If you haven't quite marked your calendars for the end of days as we know it, you might have been anxious enough to look forward to the release of the film foreshadowing our demise, "2012." Whether you're a believer or not, chances are that your visual and thrill senses were tickled when you first saw the trailer for 2012 due to its sheer beauty retained in tsunamis, earthquakes, lava rain, fireballs, blizzards and explosions. When you get right down to it, no one was expecting 2012 to win any Academy Awards or even have a completely coherent plot; that includes the makers of the film. With that being said, 2012 is a dazzling spectacle of true computer-generated prowess...and not much else.
2012 is an overcooked cliche story about a washed up author (John Cusack) who wants to take his kids camping for a weekend. Being divorced from his wife (Amanda Peet), he's almost forced to see his children at least once in a while, which means having to see his ex-wife's new husband (Thomas McCarthy). Before this part of the story, however, the "scientific" explanation for the coming events is briefly reviewed as a breakthrough and devastating discovery is made in India. With this information, geologist Adrian Helmsley (Chiwetel Ejiofor) travels to the United States to alert the government. With that, disasters start building up around the world as all the various governments try to grasp what little real power they have left before all hell ensues.
2012 can be many things, but one thing its not is intelligent. The little scientific evidence the movie uses to make realistic forthcoming events is not only boring, but completely unnecessary. In fact, I can personally look at 2012 and think of a vast array of ways for 2012 to have been a cult classic, at least. Most highly is the droll and unimaginative storytelling and directing used to draw out the two-and-a-half hour exploit. There's nothing here in the way of creativity; it's mostly riding one gimmick and one gimmick only the entire way. It would have been infinitely more interesting to turn 2012 into a framework story or a more personal anecdote rather than a simple third-person "Oh shit" yarn. Overall, 2012 is just one big sadistic guilty pleasure. Sure, the CGI and real-world scares are one thing, but what a lot of people won't admit to being excited for are the millions of deaths and worldwide tragedies to be shown in such a film.
To its credit, 2012 does have a few moments of intensity and suspense...but not in a good way. In fact, 2012 is so cliche-ridden that every single moment of climax can be seen coming from 2000 years away. The inevitable cliffhangers that last for a whole minute, the big "decision-making" scenes, deciding who's going to die and who's going to survive...all of this is sheer amateurish at best. 2012 takes elements from other disaster films like "The Day After Tomorrow" (directed by Roland Emmerich just as 2012 was) and "The Perfect Storm" and then flattens them out to a shallow and mediocre work. The characters in the film are such cookie-cutter catastrophe contestants that its hard to really get attached to any of them. The film does try to mix in humor with sympathy, but ultimately fails. The love lies solely within the technology. So many tweaks could have been made to really make 2012 stand out as more than just a conspiracy cash-in, but that remains its fate for now.
The script is incredibly weak, the acting is sub-par if anything, the plot is riddled with cliche's and stupidity...alas, 2012 does have its one gambit. Its one ace-in-the-hole. Its one gimmick that works: disaster. 2012's CGI and computer effects are stunning and brilliantly executed. Usually, I am not a fan of films that rely heavily on the artificial art of computer engineering (Transformers 2...), but 2012 pulls off such sequences involving shattering buildings and crust destruction perfectly. The film's action portions feel like roller coaster rides and, to be completely honest, I wouldn't be surprised if Universal or Six Flags picked up a contract to build a 2012-themed coaster.
With a tv-show being produced and in talks, its no surprise that 2012 started a huge hype and will probably last for a while. 2012 definitely put a stranglehold on the disaster movie sub-genre; it placed barriers to entry for any other film posing identical events because all anyone cares about now is the rapture that is supposed to take place in 3 years. Luckily, 2012 is a disaster movie without being a disaster; if it hadn't been for Emmerich's flashy CGI, 2012 would have been pretty drop-dead terrible. Unfortunately, 2012 is still pretty bad, even for what it was aiming for. The masses may enjoy it, but the individual may not. 2012 is just an exercise in missed chances in the same way Zombieland was.
5.0/10
-Kyle Shelton
No comments:
Post a Comment