Based on the ancient Mayan theory that the world will end on December 21st, 2012 (12 + 21 = 23 ha!!), 2012 is basically about the end of the world brought on by the sun's weird neutrino activity causing the earth's tectonic plates and everything cracking and sinking and magma-ing and obligatory tsunamis. Oh, and John Cusack.
I liked it.
And I don't get why people are bitching about the movie. About how the CGI was "fake-ish", and how the movie was "unrealistic". Now, I've no problems with the CGI, I thought the damage and destruction done was massive, and it didn't look video-gamish to me at all. To each his own, I guess.
On the lack of realism, sure, I see where they're coming with this. Spelling it out: how can ONE FAMILY survive EVERYTHING LITERALLY THROWN AT / FALLING ON them without SPENDING A CENT and still SURVIVE to see THE END of the movie? Even the rich people, who paid €1 billion to be saved, didn't have that much luck (read: Pushing and Stampeding).
But really, is that unrealistic aspect of the movie such a bad thing?
Every movie usually has an underdog, and the really good ones make you root for that underdog, make you want to see that underdog reach his happy ending. I'm not saying this movie makes you piss your pants every time a Big Giant Rock falls their way, but you don't want to see them die either. Although Chiwetel Ejiofor's character was generally good, he already has a complimentary Get Saved card, so it'd be a pretty short movie if he were the main focus. And really, unless it's about zombies, no one wants to see a movie where the entire world is annihilated and the final scene is a view of Earth from space, with all the water and the magma and the random bit of land.
It's downright depressing. People only flock to this kind of movie is if they've been warned fully in advance, or if it's based on a very well-known book.
I've read quite a few reviews, and another issue is with the amount of characters in the movie, which is to say, quite a lot, on top of Cusack and Fam. The more characters you have, the less time you'd spend on each one of them, and thus, character development would suck, and emotional connectivity with the audience would, well, be lacking.
But I beg to differ.
Though we get only 10 minutes (some, only fleeting moments), I still felt sorry all those who went under, especially George Segal and Blu Mankuma (because I like those two geezers). Call me a sucker, but I even felt sorry for all those faceless CGI-ed victims.
However, I'm most pissed with the movie's treatment of Tamara's death towards the end of the movie. Tamara died to save Cusack's daughter, but in the final scene, there wasn't even a BRIEF mention of her. It was like they were trying to wrap up the bloody movie, and had conveniently forgotten that this poor girl had died in place of another. And plus, Gordon shouldn't have died either. It was like, "Oh, we need your character to fly the plane because John Cusack's an author. Now that we've reached the ark, you can go get crushed. Literally." It was pointless.
It'd also be pretty cool if Woody Harrelson had survived Yellowstone (and everything else), and became the first radio host to broadcast to the survivors.
Also, Oliver Platt seems to be getting typecast as Person Of Questionable Morals #1.
As for that lousy last line, technically the last word in is, "Nice," which really isn't a bad word in itself.
With the exception of Tamara and Gordon, I thought it was a pretty good movie. And seriously, it's like Transformers 2 all over again. In movies like these, characters are secondary. What we want to see is
0 comebacks:
Post a Comment