Lily Morgan, left and John Cusack are shown in a scene from "2012."
MOVIE REVIEW
If there is one way to advise you on how to handle "2012," it is this: for the best experience of the movie, go in, watch the first hour and a half, then leave the theater quietly. Hang out in the lobby and catch one of the stragglers exiting the theater later. Ask them how it ends. Because, trust me — you don't want to watch it for yourself.
In "2012," the world finds itself facing a dilemma of the ages — evidence of the world ending, whether it be from the Mayans or the scientists of today, is showing up everywhere. While the big politicians and rich executives are keeping it under wraps, the rest of the world goes on without knowing.
As soon as "surface cracks" start to arise in Los Angeles, the truth starts to unravel. "2012" tries to be a story of humanity, telling of various characters' struggles and how they face this end either fighting to survive or accepting death with purpose as the earth falls out beneath them.
You can tell a lot of money (emphasis on "a lot") was pumped into this monster of a film. And when I say monster, I mean monster. Columbia Pictures had Roland Emmerich, writer/director/producer of such epics as "Godzilla" and "Independence Day," once again team up with his favorite composer and now screenwriter Harald Kloser to bring you their newest global apocalyptic drama following "The Day After Tomorrow."
But let me tell you, I felt like the movie was a platter of gross and mouthwatering appetizers, each made up of scenes. While the first 30 minutes are necessary to further understand the movie, they are draggy and dull. The exposition is set over the events unfolding in the years before 2012, when the awareness of a near-apocalypse starts to surface. The movie is really made when California starts to fall apart. And while "2012" is a movie thriving with tension, once I was 90 minutes into it, I was gasping for any form of relief. The tension started to get annoying, and the stressful "Oh man" moments and flashy directing style started to give me a headache.
The second half of the movie is just not worth it. The action is over-the-top, implausible, and I felt like the entire movie tried to be "Titanic." While a well-executed issue on the ethics of humanity is brought up, the movie itself takes a turn for the cliché, and I found myself not asking for more. I was waiting for the last shot of the movie desperately.
I found the dialogue overly cheesy at moments, and the characters themselves were either annoying or heartbreaking. By far, the one I cared about the most was Adrian Helmsley (Chiwetel Ejiofor), the D.C. scientist spearheading the global backup plan. The best performances were made by George Segal, Blu Mankuma, Danny Glover (playing the President of the United States), and even Morgan Lily, as John Cusack's little girl. Most of the slow-paced scenes with these characters were great pictures of human emotion as their knowledge of the world ending brings out the best in them.
As for Cusack, I'll give him a 50 percent. This doesn't mean he gets an F for failure, but he pleased me for 50 percent of the time. The other 50 percent was probably the writing dragging him down. We've seen this character before — the ex-husband who is jealous of the new husband and is trying to spend time with his kids so "they can be a family again" and in the end a huge disaster. Really? Come on.
While half of the movie is implausible, it is an amazing ride to watch. With so many eye-catching and jaw-dropping money shots and disaster sequences in the middle of the movie, it's hard to say this movie wasn't worth it. The action rolls directly at you as the world these characters know crumbles. With small, awkward comedic bits sprinkled in these moments of extreme tension, it's not too depressing — but it sure is fun to watch an entire city fall into the ground.
When it comes to down to the end — the year 2012, according to this movie — these consuming 150 minutes are worth about half of what you get. It contains some of the most gripping, fascinating, and eye-catching disaster scenes you will ever see (I don't think I'll ever see a better disaster sequence), but the weakness of "2012" lies in its plot and development. If that doesn't mean much to you, I'd say go see it. I can only hope when it comes out on DVD, there will be a bonus edited version of just the action sequences.