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 4 of 107: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [Next]
Index 1067 reviews in total 

22 out of 30 people found the following review useful:

This is really a bad, bad movie......

2/10
Author: Vinegaroon3 from United States
23 November 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

How many times would you think one movie could use the "airplane just barely taking off as disaster approaches" sub-plot? Well, more than you think apparently....

This movie was so bad I found myself mildly irritated throughout most of it. It is essentially a remake of the 1970s disaster movies. Imagine "Poseidon Adventure", "Earthquake", "Towering Inferno" and "Airport" all shamelessly crammed into one movie. Trouble is, while none of the 70s disaster epics were very good, this movie is much worse.

"2012" is one of those films that tries to float itself on nothing but endless and ridiculous CGI effects. Some of them are dramatic, for a minute or so. But this is nearly a three hour movie.... The acting is hokey and overblown, and you will find you care nothing for any of the main characters. Heck, by the time you are very far into this movie you really don't even care much what happens to planet earth itself....

Please, PLEASE save your money and time. Skip this one.....

Was the above review useful to you?

14 out of 15 people found the following review useful:

Diabollically Bad!

1/10
Author: NikTesla from Auckland, New Zealand
17 October 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

What is it about movie directors now? Do they get paid per minute of unrealistic, ridiculous and overblown special effects while completely ignoring science? The claims that mutated neutrinos could be causing the core of the earth to melt is a complete joke. In order to cause the earths core, a massive ball of iron, to melt would have required so much energy that life would have been extinguished long before the core would melt, especially in the 3 year timeline given in the film.

This movie had some of the stupidest effects I have seen in a long, long time. The limo scene was beyond dumb, especially the gigantic wave following behind. As those sorts of waves travel at around 3000 metres per second or 10,800 Km per hour (around 6000 miles per hour) then I think they would have had a hard time escaping.

The speed at which the buildings and the bridge they drove under collapsed was ludicrously slow.

The bit with the loaded Antonov An-225 climbing like an empty airliner at an air show was laughable.

A tsunami would not have produced a surface wave of the size shown in the middle of the ocean. Tsunami's travel along the bottom, only showing once the tsunami hit the continental shelves.

The scene where tropical animals were being transported over a glacier, through frigid high mountain air while slung under helicopters showed that the director had not given even the slightest thought to what would happen to those animals being transported that way.

Another laughable scene was the bit when whole flooded hydraulic chamber scene. Considering how high they were and the fact the waves had traveled through the high mountains, the water would have been frigid. Those people trapped in it would have died from hypothermia very quickly.

The captain was not being able to start the turbines till the door is closed? Why not? And when the turbines finally started a big cloud of smoke, suggesting that the turbines were burning diesel or some other liquid fuel. Yet we are expected to believe that this fuel would last for a minimum of two months.

I was almost falling of my seat laughing during the Everest collision. A multi-thousand ton behemoth like that vessel hitting Mount Everest would have caused a massive ice slide. Yet all that happened was a couple of ice blocks fell and broke a window. And later we see the front of the vessel and there is absolutely no sign that it had run into the side of a mountain.

What can I say about the dialog other than how many 7 year old kids did they get to write it. The dialog was lame. The screenplay was a joke, with the good guys getting out of yet another inescapable situation at the last millisecond in the most improbable ways.

Yes, the special effects were spectacular and yet it was quite clear they were there to cover up for an incredibly lame, dull and boring screenplay.

I am glad I did not pay to see this joke in the cinema. I would have been demanding my money back.

Was the above review useful to you?

14 out of 16 people found the following review useful:

My opinion

1/10
Author: mcdoubled from Germany
20 January 2010

I really thought that this might be another awesome movie as "The Day after Tomorror". But i can't express how much i got disappointed... Every time the music gets exciting you already know what will happen. And it will always happen.

For example (***SPOLIER***): When Jackson Curtis drives to his (Ex-)Wife to try to save them you see the TV in their kitchen and Schwarzenegger tells that everything will be fine. Its so foreseeable that in the next seconds something will happen because of the music getting louder and the zoom-in of his face...and here the earthquake comes...and of course Jackson is coming though their open (?) door and saves them and makes a joke about the car of his ex-wife's new boyfriend crashing down a huge cliff which opened right next to their old house

other logical mistakes:

How could it be a secret when they built huge ships in a few years? There had to be thousands of people working on those ships.

Was the above review useful to you?

16 out of 20 people found the following review useful:

Great special effects and... thats all

2/10
Author: Cristi (bluf2000) from Romania
3 December 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Seeing this movie's trailer, I was eagerly waiting to see it.

I wanted so much to see a catastrophe movie, which is not pathetic, extra-patriotic, with self-sacrificing and heroic people.

But i have learned once more (TOO many times I am afraid), that if the following is true: (a) disaster movie (b) in USA, then the movie MUST be pathetic, with very strongly heroic self-sacrificing, patriot characters.

Of course the good characters prevail, and the bad ones die.

Of course the good character saves all, saves mankind, and anyone will listen to him. He makes virtually all that rulers of the world should do.

So... lets be objective. Special effects and CGI are great. These made me (from the trailer) go to the cinema to see this movie. And I was in no way disappointed by them, on the contrary. I could say that the first 20% of the movie was somehow OK. But... come on people. I am a Sci-Fi fan, I understand that the movie has fantastic premises.... but this must not influence character actions and development. They have to be Realistic. We are not watching cartoons here. So these are a few of the stuff that actually ruined the movie, and made me hate it.

* US president who refuses to save himself, remaining on the collapsing earth, and being killed by the disaster while he was nursing wounded people (ohhhhh my god, its so gross)

* new superman character John Cusack. He can escape from a van which, while he is inside, falls into a lava crevasse.

* bad reach Russian guy dies in the end very stupid, while the good poor guys escape. All of them. Oh, and BTW, Russian guy's children escape also (although they were also reach, but we cant kill kids in a patriotic, altruist movie, can we ?)

* after one hour of flight lessons, a common plastic surgeon flies planes much better than Schumacher drives formula 1 cars

* an altruist patriotic scientist can convince all state presidents to be good. And to cooperate.

* the dentist (sorry, plastic surgeon) must die, because John Cusack must return to his ex-wife (who in the while was married to the dentist. No, the surgeon. Silicon surgeon.). We cant let superman alone, can we ?

* by the way, John Cusack can also repair billion dollar hydraulic mechanisms (below the watter) which were broken very easily (suspect, isn't it ?) and easy to fix (for John Cusack. Superman.)

Well.... these are only a few things that actually killed me while seeing this movie. They literally ruined a film which could have been exceptional otherwise.

I give it 2 of 10 (I was mad writing this article:)).

Was the above review useful to you?

22 out of 32 people found the following review useful:

I couldn't believe how trash this movie was...

1/10
Author: Moedervlek from Hungary
25 November 2009

Extremely long with a bad plot, full of clichés, poor choice of actors and even the special effects were nothing and STUPID. I stayed in because my boyfriend wanted to see the end but I was texting to my friends most of the time:) But there were some parts when I couldn't help but laugh: 1. how they escaped in the last minute from a fire/tsunami/volcano/earthquake 2. the one with the sixtus chapel was hilarious 3.love scene at the end bw the 2 "heroes" 4.Save the rich ppl...open the gates...Come on..what about the other millions of ppl who couldn't pay? 5.Of course the dog survived...slipped almost under the door..:)

...etc

Pls don't make the same mistake as we did...don't waste your money on this.

Was the above review useful to you?

88 out of 164 people found the following review useful:

Almost the Ultimate Disaster Thrill Ride

7/10
Author: changmoh from Malaysia
10 November 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

WE WERE WARNED: Roland Emmerich's '2012' would be the disaster movie to end all disaster movies. We sneered a bit, but we believed. Emmerich has been vying to be Hollywood's Demolition King since his "Independence Day" (1996), "Godzilla" (1998) and "The Day After Tomorrow" (2004). Now, with the aid of superior CGI, he seems to have done it. Basically, "2012" is about the Earth melting at the core! The ancient Mayans knew about this and researchers say they have even pinpointed the date to 12-21-12 - or December 21, 2012! Scientifically, though, mutant neutrinos have boiled the Earth's core like a microwave, causing quakes, spilling lava and shifting the Earth's crust. That's right. This means our land mass moves about so violently that we may find Wisconsin right on the South Pole! A few people are privy to this info about the imminent end of the world. One person who stumbles onto the truth is writer Jackson Curtis (John Cusack) and he goes all out to get his ex-wife (Amanda Peet) and kids (Liam James and Morgan Lily) to safety. The authorities (represented by Danny Glover as the US President, Oliver Platt as the Chief of Staff and Chiwetel Ejiofor as Adrian Helmsley, the American scientist who alerts the White House) must use the time they have to prepare for Doomsday - and a Brave New World! What can I say about a disaster movie that has all the best bits of all the other disaster hits like "Earthquake", "The Poseidon Adventure", "Airport" and "Armegeddon"? The CGI effects look so real and involving that they keep us on the edge of our seats. Those, plus the Indy Jones-type escapades of Cusack's Jackson who always manages to be just inches and split-seconds away from danger and mayhem. Some of these, like the underwater bid to undo a mechanical problem (a'la Poseidon films), may be old stuff but they mainly keep us occupied for the two-and-a-half hour roller-coaster ride! The subplot about Jackson's family set-up is engaging enough but many of the plot turns and situations are utterly preposterous. However, Emmerich makes it clear that he knows how silly they are - by showing some of them in a tongue-in-cheek manner. It is all a theme park extravaganza - a thrill ride through one spectacle after another. I can imagine the fun Emmerich must be having, demolishing national icons like the White House (for a second time), the Christ statue of Rio and even St Peter's of Vatican City. It's no great cerebral fare, but as an End-of-the-World flick, it gets you there! - by LIM CHANG MOH

Was the above review useful to you?

11 out of 11 people found the following review useful:

Worst movie EVER...

1/10
Author: Niksa from Croatia
11 April 2010

Not kidding, lots of B movies (if not all of them) have better plot and more believable action scenes.

Characters are uninteresting and plane boring. Except those played by Woody Harrelson and Morgan Lily. But that's too little to save this epic piece of...

The plot is a insult. Stupid. If someone just put 5 minutes to it... They couldn't find 300 bucks to pay anyone with high school to write the story when they decided to spend gazillion on CGI... And famous CGI is NOT so realistic, everything has cartoonish feel.

Action scenes... Tom and Jerry and Roadrunner have more consideration for laws of physics and reality than people who made this movie. It would be much more fair if they made just an hour of CGI effects, than trying to package it in this "movie".

I didn't expect to see Schindler's List, and I love action flicks, I watched Independence Day 3 or 4 times, but this one is really disaster.

Was the above review useful to you?

17 out of 23 people found the following review useful:

A movie that does absolutely nothing!

2/10
Author: sasazg-1 from Croatia
4 December 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This is a movie I looked forward watching, mostly because I was interested to see how will the director of this movie explain the Mayan prophecy. What I actually saw was big explosions, John Cusack doing things he didn't believe could actually be done even in the wildest imagination. Except the small part went Charlie (Woody Harrelson character) makes that video blog where he explains in a funny way what will happen to the world, the real important stuff that makes the year 2012 so fascinating, especially the Mayan calendar, who the Mayans were, all is left out, and what remains is huge explosions that left Africa the only continent that can people live in.

Roland Emmerich should have done a whole lot better with the budget he had. A very bad movie, huge disappointment.

Was the above review useful to you?

26 out of 41 people found the following review useful:

Yes... we were warned... About how crappy this movie would be!

1/10
Author: Kenneth_Loring from United States
15 November 2009

2012... the number of people that had to see the movie before the public finally realized that it sucked. It's a shame because Dean Devlin and Roland Emmerich can't direct action scenes to save their lives, and decided instead to write the movie to utilize every disaster movie cliché in the book since it was written in the 70's with the likes of "Earthquake" and "Airport". It's a cheesy story that you've seen before. There are cheesy death scenes where after somebody dies they look at the sky and yell "MENDOZAAAAAA!!!!!". Yes, it is that bad. This movie is so bad that even rednecks think this is way over the top. If Liberace were alive, he would say "This is the gayest thing I've ever seen... and my house is covered in mirrors!". Anyways, please skip it. Dean Devlin and Roland Emmerich are dried up hacks who don't know how to do anything but make disaster movies, which honestly takes a bare minimum of talent.

Was the above review useful to you?

26 out of 41 people found the following review useful:

2012-overhyped, under researched & total waste of space

1/10
Author: uniqueabba from United Kingdom
14 November 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

So...I saw the 5 min 21 sec trailer on You Tube in HD, I watched that and thought, wow, from the maker of Independence Day and The Day After Tomorrow, this is gonna be good. HOW WRONG WAS I! I drove down the coast to Miramar Cinemas, Malaga, Spain in anticipation. 3 of us had bought our tickets on-line to see the "V.O" version, ("Version Original") so, no subtitles in Spanish, just the film as it came from the distributor. There are versions called "V.O.S" (Version Original Subtitulado) - Subtitled in Spanish. As there are many English speaking people living in these parts, the theatre was quite full, all ages settled down and then the experience began. The opening scene includes an opening caption which is in the original film, placing us at present day, HOWEVER, the film had Spanish subtitles under that caption - IRRITATING, which will be very obvious later. My friend sat next to me asked what it was about, and I told him the film was based on prophecies and the Mayan Calendar, and we settled back to watch. My first issue, as is with most of these films, is why STILL after all that happened on September 11th, do American Studios STILL put the main film build up or explanations of things from a very biased US stand point. After 911 I would have thought the US would have "got it" as to why they were attacked - FOR ARROGANCE, yet here we get a portrayal of a 2009 where the US ONCE again is the policeman of the world, the wise older brother to the rest of the world, made out to look like morons. IRRITATED me intensely. The US President (a black one which I liked) of course is in charge and Europe as minions listen to instruction and do as they are told, as do Japan and China - IRRITATING. I was sitting waiting for some sort of scientific accuracy as to what happens in Tectonic movements, but they came up with some ridiculous "Nuclear" or "Neutrino" ray activity to penetrate the Earth, this weakening its core - RUBBISH. We move on swiftly to 2010 and now things have moved on way too fast with some kind of special vessels being built in a secret location, kept secret from the world. A world which is 2010 has such things as Twitter and MySpace as good communication tools, yet we are supposed to think that 8 massive structures being built somewhere secret will remain that way in this day and age when Iran's near revolution was broken on Twitter - IRRITATING. All the scientists are scurrying around building their humanity saving transport, with no regard to cost, that is just explained away as a "rich Russian" and a couple of caricature "Arabs" paid for the construction of these vessels - IRRITATING. The way this film just explains things so simply was MADDENING! John Cusack is a divorced man working as a chauffeur for rich, yes, you got it, Russians", how convenient. He slowly begins to see strange uttering between the privileged few who have "bought" their way onto these vessels for Salvation and wants to find out more. So, naturally he goes with his 2 kids to Yellowstone Park in his truck for a camping overnighter, he strays into a previously free to the public area, now fenced off, he jumps over the fence with absolutely no security there to stop him and wander into what was once a lake area. Here he is apprehended and meets the main Scientist who conveniently has read one of his books - IRRELEVANT - now is apparent to the plot is completely awash with errors and forgotten loose ends that aren't tied up in any way later on in the "film". Why bring things in if they had no intention of developing the fact that John Cusack's character was a rather under rated author, after this mention, the matter of him being an author and actually a chauffeur as a supplementary job, goes out the window - PLOT IRRITATION.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 4 of 107: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [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