2012 - A Review

(Spoilers Alert!)Its gotten to the point in my movie watching life that I can almost re-write most films in my head as I am watching them. Sometimes I imagine what the movie would have been like if I substituted one actor for another. Its not because of the actor themselves, its how they work with the material they are given. Some iconic performances like Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal Lecter or Rutger Hauer as Roy Batty or Val Kilmer as Doc Holiday, are impossible to fix. They are just perfect the way they are. They come across as fully formed people and are believable in that respect. Its the perfect storm of great actors bringing great interpretations to the great script they are given. Rarely does that happen.

In 2012, anyone could replace John Cusack and every other member of the cast and it wouldn't matter. They are only there to show off the CGI effects and those effects are SPECTACULAR. Almost the best scenes of destruction ever seen on film. You need to see the effects in the theatre to fully appreciate how terrific they are. Too bad the script is no match. However, this is a totally familiar track that Hollywood takes.

Each of the characters have the same looks on their faces as they go through all the beats we expect from a disaster movie. They go from one crisis to another until the quick wrap up at the end. Some of the blame comes from them having to emote in front of a green screen. There are characters who we are supposed to relate to throughout the picture. They are there to ground us in the reality of the situations and crisis they face. Did we really need to see them BARELY escape the disasters around them at the last minute? I counted 6 times when Cusack and his travelling companions got away a second before falling into a hole in the ground or hit by some falling debris or crashing into a building. The first time you hold your breath. The sixth time you say "WTF"?

The plotline involving two old men on an ocean liner feeling disconnected from their kids and grand kids only exists so that we can see what the tsunamis created by the end of the world scenario would do to a large cruise ship. Another subplot involving a Chinese family is inserted only because at one point our heroes need to get from point A to point B after crashing their plane on a glacier. Without that Chinese family's truck's miracle arrival, our heroes are trapped in the Himalayas. There would be no transport to the ships and their story ends in the mountains.

How the government has chosen to save who they are able to save is an interesting solution. I would have liked to see more about how the plan came about. How were these ships built? What do they look like on the inside? At first I thought they were spaceships taking people off planet. The film doesn't make that clear until very late in the movie.

It also seems like the governments of the world only chose ONE way to save others when multiple ways to save the most number of people seems more prudent. Each nation KNEW this disaster was coming so if they had time enough to build 'arks' they had enough time to set up some kind of safety zone within each of their nations. Having people pay billions of dollars for a place on these boats left a bad taste in my mouth despite the fact that this is EXACTLY what would have happened in real life.

Whenever I brought up these questions in my mind I was greeted with visuals that totally distract you from the weakness of the story. Every disaster movie cliche is here especially one blatantly ripped off from the 'Poseidon Adventure'.

The only reason to see this movie are the effects and you can wait for the DVD.