In terms of narrative construction, 2012 is a merely like something college filmmakers would come up with while he/she was deeply stoned.  It would go something like this:

Guy 1: "Mannnn ... you know how - in, like disaster movies -- how there is this build up and introduction...then like the big disaster...then the survival and aftermath parts...then reuniting?"

Guy 2: "Yeah. Yeahhh. I dig the disaster parts."

Guy 1: "What if we like, made a movie, and it was nothing but the disaster part.  Like it just went on and on, and then the credits rolled?  Wouldn't that be coooool?"

Guy 2: "Woah.  That would ... wow.  That would totally rock."

Guy 3: "Is this like last month when you guys did the mansion floor plan with nothing but foyers?"

Guy 1: "That was sooo cool."*


Unless you've been under a rock, you know that 2012 is allegedly Emmerich's last disaster movie which gives us the end of the world as predicted by the Mayan calendar. The fact that the Mayan calendar does not actually end, nor actually predict this, should not bother anyone; the whole world went to see an Emmerich disaster movie in which a Mac laptop downloaded a virus to alien super-spaceships. That is absurd -- everyone knows Mac's don't get viruses!

For this movie, Emmerich has pulled out all stops -- the disaster is a series of cataclysms that chase the various main characters around the globe with super volcanoes erupting, California falling into the sea, and the giant tidal waves from Deep Impact turned up to 11.  In this case, the main character -- although it is really more of an ensemble cast -- is Jackson Curtis (John Cusack) who is a down-on-his luck, divorced-dad-author who drives a limo when he can't get other work.  He brings us the cute-kids (Liam James and the adorable Morgan Lily), and the fractured-family subplot (with ex-wife Amanda Peet and re-married plastic surgeon step-dad Thomas McCarthy).

We get the requisite scientific exposition role handled charismatically by Chiwetel Ejiofor in the form of Adrian Helmsley. He can bounce said exposition off Carl Anheuser (Oliver Platt), the president's chief of staff, or alternatively, young-love-interest Laura Wilson (Thandie Newton). She is the first daughter of President Thomas Wilson, played by Danny Glover.

Woody Harrelson drops in as Charlie Frost, a wild-man pirate radio guy who sees it all coming and lets his listeners know.

The disaster itself and the movie's construction exceed the minimum bar for stupidity that was set in The Day after Tomorrow.  There the characters are chased by "super cold air”. While yes, the characters are chased by earthquakes in 2012, at least a crack in the ground has some plausible screen presence. The science in the movie (neutrinos suddenly, mysteriously, interacting with the earth's mass) meets the bar set by The Core for having enough reasonable “techno babble” to hold up while still falling short of fundamentally smart. Emmerich gets that neutrino research takes place in the bottom of copper mines, but still has the Yellowstone fireball wander slowly towards them.

Apart from its eye-popping visuals, the movie is absolutely on track when it comes to playing by the rules of disaster films.  Everyone is put in peril --especially kids, but kids and pets are pretty much hands-off.  The broken family has pressure put on them to reunite. Early on, in one case, the earthquake directly editorializes on this.  All escapes are last second.  When a main character does die, they either deserve it or are one of the few sacrificial lambs killed off to make us wonder if everyone will die.  We get lovingly detailed destruction of a few major landmarks.  Big speeches save the day, and, lastly, a black president presides over a disaster.

I want to say more about this last bit. Emmerich had a problem that has never before faced a filmmaker because of the necessity of a date that is within easy reach (the title of the movie) and that we actually have a real life sitting black president. He was forced to take what was otherwise a minor movie trope and, do something with it.  What he did, however, was, in my opinion a major screw up.  Since I want to talk about this here, I will “Spoiler Tag it”.

Spoilers
I don't know why there is a black-president-disaster-show trope, but there is. It was notable in Deep Impact, but also in 24 (bio and nuclear terrorism) and The Fifth Element.  Otherwise, there are comparatively few movies that feature a black president that are not disaster related.  I am not sure why this is and I am having a hard time even speculating.  Do we feel that a black president has some kind of grounding that makes us feel better about them being in charge? Does a black president give us, previous to this administration, a 'frisson' that somehow makes us look at the impending great change that is coming.  Maybe there is an "authentic" sense that comes from certain black stereotypes?  I don't know.

However, in 2012 the president, played by Danny Glover, would, in our time-line, clearly be Obama.  But to me, Glover lacks the fundamental charisma to be an Obama stand in. Also, the way his story arc progresses is, in my mind, a serious misstep on the part of the script.  In 2012, President Wilson (Thomas Wilson -- the real name of Woodrow Wilson) decides to "go down with the ship", refusing to leave the White House when it is clear that the world is going to end.

I think this is supposed to be honorable; however, it isn't, and the movie either intentionally or inadvertently hammers this point home. When President Wilson refuses to get on the plane, and the Vice President's helicopter goes down in the Yellowstone ash cloud, the fate of every potential American survivor is left in the random hands of the White House Chief of Staff -- simply because he is the loudest guy there.

That is why the President's decision is a dereliction of duty rather than a noble sacrifice.  Even ignoring the fact that the Secret Service would likely haul the President bodily onto Air Force One despite his protests, the fact is that in this case the 'ship' (America) isn't going down -- there is still a government and people who depend on it.  Since the movie presumes the President has a moral center, what we see in the end is a lot of drama that would have likely been circumvented had he stuck it out.  Simply put -- he would have probably saved lives.

While we are on the topic of statements, what may or may not have been intentional in the movie is that there are two disaster-porn shots of religious icons being destroyed. The filmmakers apparently felt going after Catholicism was fine, but intentionally steered clear of Islam due to fear of reprisals -- a statement in and of itself.  While I recognize that it is realistic that people facing this would turn to God, and that images of those people dying and icons being destroyed are powerful; it felt like editorializing to do it in rapid and immediate succession was something like “Where is Your God Now” on the part of the script.
/Spoilers

In the end, though, people go to disaster movies to see a wide-scale disaster. The movie Earthquake had sufficient gravity with its tiny model, Los Angeles, being destroyed, and it rated a theme-park, exhibition years later. Today there are no models; it is CGI, and we can see individual people fall to their doom as the ground opens up and the buildings tumble in.

In this, 2012 delivers.  Emmerich's decision to "pull out all the stops" may have left a stop or two behind somewhere; but frankly, having sat through 2 hours and 38 minutes (probably 30 minutes too long), I felt I had enough end- of-the-world to satisfy me.  It is true that the ending "water tank shots" look cheap to me.  It is true that the characterization goes below paper thin sometimes (cliché spouting Buddhist monk, I am looking at you). It is true that the film abandons all pretense of plausibility with last minute escapes and a sense of karma that follows around the Russian character. However, it does not matter because, by the time you get out of there, you have seen the end of the world -- and that is what you paid for!

Read More FlickDirect Staff Reviews about 2012

• Nathan M Rose  (A)  ( Theatrical Review)