Review of 2012 (2009) by Danual G — 18 Oct 2012

A list of pluses and minuses for this science fiction movie:

+ Great, cool special effects cavalcade.

- That Zen-philosophical bit about the cup being full is just silly. It didn't seem to fit into that discussion at all.

+ Nice acting performances, esp. Woody Harrelson's mad(folio)hat guy.

- People are just basically marching to meet the president of United States. No bureaucracy!

+ Fast-paced action film and emotional content (kids and little dogs are saved) helps the film climb up from the bottomless pit of stupidity it fell in.

+ I saw an elephant being carried with a helicopter and decided it was so utterly funny that it was a plus instead of a minus! Seriously, I didnt know before that a helicopter can actually lift an elephant, and that we can hear its sound from outside while we are inside an airoplane. Live and learn.

- Strange silly things, at least five things, going on that can't be explained:

1) HOW COME SOME OBSCURE STATION IN MUMBAI, INDIA, DISCOVERS THIS THING? Not to put down India, which is a cool country and all, but I mean, hey come on, its not just that, they got these neutrino tanks in the states and europe, too..and they would all start boiling exactly the same moment, because neutrinos just whizz through the planet all around it. You know. There was no reason why it would happen first only in Mumbai, India. 2) Did anybody think how the planet's weather would change were the atlantic Gulf-stream, seawater surface, temperature and the earths poles to shift in such a radical manner? Its all connected to everything in nature, my point being, it is very difficult to imagine everything that would happen were the scenario to take place. 3) Neutrinos do not have a so called resting-mass. That is why they use that kind of underground tanks, to catch them with suffient mass of water. Nobody ever explained how those pesky neutrinos could turn into microwave radiation? They just expect you to take the impossible in face value, don't they. 4) Slightly too many catastrophic events are rolled into one movie. I doubt that the technology they use, such as satellite imaging, would be available after that size catastrophes. And how come the main characters survive by a hair's breadth from practically all kinds of cataclysmic things happening...? Thats not quite so believable. 5) Besides, them neutrinos from the sun don't only effect the Earth's crust, millions of them pass through every cubic centimeter of human tissue every second. So technically, would the horror scenario take place, all humans would have been instantly evaporated (imagine putting a bowl of water in a microwave and you get the idea). Certainly quicker than the earth's core shifted!

I didn't get what was the point of the film? To show that mankind can be wiped out just like that? Nice to remind of course.. But you have to pay 1 000 000 000 dollars per seat on board Noah's Ark v.2. and to be saved? While churches at Vatican collapse.. How is this to be interpreted? That you can buy salvation?

Ok. Were someone to explain the last thing I mentioned here to me, I would have rated the film far higher. In short: Nice acting, fast super expensive effect jubilee. With enough scientific holes I could drive one of those Arks through. Not impressive. Its just so very very far from reality. But I acknowledge the action, effects and acting, which pretty much help the embarrassing film to be watchable.