The Apocalypse according to Emmerich...

Rating: 5/10 (29 May 2010)

If there's one thing Roland Emmerich knows, it's how to destroy things. Exhibit A: the White House in Independence Day, New York in Godzilla and The Day after Tomorrow, the prehistoric genre in 10.000 BC. It is only fitting, then, that his last big disaster movie - his words, not mine - should revolve around the ultimate catastrophe: the end of the world. Unsurprisingly, his take on the subject isn't very subtle. On the other hand, it's a shockingly dull affair.
Based on the theory that the world will end in the year 2012 (a Mayan "prophecy" that also served as a major plot point in the finale of The X-Files), the movie provides some pseudo-scientific explanation for everything going down the drain, then proceeds to tell the "proper" story: politicians and (rich) businessmen are preparing some sort of survival plan, scientists look on as things escalate sooner than predicted and common men like Jackson Curtis (John Cusack), a writer who happens to be vacationing with what remains of his family, try to get their sorry behinds some place safe. Not the easiest of tasks...
From a purely aesthetic point of view, Emmerich really tops himself this time: impeccable visual effects merge with a truly apocalyptic vision as California sinks into the ocean, a giant tidal wave covers the Himalayas and the White House gets destroyed (again). And yet, as that last example suggests, it's all stuff we've seen before, a greatest hits compilation that strives to be better than the sum of its parts. The film is also marred by a tedious sense of repetition, its 160 minutes being divided in the following sections: people escaping annihilation by car (first hour), plane (second hour) and finally boat (last 40 minutes). Fifteen minutes, it already starts looking like bland levels of a video game.
Of course, it doesn't fare much better in terms of narrative: not only is the film filled with obvious and annoying religious symbolism (see the fate of the Vatican), we also have every single cast member stuck with a role so basic the script could have been written by a 7-year old. Cusack tries his best doing the usual stuff, as do Amanda Peet (his ex-wife), Chiwetel Ejofor (a scientist) and Thandie Newton (the President's daughter), but it's painfully clear where the movie is going when even Oliver Platt is on tired autopilot. Only Danny Glover (the President) and Woody Harrelson (a hippie prophet) are able to elicit some sympathy, and, naturally, their screen-time is criminally short.
To sum it all up, 2012 is a massive undertaking, worth watching for its ambition and its use of special effects. However, as blockbusters and disaster movies come, it is a disappointment on every other level. But at least it's less cheesy than Michael Bay's Armageddon.