Click on the image for more information.

Monday, March 8, 2010

Mini-Review: 2012

Warning: Potential Spoilers.
Move along if you don't like it.

We bought 2012 on dvd the other day and I rather liked it despite some mega-watt plot and logic holes. Anyone who follows my mini-reviews knows that I am a stickler for logic. You might remember how I bashed the much-loved
Star Trek movie. :shudders:

2012 is about Jackson Curtis, an author who wrote his own apocalyptic novel and sold 500 copies of his book (in hardback, no less). (Yeah, I couldn't stop laughing either.)

To supplement his income, he makes his living chauffeuring an obscenely wealthy Russian and his two brat kids.

Piecing together the evidence, which includes increasing number of earthquakes, assurances from the government that the worst is over (that would've been my first clue), conversations with the two Russian brat kids, and a conspiracy theorist who is also warning people about a cataclysm, Jackson is convinced the world is going to end, but there are secret ships available for a lucky few. He grabs his two kids, his ex-wife and her boyfriend as they race time to beat the tectonic shifts of the earth's mantel.

I promise you, you will be tired from escaping one near miss after another. If you're normal, you won't mind the glaring logic flaws, like pyroclastic clouds that never seem close enough to asphyxiate our heroes, nor does it bring down the planes, limousines or recreational vehicles they drive. Yet, people who are a stone's throw away from them die miserably.

You won't care that not only is the planet's mantel super-heating and collapsing at an immense rate, but it then cools and settles at an even faster speed.
And while every satellite in orbit is telling them the whole planet is falling apart, somehow an entire continent survives almost entirely intact. Please! (I was THIS close to throwing popcorn at my tv.)

And you won't care when they tell you this whole thing started from solar flares imbued with neutrinos which then mutated.
umm...Neutrinos decay. They don't mutate.

If you're normal, you won't care about any of these things.

On the other hand, if you're like me and Greg, you will repeatedly pause the movie and yell at the writers for not doing their homework.

I have a soft spot for apocalyptic fiction and movies. (That's obvious, since my first book,
Touch Of Fire is post-apocalyptic.)

My gripe with most apocalypse movies (and some fiction) is that the writers always want to tie up the loose ends and give it a happy ever after.

No matter how gritty or how honest the portrayal, at the end they always fall back on giving us the 'Skittles' rainbow at the end of the story.

That irks the heck out of me. I like apocalyptic stories that offer hope, but spare me the sugar-coated, 'and we all lived happily, morally, kumbaya-ly ever after'.

Life doesn't work that way. It never has.

2012 threw in a few undeserved pink bow ties at the end, but they also showed great sacrifices by good and bad guys so it did redeem itself in that regard.

It's worth renting if you like thrilling, disaster movies. It's worth buying for the special effects alone. I'll probably be having surreal dreams for weeks now. LOL.

Despite the logic gaps and a little too much moralizing, it had enough adventure to want to see it again.

Did you see this movie? What did you think?


Jennifer Shirk said...

No, didn't see. And I now I don't plan to. LOL!
Thanks for the review. :)

Dru said...

No, I haven't seen it yet and don't know if I will.

Marianne Arkins said...

I wanted to see it, just for grins -- like you logic problems bug me, but I can suspend reality for a couple hours. However, I'll just borrow it for free from my library.

Maria Zannini said...

I do like adrenaline-pumping movies like this. I just have to remember to suspend my logic centers for a while.

Note: Probably not a good choice for young children. It has at least one death that made me cringe.

brokenbiro said...

I'm not an action movie fan but, like you, I love apocalyptic ones (ever since reading John Wyndham as a kid) and I'm ashamed to say I LOVED this film. Yes it was ridiculously far-fetched but the effects were quite literally jaw-dropping and the makers bothered to spend a bot of energy getting you to care about the characters - John Cusack did well in the main role. Good job it wasn't 3D tho' - not sure I could cope!

Maria Zannini said...

Jaw-dropping is an understatement, huh? LOL!

They did a wonderful job with the characters. And Cusak never fails to surprise me with his acting. Very well done.

I agree about the 3-D. After Avatar, I swore never again. I had a headache until the next day.

Kaz Augustin said...

Nope, unless I'm in a masochistic mood (entirely possible at some point), 2012 is a miss for me. Watched "Avatar" and "Sherlock Holmes" and was severely disappointed with both. And, like you, don't even get me started on "Star Trek".

As for your comment about death and young children, M, the kids made sure to watch "The Corpse Bride" without J around because "tata can't watch icky films". J laughed ... then agreed with the assessment. Them kids, they're tougher than they look.

Maria Zannini said...

Hi Kaz!

I was really attached to three of the secondary characters. I didn't want them to die.

The writers did a great job in making me feel empathy for them even though they were not on the good guy 'A' team.

Shelley Munro said...

I haven't heard of this movie, so no, I have seen it. :)

Mike Keyton said...

I have been warned. Thank you. By the way your site is working now. No more exploratory clicks!

Maria Zannini said...

Thanks, Mike. I heard that from other people too. Maybe once the browser recognizes the site, it lets it load ever after.

Either way, good news. Thanks.