REVIEW: ’2012′

It sounds so ridiculous to say it, but it’s fun watching the world blow up. Filmmakers through the decades have known this to be true, from “Earth Vs. The Flying Saucers” to “War Of The Worlds” in any incarnation. No one seems to have embraced this tenet more than Roland Emmerich, director and co-writer of the “everything must, and will, go boom” epic “2012.” I had low expectations for this movie, but Emmerich had no problem destroying those as well.

“2012″ Rated PG-13 • 158 minutes Starring John Cusack, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Amanda Peet, Woody Harrelson, Oliver Platt Directed by: Roland Emmerich Written By: Roland Emmerich and Harald Kloser RCC Rating: You’ve Got Better Things To Do

The springboard for the planetary calamity comes not from any kind of Mayan prophecy, but from solar flares that are cooking the Earth from the inside-out. Geologist Chiwetel Ejiofor finds out in 2009 that the expiration date for Mother Earth is three years away, and the world’s governments (led by president Danny Glover and super-smarmy advisor Oliver Platt) start plotting a way to save what they can of humanity. Sadly, as anyone who has bought a carton of milk can tell you, those expiration dates are never to be trusted, and things start going to hell months earlier than anyone expected. (Screw you, Mayans!)

Meanwhile, as everything begins to go ka-blooey, failed author John Cusack just wants to save his family, which includes his ex-wife Amanda Peet, her doofus plastic surgeon husband, and his two cute kids. Not only does Cusack succeed in eluding all manners of crumbling asphalt and earth, falling house-sized chunks of mountaintop and hurdling cars, buses and trains – because he’s the best driver in the history of ever – but New Hubby is a pilot who can take a single-engine plane and avoid getting smacked out of the sky by falling skyscrapers and the entire city of Pasadena.

Yes, it’s all preposterous, and you know what you’re getting into when you go to watch a movie like “2012.” Remember that old device for getting through these movies? It’s called “suspension of disbelief.” At some point, before the theater darkens and the trailers hit the screen, you have to take your brain out of your skull, start munching popcorn, and start making “ooooh” noises. All well and good.

However, the story beats in “2012″ are so forehead-smackingly amateurish that the bottle of Advil in your glove compartment may not be able to make it go away. This script is so execrable that, as the final cataclysm is rocking the planet, you might wind up praying that humanity is finally wiped out so the damned movie will end.

If there is one saving grace about “2012,” it’s that the stunning 158 minute runtime (yes, two hours and 38 minutes) does move by fast enough that you don’t feel like you’re sitting through the world’s longest lobotomy. Small comfort, that.

With all of the digital tools at his fingertips, Emmerich does set up some eye-popping set pieces. The problem is, you’ve seen the majority of them in previews, like the destruction of Southern California, Vatican City, Las Vegas and Washington D.C. (Honestly, what does Emmerich have against the White House? Was he denied admission on a tour as a child? This is the third time he’s taken out the capitol, and each time it loses its impact.) What you’re left with are the people, and their characters are so paper-thin and laughable, you really don’t care if they live or plummet to their death.

“2012,” to be blunt, is the worst big-budget movie I’ve seen in a decade. A solid cast and all the CG trickery in the book can’t redeem a script that is so eye-rollingly abysmal, it’s difficult to compare it to anything else that doesn’t have “Plan 9″ in the title.