it's the end of the world as we know it

Is the rapture at hand? Should I take this past weekend as a hint? Without a preemptive notice of a disaster-movie-weekend marathon, I have caught 2012, Sean of the Dead, 9, Armageddon, Independence Day and Deep Impact within 48 hours. Wow. I spent at least 25% of my weekend watching movies.

I love a good disaster movie. And "good" is used incredibly loosely here. While Sean of the Dead and Independence Day welcome the ridiculousness with open arms, others just invite ridicule. I have heard that 2012 is the latter. I remember the reviews just after the film was released. Weak dialogue. Nothing but explosions. Too unbelievable. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Roland Emmerich, people.

I have to say that, now having seen it for myself. . .I both agree and disagree.

Weak dialogue -

Yep. I mean, it wasn't that noticeable for me. In other words, it didn't bother me because there were enough distractions in the form of explosions and unbelievable Lincoln Town Car chase scenes to keep me entertained. More on that later.

I actually missed the first 10 or 15 minutes of the film and probably skipped some characterization set-up. Whatever. Broken relationships. Dad who chose work over family. Mom who got fed up and has a new boyfriend. Son who likes new boyfriend. Dad who resents new boyfriend and wife for moving on. Little girl to look cute. And a whole slew of stereotypes who've all got their own problems and heartwarming obstacles to overcome before imminent death. Let's talk about:

Nothing but explosions -

Judging from Independence Day, The Day After Tomorrow, and Godzilla, we already knew Emmerich gets himself pretty worked up over filming as many shots as possible in which famous and instantly recognizable monuments crumble to dust, thereby forcing us to realize that even the great and seemingly permanent staples of world history are not as enduring as once thought. And, in effect, startling us into realizing that humanity is not capable of producing anything immutable. Scawy. We get it.

For me, watching hundreds and thousands of cars full of that humanity tumbling off broken roadways and falling into chasms of liquid hot magma was a little more disturbing than the destruction of the statue, Christ the Redeemer in Rio de Janeiro, etc. Things are fantastic representations and great symbolism but, in the end (and in this case, literally the end), things are things.

Don't get me started on Woody Harrelson, whose character (albeit the best character in the movie and probably my favorite of his ever, pending seeing Zombieland) spends a good amount of unedited time screaming from the hills of Yellowstone at a developing volcano. How many back and forth shots until this guy gets it? Not a good handle on the anticipation there, Emmerich. Rather than be frightened for the guy's plight or find myself on the edge of my seat wondering, "What if?" it just took way too long so that all I could think of was, "When?"

Too unbelievable -

I'm sorry but I have to laugh any time any one ever uses this phrase to describe a book, a movie, a tv show. When did we become so obsessed with realism and accuracy? When did we, as a society, decide that we know better; that we're too intelligent for illusion?

Sometimes, I'll look up at the sky and think, "That looks like a painting. That looks like a 2D painting. It doesn't look real." So who am I to say what's believable or not. Who am I to watch a movie in which unbelievably unreal things occur and say, "That doesn't look right"? How should I know? How should anyone know for sure?

It's called suspension of disbelief. Most of the time, we are expected to employ this great means to an end so that we can just sit down and enjoy a freakin' piece of entertainment for what it's worth. I despise those who say their time has been wasted by something they ended up not enjoying. Walk out. Leave. Get your money back. But how dare you say your time was wasted because you made the choice to take a gamble in the first place. You're wasting more time (especially mine) when you complain about wasting yours. Pardon my pun, but it's not the end of the world.

Ok, back to the town car chase scene. Yeah. Totally unreal. I've watched Mythbusters. I know cars, especially stretch town cars, can not handle the kind of abuse inflicted on them in movies. I was hit by a motorcycle on my driver's side once and my steering was shot. A little ole motorcycle. Not an entire piece of displaced earthen crust. Okay. . .so what? It was fun. Even with the attempted poop joke as the sewer spewed forth sludge all over the windshield, it was still a fun scene to watch.

Here's MY "too unbelievable" gripe:

Maybe I don't have as much faith in humanity as the optimists in the movie-making business but there is NO way there would only be one man who looked at the severity of the situation and was forced to make difficult and suggestively unfair decisions for the whole of human kind. Oliver Platt's character was made out to be a grossly exaggerated bad guy. The twisted and jaded politician who pretends to think of everyone when, in reality, he is thinking only of his own hide. Here's a fact - Not everyone can be saved. It's already been done many times over - the idea that a select few will be rescued to re-populate the world with scientists, doctors, artists and skilled tradesmen. In the event of a world-wide disaster such as the one in the film 2012, hardcore and seemingly callous choices must be made by calculating people.

In this movie, the plan was set in motion years before the disaster happened and plenty of people were in on it. And at the drop of a few sentimental comments from some writer, John Cusack, everybody suddenly feels bad? The mission could possibly be entirely compromised because the right thing would be to forget the years of planning and the manpower and the money that went into the project in order to save a few more lives? Sure, that's the heroic thing to do. But we're not talking about one hero who must make this ultimate sacrificial decision. We're talking about the risk of thousands upon thousands of people who've got a real shot. And a mass of opinions, including those of many differing countries.

I don't have a dictator bone in my body and I couldn't care less about dominance or world-wide ambition. And you know what I'd think? I'd think. . .hm. . .this is my chance as a country other than America to be the first full-fledged nation of the continuing world when the smoke settles. I mean, these arks were built in China! China! You're telling me we trusted China to secretly design, build, store, and release these arks without even throwing their people into the mix? If I had been China, I would have done all of this except for one difference - give the rest of the world the wrong address.

Survival mode is a scary, scary thing. When people feel threatened, it is all for one. Whether that one is an individual or a family. Humanity, as a whole, will never be a hero. Humanity is the natural man. And the natural man acts on fear, uncertainty and instinct. Thank God we do have individuals who are heroes in the face of those three elements.

So, forget the town car chase scene. And the crazy Woody Harrelson who just wouldn't die. What is completely and unforgivably unbelievable about this movie is that we would all join hands and die heroes. The powers that be have an immovable duty to protect and will always choose the sure thing when it presents itself as a choice.

My last "too unbelievable" gripe, even though I actually thoroughly enjoyed watching the movie, is the boyfriend. This was a great guy. But the whole 158 minutes, I'm thinking to myself, "Well. One of these guys obviously has to go." Original I'll-figure-out-what-matters-most-by-the-end-of-the-movie dad? Or cool new I'm-just-trying-to-figure-out-where-I-fit-in-please-don't-hate-me dad? Tom McCarthy was totally lovable as the boyfriend, Gordon, and how indispensable was he as an amateur pilot in the wake of the disaster?

And SPOILER ALERT

He dies? What the hell? Way to cop out, Emmerich. What was the point of that? So that we wouldn't feel bad that John Cusack got back together with his family? No hurt feelings? See ya, Gordon. . .wouldn't wanna be ya. Since you slowly got crushed in some gears from the feet up. This was so unnecessary. And brutal. Gordon spends the whole movie manning up and saving lives and he goes out because there just wasn't enough time?

Cusack's character, Jackson is a writer. You think he's gonna enter into The New World after having been through an adventure like 2012 and NOT write about it. When you marry a writer, you better get used to lonely dinners and grumpy remarks due to writer's block. That's just the way it is. A situation of intensity does not a solid relationship make. You're all going back to square one as soon as the tides recede, Curtis Family.

Yes, Jackson and his wife, Kate share something amazing. They share a family and years of memories. But it would have been so much more believable if Jackson had had the chance to save Gordon, thereby showing his acceptance of this guy in his family's life and to forge the bond of a true hero. Jackson becomes our martyr, if not through physical death then by the release of his marital ties to his wife and Gordon is our everyman who gets and deserves a chance at happiness. Not killed off to get him conveniently out of the way. And in such a lame, lame, lame, lame manner.

I would watch this movie again. I'm not too hard to please. I mean, really. . .I'm not a movie snob. Well, I act like one sometimes but that's just because if you break it down far enough and spend that much time on it, you can find faults with anything you want. For me, it's fun to do that with entertainment but I never forget that, at it's core, it is just entertainment. And Emmerich, darn it if you didn't just entertain the crap out of me yet again.