User Score
5.5

Mixed or average reviews- based on 578 Ratings

User score distribution:
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. JayD
    Mar 5, 2010
    2
    I just wasted 2 and a half hours on this rancid film. How Roland Emmerich keeps making bad blockbusters with seemingly no accountability for them is a mystery to me. The main characters are painfully bland. There is no chemistry between any of the actors. Absolutely no character in the movie was developed. All you get is eye candy(CGI) and scenes that will make any physic professor reel I just wasted 2 and a half hours on this rancid film. How Roland Emmerich keeps making bad blockbusters with seemingly no accountability for them is a mystery to me. The main characters are painfully bland. There is no chemistry between any of the actors. Absolutely no character in the movie was developed. All you get is eye candy(CGI) and scenes that will make any physic professor reel in horror. Expand
  2. MitchM
    Jan 3, 2010
    0
    The fact that this movie made it to the big screen proves without a doubt that the human race is in fact doomed. It is truely depressing to see that so many of my intellectually challenged countrymen enjoyed this. All copies of this movie should be destroyed and everyone who had a part in creation of this visual filth should be banished to an island to prevent them from making another The fact that this movie made it to the big screen proves without a doubt that the human race is in fact doomed. It is truely depressing to see that so many of my intellectually challenged countrymen enjoyed this. All copies of this movie should be destroyed and everyone who had a part in creation of this visual filth should be banished to an island to prevent them from making another movie as terrible as this. Expand
  3. RobertH
    Mar 12, 2010
    1
    Before seeing this movie, I already knew what to expect, a few death defying moments, some "wow, this is impossible" survival tactics, and stuff getting messed up, when I actually saw the movie, it left me with a "been there, done that" type of feeling. The entire family aspect of the movie was garbage. Everytime they showed that family on the screen made me want to turn it off. It seemed Before seeing this movie, I already knew what to expect, a few death defying moments, some "wow, this is impossible" survival tactics, and stuff getting messed up, when I actually saw the movie, it left me with a "been there, done that" type of feeling. The entire family aspect of the movie was garbage. Everytime they showed that family on the screen made me want to turn it off. It seemed like everything went exactly perfect for them. Every thing feel exactly into place, and they are surviving all of these outragous scenes while the other billions of people in the world are dying. Really? That's bull. The entire movie wasn't horrible, a lot of the speeches between family members (ie. Father-son, father-daughter, grandfather-granddaughter) scenes were extremely good, aside from the main family of course. It just seemed too happy ever after for me. All of the people in the movie that most people would want to kill of end up dying while the main family stays perfectly fine. A load of steaming "our family can survive anything" dog crap. Take the main family our of it and its a really great film, but seeing how it was geared towards them, really blows. Expand
  4. ShelbyS
    Mar 16, 2010
    0
    This movie was a hideous mess and particularly painful because of its length. What went wrong with this movie? Everything.
  5. MrL
    Jun 10, 2010
    0
    Oh my god so horrible boring, action with this horrible patriotic we will save everyone feeling, sorry but fire loud and boomboom with expensive special effects is not exiting in this setting. today not acceptable anymore.
  6. PriyaR
    Dec 9, 2009
    1
    Released a bit late in certain cities in India. But save your money and time at least on this one. I am sure this question must have been answered 1000 times. But why is the American family always portrayed to be dysfunctional? And the kids, why do they pass judgment about everyone? It becomes too predictable. There is nothing left for your imagination and the excitement..YAWN.
  7. EliasC.
    Mar 16, 2010
    0
    You can count on a Roland Emmerich disaster film to be a disaster. In the tradition of his '10,000 BC' and 'Godzilla', '2012' stands as another badly acted, incoherent, poor science, awful CGI, and overlong film. Undoubtedly it made a lot of money in its initial release because that is what Emmerich does best and will continue to do. I really tried to like You can count on a Roland Emmerich disaster film to be a disaster. In the tradition of his '10,000 BC' and 'Godzilla', '2012' stands as another badly acted, incoherent, poor science, awful CGI, and overlong film. Undoubtedly it made a lot of money in its initial release because that is what Emmerich does best and will continue to do. I really tried to like this film. I did not expect 'Citizen Kane'. But this film is awful in it's impossible misuse of every science in the known universe. If you must watch this film, do it as I did: Consider it a comedy. You will laugh yourself silly. I will spoil it for you right from the start: Ask yourself how John Cusak can drive with 2 young kids in a limo from southern California to Yellowstone National Park, back to southern California, and then back again to Yellowstone National Park in 2 days. Destined to be a midnight cult classic of bad filmmaking. Expand
  8. Nov 7, 2011
    3
    This movie is brain damage on a projector screen. The special effects were clumsily misused so that rather than making something intense and interesting - it's boring and predictable. Cut the special effects from this movie and you are left with very little. But blaming the film makers is simple minded, it's the retarded adult movie goers who are to blame by watching and then letting theseThis movie is brain damage on a projector screen. The special effects were clumsily misused so that rather than making something intense and interesting - it's boring and predictable. Cut the special effects from this movie and you are left with very little. But blaming the film makers is simple minded, it's the retarded adult movie goers who are to blame by watching and then letting these film makers get away with this rubbish. We actual could have a better film industry with better movies if people had bigger minds and weren't so easily entertained by this laughable joke. LAME. Expand
  9. Jul 16, 2012
    3
    This movie is exactly what's wrong with most CGI-driven blockbusters. There is no character development, the acting and dialogue stink, there isn't a single original idea in the whole movie and it relied too much on bad science moments. Unimpressed to put it lightly.
  10. Nov 18, 2011
    3
    Although 2012 is very visually impressive, the film is very scientific incorrect and is very far fetched. The film many consists on SFX and BS moments instead of a good story.
  11. Nov 23, 2011
    1
    A movie where you find yourself laughing where you shouldn't have been laughing. It's in the film that you find yourself laughing at parts that are unintentionally hilarious, due to sloppy writing and the usual special effects driven trash. There's almost nothing in this movie to review, it was just a 2 hour coma, occasionally interrupted by a couple of special effects sequences, all ofA movie where you find yourself laughing where you shouldn't have been laughing. It's in the film that you find yourself laughing at parts that are unintentionally hilarious, due to sloppy writing and the usual special effects driven trash. There's almost nothing in this movie to review, it was just a 2 hour coma, occasionally interrupted by a couple of special effects sequences, all of which are ridiculous in nature, and all of which look less and less impressive each time we are shown them. The characters are painfully bland and uninteresting, no depth to them whatsoever. Emerich's previous film in the disaster category; The Day After Tomorrow, should have been a clear indicator that the guy can't write inspired disaster films very well.There is far, far too much emphasis on special effects in this film. One thing that also intensely grated me was when I watched a trailer for this film, with the bold assertion on a title card "It could really happen". Sorry, Emerich, but when science and the Mayans themselves attach no special significance to 2012, don't try and think you can market your film as being scientifically supported and expect me to swallow the kind of **** you're selling. You did the same with The Day After Tomorrow, I didn't fall for it then, don't expect me to this time. Try making good films, Emerich, you might learn something. Expand
  12. Dec 12, 2011
    3
    (January 14, 2010)
    Are you ready for the year 2012? So many venues claim that come 2012 the world as we know it is going to come to an end, so why not make a generic, soul less, explosion happy film about it?
    When I first heard that a movie was being made based off the happenings of 2012, I had hope that it would be more than a cliche end of the world movie, and actually go in depth on the
    (January 14, 2010)
    Are you ready for the year 2012? So many venues claim that come 2012 the world as we know it is going to come to an end, so why not make a generic, soul less, explosion happy film about it?
    When I first heard that a movie was being made based off the happenings of 2012, I had hope that it would be more than a cliche end of the world movie, and actually go in depth on the behind the scenes topics of the year. Sadly clichÃ
    Expand
  13. Jun 27, 2012
    2
    Well, people justify a positive review by comparing this film with common movies made in Hollywood, and recently baked ones. Exactly, presently made in Hollywood. Except the universe is not Hollywood neither cinema was born today. If you still believe cinema was created a few years ago and you think the film industry gravitates Hollywood, well, you're wrong and you probably ate too muchWell, people justify a positive review by comparing this film with common movies made in Hollywood, and recently baked ones. Exactly, presently made in Hollywood. Except the universe is not Hollywood neither cinema was born today. If you still believe cinema was created a few years ago and you think the film industry gravitates Hollywood, well, you're wrong and you probably ate too much popcorn. You'll love this one if that's the case. Not in case, you'll only taste a synthetic audience statistics bombastic and orgasmic glutton of a C series packed with good actors. That's all, you'll be hungry few minutes after you've seen this rubbish, and when you get home you'll be pissed for wasting your money, believing in fairy promotional cultural religious tales. But as you said, it's Hollywood! Expand
  14. Dec 22, 2012
    3
    So, John Cusack, Oliver Platt and Zlatko Buric are total dabblers in acting and Roland Emmerich is completely untalented in terms of writing. But 2012 is no 0-points-movie. There are some nice actors in this box-office-success and when the German director is making whole LA drown, it is impressive. But this movie is just unfavorable. This so damn overlong film is fully packed withSo, John Cusack, Oliver Platt and Zlatko Buric are total dabblers in acting and Roland Emmerich is completely untalented in terms of writing. But 2012 is no 0-points-movie. There are some nice actors in this box-office-success and when the German director is making whole LA drown, it is impressive. But this movie is just unfavorable. This so damn overlong film is fully packed with buildings crumbling, waves overflooding great areas, earthquakes destroying whole cities and CGI everywhere. Too much of that, Mr. Emmerich! I have to grant him that he managed to put emotion in it with the family stuff surrounding John Cusack's role. This guy totally sucks at acting and his movie kids relegated him when they were playing together, but this one particular scene at the end of the movie touched me. But for all that it's not really hard to make such a scene emotional when you've got a nice soundtrack and a near-death-experience with a family as the story. So, is 2012 worth watching? Not really, because the FX aren't that good to make you enjoy the movie (I just overthought the movie and I get that you can never really enjoy a movie with such a plot!) and the dialogues are plain stupid. However, it's not that bad because of some nice actors and good editing, score and cinematography stuff. Expand
  15. KaileyD.
    Mar 26, 2010
    3
    This movie has way to much death. It's also really sad. I say there is to much death because the president , pope, and pretty much all of California dies.
  16. AngelinaM
    Mar 29, 2010
    1
    my rating is ONLY for the visual graphics as for the story line it just seems so ridiculous that the whole plot is a family running away from the world. It doesn't address any issues or cover any of its flaws like how everything miraculously appears before the protagonists e.g the jet being there just in time. Anyway I just wanted to say I will see you all in 2013, when someone my rating is ONLY for the visual graphics as for the story line it just seems so ridiculous that the whole plot is a family running away from the world. It doesn't address any issues or cover any of its flaws like how everything miraculously appears before the protagonists e.g the jet being there just in time. Anyway I just wanted to say I will see you all in 2013, when someone decides to make a real movie. Expand
  17. EliJ.
    Jun 13, 2010
    1
    I don't know why the main characters have to dodge death twenty times in the movie. Its a disaster movie so i'd expect one or two times where death is avoided only by a few feet...but wow it felt like every other scene in this movie. i'll give it a score of 1 because the special effects were pretty cool. the writing and acting were terrible though. why is there always some I don't know why the main characters have to dodge death twenty times in the movie. Its a disaster movie so i'd expect one or two times where death is avoided only by a few feet...but wow it felt like every other scene in this movie. i'll give it a score of 1 because the special effects were pretty cool. the writing and acting were terrible though. why is there always some snotty kid who calls his father by his real name? that right there, is the question. Expand
  18. SRowe
    Jun 15, 2010
    0
    Nearly as bad as "Speed 2". For example, the family just make it into a plane and just manage to take off, and just avoid falling buidlings / trees / mountains in the plane - 3 times. It was like de ja vu all over again.
  19. CaptainNemo
    Jun 18, 2010
    0
    Two... hundred... million dollars! FOR THIS?! After stopping it twice, I finally watched it through to the end simply through morbid curiosity, and now I'm genuinely infuriated at it! I'm going to the DVD store and asking the shy timid counter boy for my money back at full volume!!! Then I'm going to buy all the copies they have and BURN them in a fire out the front of the Two... hundred... million dollars! FOR THIS?! After stopping it twice, I finally watched it through to the end simply through morbid curiosity, and now I'm genuinely infuriated at it! I'm going to the DVD store and asking the shy timid counter boy for my money back at full volume!!! Then I'm going to buy all the copies they have and BURN them in a fire out the front of the shop so that the stupidity doesn't spread any further. Then I'm going to find out where the director, the writer AND the producers live and have them all savaged by starving komodo dragons until only their molars remain.... Every terrible cliche was there... the black president, the doombringer scientist, some idiot saying "By God.... That's impossible!", the lowly scientist being sent straight to meet the President, the useless divorced husband winning the wife and kids back.... I am now certifiably down to 50 IQ points with the rest of the people who watched this piffle. They should rename it "Daddy Runs From Armageddon" in reference to the six, count them, SIX times Cusack drives a car, a plane, a campervan or whatever.. out of the incoming firestorm/wave/pig stampede. It now tops my list as the worst movie I've ever seen. Expand
  20. LA
    Nov 16, 2009
    2
    If my review were based only in special effects, then the movie deserves 10/10. However all the good effects are lost in a lame and unrealistic plot; some humor is also injected in disastrous situations which is totally unnecessary. The main characters never suffer a scratch and they made it to the other part of the world, where everybody else...well...dies. Silly movie. Please skip this one.
  21. Sausage
    Nov 19, 2009
    3
    Continents displace, super volcanoes erupt, cities vanish, tidel waves swallow the Himalayas...every distaster you could possibly imagine is in this movie...except one that shouldn't be....THE SCRIPT!!!!!
  22. ZackA
    Nov 20, 2009
    2
    Just real bad.
  23. JoshM
    Nov 23, 2009
    3
    Although I enjoyed the great CGI and all the explosions and firey balls of doom, the script was just so cheesey it was unbearable. Any movie with the lines 'it's a suicide mission!' and 'we have to wait for dad!' (right before he pulls him self from the bottom of a crevasse) is just bound to be crap.
  24. O.Q.R.
    Nov 24, 2009
    1
    What a waste of time. Whoever worked in the dialogues and the story of this movie, please don't disappoint us again or please just change career. I give it one point because I had a good laugh at the joke of the Russian guy in the car.
  25. BillR
    Nov 30, 2009
    2
    Very poorly paced movie. This is not Independence Day, no matter how hard it tries to be. There is absolutely no sense of humor or humility in this film. Save your money and time, and wait for the actual apocalypse... it is sure to be more entertaining.
  26. chrisB.
    Dec 13, 2009
    2
    Are you kidding? 2 and a half hours.. 8 dollars... and 3 planes barely taking off as the runway collapses later... im still bored.. This reminded me more of a movie spoof than an original thriller. Special effects weren't bad but it lacked any sort of captivating story or believable scenarios.
  27. Mike
    Dec 23, 2009
    3
    I would of preferred a more serious/realistic movie. But what I got was a dumb action movie with nothing more then special effects.
  28. Virgina
    Dec 26, 2009
    1
    Just pure cheesy. Nothing is believable as the suspense is lost within 5 minutes into the movie.
  29. Jims
    Dec 28, 2009
    2
    Good effects, but the humanity speech by the geologist at the end was a predictable bunch of Hollywood do-do. The movie was trying to be a thriller about what could really happen, but instead, just layered cliche upon cliche. What a dud.
  30. 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 one bright spot being Woody Harrelson
  31. AurelianI.
    Dec 9, 2009
    0
    Awful movie with poor acting and story.
  32. Feb 7, 2012
    0
    The worst film i watched! I am not believe in stories about the end of the world and I think that director of this film is an idiot! Don't spend your time and your many on such stuped film!
  33. 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. 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 aThe 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. Expand
  34. JimD
    Apr 12, 2010
    1
    I give it a one because it has a great premise. That doesn't save it from being the STUPIDEST movie I've ever seen in my life.
  35. KyleR
    Apr 7, 2010
    3
    One of the worst Emmerich movies. Such a waste of money.
  36. RichardE
    Nov 20, 2009
    2
    The neighborhood theater
  37. BrianN.
    Jan 27, 2010
    0
    A painfully cheesy series of last minute escapes made by characters you wish would die early so you can get out of this 160 minute embarrassment.
  38. JacobK
    Mar 21, 2010
    2
    I did not like this movie very much. The effects were great, but besides that, there was really nothing else intriguing. Amanda Peet was of course great, as always, but the movie altogether was farfetched and often annoying (John Cusack crawling out of the pit that he surely would have died in).
  39. GayleR.
    Mar 28, 2010
    0
    Made me wish that the end of the world was going to happen during the movie. What a waste of time and money. I would have expected more from a movie calling itself 2012 - end of the Mayan Calendar, get it? Why not give us a good movie with that theme and drivers? This was just pure drivel.
  40. KyleL
    Mar 28, 2010
    0
    Not remotely entertaining. You'll be thinking "Oh, they just survived there, the world is coming to an end 2 INCHES BEHIND THEM!!!" over and over again. A dreaded 2.5 hours.
  41. MikeB
    Mar 29, 2010
    0
    Ooof. What a turd. The dialogue is diarrhea. It makes Independence Day look like Lawrence of Arabia. I kid you not, in the space of a few minutes (and while afloat), Air Force One is hurled at them, and they almost crash into Mount Everest. This movie is a total insult.
  42. StephenU.
    Nov 13, 2009
    1
    A movie that will make you weep for the entertainment standards of the average US citizen. Not surprising, but depressing.
  43. MichaelH
    Nov 13, 2009
    3
    It's expected for a movie like 2012 to press emotional buttons but the director ham-fistedly slammed against those buttons until you felt more used and manipulated than moved. Next scene would be a of unimaginable brutality as entire cities were wiped out, complete with adults and children screaming and grabbing for their lives. Despite the fantastic imagery the action scenes were It's expected for a movie like 2012 to press emotional buttons but the director ham-fistedly slammed against those buttons until you felt more used and manipulated than moved. Next scene would be a of unimaginable brutality as entire cities were wiped out, complete with adults and children screaming and grabbing for their lives. Despite the fantastic imagery the action scenes were typically lifeless with ancillary characters dying for what appears to have been laughs. I wanted to like this movie and was fully-prepared to suspend reality for the conspiracy theory stuff but the problem was that so many of the deaths were setup to be 'personal' right before the victim was snuffed. Overall a painful movie apathetic to the fact that they killed more people than every horror movie monster ever dreamed of. Expand
  44. JohnB
    Nov 13, 2009
    0
    Ugh ugh ugh ugh UGH. A movie that only cares about the visuals. and panders to the whiny angsty teenager who hates the human race because he can't get girls to talk to him. Forget having the cheesiest, stupidest plot in history and the dumbest melodrama. Can we try to have all those things without eye-rolling misanthropy?
  45. Seanismyname
    Nov 14, 2009
    2
    This tired "The Day After Tomorrow" clone has yet ANOTHER broken family patching things up as they "just barely" outrun the destruction of the earth's crust. They "just barely" outrun crumbling buildings, fissures, volcanoes, and tidal waves at least five times. All the convenient people die after serving their purpose predictably. John Cusack takes needless detours so that we can This tired "The Day After Tomorrow" clone has yet ANOTHER broken family patching things up as they "just barely" outrun the destruction of the earth's crust. They "just barely" outrun crumbling buildings, fissures, volcanoes, and tidal waves at least five times. All the convenient people die after serving their purpose predictably. John Cusack takes needless detours so that we can chuckle along with the eccentric Woody Harrelson. Queen Elizabeth saves her corgis. All I can say is, "Thank God for online streaming." 2 points for the CGI. Expand
  46. JohnS
    Nov 14, 2009
    0
    It might have been the unsatisfying ending, the Biblical reference Emmerich goes to no length to shroud, or the convenient series of coincidences that allow our protagonists to reach safety, but this movie just left me frustrated and angry at myself for wasting two and a half hours on one of the worst movies of this decade. With the exception of Cusack, Glover and, surprisingly, It might have been the unsatisfying ending, the Biblical reference Emmerich goes to no length to shroud, or the convenient series of coincidences that allow our protagonists to reach safety, but this movie just left me frustrated and angry at myself for wasting two and a half hours on one of the worst movies of this decade. With the exception of Cusack, Glover and, surprisingly, Harrelson, the acting is mediocre at best, and not even Cusack's sarcasm and air of intelligence could salvage this array of absurdities (one of the members of their party just happens to have taken a couple of flight lessons, and is subsequently able to steer a small plane between falling buildings). As Travers put it, this is Transformers 2's biggest competition for the worst movie of this year and possibly this decade. Expand
  47. Chris
    Nov 15, 2009
    2
    Wow. It's been a long time since i've paid good money to see a film THIS bad. I'm giving it a couple of points for effects, but they are literally the only thing remotely good about 2012. It's just so... so... dumb. And not dumb in a fun way, just dumb in a dumb way. If it wasn't so loud, I could have happily fallen asleep through it, which would have been a far Wow. It's been a long time since i've paid good money to see a film THIS bad. I'm giving it a couple of points for effects, but they are literally the only thing remotely good about 2012. It's just so... so... dumb. And not dumb in a fun way, just dumb in a dumb way. If it wasn't so loud, I could have happily fallen asleep through it, which would have been a far better use of my time. Ugh. It was so unbelievably bad it actually made me a little angry. Expand
  48. JH
    Nov 15, 2009
    0
    This was the most god awful big budget movie I've ever seen!! It made Independence Day look Oscar worthy.
  49. MiKE
    Nov 16, 2009
    0
    Even the special effects couldn't save this movie! Over the top non believable action sequences got boring really quickly, to the point where you knew that the main characters were going to survive. Taking the suspense completely out for me.
  50. ClintonM
    Nov 16, 2009
    1
    I'm not kidding - This is the worst movie I have ever seen. At least 1/3 of the audience walked out before it ended. I skipped the last 10 minutes or so because I couldn't bear it. I hope the world ends before seeing this again.
  51. jayb
    Nov 17, 2009
    0
    I am a sucker! I look forward to disaster films and the big special effects, but when I come out of the theatre I feel cheated and bored. This goes for all the big disaster films of the past decade, and I really thought this one would be different (despite the reviews---GOD! For once I should listen to the reviews and stay away!). I know it's hard to ask for an ounce of reality in I am a sucker! I look forward to disaster films and the big special effects, but when I come out of the theatre I feel cheated and bored. This goes for all the big disaster films of the past decade, and I really thought this one would be different (despite the reviews---GOD! For once I should listen to the reviews and stay away!). I know it's hard to ask for an ounce of reality in this type of blockbuster and to slice out a little of the cheese, but what was I thinking. It's always a dumbed-down idea in the script and I rolled my eyes throughout the film. Gimme back my money!!!! Expand
  52. JoshR
    Nov 18, 2009
    0
    I've never been so bored in all of my life. The acting was crap, the script was crap, the storyline was crap, even the cgi's which have been so hyped up, were nothing special. I really do believe this is the nastiest, tackiest hunk of junk I have ever been to see in my life.
  53. CarolynM
    Nov 20, 2009
    2
    This epic *had* to be over two hours long in order to cram in every imaginable cliche and every trite plot device. No twists here: whatever happen--you saw it coming from the beginning. The script is plodding and even good actors give underwhelming performances. Yes, the special effects are amazing, but nothing will be lost if you rent the DVD in 6 months.
  54. MikeP
    Nov 23, 2009
    3
    I have to say that I fell for the marketing campaign on this movie. All the trailers, billboards, ads, etc. Even worse I do this for a living and I let this happen!? Where did I go wrong? Well for one believing that the cast could pull this off. Unfortunately impossible. John Cusack and Danny Glover. Wow. Should have really saw that coming. And how about the action in the movie? Well I have to say that I fell for the marketing campaign on this movie. All the trailers, billboards, ads, etc. Even worse I do this for a living and I let this happen!? Where did I go wrong? Well for one believing that the cast could pull this off. Unfortunately impossible. John Cusack and Danny Glover. Wow. Should have really saw that coming. And how about the action in the movie? Well nothing you didn't see in the trailers except horribly repeated. OK OK. I know, the premise? Well I have to give in there. It might happen - we'll have to wait a few years to see, but I'll give them a few points for that. But all in all, a waste of $9 and 2 hours/50 minutes that I would like back please. Expand
  55. SteveG
    Nov 26, 2009
    1
    I didn't care that the movie would be implausible or lack a great screenplay. That's to be expected. What I didn't expect was how flat-out BORING the movie would be. When you have a boring action movie, it ceases to even be a movie anymore. It becomes an exorcise in tedium and frustration. I'd rather give myself a root canal than watch 2012 again. 1 point for Woody I didn't care that the movie would be implausible or lack a great screenplay. That's to be expected. What I didn't expect was how flat-out BORING the movie would be. When you have a boring action movie, it ceases to even be a movie anymore. It becomes an exorcise in tedium and frustration. I'd rather give myself a root canal than watch 2012 again. 1 point for Woody Harrelson, who did his best. Expand
  56. AidanL
    Nov 28, 2009
    2
    This movie was bad. Very bad. The script was bad, the acting was bad, and the camera work was bad. The only redeeming factor this movie has is the CGI, which is actually pretty good. I would not recommend this movie to anyone.
  57. JuliaH.
    Dec 13, 2009
    0
    Well, that was 2 and a half hours of my life that I'll never get back. I couldn't wait for it to be over and found myself wishing that the earth would actually split open and swallow up the theatre so that it would be. Special effects were ridiculously over the top and the storyline was beyond predictable and cheesy. I've seen better plotlines in beer commercials. Painful.
  58. JamesM
    Dec 4, 2009
    0
    This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen (worse than "I know who killed me"). There isn't a single redeeming thing in this entire piece of junk!
  59. KateM
    Dec 9, 2009
    1
    Just another movie about what America would look like in a disaster, with the occassional mention of what's happening in other countries, but, as usual, it all happens in the USA and the comic relief characters are those crazy foreigners, of course. It suffers from a problem that many films have, which is that it tries to be both a kids and an dults film at the same time. It has too Just another movie about what America would look like in a disaster, with the occassional mention of what's happening in other countries, but, as usual, it all happens in the USA and the comic relief characters are those crazy foreigners, of course. It suffers from a problem that many films have, which is that it tries to be both a kids and an dults film at the same time. It has too much swearing to be a disney movie and not enough gore to be plausible. Too many close calls, typical main characters (almost exactly like War of the Worlds) and is dragged out for far too long. The worst part is the whole humanity BS the geologist guy goes on about. The best part is the graphics. Collapse
  60. TomH
    Nov 14, 2009
    2
    Insulting, insipid script and hackneyed cliches ruin any chance the special effects might have had to redeem this waste of time. I wanted to like this, but the only part I liked was the dialogue at the end that was so corny it was unintentionally funny.
  61. ToddZ
    Nov 14, 2009
    0
    A dreadfully poor movie that made me feel embarrassed as a person with a brain. The catastrophe scenes were so huge and overwhelming that there was no context. The writing so poor that the acting was terrible. Melodrama at it's worst. Stay away.
  62. Shimmy
    Nov 16, 2009
    1
    Very pointless movie. Waste of money, time and effort. It's sad to see such good actors wasting their time on such a bad movie. Avoid at all cost.
  63. AlejandroC.
    Nov 17, 2009
    1
    Simply horrible...1 pt. for CGI which gets stale after the first few times you see what you already saw in the trailer...the script was actually insulting.
  64. LiorC
    Nov 24, 2009
    1
    First movie this year I wanted to leave the theatre in the middle of the movie. A formula movie done cliche after cliche. It seems as if a robot directed it. Good CGI, though.
  65. Simian
    Nov 29, 2009
    2
    Great special effects do not make a good movie. Just so predictable that it becomes boring. The "close calls", one after another - each more implausible than the last - make the movie laughable to watch. Just silly. It could have been a "Wow!" movie, but instead it was "Wow, that was boring and stupid." This was the worst movie I've seen this year.
  66. JohnL
    Dec 19, 2009
    1
    PAINFULLY HORRIBLE.... I havent seen a movie in the theaters for about 2 years before I saw this one and Im probably never going back.. There are so many things wrong with movie, I dont know where to start.. The sad thing is this could have been a great movie if they have put the right people on it.. Danny Glover as President?? Please.
  67. Jun 4, 2011
    3
    After all these disaster films that Emmerich has thrown at us, he closes with an unsurprisingly stupid encore that is 2012 and yes this is the last disaster film he's going to throw at us, thank god. Like all the previous disaster films he made, lets list the obvious stupid: Lots of plot holes, inconsideration with factual science, tacky acting and the ability to make you look stupid.After all these disaster films that Emmerich has thrown at us, he closes with an unsurprisingly stupid encore that is 2012 and yes this is the last disaster film he's going to throw at us, thank god. Like all the previous disaster films he made, lets list the obvious stupid: Lots of plot holes, inconsideration with factual science, tacky acting and the ability to make you look stupid. Since this film tackles the issue or at least try to of the survival of the human race, it is done so hypocritically and insensitively that you completely have no sympathy whatsoever. The main character is pretty much indestructible while the supporting characters are either death chowder or annoying plot devices and has completely no shame in thinking that the audiences are dumbasses. Upside; Effects look quite good. 'Nuff said. Expand
  68. Sep 28, 2010
    0
    Just when I thought that Transformers 2 was the epitome of ridiculous movies, Columbia Pictures once again distributes a ludicrous film with 2012. Films are at times meant to create an alternate world for the audience to experience, but in this case, it does not apply to situations that are purely coincidental to the point of inanity. Roland Emmerich's 2012, is a speculation of what willJust when I thought that Transformers 2 was the epitome of ridiculous movies, Columbia Pictures once again distributes a ludicrous film with 2012. Films are at times meant to create an alternate world for the audience to experience, but in this case, it does not apply to situations that are purely coincidental to the point of inanity. Roland Emmerich's 2012, is a speculation of what will occur on the infamous date of December 12, 2012. The film focuses on Jackson Curtis (John Cusack), a failed writer who has recently gone through a divorce and is attempting to reestablish his family relationships. Meanwhile, the government is trying to cover up the pending apocalyptic event in order to save a select few individuals by building indestructible ships. When the earth-ending event occurs, Jackson Curtis tries to save his family in unbelievable and idiotic ways to reach China, the location of the modern day "Noah's Arc".

    Up to this point, I have not qualified my complaints to this movie. In short and concise words, the whole movie is preposterous. For example, when Cusack is driving through the streets of Los Angeles, the whole city behind him is collapsing as he drives through it. Is it a coincidence that the earth shattering is occurring in the direction he is driving his limousine? Additionally, Cusack reaches a plane to escape to find out no one has the experience of piloting. His ex-wife's husband states that he has had two lessons and then he coincidentally drives the plane to almost near perfection. These are just some examples of 2012's ludicrous and laughable moments. They obviously speak for themselves and is the major flaw in the movie.

    While these laughable moments of the film are its most significant blemishes, the dread does not stop there. As the same company that distributed Transformers 2, it seems that the company possesses a certain low standards of acting. With Megan Fox-tier acting - if you deem that acting - executed by the majority of the cast, it is a wonder why Woody Harrelson would succumb to be in a cast of this many D-listers. John Cusack does the same exact character he seems to always do, and that obviously is not of quality. Even though the cast is not top notch, the dialogue is even shoddier than the acting itself. With endless cliches ("we're tearing apart" *ground splits*), and strange European accents, nothing about the characters in the movie was redeeming.

    2012 is another example of a modern day film with a hefty budget and lack of quality. To compliment the movie to some extent, the CGI was spectacular and is the superior aspect of the film. If extensive & mind-numbing entertainment is your type of movie, then by all means watch this film. But 2012's poor acting, plot, and dialogue were just too much for this movie-goer to the point of extreme revulsion.
    Expand
  69. Nov 2, 2010
    3
    After watching this movie I wanted to world to end. I was so mad about wasting my money on this instead of waiting for it to come to cable (probably in the year 2012 haha). Only a good movie if you want to see special effects and things crumbling down.
  70. Oct 2, 2010
    2
    I must confess to being a little confused by this doomsday themed movie. Whilst obviously a cleverly constructed and well shot sequel, it appears to have picked up almost none of the story threads, none of the characters, and certainly none of the actors, from the movie that started the franchise. It's a fast-paced narrative, set 11 years after the end of the first movie, and introduced toI must confess to being a little confused by this doomsday themed movie. Whilst obviously a cleverly constructed and well shot sequel, it appears to have picked up almost none of the story threads, none of the characters, and certainly none of the actors, from the movie that started the franchise. It's a fast-paced narrative, set 11 years after the end of the first movie, and introduced to a small group of new characters, led by the always reliable John Cusack, who confront a number of omens foretelling imminent cataclysmic events. As expected, they are soon struggling with a rapidly escalating series of natural disasters, always escaping with seconds to spare. In common with the first movie, there is a major plot-line involving contact with an alien race, but it is a completely new race of beings, at a very different stage of technological development, and with their own set of reasons for journeying to earth and assisting the human race. There is no doubting the craft and skill that has gone into the convincing creation of this chaotic world, and yet, I kept feeling shortchanged by the apparent abandonment of the storyline from the original movie. The glossing over of this discontinuity detracted from the spectacle, and I found myself wishing for more emotional substance to the story. Perhaps just a few scenes with the original movie's main characters David Bowman and Frank Poole would have provided this, not to mention some more time with the apes. On the plus side, it's filled with stunning scenes of destruction and mayhem, and who isn't excited by that kind of stuff? People scream and flee for their lives. Buildings crumple and crunch and snap. It's all very satisfying in the usual disaster movie way. There are frequent shots of cities and towns suddenly transforming into vistas of mass death and suffering, and who doesn't like to gorge on that kind of imagery? Clearly, it's a crowd-pleaser. Grab some popcorn, and go see it. Expand
  71. Oct 13, 2010
    2
    2012 is a pity. It could honestly be such a great movie, and at times it shows that potential. But marring with the amazing sight of a private plane barely soaring over a crumbling Las Vegas is the horribly shallow characters and the paper-thin plot line. The movie talks about a family and how they are able to magically survive disasters that kill billions of other people. Of course, the2012 is a pity. It could honestly be such a great movie, and at times it shows that potential. But marring with the amazing sight of a private plane barely soaring over a crumbling Las Vegas is the horribly shallow characters and the paper-thin plot line. The movie talks about a family and how they are able to magically survive disasters that kill billions of other people. Of course, the stepfather just received a pilot's license yet can navigate through narrow gaps between falling pieces of earth during a massive earthquake, why shouldn't he be able to? Even worse than the main characters were the secondary characters; you don't learn really anything about the Russian guy except that he has two kids and a wife. The worst part is near the end, when they throw away the stepfather and forget about him as if he never existed. If you want some amazing setpieces, this movie is for you. If you don't, then just forget about it. Expand
  72. Jan 16, 2011
    1
    woow i can not believe how stupid and dumb this movie is, and i can not believe that many people liked it and if anyone gives a score above 4 must be a retard for real. 1 point for special effects, nothing else. this movie is like the disaster that happened in the actual scenes.
  73. Dec 18, 2010
    2
    It was basically the "Dude Wheres My Car" of disaster movies, plus it was too long, they could have chopped off 50 minutes and it still would have made sense.
  74. Aug 14, 2012
    3
    I particularly did not see any fun in this film is a kind of story that has been widely Wears and if you are not in order to see a movie "Everything is running out to save yourself if you can" again, then do not watch this movie.
  75. Apr 14, 2013
    1
    What an utter CGI crap. No story, lame characters with no depth, unbelievable action sequences. As bad as any other cheap "B" class catastrophe movie, just with a big budget. Avoid it
  76. Feb 16, 2014
    3
    Boring. This movie was boring. Even with all the effects, and all the visuals it just seemed to drag on forever. After an hour in I thought it felt like the end of the movie, but no. An hour and a half to go! Ugghh!

    While it isn't any worse than many other disaster movie that came out before it, that is it's main problem. This has been done too many times before and 2012 isn't doing
    Boring. This movie was boring. Even with all the effects, and all the visuals it just seemed to drag on forever. After an hour in I thought it felt like the end of the movie, but no. An hour and a half to go! Ugghh!

    While it isn't any worse than many other disaster movie that came out before it, that is it's main problem. This has been done too many times before and 2012 isn't doing anything too unique. the effect are decent enough, but the lazy script and less than stellar performances from the cast make you wonder "Why should I care what happens to anyone in this movie?"

    Overall:
    To sum this movie up: Action packed sleeping pill.
    Expand
  77. May 3, 2013
    3
    Boy is Roland Emmerich a pro when it comes to disaster movies, and this one is no exception. This is probably one of his worse disaster movies, then again, they don't call it "disaster" for nothing. The storyline may be exciting, but when you put the rest of the elements in this storyline, you lose that perfect disaster movie you've been looking for. The story is a mess. It goes just allBoy is Roland Emmerich a pro when it comes to disaster movies, and this one is no exception. This is probably one of his worse disaster movies, then again, they don't call it "disaster" for nothing. The storyline may be exciting, but when you put the rest of the elements in this storyline, you lose that perfect disaster movie you've been looking for. The story is a mess. It goes just all over the place. There are really some characters that you don't need to have in this movie (pretty much the Russian characters). As far as characters go, they're the worst part of the movie. They really make this movie sag and lose its feel. Honestly, I think this movie could have used a much better cast. Overall, this is the perfect example of a disaster movie. Expand
  78. Jun 13, 2013
    3
    (sigh) oh look 2012, its about the world ending. This is like the 200th movie about the end of the world. So I saw the movie and it was really disappointing. Who wants to go to the movies to see a disturbing un joyful movie? I waited for the movie to come out on redbox because the movie looked like sh*t! This movie on the other hand was a waste of millions of dollars for universal and the(sigh) oh look 2012, its about the world ending. This is like the 200th movie about the end of the world. So I saw the movie and it was really disappointing. Who wants to go to the movies to see a disturbing un joyful movie? I waited for the movie to come out on redbox because the movie looked like sh*t! This movie on the other hand was a waste of millions of dollars for universal and the producers, etc. I wasn't surprised of what i saw. Yes i have to admit it kept you wondering what's going to happen next. But overall not so great film 3.9 out of the 10. A pointless movie... Expand
  79. Jul 5, 2013
    1
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Oh, dearie, dearie me....I knew there was going to be questionable science, but I thought I would put that aside for a nice couple of hours of fun; I was wrong.
    The special effects in this movie are amazing. And that's about it. There are very few action scenes and the ones that do exist do little to grab your attention.
    The rest of the film consists of dull dialogue and, even worst, characters that you simple do not care for. Any one of them could have died (and lots of them did) and you still wouldn't care less.
    For example, a young, Indian scientist, the person who actually first accumulated the "scientific" data and drew people's attention to what was about to happen, was promised safety for him and his family. Stranded, his first thought is to call his friend and give him vital information, telling him that the tsunami he, his wife and son are staring down is actually coming from the east (something that hadn't been predicted), and after calmly saying that his ride never arrived, he says goodbye. Yeah, right.
    This is probably the most emotional scene of the whole film. All the characters are so stereotyped, it gets difficult not to predict their next move.
    And the product placement in the film unbelievable! This film was obviously brought to you by Kellogs, Bentley, Vaio laptops, Cesar's Palace (my God, even the dog was named Cesar!) and many, many more....
    I was yawning from start to finish, and it's a way toooooo long way to the finish (2hr and 40min)....
    Expand
  80. Jun 13, 2014
    2
    Full of clichés, bad acting and headache inducing cgi.
    One would think that a film driven solely by special effects would at least manage to get them right.
    Avoid it at all costs.
  81. Jan 22, 2014
    3
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This movie "2012" is one of the cruelest I´ve ever seen. It´s unrealistic, the effects and the actors are bad, it´s sad and the plot is extremely poor. Expand
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
  1. Reviewed by: Stephen Farber
    70
    Eye-popping special effects ensure that this movie will be a smash hit, and while it's entertaining for most of its excessive running time, the cheesy script fails to live up to the grandeur of the physical production.
  2. Reviewed by: Todd McCarthy
    80
    The visual effects are pretty sensational, delivering the cutting-edge CGI goods auds want and expect. It will be hard to watch "Earthquake'' ever again after this one.
  3. 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.