2012

User Score
5.5

Mixed or average reviews- based on 613 Ratings

User score distribution:

Where To Watch

Stream On
Stream 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

User Reviews

  1. CoreyN
    Jan 7, 2010
    4
    Very good premise, expertly ruined by the director who loves to destroy America, but make them look very much the patriot. we have the President who will not leave his lawn, because he is the hero, yet our Queen is on the 'boats' with her beloved corgis. the cast are okey, but we have the typecast people we have all come to know and love in these films, and anyone who stays with Very good premise, expertly ruined by the director who loves to destroy America, but make them look very much the patriot. we have the President who will not leave his lawn, because he is the hero, yet our Queen is on the 'boats' with her beloved corgis. the cast are okey, but we have the typecast people we have all come to know and love in these films, and anyone who stays with the dos lives!! despite the admittedly good effects, this film isn't about humanity and people coming together as one, this is about Cusaks charachter and all the people who have caused him harm, dying in fantastical ways. it's way too long, relies too much on effects and not plot or script, and the ending and final lone are vomit inducing. not a very good film Expand
  2. Sam
    Mar 20, 2010
    5
    I love mindless destruction. I really do. I don't like mindless destruction when it's the same 'OH MY GOD IS THE PLANE GOING TO MAKE IT' bullshit every 10 minutes for 3 HOURS. Yeah, there were some cool scenes of destruction, and Woody Harrelson was hilarious. But for the most part it was painful to watch. and yes, while I did say some of the destruction scenes were I love mindless destruction. I really do. I don't like mindless destruction when it's the same 'OH MY GOD IS THE PLANE GOING TO MAKE IT' bullshit every 10 minutes for 3 HOURS. Yeah, there were some cool scenes of destruction, and Woody Harrelson was hilarious. But for the most part it was painful to watch. and yes, while I did say some of the destruction scenes were cool, most of them looked like rubber falling apart. Ugh. fuck this movie. Expand
  3. JackS.
    Jun 2, 2010
    4
    I give this movie a 4. Why because it focuses way to much on the special effects and way to little on the story and character. You barely get to any characters. The only character they really tell you about is Jackson Curtis. Other characters like Charlie and the U.S President made the movie exciting, but the others just made it crappy. Don't go and see this movie. It would be a I give this movie a 4. Why because it focuses way to much on the special effects and way to little on the story and character. You barely get to any characters. The only character they really tell you about is Jackson Curtis. Other characters like Charlie and the U.S President made the movie exciting, but the others just made it crappy. Don't go and see this movie. It would be a waste of you time. Expand
  4. TinaC
    Jan 1, 2010
    4
    I thought that this movie was going to be the best movie ever but after sitting in the theater for 2 1/2 hours i was like why the heck did i come here. It was like Transformers all over again. The only reason i gave it a four was because of John Cusacks acting made me want to stay and finish it.
  5. ChrisS
    Nov 22, 2009
    5
    well it wasn't that bad. I know it's not gonna happen and the effects were amazing. It was very Predictable and the script was crap. The cast was Passable and I laughed.
  6. Ranel
    Nov 29, 2009
    4
    The special effects were amazing, but the movie had too many flaws. First, it was very depressing, if you want to see GOOD people die over and over again, then be my guest. Secondly, the characters were boring, so you have to see the boring first half before things get destroyed to really feel how boring the characters are. Finally, the movie is very unoriginal, the whole movie is a The special effects were amazing, but the movie had too many flaws. First, it was very depressing, if you want to see GOOD people die over and over again, then be my guest. Secondly, the characters were boring, so you have to see the boring first half before things get destroyed to really feel how boring the characters are. Finally, the movie is very unoriginal, the whole movie is a modern day Noah's Ark, in almost ALL ASPECTS. I haven't been disappointed in a movie I was looking forward to in awhile. Expand
  7. MichaelL.
    Mar 29, 2010
    4
    Way to long!! 2 1/2 hours, I should have known better that Roland Emmerich's ego knows no bounds. Skip this movie.
  8. IsaacVt
    Mar 3, 2010
    6
    It was a film that helps you learn a lot of life lessons and uses perfect examples. this film had very sad parts and a creative ending with amazing cgi but ultimatley does not deliver as a great movie but just a slightly above average one.
  9. schweinh
    Apr 17, 2010
    5
    Totally ridiculous, constantly 1 second ahead of utter disaster time after time, but the special effects are remarkable, and it kept me amused. Worth a watch. Once.
  10. nicoy
    Nov 14, 2009
    4
    Probably one of the worst, overrated natural-disaster-sci-fi movie of the decade.
  11. kgm
    Nov 15, 2009
    5
    The vision and the scale of this epic movie are quite impressive. It also sports a multi-cultural storyline and cast which I found gratifying. It praises educational accomplishments and correct moral choices. All this is good. the plot isn
  12. ChristopherJ
    Nov 18, 2009
    4
    I went in expecting to love it because I tend to love movies about the apocalypse. I loved Deep Impact, Armageddon, The Day After Tomorrow, I Am Legend, and so on... but this was the cheesiest and least fulfilling movie of its genre I have ever seen. The only thing that kept me in the theatre was the cinematography and the fantastic graphic art. The storyline is terrible, the characters I went in expecting to love it because I tend to love movies about the apocalypse. I loved Deep Impact, Armageddon, The Day After Tomorrow, I Am Legend, and so on... but this was the cheesiest and least fulfilling movie of its genre I have ever seen. The only thing that kept me in the theatre was the cinematography and the fantastic graphic art. The storyline is terrible, the characters aren't relatable, and the music was beyond typical. I was only surprised by the absence the statue of liberty. Every other iconic image was present; why not throw her in there? ...with a bag of "pull-ups" in hand. Expand
  13. Zakrnanonymous
    Dec 7, 2009
    4
    Willing suspension of disbelief or not the story is absolutely terrible , watching things sink into nothingness for an hour does not a good movie make.
  14. JamesH.
    Mar 21, 2010
    5
    58/100. I was so hoping that this film would avoid all the disaster movie cliche
  15. ZioR
    Apr 12, 2010
    6
    Entertaining, but leaves you feeling at some points if they were actually trying to be somewhat realistic or not. I also felt it strange that in the midst of the several billion inhabitants of earth being obliterated, that someone felt it would improve the movie by sprinkling in a little comedy into the movie. Worth a view if bored, not worth seeing in the movies or owning however.
  16. Johnnynumberfive
    Nov 13, 2009
    4
    Just saw this and it pretty much missed the mark at every level. It suffered from gaping plot holes, to many characters with no true lead and poor character development. The only redeeming quality is the CG and it's not good enough to spend almost 3 hours on for what turns out to be a laughably horrible movie. The scenes that were supposed to be sweeping and moving were simply Just saw this and it pretty much missed the mark at every level. It suffered from gaping plot holes, to many characters with no true lead and poor character development. The only redeeming quality is the CG and it's not good enough to spend almost 3 hours on for what turns out to be a laughably horrible movie. The scenes that were supposed to be sweeping and moving were simply terrible. The movie was stupid and it couldn't decide if it wanted to be a action blockbuster, drama, tragic comedy or a buddy flick ... two words describe this movie: identity crisis. It's not even worth a watch on DVD ... wait for it to hit the premium cable subscription circuit. All this from someone who was more pumped for this than anyone else. Expand
  17. EnzoP.
    Nov 13, 2009
    6
    2012 is intense gripping and makes you bite your nails. Well, for some parts in the movie not always. In the start of the film I was getting ready to leave the theater from the cliches and lame jokes. I was thinking I can't take this for two more hours. But the more it went on the better it got, once the disaster scenes kicked in I was very pleased. If it was in 3-D I would of been 2012 is intense gripping and makes you bite your nails. Well, for some parts in the movie not always. In the start of the film I was getting ready to leave the theater from the cliches and lame jokes. I was thinking I can't take this for two more hours. But the more it went on the better it got, once the disaster scenes kicked in I was very pleased. If it was in 3-D I would of been glued to my seat. But if it were in 3-D it would be boring for most parts because a lot of the movie is just talking so the 3-D would be useless. Something else that is useless about this movie is that it is very long. Many parts just repeated it self but to different people in different places. Not everything in this movie was useless. For instance it was filmed very good each scene captured the moment, like when John Cusack (Im not saying the character's name in the movie) was driving around california to get to the airport. That was a gripping scene he was dodging everything he even dodged a giant donut and a bridge falling, he just squeezed through. Know wonder he was hired to drive these chubby russian rich kids to the airport. One thing I do not get about the critics is why are they all saying that the special effects were eye popping. They weren't that good. sure it was better then most movies but seriously you have to be more picky then that. Well I guess I am. Overall 2012 is good enough for the money. The action scenes keeps it interesting but I warn you don't leave the theater by the boring start of the film, or you will be missing out on a lot of explosions. Expand
  18. AaronR.
    Nov 15, 2009
    4
    The thing that a lot of people don't seem to understand is the fact that the Mayan/Aztec Calendar doesn't predict the end of the world when that Calendar ends. It simply is predicting the end of an age. Now compare this with the Catholic belief that the Archangel Uriel will come into control of the world in 2012 (the Archangels all take care of shaping the world every few The thing that a lot of people don't seem to understand is the fact that the Mayan/Aztec Calendar doesn't predict the end of the world when that Calendar ends. It simply is predicting the end of an age. Now compare this with the Catholic belief that the Archangel Uriel will come into control of the world in 2012 (the Archangels all take care of shaping the world every few centuries by switching shifts in a way), who was in control when the renaissance came around, and you have a very bright future to look forward to. The movie itself, while getting its subject material completely wrong, was just below mediocre. The special effects were good and the acting was decent. But there wasn't much plot other then the world is ending and i must protect my family. This team has been doing this thing over and over again, and they just don't be seeming to get the hint. I suppose that can be attributed to the fact that they're movies always have good advertising. But if you don't know how bad their previous works are, these are the guys that did the 1998 Godzilla. This is a popcorn flick, nothing more. I can't recommend it, but if you want the Transformer experience (lots of action, little [or stupid] plot) then i suppose you may come away entertained. Expand
  19. NeilB
    Nov 15, 2009
    6
    Its amazing that every plane take off, the plane has to drop then, swing up. Didn't know Vegas had that from the airport to the bellaigo
  20. DavidI
    Nov 24, 2009
    5
    This film had all the hype surronding it purely because of the impressive trailers. Unfortunately the trailers do not tell the full story by a long way. Firstly the novelties: There is no plot and the so called "acting" is none existent. The average person wont really care about that though so lets get on to the thing everyone is talking about realated to this film. The special effects. This film had all the hype surronding it purely because of the impressive trailers. Unfortunately the trailers do not tell the full story by a long way. Firstly the novelties: There is no plot and the so called "acting" is none existent. The average person wont really care about that though so lets get on to the thing everyone is talking about realated to this film. The special effects. Special they may be but to be brutally honest you can find most of the CGI stuff in Emerichs other films let alone the genre on Disaster. Ok so they are impressive (hence the 5) but they are in no way believable even in the context of the film! If you go to the cinema today and you want to see a good film dont see this. If you want to see a film with 70% recycled special effects and 0% talent/ plot then go ahead and waste 2 and a half hours. Expand
  21. RyanS
    Nov 27, 2009
    5
    This movie was pretty typical Hollywood fare given that it was about the end of the world. Everything seemed stilted and fake. The dialog was atrocious. All the same... you get plenty of escape sequences with the main characters narrowly avoiding falling into the crumbling landscape. But even that grew kind of repetitious pretty fast.
  22. BryanK
    Dec 12, 2009
    6
    After not seeing a film for over two months, I sat down to Roland Emmerich's newest disaster film, 2012. The film was overall a very well designed motion picture. The acting from the cast came off as more realistic than in other films of this genre including "The Core" (2003). John Cusack was excellent in the main role while Woody Harrelson came off as more if a parody than a serious After not seeing a film for over two months, I sat down to Roland Emmerich's newest disaster film, 2012. The film was overall a very well designed motion picture. The acting from the cast came off as more realistic than in other films of this genre including "The Core" (2003). John Cusack was excellent in the main role while Woody Harrelson came off as more if a parody than a serious character. The only reason this film would not a 10 out of 10 involves the special effects. In disaster movies it appears CGI has taken over and replaced the classic model based effects. During the 1970's at the height of the disaster these effects were common, even some of the late 90's disaster films like "Volcano" used these effects. After a while, the disasters becoming annoying because its obvious it was created in a computer system and not by people by hand. Their is not feeling of what could be considered realism in this film. As a disaster film it was pretty well done , for now, but as an masterpiece in the genre as some have claimed, it isn't. It's a decent film, nothing more, nothing less. Expand
  23. Sam'sMom
    Dec 23, 2009
    5
    This movie was OK. Not that great, a little slow & boring. Way too long.
  24. ThomasC
    Nov 13, 2009
    4
    Terrible. I hope the $6 I paid for admission doesn't encourage the production of more films like this one.
  25. Nathan
    Nov 13, 2009
    4
    Sooooo many earthquakes. This is a movie you will see for the effects. Unfortunately the cliche dead beat hero (with his family) story didn't quite do it for me, and was struggling to stay awake once I was desensitized to all the earthquakes and tidal waves.
  26. HyperS
    Nov 15, 2009
    4
    I told myself, "if this car exits that plane I'm walking out," and despite a laugh-out-loud joke by the Russian billionaire in the car seconds earlier... walk out I did. First time I ever walked outta a movie and I nearly left long ago when a plane for about the 3rd time flew off a runway that was crumbling right behind it, followed by some occurance forcing the crew to have to I told myself, "if this car exits that plane I'm walking out," and despite a laugh-out-loud joke by the Russian billionaire in the car seconds earlier... walk out I did. First time I ever walked outta a movie and I nearly left long ago when a plane for about the 3rd time flew off a runway that was crumbling right behind it, followed by some occurance forcing the crew to have to navigate their way through falling debris and buildings, rather than simply being able to pull up to avoid it all. The special effects look great (and will have you going to watch this movie no matter how many bad reviews and warnings you read), but are waaaay too over-the-top and absurd in the worst Hollywood cliche of ways. Cars jumping gaps ala Speed; always being chased by an impending doom perfectly timed to be one sec behind the hero; vehicle being hit by meteor-sized volcanic debris yet still drivable; etc. Everything is pushed to such an extreme degree that its just too ridiculous to believe or bearable to watch over and over and over and over again. The movie became so cheesy I found myself laughing at things I wasn't supposed to be laughing at (e.g., dialogue exchanges that the director wanted to be emotional). Yeah, that's right... daddy's going down into molten lava in a Winnebago, his kids are screaming "Daddy, NO!", and I'm laughing my *ss off at the unbelievable silliness of the situation and how it got to this point. This movie's script is so mind-numbingly dumb that subjecting the audience to it for anything longer than 1.5 hours should be classified as torture. Unfortunately this movie goes on for 2.5+ hours. (you've been warned.) Expand
  27. ZackV
    Nov 29, 2009
    5
    It was okay, I would say. It wasn't the worst but was not the the best either. I was hoping jumping up and down action and a lot of disasters. But unfortunately I found myself sitting almost asleep in my chair.
  28. Air
    Oct 16, 2010
    5
    Perhaps the biggest fault of 2012 is that it takes itself so seriously. This is the most over-the-top, stupid, and ridiculous movie I have ever seen, and at times it almost feels as if it would have fared better as a comedy, because I almost couldn't stop myself from laughing at times. All that said, the special effects are absolutely stunning, and seeing this on the big screen will blowPerhaps the biggest fault of 2012 is that it takes itself so seriously. This is the most over-the-top, stupid, and ridiculous movie I have ever seen, and at times it almost feels as if it would have fared better as a comedy, because I almost couldn't stop myself from laughing at times. All that said, the special effects are absolutely stunning, and seeing this on the big screen will blow your mind. Everything else about the movie is lackluster and poorly thought out. The only reason you should really consider watching this movie is if you want to see special effects done right, because damn, they are done right in 2012. Expand
  29. Dec 13, 2010
    6
    The effects are well done and it does ooze the panic you expect from a disaster movie like this. With all of that there isn't much of a reason to care. The characters are developed, but only a little bit. If you can switch off your brain for 2 hours, you too can survive and smile at the glaring mistakes to physics.
  30. Dec 5, 2010
    5
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. One of the worst movies I've seen in a while. Giving it a five is being generous. It was as if they through everything together really fast with not much planning. There was negative character development, leaving them bland. The movie was laaaaaaaame, I don't know what else to say. And then they just hoped on a boat and THE END! 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. 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. 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.