There have been a growing number of disaster movies that strangely don’t focus on the disaster so much as they do with a particular man’s family.  2012 is very easily categorized into the realm of movies like The Day After Tomorrow (2004) and War of the Worlds (2005).  It’s unintentionally silly, intentionally sentimental, and neglects to supply a believable scientific basis for their situation.

I find it laughable that during the onset of the most calamitous event human history (in the respective films) these movies choose to follow a particular family’s attempt to survive.  It’s not necessarily bad, but it is funny.  It begs the question: why follow these people and not the world governments’ attempts to save human kind.  To 2012’s credit, it does use an ensemble cast to try to cover the whole of the disaster, but it all holds together in a very contrived way.  Characters conveniently find themselves in proximity to other integral characters.  It’s hard to believe that so many unrelated people would be so intricately involved in each others’ stories.  I think a film should have some degree of cohesiveness, but it should also be believable.  Sometimes it’s a simple choice of priority.  Who has the most important story?  Most characters end up having some importance to the over all plot, but it’s still contrived.

It has an all star cast.  As they should, every actor displays the talent that they are known for having.

The film takes the roller coaster effect too literally.  Too many scenes put the characters at the brink of death.  It’s like the apocalypse is chasing them, but lets them go at the last second.  The tension becomes boring.  2012 illustrates the difference between dramatic build and tension.  The ending is anti-climactic because it’s equally climactic as the rest of the film.  The scientists have to admit they were wrong several times throughout the film, because the apocalypse and individual apocalyptic events happen sooner than they predicted.  Repetition makes events lose their impact.

The villain of the film is Oliver Platt’s character Carl Anheuser.  This may be a stretch, but I assume that the German sounding name is intended to draw a parallel between Carl Anheuser and Nazi Germany.  The strange thing about this character is he’s obviously played as a cold-hearted, money-grubbing, self-centered villain, but he adequately defends himself against these aspects.  To help humanity survive the apocalypse several characters including the heads of many governments create vessels intended to withstand the events.  Among Carl’s more dubious acts are: promoting himself to head of command when the American President decides to stay behind, selling seats to the safety vessels for one billion euros a piece, and sealing the doors to the last partially unboarded vessel when the events of the apocalypse reach the vessels’ location sooner than they thought.  Carl took command because they were left without a leader, he sold the seats in order to fund the project, and he sealed the final vessel in order to assure the safety of the passengers that were already onboard.  Carl Anheuser is written to be the most rounded character in the film.  If Platt was allowed to play Anheuser the way the character should have been played, it would not have been so silly.

The theme of the movie is explicitly stated in a speech given by Chiwetel Ejiofor’s character Adrian Helmsley.  He states, “The moment that man stops fighting for his fellow man is the moment that he loses his humanity.”  The movie tries to show the strength of the human spirit in the face of great adversity.  This produces flat characters, and an overestimation of man’s capacity for nobility.  The irony is that plenty of characters are intended to be seen as selfish.  The only reason the theme actually comes through is in the many glaring moments of the noble flat characters. 

A minor theme is approached.  The movie tries to promote humanity’s natural compassion above religion.  In reference to a world leader who chose to stay behind with his country, Carl Anheuser says, “He chose to trust in prayer.” Immediately after this, several places of worship are destroyed including the Sistine Chapel.  The camera follows a crack along the ceiling where it conveniently splits the famous painting The Creation of Adam between Adam and God’s fingers.  Earlier in the film, the American President reveals the bad news about the apocalypse to the nation.  When the president start quoting biblical scripture the camera feed is cut.  I have to assume that these images, among others, are intended to convey the idea that God has abandoned man or that religion is largely false.  The irony is that the inclusion of such convenient events almost proves that an ethereal being is controlling the destruction.  That ethereal being is the writer and director.  And it’s obvious. Maybe I’m wrong.  Maybe the creative team were motivated solely by showing something cool, and accidentally put in an antireligious agenda.

The bull science is based on the idea that neutrinos from the sun boil the center of the Earth, without burning the surface, until the tectonic plates shift around the Earth.  In the end we discover that Africa wasn’t flooded, and can support life, so the vessels settle there.  The irony is that since Africa is largely unaffected, other than being moved further north, people will still be alive there.  The people on the vessels will therefore become refugees or invaders.  But they act like Africa is now uninhabited.

The Verdict:  I’ll give 2012 a 1.5 out of 5.  A little suspense can go a long way, and this is overkill.  It has astounding flaws in logic.  It ultimately promotes the use of flat characters.  I can’t tell if this is ironic or pretentious.

-Vince