2012

Audience Reviews

View More

TheMovieSearch R @TheMovieSearch Nov 30 Roland Emmerich’s 2012 arrived with the promise of being a massive, world-ending spectacle—one that was marketed as both prophetic and terrifying, especially during the height of the "Mayan calendar" panic. With its star-studded cast and apocalyptic premise, the film positioned itself as a blockbuster designed to redefine large-scale disaster cinema. Instead, it delivers a chaotic ride that rarely finds narrative balance, resulting in a movie that feels more like a theme-park attraction than the emotionally grounded epic it was aiming to be. From the very beginning, the story struggles to establish clarity or cohesion. Rather than building tension or exploring the complex implications of a world facing extinction, 2012 leans heavily on nonstop destruction. The screenplay never manages to rise above its own excesses, jumping from one massive set piece to another without giving the audience meaningful time to engage with the characters or the stakes. The emotional core, which could have elevated the film, ends up buried beneath collapsing buildings, volcanic eruptions, and tidal waves. The cast—led by John Cusack, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Amanda Peet, and Thandiwe Newton—does what it can with the material, but even strong performers can only do so much with a script that feels unfocused. Cusack delivers his usual grounded everyman approach, but the writing rarely supports the depth his character requires. Ejiofor brings sincerity to the role of a scientist trying to save humanity, yet the film burdens him with exposition rather than emotional nuance. As a result, the performances feel overshadowed by spectacle rather than complemented by it. Emmerich, a director known for large-scale destruction in films like Independence Day and The Day After Tomorrow, appears to lose control of the narrative here. The pacing is uneven, the tone inconsistent, and the film often feels unsure of what it wants to be. While audiences may appreciate some of the visual effects, it’s clear that the film prioritizes size over substance, leaving the story feeling hollow and repetitive. There is a sense throughout the runtime that the production itself began to lose faith in what it was trying to accomplish. Even the thematic potential of 2012—exploring human resilience, moral dilemmas, and cultural anxieties surrounding the end of the world—never shines the way it should. Instead of allowing these ideas to deepen the experience, they are quickly overshadowed by yet another collapsing landmark or explosive catastrophe. For a film with such an ambitious premise, it fails to deliver meaningful commentary or emotional resonance. Ultimately, 2012 is a disappointing entry in the disaster-movie genre. While it offers plenty of visual chaos, it lacks the heart, structure, and character development needed to make those moments impactful. It’s a difficult film to invest in, as it neither entertains consistently nor provides thoughtful storytelling. For most viewers, this isn’t one worth revisiting—or even visiting once—unless they are simply seeking background noise filled with explosions and CGI destruction. See more Alexander C. @Alex_FCB2009 Nov 20 I love this film, if I have the opportunity to watch it I do it See more Scott E Nov 19 If the Earth's crust is going to be destroyed, where exactly are they evacuating to? See more Lesley M @Lesley186 Nov 16 I wish I could recover the hours of my life I wasted watching this film. Its so bad that you actually start wanting everyone to die so the film ends. Switch off after 10 minutes if you prefer not to waste your life. See more Jen F. @ScareMeMore Nov 1 I love John Cusack in the movie and it was funny and fun and it was just better than I thought it was going to be one of my favorites. See more Ben D. @bendover420 Oct 21 Solid movie. Love disaster movies See more Read all reviews

2012

My Rating

Read More Read Less POST RATING WRITE A REVIEW EDIT REVIEW

Most Popular at Home Now