2012 [Movie Review]

Exciting: 2012 may be nothing more than a fun late-year blockbuster, but goddamn does it do a good job at knowing what it wants and running with it. The set pieces of the film and the new benchmark of graphics Emmerich has implemented here are absolutely astounding. When a dormant mountain erupts into a fiery nuclear-level volcano blast of apocalyptic levels, the audience cannot help but let their jaws hit the floor. In addition to that, seeing suburban Pasadena ripped into a canyon in less than 5 minutes is awe-inspiring and achieves a ridiculous amount of fun. Yet one of the issues with 2012 is that the pacing of the excellent action sequences is all over the place. Of course it is justified in the context of what is going on in the story (the world being destroyed) it does make the film a bit hard to watch, especially when the second half of the movie is not quite as fun as the first. But if all you're looking for is adrenaline-pumping action and special effects, 2012 certainly delivers.

Smart: Even though 2012 is seen by most as the usual special-effects driven event movie Roland Emmerich usually creates (Independence Day, 10,000 B.C.) I found the film much smarter than I initially expected. The plot centers around humanity and what is ethically correct or wrong in terms of human social classes. Without spoiling too much, I can say I was pleasantly surprised by the little twist on most end of the world flicks where they try to escape Earth by spaceships and found 2012's solution more believable. Also, the plot juggles a lot of characters with stunning deft and control without getting too lost in the central story following John Cusack's character and his family. That said, I doubt the film will be nominated for anything but its effects because the script is pretty rough around the edges. Like I said, 2012 handles its globe-trotting plot confidently but the story is too broad and characters do eventually fall out of focus for long periods of time. The movies is also a little too long for my tastes, clocking in at about two and a half hours. But 2012 has just enough intelligence to balance out the chaotic action and I'm sure that is satisfactory for most audiences.

Bland: While 2012 has lots of style in its action, there is a clear lack of any distinct qualities in other areas. Even though I actually liked the story, it was filled with cliches galore and even a few of the action scenes had some predictable and boring outcomes. The weakest part is the attempted comedy in the movie. It never gets Michael Bay-comedy bad, but it is certainly not entertaining. The jokes are just plain corny and the catch phrases have been ripped off from movies since the 70s. It's not truly terrible, but it is really annoying.

Overall - Recommended:
Despite 2012's lack of new ideas, it serves its purpose as an epic Winter blockbuster. Mouth-watering special effects and a surprisingly decent storyline make the film what the abysmal Day After Tomorrow should have been. It is hard to deny the similarities between the two, but I absolutely know which movie I would pick if I had no other choice. Plus I can easily say that it was smart to release 2012 in the blockbuster devoid area in November and it is well worth watching if you want a good kick in the pants before Thanksgiving and Christmas.