Weirdly entertaining (contains spoilers)

Rating: 8/10 (18 September 2014)

Very often, movie reviews or threads start with apologetic sentences like: "...I also enjoy artsy movies from Stanley Kubrick and totally unknown, independent flicks from Europe."
Yes, indeed, me too. So, is it a guilty pleasure to like this movie? Well, no!
To put it as simple as it can be: "2012" entertained me. Me. I don't care, if millions of others did not feel entertained.
The thing is: I enjoy movies that are well made and so over the top clichÃ© that they cannot be taken serious. Or movies that just parody movies like "2012"
Indeed, Trey Parker and Matt Stone wanted to do a shot-for-shot parody- puppet version of "The Day After Tomorrow" before they decided to do "Team America" - which tells a lot about the "quality" of Emmerich movies - they transcend the catastrophe genre.
At the same time I have to say that I also enjoy it because of this really basic, almost archaic "Apocalypse Wow" trope.
Yes, sure, the characters may be cheesy and clichÃ© as heck. The whole movie is one big clichÃ©.
For me, such movies - also movies like "Armageddon" - play in a certain parallel universe where the U.S.A. are the really good guys, where the president is a good guy, where the government is a "good guy" (even if they have to kill people off to keep the biggest secret ever, namely: Building super-arks to save a bunch of chosen people - and billionaires.)
In Emmerich movies, our whole, actually very bad way of life - the western way of life, the "American Way Of Live (TM)" is a good guy!
I was wondering why I love this movie and do not hate it. The simple fact that disgustingly rich and powerful people, that can't contribute at all in this "brave new world" lying ahead (politicians, royalty, oil-barons, Russian oligarchs) get saved should me make it hate.
But maybe the unspoken, off-screen fact, that they may be saved in the first place - but sail into a new world, where everything that has once been is gone - even the monetary system that made these rich guys pay their tickets (one billion Euros - not dollars - per person!) - so, what good will be a bunch of rich, old farts in a world, where the very first and basic things will be survival, building shelter and finding / growing food?
Maybe that makes me like it: 7 billion die - and around 300.000 survive - in three arks. What kind of "happy end" is that? There were rumors back in 2009 that there will be a TV-series about the events after "2012" - which never happened - and quite sure will never happen... it could only be cheap and boring anyway.
Watching this movie in 2014 makes it a bit less thrilling - sadly. I guess it was this subtle wave of "2012-mania" ...all this "it's the end of the world" frenzy that was building up towards the long awaited year 2012. And then nothing happened! How disappointing. We still live in a world, where a few chosen ones use up the resources and billions live in pure s***, have no clean water and no food, so a bunch of movie-geeks like me can rant about or praise movies like this particular one.
It's funny that I write a review about some movie that could only age badly. Everybody knew already back in 2009 that it would.
Back in 2009 even the worst "end of the world movie" had an aura of suspension and unconscious fear about THE end... now, "2012" is just another, old Emmerich product, well not "just" - it's entertaining. To me. And that is, what counts.
Because let's just take all these really bad rip-offs, these cheaply produced B-Movies with extremely bad-looking CGI and titles like "2012 - the end of the world disaster" or "Independence Daysaster" - where the only good and entertaining thing is the title. They have usually actors that were maybe famous 20 years ago - or aged porn-stars. And they are just bad - in a bad way.
"2012" is bad in an amazing way. It's bad in a good way. A very good way. The special effects are amazing. The actors act out the cheesy script in a funny way - heck, the whole movie is one big fun-ride!