Before Barack Obama became the first African-American elected to the highest political office in the United States, the running joke in the film world was that if a movie featured a black president, that meant the end of the world was near. That wasn't intended as a racial indictment of how things would change politically and/or culturally, but rather the literal end of the world as would occur in a disaster flick.
After some quick research, that's only been true in one major film, "Deep Impact," where Morgan Freeman played POTUS, but now we have confirmation that perhaps the rumor is correct, for Danny Glover plays the Prez in the latest apocalyptic flick, "2012."
Speaking of rumors, and especially regarding that titular date, all sorts of Chicken Littles have been claiming that our world will end on December 21, 2012. No, that's not because Walmart will run out of toys just days before Christmas. Instead, it's that the ancient Mayan calendar apparently ends on that date, and thus all sorts of loons have latched onto that particular winter solstice as the end of days (they're likely the same ones that predicted the previous end at 12:00 a.m. on January 1, 2000 as well as any number before that).
That makes me wonder if those Mayans also predicted that Hollywood would make a preemptive disaster movie two years earlier (after all, why deliver it in the same year and thus have no time to spend the millions it will obviously rake in?). Of course, it wouldn't take an ancient Mayan to foresee that if you're going to be producing such a genre pic, the go-to director of choice -- since former disaster maestro Irwin Allen is no longer around -- would obviously be Roland Emmerich.
If that name doesn't ring a bell for non-fans, he previously tried to destroy the world via aliens (1996's "Independence Day"), a giant fire-breathing lizard (1998's remake of "Godzilla") and severe climate change (2004's "The Day After Tomorrow"). And what better day to release the cinematic armageddon (no, not that "Armageddon") on the masses than Friday the 13th?
I don't know what Earth did to Mr. Emmerich to deserve such treatment, but the filmmaker -- working from a screenplay he penned with Harald Kloser -- obviously enjoys pounding the planet. That's clearly on display here, and if you have a hankering for such cinematic global destruction, this movie delivers that in spades (and then some). The effects work is top-notch and the pic's reported $200 million budget is clearly up there on the screen.
The problem, however, with making the disaster appear ever more real -- with increasing advances in special effects for each subsequent outing -- is that the fun, if you will, proportionally decreases with each improvement in visuals. Coincidentally or not, the film follows temporal suit. The first big effects sequence -- where a family of four plus the wife's new boyfriend must avoid all sorts of mayhem before their neighborhood and then greater Los Angeles literally takes a dip into the Pacific -- is thrilling like an amusement park ride.
Fissures race through roads like underground sharks chasing after the group (there's even a "Jaws" related throwaway line later in the film, although it's related to aerial travel that also gets an effects workout here), and they have to drive under falling bridges and through collapsing buildings.
After that fairly decent if over-the-top effects and action extravaganza, however, the entertainment factor progressively decreases. And with Emmerich apparently still enamored with tidal waves after swamping NYC with one in "TDAT" (they're the fallback effect here, used again and again to wipe out India, D.C. and even a Tibetan monastery perched atop a mountain), it becomes increasingly redundant and more depressing than fun to watch.
Of course, some of that could also stem from the banal dialogue flowing from some decent actor's mouths (John Cusack, Chiwetel Ejiofor, etc.), boring drama and related family dysfunction, and the standard array of disaster film clichés. But I'm not referring to the means and modes of such destruction.
Instead, it's the standard genre introduction of a large array of characters; the ones with some bad behavior in their past who are obviously targeted to die for their indiscretions; and folks wanting to get things off their chests and/or clear up matters while there's still time (rather than the more credible freaking out). Then there's the usual "we must be humane to be human" speech; and enough coincidences and pure luck that you can't help but think all of these people should be buying lottery tickets. Oh yeah, that's right, their money's no good in the post-apocalyptic world.
Throw in the fact that the film clocks in at a severely bloated two and a half hours plus and you'll begin to think the end isn't near enough or that the titular date might have already arrived by the time the end credits roll. If you want to see a more realistic and better made (but also bleaker and far more depressing) apocalyptic flick, check out Viggo Mortensen in "The Road."
Yes, the film delivers on the effects front and those who enjoy such visual mayhem might like what's offered. It's just too bad that the best of that occurs early in the film and that you'll have to sit through a plethora of boring and clichéd drama before the next batch erupts. "2012" delivers what's advertised, but that turns out not to be anything particularly earth-shattering. The film rates as a 3 out of 10.
![[Screen It]](/images/underground_header.jpg)