2012-An Emotionless Epic Disaster Movie

When it first appeared as a trailer in cinema, me and my wife were full of praise for 2012. The teaser was so beautifully crafted and got ou...

When it first appeared as a trailer in cinema, me and my wife were full of praise for 2012. The teaser was so beautifully crafted and got our attention. My wife and I agreed that we NEED to watch the movie. When the "disastrous" moment came, wife and I happily went to GSC to catch the movie. The whole movie span around 2 hours 40 minutes. A tad long huh, but I guess Earth is one really big planet so it is more time consuming. :D It was a little draggy towards the end but all in all 2012 was a good movie but not the best in its league! 2012 is just not good enough IMHO.

Was this movie a warning?

For the uninitiated, the movie 2012 is actually based on the "2012 phenomenon". The 2012 phenomenon is about a prediction that catastrophe will befall on us around the 21st of December 2012. The date 21-12-2012 is said to be the end-date of the 5,125 year-long Mayan Long Count Calender. In this movie, our Mr. Sunny (aka sun) is causing earth's core temperature to increase exponentially. The increase in temperature leads to the displacement of earth's tectonic plates that results in a chain of unstoppable natural disasters.

Is this the 5 thousand-years Mayan calender?

Like the title suggests, 2012 is an epic disaster movie but it was lacking in the emotion department. Both wifey and me thought that 2012 was deprived of the much needed personal touch. No one can deny that 2012 is the best disaster movie in term of the disaster proportion of course. The CGI used in 2012 is simply awesome. All the natural eruptions, the crumbling of sky scrappers and the tsunamis are simply a joy to watch.

Cusack was just not good enough.

As mentioned earlier, 2012 is a relatively emotionless epic movie. Although the scale of disaster is the largest I have seen so far, the movie has neglected its main characters. The whole movie put way too much emphasize on the disasters. Nothing much revolves around the actors. Honestly I the plot could have been better. The whole movie was really entertaining but no proper character building was allowed to happen.

The better man-Chiwetel Ejiofor

2012 falls behind the likes of Armageddon and The Day After tomorrow. Unlike both the earlier movies, 2012's lead casts were just not good enough. Perhaps the scripts and plots weren't helping either. We are not given the opportunity to know the characters better. Moreover I thought John Cusack was just not cut out to lead the movie. His acting was not convincing enough and his co-stars weren't helping the cause either. However the-man-of-the-movie in 2012 is gotta Chiwetel Ejiofor who played the scientific advisor to the president. I thought he was really outstanding, perhaps even better than Cusack.

Bruce Willis was simply awesome in Armageddon!

Dennis Quaid the climate daddy!

Unlike Cusack, Bruce Willis was simply in his element in Armageddon. I admit that the movie made me teary eyed. Likewise Dennis Quaid was also flawless in living up to his character. His acting was able to instill the kind of urgency that made the film so successful! In a nutshell, 2012 failed to deliver because its lead casts and plot literally flopped.

They are not that convincing either.

So should you watch it? Definitely yes. Why not? At least you'll not be disappointed with the CGI right? Plus the chain reaction of natural disasters are simply mesmerizing. :p I'll give 2012 3 possible stars out of 5. :D

~First Commenter~