Columbia Pictures | USA | 158 mins

Roland Emmerich’s latest piece of world destruction cinema not only pushes the bounds of awful storytelling but manages to assault the viewer physically, mentally and psychologically. If there is one thing that films like Stargate, Independence Day, The Patriot, and The Day After Tomorrow all have in common (besides Emmerich’s direction) it is that they contain an element of fun. 2012, if it can be believed, surpasses the level of embarrassment that is achieved in Godzilla. While clichéd dialogue and shoddy CG are to be expected by Emmerich, it’s not an excuse for a story that is not only implausible, but, one that lacks even less character development and depth than Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen.

The film’s plot is as simple as its title. In 2009 an Indian scientist discovers that the world will end in the year 2012. The scientist then tells a colleague at the White House of the impending doom and ill-advised government action follows from there. My question is, how does that in anyway relate to the struggles of an unsuccessful science-fiction author who looks alarmingly like John Cusack? This kind macrocosm/microcosm breakdown of a disaster was made famous in old sci-fi classics like The War of the Worlds but, unfortunately, the style doesn’t fit with today’s far more introverted form of storytelling. Emmerich’s story parallels only help to accent the campy cheese that engulfs this whole project.

That said, the first 20 minutes of the film is rather enjoyable. A lot of key plot points are established, as well as the anticipation of the title’s definitive promise. It’s almost easy to blink and miss the complete 180 this film does in terms of quality. It’s funny: the truly awful moments in the movie begin right when the world starts going to hell on a silver platter. In fact, the actual act of the world being demolished is rather boring and doesn’t insight any sort of care from the viewer. It’s been done over and over and over again, and, ironically, is shown over and over again here in this one movie.

Although the entertainment value of this film was always going to overshadow fact (or even plausibility), it quickly becomes apparent that not a single shred of research was done for the writing of this film (you can blame co-writers Emmerich and Harald Kloser). There is a scene that involves the ground cracking in two, a limo, and two senior citizens that invokes immediate laughter at its oddity and randomness, nothing more. Even more amazing still are the gaps in common sense that inform the giant plot holes throughout. Apparently, the U.S. Government has the ability to track every single member of the White House staff but cannot find a conspiracy nut (Woody Harrelson) on the radio in the middle of Yellow Stone (where they have a military base set up).

Not to mention, the extremely bloated run time. There are so many random scenes intercut with the “action” that are meant to provide some form of comic relief. But they just become an eye sore that bores the audience to death.

Also, this is some of the worst acting put on screen in some time, especially when considering the talent involved. Take Danny Glover, who plays the President of the United States. Even this man, one of the more reliable actors of our time, can’t escape one of the worst performances of his career. Every time he is on screen the audience becomes bored and disconnected, even during pivotal moments like his address to the nation informing of the impending doom. One can’t help but laugh because there is not a single iota of emotion from Glover and it looks as if he himself is trying to hold back the laughter at how awful his speech is written.

Of course, one cannot (or rather can, which is the problem) forget Cusack, the film’s leading man, whose character is even more clichéd than Glover’s. He has some well-placed jokes but, if the viewer is to believe that Cusack’s writer/limo driver Jackson Curtis suddenly turns into an environmentally-defensive driving extraordinaire/stunt man, said viewer must first be invested in the character himself. Like Glover, and the rest of the cast, the audience becomes disinterested with the cheesy one-liners.

Though these two characters would be enough of an insult in any blockbuster, they’re nothing compared to the horrendous performance given by Chiwetel Ejiofor, who plays science adviser Adrian Helmsley. What is really interesting is that he is the best part about those enjoyable first 20 minutes. The audience can really sink their teeth into the emotion of his character, similar to the way Emmerich offers up Jeff Goldblum’s character and his quirks and checkered past at the beginning of Independence Day. But, like the rest of the film, Ejiofor becomes completely uninteresting and ungrounded as soon as the destruction begins. He suddenly starts spewing cliché one-liner after cliché one-liner.

The only memorable character is Harrelson as the conspiracy theory radio host of Charlie Frost. This is the only character that the audience seemed to be engaged with. His lines were excellent and his physical traits were perfectly crafted, a credit to Harrelson and not Emmerich or the screenwriters for that matter.

The next, and last, thing to be discussed is the amazingly bad special effects. While I can appreciate the time and work I am sure went in to making the entire world crumble into dust, one must also wonder where the $200 million projected budget went (surely Cusack’s quote isn’t that high!).

If we live in an age where we can make the sight of robots turning into cars, space battles and aliens living in Africa look as photo real as the people involved then how can the ball be dropped so far on something that should be so simple? Like the story, the formula for destroying the world is set in stone at this point. There is nothing new to add to the image of the end of the world, at least not here. So why the need to show things like Yellow Stone erupting in an explosion that looks like Hiroshima or two buildings falling into each other in such a way that they conjure up images of 9/11? It is both insulting and disengaging.

2012 is a movie that misses every mark it’s shooting for. It’s unoriginal and uninteresting. I know for a fact that Emmerich is capable of much better disaster cinema, featuring interesting characters and not nearly as much poorly written dialogue. Avoid this movie like the end the of the world.

2 out of 10