Mixed or average reviews - based on 34 Critics What's this?

User Score

Mixed or average reviews- based on 552 Ratings

Your Score
0 out of 10
Rate this:
  • 10
  • 9
  • 8
  • 7
  • 6
  • 5
  • 4
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1
  • 0
  • 0
  • Starring: , ,
  • Summary: Never before has a date in history been so significant to so many cultures, so many religions, scientists, and governments. 2012 is an epic adventure about a global cataclysm that brings an end to the world and tells of the heroic struggle of the survivors. (Sony Pictures)
  • Director: Roland Emmerich
  • Genre(s): Action, Adventure, Sci-Fi, Drama, Thriller
  • Rating: PG-13
  • Runtime: 158 min
  • More Details and Credits »
Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 14 out of 34
  2. Negative: 6 out of 34
  1. There's something to be said for a formula picture done almost to perfection. In 2012, Emmerich gives you everything you expect, but gives it to you bigger.
  2. Reviewed by: Todd McCarthy
    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. God forgive me, but I enjoyed the nerve-racking silliness of this newest, loudest exercise in destruction.
  4. Reviewed by: Chuck Wilson
    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.
  5. Doomsday views are a knockout, but the script is a real disaster.
  6. The set pieces are grand—gloriously dumb and never realistic enough to make you wince at the fact that billions of microscopic souls are dying before your eyes. Rather, you wince at everything else.
  7. 25
    2012 is ultimately only about finding new ways to topple monoliths. Only they don’t feel that new.

See all 34 Critic Reviews

Score distribution:
  1. Negative: 82 out of 229
  1. May 23, 2014
    This is one of the best documentaries I've ever seen, second only to Zoo. It really captures the bravery of the heroes that allowed humanity to survive to this day. Okay, now I gotta get back to work. There's a lot of things in the ark that need fixing! Expand
  2. Dec 10, 2010
    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.
  3. Dec 30, 2012
    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. Expand
  4. Aug 26, 2011
    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
  5. Nov 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 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.
  6. Dec 12, 2011
    (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
  7. Sep 28, 2010
    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.

See all 229 User Reviews