Will 2012 Have a Sequel?

We watched 2012 over the weekend.  It seemed like a movie that would have been much more enjoyable on the big screen.  The destruction scenes were very well done.  Sure the plot is based on shaky theories that the Mayan's predicted the end of the world because their calendar runs out.  Maybe they decided it was far enough in the future that they would pick it up again when they got closer to the end, only to be wiped out before they got there.

The science behind the film is that the solar flares are causing the interior of the Earth to liquefy which in turn causes the crust to shift leading to earthquakes, sinkholes, volcanoes, tsunamis, death, destruction and stuff.  It's more Roland Emmerich "End of the World" because it's what he does so well.  It is a popcorn movie that the whole family can enjoy.

John Cusack goes through a never ending parade of dilemmas as the world comes to an end.  Danny Glover stars as the President.  Thandie Newton is his daughter.  Oliver Platt is a government bad guy.  And Woody Harrelson plays a whacked out, conspiracy nut, radio talk show host.  Again, typical Roland Emmerich.

It is not a thought piece.  This is not a serious, dramatic film.  It is eye candy that should be seen when you need entertaining.  When it gets closer to December 2012 and the world starts to really come to an end, that may change.  Until then, it was a decent enough disaster flick that is best seen on the home theater where you can stop it to get a snack or take a nature break.

I give 2012 two and a half Billys.