2012: A dastardly disaster movie
New flick from Roland Emmerich pales in comparison to United 93
Bryan Reynolds
Issue date: 11/19/09 Section: Features
The film 2012, a disaster movie from disaster master Roland Emmerich, is loud, obnoxious, drawn-out and, ultimately, kind of lame. Emmerich, the director of movie disasters The Day After Tomorrow and 10,000 B.C., doesn't stray too far from his usual formula: a big disaster hits and normal people, in an effort to survive, suddenly find themselves capable of doing the extraordinary.
And while this formula may work in more realistic scenarios, such as United 93, which told the story of a plane hijacked on 9/11, in Emmerich's hands, the movie breathlessly dashes from one over-the-top scene to the next. And it's all a bit tiring.
2012 follows Jackson Curtis (John Cusack) and his family as they try to escape the destruction caused when the Earth's crust shifts and the magnetic poles suddenly realign.
Curtis and his family escape Los Angeles as it sinks into the ocean. They then head to Yellowstone National Park, which suddenly also turns perilous as the super volcano sleeping beneath the surface awakens and erupts, threatening the entire region. The family is then thrust into a quest to reach China, where the world's governments have constructed giant "arks" (as in Noah's famous vessel), which are supposed to save the rich and powerful from the world's collapse.
Though the acting in the film is actually pretty good, 2012's story is basically the same as the last couple of Emmerich's movies. A few points may have been changed, but not enough to amount to something new.
The movie also distastefully shoves its morality lessons down the audience's throat. The big theme here: Why should the rich deserve to flourish while the common people suffer and die when disaster strikes?
Really it ends up just insulting everyone's intelligence. I've found more thought provoking questions in Brittany Spears' lyrics.
Another problem is that the disaster claiming the Earth is never fully described, leaving viewers to scratch their heads in confusion.
The introduction features a bunch of shots of the planets aligning, but then later in the movie the scientists start talking about the sun's effects on the Earth.
This inability to actually explain what's happening to the Earth makes the entire scenario as unbelievable as The Day After Tomorrow. Eventually any pretense of an explanation is completely abandoned for giant CGI destruction scenes.
Still, it should be noted that the special effects for the disaster sequences are impressive. The programmers did such a good job that viewers really get a sense for the destruction that's unfolding all around. Still, the movie does seem pretty satisfied trying to make cracks forming in the Earth's surface out to be the next Jaws. Unfortunately, they're just not as intimidating.
So, in the end, 2012 accomplishes what it set out to. It's a big, loud, high budget, popcorn movie. If you're looking for a good, senseless time, this may be just the thing.
2 out of 5 stars.
And while this formula may work in more realistic scenarios, such as United 93, which told the story of a plane hijacked on 9/11, in Emmerich's hands, the movie breathlessly dashes from one over-the-top scene to the next. And it's all a bit tiring.
2012 follows Jackson Curtis (John Cusack) and his family as they try to escape the destruction caused when the Earth's crust shifts and the magnetic poles suddenly realign.
Curtis and his family escape Los Angeles as it sinks into the ocean. They then head to Yellowstone National Park, which suddenly also turns perilous as the super volcano sleeping beneath the surface awakens and erupts, threatening the entire region. The family is then thrust into a quest to reach China, where the world's governments have constructed giant "arks" (as in Noah's famous vessel), which are supposed to save the rich and powerful from the world's collapse.
Though the acting in the film is actually pretty good, 2012's story is basically the same as the last couple of Emmerich's movies. A few points may have been changed, but not enough to amount to something new.
The movie also distastefully shoves its morality lessons down the audience's throat. The big theme here: Why should the rich deserve to flourish while the common people suffer and die when disaster strikes?
Really it ends up just insulting everyone's intelligence. I've found more thought provoking questions in Brittany Spears' lyrics.
Another problem is that the disaster claiming the Earth is never fully described, leaving viewers to scratch their heads in confusion.
The introduction features a bunch of shots of the planets aligning, but then later in the movie the scientists start talking about the sun's effects on the Earth.
This inability to actually explain what's happening to the Earth makes the entire scenario as unbelievable as The Day After Tomorrow. Eventually any pretense of an explanation is completely abandoned for giant CGI destruction scenes.
Still, it should be noted that the special effects for the disaster sequences are impressive. The programmers did such a good job that viewers really get a sense for the destruction that's unfolding all around. Still, the movie does seem pretty satisfied trying to make cracks forming in the Earth's surface out to be the next Jaws. Unfortunately, they're just not as intimidating.
So, in the end, 2012 accomplishes what it set out to. It's a big, loud, high budget, popcorn movie. If you're looking for a good, senseless time, this may be just the thing.
2 out of 5 stars.
Viewing Comments 1 - 1 of 1
r4i software
posted 12/14/09 @ 7:56 AM EST
I think this should be interesting I liked Independence Day and The Day After Tomorrow was really cool but Roland Emmerich is no Michale Bay, yet this looks like it could be up there with Armagedon. (Continued…)
Post a Comment