movie review 2012 is a perfect disaster

Movie Reviews

Tv/streaming, collections, great movies, chaz's journal, contributors, the late, great planet earth: a thoroughly destroyable show.

Now streaming on:

It's not so much that the Earth is destroyed, but that it's done so thoroughly. "2012," the mother of all disaster movies (and the father, and the extended family) spends half an hour on ominous set-up scenes (scientists warn, strange events occur, prophets rant and of course a family is introduced) and then unleashes two hours of cataclysmic special events hammering the Earth relentlessly.

This is fun. "2012" delivers what it promises, and since no sentient being will buy a ticket expecting anything else, it will be, for its audiences, one of the most satisfactory films of the year. It even has real actors in it. Like all the best disaster movies, it's funniest at its most hysterical. You think you've seen end-of-the-world movies? This one ends the world, stomps on it, grinds it up and spits it out.

It also continues a recent trend toward the wholesale destruction of famous monuments. Roland Emmerich , the director and co-writer, has been vandalizing monuments for years, as in " Independence Day ," "The Day After Tomorrow" and " Godzilla ." I still hold a grudge against him for that one because he provided New York with a Mayor Ebert and didn't have Godzilla step on me and then squish me.

In all disaster movies, landmarks fall like dominos. The Empire State Building is made of rubber. The Golden Gate Bridge collapses like clockwork. Big Ben ticks his last. The Eiffel Tower? Quel dommage!

Memo to anyone on the National Mall: When the Earth's crust is shifting, don't stand within range of the Washington Monument. Chicago is often spared; we aren't as iconic as Manhattan. There's little in Los Angeles distinctive enough to be destroyed, but it all goes, anyway.

Emmerich thinks on a big scale. Yes, he destroys regular stuff. It will come as little surprise (because at this writing the film's trailer on YouTube alone had more than 7,591,413 views) that the aircraft carrier John F. Kennedy rides a tsunami onto the White House. When St. Peter's Basilica is destroyed, Leonardo's God and Adam are split apart just where their fingers touch (the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel having been moved into St. Peter's for the occasion). Then when Emmerich gets warmed up, the globe's tectonic plates shift thousands of miles, water covers the planet, and a giraffe walks aboard an ark.

Also on board are the humans chosen to survive, including all the characters who have not already been crushed, drowned or fallen into great crevices opening up in the Earth. These include the heroic Jackson Curtis ( John Cusack ) and his estranged wife, Kate ( Amanda Peet ); President Wilson ( Danny Glover ), his chief science adviser, Adrian Helmsley ( Chiwetel Ejiofor ), and his chief of staff, Carl Anheuser ( Oliver Platt ).

Many gigantic arks have been secretly constructed inside the Himalayas by the Chinese, funded by a global consortium, and they're the only chance of the human race surviving. Along with the animals on board, there's the maybe well-named Noah (Liam James). In theory, ark ticketholders represent a cross-section of the globe, chosen democratically. In practice, Carl Anheuser pulls strings to benefit the rich and connected, and wants to strand desperate poor people on the dock. I'm thinking, Emmerich often has a twist when he names villains, like Mayor Ebert from "Godzilla." So how did this villain get his name? What does "Anheuser" make you think of?

Such questions pale by comparison with more alarming events. The tectonic plates shift so violently scientists can almost see them on Google Earth. This havoc requires stupendous special effects. Emmerich's budget was $250 million, and "2012" may contain more f/x in total running time than any other film. They're impressive. Not always convincing, because how can the flooding of the Himalayas be made convincing? And Emmerich gives us time to regard the effects and appreciate them, even savor them, unlike the ADD generation and its quick-cutting Bay-cams.

Emmmerich also constructs dramatic real-scale illusions, as when an earthquake fissure splits a grocery store in half. Cusack is the hero in an elaborate sequence involving his desperate attempts to unblock a jammed hydraulic lift that threatens to sink the ark. He does a lot of heroic stuff in this film, especially for a novelist, like leaping a van over a yawning chasm and riding a small plane through roiling clouds of earthquake dust.

The bottom line is: The movie gives you your money's worth. Is it a masterpiece? No. Is it one of the year's best? No. Does Emmerich hammer it together with his elbows from parts obtained from the Used Disaster Movie Store? Yes. But is it about as good as a movie in this genre can be? Yes. No doubt it will inflame fears about our demise on Dec. 21, 2012. I'm worried, too. I expect that to be even worse than Y2K.

Roger Ebert

Roger Ebert was the film critic of the Chicago Sun-Times from 1967 until his death in 2013. In 1975, he won the Pulitzer Prize for distinguished criticism.

Now playing

American Dreamer

Carla renata.

Bob Marley: One Love

Robert daniels.

Kaiya Shunyata

Bleeding Love

Brian Tallerico

Cristina Escobar

Film credits.

2012 (2009)

Rated PG-13 for intense disaster sequences, some strong language and apocalyptic violence

158 minutes

John Cusack as Jackson Curtis

Amanda Peet as Kate Curtis

Chiwetel Ejiofor as Adrian Helmsley

Oliver Platt as Carl Anheuser

Woody Harrelson as Charlie

Danny Glover as President

Thandie Newton as Laura Wilson

Directed by

Roland Emmerich
Harald Kloser

Latest blog posts

No Matter How Big He Gets, David Dastmalchian Still Wants to Scare You

SXSW 2024: Diane Warren: Relentless, Thank You Goodnight: The Bon Jovi Story, Omar and Cedric: If This Ever Gets Weird, Preconceived

Disney+ Returns to the Classic World of X-Men '97

True To Yourself: James Gray on James Gray's New York

Review: As a Disaster Film, '2012' Succeeds

A movie still from the new film “2012” depicting the end of the world.

One mightbe excused for wondering what, exactly, German director Roland Emmerich has againstthe United States.After all, his films (such as ?Independence Day ? and ?The Day AfterTomorrow ? ) famously show American icons such as the White House and theStatue of Liberty being destroyed.

With his new film ?2012? ,Emmerich upsthe ante, depicting a global disaster caused by terrestrial instability. JohnCusack stars as Jackson Curtis, a LosAngeles writer whose failed novel broke up his marriage.Jackson wantsto reunite with his family, and ends up going (almost literally) to the ends ofthe earth to save them. At the same time in WashingtonD.C., the president?s chiefscience advisor discovers an impending danger in the Earth?s unsettled tectonicplates. He butts heads with the chief of staff over when the information shouldbe made public, and who they should tell first.

The filmtackles a variety of weighty questions, such as: If the end of the world wascoming, what would you do? If only the government knew, who should be told? Ifthere was a way that some people could survive, who should decide who lives andwho dies?

In the caseof a true global catastrophe, is there really any point to announcing it to theworld? Put simply, if everyone?s gonna die in 36 hours and there?s nothing anyone can do,what?s the point in telling people? Assuming you had perfect knowledge, whybother? Some people would panic, others wouldn?t believe it anyway, and otherswould try to write and market their book on it overnight.

These areinteresting questions, but unfortunately get lost amid the film?s shouting andexplosions and crashes. About a half dozen subplots appear, several of themawkwardly aborted in the rush to get to the disaster scenes.

Then thereare the implausibilities ?and I?m not even talking about LosAngeles sliding into the ocean in such a cinematicfashion. Jackson Curtis has more lives than James Bond and Indiana Jones puttogether, as he literally outruns fireballs and earthquakes, saving the daywith each step. But my favorite eye-roller is when almost the entire world hasbeen consumed by fire and flood ? except, apparently, the parts that allow alast-minute cell phone call so that two lead characters can share one lastscene together.

But tocriticize a disaster film for being implausible is itself a bit silly. Peopledon?t go to disaster movies to see rich emotional tapestry or ?Memento?-likeairtight logic; they go to see stuff get blowed up. And on that level, itsucceeds.

Get the Space.com Newsletter

Breaking space news, the latest updates on rocket launches, skywatching events and more!

Destroyingthe world is not easy, and the filmmakers used a variety of special effectstechniques to bring global disaster to the big screen. From a visual effectsstandpoint alone, ?2012? is a remarkable achievement. The actors were often onmoving sets ? none of that cheesy original ?Star Trek? technique of throwingactors to the floor while shaking the camera to simulate explosion concussions.In many of the scenes, the objects are actually collapsing around the actors,as giant gimbals and hydraulic lifts jostle and jolt the sets. Some of thescenes are remarkably effective (a shot of a giant wave overtaking a cruiseship is genuinely chilling, reminding me of ?The Perfect Storm?), while othersjust look like a cartoony video game.

The film isbasically a retelling of the Noah?s Ark flood story, and has nothing to do with the date 2012. It could have been setin 1995 or 2013, but the 2012 angle made a perfect hook for the film: Why nottie it in with the supposed end of the world, allegedly tied to the end of theMayan calendar in 2012?

Notsurprisingly, Columbia Pictures is taking full advantage of the New Agey 2012 doomsdaydiscussion/panic/concern to help promote the film. Over the past year or so,many people have suggested that the year 2012 will bring some sort ofsignificant change, either catastrophicdisaster (as in the film) or perhaps a new age of enlightenment (as in whatdid not happen with the so-called Harmonic Convergence in 1987). The linkbetween global catastrophe and Mayan calendar-based prophecy is tenuous atbest. Some ads for the ?2012? film begin with the phrase ?The Mayans warnedus,? though of course the Mayans did not ?warn? anyone?they simply had acalendar system that happens to ?end? in 2012, much as our Gregorian calendar?ends? on December 31. The Mayans never said the world would end that year, andhave shown irritation and contempt for the way that their culture has beenco-opted into pop culture notions and Hollywoodblockbuster film promotions.

New Age anddoomsday authors have been cranking out 2012-themed books at an amazing paceover the past six months; there are literally tens of thousands of such titlesin print, with more hitting the bookstores every day. It seems that anyone withaccess to a keyboard and an opinion on 2012 (or prophecy in general) is outthere tryingto cash in . It will be interesting to see how many of those will be forsale on Amazon.com for one cent on January 1, 2013.

Iinterviewed director and cast of ?2012? for LiveScience.com; you can seethe videosof the interviews at Newsarama. Of particular interest is my interview withChiwetel Ejiofor, in which hediscusses how his characterstruggles to maintain scientific integrity in the face of political influences.After the Bush administration?s well-publicized anti-science stance and overtattempts to bend scientific research for political ends, this point seemsespecially relevant.

Though 2012 is not a great film, it does have some interesting pro-science aspectsthat skeptics and science folks should take note of. While John Cusack is thelead star, the hero of the film is really a black scientist, Adrian Helmsley (Chiwetel Ejiofor). Helmsley is thepresident?s chief science advisor, and it is he who first discovers theimpending danger. The film somewhat realistically portrays the difficulties ofscientific uncertainty?how sure do you have to be to sound the alarm? This isnot an academic question, and arises in discussions of scientific prediction ona wide range of topics ranging from asteroid impacts to global warming.

Not only isthe scientist the hero, he is also the film?s major moral compass. There are noevil, white lab-coated scientists in ?2012?, there are only scientists doingtheir best to save humanity (and a few nerds thrown in for good measure). ?2012?is a completely humanistic disaster film; the catastrophes are not the work ofangry gods, nor magic spells,but nature itself. The film shows prayer failing miserably to stop thedestruction (even the Pope in the Vaticangets smacked away; Emmerichtold me he originally wanted to show Meccabeing destroyed, but didn?t want to risk a fatwa). In the end it isscience?hardworking, unglamorous science?that saves the day.

These arewonderful, humanistic, pro-science depictions that I?d hope to see in morefilms; it?s a shame to see them buried amid so many CGI disasters andexplosions in ?2012?.

The Truth About 2012 Doomsday Hype
10 Failed Doomsday Predictions
Video - 2012: Roland Emmerich Speaks

Benjamin Radford is managingeditor of the Skeptical Inquirer science magazine. He is authoror co-author of three books on skepticism and science literacy. They can befound on his website .

Join our Space Forums to keep talking space on the latest missions, night sky and more! And if you have a news tip, correction or comment, let us know at: [email protected].

Who are the Witches of Dathomir in 'Star Wars'?

This Week In Space podcast: Episode 102 — A New Volcano on Mars!

Euclid 'dark universe' telescope gets de-iced from a million miles away

'2012': Disaster Strikes (And Strikes, And Strikes)

Bob Mondello

Jackson Strive: The movie might be shorter if he were just a little slower, but John Cusack's bookish Jackson Curtis always manages to stay a step ahead of the advancing abyss. Columbia Tristar Marketing Group hide caption

Director: Roland Emmerich
Genre: Action Drama
Running Time: 158 minutes

Rated: PG-13 With: John Cusack, Woody Harrelson, Thandie Newton, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Danny Glover, Amanda Peet

Watch Clips

'Download My Blog'

Media no longer available

'L.A. Escape'

'Taking The Bentley'

Say this for Roland Emmerich's latest movie: It is a disaster.

Granted, for maybe an hour of its running time, 2012 is a reasonably kinetic catastrophe. Anyone who's seen the director's previous pictures (Godzilla, Independence Day, The Day After Tomorrow) has to have known that he and his army of digitizers would arrange for the world to end not with a whimper but with a particularly showy bang.

But when the Earth isn't swallowing up whole cities or belching lava at low-flying planes, the poor actors keep opening their mouths, and that proves problematic. When they're screaming it's fine, but all too often they make the mistake of trying to explain what's going on.

California, you see, is falling apart, not from budget problems but from a shift in the Earth's crust. The shift has been caused — the actors tend to talk very fast when science comes up, so I may have misheard this — by solar flares heating up the Earth's core. Or by a weird alignment of the planets, as predicted by the Maya. Or maybe both.

Whatever: The powers that be have somehow managed to hide the coming calamity from everyone on Earth except for one Los Angeles limo driver (John Cusack). And lucky for him, the apocalypse doesn't affect cell phone coverage, so he can call his ex-wife (Amanda Peet) and get her to pile the kids into the limo just seconds before their house crumbles. Also piling in, to his initial consternation, is his wife's new boyfriend (Thomas McCarthy); happily, he has taken a few weeks of flying lessons and will come in handy later.

From there, the family starts a mad scramble, seemingly to stay in the path of whatever new catastrophe nature throws their way. On the ground, they're chased by some surprisingly linear earthquakes; in the air, they dodge not just volcanic ash but flying subway trains.

And then — after much digitized North American carnage and a bit of comic distraction from an amusingly addled Woody Harrelson — comes the worldwide deluge, with waves crashing over the Himalayas.

Many silly notions get advanced in 2012, not least among them the idea that Woody Harrelson (right) is the one nongovernmental guy who has seen the trouble coming. Columbia Pictures hide caption

Many silly notions get advanced in 2012, not least among them the idea that Woody Harrelson (right) is the one nongovernmental guy who has seen the trouble coming.

Say what you will about the excess, but you have to admit that Emmerich hasn't lost his flair for destroying major landmarks: Who but this disaster-porn artiste would think to go bowling with St. Peter's dome? Still, his insistence on both quoting and topping every disaster movie from The Poseidon Adventure to Home Alone does make the End Times seem pretty much endless.

There's perhaps 40 minutes of cheesy but genuinely spectacular special effects — the stuff you came for — and two additional hours of painfully idiotic plot. Trust me, your mind will wander as a lapdog is reunited with its mistress and the president's daughter (Thandie Newton) finds true love with a rather full-of-himself geologist (Chiwetel Ejiofor).

It's nice to see that none of these folks is overly troubled by the death of the planet's 6 billion other inhabitants. But then you won't be, either, which is sort of the magic of this movie: By the time it's over, you'll feel like it is 2012 already, and you'll have such a headache that it'd be kind of nice if the whole world went away.

an image, when javascript is unavailable

The Definitive Voice of Entertainment News

Subscribe for full access to The Hollywood Reporter

site categories

‘2012’: film review.

If you rolled every disaster movie into one spectacular package, you would wind up with something close to "2012," Roland Emmerich's latest apocalyptic fantasy.

By Stephen Farber

Stephen Farber

Share this article on Facebook
Share this article on Twitter
Share this article on Flipboard
Share this article on Email
Show additional share options
Share this article on Linkedin
Share this article on Pinit
Share this article on Reddit
Share this article on Tumblr
Share this article on Whatsapp
Share this article on Print
Share this article on Comment

If you rolled every disaster movie into one spectacular package, you would wind up with something close to “ 2012 ,” Roland Emmerich’s latest apocalyptic fantasy.

This time Emmerich and co-writer Harald Kloser use the Mayan calendar and other end-of-days prophecies for their doomsday scenario, which imagines the world coming to an end in 2012. Eye-popping special effects ensure that this movie will be a smash hit, and while it’s entertaining for most of its excessive running time, the cheesy script fails to live up to the grandeur of the physical production.

Stitching together highlights from “Earthquake,” “The Poseidon Adventure,” “Volcano,” and even “Titanic,” the movie follows the fate of a dozen characters as they fall victim to a series of calamities brought on by some kind of solar meltdown. The issue is not so much what caused the cataclysm but how humanity will respond to the crisis. A venal presidential adviser (Oliver Platt) has the task of handpicking the people who will be allowed to board the atomic-age equivalent of Noah’s ark. So the film aims to ask profound questions about how we choose the people worth saving. But profundity is not the director’s strong suit.

THR Newsletters

More from The Hollywood Reporter

‘ghostbusters: frozen empire’ star carrie coon talks franchise’s future, ‘the white lotus 3’ and owning 10,000 blu-rays , m. emmet walsh, actor in ‘blood simple’ and ‘blade runner,’ dies at 88, aaron taylor-johnson on the one thing that would’ve kept him from signing onto ‘kraven the hunter’, ‘ghostbusters: frozen empire’ to zap the competition with $43m-$45m opening, why robert redford was “chronically late” to ‘the sting’ set, ‘sleeping dogs’ review: russell crowe plays an ex-cop with dementia in a tedious thriller.

Log in or sign up for Rotten Tomatoes

Trouble logging in?

By continuing, you agree to the Privacy Policy and the Terms and Policies , and to receive email from the Fandango Media Brands .

By creating an account, you agree to the Privacy Policy and the Terms and Policies , and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes and to receive email from the Fandango Media Brands .

By creating an account, you agree to the Privacy Policy and the Terms and Policies , and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes.

Email not verified

Let's keep in touch.

Sign up for the Rotten Tomatoes newsletter to get weekly updates on:

Upcoming Movies and TV shows
Trivia & Rotten Tomatoes Podcast
Media News + More

By clicking "Sign Me Up," you are agreeing to receive occasional emails and communications from Fandango Media (Fandango, Vudu, and Rotten Tomatoes) and consenting to Fandango's Privacy Policy and Terms and Policies . Please allow 10 business days for your account to reflect your preferences.

OK, got it!

Movies / TV

No results found.

What's the Tomatometer®?
Login/signup

Movies in theaters

Opening this week
Top box office
Coming soon to theaters
Certified fresh movies

Movies at home

Netflix streaming
Prime Video
Most popular streaming movies
What to Watch New

Certified fresh picks

Love Lies Bleeding Link to Love Lies Bleeding
Problemista Link to Problemista
La Chimera Link to La Chimera

New TV Tonight

X-Men '97: Season 1
Nolly: Season 1
In Restless Dreams: The Music of Paul Simon: Season 1
The Long Shadow: Season 1
3 Body Problem: Season 1
Palm Royale: Season 1
Alice & Jack: Season 1
Davey & Jonesie's Locker: Season 1
Photographer: Season 1
Top Chef: Season 21

What to know

Critics Consensus

Roland Emmerich's 2012 provides plenty of visual thrills, but lacks a strong enough script to support its massive scope and inflated length. Read critic reviews

Where to watch 2012.

Watch 2012 with a subscription on Netflix, rent on Vudu, Prime Video, Apple TV, or buy on Vudu, Prime Video, Apple TV.

Rate And Review

Super Reviewer

Rate this movie

Oof, that was Rotten.

Meh, it passed the time.

It’s good – I’d recommend it.

So Fresh: Absolute Must See!

What did you think of the movie? (optional)

You're almost there! Just confirm how you got your ticket.

Step 2 of 2

How did you buy your ticket?

Let's get your review verified..

AMCTheatres.com or AMC App New

Cinemark Coming Soon

We won’t be able to verify your ticket today, but it’s great to know for the future.

Regal Coming Soon

Theater box office or somewhere else

By opting to have your ticket verified for this movie, you are allowing us to check the email address associated with your Rotten Tomatoes account against an email address associated with a Fandango ticket purchase for the same movie.

You're almost there! Just confirm how you got your ticket.

2012 videos, 2012 photos.

Earth's billions of inhabitants are unaware that the planet has an expiration date. With the warnings of an American scientist (Chiwetel Ejiofor), world leaders begin secret preparations for the survival of select members of society. When the global cataclysm finally occurs, failed writer Jackson Curtis (John Cusack) tries to lead his family to safety as the world starts falling apart.

Rating: PG-13 (Some Language|Disaster Sequences)

Genre: Action, Mystery & thriller, Drama

Original Language: English

Director: Roland Emmerich

Producer: Harald Kloser , Mark Gordon , Larry J. Franco

Writer: Roland Emmerich , Harald Kloser

Release Date (Theaters): Nov 13, 2009 wide

Release Date (Streaming): Apr 1, 2010

Box Office (Gross USA): $166.1M

Runtime: 2h 38m

Distributor: Sony Pictures Entertainment

Production Co: Centropolis Entertainment

Cast & Crew

John Cusack

Jackson Curtis

Chiwetel Ejiofor

Adrian Helmsley

Amanda Peet

Oliver Platt

Carl Anheuser

Thandiwe Newton

Laura Wilson

Danny Glover

President Thomas Wilson

Woody Harrelson

Charlie Frost

Tom McCarthy

Gordon Silberman

Noah Curtis

Morgan Lily

Lilly Curtis

Zlatko Buric

Yuri Karpov

Béatrice Rosen

Alexandre Haussmann

Philippe Haussmann

John Billingsley

Professor West

George Segal

Tony Delgatto

Stephen McHattie

Capt. Michaels

Patrick Bauchau

Roland Picard

Jimi Mistry

Dr. Satnam Tsurutani

Roland Emmerich

Screenwriter

Harald Kloser

Mark Gordon

Larry J. Franco

Executive Producer

Ute Emmerich

Michael Wimer

Dean Semler

Cinematographer

David Brenner

Film Editing

Peter S. Elliot

Barry Chusid

Production Design

Shay Cunliffe

Costume Design

Original Music

Thomas Wander

Don Macaulay

Supervising Art Direction

Dan Hermansen

Art Director

Ross Dempster

Kendelle Elliott

News & Interviews for 2012

RT on DVD & Blu-Ray: 2012 is Where the Wild Things Are for Ponyo

Box Office Guru Wrapup: 2012 Destroys the Competition

Friday Harvest: Clash of the Titans , Kick-Ass , and more!

Critic Reviews for 2012

Audience reviews for 2012.

While it may have the occasional fun sequence, 2012 is too self-serious for it's own good - as well as having characters and acting that are boring, stale and wooden. The implausibility of the events is to the point of ridiculousness.

This disaster flick really goes for the brass ring and tries to destroy the entire world. The concept for the plot is interesting as solar radiation is heating up the earth's core. The action sequences are fairly good and the special effects are excellent. The veiled message at the end comes across as almost too "in your face" though, much like in "The Day After Tomorrow." As disaster films go, however, this one isn't the worst.

This is a horrible movie. The plot really have potential to create something smart and special, but because of horrible writing and mediocre directing from Roland Emmerich, it just becomes another big scaled disaster movie. The characters are definitely the worst thing about this movie, because they are so uninteresting and the acting is so bad. John Cusack's character is so horribly written that Cusack himself, didn't even bother giving a somewhat acceptable performance. Woody Harrelson just plays Woody Harrelson, and while that may not be a bad thing, his character is just as insane and crappy written as every other character. Chiwetel Ejiofor is the only actor who gives a somewhat good performance in this movie, but his character is really just there for exposition and to narrate the various events that go down in the movie. The effects on the other hand are spectacular and follow the trail of great effects in Emmerich's movies, except for "Godzilla," of course. In the end, this is a really bad movie with some bad writing and badly written characters. Still excited for "Independence Day: Resurgence," though...

The false-predictable 2012 had its good moments, but unfortunately ended up being a disaster all over the place as soon the first disaster came.

Movie & TV guides

Play Daily Tomato Movie Trivia

Discover What to Watch

Rotten Tomatoes Podcasts

Awesome, you're subscribed!

Thanks for subscribing! Look out for your first newsletter in your inbox soon!

The best things in life are free.

Déjà vu! We already have this email. Try another?

By entering your email address you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy and consent to receive emails from Time Out about news, events, offers and partner promotions.

Love the mag?

Our newsletter hand-delivers the best bits to your inbox. Sign up to unlock our digital magazines and also receive the latest news, events, offers and partner promotions.

Things to Do
Food & Drink
Arts & Culture
Time Out Market
Coca-Cola Foodmarks
Los Angeles

Get us in your inbox

🙌 Awesome, you're subscribed!

4 out of 5 stars
Recommended

Time Out says

Release details.

Release date: Friday 13 November 2009
Duration: 158 mins

Cast and crew

Director: Roland Emmerich
Woody Harrelson
John Cusack
Amanda Peet
Chiwetel Ejiofor

An email you’ll actually love

Discover Time Out original video

Press office
Investor relations
Work for Time Out
Editorial guidelines
Privacy notice
Do not sell my information
Cookie policy
Accessibility statement
Terms of use
Modern slavery statement
Manage cookies
Advertising

Time Out Worldwide

All Time Out Locations
North America
South America
South Pacific

2012 Movie Review

They say two thousand twelve party over, oops, out of time..

2.5 out of 5 Stars, 5/10 Score

2012 Review

More Reviews by Jim Vejvoda

Ign recommends.

Review by Brian Eggert November 13, 2008

Everything you’re expecting from 2012 is exactly what you’re going to get. Roland Emmerich’s magnum opus is the pinnacle of his career. The director’s pithy efforts like Independence Day , Godzilla , and The Day After Tomorrow feel like small indie gems in comparison to this overblown, wonderfully destructive piece of demolitionist eye candy. Utterly impossible by any stretch of the imagination, the movie is a cheesy, one-dimensional, epic-sized spectacle that does exactly what it promises to—destroy the Earth. Audiences unwilling to dismiss reality for some very expensive entertainment by way of mass death and landmark obliteration will not appreciate its full effect.

As predicted by the Mayans hundreds of years ago, the year 2012 marks what they believe to be the end of the world. They even gave us an exact date: December 21, 2012. Emmerich’s movie opens near this point, as strange natural occurrences stir scientists to inquire about what’s happening. It seems neutrino bursts from the Sun are causing the planet’s core to boil, making the crust unstable and causing a whole lot of ruckus in the process. For the basis of his movie, Emmerich credits Charles Hapgood’s 1958 Earth Crust Displacement theory, but how the Mayans knew this would happen is never explained. Once the rumblings cause massive earthquakes to tremor, deep chasms to rupture open, super-volcanoes to blow, and tsunamis to roll, speculation into the Mayans’ curiously advanced methods of global ruin detection hardly matters.

Of course, there’s always some crackpot who no one believes, but who turns out to be right about his wild doomsday theories. And when the fit hits the shan, everyone regrets not listening to him sooner. Said nutjob is played by Woody Harrelson, who’s having fun playing his hippie radio show host-cum-prophet. His more respectable counterpart is chief science advisor Adrian Helmsley (Chiwetel Ejiofor), who warns the ever-grave U.S. President Thomas Wilson (Danny Glover) just in time. In a joint effort with various billionaires and governments, the world comes together to build arks in the Himalayas, but only a select few of the planet’s population and wildlife will fit on the arks. Regardless, the president’s chief of staff, Carl Anheuser (Oliver Platt), secures spots for the world’s elite on these ships, because there’s always a slimy character like this in disaster movies.

Most of the action revolves around Jackson Curtis (John Cusack), a failed writer turned limo driver for Russian bazillionaire Yuri Karpov (Zlatko Buric). Curtis’ ex-wife (Amanda Peet) and their two kids (Liam James and Morgan Lily) now live with the nice “other man” Gordon (Tom McCarthy), much to Curtis’ dismay. But you can believe that Gordon, along with 99% of the world’s population, gets wiped out, leaving Curtis and his estranged wife to rekindle their love. And why not? After learning about the arks from Harrelson’s wacko character while on vacation in Yellowstone, Curtis proves himself a superhero faced with the task of saving his family. He out-drives an earthquake and outruns the blast path of a super-volcano—impressive for a writer. Most of the bit characters in the movie are set up only to help Curtis along on his quest to reach China, and most die while carrying out their Good Samaritan deeds.

So what’s all destroyed in the movie? California falls into the ocean. All of America is covered by toxic ash. Las Vegas falls into a hellish crevasse, sparking a moment of irony, while Rio’s Christ the Redeemer statue and St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome topple over, killing many God-fearing Christians in the process. Emmerich spares no one, but he takes particular joy in depicting Christian icons crumbling. The John F. Kennedy aircraft carrier gets carted by a giant wave and crashes into the White House, marking the second time Emmerich has destroyed the president’s home. Tibet is waterlogged by a tsunami. And when it’s all over, the planet is covered in water.

Emmerich and his co-writer Harald Kloser arrange a series of near-escapes and ridiculous resolutions. The clichés are piled on top of one another in an almost comic fashion. There are only so many times a character can say “My God!” or “You have to take a look at this, sir” before the audience starts laughing. But there’s also the impression that the movie is fully aware of its own corniness, and we’re in on the joke. Aside from John Cusack outrunning planetary calamities, the movie’s many other characters outrun their own waves and explosions and what-have-yous in airplanes and cars and on foot. It’s all preposterous but meant in the escapist disaster movie spirit. Several shots feature a bystander gawking in awe of some terrible force approaching them, a familiar shot for Emmerich (borrowed from Spielberg). Plenty of nice characters undeservedly die, while irredeemable jerks are fully redeemed. And in the end, there’s an inappropriate feeling of hopefulness among the survivors, only because dwelling on the fact that virtually everyone on Earth is dead would be a major bummer.

The computerized special effects throughout are big and bold and staggering, and they should be since Emmerich’s budget was a reported $250 million. He uses that money to carry out his ultimate goal of obliterating the Earth, which has been a long time coming as those of us who have followed his work know. The action scenes unfold with clarity, so we always know what’s what, unlike the majority of over-edited blockbusters. Some of it looks shoddy and stupid, but the acting for this sort of drivel is above average, so the few CGI missteps are easily forgiven. Cusack and Ejiofor are both too good for the material, but they’re welcome protagonists. Harrelson, after his unexpected turn in Zombieland earlier this year, gives another memorable-if-throwaway performance. And Platt does a nice job making the audience despise him.

Defending Emmerich’s latest movie comes with some difficulty for this critic, since the director’s work is generally empty commercial fare, and the majority of his movies are unwatchably bad upon revisitation. So let’s be clear: This isn’t a “good movie,” but it’s an entertaining one. 2012 is trash, to be sure, but it’s well-assembled trash that’s bigger and better than anything Emmerich has made before. Shockingly, despite its 2-hour-and-40-minute runtime, this pageant of devastation keeps our interest for the duration. Never mind logic, because it’s defied in almost every scene. It’s even sort of fun to point out the clichés throughout. Thinking about it too much is missing the point of this mindless exhibition. Just sit back, eat your popcorn, and watch Emmerich destroy the world. Why else would you see a movie like this?

Related Titles

The Definitives

In Theaters

Recent Reviews

You'll Never Find Me 3 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆
Patreon Exclusive: True Lies 3 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆
Love Lies Bleeding 4 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆
Frida 3.5 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆
One Life 3 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆
Club Zero 3 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆
Kung Fu Panda 4 2.5 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆
Patreon Exclusive: Terminator 2: Judgment Day 3.5 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆
Problemista 3.5 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆
Dune: Part Two 4 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆
Short Take: Io Capitano 3.5 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆
Drive-Away Dolls 2.5 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆
Madame Web 0.5 Star ☆
Short Take: Suncoast 2.5 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆
The Taste of Things 4 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

“2012” – setting a new standard for disaster films

Review by Jason Thompson

Back in 1996, Roland Emmerich probably never would have guessed that the film “Independence Day” would define his career. Emmerich is still trying to destroy the heck out of the world in his new opus simply titled “2012.”

In 2009, a scientist discovers that the Earth’s temperature is rising due to something about neutrinos being too high. He calls upon colleague Dr. Adrian Helmsley (Chiwetel Ejiofor) to help him solve the mystery behind this strange phenomenon. They calculate that Earth’s temperature will continue to rise until the world as we know it starts breaking apart like a bad science project.

This takes us to the titular year, and down-on-his-luck writer/limo driver Jackson Curtis (John Cusack) wants a relationship with his estranged son and daughter. As any good dad would do, Jackson takes them camping, but coincidentally discovers part of the government’s cover-up of Earth’s impending disaster. After that, “2012” is all about three things: death, destruction, and good old-fashioned global chaos.

It’s hard to discuss acting when disaster films are involved. Much like slasher films, the audience only demands that the actors look believable while running away from the doom chasing them. Luckily, the cast of “2012” is up to the challenge.

As the biggest name in the cast, Cusack’s performance in this film shows a constant cross between fear and disbelief. I guess I would look frightened yet befuddled too if entire cities were breaking apart behind me like giant slabs of Styrofoam. On the other side of the nobility coin is the criminally underrated Ejiofor. He has been a leading man-in-waiting for a few years now, starting back with “Dirty Pretty Things” and continuing with films like “Inside Man” and “Children of Men.” If Cusack is the perspective of the audience, Ejiofor is both its beating heart and its conscience.

Standout supporting turns from Oliver Platt and Thandie Newton elevate the film greatly and give its emotional moments just as much urgency as the carnage that follows behind. The true hero of this film, however, is none other than Mr. Woody Harrelson. Between “No Country For Old Men,” “Zombieland,” and now “2012,” Woody’s back and stealing scenes more than ever. Good to have you back, Woody!

If you have seen the trailer or any footage of this film, and you’re not on board, don’t bother. The film is two and a half hours of global obliteration. “2012” sets a new standard for disaster films and may require a second viewing just to take in the full panorama of its destructive CGI splendor. Sure, the film is a monument to impossibility, and the plot is convoluted beyond discussion, but we don’t watch these films for their logic. We watch because we love the spectacle of it all.

For all the carnage, however, the character moments ground the film just enough to suppress the cheesiness the film could have had. If a good disaster flick is what you crave, you’ll get your fill in spades with “2012”

Jason Thompson is an aspiring screenwriter from Los Angeles, California. Catch him anytime at his blog www.mysmallpotatoes.wordpress.com .

Review also appearing in the Berthoud Weekly Surveyor.

11 Comments

Thanks for the great review Jason! I appreciate your honesty.

“Sure, the film is a monument to impossibility, and the plot is convoluted beyond discussion, but we don’t watch these films for their logic. We watch because we love the spectacle of it all.”

So true! Going to the movies isn’t always about digging up some deeper meaning. Sometimes it’s just cool to watch things blow up and come tumbling down.

I am a little surprised John Cusack took this role. I think it might have been better suited for someone like Keanu Reeves. 🙂

I just have to put my two cents in here. The “OH COME ON!” factor in this movie is really high!!! The special effects are great but there is absolutely no feeling for anything that is going on. The film is riddled with every cliche that can be put in it! The good guys are perfect, the bad guy is perfectly bad and the destruction of all the people on Earth is treated like simple eye candy. If I ever get stranded in the middle of the Himalayas, at night, during a raging snow storm, I hope I can walk a couple of yards and have an old truck pick me up! I hope my plastic surgeon boyfriend can get me out of an ash cloud with his new found flying skills! That’s only two of the “OH COME ONS!” that bugged me about this film. I think there are about 20 more! By hour two I had gone numb and kept looking at my watch. The end is nothing but a Titanic style drama that bored me to tears. And the cherry on the top of this mess is the last line!!!! (I won’t give that away here). I like a little believable story with my disaster movie – this had nothing plausible. I’m sorry – this movie STINKS!!!!

Fantastic review! My husband really wants to see this movie… I’m ambivalent, but I know to enjoy a disaster orgy like this, one should see it in the theater.

I enjoyed this movie very much. It had me on the edge of my seat, AND holding the hand of my best friend next to me. One of the reasons why it really got to me was because I live with my one year old brother and my single mother. All I had to do was place myself in their positions and I basically cried and shook throughout the whole movie. I believe all things are possible and I have an extremely opened mind. This movie is NOT for people who live in a black in white set world. People who believe in all shades of gray, I hope to see your bottom planted on the theater seat. The effects were very real, which amazed me, and I enjoyed the family feel of it, even though the world was coming to an end. I loved the fact that it greatly expressed the importance of love for all people and how in any disaster we need to come together as a family. I think this movie is very under rated, and I feel that people who just wanted to see crashes and booms were slightly disappointed and probably felt that the real message in the story was forced upon them, leaving them bored, as expressed by the person above me. I think this movie is worth a watch and I think it requires your full attention and open mind.

Saw this film with Heidi’s folks. I was waiting for Carmie to cover her eyes and hide but we just ended up poking each other in the ribs and laughing. I saw this movie having already read Heidi’s review and Diane’s remarks. There were certainly so many “Oh come on” moments – like the airplane flying successfully through the volcanic ash cloud. I think the ash should have cut the engines….but, “oh well”. We all left the theater thoroughly entertained, however. Does that mean it won’t take much to make us happy during our trip to Italy coming up in April?

Your so right Mickey! I went to this movie to just be cooperative. 🙂 Ended up having a lot of fun. Totally agree with Diane and her “Oh come on” factor being very high in this movie but…It was just a no brainer fun time. Lots of good movie effects that made you feel like you right there. Yes Mickey I’m very easily entertained. I will be “happy dancing” across Italy.

And yet another apocalyptic movie, i am really wondering where this is heading. Ah, nice blog by the way 😉

The “Movie” 2012 was so bad as in pathetic. Great special effects. Jubba The Hutt of Star Wars fame should have been part of the cast.

A new rookie pilot with a couple of hours under his belt flies a sophisticated twin engine aircraft as though he was a member of the Blue Angels.

How he even got the aircraft started is also bogus.

I turned it off out of respect for those like myself that actually flew for a major airline. I do not mind fantasy but this was far beyond that.

Two Toes Down.

Thanks for stopping in Robert. Perhaps they should have consulted a real pilot??

“Two toes down.” — A great way of letting us know how you really feel! I might steal that from you. 🙂 Thanks again for checking in and hope to see you again in the future.

In case someone is wondering, Jubba is Jabba’s younger antagonistic “Weight Watching” brother.

2012 is well made spectacle. It’s finely crafted trash. It’s in on the joke, and it’s laughing along with you.

Or browse by category:

Get the app
Movie Reviews
Best Movie Lists
Best Movies on Netflix, Disney+, and More

Common Sense Selections for Movies

50 Modern Movies All Kids Should Watch Before They're 12

Best TV Lists
Best TV Shows on Netflix, Disney+, and More
Common Sense Selections for TV
Video Reviews of TV Shows

Best Kids' Shows on Disney+

Best Kids' TV Shows on Netflix

Book Reviews
Best Book Lists
Common Sense Selections for Books

8 Tips for Getting Kids Hooked on Books

50 Books All Kids Should Read Before They're 12

Game Reviews
Best Game Lists

Common Sense Selections for Games

Video Reviews of Games

Nintendo Switch Games for Family Fun

Podcast Reviews
Best Podcast Lists

Common Sense Selections for Podcasts

Parents' Guide to Podcasts

App Reviews
Best App Lists

Social Networking for Teens

Gun-Free Action Game Apps

Reviews for AI Apps and Tools

YouTube Channel Reviews
YouTube Kids Channels by Topic

Parents' Ultimate Guide to YouTube Kids

Explaining the News to Our Kids

Family Tech Planners
Digital Skills
All Articles
Latino Culture
Black Voices
Asian Stories
Native Narratives
LGBTQ+ Pride
Best of Diverse Representation List

Celebrating Black History Month

Movies and TV Shows with Arab Leads

Celebrate Hip-Hop's 50th Anniversary

Common sense media reviewers.

Massive global destruction -- not for worriers.

A Lot or a Little?

What you will—and won't—find in this movie.

Despite the relentlessly depressing, gruesome subj

The characters aren't very deep, but some of them

Not much blood and gore (one character gets his le

One character is a plastic surgeon who does breast

Fairly light use of strong language, although ther

A wealthy character brags about his fancy new Bent

Two minor adult characters are shown drinking. One

Positive Messages

Despite the relentlessly depressing, gruesome subject matter and millions (billions?) of deaths, the film's main point is that family is ultimately the most important thing in life. Several characters risk their lives or well-being for family members, and one character tries (tragically) to contact his family too late. Certain selfish characters are redeemed by saving family members, and the movie makes a point of mentioning that the most selfish character of all has no family. Aside from that, a few characters look beyond family to try to rescue total strangers as well.

Positive Role Models

The characters aren't very deep, but some of them still demonstrate marked heroism and selflessness. Hero Jackson Curtis previously ignored his family in favor of his career, but he returns to them during the disaster, learning how to connect with, love, and forgive them. Later, he risks his life to save thousands of people. Other characters clash over methods by which to choose who's rescued, with some seeing only the bottom line, but others arguing that everyone has a right to live. The president shows heroism and self sacrifice.

Violence & Scariness

Not much blood and gore (one character gets his leg gouged in a giant gear), but the massive destruction results in countless anonymous deaths. The movie does focus dramatically on certain known faces as they meet their terrible fates, but it rarely stops to linger on them. Two children watch as their father falls to his death and another character is ground up in some machinery. Smaller moments of hostility at a boxing match, and a character punches another character in the face. A mass suicide is mentioned on a news report.

Did you know you can flag iffy content? Adjust limits for Violence & Scariness in your kid's entertainment guide.

Sex, Romance & Nudity

One character is a plastic surgeon who does breast implants. He meets one of his patients, and they mention her surgery several times. Gordon and Kate briefly discuss "making a baby" of their own. Kate and Jackson kiss once, and there's a near-kiss between Adrien and the president's daughter.

Did you know you can flag iffy content? Adjust limits for Sex, Romance & Nudity in your kid's entertainment guide.

Fairly light use of strong language, although there's at least one "f--k," a few uses of "s--t," and other words like "damn," "ass," "hell," "goddamn," and "oh my God." One character flips another one off.

Did you know you can flag iffy content? Adjust limits for Language in your kid's entertainment guide.

Products & Purchases

A wealthy character brags about his fancy new Bentley. Pull-Ups diapers are discussed and shown.

Drinking, Drugs & Smoking

Two minor adult characters are shown drinking. One takes his first drink in 25 years when he discovers that the world is going to end.

Did you know you can flag iffy content? Adjust limits for Drinking, Drugs & Smoking in your kid's entertainment guide.

Parents Need to Know

Parents need to know that director Roland Emmerich 's 2012 is an intense, violent disaster movie, with billions of anonymous characters getting killed during massive scenes of destruction (earthquakes, tsunamis, and more). Although the tone is mainly exciting, the relentless devastation could terrify or depress many viewers (both kids and grown-ups), especially those who've been through natural disasters themselves. In other words, this is no movie for kids anxious about the state of the world. Fans of the genre will find some of the effects truly impressive, but there's not much in the way of character or plot depth. Expect a little bit of kissing, drinking, and swearing (including "s--t"). All that and it's almost three hours long. ... To stay in the loop on more movies like this, you can sign up for weekly Family Movie Night emails .

Where to Watch

Videos and photos.

Community Reviews

Parents say (40)
Kids say (174)

Based on 40 parent reviews

What's the Story?

When the sun suddenly begins bombarding Earth with a higher neutrino count, heating up the planet's core, it all-too-quickly leads to massive natural disasters -- from earthquakes to tsunamis -- and even shifting of the north and south poles. A secret project is underway in Tibet to build "arks" to rescue a certain number of people, but most of the seats have been reserved for the world's richest and most important people. While scientist Adrian Helmsley ( Chiwetel Ejiofor ) collects data and fights against greed and corruption, small-time Los Angeles author Jackson Curtis ( John Cusack ) tries to rescue his ex-wife ( Amanda Peet ) and their two kids, get them to Tibet, and secure them seats on one of the arks. But can he do this impossible task in time?

Is It Any Good?

At best, it's a nearly three-hour film packed with several tons of clichés whose best features are explosions and general destruction. At worst, it's a gruesome, depressing subject as viewed from the seat of a passing roller coaster.

Disaster movies are usually very popular and have long managed to thrill plenty of people with their huge scale and awesome special effects. Since 2012 (which is tied to a much-debated Mayan prophecy that supposedly names that year as the one in which the world will end) is one of the biggest and most spectacular to date, it will no doubt follow suit -- and, in terms of visual effects and clear, exciting filmmaking, it is well done. And the impressive, appealing cast does its level best to read through the third-rate dialogue without too much eye-rolling. But anyone looking for character depth, powerful emotional content, intelligence, poetic images, or personal expression of any kind is advised to look elsewhere.

Talk to Your Kids About ...

Families can talk about the movie's destruction and violence . Much of it is of a sci-fi/fantasy nature, but if you stop to think about it, the enormity and frequency of it can be overwhelming. Is this kind of violence more or less upsetting than gory horror movies?

One of the movie's major themes is the importance of family. Does that come through amid the chaos and destruction? Did the movie make you feel closer to your own family?

Why do you think the wealthiest and most important people were chosen for seats on the arks? Should other people have gotten a chance? What would have been a better way to go about the process?

Do you think a disaster like this could occur? If so, is it better to try and prepare or better not to worry about something we can't control?

Movie Details

In theaters : November 13, 2009
On DVD or streaming : March 2, 2010
Cast : Amanda Peet , Chiwetel Ejiofor , John Cusack
Director : Roland Emmerich
Inclusion Information : Black actors
Studio : Columbia Tristar
Genre : Science Fiction
Run time : 158 minutes
MPAA rating : PG-13
MPAA explanation : intense disaster sequences and some language.
Last updated : March 10, 2024

Did we miss something on diversity?

Research shows a connection between kids' healthy self-esteem and positive portrayals in media. That's why we've added a new "Diverse Representations" section to our reviews that will be rolling out on an ongoing basis. You can help us help kids by suggesting a diversity update.

Suggest an Update

Our editors recommend.

Independence Day

Want personalized picks for your kids' age and interests?

I Am Legend

Science fiction tv.

Common Sense Media's unbiased ratings are created by expert reviewers and aren't influenced by the product's creators or by any of our funders, affiliates, or partners.

Movie Review: '2012'

Latest News

Jeffrey Wright To Co-Star With Denzel Washington In Spike Lee’s “High and Low”

An Ode To 'Vintage' Black Women

Megan Thee Stallion Announces “Hot Girl Summer” World Tour With Special Guest GloRilla

Cardi B Explains Why She Was 'Afraid' to Drop Music in 2023

Jam Master Jay’s Sons Break Silence Over Drug Dealing Allegations Surrounding Their Father’s Death

Beyoncé Hints At Past Experience When She Didn't 'Feel Welcomed' That Inspired 'Act II: Cowboy Carter'

Subscribe for bet updates, provide your email address to receive our newsletter..

By clicking Subscribe, you confirm that you have read and agree to our Terms of Use and acknowledge our Privacy Policy . You also agree to receive marketing communications, updates, special offers (including partner offers) and other information from BET and the Paramount family of companies. You understand that you can unsubscribe at any time.

Find Family Movies, Movie Ratings and Movie Reviews

2012 Parent Guide

Did the ancient Mayan civilization know when modern civilization would end? As the ominous predictions interpreted from their calendar begin to unfold, people all over the globe -- including Jackson Curtis (John Cusack) -- find themselves caught in the cataclysmic events.

Release date November 13, 2009

Run Time: 156 minutes

Official Movie Site

Get Content Details

The guide to our grades, parent movie review by kerry bennett.

The date 12-21-2012 may be looming large and ominous in the minds of some people. According to the ancient Mayan calendar, it signals the end of the world, as we know it. Whether that’s true or simply the result of tired stone workers going home for dinner is yet to be seen. In the meantime, Director Roland Emmerich, the man behind other apocalyptic films like The Day After Tomorrow , Godzilla and Independence Day , has created a disaster movie reminiscent of catastrophe scripts like The Poseidon Adventure and Dante’s Peak .

In this story, John Cusack plays Jackson Curtis, a divorced dad who is taking his kids (Liam James, Morgan Lily) camping for the weekend in Yellowstone National Park. When they arrive in the wilderness, he is surprised to find the landscape has changed significantly since he was there with their mother Kate (Amanda Peet) years earlier. After the trio crosses into a restricted area and is roughly apprehended by gun-toting soldiers in military combat fatigues, Jackson suspects something is up.

For those with enough money or political clout, a survival opportunity exists. But for the masses, of which Jackson and his family are a part, there is little hope. Still, that doesn’t stop this deadbeat dad from tackling every option he can find to save his former wife, her new husband (Thomas McCarthy) and the kids. Driving a limousine, he careens down buckling city streets, squeaks under falling Interstate bridges and blasts through glass-plated office buildings in an effort to get out of the crumbling core of Los Angeles. The difficulty of the feat ramps up as the small group grows to include Jackson’s wealthy employer (Zlatko Buric) and his family.

To be truthful, anyone with even a fifth grader’s knowledge of science will know this script isn’t based on fact. Planes take off even as the runway cracks and falls away below them. Characters perform herculean tasks that would require more strength than the average freelance writer could possibly possess. And despite the total destruction of the continent, cell phones, with unbelievably good reception, remain usable until almost the final moment.

However, putting science aside, 2012 is a classic popcorn flick where guessing who will make it and who won’t is part of the fun. The visual effects, which depict the obliteration of iconic structures and statues as well as the California coastline sliding into the ocean, are amazing, even if the epic production occasionally becomes too caught up in the enormity of the destruction on screen. Fortunately, despite the devastation and the nastier side of human nature that are frequently seen, the storyline rebounds with redemptive acts of heroism and humanity, even from politicians. While 2012 might not lessen anyone’s fears about the future, it at least offers audiences a lively distraction from their present day problems.

About author

Kerry Bennett

2012 rating & content info.

Why is 2012 rated PG-13? 2012 is rated PG-13 by the MPAA for intense disaster sequences and some language.

In the true nature of a disaster film, this movie is packed with scenes of destruction and devastation as entire cities and their citizens are swallowed up in huge cavernous cracks in the Earth’s surface. Other characters are crushed by falling cars, buildings or rocks, swept away in huge tsunamic waves, drowned at sea or blown up in naturally caused explosions. After riots break out, characters are crushed or pushed off the edge of a high precipice. The corpses of people who committed mass suicide are seen. A man is shot at and blown up. During seismic activity, highways heave, buildings crumble, cars fall out of a parking garage, road structures collapse and volcanic eruptions happen. Some bloody, injured and dead people are seen. Raw sewage is sprayed across a car. One character is crushed to death and another has his legs torn off in a huge gear system (the bloody stumps of his legs are shown). Some weapons are used by the military. Adults drink at social events or while facing impending death. Brief comments are made about adult sexual activities. A woman discusses her breast enhancements. Partial male buttock nudity is briefly seen. The script contains frequent profanities and terms of Deity, as well as an extreme sexual expletive and a crude hand gesture. A prolonged sequence of flashing lights may also be disturbing to some viewers.

Page last updated July 17, 2017

2012 Parents' Guide

In a similar scenario, would the best of humanity always be saved if only the wealthy or powerful were preserved? What types of people and skills would be needed to rebuild a civilization after such an apocalyptic event? Would a lottery be a fair way to determine a chance for survival?

Rather than just being seen in the background, product placements are becoming increasingly prominent in films. How are they used in this script?

If you knew you only had a limited time to live, what things would you do? Who would you contact?

The most recent home video release of 2012 movie is March 2, 2010. Here are some details…

2012 releases to DVD and Blu-ray on March 2, 2010. 2012 on DVD: - Audio commentary with Writer/Director Roland Emmerich and Co-Writer Harald Kloser - Featurette: Roland Emmerich: Master of the Modern Epic - Alternate Ending - Deleted Scenes - Music Video: Time For Miracles by Adam Lambert 2012 on Blu-ray (Single Disc): - movieIQ (BD Exclusive) - Picture-in-Picture: Roland’s Vision (includes pre-visualization, storyboards and behind-the-scenes footage, along with interviews with filmmakers, cast and crew). - Audio commentary with Writer/Director Roland Emmerich and Co-Writer Harald Kloser - Alternate Ending 2012 on Blu-ray in a 2-Disc Edition: Disc 1: - movieIQ (BD Exclusive) - Picture-in-Picture: Roland’s Vision (includes pre-visualization, storyboards and behind-the-scenes footage, along with interviews with filmmakers, cast and crew). - Audio commentary with Writer/Director Roland Emmerich and Co-Writer Harald Kloser - Alternate Ending Disc 2: - Interactive Mayan Calendar (find your horoscope and personality profile) - Featurettes: Mysteries of the Mayan Calendar, Designing the End of the World, Roland Emmerich: Master of the Modern Epic Science Behind the Destruction and The End of the World: The Actor’s Perspective. - Deleted Scenes - Countdown to the Future - Music Videos: Time For Miracles by Adam Lambert - Making the Music Video Time For Miracles with Adam Lambert - Digital Copy for PC, Mac & iPod

Haamro Notes

Privacy Policy
Speedy Maths

Unit 5 Reading II |Movie Review 2012 is a perfect Disaster Exercise | Class 10 English

movie review 2012: a perfect disaster class 10 english exercise.

Vocabulary in use

Rewrite the following sentences choosing the correct phrases/words from the list below for the underlined words..

boom, unbelievable, misinterpretation, extremely large number of people, a protagonist, the people who speak American Indian language in Central America and Mexico, movie reviewer, broadens, appealing

a. The film critic awards four stars to the film ‘2012”.

=> movie reviewer

b.Emmerich fleshes out a bit of pseudo-history and some pseudo-science in “2012”.

=> broadens

c.John Cusack is in a leading role .

=>a protagonist

c.“2012” kills zillions without breaking a sweat.

=>extremely large number of people

d. According to the critic, “2012” is enormously satisfactory , amazingly accomplished and irresistible.

=>appealing

e.The calendar of the Mayans had a misapprehension of “2012” as the date of humanity’s doom.

=> the people who speak American Indian language in Central America and Mexico, misinterpretation

f. The special effects of the movie are incredible .

=> unbelievable.

g. In “2012’, the world ends with a bang .

2. reading comprehension, i. read the movie review, and decide whether the following statements are true or false., a. “2012” is a film about the disaster that kills a great number of people., b. the director of the movie has also contributed in its writing part., c. chiwetel ejiofor played the role of a doctor..

=> False

d. Mark Gordon is one of the producers of “2012”.

E. the critic finds the special effects of the movie incredible., movie review 2012 is a perfect disaster question answers, a. who is roland emmerich.

Ans: Roland Emmerich is the director of the movie “2012”.

b. When was the movie “2012” released?

Ans: The movie was released on 13th November 2009.

c. What misconception is captured in the beginning of the movie?

Ans: The Mayan calendar picks “2012” as the date of humanity's extinction is the misconception captured at the beginning of the movie 2012.

d. Why do the audience not feel bored while watching the movie?

Ans: The audience does not feel bored while watching the movie because the actors, the story the dialogue and the special effects are fantastic.

e. What makes “2012” the perfect movie?

Ans: The way things are presented in the movie “2012” makes it the perfect movie.

f. What are the differences between “2012” and other movies?

Ans: Other movies have explosions; “2012” has an atom bomb size detonation that wipes Yellowstone off the map. Other movies have earthquakes; “2012” sends California sinking in flames into the sea. Other movies kill thousands; “2012” kills zillions without breaking a sweat.

3. Follow-up activity

Note down the major points of the movie review. paraphrase them. develop this into a paragraph with a suitable title, topic sentence, supporting sentences and a concluding sentence., 2012 movie summary.

In “2012” Roland Emmerich creates a picture of the world’s future. According to the movie, the Mayan calendar ends on Dec. 21, 2012, predicting that the world will end on that day. Catastrophic natural disasters damage the planet, resulting in the deaths of millions. The movie is the greatest achievement in Emmerich’s career as a destroyer of the world. It is a four-star movie. It has spectacular special effects. The best movie of its kind ever made .

B. Time for grammar

1. read the school uniform code, and encircle the modal verbs..

The school uniform codes are important to maintain a sense of oneness and unity. Therefore, students must come to school in their stipulated uniform. They ma y wear coloured clothes of their choice on their birthdays but they have to maintain the regulations for sportswear, formal wear and Friday clothing accordingly. As the bottom line for clothing is comfort and decency, students are not allowed to wear jewellery or make-up. Similarly, hair must be of natural colour, decent length and style. Next, they should trim their nails. Furthermore, they need to wear trousers and skirts according to specifications. Lastly, they ought to follow the instructions of the discipline incharge. Breaching uniform codes may result in detention.

2. Imagine Kunsang has visited Manisha. What might have Manisha told her nephew? Complete the following sentences with suitable expressions of advice, suggestion or warning.

a. Kunsang, you mustn’t hurt your parents’ feelings .

b. You have to think about your parents .

c. You ought not to give up studying now .

d. If I were you, I would complete my high school education .

e. You aren’t allowed to do as you wish at this age .

f. You may go to town after completing your high school .

g. You are not supposed to leave school now .

C. Follow-up activity

walking on foot along the roads may sometimes be dangerous. fill in the blanks with appropriate modal verbs to give a sense of pedestrians’ safety..

The roads can be dangerous for pedestrians. Even for those who are not driving, it is important to be aware that traffic could be approaching from unexpected directions. Apart from motorways, it’s not illegal crossing the road at any point. It is advisable to use crossings, some of them controlled by traffic lights, whenever you can. You ought to cross the road when the green signal is on but, if the light is flashing, don’t start to cross.

There are crossing points known as zebra crossings which have black and white road markings and orange flashing beacons at each side of the road.

Drivers should give way to pedestrians on the crossing. Pedestrians of developed cities can also use subways and overhead bridges for their safety.

Don ’ t forget, pedestrians must not walk along or cross any motorways at any time.

Class 10 English Unit 5 Giving advice and warnings Listening Exercise (with audio file)

Engage yourself

Look at the picture below and answer the following questions.

a. Are you fond of reading books?

=> Yes, I am. / No, I am not.

b. How often do you visit a library?

=> I go there every day/ once a week.

c. How do you find a book of your choice in a library?

=> I go to the particular section. /I simply ask it from the librarian.

B. Study time

1. Listen to the conversation, and make a list of different sections of a library.

a. Library display section

b. Periodical section

c. Reference section

d. Biography section

2. Listen to the conversation again, and answer the following questions.

a. Who advised Anjali to get a book of her interest?

=> Her teacher advised Anjali to get a book of her interest.

b. How often does Anjali read reference books?

=> Anjali seldom reads reference books.

c. What is the periodical section for?

=> The periodical section is for m agazines and newspapers

d. In which section of the library are new books found?

=> New books are found in the l ibrary Display Section

e. In which section does the student find the biographies?

=> The students find the biographies in the b iography section .

Work in a small group. Discuss the rules and regulations of your school library. Then write them on a plain sheet of paper and share it with the class.

=> Rules and Regulations to be followed in school library

B. Time for writing

1. write a dialogue between two students who have distinct views on the qualities of a captain or a leader..

2. Write a book/movie review. You may include answers of these questions: Who were the characters/actors? Who published/produced it? Who was the author/director? What was the plot? What problem was highlighted? How was the problem/s solved? What did you like/ dislike about it? Did you like the ending? If you were the author/ director, how would you end the story?

=> Book review on Muna Madan

Book review on I capture the castle

Suppose your maternal uncle is planning to go abroad. Your mother advises him to follow a few dos and don’ts. Prepare a dialogue between your mother and maternal uncle using the given hints. You can add your own points if you like.

better income, better and secured future, risk of fatal diseases, skillful manpower is highly paid, knowledge of different languages is bene fi cial, must go legally, get right information from the government of fi ces, get help from the helpline

=> Dialogue between mother and maternal uncle who is planning to go abroad

Anonymous Thursday, 28 October, 2021 thanks a lot Bro
mada saga Thursday, 26 May, 2022 What are the finest and worst films in the world? How can anyone measure something like that? Surely it's all subjective. But that's what the staff at Reviews of Movies On CinemaHDv2 aim to accomplish. They watch as many movies as they can, from major blockbusters to little indie films, and then rate them https://cinemahdv2.net/reviews-movie-on-cinema-hd/

Betendra Kumar Dahal

Saturday, may 1, 2021, unit-5: reading-ii movie review: “2012” is a perfect disaster.

Unit-5

Reading-II Movie Review: “2012” is a Perfect Disaster

a. Who is Roland Emmerich?

Ans- Roland Emmerich is the director of the movie ‘2012’.

b. When was the movie “2012” released?

Ans- The movie was released on November 13, 2009.

c. What misconception is captured in the beginning of the movie?

Ans- The misconception ‘2012 as the date of humanity’s doom’ is captured in the beginning of the movie.

d. Why does audience not feel bored while watching the movie?

Ans- Audience do not feel bored while watching the movie because of its right storytelling.

e. What makes “2012” the perfect movie?

Ans- Movie’s actors, storytelling, and dialogue make ‘2012’ the perfect movie.

f. What are the differences between “2012” and other movies?

Ans- Other movies have explosions; “2012” has an atom bomb size detonation that wipes Yellowstone off the map. Other movies have earthquakes; “2012” sends California sinking, in flames into the sea. Other movies kill thousands; “2012” kills zillions.

No comments:

Movie/ Film Review: “2012” is a Perfect Disaster

Movie Review: “2012” is a Perfect Disaster

Director: Roland Emmerich

Producers: Harald Kloser, Mark Gordon and Larry J. Franco

Script writers: Harald Klose and Roland Emmerich

Starring: John Cusack, Amanda Peet, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Woody Harrelson

Release: November 13 th , 2009

Language: English

Budget: $200 million

If a film critic awards four stars to a movie directed by Roland Emmerich, will the world come to an end? That’s a question the ancient Mayans never asked, but it’s the one facing me after the enormously satisfying, amazingly accomplished, reprehensible yet irresistible “2012”, the greatest achievement in Emmerich’s long, profitable career as a destroyer of the world.

Starting with the long-held misapprehension that the Mayan calendar picks “2012” as the date of humanity’s doom, Emmerich fleshes out that bit of pseudo history with some pseudo-science.

“2012” takes the disaster movie – once content simply to threaten the Earth with a comet, or blow up the White House – to its natural conclusion, the literal end of the world. Other movies have explosions; “2012” has an atom-bomb-size detonation that wipes Yellowstone off the map. Other movies have earthquakes; “2012” sends California sinking, in flames into the sea. Other movies kill thousands; “2012” kills zillions without breaking a sweat.

So what makes “2012” a four-star movie? It gets everything right. The actors are right: John Cusack as a protagonist, Amanda Peet as his wife, Chiwetel Ejiofor as a scientist. The story telling is right. You will never be bored. And the dialogue is right: a rich blend of wisecrack and cheese, with a few moist-eyed goodbyes sprinkled here and there for good measure. Most important, the special effects are so right. In fact, they are incredible. Emmerich is an expert of a panoramic disaster. Power lines snapping in an earthquake, sparks flashing like distant fireworks; Honolulu on fire; mournful giraffes in slings, air lifted by helicopters through the snowy Himalayas.

Is “2012” art? Absolutely not! It reminds us that cinema exists not only to mark art but also to expertly create sensation like no other medium. It is certainly the best movie of its kind ever made. This is the way the world ends: with a bang.

(Adapted from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11AR2009111207930.html)

The review was published in The Washington Post on Friday, November 13, 2009.

HAPPY NEW YEAR

Subscribe (youtube), date and time.

Facebook Page

Action Research
Audio Materials
Free Writing
Grammar Exercises
Grammar Quiz
Grammar Rules
Grammar test Class 9/10
Guided Writing
License Basic (6-8)
License Secondary
Literature Part Grade 11
LIVE WORKSHEETS
Optional English (Grade 11)
Optional English (Grade 12)
Please give me feedback too.
Question Bank
Reference Materials
Result sheets
Specification Grid
Teachers' Guide
शिक्षक सेवा आयोग सामग्री

Report Abuse

Total pageviews, contributors.

रुपिन्द्र प्रभावी

Social Plugin

All Materials of Grade 10 (New Book 2080)

All Units of Class Nine

Specification Grid (Class 6-8) 2078

Important sites for english.

British Council
Education World
Live Work Sheets
MCQ TIMES for all subjects
Road to Grammar
Work Sheet Place

Important Blogs

About the blogger.

Dev Prasad Pandit

Khairahani-4, Chainpur, Chitwan

Email: [email protected]

Mobile: 9845054921

Youtube and Other Links

Khan Academy
NCED Virtual Class
Khullakitab
Lesson Plan
Sikai Chautari
Social Studies (Rajan Neupane Sir)

Menu Footer Widget

The Impossible (2012)

User Reviews

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

User Ratings
External Reviews
Metacritic Reviews
Full Cast and Crew
Release Dates
Official Sites
Company Credits
Filming & Production
Technical Specs
Plot Summary
Plot Keywords
Parents Guide

Did You Know?

Crazy Credits
Alternate Versions
Connections
Soundtracks

Photo & Video

Photo Gallery
Trailers and Videos

50 Disaster Movies Ranked

Combining spectacle with human drama, disaster movies are some of the largest, most epic canvases filmmakers can work on. And now we’re ranking some of the best and worst disaster movies, from Certified Fresh to Fresh to Rotten movies, all ranging from earthquakes ( San Andreas ), asteroids ( Deep Impact ), tsunamis ( The Impossible ), airplanes ( Airport ), fires ( The Towering Inferno ), boats ( Titanic ), and just about everything mother nature can throw at us ( 2012 ). So put on a helmet, wear a lifejacket, and hunker down in your fallout shelter as brace for the disaster movies ranked! — Alex Vo

Titanic (1997) 88%

Contagion (2011) 85%

Deepwater Horizon (2016) 82%

The Wave (2015) 83%

The Impossible (2012) 82%

Black Sea (2014) 81%

Greenland (2020) 78%

The Poseidon Adventure (1972) 80%

Sharknado (2013) 77%

Airport (1970) 75%

The Towering Inferno (1974) 68%

The Burning Sea (2021) 73%

Snakes on a Plane (2006) 69%

Twister (1996) 63%

Sharknado 2: The Second One (2014) 61%

The Last Voyage (1960) 60%

Don't Look Up (2021) 55%

Volcano (1997) 49%

San Andreas (2015) 49%

The 33 (2015) 48%

Earthquake (1974) 44%

The Perfect Storm (2000) 46%

The Hurricane Heist (2018) 47%

The Day After Tomorrow (2004) 45%

Deep Impact (1998) 45%

The Core (2003) 39%

The High and the Mighty (1954) 46%

2012 (2009) 39%

Moonfall (2022) 35%

Armageddon (1998) 43%

Raise the Titanic (1980) 38%

Hurricane (1979) 33%

Sharknado 3: Oh Hell No! (2015) 36%

The Hindenburg (1975) 31%

Poseidon (2006) 33%

Airport '77 (1977) 40%

Hard Rain (1998) 31%

Sharknado 5: Global Swarming (2017) 30%

The Cassandra Crossing (1977) 36%

Airport 1975 (1974) 30%

Dante's Peak (1997) 28%

Pompeii (2014) 27%

The Last Sharknado: It's About Time (2018) 27%

Daylight (1996) 26%

Into the Storm (2014) 21%

Geostorm (2017) 17%

Sharknado: The 4th Awakens (2016) 14%

The Concorde: Airport '79 (1979) 25%

Meteor (1979) 5%

Beyond the Poseidon Adventure (1979) 0%

More Countdown

Best TV Shows of 2024: Best New Series to Watch Now

Ghostbusters Movies Ranked by Tomatometer

Movie & TV News

Featured on rt.

X-Men ’97 First Reviews: “Marvel’s Best Release in Years,” Critics Say

March 20, 2024

Marvel TV Ranked by Tomatometer

Top Headlines

Marvel TV Ranked by Tomatometer –
Best TV Shows of 2024: Best New Series to Watch Now –
30 Most Popular Movies Right Now: What to Watch In Theaters and Streaming –
Ghostbusters Movies Ranked by Tomatometer –
How to Watch Ghostbusters Movies In Order –
25 Most Popular TV Shows Right Now: What to Watch on Streaming –

Screen Rant

Alien: romulus director shares james cameron & ridley scott’s reactions (& how they were different).

Alien: Romulus director Fede Alvarez reveals the reactions to the film from two key directors in the Alien franchise: James Cameron and Ridley Scott.

Alien: Romulus’ Place In Franchise Timeline Clarified By Director

Ridley Scott and James Cameron both loved Alien: Romulus , but had very different perspectives on the script.
Alvarez had in-depth creative discussions with both Scott and Cameron, highlighting the importance of working with masters of the craft.
The approval of Scott and Cameron brings a chance for Alien: Romulus to be a breakthrough moment in Alvarez's career.

The director of Alien: Romulus reveals both James Cameron and Ridley Scott’s reactions to the film. Alien: Romulus is directed by Fede Alvarez and is the next addition to the Alien franchise, set for release on August 16. The cast of Alien: Romulus includes Isabela Merced, Cailee Spaeny, Archie Renaux, David Jonsson, Spike Fearn, and Aileen Wu.

Speaking with The Hollywood Reporter , Alvarez revealed Cameron and Scott’s reaction to the upcoming sequel Alien: Romulus . The Alien: Romulus director confirmed that Scott loved the film , and talked to Alvarez for an hour about how much he loved it. Throughout the process, Alvarez had “ discussed the script with him .” Alvarez revealed that he also talked to Cameron about the script, who has “ now seen the movie and loved it ” but had very different perspectives than Scott throughout the script’s development. Check out the full quote from Alvarez below:

He did! As intimidating as it is, that’s the best part of being able to work on something like this. For all of us and whatever it is that we do, the dream is to sit down with the masters of our craft and have a conversation about what we do and learn how to do it better. And the process of making this film definitely gave me that experience with Ridley. At the story level, we first told him what I was planning to do, and then when he read it, I discussed the script with him. And later, when he watched the movie, I discussed my cut with him. So I consider each one of those moments and creative conversations with Ridley to be a highlight of my career and my life. James Cameron is also someone I’ve met through the years, and when he learned that I was doing it, we started chatting about it. So I also had that conversation with him at the script level. He’s now seen the movie and loved it. It’s also fascinating because [Cameron and Scott’s] notes and comments are completely different. (Laughs.) They wouldn’t repeat a note. Whatever Ridley said, Cameron said something different. They were all super smart comments, notes and thoughts on the film and the filmmaking, et cetera, but both of them have completely different approaches. So the fantastic part of being able to make this film is to have the chance to work with them.

The Legacy of the Alien Franchise Explained

It is good to know how much Alvarez talked to both Scott and Cameron, given the visionary directors’ long associations with the Alien franchise . Scott directed the first film, Alien , back in 1979 , and came back to direct Prometheus and Alien: Covenant . Cameron worked on the acclaimed sequel Aliens in 1986. Scott also serves as a producer on Alien: Romulus .

Alien and Aliens are considered some of the most important science-fiction works to date. Both films got rave reviews from critics, with Alien scoring a 93% on Rotten Tomatoes and Aliens scoring an even higher 98% . Both films were also extremely formative in the careers of both Scott and Cameron, as the former went on to direct Blade Runner and the latter directed Titanic as well as the Avatar franchise.

With Cameron and Scott’s approval, Alien: Romulus has a chance to become a formative moment in Alvarez’s career. The director made a small splash with the psychological horror film Don’t Breathe in 2016 , but Alien: Romulus will be the chance for Alvarez to break out into the mainstream. From the looks of the Alien: Romulus trailer and the reports of the Scott and Cameron reactions, it looks like this blockbuster may be a smashing success for Alvarez.

Alien is available to stream on Hulu and Peacock. Aliens is available to stream on Max and Starz.

Source: THR

Alien: Romulus

Alien: Romulus is the seventh film in the Alien franchise. The movie is directed by Fede Álvarez and will focus on a new young group of characters who come face to face with the terrifying Xenomorphs. Alien: Romulus is a stand-alone film and takes place in a time not yet explored in the Alien franchise.

IMAGES

Unit 5 Reading II |Movie Review 2012 is a perfect Disaster Exercise
Here are the absolute best disaster movies of all time. You're welcome
Top 10 Disaster Movies
The Best Disaster Films Ranked From Dumb To Eerily Possible
‘The Wave’ Trailer: Norway Delivers a Perfect Disaster Movie
2012 Movie Review

COMMENTS

2012 movie review & film summary (2009)
It's not so much that the Earth is destroyed, but that it's done so thoroughly. "2012," the mother of all disaster movies (and the father, and the extended family) spends half an hour on ominous set-up scenes (scientists warn, strange events occur, prophets rant and of course a family is introduced) and then unleashes two hours of cataclysmic special events hammering the Earth relentlessly.
2012 (film)
2012 is a 2009 American science fiction disaster film directed by Roland Emmerich, written by Emmerich and Harald Kloser, and stars John Cusack, Amanda Peet, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Oliver Platt, Thandiwe Newton, Danny Glover and Woody Harrelson.Based on the 2012 phenomenon, its plot follows geologist Adrian Helmsley (Ejiofor) and novelist Jackson Curtis (Cusack) as they struggle to survive an ...
Review: As a Disaster Film, '2012' Succeeds
Review: As a Disaster Film, '2012' Succeeds. ... A movie still from the new film "2012" depicting the end of the world. (Image credit: Columbia Pictures) ... but the 2012 angle made a perfect ...
Movie Review
Movie Review - '2012' - When Disaster Strikes (And Strikes, And Strikes) Roland Emmerich's latest cinematic apocalypse posits that the end of the world is due in a little over three years from now.
'2012' Review: Movie
Cecil B. DeMille would have been pleased. Technically, Emmerich and his crew bring off a series of wonders. The movie hits its peak early on, when Cusack drives a limo through the streets of Los ...
2012 (2009)
2012: Directed by Roland Emmerich. With John Cusack, Amanda Peet, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Thandiwe Newton. A frustrated writer struggles to keep his family alive when a series of global catastrophes threatens to annihilate mankind.
2012
Audience Reviews for 2012. Jun 26, 2016. ... As disaster films go, however, this one isn't the worst. Show Less Show More. patrick w Super Reviewer. Jun 20, 2016. This is a horrible movie. The ...
2012 (2009)
Took forever to get going. Yes, you have to supply an intro to get acquainted with the characters, and a base for the story. But it took forever! Needless useless dialog. Way too much information, and typical bs that can be found in all disaster movies. 2. Speaking of disaster movies, this one follows all the others in cheap storyline and ...
2012 2009, directed by Roland Emmerich
Yes, '2012' is infantile. Yes, it treats the d. Read the director's guide the perfect disaster movie hereLet's get the sniffy movie-snob protests out of the way. Yes, '2012' is infantile
2012
2012 takes the disaster movie -- once content simply to threaten the Earth with a comet, or blow up the White House -- to its natural conclusion, the literal end of the world. ... especially for a 2009 film, acting is good. One of the best disaster movies ever made. Read More Report. 10. ... an indie comedy with terrific early reviews, and more ...
2012 Movie Review
2012 Review. If director Roland Emmerich and the ancient Mayan calendar are to be believed, we'll all be dead in three years. In 2012, Emmerich's latest disaster epic, earth crust displacement and ...
2012 (2009)
Everything you're expecting from 2012 is exactly what you're going to get. Roland Emmerich's magnum opus is the pinnacle of his career. The director's pithy efforts like Independence Day, Godzilla, and The Day After Tomorrow feel like small indie gems in comparison to this overblown, wonderfully destructive piece of demolitionist eye candy. . Utterly impossible by any stretch of the ...
"2012"
The film is two and a half hours of global obliteration. "2012" sets a new standard for disaster films and may require a second viewing just to take in the full panorama of its destructive CGI splendor. Sure, the film is a monument to impossibility, and the plot is convoluted beyond discussion, but we don't watch these films for their logic.
2012 Movie Review
Two minor adult characters are shown drinking. One. Parents need to know that director Roland Emmerich's 2012 is an intense, violent disaster movie, with billions of anonymous characters getting killed during massive scenes of destruction (earthquakes, tsunamis, and more). Although the tone is mainly exciting, the relentless devastation could ...
2012 was actually awesome : r/movies
Oh and "radiation is causing the earth to shrink so the continents are being consumed by the oceans" is so fucking dumb it would be a more enjoyable movie if god literally appeared in the sky and announced Great Flood 2: Electric Boogaloo. There are much newer films with bad CGI. 2012 actually has pretty good CGI.
Movie Review: '2012'
The Almost Good - There are some suspensions of disbelief that you must take in a disaster movie. Characters always have perfect timing -- in 2012 they expertly dodge falling buildings, escape the ...
2012 Movie Review for Parents
2012 Rating & Content Info . Why is 2012 rated PG-13? 2012 is rated PG-13 by the MPAA for intense disaster sequences and some language.. In the true nature of a disaster film, this movie is packed with scenes of destruction and devastation as entire cities and their citizens are swallowed up in huge cavernous cracks in the Earth's surface.
2012(2009) 4K MOVIE REVIEW
A 4K movie review is here and this time we're taking a look at the 2009 Roland Emmerich disaster flick "2012" on 4K from Sony Entertainment! Be sure to let m...
Unit 5 Reading II |Movie Review 2012 is a perfect Disaster Exercise
Movie Review 2012: A Perfect disaster Class 10 English Exercise. Vocabulary in use Rewrite the following sentences choosing the correct phrases/words from the list below for the underlined words. boom, unbelievable, misinterpretation, extremely large number of people, a protagonist, the people who speak American Indian language in Central ...
Unit-5: Reading-II Movie Review: "2012" is a Perfect Disaster
Ans- Movie's actors, storytelling, and dialogue make '2012' the perfect movie. f. What are the differences between "2012" and other movies? Ans- Other movies have explosions; "2012" has an atom bomb size detonation that wipes Yellowstone off the map. Other movies have earthquakes; "2012" sends California sinking, in flames ...
Movie/ Film Review: "2012" is a Perfect Disaster
Movie Review: "2012" is a Perfect Disaster . Director: Roland Emmerich . Producers: Harald Kloser, Mark Gordon and Larry J. Franco . ... "2012" takes the disaster movie - once content simply to threaten the Earth with a comet, or blow up the White House - to its natural conclusion, the literal end of the world. ...
The Impossible (2012)
8/10. Naomi Watts superior performance. SnoopyStyle 16 August 2013. Maria (Naomi Watts) and Henry (Ewan McGregor) are on vacation with their three young kids in Thailand. It's a picture perfect trip at a coastal hotel. Suddenly a tsunami hits and the family is scattered. Naomi Watts gives a harrowing performance.
50 Disaster Movies Ranked
The Wave (2015)83%. #4. Critics Consensus: Well-acted and blessed with a refreshingly humanistic focus, The Wave is a disaster film that makes uncommonly smart use of disaster film clichés. Synopsis: A Norwegian geologist (Kristoffer Joner) and his family (Ane Dahl Torp, Jonas Hoff Oftebro) fight for survival when a massive...
Alien: Romulus Director Shares James Cameron & Ridley Scott's Reactions
The director of Alien: Romulus reveals both James Cameron and Ridley Scott's reactions to the film. Alien: Romulus is directed by Fede Alvarez and is the next addition to the Alien franchise, set for release on August 16.The cast of Alien: Romulus includes Isabela Merced, Cailee Spaeny, Archie Renaux, David Jonsson, Spike Fearn, and Aileen Wu. ...

Movie Reviews

Roger Ebert

Now playing

American Dreamer

Bob Marley: One Love

Kaiya Shunyata

Bleeding Love

Brian Tallerico

Cristina Escobar

2012 (2009)

Directed by

Latest blog posts

No Matter How Big He Gets, David Dastmalchian Still Wants to Scare You

SXSW 2024: Diane Warren: Relentless, Thank You Goodnight: The Bon Jovi Story, Omar and Cedric: If This Ever Gets Weird, Preconceived

Disney+ Returns to the Classic World of X-Men '97

True To Yourself: James Gray on James Gray's New York

Review: As a Disaster Film, '2012' Succeeds

Get the Space.com Newsletter

Most Popular

'2012': Disaster Strikes (And Strikes, And Strikes)

Watch Clips

The Definitive Voice of Entertainment News

site categories

Stephen Farber

Related Stories

THR Newsletters

More from The Hollywood Reporter

Log in or sign up for Rotten Tomatoes

Email not verified

Sign up for the Rotten Tomatoes newsletter to get weekly updates on:

Movies / TV

What to know

You might also like

Rate And Review

What did you think of the movie? (optional)

How did you buy your ticket?

You're almost there! Just confirm how you got your ticket.

Cast & Crew

News & Interviews for 2012

Critic Reviews for 2012

Movie & TV guides

Time Out says

Cast and crew

2012 Movie Review

In This Article

2012 Review

More Reviews by Jim Vejvoda

Review by Brian Eggert November 13, 2008

Related Titles

The Definitives

Recent Reviews

Recent Articles

“2012” – setting a new standard for disaster films

11 Comments

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Or browse by category:

Common Sense Selections for Movies

50 Modern Movies All Kids Should Watch Before They're 12

Best Kids' Shows on Disney+

Best Kids' TV Shows on Netflix

8 Tips for Getting Kids Hooked on Books

50 Books All Kids Should Read Before They're 12

Common Sense Selections for Games

Nintendo Switch Games for Family Fun

Common Sense Selections for Podcasts

Parents' Guide to Podcasts

Social Networking for Teens

Gun-Free Action Game Apps

Reviews for AI Apps and Tools

Parents' Ultimate Guide to YouTube Kids

YouTube Kids Channels for Gamers

Explaining the News to Our Kids

Celebrating Black History Month

Movies and TV Shows with Arab Leads

Celebrate Hip-Hop's 50th Anniversary

A Lot or a Little?

Positive Messages

Positive Role Models

Violence & Scariness

Sex, Romance & Nudity