2012 review

Witness the biggest, craziest and possibly most entertaining disaster picture ever made. Co-writer-director Roland Emmerich the creator of such mega destruction blockbusters as "Independence Day", "Godzilla" and "The Day After Tomorrow" has for my money hit the nail on the head by forgoing most seriousness for melodrama and over the top scenes of massive Earth annihilation. In fact I'd say this is his best picture since his Revolutionary war, Mel Gibson film "The Patriot" and his best paced movie to date. Further more his addition of stronger actors like John Cusack, Thandie Newton, Danny Glover, Oliver Platt, Chiwetel Ejiofor and Woody Harrelson kind of add to the ridiculous, cartoony sci-fi fun of it all.

But let me stress a couple of very important things. First off this movie is in no way a reflection of what will happen in 2012, just an entertaining piece of a huge maybe, if anything that would happen hype machine. Second is that Emmerich has now cemented himself as the Sam Raimi of the disaster film genre. Where before he would go as bug nuts as he wanted and attempted to make a serious picture with serious tones, here he just cuts loose and has fun. Sure there are sub-plots there to put on those old heartstrings and make you care about humanity (as he does have a lot of humanity in his pictures unlike Michael Bay), but the main set of characters make you like or simply enjoy them because they are who they are. Like John Cusack! He's snarky and fun to watch on screen in general so throwing him in a scene out running an erupting volcano is perfection! Chiwetel Ejiofor is still one of my favorite actors to watch because no matter what he's in he will act the SHIT out of it, just because he can. So why not pair him up with Thandie Newton and give him to 'emotional' speeches about peoples right to fight for their survival?

So with all that said, yes the script and dialogue is often hokey. Mainly in the first half of the film. When we reach the second half which is when things really change into (in my opinion) a much more original and entertaining concept, you've got lots of ethos, but it works. The budget for this mega picture is idea mega at $250 million... let that settle a second. However every cent is seen on screen. This ain't no cheap looking flick like "Spider-Man 3". And there are some scenes in here that really question whether it was CGI or practical effects or a mix of both. And this is especially important after Emmerich's last picture "10,000 BC" which is definitely the worst in his filmography on just about every level, including some very poor CGI. In "2012" though he more than makes up for it and provides sequence after sequence of glowing chaos that we're allowed to savor.

As I watched "2012" I also realized how much better of an overall action sci-fi picture is was than "Transformers 2". Mainly because this wasn't taking itself to deadly serious and mixing it with some pretty lackluster jokes. And I'm saying this after 'enjoying' that film. But all negative thoughts aside "2012" is about as great of an adventure picture of this size can get without being great. Had it's script been better I'd say it would've been great. In any case see it on the biggest screen, with the loudest sound system you can. See it and laugh and be marveled by immense, German engineered disaster and fun.

"2012" *** 1/2 out of ****

The BOOMS that started it all...

I'm pretty sure it was "Independence Day". Yeah I'm about 100% certain it was now. I actually really enjoy thinking back to how I got so consumed with movies and all that goes into making them. Plenty of people see comedies, nowadays it's twenty-something dramadies with with folk music and young stars that get them into it all. That's great for them and usually it sets their watermark for cinematic criticism pretty high. However I wasn't that kid. I was kid whose family watched 'Star Trek' on television. I got to watch things like 'The Outer Limits' and 'Tremors' growing up and theatrically the experience of Spielberg's "Jurassic Park" was a mile stone. However it was "2012" director Roland Emmerich's 1996 blockbuster that I feel did it in for me.

All the hook of science fiction was there after that. Aliens, space adventure, destruction on a massive scale... everything I as a kid could look for in a movie was there. Of course I've gotten older and thus my film watching needs have shifted and grown and lessen over time, but there's some things you don't lose. I'm a product of genre films and spectacle film making. I say this more to explain my feelings towards certain movies and certain types of viewers. I feel more now than ever that there's a level of alienation in the film loving world for those who other feel 'aren't on the same level' as them. I should know because sometimes I feel that. I don't necessarily refer to it in that way, but there are titles given to those folks. It's wrong and I've tried hard to stop doing it so much. I think everyone should simply go to see stuff, but try to know what they're getting into and thus if it's up their alley.

In any case this blog is in preparation for Emmerich's new doomsday flick "2012", out this Friday (possible review up Sunday give or take). I was really pondering the whole notion of big movies and small movies and how a lot of people (mainly pesky hipster types) who like to claim that A: that's not art and B: anyone can do CGI. I really put thought into those statements. The whole concept of art is generally a vague thing. I could sling shit on a canvas and get it in a small gallery showing if I called it 'art'. I'm not wrong, but it's not like there is soul or a propose for it. It's simply shit... slung unto a canvas that I'm justifying with a term. Personally I consider all (even shitty films) to be art in one form or another. Many are made for entertainment purposes and some are made for much more than that. Nothing is wrong with either as long as they get their purpose done properly and successfully.

The notion that anyone can do CGI on a computer I find to be wrong. If it were easy then just anyone could make an epic sized disaster picture or "The Lord of the Rings" style film and it'd be just like all the others. If it were so easy then how come "The Day the Earth Stood Still" was such a rancid piece of crap? Because in truth... it ain't easy. If you took the time to watch a DVD extra or two you'd realize that effects are by and large hard to do, whether practical or digital. Traditionally I enjoy the mix of the two and the better Emmerich pictures do that. In fact to be honest most quite enjoyable adventure picture mix the two instead of going all one over the other. Beyond that it's just generally hard to shoot all these things and then edit it right and hope it plays well.

So tonight I'm going to bask in the destructive glory of epic, over sized, disaster pictures. Sure they might be light on character study, they may abide by a set of rules and conventions, but they're fun. They're fun, escapist films that are hard to make, easy to market (even the bad ones) and don't always take themselves seriously (perhaps why Emmerich is quite good at them. A little satire mixed with chaos isn't a bad thing).