IMDb > 2012 (2009/I) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
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
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 3 of 106: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [Next]
Index 1059 reviews in total 

23 out of 30 people found the following review useful:

1500m high wave of puke - prepare for the impact.

Author: prodigy_ dancer from Dessau, Germany
20 December 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Where to begin dissecting this pointless waste of film (calling it a movie would be an undeserved compliment)? I think I'll start with mutated neutrinos. Why not? One can never underestimate the danger of those. So, if you'll ever see a mutated neutrino somewhere around your neighborhood, please, call the police immediately.

No, wait. This doesn't explain anything. I need to find a different approach...

Ronald Emmerich – the script writer and director of 2012 – doesn't care for any of those petty and boring laws of physics he studied (or did he?) in school. Our poor old Earth has existed for 5 billion years only to be broken and CGI-reshaped at the whim of his mighty imagination. And you know what? It could be alright if Emmerich's imagination were actually half as mighty as his immense complacency.

His past works (e.g. The Day After Tomorrow) were – if not terribly original – at least somewhat plausible if you turned suspense-of-disbelief mode on and remembered that it's typical Hollywood after all. But now, elated by success, he has thrown away all pretense of verisimilitude. Now neutrino act as microwaves, hydraulics that lifts massive metal gates can be blocked by a finger-thick Chinese-made plastic cable, a small propeller-driven aircraft can fly in close proximity to an erupting super-volcano (just to clarify: a single VEI-8 eruption can plunge the Earth into a volcanic winter, so your puny H-bomb pales in comparison), mobile phones continue to function just fine even when all modern infrastructure is already annihilated, and GPS navigation systems aren't rendered useless by massive miles long shifts in the Earth's crust...

Such is the world of 2012. Its pieces are poorly and hastily brought together in a truly absurd, Frankenstein's manner. If Emmerich needs to justify another completely unbelievable plot twist, soapy "emotional" scene or meaningless CG destruction sequence, anything goes. And forgive me for leaving actors and their characters aside. I like Woody Harrelson, but even his brief appearance barely deserves mentioning. Others are just "reading a script", and when John Cusack actually utters these words, they sound almost like an excuse.

2.5 hours of incessant brain torture that will make the coming of Apocalypse your golden dream.

Was the above review useful to you?

25 out of 34 people found the following review useful:

This is a real Disaster(ous) Movie

Author: muratinci from Turkey
23 November 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Hello there, I watched the movie with my wife having normal expectations. If you watch the movie with normal expectations, you will enjoy the special effects and stuff. If you watch it with high expectations, well, don't watch it. First half of the movie was fine with special effects, if you like apocalypse as I do you will love the scenes. You will find that scenario has some holes in it. Family finding a way out through some insane guy looks absurd, the airplane scenes are like "director forced to create something". But in general I would say 6/10 for the first half. Second half is the real disaster part. Scenario becomes obviously absurd. Side characters die without reason. Movie kills the bad guy for just being rich. Family reunion, stupid ship problems (how can not the motors run when the doors are open, that was way over stupid). While the water reach thousands of meters, Africa came out untouched because it raises few hundred meters. A specially the last 30 minutes are incredibly boring. Director forgets about the main plot (END OF THE WORLD) and focuses on the escape story of the main character and his family from a jammed door. That adds the cream and here is my vote: 6+1 / 2 =3.5 (I cut 0.5 because of the boys name "Noah" which is lame)

3/10 at best. Don't believe anyone who votes more than 5.

Thank you.

Was the above review useful to you?

16 out of 17 people found the following review useful:

You Were Warned!

Author: rhklwk-1 from United States
23 March 2010

You were warned that possibly the worst movie made since The Monolith Monsters (1957) had been unleashed on the public.

Almost all of the actors are unappealing. John Cusack, Woody Harrelson, and Danny Glover are not compelling actors. Cusack, as usual, plays the weary sad sack. Harrelson's attempt to channel Dennis Hopper's maniacal character in "Apocalypse Now" is embarrassing. And Danny Glover's role as the president of the United States is an insult. In his "real" life, he despises America and praises Hugo Chavez, the thug that runs Venezuela and its drug cartels. Putting that aside, Glover's pulse can hardly be measured.

Child actors. Oh, if only we didn't need them. They are almost invariably portrayed as rude, contrary, and sullen. And the parents put up with it. But, never fear, by the end of the film, they are cuddly little teddy bears that have brokered a reconciliation between their estranged parents.

The adult characters in this movie are not believable. They are either cads, unlikely heroes, or holy men. Adults in authority almost always have bad motives. The chief bad guy is supposed to be the president's chief of staff, Anheuser, but in reality he is the only guy that knows what he's doing and is devoted to his duty. That doesn't count much, I guess, in the prevailing culture.

The story begins with some excitement, but eventually devolves into an overlong, overwrought cartoon. It's "Earthquake," "The Towering Inferno," "Krakatoa-East of Java," "The Poseidon Adventure," "The Bible," and "Airport '75" on steroids. Too many anguished characters, too many anti-heroes, too many noble savages, too many plots and subplots, no coherence, and virtual chaos.

Such is what passes today for entertainment. Yes, this is a disaster movie alright, but probably not the kind of disaster the producers intended.

Was the above review useful to you?

17 out of 19 people found the following review useful:

End of the World? Fine, If It Means No More '2012's

Author: jacklmauro from United States
28 June 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

It is no small accomplishment to film a movie about the end of the world and make absolutely all of it very, very boring. Hats off to '2012'. Like some others, I rented this for sheer kicks. I got kicked, all right. From John Cusack - apparently Hollywood's poster boy for divorced, cynical writers who come through at the end - desperately trying to stay afloat in absolutely horrific dialogue (yes, his ex takes a moment as the world is ripping apart to remind him that he had 'blocked' his family), to Woody Harrelson's awful acting as the crackpot who knows the truth - and you just know he's howling with glee at having been paid a lot of money to do this junk - to pseudo-scientific rationales that choose to utterly ignore how the erupting of Yellowstone alone would plunge the Earth into years of darkness, to insulting racial stereotypes like you would not believe, to the ultimate infuriation of the leads embracing in meaningful relationship babble as seconds remain to fix the ark before everybody's's all one extravagant and unwatchable mess. And what's really astounding is how steadfastly boring the movie is. The world is shattering and you are begging for, maybe, one decent scene to come along. Or a quake to knock out your TV.

Was the above review useful to you?

29 out of 43 people found the following review useful:

2012 Miconceptions

Author: chriskaplan07 from United States
16 November 2009

Perfect example of the big-budget Hollywood CGI driven spectacle, and completely failing in the story and content department. Instead of spending all their money on special effects they should have paid for more research in the writing department, 2012 is NOT the apocalypse. As an anthropologist I have spent many years researching the world's mythology and theories surrounding the date of 2012. What were are experience, and what world mythos have portrayed, is an expansion in human consciousness, the world is changing, not ending.

I looking forward to the day when Hollywood remembers that it moved from the first film studio in NJ to the beautiful hills of Hollywood to have the perfect environment to CREATE stories. Hollywood needs to awaken to this task start writing new material and quit regurgitating story.

Was the above review useful to you?

43 out of 71 people found the following review useful:

Cockingly bad film

Author: symon_wardley from United Kingdom
4 December 2009

If only the vote drop down list allowed for negative votes up to -1000000000000000000000000000000.

Waste of time, embarrassing, over the top rubbish, 158 minutes of my life wasted.

"Contains spoiler", more like spoilt my afternoon!

I like action films and the occasional unbelievable escape/rescue, but this was happening every five minutes.

I couldn't wait for the film to finish, even the special effects was over the top and unrealistic at times.

I will make sure to remember the name "Roland Emmerich" in order to avoid such a poor film, shame on you people who voted this film higher than a 1!

Was the above review useful to you?

15 out of 16 people found the following review useful:

Move over Postman and Waterworld - you've been usurped!!!

Author: Matthew Yankovich from United States
20 July 2010

This might be the biggest waste of time and money ever. It is a prime example of why some people loathe Hollywood excess.

Roland Emmerich could have given every man woman and child 50 cents NOT to watch this movie and everyone would have come out ahead. 2 million dollars a minute??? Feed the poor please.

I think there is a drinking game in here somewhere but with the bloated length it might end up sending players to the hospital.

I know I lost IQ points sitting through this behemoth.

Terrible characters. TERRIBLE dialog. The ton of WTF moments in the first action sequence should be your first clue to skip this stinker. If you like em bad - this one is for YOU!!!

How this could average a 6 on IMDb is beyond me.

Was the above review useful to you?

15 out of 16 people found the following review useful:

Waste of money

Author: daantan from Netherlands
26 January 2010

How is it possible to make such a terrible movie with such a big budget? It really annoys me that a lot of directors these days think it suffices to make an excellent trailer just so that people will come to the cinema. Or did this guy actually think he was making a master-peace? Sure the 'special-effects' were great, although after seeing Avatar it's obvious that even in that area it wasn't top of the line. The plot is so lame, predictable and the acting is terrible. I had no feeling with any of the main characters and was actually hoping they'd all die by the end of the movie. Those scenes in the car, I mean come on! Okay one jump over the cliff or through a building, but 3 or 4 times! Maybe kids will enjoy it..

Was the above review useful to you?

18 out of 22 people found the following review useful:


Author: rock_steady_punk from ireland
23 December 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

There literally are no words that can describe the absolute horror this movie is... I am an Environmental Scientist, I can honestly say that scientifically, not one thing in this movie is accurate... For starters, you cannot predict an earthquake, never mind a global scale catastrophe leading to the destruction of mankind!! If we put the budget of this movie into public awareness of important matters like Co2 emissions, conservation and disaster management the world would be a better place! I mean, is it any wonder people don't take global warming seriously when crap like this comes out and makes a joke out of everything that scientists have worked their whole lives to discover? I honestly cant believe this even got 6stars...

Was the above review useful to you?

21 out of 28 people found the following review useful:

Just when things could not more stupid...

Author: scs-6 from Las Vegas
18 November 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Wow... my jaw on the floor about how stupid this film became. Just when I would think that it could not be more stupid, it does. The last half hour of the script must have been phoned in.

It starts off good. The core premise is good. About half way it goes off the rails.

*WARNING* My comments contain spoilers.

The stunt driving and flying, avoiding obstacles, the flying Dukes-Of-Hazard style car jumps, outrunning volcanic blasts. I can live with that.

The whole jammed door on the American Arc was beyond stupid. Everything from being able to hold breath for minutes on end with wrestling with heavy equipment, to being able to see underwater in the dark.

I really love the ending, when the arc bridge gets to not only watch on CCTV, but also listen to the people trapped up to their necks in that machine room. I'm watching this thinking... "Why did they install cameras and microphones near the ceiling in this machine room?" "Why are they still above water?" "Why are they even working?" First: Why didn't the arcs have water tight bulkheads? If I were the captain and the rear hatch wouldn't close, I'd order the bulkheads closed and move on. That is how they design ships and subs. All those on the outside of the bulkhead die. But that is the way it has to be.

Why didn't the captain drop those huge anchors to slow the ship down when it was drifting towards the mountains? He could have bought some time by doing that.

Second: Start the engines? Why were the engines not started and waiting to engage the propellers while trying to close the hatch? I don't understand why he could not engage the ships propulsion system, but I'll let that slide. But couldn't the engines be running? I saw the ship had Third: The cruise ship that was hit by a tsunami. WTF? A Tsunami at sea can't bee seen, and often barely felt. It is a wave of energy moving at almost the speed of sound through the water. It is only when it hits shallow water do tsunamis cause damage. The cruise ship would have been one of the safest places on the planet in this movie. What knocked the shipped over was a rouge, or king wave. Not a tsunami.

Forth: The whole "we have to save them all" speech at the end. Jeeze. I wanted to vomit. That's right... lets kill everyone by not being prudent.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 3 of 106: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [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