Image provided by: Clackamas Community College; Oregon City, OR
About The Clackamas print. (Oregon City, Oregon) 1989-2019 | View Entire Issue (Nov. 18, 2009)
Wednesday, Nov. 18, 2009 the clackamas print 5 IDAL WAVE OF DOOM ARCS ‘H umanity ’ s ONLY HOPE H imalayas & C hina de luges theaters Matthew Ostergren ts & Culture Editor lanity was apparently I of impending doom [ds of years ago by the ■culture, or at least that ■ Hollywood would have ■eve. “2012” is a special [bonanza about a nearly- [nding catastrophe. Of [as all Hollywood movies, Beople manage to evade [arently inevitable. Such [nature of entertainment, leople don’t want to watch lie where everyone dies lend. “2012” had its high land low points, but over link it is worth watching, Illy if you enjoy seamless spectacularly awesome, I know a two engine airplane is not going to be able to take off when the earth beneath it drops off into a huge chasm suddenly, espe cially when it is piloted by a fellow who says he has only flown a couple of times before. The downdraft from the ground falling away will pull the plane with it, but apparently in the universe where this movie took place, the laws of physics are totally different, especially when it comes to particle physics and fluid dynamics. I, for some reason, don’t believe Jackson Curtis can outrun cracks forming in the earth while driving a limo or the explosion of the Yellowstone Caldera while driving an R.V. Also; "the characters them selves just don’t feel very compelling. Sure, they are a fam ily trying to escape disaster, and there is something meaningful in that, but the script is weak and “RAWRÜ!” ■effects. [ story is that come [er 21, 2012, geological ■around the world will I human civilization and ■st of the continents. A ■c explanation is given as [on the disaster is taking lit seems a little dubious, ■ever. Some scientists see [oming and convince the world governments to pre- [project is begun to create Bps called “arcs” that will ■the destruction and sup- Hnan and animal life until [bitable land can be found, [ecent overall story arc. In ■ion, the best parts of the Ind the best acting went [s element of the movie, ■isn’t the main story, [rtunately, the main story Is Jackson Curtis (John K, a man who finds out |s happening just before [ia falls into the Pacific I which was a gorgeous [I effects sequence by the |nd then desperately tries [ his family. The family ■many narrow escapes on [th to the arcs, which are ■Himalayan Mountains in F China, and that simply [my implausibility meter. [re is a certain level of [ility that movies must [r me to stay focused on [nts within. If movies do [e enough plausibility at I parts, I get pulled out of [•grossed and feel a sense [ppointment. [ though it looked the actors just didn’t give me the sense that they were truly in the situation they were supposedly in. The events that happened onscreen in these sequences just didn’t have much emotional resonance. I don’t know if it was their lack of panic or sadness or both that really ruined that part of the movie for me, but it left me bored. I frequently found myself wishing that they would show the events happening to the side characters, or what All illustrations by Matthew Ostergren and Kayla Berge Clackamas Print the disaster looked like from different points of view. The main story had too much cheese for me to digest. I think the side characters stole the show. I was much more interested in the geophysicist Adrian Helmsley (Chiwetel Ejiofor), who helped discover the impending disaster, his father who worked on a luxury liner or the Tibetan monk who was told about what was going to happen by his brother that worked on the arc and what happened to these characters as they struggled to survive than I was in the limo driver and his kids. The script was stronger in these parts, and I felt more sympathetic towards these people. There was some thing compelling in the idealism of Helmsley and his struggle with the unfairness of real life. I felt more connected to the strug gles of these minor characters. Did I mention how beautiful the special effects were? ... Not enough. The arcs were gorgeous. The eruption of the Yellowstone Caldera looked spectacular. I had a deep sense of satisfaction watching two skyscrapers col lapse into one another. And on top of that, the camera stayed on the action long enough to really get a sense of what was happening. The camera shots were also quite strong. The director, Roland Emmerich, has a good sense of how to place the camera to show the audience the action. The visuals were definitely the best part of the entire movie. The sounds effects were adequate, and while not ground breaking, the music was fitting most of the time. I generally didn’t take notice of it, which was both a good and a bad thing. It didn’t interfere with my atten tion, but it also didn’t stand out to me as particularly good. Overall, I would recommend “2012.” It isn’t the best movie I have seen lately, but as far as disaster movies, it ranks pretty highly. I think seeing it on the big screen is preferable to just watching it at home. At the the ater, you can really see the $200 million or so that was spent mak ing the movie, and I don’t know how well that will translate to watching at home.
