. He barely pays attention to anything, and actually puts his family in danger by flying in this sort of weather. I'm pretty sure that the plane wouldn't remain in the air with so many twisters and things like that ... When the family stopped to talk about the people on the side of the road, the people just continued to stand there. They seemed more like cardboard people. They probably couldn't afford real extras. I would have thought they'd go up to the car or do something. I'd imagine normal people would have been trying to flag them down for help if they saw a car driving past. Instead of listening to what people were telling them and going west, they decide to go save the daughter, Julia, from what they see as near-death. And once they learn Manhattan was hit, they still think she's there? They seem to think she's really stupid.I wasn't paying much attention at that point, but where the hell did he get a gun?When the boyfriend of the daughter, Logan, tells her that his dad's in Oslo which was one of the first places hit, he looks so unemotional that I had to stop myself from hitting my head repeatedly on a table. The acting is that horrible.Anyways, yeah. This isn't a movie I'd see again.

kreesteena Too much awful to go through them all in any detail. So I will summarize as best as I can by saying: the acting reminds me of a "dirty" movie minus the "dirty" bits. It was really low budget,and the attention to detail wasn't there. Case in point-the daughter and her boyfriend are standing in a windy New York setting,yet their hair doesn't move, also, the computer image of New York behind them was noticeable too. Another example: it was supposed to be so cold outside, yet their breath never shows. Lastly, it was as if they had no idea what emotions to use with the moment they were in (if they had any emotions at all)...I didn't expect much considering it was full of "no name" actors-but really, I did not expect it to be this poor.