JOE:
Hello, true believers, and welcome to our recently re-unearthed review feature known as "Yap vs. Yap." This week Chris and I will argue the merits (or lack thereof) of Roland Emmerich's latest disaster-film "epic" known as "2012."
The film stars John Cusack as Jackson Curtis, a writer who is, wouldn't you know it, divorced and somewhat disconnected from his two children. His ex-wife (Amanda Peet) has a new plastic-surgeon boyfriend (Tom McCarthy). Just when you thought things couldn't get any worse for Jackson, the world decides to end. But things are looking up: soon Jackson will become a major super-awesome action hero.
I have to start off by saying I absolutely hated this film. The end of the world is a serious thing, a horrible, cataclysmic event, and it's played off like a complete joke. The movie is full of sequences where our heroes fly, drive, or run through the literal crumbling of the world all around them, with scores of men, women and children dying horrible deaths, while the heroes are making sarcastic remarks and having silly comedy moments in between.
At one point we see Cusack and company flying through town as parking garages, freeways, city streets and skyscrapers crumble all around them. We get close-up shots of people falling to their deaths, being crushed by cars, roads, and buildings, and inside the plane Cusack's daughter is crying as she watches this carnage, while the adults in the front do the time-tested scream as they narrowly avoid slamming their plane into an approaching obstacle.
We're never allowed to absorb any of the seriousness of the situation, because of the incessant smart-aleck remarks that are supposed to make us laugh, and before long the characters lose interst in human life as well. In another scene, at a pivotal moment a woman is left by her boyfriend and his young sons when they have the chance to get to safety.
Later on, when the tables are turned and the man and his sons appear likely to die, the woman taunts the three of them as she gets away, flipping them the bird. This is the big cheer moment of the movie. "I'm going to live, you're doing to die...screw you!"
I have plenty more, but Chris, you need a chance to respond, so go on...do your worst!
CHRIS:
Joe, Joe, feeling a little self-serious, aren't we? "2012" is best enjoyed -- and it is a thoroughly fun flick -- when you're willing to park your brain in neutral and just enjoy all the neat explosions and tsunami waves.
What, have we gotten so sensitive in the post 9/11 world that we can't bear to see computer-generated depictions of destruction, unless they're politically correct-themed tales like "The Day After Tomorrow," director Roland Emmerich's last hit film? Personally, I'd rather see buildings fall down than sit through that self-important flick again, which was like a love poem from the Al Gore Glee Club.
People are poking fun at "2012" -- most of them without the benefit of having actually seen it, I should add. But it's a fruitless gesture, because this movie IS its own parody! It's like a smorgasbord of every disaster movie ever made -- Explosions! Crashes! Tidal waves! Volcanic eruptions! Puppies in peril!
It's a cinematic roller-coaster ride, and like the best of such rides there's a sign out front that measures who's allowed onboard. Except it's not height, but snobbishness that counts: those who take this movie too seriously are bound to be left behind.
Face it, Joe -- on this one, you're playing the role of the stuck-up film critic!
JOE:
Listen, I can enjoy a good dumb fun time at the movies as much as anyone. I'm the one who argues the greatness of "Speed Racer," remember?
And honestly, I think "The Day After Tomorrow" and certainly "Independence Day" are vastly superior films to "2012."
Here's why: "ID4" and "Tomorrow" had the good sense to give us a moment or two of levity before the shenanigans started. We had a little buffer between the aliens wiping us out and Will Smith talking smack to the unconscious alien he punched out. And as preposterous as "Tomorrow" was, there was some sense that something big was happening.
That's the balance you have to maintain in a disaster film. You sit through the depressing images of people being slaughtered or dying horrific deaths because you know that soon there will be some fun. But you don't have your fun WHILE people are dying.
I love a good rollercoaster ride as much as the next guy, but if I go to King's Island and ride the Vortex, if there are people being roasted alive, crushed by semis, and killed horribly while I'm on it, the good time is sort of ruined. We need some kind of emotional balance.
And "2012" comically bad in every way. During the film, I kept thinking the trailer for this film would be one of those joke previews we would see in an episode of "The Simpsons." But this is a REAL movie!
There are times for turning off your dummy detector, Chris, but when it stretches the bounds of good taste like "2012" does, in the immortal words of Captain Picard, "The line must be drawn HE-AH! This far, no farther!"
What say you to that, Mr. "It's Just a Movie"?
Chris:
Good taste? In a disaster flick? That's like expecting excellent elocution in a porno!
People have always died in great numbers in disaster movies -- that's why they're called that. It's not very scary if a bunch of people get really close to death, but then manage to survive. You never hear anyone say, "My, all 500 of us nearly were crushed! What a disaster!"
And I defy you to show me a moment in "2012" where the main characters are actually yukking it up WHILE people are dying. You can argue that the pacing is off so moments of less seriousness intrude too soon after the mayhem. But it's not like John Cusack is shouting "Cowabunga!" or tossing off Arnie-isms at the same time people are biting it en masse.
But there's that word again: seriousness.
My take is that Roland Emmerich was being very, very serious with "Day After Tomorrow," but this film is more in the vein of "Independence Day." It's not a movie that's supposed to make you think; it's a flick made to make you say, "Coooool!"
Joe:
Let's talk a little about the acting. I LOVE Chiwetel Ejiofor, and I have to say he's terrific in this. Most of the rest of the cast, including Cusack, Amanda Peet, and Oliver Platt as a weasel of a government official, are all pretty good, I have to say.
But Danny Glover as the president...well, that was the worst acting I've seen since the third season of "Jon and Kate Plus 8." He looked like a drunk amnesiac doing a bad William Shatner impression. It was embarassing.
And a funny comment from an African-American woman I talked to afterward. She wondered why they only have black presidents still when the world is coming to an end, citing this film, "Deep Impact," and "The Sum of All Fears," (Morgan Freeman played the president in both. Can you think of a movie where a black president didn't preside over a major disaster?
I do think you hit it that it was the pacing, along with some editing and timing issues. They weren't being snarky during the death and destruction, but it was scant moments before and after the scenes of death, and there were definite beats during the scenes of death that we were clearly supposed to laugh at.
I think I'll take this opportunity to end the discussion. We can agree to disagree on this one. This for me was one of the worst films of the year, if not the worst, and you, and the majority of people I spoke to after, seemed to enjoy it immensely.
More power to you guys. Maybe I'll revisit 2012 (maybe in 2012) and have a change of heart.
If we're all still around, that is.
Joe's rating: 1 1/2 Yaps
Chris's rating: 4 1/2 Yaps
Read Nick Rogers' review of "2012" here.