IMDb > 2012 (2009/I) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
2012
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guide
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
2012 More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 14 of 107: [Prev][9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [Next]
Index 1067 reviews in total 

6 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

If it's not the stupidest movie ever. . .

1/10
Author: jonathanmhoffman from United States
4 March 2010

. . .What is? I like crash, boom, burn, as much as anyone. I like chase scenes. I like action.

BUT, I also like at least some of the laws of physics. Or, even if I don't "like" them, I appreciate that they have some relationship to how things crash, explode, etc. And when a movie persistently flouts every possible law of physics just to inject artificial drama into the scene, it results in less enjoyment of the action sequences, not more.

Also, I like love stories and human interaction. But when the clock is ticking down to the last minute or two of total annihilation, and people who are purportedly intelligent, thinking people, chose that moment to have an extended discussion of their feelings, GIVE ME A BREAK.

And I usually don't mind movie that run over 2 hours because, sometimes it just takes longer to help the audience understand the human motivation, or to give the plot enough time to evolve logically. But to waste over 2 1/2 hours and still wind up with a ridiculous, incoherent plot, with characters that are worse than implausible and who waste some good actors' talents? Ugh.

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Absurd

1/10
Author: e_mendez from USA
1 March 2010

After seeing this movie I can almost picture the memo sent out by the studio with the requirements:

Hire two random teens out of Facebook who like action movies. Use every possible cliché and stereotype from action movies from the last 30 years. Use every cent of the budget on CGI effects. Hire good actors who will do anything for a paycheck. And for the love of all that is Hollywood: do not come up with anything original.

Seriously, this movie had every tired cliché in it and then some. The scenes are so unbelievable that the only people who will find this movie plausible are those that think that Star Wars was a documentary. An example being when Gordon is asked to fly a plane. He says, and I'm quoting here: "I've only had a couple of lessons." Now, the fact that once he gets airborne he makes Manfred on Richtofen look like someone who has never even so much as flown a kite is simply one of the hundreds of absurd things in this movie. But just when you think that there's no way they can top that joke then comes the two pilots flying the Antonov giant like it's an F-16. If this movie was marketed as a parody movie making fun of end of the world movies, it would have worked better.

This movie is also a very clear character study. There's the good guy, the obvious bad guy and each character gets... well, pretty much what they've deserved and gotten in every action movie of the past 30 years. Woody Harrelson does his best Crispin Glover in this, which, again, works great as a comedy. There was zero imagination regarding the characters in this movie, it was so scarily predictable. Additionally, each scene tries to outdo the previous one and it just becomes a big, gigantic joke. I was laughing hysterically at all the "tearjerker" scenes of people about to die because they were so trite and had been done much better in movies before this one. How desperate for cash were these actors to sign on this?

***** SPOILER ALERT *****

This movie is crap.

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

All eye-candy, no believability

1/10
Author: noizyme from Escondido, CA
6 December 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Some have called the movie "good ol-fashioned, campy fun." I just want my money back. The movie is all eye-candy, and then you're done with the "box" after almost 3 hours. The movie should've been called by its full name: 2012 - A Bucketload of Coincidences.

I'm not even going to provide context in a well-written manner for the horrible parts in the film, so here it goes: Let's start with John Cusack, who plays an author with marital problems, but he must have ESP or psychic abilities to foresee that everything about the near future is dire and in need of escape. He jumps fences which just happen to be controlled by military forces that know of his famous book. He just happens to have written about a mythological topic which seems to be unfolding before his eyes. And his physical abilities to take on these world disasters is amazing. Let's jump to the bad visual jokes, like the one when the couple are in the supermarket, saying "Let's never split up" and then a "small" earthquake literally divides the two hand-holders. It splits the Sistine Chapel in half, right in between where "Adam" touches "God" in the painting. Every escape is near-death and impossible to pull off in real life. Around the end John Cusack seems to possess gills or at least lungs like a fish for as long as he was underwater, as does his son. The music was forgettable and generic, even during the flash-bang explosions of fire and lava and other pyrotechnic crap they threw on the screen.

Then come the questions: in the end, they get away alive on vessels set sail for...wherever. What do they use for fuel after everything's demolished. Or food? What does that giraffe meat taste like, and how soon before Cusack degrades into cannibalism? The ships took in a lot of water...why did they not sink? In fact I was more curious about their outcome after the credits started rolling than I was in the relationship between Cusack and the new step-dad, or any other part of the movie. So everything's destroyed...now what? Good luck.

The best part of the movie was the hilariously-bad animation of Woody Harrelson's character explaining the 2012 concept on his computer...that's it. And that's all of the explanation you'll get about why 2012 was devised by Westerners to be a year of disaster. I was hoping for a real-life, Apocalypto fashion-setting to tell the story of the Mayan calender.

Well, Roland Emmerich said in an interview that it would be his last disaster film, so good riddance to that director of this played-out genre. I hope someone picks up the torch to make a film about the setting after the ships set sail, though.

All in all, its 2009's best comedy, just behind The Hangover.

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

No story, just bunch of FX scenes put together...

1/10
Author: ktelliman from Aruba
5 December 2009

Finally I have seen a movie that even John Cusack Couldn't save. this comment does not contain spoilers just 'cause there is not story or a plot line at all.. it is just a lot of special effects and awesome scenes lost in a mixture of so called "unchained events". Not worth to watch, even if it was on 3D. I just felt that I lost my time and -What hurts the most- my money.

Not even close to the "Big disaster movie I was expecting" no explanations given. You almost can see how Cusack really tries hard to keep it real and interesting, but in the end,he looks tired and tiresome expressing like: "I did my best, you know? but those guys just wanted to make some money".

well they did it. But not in a good way.

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

The worst of all end-of-the-world movies so far!

1/10
Author: BM Rao (bmrao1980) from United States
4 December 2009

The only bit of true acting is by Woody Harrelson. The rest of a very talented cast are just slaves to the green-screen and it shows.

The story progresses at a nice pace up until woody harrelson exits the movie (and the destruction begins), and after that it is nothing but one 'huh...wtf!?' event after another. The vague attempts at humor, personal tragedy and emotions, or a humanitarian message all fall flat.

And truth be told, the effects are not so good either, even if compared to Roland's own movies like independence day. And these movies are usually all about the effects! It is one thing to exaggerate and accelerate the progress of natural calamities to fit within the limited time of a movie and to keep the pace intact, but another thing altogether to insult the viewer's intelligence by random meaningless important-sounding dialogue and events just for the sake of it. And that's exactly what this movie does.

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Easy the WORST Emmerich piece EVER

1/10
Author: gunnar-587-419591 from Germany
20 November 2009

The anger got me thru this one. Anger about stupid goofs every MINUTE throughout this movie. I can enjoy a fairy tale if I know it is one. This was supposed to be -yeah, what really? science fiction? then forget about the science and even the fiction part is not worth watching. Anybody with an IQ over 100 and a decent science schooling will HATE this one. Neutrinos cook water, small airplanes out-fly raging storms, big Russian aircraft "land" on a glacier and don't break, cars jump from flying planes and "land" without dent, tsunamis create big waves in the middle of the ocean, the earth crust moves 1000s of miles and there are still buildings that stand, even the Himalayan mountains are filmed from the wrong (Indian) side when supposedly the act happens in China, and thats about 10% of the goofs. The acting was pathetic too. And what a slimebag Emmerich is, that pathetic cartoon of a heroic president. Must have gotten him applause from the whitehouse. The entire movie is just a waste. Emmerich, take your cash you robbed from the viewers and settle somewhere in the black forest. PLEASE don't make any more movies! PLEASE.

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 9 people found the following review useful:

this isn't even worth reviewing

1/10
Author: donschmiddy from Germany
13 April 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

i don't know why, but every movie i watch tends do be s h i t, so does this one. Lets just put it this way, a plane flown by a person who flew 3 times in his whole life being traced by primary and secondary explosions behind them and the ash spit out by the most gigantic volcano of all times does not seem to be able to close in. Later the same person who flew the little plane has suddenly gained the experience to fly a cargo plane with only a pilot across the world... I mean come on! this is unbelievable impossible and stupid. Every element of the film was terrible, plot, actors, special effect, 1 out of 10 final

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 9 people found the following review useful:

No, Sorry

3/10
Author: doubleosix from Hollywood
23 November 2009

Once stuff stops blowing up, the movie has plenty of time (way too much time) to reveal how mindless and cliché-ridden it is. Frankly, the last half-hour or so of picture actually plays like a parody, with not one but two ticking clock countdowns.

Criminy!

Why on earth would you make a movie like this two and a half hours long? What could be thinking? Why give the audience so much "down" time to ponder all the various idiocies and atrocious dialogue herein? This movie truly gets worse as it goes along, which you don't see every day. So... I guess that's something.

Was the above review useful to you?

8 out of 11 people found the following review useful:

The world ends in 2012?? It ended the day this movie was released!!!

4/10
Author: MobiusAg from Nakusp, BC
1 January 2010

The fact that it has been three years since a movie motivated me to write a review should tell you just how bad this movie is!

I love John Cusack. I ignored all the negative comments about this movie to see him in it. John - I hope you got a huge paycheck for this movie cuz it STINKS!

2012 is just over the top stupid! IT is way too long. You would have to check your brain at the door to miss all the plot holes in it. There are glaring factual errors throughout! The running time keeps you checking your watch wondering when will all the lameness end! The movie attempts to stun you into submission with out of control special effects and body slams you with unbelievable action sequences at every turn.

It is a depressing piece of film and an awful way to bring in the new year! It made you hope that the world would come to an end while you were screening it! I needed an excuse to get out of the house this holiday season - now I wish I had been duct taped into a lazyboy recliner -with my eyes pried open - and forced to watch endless reruns of South Park or The Simpsons! I won't bore you with any details...there are other reviews that do that. Take it from me - 2012 is a disaster. You will wish you were one of the dead in the movie instead of living through this mind scrambling piece of crap!

Was the above review useful to you?

9 out of 13 people found the following review useful:

This is The Day After redone!!

2/10
Author: rngmasta from United States
14 November 2009

Remember the made for TV film THE DAY AFTER that took place in Lawrence, Kansas..starring Jeff East? It is the SAME story...the end of the world..there are these special "arks" ready for those chosen to survive. blah blah blah..it's been done over and over. the old disaster movies of yesteryear like THE POSEIDON ADVENTURE from the 1970's had more heart and less CGI and by far better acting..rent that instead and enjoy Shelly Winters....this movie is 2 hours and forty five minutes too long. The acting in this is atrocious. The lines silly. and the plot preposterous. I am glad I saw a matinée and didn't pay full price. If you like popcorn movies of pure silliness this may just be for you.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 14 of 107: [Prev][9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
Awards External reviews Parents Guide
Official site Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history