Variety on '2012': A preposterous joke

OK, I can't say that I'm shocked -- or for that matter, even a little surprised -- that the first big review that has surfaced on "2012" says that Roland Emmerich's kitschy disaster movie is, well, a kitschy disaster movie. According to Variety's Todd McCarthy, the best thing that can be said of the movie is that John Cusack and Chiwetel Ejiofor, who play two of the leading roles, "convey above-the-norm intelligence for characters in this sort of fare," which I guess means that the rest of the big-name cast (i.e. Danny Glover, Oliver Platt and Amanda Peet) register pretty low on the IQ scale.

McCarthy even finds a sneaky way to work a reference to "Casablanca" into his review. Here's how he describes what goes wrong with the movie as it lumbers into its third act:

"Let it be said that '2012' plummets from reasonably distracting spectacle to sheerest silliness when, in the pointlessly protracted final reels, it tries to maintain interest in the (confusingly staged) jeopardy of a handful of characters when much of the world's population has already been wiped out or is about to be. Never has Rick's observation in 'Casablanca' been more true, that the problems of a few little people don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world."  

McCarthy ends up calling the film a joke "for the simple reason that it has no point of view; the film offers no philosophical, metaphysical, intellectual and certainly no religious perspective on the cataclysm, just the physical frenzy of it all." I bet that last line gets a hearty laugh from Emmerich, who can only be wagging his head, wondering: "These crazy critics -- after all these years, they still can't tell the difference between me and Lars Von Trier!" 

Photo of John Cusack and Morgan Lily in "2012" by Joe Lederer/Columbia Pictures.

Comments

[jerry www]

McCarthy..... "for the simple reason that it has no point of view; the film offers no philosophical, metaphysical, intellectual and certainly no religious perspective on the cataclysm, just the physical frenzy of it all."

O.K., so said in fewer words, this is just a movie that's been made for entertainment. That's fine with me, because when I go to see films like this, it's for entertainment. I don't really need the views, and "certainly" not the religious perspective of the producer as to on what's on the screen, I'm there for only a little pure and simple escapism for a few hours, and I'm enjoying most of the "physical frenzy of it all."

Of course, your milage may vary, that's what makes a horse race or some such metaphor / analogy.

www.boskolives.wordpress.com

[August]

I can't wait to be disappointed.

[Angela]

You are reviewing a review? Is that standard practice now, or is this just a slow news day?

[Mike]

What does one expect from a movie like this. Armageddon, Day After Tomorrow, Deep Impact... all the same type of movie. We go to see these purely for an "artists" interpretation of the end of days. I'm not going for a deep plot, Oscar worthy acting or anything other then spectacular special effects of things I hope to never see. Most movies in the genre that are good focus more on the aftermath or the life after these events(I am legend), not on the events themselves.

So please, avoid telling people the obvious and let me know if this apocalyptic movie delivers on the goods of fantastic eye candy and dramatic action scenes.

[Michael]

Sorry, Mr. McCarthy, but looking for philosophy in an Emmerich flick is like looking for fundamental metaphysical truth at a pot party. Dude! Emmerich's films are garbage, but not because they fail to ask "big" questions. It's because they are stoopud. Bad plots, crappy continuity, awful and unsatisfying character's, a pathetically adolescent posture...you know I could go on and on.

[Polomoche]

An awful film is nirvana for a good critic - the medium to pull out their full arsenal of witty ironies, $.50 words, and references to high culture - in other words, to truly shine at what they do best. I delight in reading - Kenneth Turan, you had better step up for this one, you studio sycophant!

[Sten]

Ok, fine.. it's just entertainment. Nothing wrong with that, but why not make a movie that is just as entertaining but with the added bonus of some soul...depth...structure... some beef! It is possible, it has even been done before.
But, be warned, it might make you think.

[Virginia S. Martin]

Reviewing a review? Want to see a REAL analysis of these apocalyptic movies, including 2012? Go to www.bohemian.com and check out Hannah Strom-Martin's article on the same. Nov. 4 issue.

[Christine Beatty]

I'm shocked, *shocked* to see that Emmerich has made yet another pointless and tacky disaster flick, following his long tradition or 2-D characters and cringe-worthy dialogue. I'll bet the special effects are great, tho, if the trailer is representative. My suggestion: pop a couple of Xanax (or hits of LSD) and enjoy the big flashing lights. OTOH, I'm clean and sober, thus unable to follow my own suggestion, so no way will I be able to shut off enough brain cells to stomach this flick.

[Nhat]

Does anyone know where I can find a review of this review of another review?