Plus 1′s “2012″ review

The day of the screening I was joking around with some friends at my day job and came up with this snazzy catchphrase regarding the new movie 2012: “Only John Cusack can outrun disasters of massive proportions but not be able to stop the disaster that was his character’s marriage.” I knew that Amanda Peet played Kate Curtis, the separated wife of Cusack’s Jackson Curtis and I had a feeling that by the end of the movie their long lost love would be reunited by the events of the movie.  Boy was I right, and I didn’t need the Mayans to predict this like they allegedly have predicted the disaster that is 2012.

untitledDirector and Screenwriter (gotta give credit where credit is due) Roland Emmerich managed to create what will be this season’s greatest comedy. I don’t think that is what he set out to do upon drafting, filming, and editing 2012 but that is the end result. This two-and-a-half hour comedy will have you rolling in your seat as you watch Cusack and the gang outrace disaster after disaster after disaster. The over-the-top elements and wacky situations in which Cuscak and the gang find themselves is downright hysterical. You’ll laugh as the Cusack Gang (short name from now on) out drive an earthquake that is ripping California apart. You won’t be able to resist the temptation to crack a smile when the Cusack Gang manage to hit the perfectly placed upturned pavement, use it as a ramp to jump a very large hole caused by the massive earthquake they were outrunning, and drive through a glass building that was toppling in front of them. It’s the Dukes of Hazzard meets Lethal Weapon 4!

The plot is straight out of an NBC Movie of the week that should be shown as a two-parter during February sweeps. In 2009 Doctor Adrian Helmsley, played by Chiwetel Ejofor, discovers that the Earth’s core is getting hotter. He takes the facts and presents them to Carl Anheuser, played by Oliver Platt, who is the President’s top scientist. They determine that with the help of the world’s government, ships can be built to house all of the world’s culture as well as those select individuals that helped fund the project and all government parties throughout the world. The plans are put into motion and in 2010 the governments unite. Over the next two years the Chinese build six very large metal ships that will be used to transport countless live animals and people to safety for months if not years, and house state-of-the-art electronics that will guide their way. These Arks will be used for the months or years it takes to restart civilization after the great floods.

There is even a Who’s Who of characters that gave 2012 that NBC Movie of the Week feel. Danny Glover is the President of the United States. Woody Harrelson is Charlie, the one “crazy person” who knows the Government’s plans but isn’t taken seriously. Blu Mankuma plays Harry Helmsley the father of Ejofor’s character, and George Segal plays Tony Delgato who hasn’t spoken or seen his son in years and is also Harry’s musical partner. This short list of actors helped to make 2012 feel like a Movie of the Week. Where are Hasselhoff and Shatner when you need them?

I won’t even get into the wooden performance Glover gives as the POTUS. His delivery and demeanor seemed to indicate that this was a paycheck and not really a wise career move. Cusack did a good job at not taking the story too seriously. I mean, how can you when you’re constantly avoiding disaster with seconds to spare. Peet was the only actor who delivered a believable portrayal of a character. As I’ve been told, it only takes one rotten apple to ruin the bunch – thanks to Amanda Peet for being that apple. I kid, I kid… you were the bright spot to this comedy and you were the only person that made me believe that your character was in danger.

I’m sure some will think this was an amazing movie based on the great effects. YES, the effects were incredible. The way Emmerich choreographed the destruction of the Earth was, to say the least, beautiful. His use of real-world physics helped to portray the massive destruction that was happening before our eyes. His sinking of California was an awesome effect and the way the land mass sank while buildings kept toppling over was darn cool to watch. His use of dust and debris from downed buildings converging down the roads and toward the populace was too reminiscent of images captured on 9/11/01 in New York city.  I found myself picking up small sound effects that added to some of the massive events unfolding on the screen. There is a scene where the U.S.S. John F. Kennedy is being lifted by a massive tsunami and the scraping noise of the jets sliding off the bow of the ship was a nice touch of realism. But, as we all know, effects do not make a movie great. Story and acting are also needed to help sell the Hollywood magic and are just what was missing from 2012. I find it hard to take a movie seriously when the entire audience is laughing at EVERYTHING that is happening in front of them. If Emmerich is smart he’ll have Columbia put this under the Comedy section come Oscar time.

Columbia Pictures manages to deliver a PG-13 movie with intense disaster sequences, a 2.5 hour run time, little story,  lots of special effects, and laughs-a-plenty (which I’m sure was unintentional and just the by-product of a bad movie).

Rating: ★☆☆☆☆ 

5 Responses to “Plus 1′s “2012″ review”

  1. Sib says:

    I agree completely! My twitter reaction last night after seeing it was “HAHAHAHAHA it was sooo baaaad, soooo baaad, sooo baaad. And looked so great while failing so badly. Awesome!” – thank you for putting in much better words what I was thinking!

  2. pariskarin says:

    Oh yes!! Stellar review and *just* what I thought of it, too, in so many ways. I love what Sib says below: “And looked so great while failing so badly. Awesome!” Totally. Actually, after seeing this film, I got a little self-righteous and grouchy, like I was insulted that my intelligence had been so badly assailed and I had willingly participated. Ugh. But your focus on the humor in the badness in this review really makes me re-evaluate the whole experience and laugh at it more. :D

    I think what made me so frustrated, too, is that there was some pretty good potential for an awesome movie! The cast was amazing — a lot of really pretty good actors populating the picture. The topic, if dramatic, is interesting. Certainly the technical FX nature of this movie demonstrates what is possible in creating an end-of-the-world scenario. It's a little sad that more could not have been put into the story and screenplay to make this a genuinely moving and dramatic action film. So it goes. As comedy, though, it actually was pretty hilarious!! Thank you for helping me realize that. :)

  3. jonathon says:

    This reviewer was so off i almost feel like he went into the wrong theater and watched a parody of it or something. Misinterpreted, Misrated, and sadly Missed out on this one. This is why i never read reviews before i watch a movie because no one gives credit where its due anymore. Everyone that is a critic is so picky that they wouldn't know what a good movie with a decent story was if it bit them. Thanks for once again proving this correct, if you want to know if a movie is any good go and watch it yourself.

  4. jonathon says:

    This reviewer was so off i almost feel like he went into the wrong theater and watched a parody of it or something. Misinterpreted, Misrated, and sadly Missed out on this one. This is why i never read reviews before i watch a movie because no one gives credit where its due anymore. Everyone that is a critic is so picky that they wouldn't know what a good movie with a decent story was if it bit them. Thanks for once again proving this correct, if you want to know if a movie is any good go and watch it yourself.

  5. plus1 says:

    AND the great comedy hits DVD today. For the record I am getting it for the effects…ok, and the laughs. :-)

Leave your Thoughts

Follow Atomic Popcorn

Follow us via RSS

Follow us via Email

Advertise with AP


Advertise with Atomic Popcorn