2012

User Score
5.5

Mixed or average reviews- based on 619 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. Sam'sMom
    Dec 23, 2009
    5
    This movie was OK. Not that great, a little slow & boring. Way too long.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. Apr 3, 2011
    4
    **** ****!1 ****!!!!!!!!!!!11 This movie well not scare the hell of me. Y'know this movie contains absurdities and cheesiness, multi-layerred cheesines.
  8. Jul 27, 2011
    4
    2012 barely even catch the main theme, thinking that the world is going to be affected by natural disasters grabs my attention , but for a performance that mix's funny moments, exaggerated moments that feels unbelievable ( okay no movie is true of course ) . 2012 needed more realism and taking care of seriousness. Wait for 2013 people
  9. May 21, 2012
    6
    2012 is certainly not a "WOW" movie but it is just a "good to average" movie. The special effects were the shining part of the movie. But still, there are flaws which makes 2012 an inconsistent movie. There are also scenes which are predictable especially the death scenes and there are scenes that are great, more like 70%- predictable scenes, 30%- great scenes, I wanted to be more2012 is certainly not a "WOW" movie but it is just a "good to average" movie. The special effects were the shining part of the movie. But still, there are flaws which makes 2012 an inconsistent movie. There are also scenes which are predictable especially the death scenes and there are scenes that are great, more like 70%- predictable scenes, 30%- great scenes, I wanted to be more surprised and shocked with the movie. But I must say that overall, it does not deserve bad ratings because of the stellar special effects and the good flow of the story. Great concept but they didn't quite hit on the execution... Expand
  10. Dec 23, 2011
    5
    Well, it is not difficult to talk about Emmerich's "2012". Basically, it follows the same pattern formula of other tragedy pictures: brainless action, bland characters and excellent visual effects. But seriously, by now they should have realized that emotional attachment to the protagonists creates more impact than the unstoppable destruction that we see here.
  11. Apr 30, 2012
    6
    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 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 anFirst 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
  12. Aug 20, 2015
    4
    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.
  13. Nov 26, 2015
    6
    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
  14. May 9, 2012
    6
    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.
  15. Nov 4, 2013
    6
    "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.
  16. Jun 3, 2012
    6
    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 stop making films about disasters please!
  17. Aug 25, 2012
    5
    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 other parts are just juvenile.
  18. May 6, 2016
    6
    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 then 2012 was made for that - even if it is a bit long.
  19. Mar 19, 2013
    4
    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 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 nothingWell 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
  20. Jun 11, 2014
    4
    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
    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
  21. Jul 19, 2013
    4
    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
  22. Nov 3, 2013
    4
    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
    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
  23. Dec 14, 2013
    6
    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 all the protagonists are too lucky) but i like that they tried to give a sense to the facts that happen.
  24. Aug 16, 2014
    5
    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.
  25. Mar 22, 2015
    5
    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 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 peopleIt 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
  26. Mar 28, 2015
    5
    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.
  27. Aug 1, 2015
    5
    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 crap but the argument ( before real, now fictitious ) is good.
  28. Mar 22, 2016
    6
    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 at bangs, a manipulator who thinks whimpers are for sissies: Aliens tore up the place in Independence Day, an irradiated lizard stomped through Godzilla,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 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
  29. Mar 27, 2016
    5
    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.
  30. Jul 26, 2016
    5
    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.
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.