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 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

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

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 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

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. 2012 is a deeply flawed and long-winded movie. It has some amazing special effects but they are used in such abundance that each time you see something majestic, you just know it's a computer generated image and not a set piece that was masterfully crafted by a craftsman that we'll still be watching pictures of 20 years later on (Robocop's ED-209, for example). If the horrible miscarriage of psuedo-science that the director has opted to portray wasn't enough to make you unable to be willing to suspend disbelief, knowing that almost every scene took place on a gigantic green tarp sure will. Especially two-and-a-half hours of CGI-viewing. Why on earth did this movie have to be so long? When we got to the 4th or 5th escape-from-disaster scene I just wished they would slam into something so we could move on to more interesting characters. Instead, they always got out on top. The acting wasn't bad, I think they did a good job with what they were given but most characters were just annoyingly optimistic or evil. Even though people claim that this is just a science-fiction flick solely intended to amuse us there is definitely a message to it as is evident from the conversations people have (Not fair that the workers aren't getting tickets, rich shouldn't be able to buy their way into salvation, et cetera) and the end scene of a gigantic connected landmass with Africa being the new center of the world. (Probably put a smile on Jimmy Cliff's face) Unfortunately, the message here is that individualism is great and that we're all terribly worthy of being saved and that human civilization up till this point has been awesome (The speech about how it's human to not leave anyone behind on the arc despite the absolute millions of murdered humans and destroyed habitats/species by civization before the movie was even conceived of.) and should continue to be awesome the way it was. (the "democratic" vote-scene to open the doors for the rich folks that wanted to get in) And, of course, the heroic, people's black American president refusing to take shelter and dying with his fellow countrymen. Unrealistic but cleverly compensated for by having the italian prime minister choosing the same course of action. Wouldn't want to make the Europeans feel like a bunch of cowards now would we? Once again, despite being "critical" of post-modern society, it's one of those "the more things change, the more they stay the same"-movies. This movie is a piece of Hollywood propaganda for the conformist, civilized masses that love the status-quo. Regardless, what really put me off was its length. Propaganda, poor acting and CGI-overload is fine but please, keep it within acceptable limits; some of us have brains that can be fried.… Expand

Not the best movie i've ever seen but to not the worst. The special effects are nice and there was lot of action in it. The cast isn't the worst but to not the best.

2012 is a great disaster movie showing all the possible endings of the world. Unlike the other crap disaster movies like Apocalypse now or something this delivers great graphics, top quality voicing and even a lot of real life aspects ( Ferrari and Bentley in the plane) and lots of famous brands ( Coco-Pop can be seen when the supermarket grows a sinkhole). This also introduces new technology to us and has been great at showing that not all the end of the world movies are set in USA ( The ending takes place in China) and lots of emotional moments. If you are a fan of disaster flicks this should be watched.… Expand

2012 is the nice movies. It describes the thing thay may come to us in 21-12-2012, it has earthquake, tsunami, volcano. It has nice effect,, but the story is just to familiar

2012 is a disaster movie of 2009 directed by Roland Emmerich. The plot is about Adrian Helmesey, a geologist at the White House in 2009, with the help of his Indian friend, he finds that solar storms are heating up the earth's core liquefying the outer casing. Thus began a plan to save humanity, while in 2012 a writer Jackson Curtis discovered by chance this plan and will do anything to rescue his family. Although in the film there is a criticism of the people in power, 2012 is a fun movie and entertainment thanks to the spectacular special effects, exaggerated but well used. The only flaw in the film are the script too simple and the theory that they used to end the world.… Expand

Good story line and movie in general but to me there wasnt enough violence. By violence I mean people attacking other people with knives, guns etc. not natural disasters. The ending was the only bad part to me, it lasted way too long otherwise I would have given the movie a 10.

The idea of the film is well made, but it is a movie that appeals to you.

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 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

"2012" is another high-tech disaster epic from the always-enjoyable Roland Emmerich, and this time he pulls no punches as he delivers onscreen the literal end of the world, based upon the conspiracy theory of the Mayan calendar. Though this doesn't carry the emotional weight or strength of characters found in "The Day After Tomorrow" or "Independence Day", this is a purely visual powerhouse. The special effects are breathtaking, and particularly the scenes in Yellowstone and Las Angeles are fantastically exciting. It does drag a bit through the second act, but when it gets to the climax, Emmerich gives us a formulaic (and absolutely delightful) extended climax in the spirit of all great disaster movies - one where almost anything that can go wrong, does go wrong, and they survive a plethora of close cuts and scrapes by the skin of their teeth. Is it realistic? Hell no, but that's not why you watch a disaster movie. Is it Emmerich's best? Certainly not. But it is nonetheless a very fun ride.… Expand

It's one of Roland Emmerich's better films, but it's not exactly intelligent in any sense of the word.

For all the glorious visual effects it offers up, 2012 is a dud. The script is trash, but if you're familiar with the rest of Emmerich's work, then you probably know that's a given.

Again, the problem with Roland Emmerich. Focuses too much on visual effects - on the tidal waves, earthquakes etc, they are all very spectacular. But the actual characters doesn't get much depth. The plot and the script are both very weak. My score: 65/100

I definitely can't say that it was the best movie I had ever seen, but it was still a great watch! I don't know what's up with the other reviewers saying that it is "total crap," but, everyone's got their opinions. Great special effects, and a good story. All the humor put into the movie made it better. Although, the acting was ok. Not terrible, but it was good. And, of course, the movie is totally unrealistic. Just like any other Sci-Fi/Fantasy movie. Unless you believe in 2012... But, I don't so... Again, pretty good movie. 9/10 from me.… Collapse

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.

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.

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.

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 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

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!

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 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

I get the feeling that people give this film bad ratings because they are scared of 2012. Don't give it bad ratings unless you think its really a bad movie, not because you are scared of the year 2012. This disaster movie is pretty chaotic with the effects and there is quite a bit of character development, even if the story is a tad bit wobbly.

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.

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 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

2012 is the ultimate diaster movie. Some people wil hate that and some will not. I found it fascinating. Definitly perdictable but i don't care. Very good film.

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!

Here we have an example of how to make a disaster movie. The formula is simple: add a boring plot that is completely science-fiction; slap on dull, uninteresting characters; and finally, make the story so ridiculously predictable that you can tell what is going to happen at the end during the first 40 minutes. While the special effects are incredible (easily some of the best I've seen in a movie), it suffers from bad characters, a dull story, and it's overly long length.… Expand

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.

(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

If you ask me, this movie isn't all that bad. It's actually one of my favorites. I don't understand why it's getting so much crap. The special effects were some of the best I have ever seen and are great for 2009 and just this time. I saw it in theaters and it astonished me at how our film industry has evolved computer animation. the part in the film where John cusack and his family are escaping L.A. in the plane and in the limo is just spectacular and in a strange way, beautiful (even though the earth was crumbling around them). But enough about that, the storyline I thought was good too. It wasn't the best but still kept my attention throughout the whole movie. I was on the edge of my seat when the action began and stayed that way. It seemed scientifically accurate but I'm not a scientist or anything so that's not for me to judge. It was funny at times and just plain awesome. But every movie has it's ups and downs. The storyline was good, trust me, but kinda empty and stale. A divorced father trying to get a better understanding of his kids who don't exactly like him (especially his son) and then begins a race with time to save his family after he gets inside knowledge from a crazy radio show host (Woody Harrelson) that the world is going to end on the date of 12/21/12 which the Mayans prophecized of millions of years ago. So the storyline isn't the best part of the film, also some parts of the film made you just shake your head. But not every movie is perfect, right? So this movie is not the worst movie ever made and if you ask me, one of the best. Well, not the best but you know what I'm getting at.… Expand

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 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

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.

2012 was a nice movie, maybe there were a few elements that need to be fixed but other than that no. The plot maybe needed some fixing but visual effects and the script were mostly fine. The movie is stil a movie worth watching for a quick entertainment fix so it may have flaws but it is still worth watching.
Breakdown for 2012, Presentation: 8, Plot: 7, Acting: 8, Script: 8, Lasting Appeal: 7. Overall Score: 7.9 out of 10 "Good"… Expand

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 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

This movie was a joy to watch. However it didn't have the best plot/story. It didn't have a proper story to it really, apart from the world ending. You get to meet some interesting characters along the way, but there's no real emotional connection with them like you do with characters in other movies. The CGI and visual effects are stunning, unlike anything I've seen before. Most of the movie was done digitally and most of the landscapes they were on were computer generated. The ending was okay, and the action scenes were stunning. It shows the true force of mother nature at her worst and just how easy it can tear apart a single planet.… Expand

Actually I'll just wait for the day that supposedly the world will end, to make my criticism, then I'll have more critics where to get the facts. For now leave this brief message to remember.

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. "2012" is a disastrous movie that you wouldn't want happening to you. Think about it; Decent CGI buildings following down with cliched people running around with limousines and hiding inside **** arks. Hell, I don't want that happening....… Expand

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

I have to admit that it was kinda fun to watch **** be destroyed in this movie and all that, but besides that it's nothing more nor nothing less than one big mess of special effects. The story is way to predictable, it overuses close calls way to damn much. But i do have to admit that some parts in this movie actually managed to surprise me. Besides all of this, this movie still delivers what it promises, it's stupid and all, but all in all it's still one hell of a joy ride.… Expand

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

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

A visual spectacular of Earth-shattering events! Lots of fun to watch, but ultimately turns to pure cheese in the third act making me say to myself, "No way! Whatever!" This film could have been great, but that third act forces it inevitably into the good category. Still worth a look to see the world ripped to pieces!

2012 is possibly the single most impressive CGI epic ever released in recent years. As the title obviously states, the movie is about the end of the world and it does a damn good job of portraying it. Sure, the acting and all that other stuff is bad but even if you hated Independence Day you have at least got to appreciate the CGI in this one. Its so good that I have given this movie a perfect 10 simply based on the effects.… Expand

**** ****!1 ****!!!!!!!!!!!11 This movie well not scare the hell of me. Y'know this movie contains absurdities and cheesiness, multi-layerred cheesines.

great movie for the family. the best disaster movie ever made, special affects one the best of 2009. The acting sucks but thats not why i went to go see it i went because this does what hollwood is supposed to do entertain me. so if you have nothing to do on the weekend go but or rent 2012 and enjoy yourself.

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.

2012 like I predicted before, It will be a controversial movie. If we talked about the end of the world, issue about some religions was avoidable. Thiz movie itself started with a major box office world-wide. People came to the theaters wanted to know how the world ends. Thiz is totally just theme-victory. The Director is Roland Emmerich, who I called The Master of Apocalypse. Before 2012, Emmerich often brings the topic about the end of the world, such as: â… Expand

It's a good movie. The special effects were just unreal. But it's a little repetitive because of the movie The Day After Tomorrow. Still it's an awesome movie and I would recommend this to anyone.

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.

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.

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

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

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 a russian plane trying to escape disaster? Get real.… Expand

Roland Emmerich is very good at making a movie that has something to do with the end of the world in 2012 according to the mayan calendar, but its not going to happen.

i'm getting ahead of myself. the visuals were great, and the acting was excellent.

Rating: 9/10

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.

Typical disaster movie, yet still entertaining. The destruction of Los Angeles is beautiful. There is no really deep characters. Once you get used to the destruction, its a meh movie. But I was still entertained to the end. But if you want to watch destruction that forces you into the moment, watch until they team up with the russian dude.

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 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

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, 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

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 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

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 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

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

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.

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

C'mon people! The average is 5.7?! Anyone who gave it below a 7 is an idiot! This movie was the bomb! One of my favorite movies of '09!!

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.

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

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.

I'm another person who doesn't understand the bad ratings! I thought this movie was amazing, and I'm not even usually a fan of disaster films, and actually haven't even liked most of Emmerich's other films! The pace was great, I didn't even notice how long it was. The effects were amazing - definitely a movie to be seen on as big a screen as possible. And yes, maybe it was a bit prescriptive in terms of who lives, who dies, pulling at heart strings at predictable moments and all that, but it's a blockbuster people! Enjoy!… Expand

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.

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.

One of the worst Emmerich movies. Such a waste of money.

Great visual representation of the end of the world! I don't see why everyone says the movie was terrible. The special effects, acting, plotline and the humor made this movie a must-see! The only thing I didn't enjoy seeing was the Bentley jumping out of the jet. There is no way that could ever happen. But, besides that, the movie was terrific!!!!!!!

I don't know why people are giving this movie such a bad rating. I mean u see tidal waves and disaster written all over the psoter, and if you don't like it why did u go c it. I saw this movie and sure I don't believe the world is going to end in 2012, but I just liked the special effects and everything. GREAT MOVIE!!!!

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

Order a pizza, grab a few beers, sit back and enjoy - perfect "old school" disaster movie ramped up tenfold - superbly enjoyable.

Way to long!! 2 1/2 hours, I should have known better that Roland Emmerich's ego knows no bounds. Skip this movie.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I don't get why people are marking it down for bad acting or bad science - the movie is about the end of the world. Go into it expecting three hours of stuff blowing up and being destroyed, and you'll love it.

It is what it is, a SyFi flick! Enjoy it for that!

I can not believe how low of a rating this movie has received. The movie was advertised as a huge super amazing special effect movie. And it was! The scenes with special effects (of grounds breaking or Yellowstone blowing) were simply stunning. Through most of those scenes I was holding my breathe and hoping the gang could make it through. And while I missed it in theatres, I can imagine those parts that must have had the entire room just silent. Even the scenes without death and destruction were good too though. There were a few chuckles and a couple awww moments. I thought everyone played their role well and personally I saw nothing wrong with the acting. Overall it was an amazing disaster movie with suspense and excitement throughout the movie. It was wonderfully done and I would easily recommend anyone check it out.… Expand

58/100. I was so hoping that this film would avoid all the disaster movie cliche

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).

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

Do not believe any of the 0 and 1 ratings anyone gave this move unless it is arranged as 10. The CGI effects alone are ground breaking and you can tell that the movie did not put too much emphasis on why it happens but rather how. The pace is exhilarating and if you don't care for the very slight hiccups in credibility, there is absolutely nothing to complain about. Sentimentality has been done right to perfection and the acting and characters are portrayed excellently. Overall, it is 10 times the movie "armageddon" and other celebrated blockbusters are.… Expand

This movie was a hideous mess and particularly painful because of its length. What went wrong with this movie? Everything.

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

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

It was pretty good for a 2 hour 40 minute movie. Some parts god me frightened and on the edge of the couch like "oh no are they going to make it?" But at the first half its all about lava, fire, and earthquakes, and the other half is all about giant floods, what the ****?!?! And the Russian helicopters carrying 2 of every species in some suit tied to a rope hanging down 20 feet away from the helicopter was pretty stupid. Wouldn't they die from some blood rush or hypothermia? The effects were pretty good and realistic though, and I really liked the storyline, it was still a good movie.… Expand

I'm Voting a 10 because it is an awesome scenes too see on BLURAY, yes the story had parts that could have better plot but its a future movie & thats not always sci-fi accurate. But way kool on bluray all the way!

I can not believe people say this has a bad story line. It is friggin amazing, every one is hating on it because they claim it is just pure CGI and no story line, that is complete bs. This movie has an amazing story line and it is very inspiring, and at the same time it packs a massive punch with the amazing CGI scenes, John Cusak is also friggin awesome. I recommend any one to watch it, including people who hate all the "modern movies".… Expand

Ok. Can we all put a moratorium on "Well, that was 2 and a half hours [or other amount of time] that I'll never get back..." Please. It's lame. Wasn't funny 10 years ago. And really, what did you expect from a movie called "2012" with giant tidal waves and destruction on the movie poster? If you're in the mood for disaster, this is a fun movie. Forget the story, acting and especially dialogue. This isn't a Coen brothers movie. If you're more of a rom-com or groundbreaking documentary lover, then, yes, this will in fact be 2 and a half hours you'll never get back.… Expand

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

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.

All these people claiming "I don't go to the movies very often, but when i decided to i chose a Roland Emmerich movie!" really need to do better research on films they're going to see. Of course this movie is cheesy and ridiculous. It's not meant to be high-art. It is campy escapism. And to be honest this flick delivered the goods in spades. I would really rather probably give it a 7.5/10 overall, but rounded up to 8. Enjoyable, mindless fun.… Expand