{"id":6991,"date":"2009-11-12T22:36:51","date_gmt":"2009-11-12T22:36:51","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.filmdetail.com\/?p=6991"},"modified":"2009-11-25T17:11:31","modified_gmt":"2009-11-25T17:11:31","slug":"2012","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.filmdetail.com\/2009\/11\/12\/2012\/","title":{"rendered":"2012"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"2012\"<\/a><\/p>\n

[ad]<\/p>\n

The latest CGI disaster-porn blockbuster from director Roland Emmerich<\/a> is an insane\u00a0roller coaster\u00a0ride in the mould of his previous films.<\/p>\n

When Sony Pictures hired Emmerich to make 2012<\/a><\/strong> they clearly weren’t doing so in the hope that he would make an\u00a0intimate\u00a0examination of how governments respond to a global crisis.<\/p>\n

Armed with a huge budget he has constructed an overblown cocktail of his greatest hits: Independence Day<\/a> (in which the world is devastated by aliens); Godzilla<\/a> (in which a city is devastated by a lizard); \u00a0The Day After Tomorrow<\/a> (in which the world is devastated by global warming).<\/p>\n

Now with 2012 he has crafted a film in which the world is devastated by an ancient Mayan prophecy<\/a> which sees Earth’s techtonic plates<\/a> going crazy after a solar flare<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The story has a similar template: alarmed scientists (Chiwetel Ojiofor<\/a> and\u00a0Jimi Mistry) discover the disaster; an everyday guy (John Cusack<\/a>) struggles to protect his family amidst the chaos; the\u00a0US president (Danny Glover<\/a>) tries to be stoic; the chief of staff (Oliver Platt<\/a>) enacts a secret plan and various other characters all respond differently to the\u00a0coming apocalypse.<\/p>\n

<\/embed><\/object><\/p>\n

In essence, this is a modern day remake of 1970s disaster movies like Earthquake<\/a> with advanced CGI and production values. It is very cheesy and workmanlike, although the sheer scale of destruction was beguilingly impressive.<\/p>\n

Going in I had a fair idea of what to expect (clich\u00e9s, perfunctory performances, clunky dialogue, overblown set pieces, absurd scenes where characters cheer and clap in unison) and it all came true, but a few things stuck out.<\/p>\n

Firstly, it is very long for a mainstream film at 158 minutes but actually passes quite quickly, mainly because the action sequences come thick and fast and have a bizarre, rapid absurdity to them.<\/p>\n

Secondly, the CGI is impressive on one level in its reconstruction of a global apocalypse but the use of it is often flawed as the tension is frequently undercut by the ludicrous just-in-time escapes, worthy of Indiana Jones at his luckiest.<\/p>\n

Thirdly, the product placement is so ubiquitous it becomes vaguely\u00a0humorous. There are lots of Sony Vaio<\/a> laptops. There are lots of\u00a0Sony TVs<\/a>. Everyone uses a Sony phone<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The only thing missing were PS3<\/a>s but it’s handy to know if the world ends, Sony have got the consumer electrical goods sorted.<\/p>\n

The fact that the three most noteworthy aspects of the film are the length, the visual effects and branded electrical products tells you a great deal.<\/p>\n

The acting? Well, it’s pay cheque performances all around with everyone trying to make the clunky dialogue sound OK.<\/p>\n

<\/embed><\/object><\/p>\n

Cusack and Ejiofor have been shrewdly cast\u00a0though, as they are likeable actors who lend the production a sheen of credibility it doesn’t really have.<\/p>\n

But seeing the likes of George Segal, Danny Glover and Thomas McCarthy in wafer thin roles is alarming.\u00a0Is this really the best major studios can offer talent like this?<\/p>\n

Despite the critical mauling<\/a> this film will undoubtedly take (deservedly for the most part), the\u00a0gnashing\u00a0of teeth over it is not just about the film. It is partly because this is film is going to make a lot of money.<\/p>\n

As I came out of it, the reasons for its impending success became clearer:<\/p>\n