Login
In his book Apocalypse Movies: End of the World Cinema, author Kim Newman noted that "The more complicated a civilization becomes, the more fun it is to imagine the whole works going up in flames". Roland Emmerich has clearly taken Newman's words to heart, as his career has been built almost exclusively on disaster films; allowing movie-goers to vicariously experience the destruction of Earth via aliens in Independence Day, an atomic-spawned monstrosity in Godzilla and an ice age in The Day After Tomorrow. Why the obliteration of our world is so enjoyable in the eyes of the movie-going public is probably best left to theologians and psychologists, but Emmerich is visibly in tune with it and knows how to exploit it. And for his latest opus, 2012, the director has considerably upped the ante by imagining a true end-of-the-world scenario packed with an incredible assortment of catastrophic destruction. The film operates under the assumption that if we enjoyed seeing isolated mayhem in other disaster flicks, movie-goers will really love witnessing widespread global destruction. Thankfully, it works - this is awesome entertainment.
2012 plays with the theory of the Mayan calendar that the world will end on December 21, 2012. But by conducting a little research on this topic, one will find that there were several other calendars devised around the time of the Mayans, yet only one contained lithographs that appear to be a warning. The only thing scientists can agree on about this calendar is that it simply ends on the feared date before it begins again from zero. There's simply no evidence to suggest the apocalypse will be brought on - doomsayers are just always looking for the next possible date for Earth's destruction (wasn't the world meant to end in the year 2000?). However the Mayan theory is hardly mentioned in this film - it's just a selling point, as well as an excuse for the end of the world to be brought on. From there, the filmmakers have devised a few stabs at hard science that seem convincing on the surface but probably wouldn't pass muster in a high school science course. But all this justification is just smoke and mirrors, because the money is instead in the grandiosity of the disaster.
Speaking from a narrative perspective, 2012 adheres closely to the '70s-era Irwin Allen-style of disaster movies in which a broad array of characters are brought together because of a disaster. The representative Everyman here is divorced, fledging novelist Jackson Curtis, whose ex-wife Kate (Peet) is dating successful plastic surgeon Gordon (McCarthy). Jackson's kids even prefer Gordon over him (notice the clichés so far). As for the earnest professional who discovers the impending destruction of Earth, there's government geologist Adrian Helmsley (Ejiofor). The science behind this apocalypse is simple: the Earth begins to heat up from within due to being pelted with intensifying radioactive particles from the sun, causing the planet's crust to break apart and shift. Cue the rollicking silliness. This includes plenty of conventional scenarios that have played out in films since 1980: the eleventh-hour miscalculation that results in the timer speeding up for the impending disaster, the noble daughter who outlives her father, the divorcee who falls back in love, and the character with two days of pilot training who is perfectly able to repeatedly fly everyone to safety.
Too many simultaneous plotlines have always been a key weakness of disaster movies, and 2012 is no different. At about 150 minutes, the length of this movie is indefensible. The script is an appalling concoction of cheesy expository dialogue, painful chunks of ham-fisted character development and blatant contrivances designed solely to bring the characters together and advance the plot. Adding insult to injury, the action doesn't start until about 45 minutes of the runtime have passed! Over-explaining the ludicrous science, unfortunately, results in both sheer boredom and a chance for the audience to mentally dissect the holes in the theory. Since this is meant to be a big Hollywood disaster movie, it's a considerable problem that it takes so long for the action to start. As a side note, the concept of destroying the world is a non-starter from a dramatic perspective. After all, if the story sticks to its guns and the planet is destroyed, it would end on a depressing note that denies viewers the climactic catharsis they'd be expecting. And if the film concludes on a happy note, the whole thing feels as if it was crafted by a studio system willing to sacrifice the integrity of the premise. Alas, the film ends with a tacked-on, embarrassingly saccharine-coated Hollywood ending.
Of course, the average movie-goer doesn't care about the characters or the script, which is good since both are flimsy in the case of 2012. The driving motivation for anyone to see this movie is the mayhem... And boy does Emmerich get that aspect right. As a film that delivers epic destruction, 2012 is unparalleled. Absolutely everything one could want in a disaster epic can be found in this film. Everything. There are earthquakes, volcanos, collapsing skyscrapers, tsunamis, capsized ocean liners, plane crashes, and more. Normal disaster movies kill thousands, while 2012 kills billions without breaking a sweat. The money shots are impeccably sold by the special effects crew who deliver vast images of doom with remarkable detail - the CGI is amazingly close to photorealism. There's some truly multiplex-rocking action to behold within this flick, such as the jaw-droppingly orchestrated and utterly gripping "California is going down" sequence. Reports of the budget for this film range from $200 million to $260 million, and no money went to waste. While plenty of action and a weak human element is a basis to hopelessly hate a movie, Emmerich has an advantage over films like the latest Transformers - he's a good filmmaker. Emmerich has sound knowledge of how to construct breathtaking imagery and action without resorting to a dozen camera edits in a matter of seconds or distracting shaky-cam. He allows his audience to actually watch the mayhem rather than opting for cinematic techniques that induce headaches.
The disaster sequences, while nail-biting, are also preposterous and far too Hollywood. As the destruction commences, Jackson and his family manage to outrace it all without a single hiccup. Later, the concept of outrunning a fireball is reduced to the level of a nursery school feat. The Hollywood-style split-second precision grows irritating rather quickly, with planes taking off at the exact moment the ground gives way. And when the protagonists arrive in Vegas, networks are still broadcasting on television...are the power grids unaffected by the chaos? More stupidity arises when the government commissions the construction of massive arks to save what is left of the human population: these structures are built extremely close to each other, so guess what will happen when all the flood waters rush in at extreme velocity? On top of all this nonsense, there's improbable cell phone reception, an awful Arnold Schwarzenegger vocal imitator, and surveillance cameras with unlikely range.
Is there any reason to care about the characters? Absolutely not - they are caricatures saddled with threadbare motivation and bad dialogue. The cast is more formidable than one might expect from a glorified B-movie, but the acting is still pretty below-par. Thus, 2012 only works when it immerses viewers in the epic action set-pieces rather than trying to develop characters or dole out exposition. It's a highly enjoyable, paint-by-numbers disaster movie that contains some absolutely breathtaking popcorn moments.
6.5/10
