Metascore
49

Mixed or average reviews - based on 34 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 14 out of 34
  2. Negative: 6 out of 34
Watch On
  1. Reviewed by: Bob Mondello
    45
    Say this for Roland Emmerich's latest movie: It IS a disaster.
  2. 50
    The last 40 minutes test your patience -- and intelligence -- in a way the rest of this big, dumb, crazy movie never does:
  3. Reviewed by: Claudia Puig
    50
    The movie is an undeniable visual spectacle, but just as unequivocally a cheesy, ridiculous story.
  4. Reviewed by: Ty Burr
    50
    The result is a state-of-the-art multiplex three-ring circus whose special effects stagger the senses and play like a video game, whose human drama aims for the cosmic and lands waist-deep in the Big Silly.
  5. Doomsday views are a knockout, but the script is a real disaster.
  6. 50
    If characters with more than one dimension, a plausible story and some sort of viewpoint are moviegoing musts, you may leave 2012 feeling a tad shortchanged.
  7. The set pieces are grand—gloriously dumb and never realistic enough to make you wince at the fact that billions of microscopic souls are dying before your eyes. Rather, you wince at everything else.
  8. 40
    Where else are you going to get a chance to see the aircraft carrier USS John F. Kennedy drift down the side of a mile-high tsunami and take out the White House? Big. Dumb. Fun.
  9. 50
    Although 2012 is what they call "critic-proof," it's not immune to analysis. It depicts a world where no one, man or God, has much say in what happens to the planet, and where the survival of one family outweighs the deaths of billions.
  10. 50
    2012 is totally, certifiably nuts, without being quite as off-the-wall kitschy as Emmerich's last special-effects extravabanzoo, "10,000 BC."
  11. Reviewed by: Chuck Wilson
    50
    The two-hour-and-40-minute 2012 is overstuffed with special-effects, but the Curtis clan's mad dash out of town is the closest the movie gets to actually being fun.
  12. As far as the new disaster film 2012 is concerned, the world will end with both a bang and a whimper, the bang of undeniably impressive special effects and the whimper of inept writing and characterization. You pays your money, you takes your chances.
  13. Despite the frenetic action scenes, the movie sags, done in by multiple story lines that undercut one another and by the heaviness of its conceit.
  14. It occurred to me that Emmerich and Co. might be playing this whole thing for laughs. It probably occurred to them, too.
User Score
5.5

Mixed or average reviews- based on 578 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 82 out of 233
  1. Sep 27, 2011
    5
    This review contains spoilers, click full review link to view. "2012" is a disastrous movie that you wouldn't want happening to you. Think about it; Decent CGI buildings following down with cliched people running around with limousines and hiding inside **** arks. Hell, I don't want that happening.... Full Review »
  2. Aug 30, 2011
    3
    Way too long and actually uninteresting. Predictable and terribly scripted, too with way too little self-aware comedy. No emotion and only oneWay too long and actually uninteresting. Predictable and terribly scripted, too with way too little self-aware comedy. No emotion and only one bright spot being Woody Harrelson Full Review »
  3. Nov 22, 2010
    3
    The film was nothing more than another Hollywood publicity stunt driven by special effects. And the effects weren't spectacular anyway. TheThe film was nothing more than another Hollywood publicity stunt driven by special effects. And the effects weren't spectacular anyway. The effects looked cheap, rushed, and was the only thing that was keeping this movie alive. The major downfall of this movie is that it was made to begin with. Not even great actors like Danny Glover could save this movie. Spending the entire time in a russian plane trying to escape disaster? Get real. Full Review »