Director: Roland Emmerich
Cast: John Cusack, Amanda Peet, Chiwetel Ejiofor
Screenplay: Roland Emmerich & Harald Kloser
Running Time: 158 min
Rating: M
**/*****
Roland Emmerich's latest overblown "look it's the end of the world, what we need is the most average guy you can find with a dysfunctional family to save the day" offering almost borders on satire as we are inundated with everything that is ridiculous about the disaster genre repeatedly over the course of almost three hours.
The year is 2012 (obviously) and the world as we know it is coming to an end via a succession of natural disasters. The film chronicles mankind's struggle to survive.
It's a shame that the films of Roland Emmerich have become increasingly overblown and self indulgent over the years, for he once showed great promise in being able to intertwine solid dramatic content with large action sequences in his earlier outings like The Patriot. However as 2012 and last years dreadful 10000BC show, Emmerich has forgone all ambition of producing anything of quality, instead seeming more concerned with producing the most mind numbing special effects that the ridiculously large budget of 200 million dollars could buy. It's painfully obvious where most of Emmerich's attentions lay as the multiple human narratives in 2012 fall shockingly flat.
We all expect disaster movies to be somewhat ridiculous. After all they are so formulaic that the only thing that really changes is the disaster itself. 2012 is no exception as we once again are presented a bunch of stereotypical characters attempting to survive a flurry of natural disasters whilst mending their relationships. But the problem with 2012 is not so much that it adheres to every disaster movie convention in the book, but rather that we are subjected to sit through them for almost three hours. The plot is littered with so many pointless characters, sub plots and "we're a family" pep talks that the running time is unforgivable. In between the tidal waves and earth tremors the film lags endlessly, so much so that you are actually welcoming the complete annihilation of the world so you can leave. It also appears that Emmerich wasn't sure what tone he wanted for the film. On the one hand he tries to add in a plethora of 'emotional scenes', exploring-in a bad after school special sort of way- the big issues of corporate greed, heroism, self sacrifice, redemption and science and religion. On the other hand he adds in so many cheesy one liners, cringe worthy dialogue and absurd set ups e.g a Russian Paris Hilton look a like risking her life for her chihuahua , that you can't help but think the joke may be on us.
Unfortunately the cast can't do much to elevate the enjoyment factor of the film. Let's face it, disaster films are paycheck films and in exchange for the millions paid to them the actors do their best to look serious. John Cusack (the reluctant hero), Amanda Peet (his estranged wife), and relative newcomer Chiwetel Ejiofor (the scientist) do their best to make their stock disaster movie characters look suitably worried throughout, but the relatively bad dialogue and ridiculous situations more than renders any attempt to give a worthwhile performance futile. Oliver Platt does his best to stand out as the token greedy bureaucrat whilst Woody Harrelson provides some comic relief as a drugged up conspiracy theorist. It's Thandi Newton however who receives the award for the most pointless role of the year, as the presidents daughter (much like her role in W) Newton seems to merely hover in all the major scenes contributing nothing.
Whilst the film fails on many levels the special effects department manages to deliver. Cinematographer Dean Semler manages to make tidal waves and earthquakes almost beautiful in their destructive glory.
If your in the mood for some mindless bit of fun and don't mind a sore backside then you may enjoy 2012. For everyone else perhaps wait for DVD when you can employ the use of the fast forward button on your remote control. TWO OUT OF FIVE STARS.
I would not call myseld a filmaddict but I do love films. Some sorts more than others (I never got the hang of horror, somehow I always wish the characters die right away being stupid - that is in my opinion).
ReplyDeleteBut let's talk about 2012. In your ranking I would give this film 4 out of 5 stars.
Yes, the plot is senseless. You are saying "We all expect disaster movies to be somewhat ridiculous." Well, leave the word 'somewhat' out of this sentence. Remember Armaggeddon? Or Independence Day? Or Deep Impact? None of these films is remotely 'somewhat' ridiculous. Maybe less exageratted than 2012, but scientificaly they all are way off. So why not take it a step further wih 2012?
After I saw the trailer I knew exactley what I could expect from this movie. I knew that the characters would be very 1-dimensonal, that the story would be unbelievable and full of plot-holes, that the hero would reconnect with his family, and while watching the movie I knew that the russian would die and that the dog would live. That's how these films work (In Armaggeddon there is also this guy with a dog. Guess what: he dies, the dog lives!)
I knew all of this and still I decided to watch this one delibaretly in a cinema: big screen, big noise. The only thing I hoped for was that I would be entertained for 2,5 hours. And guess what?
I was!
Since I never expected the film to make any sense in anu scene I didn't mind the plot-holes. The script was merely a way to connect the various stages of destruction. (You even might wanna say that there were no plotholes since the plot actually doesn't matter at all!) What really mattered for me was the pace of the film. Since I knew that the running time is 158 minutes the only thing I cared for was to be entertained for 158 minutes.
And this the film did. I started slow, the pace wnet up, the destructions became bigger, in between on the right times the film zoomed in on small things (remember the chicken?), and got bigger after that, up to the finale with the beatuyful sunset.
Since the whole film was made not to be taken serious at any given point the cheesy and dreadful speach at the end just fitted the film.
I am definitley seeing this movie again, but only either on a beamer or in a cinema or on a really huge screen. Any other medium wil make this film look - well, stupid 8-)
So, as my conclusion: I expected to see the ultimate disastermovie, and I saw it. And since I am ranking a disastermovie (and not an Arthouse-production or a drama) I am giving this one 4 out of 5 stars.
Dear sasa.radojcic
ReplyDeleteI realise that this was not meant to be an arthouse production. As i stated in my review my problem was not with the believability of the story or with the disaster movie conventions that it contained. I, like you, expected them! It was the fact that the content of the film did not merit it's long running time. I agree with what you said that you don't care if a film is 158 min as long as you are entertained, but whilst you may have been entertained i was not as i found all of the human narratives in the film completely boring and many of the characters and sub plots unecessary. I agree that the special effects were brilliant but for my own personal tastes they were not enough to sustain my interest throughout the film.
Peace
Have A Great Day!