You have to see the first half of "2012." It is a visual treat with eye-popping effects and simple characters who do not interfere with the action.

We are thrown into a disaster as John Cusack drives his way through crumbling continental crust and exploding volcanoes. As a whole, the first half of "2012" has some of the best action of 2009 and is definitely a must-see.

If only things were that simple, right? Unfortunately, the second half of "2012" plays it so much "by-the-numbers," the buildup and excitement generated from the beginning is practically deflated. None of the action is particularly exciting. All we get is some bickering, some cheap laughs and too much talk about helping your fellow man.

Sprinkle that in with action hero John Cusack making a few last-second heroic saves, and that sums up the second half. It is uninspiring, manipulative and lame.

John Cusack plays Jackson Curtis, a down-and-out novelist who desperately wants to reconnect with his family after a difficult divorce from his wife, played by Amanda Peet. After taking his children on a camping trip, he realizes the world is about to end.

Thanks to the help of a kooky mountain man, played by Woody Harrelson, Curtis discovers there is a safe haven in China. From there, he does whatever he can to get his family to the other side of the world.

The other storyline within the film focuses on geologist Adrian Helmsley, played by Chiwetel Ejiofor, who gives a terrific performance in the role. He attempts to convince White House Chief of Staff, Carl Anheuser to stop being insensitive and to save as many people as possible from the impending doom.

The frustrating thing about "2012" is I can picture the movie as it could have been. Amidst all the flaws and complications, there is a solid disaster movie underneath. I just wish writer and director Roland Emmerich was aware of his limitations.

Emmerich is a wonderful action director. The cinematography he displays in his action sequences is beautiful, and the special effects are breathtaking. But his screenwriting ability leaves much to be desired.

In an interview he did for Movieline.com, he discussed how he really wanted the film to end on a quiet note and for there to be an intimate exchange between parents and children. I have to admire the guy's ambition to stray away from convention here, but he is not a talented enough writer to pull it off.

The characters are one-dimensional and never become personable. So instead of the characters having intimate conversations that make movie-goers want to bawl their eyes out, viewers are left with sappy dialogue that comes across as cliché and unnecessary. With no action to back it up, the simple characters are left exposed, and "2012" turns into another typical disaster movie.

If you liked Emmerich's previous disaster movie, "The Day After Tomorrow," you should definitely enjoy "2012." It does suffer from many of the same flaws, but the special effects are 10 times more impressive and the dialogue is better written. However, if you were this movie would rival the director's 1996 film, "Independence Day," you will be sadly disappointed.

- Patrick Bales is a senior in elementary education. Send comments to edge@spub.ksu.edu