Ever since my parents took me to see "Angel in my
Pocket" starring Andy Griffith back when I was, oh, about four years old
at the Mosinee Theatre in my hometown, I've been a fan of being in a theatre
with a group of people with only popcorn in my hands and a soda to keep me
company. I even have had a lifelong ritual: buy the popcorn, lightly salt it,
shake the bag and close it up (to keep the popcorn hot) and sit down and not
eat any until the movie starts... not the previews, but when the actual title
of the movie comes up THEN I can start eating.
Having a theatre in my hometown was a joy because it was easy for me to go, even when my friends weren't interested in going with me. Even when the Mosinee Theatre closed down and I started going in earnest to the Grand Theatre in Wausau, about twenty minutes away, I wasn't deterred. The Grand Theatre was cool because it was a large old style theatre and even had an intermission during the movie - something I took for normal (and still miss).
Yes, seeing "Star Wars" and "Superman"
were seminal moments in my movie going life. But so was seeing "Willy
Wonka" (a crazy nightmare of a movie that tickled my imagination for
decades), "What's Up Doc?" (the funniest movie I've ever seen),
"Slapshot" (the first R rated movie I ever went to.. oh, look
boobies!), "Oh God" (I was intrigued as it was the first time I'd
ever seen a man's - John Denver's-
nipples and it made me strangely uncomfortable), "Deathtrap"
(where my sister proclaimed that Christopher Reeve kissing Michael Caine was 'a
waste' thus laying the firm foundation for our difference of opinion about the
okay-ness of me being gay), "Repo Man" (the first 'art house' movie
I'd ever seen and loved), and "Terms of Endearment" (a movie I really
didn't need to see just after my dad died of cancer).
I never really paid attention to the audience at the theatre because, as far as I can remember, there was always a tacit agreement that people wouldn't talk, mothers didn't bring crying babies and that ushers would handle anything that happened.
But sadly, those days are long gone. People talk and text, the concessions are outrageously expensive, the theatre staff is either indifferent or openly hostile when you're trying to get service, etc. We all know the story, it's sadly nothing new.
Recently there was word going around that the MPAA is looking into making it possible for people to pay for new movies to be shown in people's own homes through their cable company. At first I thought it was a hideous idea - we're becoming more and more isolated every day - but after seeing "2012" last night at the Regal Cinemas in Battery City, I'm not as averse to it as I was: the popcorn was cold, stale and expensive, the theatre staff lazy and worst of all, everyone around me spent the movie texting to God knows who.
Granted, I know this isn't the type of movie that I should expect to find a classy crowd, but still, what's wrong with people that they can't just watch a movie? Isn't that what they're there for? And yes, I know I sound like a grump. A middle aged grump who’s finally had it with spending $50 for two at the movies and getting a lousy experience in return (and that’s excluding however good or bad the movie is!).
As for the movie itself, well, visually, it's a fun thrill ride - one can almost imagine the actual ride that will come from it in the vein of those 'you are there' rides at Disney and Universal where you’re jostled around in chairs that simulate motion while being engulfed in a surround screen – as characters literally drive away from doom when the ground beneath them crumples and disintegrates. Ridiculous but immensely fun. Buildings crumple and chunks of land fall into the ocean; a volcano rises up out of Yellowstone and oceans swell up and decimate Washington DC. To think of the death toll (which is about 6.5 billion) indicates you’re a sensitive person and there’s no room for sensitivity at this inn.
My favorite moment was seeing LA’s most famous giant donut roll down the street, smashing things in its wake. Unfortunately that’s about the only moment of wit in the entire movie. No one can deny that the imagination that went into having California disintegrate before our eyes is pretty damn amazing, but I guess it takes less skill to wreck downtown Los Angeles than it does to write one clever - or even believable- line of dialogue.
The script is rather dull and the characters cardboard cutouts who aren’t really developed enough for anyone to really care about them. I mean, George Segal has a tiny role as a down on his luck jazz musician and the only reason you care about him is because, well, it’s George Segal. It’s certainly not in the script. As for the lead, John Cusack is an unlikely lead action hero but as a failed writer with a failed marriage, he does hold the film together even if you are vividly aware that you only care about the character because, well, it’s John Cusack. On a shallow note, his characters’ wife is Amanda Peet who has fantastic hair and gorgeous eyes. She could be an axe murderer but we’d want her to live.
As you might expect, the science of the whole thing doesn’t make a lot of sense although God bless ‘em the movies tries over and over again to explain to us what’s going on. What the movie doesn’t realize is that it’s not smart enough to be accurate and moreover, the audience just doesn’t care. The audience just wants to see things destroyed.. Like fruit in a cocktail; that science talk sure does take away a lot of time from time we could be spending watching more things blowed up. The only downer – cataclysm-wise- is that we’re not treated to New York City being destroyed yet again because who doesn’t like seeing The Statue of Liberty blown away yet again?
On the whole, 2012 is probably a flick that you should see in a theatre just because of the level of detail in the destruction. And that’s the word today from a middle aged grump.
