It's almost unfair to try and review a movie like "2012" -- not because it's bad (which it is), but because it's obvious words like "bad" and "good" were never on director Roland Emmerich's mind when creating it.
"2012" is your classic attempt at "disaster porn," a movie so preposterous you'll find yourself laughing out loud at many of its saddest moments.
The problem with rating this type of film, however, is that viewers have to know this going in. "2012" is a moneymaking movie, trying to cash in on moviegoers' love of watching destruction. Anyone expecting to find a thought-provoking examination of the environment or the human spirit should have seen something else.
It's somewhat useless to summarize the movie's plot, because you've seen this story before. Regular everyday-guy (John Cusack) is frustrated with his broken marriage to one-note mother character (Amanda Peet) and wishes he had a better relationship with his kids, who like their jerk of a stepfather (Thomas McCarthy) better. Meanwhile, the young, brilliant and moral scientist (Chiwetel Ejiofor) informs perfect president of the United States (Danny Glover) and evil presidential aide (Oliver Platt) that the world is about to be destroyed.
Soon the family finds itself racing against earthquakes and volcanoes while the government decides who is worthy of being saved.
Everything about this story is a giant cliché -- Cusack's character learns about the approaching disaster from a whacked-out radio host in the woods (Woody Harrelson) while the president's beautiful-but-cold daughter (Thandie Newton) finds love with the scientist. The screenwriters put absolutely no effort into giving the story any sort of originality or depth.
Why? Because this is not a movie about story, this is a disaster movie -- there's no time for a story when the entire planet is falling to pieces and the CGI budget is through the roof.
So how did they do on that front? The White House is destroyed by a tsunami, giant earthquakes tear apart downtown Los Angeles, sending skyscrapers crashing to the ground as the city sinks into the ocean, and ...
Actually, you won't remember anymore about the special effects -- seriously -- because you have seen them before in every other disaster movie you have ever seen. The movie is a mixture of "Independence Day," "Deep Impact," "The Day After Tomorrow," and even a little bit of "Titanic." Nothing is new or spectacular.
If you are going to blow this much money on special effects and no story, the film has to have a "wow" moment that blows you out of your seat.
This college generation was raised on disaster movies, so it's difficult these days to be moved by destructive images. The CGI is realistic, but how many times can someone watch a wave destroy an American landmark before one becomes disaffected by it?
One plus is that the movie left New York alone, sparing viewers an image of the Statue of Liberty crumbling or being drowned.
It's also hard to watch the otherwise fantastic John Cusack flounder around in this mess, delivering cheesy lines and jumping from limo to airplane to RV to bigger airplane without breaking a bone.
It's OK sometimes to see movies just for fun -- it can be nice to just sit back and admire an incredible visual feat. But "2012" is a movie that delivers nothing new and nothing spectacular. It buries its story in recycled images that will leave viewers bored and unconvinced.
Grade: D
