Case in point for the "disaster" genre: special effect keeps getter better; story line at dead-end

Rating: Null/10 (12 November 2009)

"I always wanted to do a biblical flood movie", director Roland Emmerich intimated to a magazine interviewer. "2012" is exactly that, but updated with things like jabs at the declining US dollar ("in Euros", an Arab leader insists on the mode of payment). Some things, however, are as old as Noah's Ark, like having a kid insisting on addressing the father by his first name (you've seen that in something like a hundred movies, right?)
I first read about the neutrino in Isaac Asimov's popular science books some 30, 40 years ago. But MUTATING neutrinos? Gimmi a break. But then, Emmerich has stated clearly, also in the said interview, that all he needs is a "plausible" reason, not a scientific one, for the global disaster. He added further that if his shows this film to scientists, they'll laugh. Who cares? I admit that I don't. What I DO care about I am at least satisfied with (to be fair, not just "at least"). I don't think I've missed any big budget Hollywood disaster movie in the last decade, and yet "2012" still manages to excite and delight me. Best is actually the first two disaster sequences (although there are a lot more still good ones to come), desperate escape attempts, in a limousine and a small plane respectively, when the world (or California, to be more precise) around the protagonists literally disintegrates.
As I suggested in the summary line, you wouldn't find anything new in the multi-character, multi-situation story line in this movie, at least if you happen to have watched as many in this genre as I have. But that's not a setback, just the way things are. Similarly, in conjunction with the cast, Emmerich commented, "the movie itself is the star". The ensemble cast of "2012" however is respectable. I won't mention everyone. John Cusack away from the romance genre proves himself to be quite adaptable. Veteran British theatre actor Chiwetel Ejiofor (Woody Allen's "Melinda and Melinda" (2004)) is a capable co-male-lead. Amanda Peet has made a smooth transition from John Nicholson's young girlfriend in "Something's got to give" (2003) to a mother of two small kids. Absolutely convincing is Danny Glover as a U.S. president, unrecognizable from his "Lethal Weapon" persona. Thandie Newton's beautiful charm continues to be very evident. Character actor Woody Harrelson is again delightful. There are more. But in the final analysis, you would want to see this movie primarily for its superb special effect.