User Reviews

I spent most of the film trying to figure out how I was able to escape it. I felt like the world was ending.

One of my favourite movies. Can't understand why people don't like it. It's also based on event in which so much people were sure.

Greetings from Lithuania. "2012" (2009) is a very solid entry into disaster movies genre. It has everything that one would like to have: great special effects, tons of action, larger than life main characters and destructions on a biblical scale. Hey, it's surely isn't the best picture of the year, but it does exactly what it promises, entertains us by showing end of the world and 2 dimensional characters trying to survive it. The master of these flicks Roland Emmerich have destroyed cities in the past pictures, but here he goes on total annihilation.Overall, if you have somehow skipped this flick on it's release, you can safely check this one out you like disaster flicks in general, because "2012" has it all. Performances are all universally good for the material, but it's Oliver Platt's character that kinda was best for me. CGI aren't the best but there is so many of theme here - no wonder that this blockbuster had 200 million dollar budget.

The overwhelming scale of hollow destruction: A 2.0-star spectacle where only the CGI survives.091125 (2.0)I watched this in the theater in 2009. While the visual scale of the world literally falling apart was immense, the story felt as empty as the cracks in the Earth. It relied heavily on catastrophic spectacle and convenient plot armor, making it difficult to feel any genuine tension or emotional connection to the characters. A lackluster 2.0 for a film that proves massive explosions can't compensate for a crumbling narrative.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

There was big hype for the end of the world in the year 2012. Heck, I even asked off work on the "day the worlds was supposed to end" just in case it actually did. However, we all knew that wasn't going to happen. Especially this movie, which took the time to capitalize on the hype. This film is honestly silly and not amazing, but there is just something about it that is charming and fun. The action is insane, and honestly, no one should survive.

un incroyable film avec des effets spéciaux de qualité, si vous êtes la pour des scène apocalyptique vous êtes servis mais pas forcément une superbe histoire

a good movie, I would even watch it with my family because there is no vulgarity and stupid jokes, only people, disaster and principles, albeit in a hypertrophied form, as for me, which is why it is easy to perceive

Es la mejor pelicula de el fin del mundo. Los desastres naturales son muy realistas, buenas actuaciones y buen guion. No le pongo 10 por el exeso de muertes.

Bir ara çok popülerdi maya takvimi bu yılda bitiyor diye kıyameti bekleyenler falan vardı. Neyse film orta ve altı seviyede. Karar sizin.

Boo. This was terrible. A plot so congested it makes the 5 through LA look like the speediest highway in existence. Didn't care for a single character.

2012. A terrible disaster that did not happen. "2012" is a disaster film that impresses with its special effects and large-scale scenes of destruction. The plot is built around a hypothetical catastrophe associated with the end of the world in 2012, and gives the audience little opportunity to rest, taking them on a stunning adventure. The film presents viewers with incredible dramatic flights, the struggle for survival and human inspiration. Despite the predictable plot, director Roland Emmerich created a continuously tense atmosphere and gripping tension, skillfully infusing it into the plot. It reminds us of the fragility of humanity, evokes a sense of helplessness and at the same time inspires altruistic actions and solidarity. "2012" is a film that captivates with its grandeur and persistent reminder that the strongest feelings can arise in the most difficult times.

Esse filme só tem efeitos especiais, e nada mais. Além disso, é um daqueles "filmes de momento": como a história da profecia maia que predizia o fim do mundo estava em alta naquela época, aproveitaram para levá-la às telonas. O problema é que, poucos anos depois, o filme já ficou "datado", ultrapassado.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

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.

From 2012, you can get much more positive emotions if you do not take it seriously. Of course, here is the most ancestral apocalypse. Here is a very weak plot and even John Cusack cannot save his good acting. And yet the scenes of destruction here are the best even after 12 years. This genre belongs to Roland Emmerich and he did a great job with the film, just do not need to treat it as a film, this is a one-time attraction

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 that could go wrong when people dont act right and mother nature says NAH!

Standard end of the world fare - some excellent visual effects and charismatic cast help make the overlong run time not drag too much. Great pacing with a terrible screenplay but it's heart in the right place.

The movie has incredible visuals and very fast paced. I enjoyed the movie very much. The actors all do a great job. There's a few moments where characters are surviving insane situations but it was still very entertaining.

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.

Stupid misguided story and cast it fails so much but can be enjoyed at times.

Mr. Sun came up and he smiled at me Said it's gonna be a good one just wait and see Jumped outta bed, and I ran outside Feeling so extra ecstatified It's the best day ever (best day ever) It's the best day ever (best day ever) I'm so busy got nothing to do Spent the last two hours just tying my shoe Every flower, every grain of sand Is reaching out to shake my hand It's the best day ever (best day ever) It's the best day ever (best day ever) Sometimes the little things Start closing in on me When I'm feeling down I wanna lose that frown I stick my head out the window And I look around Those clouds don't scare me They can't disguise This magic that's happening Right before my eyes Soon Mr. Moon will be shining bright So the best day ever can last all night Yeah, the best day ever's gonna last all night now It's the best day ever (best day ever) It's the best day ever (best day ever) It's the best day ever (best day ever) It's the best day ever (best day ever) Best day ever Best day ever

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.

10/10 * Krasser Film. Gut gemacht. Sehr unheimlich. Gesamtbewertung ist viel zu wenig. :-O

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 expecting cohesive storytelling or compelling characters, and I think you will have a good time.

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!

The fact that they made this piece of utter garbage, is astounding! Shame on you all, every single cast and crew!

I never expected this movie to be realistic and to have a perfect plot and script because it's an end of the word movie guys ... don't be so harsh. It's an action movie with great special effects that can be enjoyed. To all the critics that gave it score 2 ... the movie had just a bad story ... but it has suspense, originality in how would the world die and be reborn, ok actors, great sound, great special effects. Why do you ignore the qualities. This movie deserves minimal 6 score for it's qualities and I give it max score. Since the story and the realism you dislike are exactly what I would have expected.

Meh 2012 is most definitely an ambitious movie, But sadly, it comes up short of the great potential it had (A potential that could’ve possibly dethroned ID4 as Emmerich’s boldest film).

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.

Mildly entertaining movie about the end of the world. Just get your popcorn and enjoy.

RU:Это шедевр. Просто шедевр. Один из лучших EN:It is a masterpiece. One of the best movies in history

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

Sacando la falsedad, tiene una trama interesante que va avanzando muy bien, lo malo es como un escritor frustrado y chófer logra todas esas cosas.

If you are looking for a good disaster film, this film is for you. The effects are very good and most of the characters are interesting. The issues with this film are a crazy amount of cliches and a predictable plot. This thing is also 2-and-a-half hours long!

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 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

Based on the catastrophic theories were heard throughout 2011 and 2012, this movie is basically the representation of the destruction of our world. Directed and written by Roland Emmerich, the film has a cast led by John Cusack, Beatrice Rosen, Zlatko Buric, Amanda Peet, Thandie Newton and Chiwetel Ejiofor. All those who already know the film work of this director knows the pleasure he feels to destroy our planet. He has done it in "Independence Day", "The Day After Tomorrow" and "Godzilla". So I think he couldn't resist the temptation and let this opportunity to destroy everything again. But I think that he will not try to do it again so soon, because he almost destroyed his own career: the film is incoherent, inconsistent and far-fetched, limited to two hours of mass destruction and abuse of special effects. The script is bad because its virtually nonexistent. This film has no story to tell us. The legends surrounding the Mayan calendar are never fully developed and the characters never deserve great attention. We know very little about each of them, and never will know more because they will gradually dying. The film's focus is exclusively the sudden change in the world and the virtual obliteration of all mankind. To make matters worse, the main characters go through a wide range of hazards and disasters escaping always by a whisker. This feature, probably thought to hold public until the end and make suspense, turns out to be so usual that makes the movie even more absurd. This is the total absence of any credibility, plausibility or realism. Emmerich didn't even tried to disguise the whole movie was just a bad excuse for another wave of destruction and special effects, for box office profits. The actors are usually bad and have mediocre characters. The only good thing about this film is a huge amount of action, absolutely stunning scenes of destruction and the amount of special, visual and sound effects. Perhaps we have seen better in other films, but it basically are the only thing that makes this film bearable.

frankly the worst movie i've ever watched.this piece of nothing was a vast waste of time, money and human's power. hope never such movies be made again.

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.

Just a tipical movie for fun, is not a disaster, but neither a good movie. Just meh. The first time it surprises but the other times it bores. No too much to say (or write).

At least it seems like it thinks it's trying. The effect of any human being watching this film is akin to being an esteemed art critic being told to evaluate a slightly idiotic and untalented 4 year old's drawing in front of the kid's parents. You just smile, nod and get out as fast as you can.

Le film-catastrophe hollywoodien dans toute sa "splendeur"... des millions (des milliards ?) de gens crèvent mais les cabots survivent. Et les girafes aussi. Toute la planète part à vau-l'eau (c'est le cas de le dire) mais les téléphones portables marchent toujours, d'ailleurs on se passe un coup de fil avant de mourir : "eh c'est moi, un tsunami de sa race arrive, c'est juste pour faire un petit coucou... beuaaargh..." On a bien entendu la guimauve de circonstance mais également la morale triomphante et la bonne humeur, l'optimisme béat alors que tout se barre en cacahuète à 20m de vous ("ouvrez les portes même si on va tous y passer" ! ce n'est plus le vivre ensemble mais le mourir ensemble... comme des cons. D'ailleurs pour un tel cataclysme, tout se passe plutôt bien, on ne panique pas, on ne se marche pas dessus... on prie. C'est la génération Facebook-Twitter : "bon bah je crève, LOL". Même le Président du Monde Libre montre l'exemple pour le troupeau et coule avec le navire... Inexact, je rectifie : il se prend le porte-avions Kennedy dans la tronche. Un zeste d'humour in...volontaire ? Et c'est là que le film brille malgré lui, malgré sa longueur un peu exagérée, malgré ses tics idiots, ses tocs imbéciles, qu'est-ce qu'on rigole ! et ces effets spéciaux dantesques où l'on peut compter chaque million de dollars jeté à l'écran sont à tomber sur le cul. Et ils sont drôles aussi. Qu'est-ce que j'ai ri de voir toute la Californie engloutie, mise en morceaux avec toutes ces petites marionnettes, ces **** lutins qui gesticulent avant de finir écrasés ou broyés : on dirait des fourmis. Oui, ça donne la même satisfaction que d'écraser des fourmis sauf que des fourmis, c'est moins rigolo quand même.

But what? I did not understand the part that said that the film is açao or drama, an optimal image with exelente game camera, but lacked WHAT? was the performance of the actors, when it comes to film, it is not to act as if in a movie but reality go to the public, did not see tears of dessespero, not seen drama.

Deutsche Review - Kritik Story: 18/25 Punkte Schauspieler: 24/25 Punkte Technik/ Bildbearbeitung: 23/25 Punkte Sound: 18/25 Punkte Gesamtpunktzahl 83/100 Punkte

Though filled with dazzling special effects, 2012 stands-out more for its cheesy direction, cliched characters, lack of heart and humor, and, overall, lack of a story-line or plot.

2012 falls short on character like most disaster movies do, but the sequences of tsunamis, earthquakes and other natural disasters are amazingly well realized and very intense. If you want a big, fun, popcorn flick to kick back and enjoy then 2012 was made for that - even if it is a bit long.

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 **** 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.

The first half of this movie is very good, then the second half looses it. The ending climax of the movie is just ridiculous. It becomes such a joke that goes on for far too long.

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 **** 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. 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.

God forgive me, but I enjoyed the nerve-racking silliness of this newest, loudest exercise in destruction. (And God help us all, now more than ever I think cities could crumble and oceans could rise.) Emmerich is, of course, an old hand at bangs, a manipulator who thinks whimpers are for sissies: Aliens tore up the place in Independence Day, an irradiated lizard stomped through Godzilla, global warming ruined everyone’s plans in The Day After Tomorrow, and you don’t want to know all the troubles the prehistoric hero known as D’Leh done seen in 10,000 BC. This time, as the story opens in 2009, the earth’s core is heating up and acting all wonky, alarming an earnest U.S. government geologist (Chiwetel Ejiofor). He rushes to inform the White House chief of staff (Oliver Platt), who rushes to inform the President (Danny Glover), who eventually confides the news? to his tremulous daughter (Thandie Newton). Cut to three years later, and a California Everyman named Jackson Curtis (John Cusack) picks up his cute son and daughter (Liam James and Morgan Lily) at the home of his ex-wife (Amanda Peet) and her new guy (Tom McCarthy). Jackson takes the kids camping at Yellowstone, where he meets a useful mountaintop crazyman (Woody Harrelson) who predicts the end of days. Don’t worry, be happy: The dog survives in 2012 even though billions of people don’t. The unfortunate masses — innocent as their four-legged fellow creatures but traditionally more expendable in disaster epics like this one — die in ways it takes Armageddon-movie master Roland Emmerich and a mighty army of CG artists to devise. For starters, Los Angeles cracks and falls into the sea, Las Vegas crumbles, Yellowstone National Park becomes a volcanic hellpit, India is devoured by a tsunami, and the Catholic faithful in Rome are buried under the rubble of their own magnificent church buildings. Cool! Oh, and also? A cruise ship on the high seas upends with a ? harrumphing glug-glug, sinking to join its colleagues the Poseidon and the Titanic. The good news: Thanks to the crazyman, when the end of days begins to make itself known, the Curtis family (plus the ex-wife’s new guy) are able to stay one step ahead of the abyss. This postnuclear clan has a terrific ability to drive on roads that cave in behind them, and fly (in half-borrowed, half-skyjacked airplanes) between toppling buildings, bridges, mountains, and fireballs. Enthusiasts of websites involving the Mayans’ apocalyptic predictions are welcome to join enthusiasts of websites involving planetary instability to discuss the facts behind this chaotic fiction; biblical scholars are welcome to chime in on the meteorological conditions that coincided with the launch of Noah’s Ark. Me, I’m more charmed by the now-classical way in which Emmerich uses scenes with human interest — you know, the introduction of a handful of characters we care about — to offset the sense-battering showpiece action sequences. (Those are usually the ”feelings” scenes in which we laugh with nervous relief at the familiarity of human puniness.) Just ask Steven Spielberg: There’s nothing like imminent destruction on a world scale to make a father want to heal a broken family. Cusack, with his one-of-the-guys face and his nice way with child actors, does creditable work as an Average American Dad trying to put things right. Of course, Emmerich (and his co-writer, Harald Kloser, who also ? co-scripted 10,000 BC) is never one for subtlety. Average Dad’s homegrown virtues are ?contrasted with the thick-lipped, fat-bellied crudity and obscene wealth of a Russian oligarch (Zlatko Buric) looking out for his own two young sons. Meanwhile, as Commander-in-Chief (in the idealized mode of 24’s President David Palmer), Danny Glover is a good father to the country and his own daughter; however, we know his chief of staff is a cold SOB because he’s distant from his aged mother. As for Ejiofor’s geologist, he gets to tell his dad he loves him before the end draws nigh. Which, in this rock-solid disaster-pic ? formula, makes him the perfect character to deliver the climactic speech that unites mankind. Well, it’s either him or the dog.