Review: 2012

Director: Roland Emmerich
Starring: John Cusack, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Amanda Peet, Thandie Newton
Released: 11/11/2009
Rated: 15

This may come as a shock to you but 2012 is not one film but rather, two separate, very different films. One film is an atrocious, poorly scripted and poorly acted disaster of a movie that is to be avoided at all costs. The other is the most insanely brilliant disaster film of all time.

No matter your taste in films, there’s no getting around the fact that the first 20 or so minutes of the film are pretty awful. It’s a confusing mess of concerned looking scientists, concerned looking world leaders and (bizarrely) concerned looking art collectors that no-one could possibly find entertaining. Thankfully it seems that 2012’s overlord Roland Emmerich recognises this too. The numbers “2012” are displayed in a giant ominous font only after all this concerned exposition has taken place as if to say “That was the starter. Now here’s the main course.”

And what a main course it is. As soon as we join put upon father/writer turned action hero Jackson Curtis (John Cusack) the movie quickly descends into the series of dramatic set pieces and scenes of epic destruction that we were all waiting for. The spectacle is frequently breathtaking. Yet for every moment of sheer joy that comes with witnessing entire cities destroyed by earth, fire and water comes numerous moments where you are required to suspend any sense of logic or reality. Early on in the film, Jackson manages to drive his family to safety through the crumbling streets of San Francisco. Yet while this starts as a dramatic escape sequence, the realisation that no matter what happens, impossibly good driving will ensure their safety does threaten to ruin the moment. This is particularly noticeable when quite literally everyone else in the city appears to die horribly.

It’s disaster movie 101. There’s an unlikely hero dad whose acts of bravery reunite him with his estranged family. There’s a step dad who can conveniently fly any aircraft he stumbles upon despite his initial claims to the contrary. There is a no-nonsense Russian co-pilot. Numerous goodbye phone calls are made. As soon as a character is introduced, you immediately know if they will live or die. In most cases they die.

Not only is 2012 filled with gaping plot holes and jumps in logic, in even manages to repeat the same “escape to the airplane while the runway crumbles” sequence twice. Stranger still, it succeeds in over complicating the simple act of destroying everything in the world by adding several needless subplots about government conspiracies, the rights of the people and elderly jazz men. Oh and it’s about 30 minutes too long.

2012 is by all accounts an awful movie. Yet it’s hard not to be won over by the sheer gung-ho stupidity of it all. Though some of the acting is a bit suspect, John Cusack is clearly enjoying himself while Woody Harrelson gives a winning turn as demented conspiracy theorist/hermit Charlie Frost. There is a genuine desire to please here that’s hard to ignore. And although you might get more enjoyment from mocking the movie than you get from the movie itself, there is undoubtedly enjoyment to be had.

So yes, 2012 is two films. One is an absolute travesty of cinema that is impossible to recommend. The other is a wondrously child like celebration of special effects driven popcorn silliness that is impossible to not enjoy. I know which one I watched.

Kane Basterrechea

Tags: 2012