real estate for humanity. The select few of the 400,000 find themselves on a path to a new world. They begin to rebuild, one piece at a time. It's a chance at redemption. The story ends on a note of cautious optimism, suggesting life will continue. A new chapter begins with humanity’s resilience.
Film Review: Decoding '2012' - A Disaster Epic or Just Epic Disaster?
Roland Emmerich knows chaos. He gave us "Independence Day" and "The Day After Tomorrow." So, when he ventured into apocalyptic territory with "2012," viewers expected much. But did "2012" deliver thrills or struggle? Let’s explore the chaos of the end.
Plot and Storyline: When Neutrinos Go Rogue and Earth Throws a Tantrum
The heart of "2012" contains an epic journey. Global destruction looms, and biblical proportions come into play. A few survivors emerge as heroic figures. In every apocalypse, a select few survive, right? Our hero, Jackson Curtis, has bigger issues than writer's block. His family faces chaos while the world collapses.
The Root Cause: Solar Flares and Neutrino Mayhem
What ignites this disaster? Neutrinos. These tiny particles usually pass us unnoticed. But in "2012," they mutate. A solar flare turns them rogue. Dr. Adrian Helmsley, an American geologist, warns us in 2009. He heads to India for insight. Dr. Tsurutani reveals: solar flares cook Earth's core, creating chaos.
This heating starts earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and tsunamis. The Earth’s crust becomes unstable. Mutated neutrinos create an apocalypse. Little did NASA realize the destruction these particles could cause.
Apocalyptic Events: Earth's Greatest Hits of Destruction
Next come volcanic eruptions. Mountains belch lava with fury. Ash clouds spread doom overhead. It’s not just a few eruptions but a worldwide event. Then, megatsunamis arrive. They’re enormous walls of water ready to engulf everything. A wave so mighty it dwarfs what we know.
A crust shift adds to the turmoil. The Earth moves 1.22 degrees, prompting giant tsunamis. Enormous waves loom, threatening to deluge continents. When the crust shifts, urgency becomes clear.
Geographical Mayhem: California Dreamin' of Sinking
The geographical fallout is significant. California suffers immensely as all major faults go berserk. The result? A catastrophic 10.9 magnitude earthquake. This quake detaches much of Pacific Coast from America. Los Angeles risks becoming an underwater wonderland.
Jackson Curtis scoops his family and girlfriend's guy during this chaos. They narrowly escape as California sinks beneath waves. It's a dramatic exit indeed.
The reshuffling extends beyond California. Asia relocates from where the Pacific once was. Before long, tsunamis flood entire continents. Europe suffers megatsunamis too during "Worldwide Flooding." Meanwhile, Australia transforms into an underwater tourist destination.
Surprisingly, Africa benefits amidst this chaos. While others drown, Africa rises high into the sky. It becomes ideal land for survival post-apocalypse. Investing in Africa turns out to be a smart choice.
The Arks: Humanity's High-Tech Lifeboats
Faced with doom, humanity decides to build arks—many arks, to be exact. Codenamed the "Cho Ming Operation," they aim to preserve life and history. Picture a modern Noah's Ark, enhanced for today's world.
Constructed in Tibet's Cho Ming Valley, these arks hopefully escape floodwaters. The plan includes nine arks, but time runs out fast as disaster looms. Only three are ready for adventure.
The goal is clear: safeguard existence as it faces annihilation. Approximately 400,000 people receive the golden ticket to survival out of billions. Surviving the end of the world feels reminiscent of winning a bizarre lottery.
The End... Or Just the Beginning?
After an endless cycle of disaster and near misses, there's finally hope. Twenty-seven days after the worst events pass, waters recede. Even megatsunamis tire eventually. Dr. Helmsley announces the floods are down, allowing survivors to breathe again.
The battered arks head towards the Cape of Good Hope in South Africa. Why there? Africa now stands highest thanks to its seismic shift. Previously sea level land transforms into prime real estate for humanity.
The chosen ones now find themselves on a path to rebuilding a new future. Amidst tragedy, a chance arises for renewal and growth. A fresh chapter begins, highlighting humanity's will to survive.
mountain-top real estate. The Drakensberg Mountains stand as the new Mount Everest. They shine like a beacon of hope in a waterlogged world.
Every disaster movie needs romance. Amid the devastation, relationships mend and new ones rise. Jackson and his ex-wife Kate reconcile. Their near-death experiences rekindle their love. Adrian and Laura also start a romance. Even in the apocalypse, love persists. It’s a feel-good ending.
Message in the Mayhem: Family, Humanity, and Pull-Ups
Under the CGI chaos, "2012" shares messages. Family values are key. The film shows family’s importance during adversity. It's a disaster movie trope: when the world falls apart, family matters most.
Another theme highlights the best of us. In chaos and panic, moments exist for altruism and courage. People help each other despite overwhelming odds. It’s a somewhat optimistic view of humanity during an apocalypse, perhaps overly so. But hey, it’s Hollywood.
Helping others is another key theme. Characters risk lives to save strangers. This shows compassion and empathy. Even in dark times, humanity can shine. Finally, the movie explores handling natural disasters. It looks at the aftermath of calamities. The human spirit shows resilience in unimaginable loss.
Let’s not forget the girl’s iconic line. When John Cusack tells his daughter there's no worry left, she replies, "I'm not worried... no more pull-ups." This line brings a light note to a movie about destruction. It’s strange, yet amusing, based on perspective.
Characters: Surviving and Thriving (or Not) in the Apocalypse
"2012" features a varied cast. Some characters navigate chaos better than others. Let's examine a few key players.
Jackson Curtis (John Cusack): The Writer Who Outruns the Apocalypse
Jackson Curtis, played by John Cusack, is our everyday hero. He is a writer and limo driver. Suddenly, he becomes a survival expert. Good news for Jackson fans? He survives the events of "2012." He stands as a poster boy for resilience. He dodges earthquakes, outruns volcanoes, and navigates megatsunamis while keeping his family intact.
Jackson also reconciles with Kate, his ex-wife. The apocalypse acts as a relationship counselor. Amidst chaos, Jackson and Kate rediscover love. Sometimes all it takes to reignite passion is civilization’s end.
Adrian Helmsley (Chiwetel Ejiofor): The Scientist with the Bad News
Adrian Helmsley, played by Chiwetel Ejiofor, is the operation’s brains. He is the scientist who predicted disaster. His journey starts in India. He meets Dr. Satnam Tsurutani there. Adrian travels to get updates on the solar flare mayhem. Dr. Tsurutani shows Adrian alarming video evidence of the Sun unleashing a massive solar flare.
Amidst dire warnings, Adrian finds romance too. He begins dating Laura, adding warmth to bleak events. Scientists are not immune to love, even during dire times.
Gordon (Tom McCarthy): The Unlucky Boyfriend
Gordon, played by Tom McCarthy, is Kate's boyfriend. Sadly, he's a prime example of why to avoid disaster movies. Spoiler alert: Gordon does not survive. In his chaotic scramble for survival, Gordon meets a gruesome end. He gets fatally crushed by Ark 4's closing gate. It’s a classic tragic disaster movie death.
In his final moments, Gordon tries to grab Jackson's hand. He reaches for salvation. Jackson attempts to reach back. Alas, Gordon loses his grip. He slides down into the gears of the gate and gets crushed. It’s a grim but effective way to thin characters and heighten stakes.
Yuri Karpov (Zlatko Burić): The Sacrificing Oligarch
Yuri Karpov, played by Zlatko Burić, is another casualty of 2012’s disaster. Billionaires aren’t safe from destruction. Still, Yuri performs a heroic act before his end. He sacrifices himself for his twin sons, Alec and Oleg. This moment highlights paternal selflessness amid chaos.
Tamara Jikan (Beatrice Rosen): The Ex-Girlfriend with Bad Luck
Tamara Jikan, played by Beatrice Rosen, is Yuri's ex-girlfriend and his pilot's lover. Sadly, she becomes another casualty. Her fate reminds us the apocalypse strikes all, sparing neither former lovers nor billionaire’s partners.
Tony Delgatto (George Segal): The Father Who Never Made It to Japan
Tony Delgatto, played by George Segal, is another character lost to the apocalypse. His son Wil moved to Japan and started a family. Sadly, Tony cannot join them. His story adds to the global tragedy, impacting even characters we barely meet.
Scientific Accuracy: So Bad It's Almost Good (Almost)
Let’s discuss the science in "2012." Or rather, the lack thereof. NASA, the real space agency, has weighed in. They claim “2012” is scientifically flawed and absurd. Ouch. That resembles a Razzie Award for bad science.
Nasa experts held a conference at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California. They did not hold back their criticism. They declared "2012" scientifically unrealistic. NASA even called out Roland Emmerich's film as absurd and flawed. It's safe to assume NASA won’t use "2012" for educational means.
Neutrino-Induced Core Heating: Pure Fantasy
The movie's central premise – neutrinos heating the Earth’s core – is scientifically false. Neutrinos are weakly interacting particles with little mass. They hardly interact except via weak forces and gravity. The notion that solar flares could unleash neutrinos heating the core is pure science fiction.
Tsunamis from "Tearing Earthquakes": Highly Unlikely
Even the earthquake-induced tsunamis raise doubts among seismologists. In Indonesia's actual “tearing earthquake,” a seismologist stated such an earthquake displaces little water and unlikely generates a tsunami. Indonesian authorities affirmed the uncertain tsunami risk too. While earthquakes can trigger tsunamis, those shown in "2012" are exaggerated for drama.
In short, "2012" is not a documentary; it’s a visual spectacle where science takes second place to thrilling visuals. If you seek plausible scientific depictions of the world ending, you chose the wrong film.
Reception and Reviews: Loved by Spectacle Seekers, Loathed by Critics
"2012" hit theaters with a bang. Critics, however, were unimpressed. Rotten Tomatoes reflects a mixed reception. Audiences enjoyed the visuals while critics pointed out flaws.
Why the Bad Reviews? Cheesy Dialogue and Emotional Vacuum
Critics frequently noted the "cheesy dialogue.” They felt it detracted from the film's impact.
Often clunky and predictable. Lacking subtlety, lines served cheesy deliveries, not gourmet. The "hero's" faced the end of the world but lacked real emotional impact. Audiences craved speeches that invoke goosebumps. The emotional depth felt shallow, focusing too much on spectacle over genuine connection.
Critics highlighted the film's lack of emotional depth. Characters seemed distant and underdeveloped. The disaster took center stage. Critics felt the film prioritized visual thrills over meaningful engagement. Audiences were impressed by visuals but felt disconnected from the characters' struggles.
Praise for the Special Effects: The Eye Candy Factor
"2012" excelled in special effects. Even harsh critics noted the stunning visuals. The effects received praise for scale and detail. Earthquakes, tsunamis, and eruptions impressed audiences. CGI showcased breathtaking destruction scenes.
However, this praise came with critiques about length and screenwriting. The film exceeded two and a half hours, leading some to view the runtime as excessive. Spectacle alone wasn't enough to redeem it for many critics. Still, for fans of visual spectacle, "2012" satisfied greatly.
Inspiration and Basis: Mayan Myths and Crustal Displacement Theories
Roland Emmerich drew inspiration for "2012" from cultural myths and pseudo-science.
Mayan Apocalypse Myth: The End of the Long Count
The Mayan apocalypse myth served as a key inspiration. Misinterpretation of the Mayan Long Count calendar suggested a world end by December 21, 2012. The calendar signified a cycle's end, but did not imply global annihilation. It represented a transition, not an end.
Despite no Mayan prophesy of doom, the 2012 phenomenon gained traction. Roland Emmerich leveraged this popular belief as a cultural touchstone for his film. In this light, the movie reflects the cultural conversation around 2012.
Fingerprints of the Gods: Ancient Civilizations and Cataclysm
Another source is Graham Hancock's "Fingerprints of the Gods." The book investigates ancient civilizations and global disasters. Hancock's theories, though not mainstream, resonated with Emmerich's love for grand disaster themes. Emmerich acknowledged Hancock's influence, citing an interest in past cataclysms.
Charles Hapgood's Earth Crustal Displacement Theory: Shifting Continents
"2012" also draws on Charles Hapgood's earth crustal displacement theory. Hapgood proposed that the Earth's crust might shift dramatically. Though not endorsed by mainstream geology, this theory provided a backdrop for the movie's portrayal of disasters. "2012" amplifies Hapgood's ideas and escalates them to extreme levels of catastrophe.
Experts, including UCLA professors, have debunked both the Mayan apocalypse myth and exaggerated interpretations of crustal displacement. While "2012" borrows from these ideas, it takes creative liberties with mythology and science.
Historical Context: The 2012 Phenomenon and Real-World Disasters
The year 2012 wasn’t merely a movie title. It represented a cultural moment. The "2012 phenomenon" encompassed widespread fears about catastrophic events linked to misinterpretations of the Mayan calendar.
The 2012 Phenomenon: A Year of Doomsday Hype
Many believed the world would end in 2012 due to misunderstandings surrounding the Mayan calendar. The Long Count calendar ending on December 21 led many to assume it signified the apocalypse. Experts clarified it marked a cycle's end, not the world's end, much like milestones in our own calendars.
Despite debunking efforts, the doomsday predictions gripped public imagination. Books and documentaries thrived, while online speculation regarding planetary alignments surged. The film "2012" arrived during this frenzy, feeding preexisting fears and fascinations.
Mayan Calendar Misinterpretations: It's Just a Cycle, Folks
The Mayans did not predict an end in 2012. This idea stemmed from misinterpretations of monuments and calendar systems. While sophisticated, the Mayan Long Count calendar was misconstrued as apocalyptic rather than cyclical.
UCLA professors debunked rumors about 2012, clarifying the true nature of the Mayan calendar. They stressed that there was no prophecy of doom. Yet, the myth proved compelling, partly fueled by films like "2012."
2012: A "Bad Year" in Reality Too?
Interestingly, the actual year of 2012 experienced notable natural disasters. While not apocalyptic, these events led some to label it a "bad year."
Hurricane Sandy devastated parts of the East Coast of the US in 2012. A significant drought also affected US agriculture and water supply. Globally, extreme weather events like floods and heatwaves occurred, causing economic distress and loss of life.
Thus, 2012 became a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts. Although not ending in cataclysmic fashion, the year had enough real disasters to make doomsday predictions seem less far-fetched. Real-life events compounded the anxiety surrounding 2012.
Events and Aftermath: Apocalypse Now-ish
The apocalypse in "2012" unfolds rapidly with dire effects. Here are the key events and their aftermath.
Apocalypse: Sooner Than Expected
In the film, the apocalypse is triggered earlier than anticipated. The arks' construction plans fall apart when Earth's core destabilizes swiftly. This adds urgency and peril to the narrative. Only three or four arks are ready when disaster hits.
Worldwide Flooding: Tsunamis of Epic Proportions
The climax involves global flooding from gigantic waves. These megatsunamis reach heights up to 1500 meters. They engulf continents, destructively altering Earth's geography. These colossal waves disrupt global communication, collapsing electricity and transmission networks.
Survival Rate: Slim to None
The survival rate in the film is abysmal. Only a small fraction of humanity boards the arks. About 400,000 people escape from a global population nearing 7 billion. This results in a survival rate lower than 0.00006%. For every million, fewer than six survive.
Fate of the Arks: Some Finished, Some Not,One Damaged
The arks face a mixed fate. Six of nine planned arks are unfinished. The apocalypse quickens this process. Ark 03 suffers damage. An earthquake causes a roof collapse. This event compromises the ship's structure. Regardless, the arks survive the global disaster. They become humanity’s final hope. They remain battered but continue to float.
Other Relevant Information: Worth Watching? And What's the Point?
There are plot points and scientific inaccuracies to consider about "2012." Other bits of information are also notable.
The Little Girl's Line: Pull-Up Freedom
The film ends with the little girl's line about pull-ups. It offers levity after intense apocalyptic scenes. John Cusack's character assures his daughter that she has nothing to worry about. She replies, "I'm not worried... no more pull-ups." The movie fades to black. This ending is odd and jarring. It may be intentionally quirky. It makes you wonder if the real disaster was the pull-ups.
Message of the Movie: Family and Human Spirit
"2012" aims to convey a message amid its disaster movie tropes. The key theme is family. Family bonds matter. Sticking together in crisis is emphasized in the film. Resilience of the human spirit is a minor theme. Helping others is another aspect explored. The film also addresses the handling of natural disasters and their aftermaths. In the end, "2012" is a disaster film with a heart—a cheesy, Hollywood heart.
Is "2012" Worth Watching? Brain-Melting Spectacle
The question remains: is "2012" worth the watch? It depends on your desires. For scientific accuracy or deep character arcs, avoid it. However, if you seek a spectacle of global destruction, "2012" delivers. It excels in that department.
As one enthusiastic reviewer wrote, "2012" packs all the best parts from disaster films into one incredible story. It is a cinematic buffet of disasters: earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, and shifts of land, all in CGI. One reviewer says, "Do yourself a favor and watch '2012.' Feel your brain’s circuitry melt into a ball of wreckage." This depicts the "2012" experience well.
"2012" prioritizes spectacle over substance. Its visuals and destruction rank high. The score is decent, with thrilling moments. Many aspects could improve—dialogue, plot coherence, and scientific accuracy. If you enjoy "end of the world" movies and crave visual chaos, "2012" is essential viewing. Just don’t expect lessons on neutrinos or Mayan prophecies.
For more perspectives, Rotten Tomatoes has reviews. For an academic look, IvyPanda's essay offers a detailed analysis. For NASA's view on accuracy, NME's article provides insight. So grab popcorn, suspend disbelief, and prepare for Hollywood's end of the world.
Responses (0 )