 "Photo: N/A")
If you’re looking for a smart movie, “2012” is not for you. If you want to see lots of crap blowing up and nature giving mankind the smackdown, then this is right up your alley.
“2012” is Roland Emmerich’s newest disaster movie. When Adrian Helmsley (Chiwetel Ejiofor) discovers a huge solar flare is rapidly heating the Earth’s core, he informs the president of the United States (Danny Glover) who, with the leaders of nations all over the globe, secretly prepares for the end of days. This cabal offers tickets that ensure a seat on massive ships that will provide mankind, the greatest works of art and animals of all species a chance to survive, the numerous governments of the world sell tickets for one billion euros each in order to gain the funds to organize a survival plan within a scant two years time.
The story also revolves around divorced father and small-time writer Jackson Curtis (John Cusack) who, thanks to the ramblings of a semi-insane Woody Harrelson, stumbles upon this secret and attempts to smuggle his family on board one of the ships before it is too late. Chin Han (from “The Dark Knight”) plays a Tibetan worker on the ships, and Oliver Platt plays the president’s chief of staff, who overlooks emotion and reason to ensure the survival of mankind.
The plot is remarkably similar to Emmerich’s previous disaster film, “The Day After Tomorrow.” It’s close enough to make you ask yourself, “Do I really want to sit though the same garbage again?”
The film does have some dazzling special effects, though. When California witnesses a huge earthquake that moves just a little bit slower than Cusack’s limo, they take off in a small plane, and the earth falls away just as the plane leaves the runway. No, it doesn’t make any sense that as they fly through Los Angles a subway train hurtles out of the tunnel and goes right over the plane. No, it shouldn’t be possible that the plane can outrun massive fireballs from a super-volcano erupting in Yellowstone. But does it look cool? Absolutely. The film has some of the best effects of the year, showing minute details like a person getting hit by a falling car as the entire city collapses. If there’s one thing Emmerich knows how to do, it is wow audiences with disastrous circumstances and making it visually appealing.
The one thing that did surprise me was how much work “2012” dedicates to the acting in the second half of the film. While the first half shows nothing but mindless destruction, the latter takes a more deliberate pace and shows how the many people of the world deal with the rising body count of their friends and family. People from all walks of life try to reach out to loved ones one final time before they die, and the numerous supporting characters all perform wonderfully, capturing the emotions that we all have when we deal with tragedy. The end also tries to emphasizes that humanity is meant to be cherished, and we must act knowing how this will effect future generations. This blew me away, since disaster films are notorious for poor character development. But Emmerich works wonders with some of the characters, presenting emotions on the screen that he hasn’t touched since he directed “Independence Day,” which, coincidentally, he recently announced he will make a sequel.
However, John Cusack doesn’t show any of the acting skills that the rest of the cast does, which is an absolute shame. Plus, near the end of the film, thousands of lives depend on him to save the ship, which is utter nonsense. Much of the film is too ridiculous to be taken seriously, but since I went into this movie with the lowest of expectations, I was pleasantly surprised.
If you don’t take the movie seriously, “2012” can be an enjoyable treat, with eye-popping visual effects and a deep connection with the supporting cast. Sure, half of the film doesn’t make any sense at all, and the premise is building off of the fears of crazed end of the world theorists. But even with all of its faults, “2012” is still fun to watch.
Be the first to comment on this article!