SparkMore n my opinion it was a great movie with some interesting elements, even though having some plot holes and the ending probably was just too messy and crammed together, but still fun to watch and not your casual movie that is similar to all other ones.

Mischa Redfern I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.

Hattie I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.

Staci Frederick Blistering performances.

Michael_Elliott 2012: Science or Superstition (2009) ** 1/2 (out of 4) Above average documentary gathers up experts, scientists and various others who all share their opinions on what's going to happen on December 21, 2012. Many scientist are saying it could be the end of the world while others speculate that perhaps it's just the end of a certain way of living. All of the theories and fears come from the Mayan calender, which ends on this date so the experts talk about where they came up with this date and why other factors point to something might happen. I've watched quite a few documentaries on the subject and the majority of them either want to tell the viewer to say their prayers because the world is coming to an end or they want to tell you that the Mayan calender is for idiots and that nothing is going to happen at all. I will give this film credit as they allow people from both sides to give their opinions so this gives a the viewer a better idea of things on both sides of the fence. As with most documentaries, I think a lot of people, myself included, are going to lose track of all the information given. There are a lot of numbers and signs that go into the Mayan calender so it's easy to get lost in everything. With that said, the documentary and those interviewed do a nice job at explaining everything and they do a good job at trying to lay out the time line of events that the Mayans thought things would happen.

zakariyyahzakiyyah This program lacks scientific facts, and rational depth, most of the sentences contain "has been said" phrase, but never says "who said so, and the worst mistake is when one of the interviewed persons signals the fact that the first Christians who were using the fish symbol, did so because of an astrological shift into the species quadrant. Any person who has the minimal historical knowledge knows that the early Christians were persecuted, had NO astrological interests, had not symbols for astrological signs, and used the fish because in Greek the fish called "Ikhtos" constituted an acronym for the phrase "Jesus Christ Son of God". If a mistake as simple as that is committed by a supposed to be "scientist" how can we trust him for the "has been said" parts of the document.

thesar-2 How about '2012: phony or boring'? After watching the History Channel's 'Nostradamus: 2012' I was shocked on how little '2012: Science or Superstition' added information and how little they spent on special effects. At least 'Nostradamus' had good special effects, though repeated scenes to the point of "fluff," where '2012:SorS' used technology from the original Nintendo. Okay, aside from the budget, it was simply uninteresting. I already don't give in (or at all believe in) the theory that 12/21/12 is the end times, and this contributed little. We have more "scientists" (I think from the History Channel's program – I was so uninterested, I didn't pay attention) who theorize on how something – oooh – bad's gonna happen 4 days before Christmas in 3.5 years. The one positive thing I can say, is some of these overpaid guest stars said they don't truly believe something horrible will happen. This was the unbiased opinion I missed in the 'Nostradamus' version on this crazy theory. Yes, I said "crazy" because of two reasons: if I am wrong for disavowing this ridicules plot, I could care less if you attempt to prove me wrong – I'm just as dead as the world, and #2: doubtful you'll be reading this review when the "end times" approach. In fact, hopefully, you'll be out there attempting to save loved ones. Sad, I fell asleep in this so-called documentary and rewound what I missed. You won't miss much by simply skipping it. Obviously, as the title suggests, you'll presented with data (ha) that will prove (again, ha) that 2012 won't be a good year for future investors. Then it will attempt (third, ha) to disprove by people thinking it may not be that big of a deal. SKIP. PERIOD. Leave the end of the world to Hollywood. It's more entertaining.

Howard Schumann Timewave Zero is the theory postulated by author/philosopher Terence McKenna that calculates the rise and fall of novelty (dynamic change) in the universe. When McKenna graphed it over time, he found that it reached infinity on December, 21 2012, the end of the current Baktun cycle of the long-count calendar of the ancient Mayas. Since the concept was introduced in the 1970s by McKenna and Jose Arguellos, speculation has been rampant as to what the world might look like when it approaches its omega point, and there have been a plethora of books and films on the subject in recent years, the most anticipated being Roland Emmerich's film 2012 due in October. A recent direct to DVD documentary, 2012: Science Or Superstition, directed by Nimrod Erez, and does so with restraint and intelligence.Talking heads discuss whether 2012 will bring a singular catastrophic event, a gradual transition to a higher level of consciousness, or nothing at all. The documentary features discussion by such unconventional thinkers as Graham Hancock, author of the major international bestsellers 'The Sign and The Seal,' 'Fingerprints of the Gods,' 'Supernatural' and 'Heaven's Mirror'; John Major Jenkins, an independent researcher who has devoted himself to reconstructing ancient Mayan cosmology and philosophy; Daniel Pinchbeck, author and lecturer who in 1994 was chosen by The New York Times Magazine as one of Thirty Under Thirty destined to change our culture; Alberto Villoldo, PhD, a medical anthropologist; and Anthony F. Aveni is the Russell B. Colgate Professor of Astronomy and Anthropology and is considered one of the founders of Mesoamerican Archaeoastronomy.Other speakers include: Robert Bauval, Jim Marrs, Walter Cruttenden, Lawrence E. Joseph, Douglas Rushkoff, John Anthony West and Benito Vegas Duran. Unlike some History Channel documentaries, the speakers are given ample opportunity to develop their points of view and narration is kept to a minimum. As evidence for sudden change, they point to the melting of the polar ice caps, the weakening of the magnetic field and shifting of the poles, the drastic increase of solar flares, the increase in natural disasters, and the rare alignment of the Earth, Sun, and the center of the Milky Way on the December 2012 solstice. According to this belief, the alignment is tied to the precession of the equinoxes (approximately every 2160 years, the constellation visible on the early morning of the spring equinox changes) and signals a transition from one world age to another.There are few voices of dissent, however, and no debate takes place about such questions as why the Mayans devised a calendar some time around 500 BC, with a back-dated 'start date' in 3114 BC, or what the true significance of a recurring 1872000 day cycle (approximately equal to 5125.36 years) as a whole might be. There are also no interviews with scholars of Mayan civilization or people such as Sandra Noble, executive director of the Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies, Inc. who has said, "For the ancient Maya, it was a huge celebration to make it to the end of a whole cycle. To render December 21, 2012, as a doomsday or moment of cosmic shifting is a complete fabrication and a chance for a lot of people to cash in." Also not discussed, is the fact that the galactic alignment in question takes place over a 36-year period, and the nucleus of the Milky Way could not have been identified without high-powered telescopes which the Mayans did not have.2012: Science Or Superstition thankfully does not include professional debunkers, scientific or otherwise, and the word "nonsense" is not even heard once during the film, yet, while I am supportive of the ideas discussed, a bit more controversy would have livened up the proceedings including discussion of biblical prophecy, crop circles, UFOs, and the exponential growth in spirituality world wide pointing to a paradigm shift. While thought provoking, 2012: Science Or Superstition is a pretty bloodless affair with dramatics mostly eliminated, yet it is a valuable source of information and adds to the growing interest in what many forecast will be the end of civilization and/or a new beginning. Those who want to be blown out of their seats, however, will have to wait for Roland Emmerich.