"An End Of The World movie made by somebody who saves the dog" - Mark Kermode, BBC Radio 5live
The Mayan prediction of the end of the world is proved correct as the Earth's crust spontaneously heats up and swallows all the planet's cities, but it's all ok because a) John Cusack gets to sell some books and b) the Queen scuttles on to the last ship out of Dodge, corgis in tow. A disaster movie in all ways.
Mark had a theory that the film's release in 2009 was nothing to do with Mayan predictions and everything to do with accountancy - it could then be released on DVD in 2010, hit TV in 2011 and have a director's cut in 2012. Jason Isaacs would later point out that this theory was utter nonsense.
The film has a large amount of CGI - as opposed to disaster movies past like The Poseidon Adventure or The Towering Inferno, in which stunts would be done for real (or Live And Let Die: "a real car really jumps over a real river"). However, Mark's claim that "with CGI, there's no skill involved at all" prompted a listener to explain, in very precise terms, that CGI is in fact enormously complicated and difficult and that the construction of a virtual world is just as valid a craft as the construction of a real one. Over on Radio 1, Chris Moyles was making a similar point, although with perhaps less lexiconic panache and somewhat more sarcasm: "Yeah. Because if you're going to film a movie about the end of the world, why use CGI? Why not really blow LA up? Durr. 'Yeah, we need a shot where the Golden Gate Bridge is collapsing. We'll do it on CGI.' 'No, God damn it, why not film it for real and then rebuild it?'"