Are you a 2012er? I was not a 2012er before I watched this movie and afterward I am…not a 2012er. This film is a real cliffhanger (watch the movie and then laugh at the joke). Déjà Vous is the feeling one is doing or seeing something they have witnessed or experienced before. 2012 reminds me of a cobbling together of every global action picture produced and spliced together coherently on the cutting room floor by the film geek network. Before proceeding we must ask ourselves "is John Cusack the best choice for the lead role in a hundred million dollar action film about the ending of planet Earth?" And then we must answer the question. NO.
Many critics labeled 2012 a humorous blunder. Not so fast critic monkeys. The movie has its merits. Rather than going the typical space ship route and having humans escape a planet wide cataclysm via outer space, arks are constructed out of the most resilient elements available on the planet. There is one for every major country capable of housing 100,000 people, more specifically a hundred thousand billionaires and politicians. The denouement reminds teary eyed audiences that obstacles remain to surviving planet wide destruction. For instance mountains and debris can cause cracks in the armor of the lifeboats. Another tragedy can occur by human error. John Cusack and his rag tag gang of survivors nearly cause the annihilation of every "American" customer onboard their ark. They accidentally leave a nail gun in the way of the back door gears causing water to gush forward faster than the non-Titanic safety compartments could blockade the ship from harm. Admittedly, fourteen thousand foot high seas after a massive polarity shift and tectonic reshuffling of the bedrock floor cause Mt. Everest to look insignificant, is indeed a previously unseen image in a motion picture. Nonetheless, when the American ship crashes into Mt. Everest’s peak and survives I am left to ponder how the crack in the glass window of the ship withstood the mountain’s rage and the sea level’s new pressure. While audiences feel that so many phenomena are expatiated on I feel the exact opposite way. Nothing is scientifically grounded.
The film is more of a love story and one that is tragic at that. John Cusack and Amanda Pete are divorced with children. She is remarried to a self-righteous plastic surgeon. Cusack is a limousine driver for a former Russian prize fighter turned billionaire. Woody Harrelson plays an obnoxiously stoner moron who broadcasts his end of world hysteria to what seems like an audience of five people in their trailers. Sorry about the diatribe, Harrelson admits loving cheating on his live in girlfriend and being stoned nearly 24 hours a day. Watching his movies is like having chronic diarrhea, it is there and one wants it to vanish desperately. Somehow (mind you this is a stretch even for Hollywood) Pete, Cusack, their children and her new husband manage to escape the largest earthquake in history with the roads cracking to the Earth’s fiery core by a split second. Only then do they land a plane on a fireball of a crowded airfield and somehow fly a plane to China within a mile of the arks. Writing a true summary would take hours. This movie is clever in many ways and is well written. It is not cheesy or lame, it is simply based on a foolhardy premise that scares the superstitious and the paranoid.
2012ers believe the world will end in December of 2012 after the Mayan calendar runs out. I have a better idea, print new calendars and do not be afraid to update them. The Mayans are mostly dead, they are not a modern people and they could not stand the test of time. Why would anybody believe a prophecy embellished by scam artists created hundreds of years ago by a civilization which died off from conquest and a failure to MODERNIZE. What is so appealing about death? Why would anyone care about a prediction of 6 billion deaths? Why flirt with such nonsense? What is it about humans that makes extinction so romantic? How about spending time on figuring out how to live well and survive?
The best part of 2012 is the performance of Chiwetol Ejiofor. He is an actor that is underappreciated and he puts 199% into every on screen performance. He is a good looking younger actor with unlimited potential. He plays a U.S. government science officer who is one of the discoverers of the disaster awaiting the planet. He convinces the president of the United States and the heads of state of other nations to begin preparing for the inevitable as solar flares cause underground global warming of epic proportions. Ejiofor dazzles audiences with a smooth performance that is always on target, constantly convincing, and one that draws viewers into the plotline without forcing the issue. He needs to be the leading man in more movies.
2012 is more than you would expect, but I have the feeling none of these cliché films will ever live up to the hype. It is worth the money of admission, but leaves more of a feeling of emptiness and hunger than one of fulfillment. Still, I cannot resist the temptation to implore you to watch the picture in the theater. Enjoy folks!
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
