2012 Review

Surely I can't give 2012 a good review. Can I? I mean it's terrible. TERRIBLE. The characters are non existant, all notions of story have packed up and gone home and so much of the film is filled with saggy, soggy, drippy melodrama. Also, it's two and a half hours long. But it's a piece of depraved genius. At one point California is being destroyed in an earthquake that looks like it measures about a 350 on the richter scale and John Cusack outruns it in a limo. A LIMO! I can't help but feel that the sheer brilliance of that might have won me over.

The story, such as it is, concerns solar flares that are causing the Earth's crust to heat up and melt. This is the "science." Ah, science. Is there nothing you can't explain? This in turn causes uber-earthquakes that drag whole cities into the sea, mega-tsunamis that swallow up the Himalayas and volcanoes that erupt in Hiroshima-dwarfing nuclear explosions. The advertising campaign was built around the idea that this was all predicted by the Mayans but the film realises this is a waste of time and quickly dispenses with it altogether. I could talk more about the story, failed writer John Cusack struggling to reunite his family or conscientious Government scientist ("scientist") Chiwetel Ejifor trying to maintain his humanity amidst the terrible decisions being made around him, but what's the point? It's turgid, dreadful and clearly not the reason why anyone is going to see 2012.

Mark Kermode, in his scathing review of the film, talked about how it's another example of cynical Hollywood bean counters coming up with a film, the bottom line of which is the bottom line. This is possibly true of the studio and the executives greenlighting the film but I don't think it's true of writer/director (auteur if you will) Roland Emmerich. This is not a cynical film in the way that, say, Transformers or in particular Transformers 2 is. Emmerich is clearly in love with disaster movies and this is his magnus opus. I believe he genuinely cares that you're having a good time and this is the main reason that you stay onside with the film. He is now the undisputed king of the "man running away from looming disaster" set piece. John Cusack spends much of the film running/driving/flying away from earthquakes/volcanoes/floods. At one point he and his family are in an airplane that's screaming down a runway as the runway falls away into the Earth behind them. There is no threat, tension, logic or reason in it but you can almost see the glee on Emmerich's face as he comes up with stuff that he knows is outrageous but which he can't resist and he suspects you won't be able to resist either. He has the big action, the big cast and the ubiquitous dog in peril. It's worth mentioning that, while these sequences themselves are insane, he directs them superbly and, while the complete abandonment of plausibility might baffle, you always know exactly where you are within a given moment. This might seem like faint praise but watch Transformers 2 for an action film that has no clue how to direct its action. Also, to his credit, Emmerich is smart enough to cast credible actors who help sell this stuff. Chiwetel Ejiofor is one of Britain's best actors and it's great to see him get to take centre stage in a major Hollywood movie. John Cusack is dependably good, as is Oliver Platt, Woody Harrelson, Danny Glover and Tom McCarthy, director of the brilliant The Station Agent. (We'll ignore Thandie Newton) The film definately drags in the middle (our heroes have to get from California to China) but by the time you reach the last act with its arks and tsunamis, which could almost be a film in itself, you're right back with it.

Disaster movies have to be silly. We know this because they've always been silly. Check out the posturing of McQueen and Newman in The Towering Inferno or the frankly bizarre relationship between Ernest Borgnine and his ex-prostitute wife Stella Stevens (as well as Gene Hackman's seemingly knitted on hair) in The Poseidon Adventure if you don't believe me. In my mind, there is no difference between the 1970s disaster films and 2012. Would Irwin Allen have made a film like this had the technology been available to him? Of course he would. Modern special effects have freed up a personality that knows no restraint and the result is 2012. Simultaneously appalling and brilliant then, I have to say that the brilliance wins out. Just.

7/10