Columbia Pictures | Release Date: November 13, 2009
5.4
USER SCORE
Mixed or average reviews based on 643 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
255
Mixed:
207
Negative:
181
Watch Now
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
6
eTurkeyApr 30, 2012
First and foremost, to the critics and users who 'awarded' this film a one or two, what did you honestly expect? It's a disaster feature directed by the master of doomful movies, Roland Emmerich. He's been making these type of flicks forFirst and foremost, to the critics and users who 'awarded' this film a one or two, what did you honestly expect? It's a disaster feature directed by the master of doomful movies, Roland Emmerich. He's been making these type of flicks for quite a while now and his style and overall substance hasn't changed much over the years. Yes, '2012' has cheesy acting, modest screenwriting and an absurdly nonsense plot but again I ask the question - were you expecting something different. As far as cataclysmic pictures are rated, this is average. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
oxanaAug 24, 2014
I went into the theater not expecting much of this movie - and was positively surprised.

The film looked as good on big screen - if not even better - as it looks in the trailer. The special effects were beautiful, huge, effective and
I went into the theater not expecting much of this movie - and was positively surprised.

The film looked as good on big screen - if not even better - as it looks in the trailer. The special effects were beautiful, huge, effective and haunting. Sometimes there was almost too much going on, because there was so much movement on the screen that you could not possibly look at it all.

Of course there were a lot of surreal surviving skills performed by the cast, but a disaster movie is nothing without its core-characters surviving, right? So let's skip the obvious errors and just enjoy the destruction/re-shaping of the planet Earth.

There was more plot into this than I thought possible, and many human dilemmas. Some of them were a bit too underlined, but all in all there were many emotions that really should move the audience. There was also undeniable and well-placed humor within the story, getting many good laughs out of me. I had to roll my eyes surprisingly little during this movie, all in all.

I think this movie deserves its four stars because despite some obvious errors in physics and laws of nature - not to mention the insane amount of pure luck - this movie manages to look beautiful and massive all the same, and bring us a story of survival and compromises.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
beingryanjudeAug 20, 2015
As Americans, we have long been drawn to the concept of the end of the world. This time around, Roland Emmerich uses realistic themes from the Bible and tells a story of inter-changing lives throughout the world. There are memorable points;As Americans, we have long been drawn to the concept of the end of the world. This time around, Roland Emmerich uses realistic themes from the Bible and tells a story of inter-changing lives throughout the world. There are memorable points; however, the film suffers from an extended run and should have been edited and reduced substantially. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
csw12Nov 26, 2015
2012 is the ultimate disaster movie. Some people will hate that and some will not. I found it fascinating. Definitely predictable but i don't care. Forgettable
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
000Tuld000May 9, 2012
Good special effects but the overall plot is pretty rediculous. Tsunamis as high as Mt. Everest is pretty over the top if you ask me. It kind of has a similar approach to the movie Day After Tomorrow; good effects but an exaggerated plot.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
OfficialNov 4, 2013
"2012", just like "The Day After Tomorrow", has spectacular visuals and excellent use of CGI, but the script is very weak. Roland Emmerich, who helmed both movies, never quite seem to understand his mistakes.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
iKevinJun 3, 2012
Another movie about the end of the world ... Roland, and not get bored of the same? Now talking about the movie is good, only that it is good already. The only thing that can boast are the effects that are very well made. Mr. Roland, and stopAnother movie about the end of the world ... Roland, and not get bored of the same? Now talking about the movie is good, only that it is good already. The only thing that can boast are the effects that are very well made. Mr. Roland, and stop making films about disasters please! Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
dev92Aug 25, 2012
An alright film which won't really gain favourable reviews in comparison to The Day After Tomorrow. Still as a stand alone film, it is one which was watchable but didn't really break any barriers. Some of the ideas are quite good whilst otherAn alright film which won't really gain favourable reviews in comparison to The Day After Tomorrow. Still as a stand alone film, it is one which was watchable but didn't really break any barriers. Some of the ideas are quite good whilst other parts are just juvenile. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
1
oliver1hApr 14, 2013
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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
Jack97May 6, 2016
2012 falls short on character like most disaster movies do, but the sequences of tsunamis, earthquakes and other natural disasters are amazingly well realized and very intense. If you want a big, fun, popcorn flick to kick back and enjoy then2012 falls short on character like most disaster movies do, but the sequences of tsunamis, earthquakes and other natural disasters are amazingly well realized and very intense. If you want a big, fun, popcorn flick to kick back and enjoy then 2012 was made for that - even if it is a bit long. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
3
Iky009Jan 5, 2014
RuimRuim Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
3
Rox22Feb 16, 2014
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
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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
MarkMusicMar 19, 2013
Well I can say that this wasn't the best movie, but it was entertaining. The plot is basic world ending trying to get family to safety. The thing that drives the film are the effetcs which were good and believable. Other then that itsWell I can say that this wasn't the best movie, but it was entertaining. The plot is basic world ending trying to get family to safety. The thing that drives the film are the effetcs which were good and believable. Other then that its boring. For the main part the acting was good especially the scene's between father-son and dad-son. Other then those two things the film would be nothing without the flashy special effects.I do feel comfortable saying that it is the best disaster film ever, but others might not. I do however think The Day After Tomorrow was better and written more clever. Watch if your bored or just want to see the world end in a clever way. [I appologize if any thing is messed up the space botton on the computeris messed up] Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
3
Movie1997May 3, 2013
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 youBoy 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
InlikeflynnJun 11, 2014
This movie is dumb and funny... that is just funny

You know that when you see an action scene and the characters are able to survive by sheer luck, you know something is wrong but then when you find yourself saying "this is hilarious"
This movie is dumb and funny... that is just funny

You know that when you see an action scene and the characters are able to survive by sheer luck, you know something is wrong but then when you find yourself saying "this is hilarious" something is been done right... 2012 seem to be aware that the audience will keep their attention and not be bored has long has they keep much action has possible, witch always comes in the form of a chase scene it works for the attention span but the movie it self is brainless: the story is non-existent, acting is pretty bad, the action (despite being the highlight) were badly shoot, way too shaky and some effects were unconvincing...

The movie fulfills it's propose of being pop-corn fun, it will keep you entertained, but when it comes to the concept of being meaningful and have depth, specially when talking about the end of the world, is just meh... the film is just barely average.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
JmsbppJul 19, 2013
Bueno es tal vez algo pero algo tan impredecible queda como una teoría inconclusa en donde muchas personas se salvaron para reprovarla tal vez falta algo mas de credibilidad en la pelicula
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
3
CriticGuyJun 13, 2013
(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(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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
AlexanderLuthorAug 1, 2014
If you went into this film expecting academy performances and a compelling script, blame yourself. This is a popcorn film that gives you just what you'd expect, action, thrills, and adventure and campy one liners.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
1
ypomoniJul 5, 2013
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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
DibbHansenJul 16, 2013
The visuals dazzle, the acting is pretty good- but the escapism gets old after about the tenth getaway. It just starts to get blah. But the action still entertains and dazzles, but the story just starts to get tired and runs out of ideas.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
2
OpFreeManJun 13, 2014
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
3
ThuzzwoobJan 22, 2014
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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
MovieGuysSep 20, 2013
2012 is a great disaster movie, and will keep you entertained the whole time. The CGI and effects in this movie are amazing, and everything that Emmerich shows you on the silver screen is gold.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
Corwin86Nov 3, 2013
A film arise and prosper only expressing a story, an idea or even just a vision...

Surely a proper budget, good actors and director, a fair crew, all of this are also important factors and should not be underestimated. This film have
A film arise and prosper only expressing a story, an idea or even just a vision...

Surely a proper budget, good actors and director, a fair crew, all of this are also important factors and should not be underestimated.

This film have only a big budget, some decent actors and a fair director.

Also, it fails as a pure disaster movie, taking himself too seriously and resulting obvious and banal.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
jotaesecheAug 11, 2014
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. In 2012, two things constantly coexist: exquisite special effects, and poor and undeveloped stories that end up enclosing tedious clichés and obvious solutions. Sometimes you forget the flaws and just get overwhelmed by the standouts; sometimes the opposite happens. At the end, you get as lost as the characters in the new world, without knowing how to feel: whether pleased or very disappointed. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
JimbeiDec 14, 2013
I like this. Not the best catastrophic film but good special effects, good acting and the plot is good, too. It's not simple to make a catastrophic film without making it seems stupid or unreal. This is unreal in some moments (first of allI like this. Not the best catastrophic film but good special effects, good acting and the plot is good, too. It's not simple to make a catastrophic film without making it seems stupid or unreal. This is unreal in some moments (first of all the protagonists are too lucky) but i like that they tried to give a sense to the facts that happen. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
3
bfoore90Nov 20, 2015
This movie is so painstakingly bad it was almost hurt to watch it. How Roland Emmerich has a job in hollywood is probably one of the best questions anyone could ask after seeing this movie, the plot is boring and almost has no accountabilityThis movie is so painstakingly bad it was almost hurt to watch it. How Roland Emmerich has a job in hollywood is probably one of the best questions anyone could ask after seeing this movie, the plot is boring and almost has no accountability to it, i mean the Chinese making the Arks at the end of the movie was clever but seriously? Arks? John Cusack, Danny Glover, and Woody Harrellson are wasted in this movie by being cast as dull and totally uninteresting characters that show no reasonable amount of chemestry with eachother. The special effects and CGI make this movie watchable and at the very least entertaining but it suffers from a dumb plot, poor direction and half-assed characters. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
10
SyFyMovieGuyNov 19, 2014
Ah yes the beautiful director from Independence Day (1996), and The Day After Tomorrow (2004) comes in with a beaiutiful face-slapping and gut wrenching heart of special effects. 2012 is one of my favorite movies of all time and the one ofAh yes the beautiful director from Independence Day (1996), and The Day After Tomorrow (2004) comes in with a beaiutiful face-slapping and gut wrenching heart of special effects. 2012 is one of my favorite movies of all time and the one of the best disaster films in the book. It wasn't so hard to do, Roland Emmerich is the king of destruction without a doubt. "2012" is the literal end of the world where a family struggles to survive as the world everywhere crumbles . Earthquakes, Volcano's , the ultimate tsunami's, land shifting here and there. Its pretty much a crumble and crunching time here and there but the movie isn't just that, its much more.

The earthquake scene in Los Angeles is the best, Lilly, the little girl was my favorite in this movie., the "escapes" John Cusack did in the Limo wasn't stupid, it was silly in a very funny entertaining way and felt like something in a dumb cartoon but in this case, if you have a crumbling city devastation fest with funny remarks, its a scene I was watching and STILL am over and over again. Roland Emmerich is awesome!

there's plenty of other stuff, but thats it for now.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
juliankennedy23Jun 9, 2014
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. 2012: 8 out of 10: I love disaster movies. I love “good” disaster movies such as The Towering Inferno and The Poseidon Adventure. I love “bad” disaster movies such as The Swarm and Independence Day. I even enjoy, if not love, “Horrible” disaster movies such as Syfy channel stalwarts Megafault and Magma: Volcanic Disaster.

2012 is solidly in the “good” disaster movie genre. As I have stated before in my The Core review “Disaster movies always seem to do better when the disaster is local in scope. A city threatened by avalanche, a tower threatened by an inferno, a Poseidon threatened by an adventure, that kind of thing. Earth killer movies are always a harder road.” 2012 dodges this bullet slightly by having neutrinos from a massive solar flare penetrate the Earth and cause the temperature of the core to increase rapidly. “Like a microwave” one scientist very helpfully explains. Of course why these same neutrinos don’t cause the oceans to boil is a plot hole that the movie delightfully ignores. Still compared to The Core or The Day after Tomorrow, 2012’s science is practically textbook.

Now since the core is expanding this causes the earth’s crust to erupt in different directions (think a Jiffy Pop container). This allows disaster footage from all over the earth. And we all know where disasters strike first. That’s right monuments. Vegas, Washington DC, Vatican City, Los Angeles, Yellowstone, Hawaii, and others get their turn in the special effects blender. The set pieces are generally well thought out often with sly commentary attached. (A giant rolling donut in LA, A slick atheist “Where is your God now” rub at the Vatican.). The special effects are all magnificent.

I will briefly talk about the actors in a minute (Generally speaking they all do fine) but the star is the effects. The detail work (as can be seen in the disaster porn pictures below) is simply amazing. Director Roland Emmerich puts his 250 million dollar budget on the screen. For once the buildings that collapse have people in them. The disasters do not happen in the rain or at night and the camera doesn’t jerk around as if directed by an epileptic sugar glider.

Both the location work and the disasters are very creative. (Let’s face it a tsunami driving an aircraft carrier into the White House is imagination at work.) In addition, the story is a fairly grounded version of that old When Worlds Collide plot where all the smart, rich and good looking people get on a spaceship and escape Earth while all the less attractive people all die horribly.

The movie halfheartedly tries to address the unfairness of “who gets chosen” but we really didn’t come for a civics lesson and honestly there are worse ways to go than just picking attractive rich people. We also didn’t come for the acting, but unlike many of its contemporaries, the acting in 2012 seems solid across the board.

Some of the various side plots do fall a little flat (for example taking into consideration 2012's two and a half hour length, the old guys on the boat subplot should have been jettisoned in its entirety.) On the plus side Zlatko Buric as the Russian billionaire ex-boxer and Woody Harrelson as the crazy mountain man (doing his best Matthew McConaughey impression mind you) are the stand outs among an above average cast.

Overall we came for the disaster porn and simply put 2012 delivers some of the best disaster porn ever seen on screen, and manages this feat with fewer of the bad acting and horrible storyline distractions that usually accompany such films. Bravo.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
zperry-20Aug 16, 2014
Great visual effects and interesting storyline couldn't pull 2012 through the disaster that it was , its characters were generic and at times this film was cliché.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
JadeRegentMar 22, 2015
It feels like the real story of this movie is that "Humanity can do anything it puts its mind to but there will always be hangers on that drag you down." How many people almost drowned because a single family tried to sneak on board that arcIt feels like the real story of this movie is that "Humanity can do anything it puts its mind to but there will always be hangers on that drag you down." How many people almost drowned because a single family tried to sneak on board that arc at the end? They wouldn't even be in that situation if the doctor didn't have the captain open the doors and let the stragglers in. How many people were already on board the arcs, hundreds of thousands? For the sake of the few people waiting to get on they endangered every single person on board. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
10
ricky1121Oct 8, 2014
Very good effects especially during the Los Angeles earthquake! The volcano eruption in Wyoming is amazing and very realistic. Roland Emmerich never let's me down!
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
2
JohnMasterLJul 21, 2015
Una aventura ridícula y aburrida. 2012 solo puede presumir los efectos especiales (no son excelentes, pero cumplen) pero el guion y la trama es tan lenta, nada interesante que lo único sorprendente es que la termines de ver.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
homer4presidentMar 28, 2015
Visually breathtaking in every shape and form, indeed, but the film's lack of impact and delivery combined with the lengthy duration doesn't capture the audience attention and fear of extinction.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
CineAutoctonoAug 1, 2015
They were making a movie about doomsday and not really happened ?, that crap that from 2009 to 2012 turned out good . and after the December 21, 2012 has absolutely nothing happened , and today is 2015 and commented that this movie is crapThey were making a movie about doomsday and not really happened ?, that crap that from 2009 to 2012 turned out good . and after the December 21, 2012 has absolutely nothing happened , and today is 2015 and commented that this movie is crap but the argument ( before real, now fictitious ) is good. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
2
EpicLadySpongeDec 27, 2015
You know a disaster movie is bad when disasters become a part of the main story. Here, the false-predictable 2012 had its moments before the disasters start striking. After we see the first disaster striking by the shop, that's where you knowYou know a disaster movie is bad when disasters become a part of the main story. Here, the false-predictable 2012 had its moments before the disasters start striking. After we see the first disaster striking by the shop, that's where you know you have to quit watching it. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
3
RickyReviewsFeb 17, 2016
The movie was very disappointing. While, the special effects were good, the acting was horrid. John Cusack played a man estranged from his wife, but once again is reunited with her after the disaster, and her new boyfriend is brutally killed.The movie was very disappointing. While, the special effects were good, the acting was horrid. John Cusack played a man estranged from his wife, but once again is reunited with her after the disaster, and her new boyfriend is brutally killed. The part in Wyoming was good, but really didn't make sense. HOW THE HECK DID CUSACK MAKE IT OUT OF THAT?!?! After they make it out of Wyoming, we get to see the destroyed Las Vegas, but how are people still here? Then on the plane, we see Honolulu, which is burning due to volcanic eruptions. The film leaves a lot to be desired, populated by forgettable characters, I forgot ALL their names (well, except for the Russian dude, Yuri), the special effects are good, but not the best. This is a solid D-movie, if that is even a thing. I give it a 3/10. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
TheFilmDoctorMar 22, 2016
God forgive me, but I enjoyed the nerve-racking silliness of this newest, loudest exercise in destruction. (And God help us all, now more than ever I think cities could crumble and oceans could rise.) Emmerich is, of course, an old hand atGod forgive me, but I enjoyed the nerve-racking silliness of this newest, loudest exercise in destruction. (And God help us all, now more than ever I think cities could crumble and oceans could rise.) Emmerich is, of course, an old hand at bangs, a manipulator who thinks whimpers are for sissies: Aliens tore up the place in Independence Day, an irradiated lizard stomped through Godzilla, global warming ruined everyone’s plans in The Day After Tomorrow, and you don’t want to know all the troubles the prehistoric hero known as D’Leh done seen in 10,000 BC. This time, as the story opens in 2009, the earth’s core is heating up and acting all wonky, alarming an earnest U.S. government geologist (Chiwetel Ejiofor). He rushes to inform the White House chief of staff (Oliver Platt), who rushes to inform the President (Danny Glover), who eventually confides the news? to his tremulous daughter (Thandie Newton). Cut to three years later, and a California Everyman named Jackson Curtis (John Cusack) picks up his cute son and daughter (Liam James and Morgan Lily) at the home of his ex-wife (Amanda Peet) and her new guy (Tom McCarthy). Jackson takes the kids camping at Yellowstone, where he meets a useful mountaintop crazyman (Woody Harrelson) who predicts the end of days.

Don’t worry, be happy: The dog survives in 2012 even though billions of people don’t. The unfortunate masses — innocent as their four-legged fellow creatures but traditionally more expendable in disaster epics like this one — die in ways it takes Armageddon-movie master Roland Emmerich and a mighty army of CG artists to devise. For starters, Los Angeles cracks and falls into the sea, Las Vegas crumbles, Yellowstone National Park becomes a volcanic hellpit, India is devoured by a tsunami, and the Catholic faithful in Rome are buried under the rubble of their own magnificent church buildings. Cool! Oh, and also? A cruise ship on the high seas upends with a ? harrumphing glug-glug, sinking to join its colleagues the Poseidon and the Titanic.

The good news: Thanks to the crazyman, when the end of days begins to make itself known, the Curtis family (plus the ex-wife’s new guy) are able to stay one step ahead of the abyss. This postnuclear clan has a terrific ability to drive on roads that cave in behind them, and fly (in half-borrowed, half-skyjacked airplanes) between toppling buildings, bridges, mountains, and fireballs. Enthusiasts of websites involving the Mayans’ apocalyptic predictions are welcome to join enthusiasts of websites involving planetary instability to discuss the facts behind this chaotic fiction; biblical scholars are welcome to chime in on the meteorological conditions that coincided with the launch of Noah’s Ark. Me, I’m more charmed by the now-classical way in which Emmerich uses scenes with human interest — you know, the introduction of a handful of characters we care about — to offset the sense-battering showpiece action sequences. (Those are usually the ”feelings” scenes in which we laugh with nervous relief at the familiarity of human puniness.) Just ask Steven Spielberg: There’s nothing like imminent destruction on a world scale to make a father want to heal a broken family.

Cusack, with his one-of-the-guys face and his nice way with child actors, does creditable work as an Average American Dad trying to put things right. Of course, Emmerich (and his co-writer, Harald Kloser, who also ? co-scripted 10,000 BC) is never one for subtlety. Average Dad’s homegrown virtues are ?contrasted with the thick-lipped, fat-bellied crudity and obscene wealth of a Russian oligarch (Zlatko Buric) looking out for his own two young sons. Meanwhile, as Commander-in-Chief (in the idealized mode of 24’s President David Palmer), Danny Glover is a good father to the country and his own daughter; however, we know his chief of staff is a cold SOB because he’s distant from his aged mother.

As for Ejiofor’s geologist, he gets to tell his dad he loves him before the end draws nigh. Which, in this rock-solid disaster-pic ? formula, makes him the perfect character to deliver the climactic speech that unites mankind. Well, it’s either him or the dog.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
AaronWasserman1Mar 27, 2016
The first half of this movie is very good, then the second half looses it. The ending climax of the movie is just ridiculous. It becomes such a joke that goes on for far too long.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
FilmClubMar 27, 2016
The notion of playing God is implicit in the job of a film director, and rarely has the sense of a wrathful, vengeful deity at the helm, albeit a pagan one, been so comprehensively felt as in “2012.” For demolition maestro Roland Emmerich,The notion of playing God is implicit in the job of a film director, and rarely has the sense of a wrathful, vengeful deity at the helm, albeit a pagan one, been so comprehensively felt as in “2012.” For demolition maestro Roland Emmerich, “Independence Day,” “Godzilla” and “The Day After Tomorrow” were mere appetizers for the lip-smacking smorgasbord of global annihilation laid out here.

Hooking their doomsday scenario on an interpretation of a Mayan calendar that points to an earthly catastrophe in 2012 — specifically on 12-21-12 (what movie will pin its release to that date?) — Emmerich and writing-producing partner Harald Kloser begin by dumping Los Angeles into the sea and follow with the destruction of Las Vegas, Yellowstone National Park, Washington, D.C., the Vatican, India, Tibet and a giant cruise ship.

Anyone who stops to think about it between grabs of popcorn might pick up the hint that Emmerich is taking particularly gleeful aim at the United States (which other director has destroyed the White House in his films not once but now twice?) and Catholicism (he goes out of his way to detail the collapse of St. Peter’s and Rio’s Christ the Redeemer statue), while no other religion gets taken to task. But then, that would be taking this eye-popping display of movie pyrotechnics far too seriously. Or not.

Coming up with halfway decent characters with which to populate disaster films has always proved an almost insurmountable problem, but Kloser and Emmerich have brought a measure of wit to the enterprise. Pic’s Everyman is Jackson Curtis (John Cusack), a rumpled author whose most recent unsuccessful novel happens to have been called “Farewell Atlantis,” and who never paid enough attention to sexy ex-wife Kate (Amanda Peet) and their two young kids (Liam James and Morgan Lily). He’s now forced to look on as Kate shacks up with Gordon (Tom McCarthy) while he scrapes by as a limo driver for L.A.-based Russian billionaire Yuri Karpov (the very engaging Zlatko Buric).

As SoCal hopes for the best amid an alarming upswing in tremors and cracked streets, government scientist Adrian Helmsley (Chiwetel Ejiofor) alerts U.S. President Thomas Wilson (Danny Glover, almost too predictably grave) that increased solar fires (happily, for a change, not man-made global warming) are about to turn the Earth inside out in a way not experienced since the day the dinosaurs died.

Unfortunately, it’s not easy scripting the final act of a movie about the end of the world when you don’t really want the final image to be a charred rock. Let it be said that “2012” plummets from reasonably distracting spectacle to sheerest silliness when, in the pointlessly protracted final reels, it tries to maintain interest in the (confusingly staged) jeopardy of a handful of characters when much of the world’s population has already been wiped out or is about to be. Never has Rick’s observation in “Casablanca” been more true, that the problems of a few little people don’t amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world.

On any level other than as sheer visual sensation, “2012” is a joke, for the simple reason that it has no point of view; the film offers no philosophical, metaphysical, intellectual and certainly no religious perspective on the cataclysm, just the physical frenzy of it all. But to ask this would be taking the picture far too seriously. Or not.

In Cusack and Ejiofor, “2012” has two actors who convey above-the-norm intelligence for characters in this sort of fare, although even they can’t keep up the pretense as the film degenerates. Most casting choices are agreeably offbeat down through the ranks, with Woody Harrelson supercharging his scenes as a wackjob radio sage who issues on-the-air reports from the front lines of destruction.

Except for some patchy work when St. Peter’s crumbles, 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.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
DoctorFilmMar 31, 2016
The notion of playing God is implicit in the job of a film director, and rarely has the sense of a wrathful, vengeful deity at the helm, albeit a pagan one, been so comprehensively felt as in “2012.” For demolition maestro Roland Emmerich,The notion of playing God is implicit in the job of a film director, and rarely has the sense of a wrathful, vengeful deity at the helm, albeit a pagan one, been so comprehensively felt as in “2012.” For demolition maestro Roland Emmerich, “Independence Day,” “Godzilla” and “The Day After Tomorrow” were mere appetizers for the lip-smacking smorgasbord of global annihilation laid out here.

Hooking their doomsday scenario on an interpretation of a Mayan calendar that points to an earthly catastrophe in 2012 — specifically on 12-21-12 (what movie will pin its release to that date?) — Emmerich and writing-producing partner Harald Kloser begin by dumping Los Angeles into the sea and follow with the destruction of Las Vegas, Yellowstone National Park, Washington, D.C., the Vatican, India, Tibet and a giant cruise ship.

Anyone who stops to think about it between grabs of popcorn might pick up the hint that Emmerich is taking particularly gleeful aim at the United States (which other director has destroyed the White House in his films not once but now twice?) and Catholicism (he goes out of his way to detail the collapse of St. Peter’s and Rio’s Christ the Redeemer statue), while no other religion gets taken to task. But then, that would be taking this eye-popping display of movie pyrotechnics far too seriously. Or not.

Coming up with halfway decent characters with which to populate disaster films has always proved an almost insurmountable problem, but Kloser and Emmerich have brought a measure of wit to the enterprise. Pic’s Everyman is Jackson Curtis (John Cusack), a rumpled author whose most recent unsuccessful novel happens to have been called “Farewell Atlantis,” and who never paid enough attention to sexy ex-wife Kate (Amanda Peet) and their two young kids (Liam James and Morgan Lily). He’s now forced to look on as Kate shacks up with Gordon (Tom McCarthy) while he scrapes by as a limo driver for L.A.-based Russian billionaire Yuri Karpov (the very engaging Zlatko Buric).

As SoCal hopes for the best amid an alarming upswing in tremors and cracked streets, government scientist Adrian Helmsley (Chiwetel Ejiofor) alerts U.S. President Thomas Wilson (Danny Glover, almost too predictably grave) that increased solar fires (happily, for a change, not man-made global warming) are about to turn the Earth inside out in a way not experienced since the day the dinosaurs died.

While Wilson’s chief of staff, Carl Anheuser (Oliver Platt), readies the evacuation of the elite and the president deliberates about how to preside over the planet’s final chapter, Curtis leads his kids on a series of escapes and near-misses worthy of Indiana Jones — in a limo, RV, private plane (flown by nonpilot Gordon), giant Russian cargo jet and, ultimately, the biggest vehicle ever built. The action is preposterous by any standard, but that’s designed as part of the fun; eye-popping indeed are the sights of the streets of Santa Monica rippling like so many ocean waves, molten meteors spewing out of Yellowstone, the sea claiming a ship the size of a football field and a six-engine jet crash landing on a Himalayan glacier.

Unfortunately, it’s not easy scripting the final act of a movie about the end of the world when you don’t really want the final image to be a charred rock. Let it be said that “2012” plummets from reasonably distracting spectacle to sheerest silliness when, in the pointlessly protracted final reels, it tries to maintain interest in the (confusingly staged) jeopardy of a handful of characters when much of the world’s population has already been wiped out or is about to be. Never has Rick’s observation in “Casablanca” been more true, that the problems of a few little people don’t amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world.

On any level other than as sheer visual sensation, “2012” is a joke, for the simple reason that it has no point of view; the film offers no philosophical, metaphysical, intellectual and certainly no religious perspective on the cataclysm, just the physical frenzy of it all. But to ask this would be taking the picture far too seriously. Or not.

In Cusack and Ejiofor, “2012” has two actors who convey above-the-norm intelligence for characters in this sort of fare, although even they can’t keep up the pretense as the film degenerates. Most casting choices are agreeably offbeat down through the ranks, with Woody Harrelson supercharging his scenes as a wackjob radio sage who issues on-the-air reports from the front lines of destruction.

Except for some patchy work when St. Peter’s crumbles, 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.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
KayVen17Aug 27, 2016
Deutsche Review - Kritik

Story: 18/25 Punkte
Schauspieler: 24/25 Punkte
Technik/ Bildbearbeitung: 23/25 Punkte
Sound: 18/25 Punkte

Gesamtpunktzahl

83/100 Punkte
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
Muskrat147Jul 26, 2016
Though filled with dazzling special effects, 2012 stands-out more for its cheesy direction, cliched characters, lack of heart and humor, and, overall, lack of a story-line or plot.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
Jumpnion2536Sep 8, 2016
But what? I did not understand the part that said that the film is açao or drama, an optimal image with exelente game camera, but lacked WHAT? was the performance of the actors, when it comes to film, it is not to act as if in a movie butBut what? I did not understand the part that said that the film is açao or drama, an optimal image with exelente game camera, but lacked WHAT? was the performance of the actors, when it comes to film, it is not to act as if in a movie but reality go to the public, did not see tears of dessespero, not seen drama. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
BroyaxJan 1, 2017
Le film-catastrophe hollywoodien dans toute sa "splendeur"... des millions (des milliards ?) de gens crèvent mais les cabots survivent. Et les girafes aussi. Toute la planète part à vau-l'eau (c'est le cas de le dire) mais les téléphonesLe film-catastrophe hollywoodien dans toute sa "splendeur"... des millions (des milliards ?) de gens crèvent mais les cabots survivent. Et les girafes aussi. Toute la planète part à vau-l'eau (c'est le cas de le dire) mais les téléphones portables marchent toujours, d'ailleurs on se passe un coup de fil avant de mourir : "eh c'est moi, un tsunami de sa race arrive, c'est juste pour faire un petit coucou... beuaaargh..."

On a bien entendu la guimauve de circonstance mais également la morale triomphante et la bonne humeur, l'optimisme béat alors que tout se barre en cacahuète à 20m de vous ("ouvrez les portes même si on va tous y passer" ! ce n'est plus le vivre ensemble mais le mourir ensemble... comme des cons. D'ailleurs pour un tel cataclysme, tout se passe plutôt bien, on ne panique pas, on ne se marche pas dessus... on prie.

C'est la génération Facebook-Twitter : "bon bah je crève, LOL". Même le Président du Monde Libre montre l'exemple pour le troupeau et coule avec le navire... Inexact, je rectifie : il se prend le porte-avions Kennedy dans la tronche. Un zeste d'humour in...volontaire ?

Et c'est là que le film brille malgré lui, malgré sa longueur un peu exagérée, malgré ses tics idiots, ses tocs imbéciles, qu'est-ce qu'on rigole ! et ces effets spéciaux dantesques où l'on peut compter chaque million de dollars jeté à l'écran sont à tomber sur le cul. Et ils sont drôles aussi. Qu'est-ce que j'ai ri de voir toute la Californie engloutie, mise en morceaux avec toutes ces petites marionnettes, ces **** lutins qui gesticulent avant de finir écrasés ou broyés : on dirait des fourmis.

Oui, ça donne la même satisfaction que d'écraser des fourmis sauf que des fourmis, c'est moins rigolo quand même.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
JPKMay 1, 2017
WHAT IS GOING ON!
That is what I kept asking myself during 2012 because there is so much random sh*t of destruction happening on screen, we get that the world is ending, but at least show a consistent story. In conclusion, 2012 is a pretty
WHAT IS GOING ON!
That is what I kept asking myself during 2012 because there is so much random sh*t of destruction happening on screen, we get that the world is ending, but at least show a consistent story. In conclusion, 2012 is a pretty poorly written movie with random crap happening ever second without a structured story.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews