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. (Fandango)
In simplest terms, it’s the Day After Tomorrow, and that day happens to be the apocalypse via natural disaster.
Why 2012 Was an Okay Watch, I Guess:
- It was WAY too long…
- The special effects were crazy awesome,
- but not really on any screen besides a movie theater.
- The story line was pretty unoriginal.
- John Cusack & Company would have died if this actually happened.
- It exposes the sad truth of the greed and selfishness of people.
- All of the natural disasters leading up to the final apocalypse stem from scientific evidence that makes sense,
- which adds to the anxiety and thrill of the movie.
- I lost track of how many times the stars of the film escaped death by seconds.
- Love stories integrated into disaster films are disasters themselves.
Grade: C+
For being overall nothing more than a special effects blockbuster with no original characters, plot, or idea besides the notion of the apocalypse coming in 2012, yet intriguingly reveals how blind with power, greed, money humanity has become.
In the end, 2012 is not much more than a money movie. It cost a lot, and makes a lot, and is solely made for human amusement. The special effects were really fantastic! The cinematography and variety of disaster made it a visually stunning film. A lot of it reminded me of The Day After Tomorrow, which is also directed by Roland Emmerich, and that also had good graphics. However, where 2012 excelled in graphics, it failed in story.
I have to say I have many more critiques than praises about this film. The story is just like every other disaster film story. It centralizes around a group of semi-relatable, average people (think War of the Worlds, The Day After Tomorrow) who will inevitably escape every possible way to die and also integrate some sort of love story. (There always has to be a love story…) However, these people are less relatable and more just drawn up for the drama. The happy little family torn by divorce, parent-child relationship troubles, issues between the man and woman, and now suddenly thrust into a disaster setting.
And HOLY FUCK was this movie probably an hour and half too long! 158 MINUTES.
God only knows how many times John Cusack & Company came to dying… If you’re wondering how many suspenseful close calls you can have in a movie, after 2012, wonder no more. (SPOILER) Any scene with that trailer, any scene with that little plane, any scene with the big plane, getting caught in the chambers on the ark… And when the stars were picked off, their deaths weren’t even caused by any apocalyptic happening! Sure, the crazy radio broadcaster got blown up by a volcanic fire ball and the president kinda made to represent Obama, but everyone else died in vain and unnecessarily. (SPOILER) The main one I am thinking about is the new husband character, Gordon, and also the blonde russian Tamara. Their deaths were pointless, and provide no insight into the major themes of the movie.
Which leads me to my few praises besides the special effects. The themes presented in 2012, though rather poorly displayed and executed, are what make this movie worth at least one watch. It deals with the end of the world, something that consumes many people’s minds as a fear in terms of religion and the 2012 phenomena. Also, and probably more importantly, the current world and (but mostly) American societal, economical, and moral issues. It poses questions about how selfish greed, wealth, and materialism effect our world so much that (SPOILER) a ticket to get on to the arks that will support the last human life on the planet cost $1 Billion Euro. That’s an amount of money that very few people can even comprehend, never mind be in possession of. (SPOILER) There’s a scene where workers look up through grates in the ceiling on the ark and see a giraffe; a giraffe was given preference to live over these human beings. A giraffe. Sure, it’s important to keep alive and care for the natural life found on our planet, but this is a human life we’re talking about. You could have that life! The rooms on the ships were like luxury hotel rooms. Like the character in the movie said, the rooms could fit 10 people!
2012 leads its audience to think about that. Would humanity really treat the end of the world in this way? Personally, I think however horrible, inhumane, and disturbing this way of approaching the end of the world is, it’s highly, highly plausible.
In reality, everyone would have been dead, like everyone else. However, yes, it is a movie, and the stars have to live. But why must there be stars in every disaster film? I’d love to see a disaster film where the point of view is strictly from the government, or better yet from the audiences point of view. The audience would be able to skip from California dropping off into the ocean, to volcanos erupting somewhere else, to the first impact of the tidal waves, strictly from a “God’s Eye” point of view. For once, can I get a real disaster film that investigates the real possibilities of how the world as a whole could deal with the end of themselves, removing the unnecessary and glamorized death scenes and love stories.
Some notable moments include basically any wide shot of a natural disaster. They are quite miraculous. There are no notable moments in terms of plot or anything…
Compare it to: The Day After Tomorrow, War of the Worlds
