2012 (2009)

Stars	User	Rating
13	frederic_g54	3 _9%
An embarrassing predictable mind-numbing CGI snorefest of unbearable length. You'll pray for the characters' death rather than their survival. I derived great pleasure from making fun of it though with my brother, so it wasn't a complete waste of time.
8	heapshake	20 _2%
I turned it off somewhere around Hawaii so I can only assume that everyone winds up dead
7	Barthalen	22 _11%
In 2012, Skynet will send a terminator back in time. Once here, it is infected with a STD from a slutty Commodore 64 and its programming will go haywire. Now calling itself Ronald Emmerich, this soulless automaton proceeds to kill humanity, mistakingly using crappy, dumb and painfully repetitive films as his weapon. Unhappy with the results, he will ultimately make a film in which the entire universe is destroyed. Audiences still go see it in droves. Skynet has won. We are all dead. Inside.
6	cagedwisdom	0 _4%
Understands the Mayan calendar about as well as it understands physics, which is to say not at all. It's about an hour too long (and the last hour is bafflingly one single idiotic plot point that doesn't even make sense), the characters are all one-dimentional, it's completely predictable, the discussions of morals the film harps on about are so far over its head it's not even funny. Not enough of Woody Harrelson, way too much of everything else. Seeing as everything else is bad.
6	Charlie	55 _22%
Well, it really seems to be the mother of all disaster movies and the effects are as expected, really good. And the first 1 1/2 hours had some pretty decent moments actually. But after almost every great doomed action scene, comes a corny dialogue just out of nowhere. And the last half hour just sucks...but just for the action and effects alone, worth watching.
5	c3mgur	38 _9%
Damn you Emmerich! You can't cheat me with your shitty effects. That is completely terrible.
5	SailorRipley	58 _10%
It all looks rather expensive and some sequences are downright apocalyptic, but 2012 fails miserably at portraying anything resembling true human emotion. Emmerich is a grand technician but a terrible director; any moment that is supposed to be big and horrifying ends up being absolutely laughable. It's a whole big bag of neat visual effects and nothing else. Roland, you need to understand that huge disaster flicks need true drama in order to work, not crack abysmal jokes every 5 minutes. Next!
4	Piglet	15 _1%
God-awful waste of my time. Hey, Roland, I'm holding up a finger, guess which one.
4	INDYATMN	67 _20%
Emmerich almost certainly was attempting 2 make the greatest disaster flick of all time, but only succeeds in terms of scale: H'wood never b4 had the CGI 2 wreak this much global destruction. Unfortunately the main characters r dull nice-guy ciphers & the barely-made-it! escapes start 2 wear thin since they only vary in terms of location & type of vehicle. After the 1st half hour u'll find urself wondering if Emmerich feels lost now that his only possible follow-up is 2 blow up the universe.
4	clayj41	37 _12%
The only thing wetter than a tidal wave is Danny Glover's lisp.
4	Wiche	75 _70%
Visually it's just great and one of the best movies I've ever seen. Too bad you had too many OMG-moments. Every time they take off with a plane, they just escape the same disaster, it gets boring after a while. Sometimes I was doubting whether it was a disaster movie or a comedy.
4	Gideon	1 _16%
How to throw away 200 million dollar? Emmerich knows the answer.
3	KasperL	60 _50%
Not a good film but certainly an entertaining one. To pull off the schmaltzy clichés going with the (awesomely destructed) territory you need strong actors and the movie benefits greatly from the talents of the immanently watchable Cusack (you'll be hard pressed finding a more likeable guy, Paul Rudd excluded) and Ejiofor (arguably one of our most skilled actors). The mayhem grows tiresome but the first set piece alone, with the limo navigating through the chaos, is worth the price of admission.
3	Cinema_Asia	50 _12%
Despite the presence of good actors like John Cusack and Woody Harrelson the writing makes you wish the people who worked on the dialog and plot were washed away by tsunamis as well. Even with a super high budget it's typical cliche ridden sentimental Hollywood trash. The main spectacle here is the CGI with the effects ranging from disappointing video game like cut scene effects to excellent top notch stuff like the volcanoes. It's worth seeing once but make sure you have a few beers first.
3	Leonardis	68 _10%
Really sucks that this movie was so unbelievably cliche, because the visual effects are really cool and it gets a little gripping in some spots. 2012 may have some impressive eye candy, but a very weak story and underdeveloped characters do not make up for the almost 3 hour run of things blowing up and every actor trying their best with what they have been provided with. It's some solid action, but this really doesn't offer anything impressive.
3	omgfridge	1 _8%
Pathetic. Just utter trash. Sure its pretty and has detail in its disasters but its mind numbingly boring. Any form of suspense is cut quickly as the airplane escapes get repetitive and then Emmerich just starts focusing on something else to blow up. The screenplay is about as focused as the camera. Conversations come out of nowhere and feel completely pointless. I guess Emmerich needed filler as being over two and half hours long just wasn't enough for him.
3	Ytadel	3 _28%
Every inch as dumb as it looks, overpopulated and direly overlong (I literally yawned through the better part of what was supposed to be the climax). But in its best moments it does have an awesome sense of spectacle, and Chiwetel Ejiofor is a great, underrated actor who can lend depth to paper-flat characters as written. Probably Roland Emmerich's best disaster film... whatever the fuck that's worth.
2	TonythePony	47 _11%
Roland Emmerich beats the Earth like a red-headed stepchild riding a rented mule. Apparently its had it coming for centuries.
2	jswinder	12 _6%
Don't come into this with any expectation of a good film. I was entertained, laughed a bit. I fucking wanted the poodle twins to bite the dust, whatever.
2	TheRealJ-Ro	55 _21%
I won't totally shit on it - because I fear that if I do, John Cusack won't save us - but like most other cliche-driven disaster flicks, it's very hard to take it seriously, even as art. It's a spectacle piece, and Emmerich should be commended for the grand scale he achieved. And for casting Woody in a borderline-perfect role. It had decent pacing, and I think the scenes in the Antonov aircraft were some of the film's best non-disaster-scenario scenes. But ultimately, it's a forgettable movie.
2	calharding	46 _17%
Endless scenes of cars flipping through the air, buildings toppling and airplanes being chased by lava, punctuated by painfully forced dialogue and so many cliches you'd think Emmerich was going for a Guinness record. 2012 would be worth watching if you're eight and the film wasn't 40 minutes too long. Only Roland Emmerich could turn a mammoth special effects budget into a yawning exercise for the audience.
2	Bunken	50 _37%
Emmerich's business card reads: "Director and multiple times destroyer of the world" You gotta love him!
2	Mr. Film	27 _12%
Unrealistic, badly written, awfully acted and mediocre direction. The mayans were right: maybe 2012 is the end of the world... because the film is bad enough to end it
2	misterlizard	40 _43%
I think the intention was to make a deliberate 'so bad it's good' film. The alternative, that every one of the hundreds of people involved was lobotomized at birth, doesn't bear thinking about. The junk science a grade-schooler would laugh at, the terrible physics (the world's largest volcano exploding at the speed of a clapped-out camper van), every line of dialogue dripping with cliché and cod-philosophy, mushy sentimentality - it's all here. Not recommended if you're sober or you like movies.
2	MJVmovieMan	47 _16%
Did we really need '2012' after 'Day After Tomorrow'? Okay, maybe I love silly big budget disaster films, but Roland Emmerich ought to pass on the torch. At least the forgettable '2012' has some borderline great (yet un-involving) special effects sequences... and that's all. The characters are junk, the story is trash, the heroes/villains fall in their foreseeable order, and the movie jumps into 'repeat mode' for 2.5 hours. On top of that, Emmerich makes humanity look ugly. Pass the popcorn.
2	slidercc	35 _34%
Good Action, bad pretty much everything else. Also, Science 100000 Religion 0.
2	auritech	28 _15%
I don't even know where to begin! From the horrible plot and writing to the implausible situations and the hilarious way the characters get out of them, this film is the total summation of Terrible Disaster Flick. Plus it had the most product placement I've ever seen. Let me call special attention to the directing, too: while the CG looked fine, Roland Emmerich is such a by the books director that someone needs to keep him away from the camera. And yet, I paid money to see it. For shame.
2	torontodog	40 _14%
It is as terrible as you would expect! However, you can't deny that it delivers what it promises, a bunch of idiotic, cartoonish destruction. Could have used less scenes of Cuasack escaping inches ahead of massive destruction, and maybe mixed in some different types of effects sequences, but then it wouldn't really be a Roland Emmerich crap-fest.
2	unluvable	50 _10%
There are finally enough disaster films to make Earth the star of her own bukkake film flick! Yeah! This was a two hour montage to disaster montages. The twist in "the end" was laughable. I watched this before. It was every tense scene in "The Love Boat." Roland Emmerich... you suck balls.
2	SirStuckey	35 _10%
So many bad parts about this movie. The way that John Cusak and his family survived were based on the luckiest set of circumstantial events that it is one of the most unbelievable storylines in the history of film. Add to that the cliches and over-dramatic dialogue and you have yourself a stinker. It's only real saving grace (besides Woody Harrelson) is that it looks really good. And even though you put a pretty bow on the turd, it's still a turd. A stinky, stinky turd.
2	suman.austin	68 _20%
The only reason why anybody should watch this movie is because of the CGI. The sound effects were also quite good. The first half was so stupid that it was funny. It was like watching the scary movie and then the second half was quite boring but could have been a better one if the story was more interesting.
1	Anselmi86	66 _45%
Really not too bad, surprisingly. I had turned it on background noise while I worked and ended up being hooked for the rest. Despite the overtones of Christian dogma and cheezy moments of dialogue, and a lousy third act, this is a disaster movie that delivers. I feel like I'm the only person who did not hate this movie, but I thought that it was Emmerich's most entertaining film since Independence Day. I was truly on the edge of my seat at moments. Oh, and the special fx are dazzling.
1	kerryland	50 _2%
Long and boring. Some nice effects though
1	deaddilly	0 _0%
I found it insulting if anything.
1	DavidBlast	20 _6%
It's The Day after Tomorrow 2. Twice as good effects, Twice as bad a story.
1	Tweedale	7 _59%
Week story, poor dialogue, stereotyped characters poorly illustrated by mediocre performances, sentimental ending, overuse of Biblical references... but damn it was entertaining. I can't help but give credit to a film that not only destroys America completely, but also floods the Himalayas. Hilarious.
1	doctor7	30 _18%
Renders every other disaster movie completely obsolete due to it's absolutely massive scale. Good thing too because I, for one, am absolutely sick of these stupid films. Still, I have to give Emmerich credit, the sheer spectacle of 2012 is damn impressive.
1	forehead1	30 _11%
The world as we know it is being destroyed, billions are dying, yet we're supposed to care about the fate of these few cheeseballs and stereotypes?? Quite possibly the stupidest shit I've ever seen, it actually gains a point for being so unintentionally funny. Even the 'amazing' effects look like cheap CGI from a decade ago (physics awful, structures seeming to 'melt' into thin air, bluesceen obvious, etc.). The last Emmerich film I'll waste my (considerable) time on.
1	overrated	65 _70%
I saw this drunk and had the time of my life - the whole limo sequence is one of the longest laughs I've ever had. It's the only movie where I've stood up in the cinema and clapped at the end; I never want to see it again.
1	vheujge	45 _23%
Way too much focus on special effects and not enough on telling a good story or making you care about the characters. Also, the story is painfully convenient and the movie is way too long.
1	hellboy76	45 _13%
Some impressive visual effects don't make up for the melodramatic over the top silliness of this movie.
1	TnMovieFan2	9 _3%
One of the worst movies I've ever seen
1	guy piranha	40 _13%
i'd rather have the world end than watch this again.
1	sproost	60 _44%
This is no doubt one of the dumbest movies I’ve ever seen, but the cgi destruction and nonsense of it all is pretty catchy. Last third suffers from a common problem with disaster movies: it’s set in the dark, so you can’t see shit
1	DesertPunk	43 _12%
John Cusack, please.
1	LookJabba...	2 _7%
2012 is another overblown Roland Emmerich disaster film. I have no idea why any studio would keep funding him to make these awful films. And this is arguably Roland Emmerich's worst yet. It now feels like when you've seen one you've seen them all. Theres a handful of fun set pieces and the visuals are impressive. But that's not enough. If it simply cut 60 mins and included engaging and developed characters who you could actually care about then maybe, just maybe this could of been watchable.
1	philamental	38 _8%
In a movie filled to the brim with ludicrous nonsense, perhaps the most unbelievable aspect is an American President listening to and acting on the advice of his scientists! I mean they must think we'll swallow any tripe they feed us with these days!
1	hiromiyamoto	0 _1%
Words cannot describe how much I hate Roland Emmerich.
1	kingofjew	70 _39%
Great effects and not a whole lot else. Most of the script is oozing cheese but some decent bits most notably with woody harrelson and the always lovely Amanda peet make this movie watchable. That and 200 million dollars worth of CGI.
1	RealMacgyver	60 _29%
Too long, the focus would have been better spent on the long build up rather than the start of the disaster, followed by an hour of shit going mental. And the science is REALLY bollocks. And inconsistent. I don't mind bollocks, I LOVE The Core but the difference is it finds it's nonsense and stays consistent. This goes real neutrino science, "ah but that's nonsense" then just Michelle Bachman's for 2 hours. All the ash just cleared in 27 days huh? Nice one. Dissapointed. Some fun bits though.
1	ABUNCHOFCATS	70 _29%
Hilarious and well worth watching just for the effects and cgi. The scenes and especially the dialogue are more often than not goddamn hilarious (the mutated particles are destroying the earth's crust!!) and it features an awesome role from Woody Harrelson whose scenes alone would make this movie fun. It does tend to drag on and the dialogue and corniness never gets better, but if you liked ID4 you'll probably like this, it's the disaster movie to end all disaster movies, and it's ridiculous.
1	jameskey	50 _14%
Visually quite impressive, but only worth seeing in a cinema or on a projector. Otherwise garbage.
1	Kavu	20 _8%
The effects are ugly and plastic, the characters badly written and equally badly acted and the plot straight out of every other catastrophe movie you've seen.
1	cruelclown	50 _21%
Great, very impressive CGI. For the script, I really can't say "it's so bad, it's good" because it reinvents the bad as a concept. I love how in the end, while we are being taught solidarity etc. the director lets the stepdad go in a whimper only to be forgotten in a few minutes - this is "nature" repairing and conserving itself. Hooray for the nuclear family!
1	TheDiceman	25 _6%
How this man is allowed to spend the amount of money it must have cost on the special effects on such a complete dumbfest is beyond me.I have no doubt I could have come up with a better film with a tenth of the budget.
1	mikmak	10 _0%
Two hours to discover the little girl doesn't need to wear pull ups anymore.
1	LennyNero	75 _71%
Emmerich's best movie by far (although it doesn't mean much). The FX are as expected great, the movie has a great rhythm and I really liked Ejiofor's performance.
1	nJoy	50 _21%
So bad it was funny.
1	st_fly	9 _14%
Lousy. Its the same old premise done better and right a number of times before. The CGI looks plastic, the hero acts plastic, everyone dies, the hero party's dog survives. I'm getting sick of this shit they dole out. As usual, watch only if you want to feel like a moron at the end knowing that's a 120 minutes of your life down the drain which you could have spent watching paint dry.
1	KMcNeil	2 _16%
Pretty ridiculous, predictable, clichéed and deeply forgettable. However, the special effects were expectedly impressive. Needed more Stephen "Pontypool" McHattie.
1	micah	50 _18%
The world blows up, but it takes way too long.
1	Der_Barney	50 _3%
No review, just some thoughts: I think I'm going to have to up-rate Godzilla from its current 63 points. Because that movie was more fun, with more likable characters you could actually care about and more actual drama than this. These by-the-numbers cliffhangers and family reunions just p**s me off, the science doesn't work and the big "moral issue" at the end is totally artificial with zero impact. Yes, Harrelson is very good here, but that's just not enough.
1	dst7175	40 _27%
The special effects are awesome but that is about it.
1	panzerwolf	40 _13%
The special effects were as awesome as one can expect, but the movie dragged on too much and could have worked better if it hadn't been quite as long. Has your usual plot holes, annoying characters and the works, but I just love to see the whole world getting destroyed. Again.
1	Kusanagi	50 _7%
After the car driving through a falling building, I pretty much lost hope. The end of the world has never been more boring.
1	NathanDarko	66 _25%
ridiculous!!--the whole world is falling into pieces but they got exact satellite pictures and handy connections ?? beside the fact that it's so wacky, emmerich tells a boring story. the whole world stick together and opens the gate for the less-well offs lol as if... ;-) Emmerich wake up and watch the news there is no cohesion. only the strong ones will survive. boring hollywood crap forget it
1	Langelund (CinemaZone.dk)	5 _3%
A disaster in every way - except for one, great one-liner from Zlatko Buric
1	EastonD	72 _50%
Unbelievably retarded, I enjoyed every stupid minute.
1	Stradivarius	40 _11%
I went hoping for some fun destruction effects, but each and every shot of the world falling apart was presented in the most banal way possible. It acts like its the first ever disaster movie and doesn't need to add anything to the genre to justify its existence. Instead it rehashes the overused trope of featuring a few bad father/kids husband/wife relationships that mend as the world falls apart. Completely stupid.
1	die_nacht	0 _0%
I'd rather watch rats fuck than to watch this movie. I did however laugh really fucking hard at the terrible disaster chase scenes. Worst Hollywood movie I've seen, bold but true.
1	BiffJustice	12 _1%
The only thing you can take away from this movie which is horrible in every way, is that it is possible to survive the apocalypse by staying roughly 10 feet in front of John Cusack at all times.
1	msworddoc	35 _10%
EPIC WIN!!!!!!!! AND NOT MUCH ELSE
1	Melvin Smif	20 _23%
It seems our culture is obsessed with witnessing our world come to an apocalyptic end. Despite everyone's outer fears of this occurring, I think we all harbor the inner thought that "surely the world will end before I do, because obviously it cannot go on with out me". So why not fulfill that inner narcissist's wishes and watch it on screen? Because this movie sucks, that's why.
1	pompousass	40 _71%
Emmerich has inched closer to the edge of the abyss for a view of the apocalypse. In this, he has achieved his fullest view to date. One can say that he has gotten more and more serious without saying that he has yet gotten really serious. In the inadequacy of its response to its chosen subject matter, in its merry refusal to think about the unthinkable, in its whistling past the graveyard, the film after all seems only human. Strange to say about an FX extravaganza.
1	lovejoy	20 _4%
Wouldn't it be nice to have a really well made disaster movie where the world falls into a hole without having to sit through all the stories of broken families triumphing through adversity and coming together against the most ridiculous odds. One day, but not today.
1	astrakhan	71 _20%
Sad that such a spectacular event could lead to such an average movie. There are a couple of really great-looking scenes (e.g. flying a prop plane through a collapsing Los Angeles) but mostly it's just painted-by-numbers disaster movie stodge with a multitude of uninspiring characters. Flat, dead storytelling and everything we saw before in Deep Impact, Armageddon, Dante's Peak, and others. Films like this make me hope nobody survives when disaster does strike our planet.
1	nauru	18 _12%
Basically this is a standard disaster movie with the same script as all other disaster movies, and updated over-the-top special effects. There is no justification for such a long running time. Totally formulaic.
1	vv238	17 _11%
Is this the cinematic equivalent of someone desperate for attention? It feels like someone constantly yelling and waving their arms at the back of a party. Sure, it grabs your attention but it makes you hate that person and never want to invite them to a party ever again.

Displaying 1 to 250 of 314 total ratings: Prev | Next

Average Percentile 22.31% from 7159 Ratings