2012

Name: 2012
Genre: Action, Adventure, Sci-Fi, Drama, Thriller
Released: November 13, 2009
Duration: 158 min
Rating: 49
Cast: Chiwetel Ejiofor, John Cusack, Thandie Newton

2009

METASCORE

Mixed or average reviews based on 34 Critics

See All

USER SCORE

Mixed or average reviews based on 670 Ratings

See All

5.4

VOTE NOW

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

5.4	Your Score
5.4	User Score Mixed or average reviews based on 670 Ratings

Would you like to write a review?

There is a 75 character minimum for reviews. If your review contains spoilers, please check the Spoiler box. Please do not use ALL CAPS. There is no linking or other HTML allowed. Your review may be edited for content. 0/5000

Check box if your review contains spoilers

Please enter your birth date to watch this video:

You are not allowed to view this material at this time.

2012

Movie Details & Credits

Columbia Pictures | Release Date: November 13, 2009

Starring: Chiwetel Ejiofor, John Cusack, Thandie Newton

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

See All Details and Credits

Awards & Rankings

13	#13 Most Discussed Movie of 2009
4	#4 Most Shared Movie of 2009

Watch Now

Buy On

Stream On

Metascore

Positive:

Mixed:

Negative:

Critic Reviews

100

San Francisco Chronicle - Mick LaSalle

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. Read full review

Slate - Dana Stevens

2012 isn't a bad movie that, out of sheer boredom, you might snicker at once or twice; it's a two-and-a-half hour laugh riot that plays on our expectations of the genre by anticipating and exceeding them. Read full review

New Orleans Times-Picayune - Mike Scott

For all of its faults, ends up being relentlessly watchable as well, a summertime popcorn spectacle plopped down in the middle of the fall movie season. Read full review

New York Daily News - Elizabeth Weitzman

Doomsday views are a knockout, but the script is a real disaster. Read full review

Los Angeles Times - Kenneth Turan

As far as the new disaster film 2012 is concerned, the world will end with both a bang and a whimper, the bang of undeniably impressive special effects and the whimper of inept writing and characterization. You pays your money, you takes your chances. Read full review

Austin Chronicle - Marc Savlov

Where else are you going to get a chance to see the aircraft carrier USS John F. Kennedy drift down the side of a mile-high tsunami and take out the White House? Big. Dumb. Fun. Read full review

The Globe and Mail (Toronto) - Rick Groen

As always in Emmerich's rollicking Armageddons, the cannon speaks with an expensive bang, while the fodder gets afforded nary a whimper. Of course, that's just part of disaster's simple recipe: Blow us up, then blow us off. Read full review

SEE ALL 34 REVIEWS

Write a Review

User Reviews

WilliamB

Apr 1, 2010

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 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!!!!… Expand

4 of 9 users found this helpful

MovieLonely94

Nov 7, 2010

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

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

DaleC.

Mar 5, 2010

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 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

0 of 1 users found this helpful

homer4president

Mar 28, 2015

Visually breathtaking in every shape and form, indeed, but the film's lack of impact and delivery combined with the lengthy duration doesn't capture the audience attention and fear of extinction.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

Zakrnanonymous

Dec 7, 2009

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.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

JayD

Mar 5, 2010

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 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

2 of 2 users found this helpful

JohnB

Nov 13, 2009

Ugh ugh ugh ugh UGH. A movie that only cares about the visuals. and panders to the whiny angsty teenager who hates the human race because he can't get girls to talk to him. Forget having the cheesiest, stupidest plot in history and the dumbest melodrama. Can we try to have all those Ugh ugh ugh ugh UGH. A movie that only cares about the visuals. and panders to the whiny angsty teenager who hates the human race because he can't get girls to talk to him. Forget having the cheesiest, stupidest plot in history and the dumbest melodrama. Can we try to have all those things without eye-rolling misanthropy?… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

SEE ALL 256 REVIEWS