The end of the world

I recently watched 2012. I heard from practically everyone else who watched it that's it's awesome. Best disaster movie ever, they said. So why is it that I left the cinema feeling shortchanged? LOL

(Spoiler alert! Stop reading if you don't want to know details of the movie)

Actually, I do have one other friend who watched it and didn't like it that much either. I wouldn't say it's a bad film though, I'd still recommend people to watch it. The effects are obviously fantastic and the action is pretty edge-of-your-seat for most of the film. And any apocalyptic disaster movie will always invoke feelings of courage and triumph.

But there are too many components in the film that I took away from my enjoyment of the film. First, there was just too much "impossibility". As with most movies, suspension of disbelief is required. But in 2012, I found myself thinking that the lead characters had way too many lives. A stretch limo maintaining top speed even as it drives over one massive crack on the road after another, a beginner pilot successfully able to navigate two planes through the most difficult of conditions, an ark filling up with water successfully able to escape certain destruction, the lead character being under water for a long time after hitting his head and still making it out alive. I dunno, it just felt too over the top for me.

Then, it was too convenient. Here you had John Cusack and Amanda Peet being a divorced couple, with Amanda in what was portrayed to be a very good relationship with her new guy, Thomas McCarthy. Even her son thinks the world of her new partner. Naturally, John being the lead character in the film has to end up with Amanda. But with Thomas being a good guy, it would be awful for Amanda and John to end up together. So obviously the film kills off Thomas's character and naturally the two lead characters pair up again in the end. Of course, everyone else who died were people who were not as important, or people who were painted as evil. How amazingly lucky that every lead character goes through the toughest of circumstances and makes it alive. Too convenient!

And finally, the choices made in the film. You had an ark filled with thousands of people who were surely safe. You had thousands of people stranded outside the ark who would surely die (their ark was damaged and couldn't be used). Then they had 15 minutes left before a massive tsunami would hit them. Of course, they call it cruel to leave all those stranded people to their certain death. So with 15 minutes left, they open the doors to save the stranded people, and with some twist, the ark doors won't close and so the tsumami floods the ark. They manage to save the ark in the end, with seconds left before total destruction, so obviously it can be argued that the decision they made was correct. But in real life, if I was in a position of authority in that ark, with 15 minutes left before the tsunami would hit, I probably wouldn't open the doors anymore. If I wanted to open the doors, I would do it 1 hour, or even half an hour, before. They knew early on that one ark was broken, they should've decided then to split the people across different arks. Oh wait, it wouldn't be as exciting in the movie if they did that.

So yeah, great effects, lots of excitement, but not my favorite disaster film. But compared to other films I've seen this year, I'd pick a lot of other ones over this.