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 guidemessage board
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 5 of 106: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [Next]
Index 1054 reviews in total 

15 out of 19 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?

21 out of 31 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?

10 out of 10 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?

16 out of 22 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?

25 out of 40 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?

25 out of 40 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?

47 out of 84 people found the following review useful:

Not quite the end of the world, but more than likely the end of Roland Emmerich's career

1/10
Author: Jacob Bittens from United States
22 November 2009

There are some movies that should just really not be made. 2012 isn't one of those, but its incredibly awful execution really makes you wish otherwise. What was a good idea (though it was the same good idea we saw in Emmerich's The Day After Tomorrow... and so many other films of this nature) had potential. There was a lot of money behind this thing, obviously, but it would appear that all this money went towards the effects. The effects are stellar for the most part, but are so over done that you truly feel the extent to which the filmmakers failed in every other way. The plot is dumb, the acting, with the notable exception of Woody Harrelson playing... himself, is hard to watch, and the effects, believe it or not, are not worth it. I say this not because they were anything short of amazing, but because there is so much effect that you find yourself sick of it. It's not always easy to sit through a brainless movie without good effects. But it's quite difficult to sit through a near 3-hour movie with only effects. The film had nothing else to offer. The attempts to ask moral and ethical question are skewed and ineffective. The characters are so expendable, as you will quickly discover, that it's nearly impossible to care about them. And the few characters that you do end up caring about are the ones that the filmmakers seemed to care the least about, and so they get very little screen time. The camera work is alright at times, though there are a few awkward switches between techniques.

If you, however, are only looking for a way to kill three hours, and you have not seen a lot of movies like this before, perhaps 2012 is for you. If you're looking for anything more to this film, though, you will likely be thoroughly disappointed. Don't spend 10 dollars on this, rent it on DVD, watch it on a big HD screen and huff a lot of propane, and this movie will be your favorite film of all time.

It is a bit sad, because I must say that Emmerich's films in the past, particularly Independence Day, were quite good. This one just isn't.

Hopefully Hollywood will figure out that bigger budget isn't always better movie... someday. For now, let us sit back and wait to see if James Cameron follows in Roland Emmerich's footsteps with his Avatar film.

Was the above review useful to you?

9 out of 9 people found the following review useful:

The End of the World: The New Family Therapy?

6/10
Author: jacksonjackson from United States
24 December 2009

Who knew the end of the world could be such a bummer? In "2012," the first and certainly not the last big-studio bid to cash in on the supposed coming apocalypse, Roland Emmerich once again lays waste to Earth and its assorted famous landmarks, but this time it's with a touch of exhaustion, an almost routine finality. Maybe it's middle age (it's his first apocalypse since he turned 50). Or, maybe, it's because to a consummate destroyer of worlds (four doomsdays and counting), the true end of days is really just the final dreary step. Few images, after all, beat that of the California coast crumbling into the ocean like a sinking aircraft carrier, or of the subsequent barrage of flaming volcanic rock that pummels the earth when Yellowstone finally goes kaput, blowing its literal top and the audience's already torpid movie-going mind.

Both of those sequences are given high prominence in "2012," though neither is predicted by the end of the Mesoamerican long-count calendar, from which this movie takes its name if not much else. Weaving escapist fantasy into scientific fact has long been the prerogative of high-concept vehicles like "2012," which omit most of the finer factual details (the Mayans never actually wrote of the end of the world, for starters) to make their own pseudoscientific conceits appear frighteningly plausible. That may explain why "2012" takes a nominally more scientific approach to the cataclysm (neutrinos, crust displacement, blah, blah, blah), though even Chiwetel Ejiofor, as the president's scientific adviser, seems to know that it's all one big joke long before Woody Harrelson, as some sort of apocalyptic hippie fanatic, can pop his eyeballs and declare, "It's the apocalypse, man!"

Mr. Harrelson's character doesn't figure much into the story beyond the usual wise fool archetype, though at least his bug-eyed mugging gives oomph to what is otherwise a pretty unremarkable disaster flick. The real selling point of "2012" is, of course, the annihilation of our planet and most of our species, and, if nothing else, the destruction here can hardly be called boring. That's to be expected, seeing that Mr. Emmerich is certainly an old hand in the industry, having already vaporized, trampled, flooded and frozen the planet solid, not to mention raked in a collective ten-figure sum at the domestic box office. Considering the worldwide scale of "2012" and Mr. Emmerich's incurable tendency to one-up himself, it's also no surprise that here he works so relentlessly to cover all his catastrophic bases, from the pulverization of the Vatican to the inundation of D.C., to the purely extraneous sight of a cruise ship keeling over, Paul Gallico-style, upending the galley and its many digitally- rendered flailing human bodies.

But, seriously, what's the point anymore? Like most apocalyptic trifles, "2012" trades on the doomsday scenario to stake the usual forgettable claims at the resilience of the human spirit (and the American nuclear family) but mostly it just wants to watch the world burn, sometimes literally. The human race is ending, after all, and if that end never really resonates in "2012," it's because not even Mr. Emmerich seems interested in examining it beyond the visceral level. Although he duly taps his emotional well by occasionally bringing you close to the calamity – the tiny human bodies tumbling from a collapsing freeway are certainly frightening – it's hard to feel awed by or even care at all about any of it when all the man wants to do (and wants us to do) is have a good time.

"2012" is a pretty much a romp, then, and, for its first ruinous hour at least, a reasonably satisfying one. The sturdy B-movie screenplay by Mr. Emmerich and Harold Kloser actually picks up in 2009, giving time to introduce a few of the leading men and women who will figure into the imminent end, some of them likable (Mr. Ejiofor), others abhorrent (Oliver Platt as a blustering government bigwig), most of them just plain boring. Three years later, as the cracks in the Earth and the story become wider and more worrisome, more people come into play, in this case an everyfamily (John Cusack, Amanda Peet and their two burdensome children) we're meant to follow while modern civilization crumbles around them, in increasingly spectacular ways.

But the spectacle wears off and the movie soon drags, done in when Mr. Emmerich's exuberant flair for devastation gives way to his seriously underwhelming affinity for family soap operatics and teary moments of worldwide harmony. Part of the problem with movies like "2012" is that even with the latest brand of pricey computer-generated effects at their disposal, such wizardry tends to undercut itself when you stop and realize that almost none of what you're seeing is really there, really happening. Mr. Emmerich is not entirely to blame, of course, though it's nonetheless a wonder that after three stabs at destroying the planet, he still can't avoid the disconnect between human tragedy and worldwide destruction that runs through "2012" like a fissure and keeps even its most realistic-looking disasters from ever feeling remotely real. Which may make it the perfect tonic to this particular ploy of the paranoia market.

Was the above review useful to you?

12 out of 15 people found the following review useful:

Horrible!!

1/10
Author: ceheue from United States
26 December 2009

This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. The acting is bad, the special effects are terrible, and the storyline is horrible. After every scene in the movie, I thought to myself, "Why am I watching this?" I suppose I wanted to give it a fair review. After seeing the previews, I expected it to be bad, but I had no idea. The narrow escapes are so unbelievable that I couldn't imagine anyone over the age of 10 enjoying them. I apologize if I have insulted any 5 year olds' intelligences with that last statement. I can't talk about the plot because it doesn't have one. This goes to show that an enormous budget doesn't make a good film. What a waste.

Was the above review useful to you?

12 out of 15 people found the following review useful:

2012 a total disaster

Author: Craig Somerville from Scotland
19 November 2009

Well I'm just back from watching this movie at my local multi-plex. So what did I think? oh dear where to start.

This had to be one of the most enduring movies experiences of my life. 2HRS 30 MINS, are you kidding me? I have to be honest the only reason I went to see this movie was to see the quality of the CGI on the big screen. I didn't go to see it because I wanted or thought I would see, intense character development, an intriguing story with an intelligent script, fantastic direction with a epic world class score. Thank goodness I didn't because none of these things are on show.

So why did I hate this SO MUCH?

No logic to the build up of the chaos.

Cardboard cut out character with ZERO likability or progression. Were they all based on cartoon characters.

OTT close shaves........CONSTANTLY.....

FAR to many clichés, everyone possible for a disaster was thrown in there. Some originality please.

Did I mention 2 AND A HALF HOURS.

Poor script wrote I assume by a 5 year old?

Forgettable score

Ridiculous over sentimental moments of intimacy between cardboard characters. Sorry but I don't care about them because of the poor story telling.

Last 30 Min's dragged and was extremely dull, oh and how long can some of these characters hold their breath?

I could go on.....but won't.

What did I like.

Not much, however there are a couple of AWESOME CGI scenes of destruction.

Unfortunately thats not enough, not even close enough to make this an enjoyable experience, EVEN if your brain is in neutral.

1/10 For the CGI and only for the CGI.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 5 of 106: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [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