I loves me a good ol’ apocalypse. Of course, I would prefer a zombie apocalypse, but then again doesn’t everybody? Hollywood loves putting out its blockbuster budget movies where major cities go the way of the dodo, and “2012” follows this path — possibly even to a further point than has previously been done.

You all know about the special effects extravaganza that is a disaster movie, so I’ll let it stand with this simple explanation: This is the first time they got the destruction right. Yep, it looks pretty darn realistic.

Like any good movie, there has to be a meaningful plot apart from the wonderment of effects — note that I said good movie. Yes sir, I left this flick with a cheery disposition.

So, in following the rule of good plots with appeal to audiences around the world, the issue of family drove this film.

From start to finish, the message of togetherness and the pangs of loss and remorse tug at your heartstrings and wet your eyes. Seriously, I was touched during three different scenes in the movie, as older father figure characters had to come to terms with their lives and say goodbye to their children — tears welled up for me twice.

It’s impressive when a special-effects-driven movie can elicit a real emotional response, and maybe this won’t happen for everyone. But if you can walk out of there without feeling some form of empathy for the men who spend their last moments alive looking in the face of imminent doom with serenity, well, then you might be emotionally void.

The end of the world is more of a backdrop — a huge, constant backdrop, but a backdrop nevertheless — to a look into who people are when the chips are down. You are confronted with two questions: “What would you do if you knew of the end? Would you tell people, knowing the chaos it would bring, or try to save the human race?” and “How far are you willing to go to save yourself? Would you sacrifice others?”

These questions are nothing new. As members of mankind, we are confronted with moral dilemmas fairly often.

A lot of films would spend too much time trying to make the audience realize their supposed “substance” and “deeper meaning.”

Luckily for everyone watching “2012,” the producers eschewed the waste of screen time and kept their introspective moments short and sweet — by sweet, I mean buildings and cities are being demolished in a cooler fashion than any alien invasion movie has even come close to, while the meaningful messages are delivered.

Appeals to loss aside, “2012” offers a fair amount of laughs as well. Woody Harrelson makes a marvelous cameo as the crazy end of the world conspirist who is right all along. John Cusack’s talent for nonchalant humor hasn’t gone away as he has aged, and his acting is still about par with his performance in “Grosse Point Blank.” Chiwetel Ejiofor — the not, as of yet, well renowned actor with an unpronounceable name from “Serenity” — wonderfully portrays a character you don’t often see in disaster movies: Someone with substance. Oliver Platt, a personal favorite of mine — due to his lightly witty, partly sarcastic delivery style — steals the show with his hard-nosed, yet logically likeable and believable, character. And Zlatco Buric’s voice, as the Russian billionaire, makes me laugh whenever he talks.

That may just be me though.

We have loss, humor and massive destruction, all without having to shoot someone or yell profanities for no good reason. There is above-par acting, at least for the type of movie it is, and enough high-caliber special effects to make you drool. What could be wrong with this, if anything?

Sorry to disappoint, but the ending leaves a lot to be desired.

It’s okay. It’s not bad or anything, but there’s a whole sequence — you’ll know it when you see the near 20 minutes of it — that could have been chopped, shortened or rewritten into something more appropriate for the end of the world story line.

I sort of sugar-coated the amount of meaningfulness given in the film before. It certainly exists, but unless you’re like me and you’ve spent a good portion of your life over-analyzing everything around you because you want to “see more” than what’s right in front of you, well, “2012” is visually fun but doesn’t go a whole lot further. The movie runs a little over two-and-a-half hours, and for all that time, I can say I was glad to be there. I was glad to be entertained and not have to turn my mind completely off. But it wasn’t ground breaking.

Roland Emmerich, the director, has wreaked havoc upon society before in “Independence Day” and “The Day After Tomorrow” — this guy loves to destroy the White House — but is at a loss for offering a movie with a story worth watching if people weren’t dying in droves.

Go see “2012” for great effects, some entertaining characters and as a reminder that according to the Mayan calendar, we’ve only got until Dec. 21, 2012, to live. Just remember, it only has meaningfulness if you really want to find it.

I really did tear up twice, so maybe this movie will go above and beyond to trigger something special for you, too.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I think I may need to see this a second time.

– Gabriel Stoffa is a senior in political science and communication studies from Ottumwa, Iowa.