2012: It’s the end of the world as we know it … so bad it’s good

Roland Emmerich’s “2012″ may not be one of the best films of the year, but it is definitely the most prime example of a “commercial” movie that is (what we critics call) “wonderfully bad.” It’s like grabbing the shiniest golden ring at a jewelry store, only to discover that there is no diamond at its core.

Looks can be deceiving in many ways, and most of the time in Hollywood, the look is what matters. No one understands this better than Emmerich, and after “2012,” I’m beginning to think of him as the Michael Bay of disaster flicks. Just take any 30-second clip out of this movie, put it on television with the film label at the end, and bam!; you’ve got an advertisement.

With its plot (I use that term very loosely here) centered on a Mayan theory of global doomsday, the events in the film take place on December 21, 2012 (the last day of the Mayan calendar). Seeing as how their sole purpose is to endure one disastrous episode after another, it more fitting to think of all the characters in the film as “survivors,” and at the head of the ensemble is Jackson Curtis (John Cusack). He’s a struggling writer whose wife (Amanda Peet) and kids left him, and is now trying to make ends meet with a part-time job as a limo driver.

Before we delve into the deeper roots of the film, let’s touch base on what we already know (or can at least assume): no matter how much his ex denies it, Jackson really loves his kids, and helping them through the upcoming disaster is the only way for him to prove it. We also know that there will be at least one “prophet” (Woody Harrelson in a very authentic role) who predicts the catastrophe long before it happens.

And as always, there must be a slew of high-ranking officials, like the president (Danny Glover), who live in denial of the catastrophe until long after it has done its damage.

All the typical apocalypse story elements are used in “2012,” and Emmerich clearly doesn’t give a damn if we recognize them or not. What he does care about though, is whether or not we enjoy the wild ride he has put together in the process, and to his credit, it is definitely one hell of a roller coaster to say the least.

I counted at least nine or 10 big set pieces along the way, and despite the well-felt 160-minute time frame, “2012″ takes a lot of big risks, and successfully avoids the trap of being too-much-of-a-good-thing.

Rather than spoil any details on the assortment of survivor episodes that take place in the air, on the ground, or under water during the course of the film, I think this is a good opportunity to enlighten my readers on a greater subject. See, I’ve recently had a few in-depth discussions with some close friends about Hollywood’s obsession with CGI/SFX, and how it has crippled/elevated the potential of the industry.

Box-office profits have certainly proven that better technology leads to more epic proportions when studios are trying to sell a ticket, but as an avid supporter of the “traditional style,” it would appear as though selling the “story” has either become second-rate, or of no rate whatsoever to modern filmmakers.

Now granted, there are some exceptions to this statement (i.e. Clint Eastwood, Quentin Tarantino), but even when I myself am ready for a “mindlessly fun” time at the theater, there is still an unsettling feeling in my gut when you realize that more than half the people who saw it can’t tell you what the hell it was about. All they can tell you is “how cool” it looked.

Maybe I’m just not programmed the way some of my friends are, but even with that notion taken into consideration, Emmerich is still not Bay in many ways. When you walk out of a Bay movie, it almost disappoints you if you don’t feel exhausted or overwhelmed. Whether it’s a feeling of letdown such as “10,000 BC,” or one of exhilaration such as “Independence Day,” Emmerich always sends me home ready to talk about what he’s done, and if it is indeed his final project as a director, “2012″ is simply a ramification of what happens when you send a little kid on a scavenger hunt through the “disaster” section of a video store.

Demanding perfection might be too-out-of-reach, but if polished real well, the ring itself can make one hell of an impression.

Posted by Colonnade Archives on Nov 13 2009. Filed under Reviews. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry