Chennai (Dec. 1, 2009): Amid the roaring chaos of the tamilian crowd, I finally managed to get two tickets for the much-anticipated and much-hyped “2012”. Great expectations obnubilated the reviews I got from my friends. Some said it is not a good movie, you will be disappointed. Despite receiving such “encouraging” feedbacks, I finally got my mind straightened up and convinced myself of only focussing on the stagerring “special effects”. However, what appears to be calm on the surface, later figures out to be a storm raging inside. So, in conclusion, I was looking for a convincing storyline apart from just mere CGI.

I will be honest here. I was frustrated. The storyline was a gimmick. The whole movie seemed to revolve and wobble around “John Cusack”, who was, for reasons unknown, seemed to be nominated by God (I mean, Mr. Roland Emmerich) to rescue his people and ultimately and unknowingly went onto play a significant role towards the end.Everytime, John Cusack got stuck in a messy situation out of which he miraculously escaped. Just unbelievable! Once or twice it is credible, but each and everytime it happens, the whole credibility of the storyline goes down the drain. It was as if I was watching a B-grade Bollywood flick.

The black geologist was  another shocker. He continually referred to the book authored by “John Cusack” which seemed just out of place to me. It was as if, the director wanted to convince us through another character, of the “messiah’ role that he (John Cusack) is going to play by apparently removing the stuck tube from the jaws of the gears controlling the gate of the spaceship (or was it?). The real funny character was that of the Russian magnate, who had a hilarious voice and sometimes I could not catch up what he really articulated. His tragic death was really a comedy of errors.

The characters could not evoke a single emotional reaction from me. I was happy watching some of them die a tragic death and wanted more of them to be engulfed by the fiery chasm and impending storm unleashed by Mother earth. All of that just remained my wishful thinking.

Coming to the special effects. I was mesmerized and enthralled by the graphics. Yes, 2012 has to be watched on a big screen to feel the thrill of falling buildings, shaking earth, uprooted infrastructure, fuming volcanoes, raging storms and gigantic waves. It was just fun to watch the pilot meandering his plane through the disaster-struck Los Angeles, the earth trembling and soaking up the inhabitants, the volcano erupting in a cataclysmic explosion and the debris descending upon bare earth. All of that offered a picturesque amusement and sensational entertainment.

But, the special effects were just for sensationalizing the movie plot. How can you explain the 1,500 meters of ocean waves devouring the Himalayas when it is a fact that Himalayas are 6,000 meters above sea level? Why did USA decide to build ships in China (or Tibet)? How can the earth react so violently and so suddenly? (seems to be a repeated formula for getting that ‘awe’ from the audience). And after all what were those vehicles ,meant to be functioning like Noah’s arks? Were they spaceships or just ships? These questions would,for eternity, cloud my mind.

So, if you are going to watch the next film directed and written by Roland Emmerich, only concentrate on the special effects, for if you want something more, you will find it hollow.

Advertisements