With less than 900 published site reviews so far, it is clear that I've been in denial about this guilty pleasure of a disaster film since I saw "2012" on opening day many months ago. Did I like it? I must confess that like most epic films of this genre, I adored it, lurved it, crave more. Perhaps I should explain...
John Cusack is the most charming screen star since James Garner, and if the world was ending, as it is in "2012", I'd definitely sit shotgun next to him. Does he take this role too seriously? Well what would you do if you had to deliver your family and their likable new step dad to the mothership? I expect you'd demonstrate the necessary derring-do required to win back the respect and love of your former wife.
Disaster films reflect the overarching and epic qualities I usually associate with fine opera. Villainy is as clearly defined as virtue, and the tragic hero always wrestles with both. Everything is big, big, BIG and while there are few surprises, that is the most delicious and salient quality of the disaster film genre. We know that the world is ending, and we know that the bad guys are going to lose, and we also know that the good guys are going to triumph. We watch so that we can weep with the survivors and cheer when they overcome predictable plot points.
"2012" offers every spectacular obstacle that ever existed in its genre. It culls from classics like "Earthquake", "Posieden Adventure", "Independence Day" and "Airport" to provide every conceivable dangerous complication. Collapsing bridges, erupting volcanoes, and tidal waves compete for screen time while Cusack and company overcome the collapse of capitalism and greedy free marketeers from "other" cultures. Now, I may have laughed more often than I should have, but I celebrate the genius of lines like "Why does it take the end of the world for us to realize..." Familiarity doesn't necessarily breed contempt after all.
I don't know yet if I'm going to add the DVD to my collection. "2012" requires a screen as big as director Roland Hemerich's ego, and a sound system that might rival "High Fidelity"'s Rob Gordon. I highly recommend "2012" for all the wrong reasons, and if, like me, you enjoy cheesy narratives articulated by superb artifice, then I suspect you might also enjoy "2012".
John Cusack is the most charming screen star since James Garner, and if the world was ending, as it is in "2012", I'd definitely sit shotgun next to him. Does he take this role too seriously? Well what would you do if you had to deliver your family and their likable new step dad to the mothership? I expect you'd demonstrate the necessary derring-do required to win back the respect and love of your former wife.
Disaster films reflect the overarching and epic qualities I usually associate with fine opera. Villainy is as clearly defined as virtue, and the tragic hero always wrestles with both. Everything is big, big, BIG and while there are few surprises, that is the most delicious and salient quality of the disaster film genre. We know that the world is ending, and we know that the bad guys are going to lose, and we also know that the good guys are going to triumph. We watch so that we can weep with the survivors and cheer when they overcome predictable plot points.
"2012" offers every spectacular obstacle that ever existed in its genre. It culls from classics like "Earthquake", "Posieden Adventure", "Independence Day" and "Airport" to provide every conceivable dangerous complication. Collapsing bridges, erupting volcanoes, and tidal waves compete for screen time while Cusack and company overcome the collapse of capitalism and greedy free marketeers from "other" cultures. Now, I may have laughed more often than I should have, but I celebrate the genius of lines like "Why does it take the end of the world for us to realize..." Familiarity doesn't necessarily breed contempt after all.
I don't know yet if I'm going to add the DVD to my collection. "2012" requires a screen as big as director Roland Hemerich's ego, and a sound system that might rival "High Fidelity"'s Rob Gordon. I highly recommend "2012" for all the wrong reasons, and if, like me, you enjoy cheesy narratives articulated by superb artifice, then I suspect you might also enjoy "2012".