Columbia Pictures | Release Date: November 13, 2009
5.5
USER SCORE
Mixed or average reviews based on 751 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
304
Mixed:
252
Negative:
195
Watch Now
Stream On
Stream On
Buy on
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Expand
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
8
DoctorFilmMar 31, 2016
The notion of playing God is implicit in the job of a film director, and rarely has the sense of a wrathful, vengeful deity at the helm, albeit a pagan one, been so comprehensively felt as in “2012.” For demolition maestro Roland Emmerich,The notion of playing God is implicit in the job of a film director, and rarely has the sense of a wrathful, vengeful deity at the helm, albeit a pagan one, been so comprehensively felt as in “2012.” For demolition maestro Roland Emmerich, “Independence Day,” “Godzilla” and “The Day After Tomorrow” were mere appetizers for the lip-smacking smorgasbord of global annihilation laid out here.

Hooking their doomsday scenario on an interpretation of a Mayan calendar that points to an earthly catastrophe in 2012 — specifically on 12-21-12 (what movie will pin its release to that date?) — Emmerich and writing-producing partner Harald Kloser begin by dumping Los Angeles into the sea and follow with the destruction of Las Vegas, Yellowstone National Park, Washington, D.C., the Vatican, India, Tibet and a giant cruise ship.

Anyone who stops to think about it between grabs of popcorn might pick up the hint that Emmerich is taking particularly gleeful aim at the United States (which other director has destroyed the White House in his films not once but now twice?) and Catholicism (he goes out of his way to detail the collapse of St. Peter’s and Rio’s Christ the Redeemer statue), while no other religion gets taken to task. But then, that would be taking this eye-popping display of movie pyrotechnics far too seriously. Or not.

Coming up with halfway decent characters with which to populate disaster films has always proved an almost insurmountable problem, but Kloser and Emmerich have brought a measure of wit to the enterprise. Pic’s Everyman is Jackson Curtis (John Cusack), a rumpled author whose most recent unsuccessful novel happens to have been called “Farewell Atlantis,” and who never paid enough attention to sexy ex-wife Kate (Amanda Peet) and their two young kids (Liam James and Morgan Lily). He’s now forced to look on as Kate shacks up with Gordon (Tom McCarthy) while he scrapes by as a limo driver for L.A.-based Russian billionaire Yuri Karpov (the very engaging Zlatko Buric).

As SoCal hopes for the best amid an alarming upswing in tremors and cracked streets, government scientist Adrian Helmsley (Chiwetel Ejiofor) alerts U.S. President Thomas Wilson (Danny Glover, almost too predictably grave) that increased solar fires (happily, for a change, not man-made global warming) are about to turn the Earth inside out in a way not experienced since the day the dinosaurs died.

While Wilson’s chief of staff, Carl Anheuser (Oliver Platt), readies the evacuation of the elite and the president deliberates about how to preside over the planet’s final chapter, Curtis leads his kids on a series of escapes and near-misses worthy of Indiana Jones — in a limo, RV, private plane (flown by nonpilot Gordon), giant Russian cargo jet and, ultimately, the biggest vehicle ever built. The action is preposterous by any standard, but that’s designed as part of the fun; eye-popping indeed are the sights of the streets of Santa Monica rippling like so many ocean waves, molten meteors spewing out of Yellowstone, the sea claiming a ship the size of a football field and a six-engine jet crash landing on a Himalayan glacier.

Unfortunately, it’s not easy scripting the final act of a movie about the end of the world when you don’t really want the final image to be a charred rock. Let it be said that “2012” plummets from reasonably distracting spectacle to sheerest silliness when, in the pointlessly protracted final reels, it tries to maintain interest in the (confusingly staged) jeopardy of a handful of characters when much of the world’s population has already been wiped out or is about to be. Never has Rick’s observation in “Casablanca” been more true, that the problems of a few little people don’t amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world.

On any level other than as sheer visual sensation, “2012” is a joke, for the simple reason that it has no point of view; the film offers no philosophical, metaphysical, intellectual and certainly no religious perspective on the cataclysm, just the physical frenzy of it all. But to ask this would be taking the picture far too seriously. Or not.

In Cusack and Ejiofor, “2012” has two actors who convey above-the-norm intelligence for characters in this sort of fare, although even they can’t keep up the pretense as the film degenerates. Most casting choices are agreeably offbeat down through the ranks, with Woody Harrelson supercharging his scenes as a wackjob radio sage who issues on-the-air reports from the front lines of destruction.

Except for some patchy work when St. Peter’s crumbles, the visual effects are pretty sensational, delivering the cutting-edge CGI goods auds want and expect. It will be hard to watch “Earthquake” ever again after this one.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
bdjudeNov 30, 2017
The plot was horrible and surlier where it should have been somewhat pragmatic like 'The Day After Tomorrow". Suffice to describe the visual effects are awesome and the cast does their best to keep the going as tough as possible.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
MovieReviewer45May 26, 2018
To summarize the overall quality of the film, the visuals are decent. Some visuals are bad because of the fact that some of these CGI effects are over exaggerating a certain disaster in the movie, but summing all those CGI effects, it isTo summarize the overall quality of the film, the visuals are decent. Some visuals are bad because of the fact that some of these CGI effects are over exaggerating a certain disaster in the movie, but summing all those CGI effects, it is appreciable enough. The story, as usual, in this kind of Emmerich's movies is generic and involves a surviving family and a rather illusive government. The running time is long; exceeding 2 hours of movie watching experience. 158 minutes is the total movie time length. The character development in the movie is quite mediocre, although some characters adds some spice to their roles which deserves some appreciation.

One thing this movie doesn't live up to my expectation is that it lacks humane feelings or sentiments of most characters which is quite expected in a sci-fi flick like this.

Enjoy the CGI for this movie, it will deliver anyhow despite it's long running time.

Rating: 7/10 -> 3.5/5 stars
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
DrCooCoJul 31, 2018
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. For me, the movie is not one to underestimate, and one of those movies I'd recommend to a loose (Or easy-going) friend. Remember, this is my opinion, but I believe "2012" surpassed it's predecessors in a visual aspect. I can easily see why the characters are scared, they're not screaming "ITS KILLING ME" or any chants like that. My heart ran as the characters did. It wasn't like I was there, but it was beating alright. Humanity struggles as they panic, and it's terrifying, especially when some of the characters watch the news about the end of the world. And some of the deaths were shocking, as SOME of them were unexpected. The most jaw wrenching was that Russian guy (I don't know his name, but that'd play into my criticism.)because he sacrificed himself for the kid that couldn't reach the door for the ship. I nearly cried, but then I remembered my dad watching too so yeah... It won't leave you at the edge of your seat or anything, but it's a lot better than most horror flicks I know. However, the biggest strength of this blockbuster is, obviously, the effects, and the music. Together, they create a chaotic setting for the movie, which is very fitting for a disaster movie. At one point, one of my friends called it "Beautiful". I could see why... but anyways, amazing music and visuals. Now for my criticism for this movie. The characters are... ok? The family is quite stereotyped, like every other thriller. But the biggest issue with this movie that might've been the cause for so much negativity around this movie is the "Lucky" factor. It's really outlandish and controlled with little consideration for the possibilities of an event to happen. I mean, the cars were SOMEHOW in the plane for them to escape. (I believe it's because that Russian guy who had the plane just wanted to show off, but still...) And the characters nearly die every couple of minutes. Sometimes, it sorta helps (Ex: The car scene) but mostly, just stupid. However, the biggest problem for me was finding out which character is which. Remember when I referenced one of the characters as "The Russian Guy"? That's because the CGI basically elbow blocked the character development and identities even. It damages the movie greatly, and it's another factor into the film's low grade on most review sits like this. Overall, I'd give it a 7. It's not anything heavenly, there are many flaws that others and I that serve as obstacles for our enjoyment of the movie. But it definitely did what a disaster film as supposed to: Leave me paralyzed in fear on the couch for two and a half hours. So, good effort, Roland. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
jonslowDec 9, 2018
2012 isn't a bad movie as other people rating. Look at many scenes how the world collapse. The visuals were excellent. Never seen any movies create something like this.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
10
DantistzloyOct 28, 2018
RU:Это шедевр. Просто шедевр. Один из лучших
EN:It is a masterpiece. One of the best movies in history
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
SoulstoneApr 1, 2020
Yes, it is not an art house masterpiece designed for the Oscars. But, it was not meant to be that. This is meant to be a mindless popcorn flick with some insane disaster sequences (notably the LA quake and Yellowstone). Don't go in expectingYes, it is not an art house masterpiece designed for the Oscars. But, it was not meant to be that. This is meant to be a mindless popcorn flick with some insane disaster sequences (notably the LA quake and Yellowstone). Don't go in expecting cohesive storytelling or compelling characters, and I think you will have a good time. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
DiptanshuMar 30, 2020
engaging till last act then came silly and pointless moments at the end made whole movie seems why just why!Story was okish,visuals were amazing so does acting but movie is too much strecthed felt literally pointless to add last act!
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
DawdlingPoetNov 27, 2021
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I felt that the start of the movie was a little long drawn out and perhaps the first twenty minutes or so could have been taken out, making it a more reasonably length, as the movie is really quite long at almost two and a half hours long. Having said that, I'd have rolled my eyes if the world started to end, so to speak, too soon into the movie, though perhaps if more information was given about the Mayan folklore surrounding this supposed impending disaster was provided, if more interesting scientific information was somehow added, that would have perhaps made it more relevant and interesting, rather than the viewer watching Jackson taking his kids camping in the countryside and the whole suburban family situation with the ex-wifes boyfriend having a go at him back at home and Jackson trying to impress the kids by taking them camping in a limo(!). Yes Jackson is one of the main characters and you want to have some character development but it just seems so cheesy and ultimately not very important to have the whole dysfunctional family background brought into it. Of course there's the 'baddies' side of things too and, in this case on an individual level rather than in terms of politicians and so on, this would be the multi-millionaire Russian boxing manager, Yuri. Of course, a rich Russian, he must be a selfish what-not, what an utter villain! well I suppose its a bit harsh to call him a real 'villain' as such as he does help the Curtis' out but it turns out that he is pretty selfish, especially in regards to his girlfriend, as we discover quite late into the movie.

There's a moral to the movie I feel as it tries to teach you to not be so selfish and to know that humanity is all about caring for each other and so we shouldn't just look out for each other (yadda yadda) and this comes to a head quite poignantly when a couple of political leaders decide to make a sacrifice. Of course this can be seen as rather predictable and cheesy, although thats not to say that the moral is wrong per se but all the same, it is rather predictable and cheesy. The other part of the movie thats rather annoying is when the Curtis' are trying to out-run (or out-fly) the disaster and somehow they manage to bridge that gap and the vehicle makes it to the other side or the plane will disappear into the smoke and just manage to come back out etc., which sceptics would likely laugh and roll their eyes at - there again, come on, this is a disaster movie and the world is coming to an end, so, yeah, I can't say I know what that would be like but I wouldn't have thought its too realistic from that point of view and I wasn't so keen on that. At the same time, as I say the visual effects were really good, it was really quite impressive and atmospheric and I wished that my TV had a larger screen because I can imagine that it would look particularly good on a large widescreen TV. From the cinematography point of view, this is a very realistic and perhaps even somewhat shocking movie, with the shots of large long cracks appearing and buildings disappearing into the cracks, the earth seeming to be somewhat swallowed by volcanic eruptions, the earth crust moving etc., the visual effects are definitely what makes the movie worth watching and indeed what saves it from being rather boring or worse really.

The movie is long and I'm someone who can fairly easily lose interest in a long movie if the story is too slow or if there isn't enough action or otherwise if its not entertaining but in this case, I didn't become too distracted and I did watch it in full. I found having the lights off and watching it in the dark made it quite atmospheric and I found myself being quite moved by it somehow, although I do feel that it is still quite cheesy/predictable in parts but I guess I overlooked this.

As perhaps predictable as it is within the disaster movie genre, I did feel quite frustrated and annoyed with the scene where the governer of California, (aka Mr 'I'll be back' Schwarzennegger) was shown holding a press conference and trying to calm the citizens by insisting that he believed the worst was over and that there was no need to panic, only a few moments before the city where the Curtis' were living in and watching said press conference, started to, well, be destroyed. Not that I thought this denial wouldn't happen but gah, I'm sure I was left thinking typical! you can never trust politicians!.

I'll also admit that after the movie (finally...lol) finished, I did have an urge to rush up and open the curtains, just to check and be sure that everything was normal outside - if that isn't too embarrassing to admit lol.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
10
DeathfistApr 18, 2020
I'm not a professional but this movie is something else, it really got me worried about the antagonists. But all-n-all great movie if you're into psychological horror movies and also the end of the world.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
10
Ryo91Apr 17, 2020
10/10 * Krasser Film. Gut gemacht. Sehr unheimlich. Gesamtbewertung ist viel zu wenig. :-O
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
Sosmooth1982Aug 26, 2020
If you like end of the world type movies, then this one is for you. I love this movie more then other end of world movies, because it has multiple disasters that happen. Citizens try to survive them all.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
Toasty87Jul 12, 2020
Stupid misguided story and cast it fails so much but can be enjoyed at times.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
ChunkDumpJan 6, 2021
it was creative but not an original. John puts the pedal to the metal before the apocalypse rises and destroys the planet and forcing a reboot for mankind. even though the movie released in 2009, 2012 is a good prediction of all things thatit was creative but not an original. John puts the pedal to the metal before the apocalypse rises and destroys the planet and forcing a reboot for mankind. even though the movie released in 2009, 2012 is a good prediction of all things that could go wrong when people dont act right and mother nature says NAH! Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
10
hellorhighwaterApr 4, 2021
I got really upset when I saw low rating of this great movie, this movies has every good characteristics of deserter movie . Metacritic is way more reliable than imdb etc . but this rating do not make sense.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews