2012 (2009) Poster

(I) (2009)

User Reviews

Review this title
875 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
This film had so much potential. What went wrong?
bennog11 November 2009
They had all the money, actors and special effects they needed so how did they manage to screw this one up? Obviously they thought exiting moments were more important than developing deeper characters and that's why this story that had great potential stayed so shallow. The dialog was always cheesy and none of the 'hero's' in this film really showed any real emotions nor did they give any of those speeches that give the audience goose bumps. Another thing that really bothered me was that so much was almost going wrong the whole time. Every second of the film had a 'close call' which made the film seem totally unrealistic. Examples are planes taking off just before the runway collapses or driving just fast enough to not get hit by an explosion. This can be very cool if it doesn't happen 100% of the time and I have never seen a movie abusing this way of creating excitement to this extent. So to sum up: If you feel like turning your brain off and watching special effects and big explosions with a very shallow storyline then this movie is for you. But if you feel like watching a movie with a bit of depth then go and see something else.
1,069 out of 1,417 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
What happened to the Mayan prophecy?
ridley_coppola11 November 2009
I went to an advance screening of 2012 a few nights ago and I have to admit that this movie was entertaining at best and that's it. The whole movie is almost entirely comprised of special effects. Of course you'll see all of the lead characters survive scenarios that a regular human being would not. Some of the scenes are so ridiculously unbelievable that you want to laugh at the fodder that's being expected of you to believe. Emmerich certainly pushes "suspension of disbelief" to its limit.

John Cusack and Woody Harrelson are the only actors that attempt to hold the film together, while Danny Glover and Thandie Newton were an utter and complete let-down considering their previous work history. You won't see any remotely Oscar-worthy performances here. The casting of this film seemed off and poorly executed. You could tell the bulk of the financial budget went to the special effects and not the actors.

The thing that I found thoroughly disappointing about 2012 is that it's almost entirely lacking of any interesting backstory or intellectual substance whatsoever. There's very little mention of the Mayan calendar, Mayan history, or any of the prophetic wisdom that has foreseen the supposed end of days. The fear, analysis, curiosity, and everything else you've ever wondered about this new mysterious year that is quickly approaching is almost entirely removed from this film. That would have and could have made this film closer to a 10 if I didn't feel like my brain was utterly wasted on this CGI and special effects bonanza. They try to cram so many explosions, eruptions, earthquakes, and natural disasters into two hours that I might be a little desensitized to the real thing if it ever happens. After awhile nothing felt realistic or interesting about it at all.

It's novelty entertainment at best and that's it. You won't wince at how painfully awful this movie is, and you won't walk away knowing anything meaningful about 2012, but hopefully you'll help repay Sony pictures for the exorbitant amount of money that they and Roland Emmerich spent on their special effects budget. Don't say you weren't warned.
603 out of 874 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Funniest tragedy ever
dfranzen703 December 2009
There is now a long, grand history of disaster films in Hollywood. The best of the lot have combined suspense with cutting-edge effects to keep your adrenaline pumping. The worst combine cheesy CGI with shallow characters whose deaths won't affect you much.

Here's 2012, summed up: Look, some recognizable landmark! Kablam! Look, a giant wave! Wooo! Do our intrepid Good Guys have enough time to outrun the imploding planet and foil a plot to save only the pretty, rich people? Probably! It's pretty clear what happened to bring us to this point. Roland Emmerich, who's made such cinematic classics as Independence Day, The Patriot, Godzilla, and The Day after Tomorrow, was asked if he wanted a quintillion billion bazillion dollars to make a movie about the end of the world, and he said sure. Then he took parts of each movie's script, filmed them mostly with CGI, and pocketed the rest. Viola! Greatest movie! (A quick break to sum up the plot. Apparently, the sun and the planets have all aligned with the center of the galaxy, which winds up causing the Earth's crust to break up, which then causes the tectonic plates to shift. Mass hysteria! Dogs and cats, living together! The End.) See, there are two ways Emmerich could have gone with this movie. He could have given us characters to follow whom we cared a little about, thus involving us in their plights, and mixed in some convincing special effects. Or he could have said, "The heck with the characters, give me blowy-uppy thingys." This sometimes works: See Independence Day, a movie that made me feel pretty good when I left the theater after seeing it but that ultimately, frankly, was pretty bad.

Emmerich chose the latter. Which would have been fine, but the effects themselves are wildly unrealistic and often take so long to set up that you completely notice how godawful they really are. For example – and if you've seen the trailer, this is in there – there's a scene in which the Sistine Chapel falls, crushing thousands of spectators. Because the toppling is so slow to complete, it becomes painfully obvious that it's just a film running on a screen behind people running away. Sad and unintentionally hilarious.

And you can forget about the plot, really, because most of it makes no sense anyway and would happen only in a Big Movie like this. Of COURSE John Cusack is divorced from his hot, bitchy wife (Amanda Peet) and of COURSE she's hooking up with a plastic surgeon who of COURSE winds up having had some flying lessons that of COURSE will save them all and of COURSE Cusack's young son will somehow save the day as well and of COURSE there is a Russian businessman who used to be a boxing legend and of COURSE he punches someone out. And of COURSE people say "My God!" a lot, because that's what people do in crappy disaster films. And of COURSE the president is black, because in Hollywood black people get to be president only if disaster is a-coming.

At least the acting isn't horrible. Because everyone just runs from place to place in an effort to escape the horror, there aren't any subtle, low-key scenes that would allow good actors to flourish. Cusack is good in general, but what the heck is he doing in here? He's usually so good at picking projects, and he chose this? Willingly? Oliver Platt plays the kind of role that Bruce McGill typically gets, the hamhanded, I'm-in-charge, Al-Haig-like politician. I can't even remember his title. Danny Glover gets to be president and does get the best dialog in the film, even if his role isn't a big one. Woody Harrelson, as a crazed DJ deep in Yellowstone is also a lot of fun, although he's not the kind of guy you'd want to sit next to on a transatlantic flight.

Final verdict: Yikes. Yikes, yikes, and yikes. If you dare watch this travesty, you might find yourself laughing hysterically at things – and this is important – that were not meant to be funny. If that's your thing, this is your movie. I managed to see this as a matinée, so I'm not out the $10-$15 that some people are right now, so at least I got that going for me. Best advice: Watch it for free at home on a big-screen TV to fully appreciate the magnitude of suck.
476 out of 741 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
It's the end of the world, not anybody's career
polombob15 November 2009
Anybody going to this movie to learn about the Mayan prophecies for 2012 or for any true science, is going to be sadly disappointed. But, that is not why we go to movies anyway, is it? That is like going to see Godzilla expecting to learn something about giant lizards that vomit radioactive spray. Emmerich has taken a fictitious subject he knew would be controversial and woven some drama into it. People who tend to be slightly paranoid will no doubt be even more so after seeing the world destroyed according to interpretations of prophecy. The people who sell the books promoting the fear make money, just like the movie producers. So what? I didn't see this movie to pick up any information I haven't learned from the History Channel, nor do I believe any more than I did before, that anything bad is going to happen on December 21, 2012. Did I go expecting to be highly entertained by great CGI and action? Yes! And I wasn't disappointed! One thing many reviewers haven't been picking up on while watching this movie is the very slight tongue-in-cheekiness of the subject that Emmerich cleverly wove into the plot. He obviously doesn't believe any of the prophecy any more than most of the rest of us do. You can see it in the actors' performances too: Woody Harrelson, to wit. It is the same as a weatherman who can deliver his forecast each night without laughing because he truly doesn't know with certainty what is going to happen, but he tries to make us believe nonetheless.

See this movie if you love cinema. Enjoy the things about cinema that make it great. Take a small pillow for your butt cheeks because almost 3 hours of sitting in an uncomfortable theater seat will make you wish you had. But fear not. There is so much non-stop action you won't notice the discomfort too much.

The film has obvious flaws, trite clichés, and phony science, but if you are a fan of 50's sci-fi, you will love this movie. And remember, don't take it too seriously folks, just enjoy it. The end of the world isn't going to happen in 2012, there really aren't any giant grasshoppers, ants, or lizards roaming the Earth, and no one's career is going to end because of their role in this movie. It is Hollywood having a good time with a controversial subject. Nothing new there.

Enjoy the show!
421 out of 664 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Great roller-coaster ride
andony6320 November 2009
Okay, the first thing I'd like to say is, ignore those comments from members who belong to 'the worst movie ever club!!' These members think it is way cool to label every slightly disappointing movie as ' the worst movie ever' and emphasize their juvenility with tons of exclamation marks. They think it is way cool to trash movies.

The movie just isn't that bad. It's not that great either so ignore those who gush and tell you how awesome it is and rate it 10 out of 10.

This is a film best viewed in the movie theaters on the largest screen possible to enjoy the thrilling sensation of cities breaking up, tsunamis and volcanic eruptions. This is indeed a thrilling roller-coaster ride. It is best to leave your brain at home, however, as you will cringe at the clichés, the schmaltz, and the absurdities. That doesn't make it the worst film ever, though. So go for the ride and enjoy the CG effects.
319 out of 502 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Absolutely LOVE
bettajosh13 February 2019
This has always been my favourite disaster movie, and one of my favourite movies of all time. It includes a perfect mix of government, science, and the average citizen. The acting is great, and the CGI is actually very good. It's intense, intriguing, exciting, thrilling, sad, and happy all at the same time. Your emotions will change all throughout the movie. There are different scenes with different people that all connect.

The story line and script is absolutely brilliant, love love love! To the people who say some scenes aren't realistic or the things that happen aren't likely to have occurred in that situation, um, what do you expect? It's a movie, of course there will be scenes where the unlikely occurs. It wouldn't be entertaining if they just died in a really dangerous situation all of a sudden.

DEFINITELY worth the watch, VERY entertaining. Without any doubt, best disaster movie ever made (and I love disaster movies). Can't recommend it enough!
31 out of 43 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Great campy fun
cpbadgeman23 November 2009
It was pretty much inevitable that someone would make a movie based on all the 2012 hoopla. Nor is it surprising when that someone is disaster maven Roland Emmerich. His latest effort adheres closely to the formula established by his earlier films "Independence Day" and "The Day After Tomorrow"- in other words we get to watch a typically flawed-but-lovable American family (headed by John Cusack and Amanda Peet), along with a range of supporting characters, attempt to survive the end of the world.

That's all there is to the basic plot. The real stars of the film are the truly spectacular special effects. Emmerich really pulls out all the stops and creates some truly awesome set-pieces of destruction. In order to ensure that the main characters have endless perilous situations to escape from, we get to see a bunch of natural and man-made wonders get totaled by Mama Nature. Highlights include Los Angeles falling into the sea, Las Vegas being swallowed by the desert, and the Himalayas being submerged by tidal waves.

Improbable? Definitely. Ridiculous? You bet. But none of that matters since "2012" is exactly the film it was intended to be- a great big popcorn movie that offers big laughs, big thrills, and a lot of good old fashioned fun.
161 out of 254 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
All the wannabe critics and their 1's smh
Top_Dawg_Critic19 April 2020
Firstly, anyone who gave this film 5 or less needs to give their head a shake and learn how to review a film. The scale isn't just a 1 or 10. Yes this film wasn't a 10, but for the production value alone, plus the decent s/vfx and all star cast, no way anyone besides a wannabe critic could give this film anything less than a 6. Sure it had its flaws, but it was still epic. Great casting, cinematography, directing and conceptual story of a modern day Noah's Arc. It's a well deserved 8/10 from me. Click on my username to see more of my 900+ reviews and read my profile to learn how to properly review a film and give credit to where credit is deserved.
61 out of 91 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Good cataclysmic Action, but waayyy to much bad kitsch
eilfurz12 November 2009
I loved the first half of the movie with Roland Emmerich seemingly back to form (from his disastrous "10,000 B.C."). But as the movie drags on, even the smallest character gets his "i have to say goodbye to my loved ones"-scene - which becomes quite annoying after you've watched this for the 5th time in a row. then comes a great destruction scene and then we're back in soap-opera territory. don't get me wrong, basically that can be said about most of Emmerich's movies - they are just popcorn cinema - leave your brain at the ticket counter. still, i enjoyed the likes of "Independence Day" or even "The Day After Tomorrow". But the one thing, he can't do properly is "good"-emotional cinema - which works fine in some of his other movies when his pathos-laden, goofy dialogue writing doesn't get in the way of the big explosions - it fit's, makes them funnier to a point. unfortunately this doesn't work for 2012. if somebody could actually cut this movie down to 90minutes running time, i'd even be lining up for a second ticket.
210 out of 340 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Classic Emmerich, You will get what you pay for.
kungfugirlsclub9 November 2009
If you've seen Independence Day, Titanic, or any recent vintage of the well-worn disaster film genre, you will not be disappointed at all with any of 2012. Its 2.5 hour+ running time moves at a great clip, and there's enough science and pseudoscience running around to give the film a certain of-the-moment wonder and clarity. The many destruction sequences throughout the film are absolutely breathtaking to behold, and one wonders if Roland Emmerich starts every film imagining how he will destroy the White House. Like all of his other films (except for The Patriot) it has big names but no huge names and really is a blast to watch. It has just the right balance of action and melodrama, often, as with all good films of this genre, in the same scene. The audience I watched it with was laughing and cheering throughout, and I'm sure it will be the definitive event movie of the holiday season, critics be damned.
304 out of 541 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Heavy and absurd..
Steefx11 November 2009
After watching this movie I really needed time to figure out what to think of it. I heard a lady sharing her first comment to her friend: 'That dog sure was ugly'. What else was there to say? After a while I found out:

The action was truly formidable, demonstrating the power of 'mother nature'. Collapsing buildings, jumping flaming cars, planes falling down and manage to pull up a second before touchdown, it was a real trip and a feast for the eyes and ears.

But then again... the acting wasn't that good, a bit over the top. In one scene in the movie, where every wasted second could be the cause of a terrible disaster, *they* waste their time being...ROMANTIC! At times like that the acting became very juicy, making me think I was watching 'Titanic' instead.

One point of advise: Do not take this movie too seriously. It's almost stuffed with jokes instead of showing us the real drama of an earth that is about to be destroyed. But keep this in mind and you'll have a heck of a 2 hours and 40 minutes(!) in a movie that is made for the cinema.
240 out of 424 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
This is seriously underrated on this site...it deserves more credit.
austinmblair5 April 2014
I legitimately cannot understand why so many people would claim that this movie is so bad. This movie is truly incredible. I can only assume that the people who have given this a bad review have no idea how extremely and unimaginatively difficult it would be to make a film like this. Also, after reading some other user reviews I can only assume that many of them have not seen real earthquakes, tsunamis, or explosions; because they look unbelievably real in this movie, and yet some claim that the CGI is horrible. There was literally no part of this movie that ever looked fake to me, and I watched it on Blu-Ray. The sound mixing is outstanding, and if you watch the movie on a nice surround system it sounds truly amazing. The actors all do a great job too. I know tons of people who like this movie, but unfortunately most of the people who actually take the time to get on here and rate it are the ones who think they know everything, or that they could do better, or just the simple few who are not into disaster movies. This movie didn't make hundreds of millions of dollars by being terrible. Obviously there are going to be different opinions out there, but someone needed to stick up for this movie; because it is absolutely an amazing and spectacular work of art...and it's fun as heck to watch.
23 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
waste of money
vazicao23 November 2009
I could talk about this movie all day, but it already consumed too much of my time. They should have burned the money, and film it, the fire would be a much better show... I really do not want to believe that it is allowed to call this a movie. Shame on all the great actors who participated in this... I wouldn't even say that the effects are stunning, because they are just expensive and they do not serve any purpose. Everything is so pointless. All the "emotional" scenes made me wanna throw up. The lines are... don't know how to describe them. I think that you can hear the "Mister president" line, about a hundred times which is present in every single one of Mr Roland's movies. Music is so cheesy, every now and then the sad strings come up to pump up the heroics of brave individuals, or to make you cry or at least to make you realize the importance of the situation , and all they do is making it even more disgusting and eventually you end up actually wanting the world to end. The box offices keep telling us that this is the way to make a "good" movie and that, my friends, won't be the end of the world, but it will surely be the end of 7th art!
182 out of 337 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
2,012 clichés in a single movie!
cptnhook1317 July 2010
Wow. This rancid trough of gruel may be the worst movie EVER made. Let's get right to the checklist of goods:

Divorced couple/failure father/mom with new rich boyfriend/torn kids? check.

Indian that constantly says "my friend" and "sir?" check.

African-American stoic President? check.

Smug, smarmy, fat, know it all, government guy? check.

Secret so big that it couldn't possibly be kept a secret? check.

Crazy wacky mad genius living in the woods? check.

Scientist with a cane and an Einstein accent? check.

Hero that can drive/sail/pilot/commandeer/ride/skate through ANY kind of danger? check.

I have to stop there, because that's just the first 30 minutes - but you get the idea. How this garbage gets a green light, funded, promoted, and made is beyond me. What is worse is that people pay for it - dearly. In this case, your money is the easy part of what you lose; the brain cells destroyed will not be replaced. Awful. Terrible. As punishment, I made myself watch infomercials for 2 hours and 40 minutes - including the Shake Weight, the Sobakawa Buckwheat Pillow, and Gilbert Godfrey's Shoedini over and over again to clear my mind.

I'm considering registering for a Tony Robbins seminar - so I can blow $200 that could otherwise potentially be spent within 100 yards of a movie theater in the next year. I will NOT allow this to happen ever again. This film is that bad.
20 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Better than I expected
Mister_Anderson26 December 2009
If you've seen any of Roland Emmerich's previous disaster titles, you probably know what you're in for with this one. That being said, I felt 2012 had better acting and a more exciting storyline than the others.

In order to enjoy this film, you have to ignore the ridiculously absurd premise about neutrinos and the sun catastrophically altering the earth's crust (forget about the Mayan prophecy, which is hardly mentioned). If you can overlook why the world is ending, this is actually an captivating film with some spectacular effects scenes. Yes, there are several perilous close calls that stretch the notion of "luck". Yes, the actors from all parts of the world become interconnected in what stretches the notion of "coincidence". No, it's not going to receive any best acting or screenplay nominations. Nevertheless, it's engaging.

Cusack is great as the everyman hero. Ejiofor grabs your attention as the young government scientist trying to prepare for the inevitable. Glover and Harrison are also effective in smaller roles: Glover as the resolute President, and Harrison as the wackjob conspiracy theorist who might not be so crazy after all. Many other characters are merely stereotypes (like the Russian) or one dimensional (like the wife), but let's be honest, it's not the characters that we're coming to see. If you are, you'll probably be disappointed.

2012 is not great but it entertains as a doomsday thriller. IMO it's better than ID4, Godzilla, Day After Tomorrow, and 10,000 BC. Worth a rental if you're into disaster flicks.
9 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
You Were Warned!
rhklwk-123 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.
39 out of 67 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A really good natural disaster film. (NO SPOILERS)
dyellow-3890218 April 2016
This is certainly in my top 10 films I have watched. I really like these types of films and this one had it all for me. There is a lot of twists and turns as well as a lot of action.

The plot is based around a family where the parents have separated and the mum has a new partner. There is a large earth quake where they live as well as other major disasters worldwide, they all have to try and survive, which takes them on an epic journey.

The plot is well planned and has a lot of variety which gives you the sense of a worldwide disaster, which is always good for this type of film. The graphics are good and there is a lot of action as well as on the edge of your seat moments.

I would 100% recommend.
17 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A Silly and Corny Disaster Movie
claudio_carvalho27 February 2010
When the geologist Dr. Adrian Helmsley and his team discover that the core of Earth is heating due to solar radiation, he advises the North American President about his findings. The American Govern collects money from the worldwide leaders to build arks to save them with necessary people to rebuild civilization. Meanwhile, the unsuccessful writer Jackson Curtis (John Cusack) discloses that the world is near to end and tries to save his son and his daughter from the tragic end.

In the 70's, there was a "fashion" of disaster movies, in general with dramatic stories but the special effects in those years were very simple. "2012" is the opposite: state-of-art special effects and an imbecile story, i.e., a silly and corny disaster movie. The physical absurd are usually OK for the action, but stupid attitudes is something that is annoying like, for example, the decision to open the gates with less than five minutes to be reached by the tsunami, or swimming wearing tie. There are some posts in the Message Board listing the implausible or stupid scenes and attitudes. The Church in Brazil is suing Columbia Picture for using the image of the Christ Redeemer without previous authorization in an absolute absurd and nonsense; could the true reason be indeed an indirect reprisal for the scene with the destruction of the Vatican? My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): "2012"
23 out of 37 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Cockingly bad film
symon_wardley4 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!
49 out of 89 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Most Amazing, Suspenseful Disaster film!
flagg_018 November 2009
I just caught a charity preview in Plano, TX. I have to say this is one of the most suspenseful, edge of your seat movies that I've seen in a long time. The special effects were phenomenal and made me jump out of my seat a multiple times. The first part of the movie did seem a little slow during the character development, which is to be expected. But, once the action starts, look out! The director did a great job, starting out with low intensity events and building up the intensity of the events of the move to the final climax. This is an awesome movie that has to be seen on the big screen for the full effect, highly recommended!!!
160 out of 319 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Yes... we were warned... About how crappy this movie would be!
Kenneth_Loring15 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.
32 out of 56 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
I expected a lot, and got nothing!
dreamtraax12 November 2009
I can't really say how disappointed i am. I expected so much from this film. It had such a potential. But it seems Hollywood once again, is just trying to harvest a lot of money. The story was disappointing, and kinda confusing.

All kinds of random stuff going on through-out the film. The acting is poor, and there's just no "feel" to it.

The characters are boring, and you wont get connected to them in any way. The facts about 2012 in this film are corny. And randomly inserted.

So why am i giving it 2 stars? Well, for the *Idea for the film, and the *CGI.

The rest is just... garbage.

Don't spend you money on this one, I'm 99% certain that you will regret it.

Im just disappointed... once again....

Regards from Denmark
73 out of 140 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Movie was a disaster
muff_dive14 November 2009
Where do we start, well first of all don't waste your money this movie was a waste of 3 hours. Somehow they seem to dodge death every 10 seconds the humor mixed with a serious genre of movie just didn't cut it. $260 million was used in the production of this and it all went to crap. What ever happened to all the legacy's of the ancients?. They also provide a cliché story of his family and wife who are divorced, the main character becoming the superhero of it all despite the destruction of the whole world how could he possible dodge death 10000 times to save the human race and what do you know he gets his wife back. This movie provided a thin plot which was none the less boring, while i was watching this it was like sitting there like a dog chasing his tail... endless. This movie shows nothing about society or contemporary science behind the actual theory of 2012. If i were you avoid watching you will be sadly disappointed. Go spend $15 else where.
67 out of 128 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Every cliché under the sun
alexandercoady26 January 2012
Not everything about this film is appalling; the visual effects are stunning at some points - down right impressive at others.Unfortunately that's about all the positive points covered.

The story steals parts from every other disaster movie, such as the family life from the War of the Worlds, scenes from Titanic etc.

Every character is damp and pathetic, and at the end you want everyone of the main cast to die; unfortunately some don't.

They made use of every cheesy line, painfully obvious metaphor and overused cliché I could think of.

A truly terrible film, you have been warned.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The effects are there but the film has no real heart or tension to it
bob the moo21 April 2010
The Mayans saw it coming long way off, but science has only just caught up as scientist Adrian Helmsley discovers that solar flares are having a physical impact on the Earth – heating up the core. It is getting worse and the only outcome will be the total collapse of land mass in just a few years. The politicians keep it quiet and begin planning for some form of survival of key people (and some from the private sector) while the remainder will have to be left to die as the species survives. As the physical signs of the end start increasing, one-time author and current limo driver Jackson Curtis is out with his children for the weekend and begins to put things together himself to get to a terrible conclusion.

This was a big movie in the cinema and it continues to be so on video thanks to a massive advertising budget and like many others I was always going to watch it whether I fancied it or not. The film makes no bones about what it is and we are in on it from the very start. What we have here is another big budget disaster movie where lot of things are destroyed in detail before our eyes, while the narrative follows a small group of people as they try to stop/escape/survive the destruction. At its best this genre works by being thrilling and impacting but, when it is not working perfectly it is, well, 2012. The money is all up there to be seen and we have endless narrow escapes, lots of cars and buildings falling down and lots of spectacular forces of nature on display. Problem is though that all of it is computer generated and it is done in such a way that it lacks real heart or soul and never feels real. It also doesn't help that the narrow escapes and our heroes' ability to survive most thing stops us caring because there isn't really any genuine tension or excitement to be had.

The plot has a stake in this too because it does what you expect from the very start. Of the main characters we focus on, the rich man was always going to get his while the "normal" family survive (along with the dog, which always has to survive in this sort of thing). The predictability of it hurts it but it is hurt moreover by what it is doing – OK so the normal family that we have been following are together and safe (thanks to the cruel and pointless removal of Jackson's ex's current partner) but they are the only ones who have not been powerful, "important" or rich enough to survive – we are meant to feel some sort of "fairness" as we watch the Russian Oligarch fall to his death but even if the film tries not to mention it – the arks are full of more like him while billions of others (which includes everyone watching this film) have been left to die. Asking me to feel things is not a good idea when you've got this scenario and the film would have done better to not have had an emotional core.

The cast cannot do anything of real value in the face of the technological onslaught. Cusack is an OK normal guy but this just makes it less believable, not more. He is not strong enough as an actor to make me care about his character or his family though, but then nor is Peet or McCarthy (although Wire fans perhaps will not be too upset by his fate). Ejiofor is far too good an actor to be here while Platt, Newton and Glover have very little to do – although at least they are not embarrassing in the way that Harrelson is. It is not really an actor's film though so I should not be too hard on anyone in particular but they did just take their money and do the basics.

2012 is not an awful film but it is a very base example of the genre. It delivers the effects and the noise but none of it has any heart or reason to be thrilled by it and the details of the plot is not only predictable but also rather irritating (the "happy" ending is that the rich and powerful survive while the normal overwhelmingly die). Make it an hour shorter then maybe it would be worth a look for spectacle but there is too little here to carry the near 3-hour running time.
8 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews

Recently Viewed