Disaster films are pretty sketchy when it comes to quality. They usually have bad B-movie acting, over the top special effects, and impossible plotlines. Usually they are reserved for the summer blockbuster season as well, a time when every kid on the continent shuts off his or her brain. Last week, the master, if you can even call him that, of disaster, Roland Emmerich (the man behind “Independence Day” and “The Day After Tomorrow”) unleashed his ultimate destruction that is “2012.”

Whereas Emmerich has established himself as the man that destroys beloved landmarks (i.e. Statue of Liberty and the White House) he always was reserved when it came to the annihilation of mankind. The alien ship gets destroyed before the race is wiped out, and we now know there is escape from the cooling effects of global warming.

Finally he has thrown any inhibition aside and actually has taken all hope from the majority humanity. The film is brutal in its display of this, but hope exists for the select few. Finally we have a somewhat fearless filmmaker not afraid to kill everyone.

Jackson Curtis (John Cusack) and Charlie Frost (Woody Harrelson) in Columbia Pictures' 2012

Ok, sarcasm aside, “2012” is simply a journey movie, spurred on by the onset of the apocalypse. John Cusack plays Jackson Curtis, a failed author and father, as a man simply trying to stay connected to the last bit of his family life he has. His wife (played by Amanda Peet) has divorced and remarried a doctor. His kids distance themselves from him to a point, with his son basically disowning him. So much for a happy setup. Anyhow, apparently the world is ending, due to a heating up of the core. It’s been happening for a few years, but on the year that the Mayan’s predicted the earth to end, lets just say, *stuff* will hit the fan. The rest of the movie is Cusack running away from one disaster after another.

I never said that Emmerich builds films upon substance. The whole 2012 apocalypse myth is built upon the Mayan calendar, which ends on Dec. 21 of that year. Last time I checked they met their apocalypse quite a bit sooner (a little dark comedy never hurt anyone). The plot here is also utterly inconceivable and completely improbably. Cusack runs from every single catastrophe that hits America during the apocalypse. Coincidence? I vote for the poor screenwriting tactic of piling one climax on top of another until the film becomes two and a half hours long. Yes that’s right; this is an epic scale movie in every sense of the term (except for the whole poetry part). I probably should stop bashing the film, because I’m beginning to like it less and less the more I continue.

Director Roland Emmerich on the set of Columbia Pictures' 2012.

I enjoyed myself watching “2012.” It is a good escape movie for some gorgeous special effects and explosions. It even beats “Transformers 2” in that category. Some of the camera work here is top notch as well, even without the aid of computer graphics. Beyond that, the special effects look impressive. When the earth blows up, I believe that the earth is blowing up.

Danny Glover stars as President Thomas Wilson in Columbia Pictures' 2012

To the acting, I have to say it isn’t terrible. The person I came to my breaking point watching was the new husband of Peet’s character and Oliver Plath. Plath should never be allowed to be unlikeable, and here he was beyond unlikeable. I guess he fulfilled the role to that point because he is supposed to be the emotionless logical leader. The supporting roles all deserve a bravo as well. Danny Glover plays the President. I can’t even back that up because that is awesome enough.

Woody Harrelson stars as Charlie Frostin in Columbia Pictures' 2012.

The man who stole the show for me was Woody Harrelson. His trip through “Zombieland” last month was a hoot, and here he plays a conspiracy freak radio broadcaster, preaching the apocalyptic cover-up. Hilarious. The acting does seem terrible at times because of the sham of an edit that was cut during action scenes. One shot will feature incredible CG destruction spliced with a screaming reaction close up of a character. Copy + Paste for the duration of the scene, and you get a very laughable final edit of the epic scenes.

Overall, “2012” is a pure popcorn cinema piece. Don’t expect to suddenly become enlightened with a way to accept the apocalypse, but simply enjoy yourself. Why else go to the theaters if you can’t sit back and enjoy the experience?

Grade: B-

More 2012 – Behind the Scenes video

Ever wonder what it would look like to shoot a car off of a giant potato gun?

More ‘2012′ Videos

2012 Clip – It’s not just California Jackson Curtis (John Cusack) narrowly saves the lives of his family in time to escape before California’s destruction.

2012 – Behind the Scenes Ever wonder what it would look like to shoot a car off of a giant potato gun?

2012 – Behind the Scenes Go behind the scenes of 2012 to watch the cast and crew hard at work.

2012 Clip – The end of the world my friend Jackson Curtis (John Cusack) seeks out Charlie Frost (Woody Harrelson) for information about the end of the world.

‘2012′ News

• Columbia Pictures Unveils Exclusive 2010 Two-Minute Scene
• Roland Emmerich “2012″ Q & A

Check out all the latest content for the end-of-world-apocalypse-total-destruction-movie ‘2012‘.

Never before has a date in history been so significant to so many cultures, so many religions, scientists, and governments. 2012 is an epic adventure about a global cataclysm that brings an end to the world and tells of the heroic struggle of the survivors.

More ‘2012′ Videos

2012 Clip – It’s not just California Jackson Curtis (John Cusack) narrowly saves the lives of his family in time to escape before California’s destruction.

2012 – Behind the Scenes Ever wonder what it would look like to shoot a car off of a giant potato gun?

2012 – Behind the Scenes Go behind the scenes of 2012 to watch the cast and crew hard at work.

2012 Clip – The end of the world my friend Jackson Curtis (John Cusack) seeks out Charlie Frost (Woody Harrelson) for information about the end of the world.

‘2012′ News

• Columbia Pictures Unveils Exclusive 2010 Two-Minute Scene
• Roland Emmerich “2012″ Q & A

Five Reasons Star Trek is Now Cooler Than Star Wars

Remember back in early 1999 when Star Wars was still cool and you couldn’t wait for the prequels? After decades of teasing, new Star Wars movies were about to hit the big screen and anticipation was palpable. Pictures from set in Vanity Fair revealed Ewan McGregor in the trademark brown robes, the menacing red and black face paint of Darth Maul and those iconic green and red lightsabers glowing for the first time in decades. Fanboys hearts went aflutter, some going so far as to camp outside the theater for weeks beforehand. Finally, Star Wars was about to make its triumphant return!

Princess Leia?

And then the bubble burst. Phantom Menace hit screens in May of 1999 and something just wasn’t quite right. It was long and slow-moving; it had a racially questionable, highly annoying CG character named Jar-Jar Binks; and even the kid who was to become Darth Vader wasn’t too likable. There was no denying the fact that it just wasn’t a very good movie, plain and simple.

Still, fan loyalty held strong, dismissing the misstep as an origin story that would allow Lucas to knock the dust off his director’s cap and really dig into the action when he got to the long-awaited Clone War story-line of part two. The end result of the lamely titled Attack of the Clones was similar, a movie arguably worse that Phantom Menace featuring a love story so excruciating we were all practically begging for more Jar-Jar.

Finally, in 2005, Revenge of the Sith wrapped things up with a final thud. It was better than the first two, but still far short of the original trilogy. Most impressively (and devastatingly), it succeeded in systematically destroying the ultimate baddie Darth Vader once and for all, leaving the horrible imagery of Hayden Christensen’s whiny interpretation and, worst yet, that unforgettably horrible, “Nooooooooooooo!” forever burned into our brain.

Or Seven of Nine?

When news of a similar reboot approach to the Star Trek movie franchise surfaced a few years back, skeptics worried that Kirk, Spock and the Enterprise might suffer the very same fate. Then J.J. Abrams was announced as director and hope sprang alive. As the creator of Lost, Alias and director of the entertainingly disposable Mission Impossible III and producer of the creative low budget monster pic Cloverfield, Abrams represented a fresh approach from a filmmaker in his prime as opposed to Lucas’ desperate attempt to reclaim the glory days and cash in on past achievements.

Star Trek hit screens in May of 2009 and and the reaction was overwhelmingly positive. Praised by Trekkies and critics alike, Abrams had accomplished the rare genre feet of a crossover blockbuster even laymen could enjoy. Not only was Star Trek back, but for arguably the first time in the franchise’s existence, it was actually cool.

It’s been ten years since Lucas first tainted the Star Wars legend with Phantom Menace. In contrast, Star Trek is going strong, raking in almost $400 million worldwide box office in the summer of 2009 and a highly anticipated string of sequels are heading into production. The sudden turn of events begs the question, is Star Trek now cooler than Star Wars?

The List

1. Captain Kirk is the new Han Solo

One of the many things missing from the Star Wars prequels was the cynic. After all, what fun are a bunch of do-gooders without someone to point out the silliness of it all?

As the new and improved Captain Kirk, Chris Pine owes plenty to Harrison Ford’s career-defining portrayal of the bad-a** smuggler of the Millennium Falcon. Pine takes the rebellious humor of Shatner’s performance and subtracts the campiness. The result is a Kirk that’s not only likable and suave, but also the essence of tough guy cool.

2. As Jon Lovitz once said, “Acting!”

On paper, the cast of the Star Wars prequels didn’t look bad at all. But proof is always in that pudding. Natalie Portman and Hayden Christensen’s past work proves both are capable thespians, but Star Wars demonstrated they require a hands-on director to lead them down the proper path (ie, not George Lucas). Ewan McGregor is a fine actor, but he’s so much as admitted that the prequels were a debacle from the start. Sitting in a room full of green screens listening to a listless Lucas drone on about technology would put anyone to sleep. McGregor tried his best, but even he was phoning his performance in by part two.

Abrams went after young, raw-talent for his reboot of the Star Trek franchise, eschewing A-list expectations in favor of an approach mirroring Lucas’s own casting of the original Star Wars (or Episode IV, as we must now refer to it). Fans may have had to look up Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto when they first heard the news, but all doubts were laid to rest the moment they showed up on screen. Cult fave Simon Pegg provided just the right amount of comic relief as Scotty while an unrecognizable Eric Bana lent his ample acting skills to make the villainous Nero a formidable addition to the Trek universe, expertly sidestepping the over-the-top pitfalls Christensen and Ian McDiarmid fell victim to.

3. Story, Story, Story

For years Lucas told tales of his vault full of Star Wars prequel scripts written long before the trilogy everyone came to know and love. As we now know, these origin story-lines traded the simplistic, fun nature of episodes IV through VI (basically everything we loved about them) for a series of convoluted events and dull characters proving that sometimes it’s best to keep the vault closed.

Ever the team player, Abrams left the storytelling to the experts, defaulting to the writing team of Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman (Transformers, M:I:III, Alias, The Island). The writing duo delivered a taut, character-driven story that expertly weaved the backstory into a fresh, action-packed adventure without boring Trek newbies.

4. A hungry director

J.J. Abrams’ list of accomplishments on the small screen is long and impressive. But on the big screen, he’s just getting started. M:I:III made plenty of money, but the director would be the first to admit it had its share of problems, both on and off set. And sure, he was one of the brains behind Cloverfield, but he ceded directing duties to pal Matt Reeves on that one. Star Trek wasn’t just the biggest project Abrams ever landed, but also a crucial stepping-stone towards a feature film career. He had a lot riding on Star Trek and he rose to the occasion.

Lucas, as we all now know, lost the fire some time ago. After years trying to disassociate himself with the Star Wars and Indy franchise that has brought him worldwide acclaim, the producer/director finally threw his hands into the air and opted to bastardize both franchises and cash in. His pockets may have grown fatter as a result, but his heart was no longer in it.

5. Simplicity

Yes, Star Trek is a big budget summer blockbuster, but it also has an undeniable indie feel about it that keeps it grounded in reality and, more importantly, in the characters themselves. While Lucas was busy trying to build bigger and better ships and prove that he could create characters from scratch on a computer, Abrams and team was inviting you to really get to know characters fans only thought they’d known for decades. As mentioned above, proper time was devoted to developing the story and casting decisions were made based on who was truly best for the part, not which names might look good on the poster. The end result is something more personal and warm that works regardless of giant spaceships, cool explosions and crazy looking creatures.

The Debate Rages On

Check out this hilarious video deciding which is better right here!

If you want to learn more about the on-going debate between the 2 franchises you definitely need to check out these sites:

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/

Most technical site

http://www.st-v-sw.net/

Most comprehensive site

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_versus_Star_Wars

Which franchise is more successful in the real world?

http://www.forbes.com/technology/2005/05/16/cx_de_0516match.html

Even more

Enter our Star Trek Contest to win tons of cool signed prizes!

If the last three Star Wars prequels left a sour taste in your mouth, you’ll want to head over to David Berry’s blog for some authentic Star Wars nostalgia. Last Tuesday the optical cameraman posted 8mm home movies of his special effects team in action at the Van Nuys studio in 1976. Berry describes  it as “crude home movies from the 1970s depicting activities at a certain location in the San Fernando Valley.” Set to John Williams’ gorgeous trade mark scores, the 10-minute reel introduces us to those responsible for flipping the visual effects universe on its head, and of course shows the crew manipulating some of the models used in actual filming.

A lot of the names in this movie are now legendary. As for David Berry himself, he hasn’t got a lot of film credits to his name — the Star Wars trilogy, Indiana Jones trilogy, E.T., Close Encounters of the Third Kind and Battlestar Galactica among them — but every one certainly counts.

In related news, George Lucas is rumored to be speaking through video conference at this year’s Comic-Con Star Wars pavilion. There’s no mention on whether he has news on the possibility of a Star Wars live-action television series, but if there’s any time and place to talk, Comic-Con is it.