In addition, the special effects scenes also lack changes in rhythm and form. First the car, then the sky. While the dangers faced were not much different, the main ones being buildings that kept collapsing. But after all, it gives you a different means of transportation. But I never thought that the story would enter the next scene. The protagonist faced the need to find the location of the ark as soon as possible, and actually replayed the "flying car to catch a plane"! You can endure the whole film using the "last minute save for danger" mode. You can't serve it twice without changing the soup! In contrast, "Jurassic Park", which is also a special effects blockbuster, has done a good job. After the Doctor led his siblings through the terrifying pursuit of a Tyrannosaurus Rex and a crash in the air, Spielberg added a soothing episode of the three of them taking a nap on a towering tree at the right time, which made the rhythm change. When the climax of the ending needs to be completed in one go, the director has fully noticed the new form. Dinosaurs took a back seat after creating enough horror, and in their place, what continued to pose a threat to the three became a high-voltage power grid that could restore power at any time! And even in Si's novel "War of the Worlds", there is a star's rhythm contrast between the indiscriminate bombardment of the town by the three-legged robot monster and the mechanical tentacles extending into the small wooden house to snoop around. .
Of course, the monotony and cliché of the form are limited to a specific subject matter. For example, the doomsday catastrophe is very intense and urgent and cannot be breathed. But that doesn't mean there are no other means to make up for it. such as character characterization. Divorced couple, down and out father. The disaster suddenly descended, and the man became angry. The new love is abandoned, and the broken mirror is reunited. This is a role-relationship model that, with minor tweaks or deletions, is applicable to many types of films (comedy "Santa Bean", action film "Hurricane Rescue", disaster film "War of the Worlds"). As far as this film is concerned, since the director let the ex-wife's old love and new love come together during the escape, why not make more fuss about the personality confrontation? If the character of the new lover's character can become richer (preferably selfish and jealous) and not just as a driver, then the conflicting focus of the second act will change from the simple escape from the speeding car to the human nature in the catastrophe conflict! Too bad the director didn't do that. Maybe he thought there were a lot of special effects shots to support the scene, why bother. Or perhaps it is the belief that ordinary American people in the disaster are all living Lei Feng. Those with character flaws should go to the White House. For example, the acting commander-in-chief of the American Ark.
To be honest, this "negative character" didn't make much of an impression either. Except his position deserves a special discussion. When answering why the world can't have the right to know the end of the world is coming, this old man seemed quite righteous, "Strictly keeping secrets is to allow mankind to continue in a peerless catastrophe"... It should be said that in essence, this is common in Hollywood movies" Sacrifice the part to protect the whole "a continuation of the government's thinking. But in the specific context of the film, it's a little weird. Because whether the passenger car carrying the virus is allowed to fall off the bridge, or the missile destroys the passenger plane hijacked by terrorists, it is indeed in line with the corresponding relationship between the part and the whole: if these people do not die, many more people will die! But this time, 6 billion people died, but only hundreds of thousands survived. What was sacrificed was the whole and the part was saved! Does your traditional national security strategy still apply? Taking a step back, even if it is reluctantly acceptable, there is still a little doubt: why is the head of state on the ark? If there are only tens of thousands of human beings left on Earth, the last type of people you need are politicians. Especially the older ones, because they can't even fulfill their duties of producing offspring. Therefore, the choice between the American president and the Italian prime minister in the film is not only a worthy one, but an obligation. You must die with your electorate!
In the first half, there is a small but interesting detail. The hero accidentally learns a shocking secret, and urgently rents a light plane to fly back to New York. Immediately afterwards, the family rushed to the car and finally arrived at the airport safely, only to find that the driver had died in the rubble! Seeing this, I can't help but laugh. Because when the speeding car in front of him was escaping, he was pondering, and with the shattering of the sky, which pilot would be foolishly waiting for his employer? It must have been bullshit! So I would like to see how the director rounds it. But I didn't expect it, it's really cruel... Although I understand that this arrangement is to allow the ex-wife's current husband to have more drama, but when I think of others coming all the way unhurt, this old man is staying by the plane. Being beaten to death still feels a little injustice!
The film enters the ark stage, and the level begins to plummet. The most shocking thing is that the hatch cannot be closed, and the flood water is only as deep as Qixiang! Co-authoring the 10,000-foot flood peak that swept across the roof of the world is not as terrible as an ordinary prison flood in "Broken Arrow"! Why is there such a big gap? The reason is that the first half is showing destruction, and it is enough to rely on the accumulation of computer effects. What is shown here is salvation, which must involve living people. Can instruct people, obviously not the director's forte. "Breath-hold diving and swimming in the bucket valve" is naturally a last-minute mode of turning bad luck into good luck. This is a must-have for almost all flood movies. The most recent appearance was in the British disaster film "Water Roaring and Fog City". Although the British are not experts at how to make disaster films, they still know that someone has to pay the price of their lives to be strong enough. In 2012, even this kind of love is too lazy to stir up. The protagonist and his close relatives have won the gold medal of avoidance, so the finale of saving all mankind (or the Americans) ended hastily in an anti-climax happyending.
The last thing I want to say is that 2012 is really a bit like the founding ceremony. One is about the birth of new China, the other is about the beginning of a new era of mankind; one is about when major big-name stars will appear in the film and which historical figures they will play, and the other is about the performance of the world in this film. Which countries are mentioned in the Doomsday movies. Of course, the protagonists must be American, no discussion. And the building of the ark must be Chinese. Russian transport planes came in handy as they crossed the Pacific, and the Indians gave the most critical warning. What about Europeans and Japanese?
View more about 2012 reviews
