How to survive Judgement Day

Rating: 5/10 (1 February 2011)

From the master of disaster (films, that is) Roland Emmerich, comes the king of all world- ending movies, which is no meagre statement considering the man has churned out the likes of Independence Day, Godzilla and The Day After Tomorrow. For his latest endeavour, Emmerich rounds up Cusack, Peet, Ejiofor, Harrelon and Glover to help him convince us that we are, in fact, hopelessly doomed in some two-and-a-half years from now.
Main character Jackson Curtis works as a limousine driver and part-time writer (two crucial qualities needed to survive a natural global catastrophe, by the way) who's findings regarding an ancient Mayan prophecy predicting the end of the world as we know it in December 2012 set off a mind-numbing yet adrenaline packed 150 minutes as the last of the Earth's inhabitants try vainly to survive imminent destruction. As far as big, dumb blockbusters go, this film sits on top of the heap, exceeding prior expectations in areas that define an enjoyable disaster film, but noticeably lacking in those that define a quality film in general.
Without doubt, the foremost positive to come out of 2012 was the immensely impressive CGI. By this stage in his filmmaking career, the next project by Roland Emmerich constantly begs the question: 'How does he plan to destroy the White House this time?' I sense an underlying social agenda, maybebut as an apolitical man that isn't important. In seriousness, though, there is some heavy-scale destruction in this film that actually looks real. Of course, it is ultimately nothing short of gratuitous, but one cannot help but be impressed with how far epic genre filmmaking has come as a result.
An honourable mention must also go to Woody Harrelson. A well-rounded actor who has proved he can be successful (both critically and commercially) in a multitude of genres, he clearly relishes the opportunity to play the token conspiracy theorist. Using a script inarguably lacking in any sense of originality, Harrelson does his best with the material in front of him, and it is a shame to see him used as sparingly as he is in a film that otherwise accommodates his character.
In an effort to pack as many mind-boggling visuals onto the screen as possible, Emmerich does away with anything that could even be considered close to a cohesive screenplay. The dialogue and general interplay between characters is barely engaging at its best (and atrocious at its worst), plot holes appear frequently in the First and Second Acts and any scenes centred around relationships or an attempt to develop a character arc feel rushed and only really serve as some sort of causal link between one action scene and the next.
This is not a poor film, but it does fall far from being a memorable one. Where some will argue that this is the type of film to be simply sat through and enjoyed without picking away at its inherent pitfalls, I feel that contradicts the very notion of being a film critic, and I think that's been echoed in my above points fairly clearly. It delivers exactly what is expected, and occasionally throws in some well-directed scenes of suspense, one of which must be commended for its depiction of claustrophobia. Still, you may find that the two-and-a-half hours don't exactly fly by like you expected them to.
*There's nothing I love more than a bit of feedback, good or bad. So drop me a line on jnatsis@iprimus.com.au and let me know what you thought of my review.*