2012 (2009)

Michael Bay may be the master of blowing things up in Hollywood, but when your script calls for apocalyptic destruction on a global scale, look no further than Roland Emmerich. Love him or hate him, Emmerich has created special-effects heavy disaster popcorn flicks for a generation. If you are looking for big, dumb action, then this film is nearly perfect. If you are looking for an engaging disaster flick with believable human drama, well, let me remind you that this is a Roland Emmerich film.

In 2009, geologist Adrian Helmsley (Chiwetel Ejiofor) discovers that neutrinos from major solar flare activity are baking the Earth’s core. He estimates that within three years, this will cause the Earth’s crust to destabilize and the poles to shift, causing global destruction. Three years later, science-fiction writer and limo driver Jackson Curtis (John Cusack) scrambles to save his children, his ex-wife (Amanda Peet), and her boyfriend (Thomas McCarthy) from the end of the world. Along the way, secrets are uncovered, revealing who knew what, when they knew it, and how world leaders planned to survive the cataclysm.

There are some obvious missteps throughout this film. Right off the bat, you don’t hire John Cusack to be your everyman-turned-apocalypse-hero if you want your film to be believable. Second, if you’re going to tear the world apart, make sure you do so in a consistent and believable way. Is half of what we’re seeing even physically or geologically possible? Finally, divvy up the action between a few different groups of people. By the end of this film everyone in the audience will balk at all the coincidence and lucky timing that brought Jackson and his family through so many intense and crazy sequences unscathed. It is simply a pill that cannot be swallowed.

If nothing else, 2012 is frustrating to watch because I quickly saw enormous amounts of potential in the story. This is a broad, sweeping epic that would make for a great miniseries or even a full-on TV show if it were to be done correctly. Instead, every single plot line and story arc is rushed and condensed to fit an all-too-confining 158-minute runtime. While it seems strange to say that two and a half hours is not enough time to tell a story, it is definitely the case with 2012.

Many of the characters have solid foundations even if they are saddled with disaster clichés and stereotypes. You’ve got the family man trying to survive, a scientist trying to help humanity any way he can, and several colorful supporting characters that grow on you over the course of the film. This makes it all the more irritating when some of these folks die toward the end. If you’re going to spend two hours warming us up to annoying but appreciable characters, don’t kill them off to serve the obvious conclusion. In the 21st century, it should be okay to mix things up a little with who lives and who dies, especially when these characters have promise in a post-disaster world.

2012 is a film that tries to do too much. At its core, it strives to be a straightforward disaster drama. This goal is undermined by too many of the illogical character decisions and occurrences that plague the sub-genre. It even gives up on being a straight drama at times by throwing in silly gags and deaths intended to draw chuckles from the typical summer audience crowd. I would easily trade much of the CGI disaster stuff in this film for a tense conspiracy thriller about the chilling behind-the-scenes lottery that selects which of the world’s richest and most powerful have the clout and money to survive impending doom while the rest of the world is kept in the dark.

There is enough bad CGI, acting, and writing in this film to make you wonder why my rating is as high as it is. But I assure you that outlining all the best parts of this film leaves you with the framework for something potentially great. It's too bad 2012 turns out to be another case of a great concept ruined by terrible execution.

RATING: 2.25 out of 5