sign in
register
Watch
Apple TV Google Play Movies Fandango At Home
+6
2012
2012
+6
JustWatch
Your probable score
?
2012

2012

2009
Drama, Sci-fi
2h 38m
An epic adventure about a global cataclysm that brings an end to the world and tells of the heroic struggle of the survivors.

Directed by:

Roland Emmerich

Screenwriter:

Roland Emmerich, Harald Kloser

Starring:

Amanda Peet, John Cusack, Woody Harrelson, Danny Glover, Oliver Platt, Thandiwe Newton, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Patrick Bauchau, George Segal, Stephen McHattie, John Billingsley, Eve Harlow

Genres:

Drama, Sci-fi, Suspense/Thriller, Action

Countries:

Canada, USA

Languages:

English, Spanish, French, Mandarin, Italian, Latin, Russian, Hindi, Portuguese, Tibetan
imdb IMDb
Update history
Suggest edit

2012

2009
Drama, Sci-fi
2h 38m
Your probable score
Ratings & Reviews Cast Collections Similar Stats Trailer
Avg Percentile 22.41% from 7333 total ratings
Ratings & Reviews Cast Collections Similar Stats Trailer

Ratings & Reviews

(7389)
Compact view
clear
Compact view
Show
Sort
fredericg54frederic_g54
Rated 14 Nov 2009
3
9th
An embarrassing predictable mind-numbing CGI snorefest of unbearable length. You'll pray for the characters' death rather than their survival. I derived great pleasure from making fun of it though with my brother, so it wasn't a complete waste of time.
Rated 14 Nov 2009
barthalenBarthalen
Rated 06 Sep 2010
22
11th
In 2012, Skynet will send a terminator back in time. Once here, it is infected with a STD from a slutty Commodore 64 and its programming will go haywire. Now calling itself Ronald Emmerich, this soulless automaton proceeds to kill humanity, mistakingly using crappy, dumb and painfully repetitive films as his weapon. Unhappy with the results, he will ultimately make a film in which the entire universe is destroyed. Audiences still go see it in droves. Skynet has won. We are all dead. Inside.
Rated 06 Sep 2010
heapshakeheapshake
Rated 06 Mar 2010
20
2nd
I turned it off somewhere around Hawaii so I can only assume that everyone winds up dead
Rated 06 Mar 2010
cagedwisdomcagedwisdom
Rated 16 Nov 2009
0
4th
Understands the Mayan calendar about as well as it understands physics, which is to say not at all. It's about an hour too long (and the last hour is bafflingly one single idiotic plot point that doesn't even make sense), the characters are all one-dimentional, it's completely predictable, the discussions of morals the film harps on about are so far over its head it's not even funny. Not enough of Woody Harrelson, way too much of everything else. Seeing as everything else is bad.
Rated 16 Nov 2009
charlieCharlie
Rated 12 Nov 2009
55
22nd
Well, it really seems to be the mother of all disaster movies and the effects are as expected, really good. And the first 1 1/2 hours had some pretty decent moments actually. But after almost every great doomed action scene, comes a corny dialogue just out of nowhere. And the last half hour just sucks...but just for the action and effects alone, worth watching.
Rated 12 Nov 2009
sailorripleySailorRipley
Rated 30 Nov 2009
58
10th
It all looks rather expensive and some sequences are downright apocalyptic, but 2012 fails miserably at portraying anything resembling true human emotion. Emmerich is a grand technician but a terrible director; any moment that is supposed to be big and horrifying ends up being absolutely laughable. It's a whole big bag of neat visual effects and nothing else. Roland, you need to understand that huge disaster flicks need true drama in order to work, not crack abysmal jokes every 5 minutes. Next!
Rated 30 Nov 2009
c3mgurc3mgur
Rated 20 Nov 2009
38
9th
Damn you Emmerich! You can't cheat me with your shitty effects. That is completely terrible.
Rated 20 Nov 2009
indyatmnINDYATMN
Rated 18 Jun 2010
67
20th
Emmerich almost certainly was attempting 2 make the greatest disaster flick of all time, but only succeeds in terms of scale: H'wood never b4 had the CGI 2 wreak this much global destruction. Unfortunately the main characters r dull nice-guy ciphers & the barely-made-it! escapes start 2 wear thin since they only vary in terms of location & type of vehicle. After the 1st half hour u'll find urself wondering if Emmerich feels lost now that his only possible follow-up is 2 blow up the universe.
Rated 18 Jun 2010
gideonGideon
Rated 06 Dec 2009
1
16th
How to throw away 200 million dollar? Emmerich knows the answer.
Rated 06 Dec 2009
pigletPiglet
Rated 15 Nov 2009
15
1st
God-awful waste of my time. Hey, Roland, I'm holding up a finger, guess which one.
Rated 15 Nov 2009
clayj41clayj41
Rated 15 Nov 2009
37
13th
The only thing wetter than a tidal wave is Danny Glover's lisp.
Rated 15 Nov 2009
wicheWiche
Rated 14 Nov 2009
75
70th
Visually it's just great and one of the best movies I've ever seen. Too bad you had too many OMG-moments. Every time they take off with a plane, they just escape the same disaster, it gets boring after a while. Sometimes I was doubting whether it was a disaster movie or a comedy.
Rated 14 Nov 2009
leonardisLeonardis
Rated 20 Mar 2015
68
9th
Really sucks that this movie was so unbelievably cliche, because the visual effects are really cool and it gets a little gripping in some spots. 2012 may have some impressive eye candy, but a very weak story and underdeveloped characters do not make up for the almost 3 hour run of things blowing up and every actor trying their best with what they have been provided with. It's some solid action, but this really doesn't offer anything impressive.
Rated 20 Mar 2015
tonytheponyTonythePony
Rated 25 Apr 2010
47
11th
Roland Emmerich beats the Earth like a red-headed stepchild riding a rented mule. Apparently its had it coming for centuries.
Rated 25 Apr 2010
omgfridgeomgfridge
Rated 15 Mar 2010
1
8th
Pathetic. Just utter trash. Sure its pretty and has detail in its disasters but its mind numbingly boring. Any form of suspense is cut quickly as the airplane escapes get repetitive and then Emmerich just starts focusing on something else to blow up. The screenplay is about as focused as the camera. Conversations come out of nowhere and feel completely pointless. I guess Emmerich needed filler as being over two and half hours long just wasn't enough for him.
Rated 15 Mar 2010
cinemaasiaCinema_Asia
Rated 30 Jan 2010
50
12th
Despite the presence of good actors like John Cusack and Woody Harrelson the writing makes you wish the people who worked on the dialog and plot were washed away by tsunamis as well. Even with a super high budget it's typical cliche ridden sentimental Hollywood trash. The main spectacle here is the CGI with the effects ranging from disappointing video game like cut scene effects to excellent top notch stuff like the volcanoes. It's worth seeing once but make sure you have a few beers first.
Rated 30 Jan 2010
kasperlKasperL
Rated 19 Nov 2009
60
50th
Not a good film but certainly an entertaining one. To pull off the schmaltzy clichés going with the (awesomely destructed) territory you need strong actors and the movie benefits greatly from the talents of the immanently watchable Cusack (you'll be hard pressed finding a more likeable guy, Paul Rudd excluded) and Ejiofor (arguably one of our most skilled actors). The mayhem grows tiresome but the first set piece alone, with the limo navigating through the chaos, is worth the price of admission.
Rated 19 Nov 2009
ytadelYtadel
Rated 17 Nov 2009
3
28th
Every inch as dumb as it looks, overpopulated and direly overlong (I literally yawned through the better part of what was supposed to be the climax). But in its best moments it does have an awesome sense of spectacle, and Chiwetel Ejiofor is a great, underrated actor who can lend depth to paper-flat characters as written. Probably Roland Emmerich's best disaster film... whatever the fuck that's worth.
Rated 17 Nov 2009
bunkenBunken
Rated 21 Mar 2012
50
37th
Emmerich's business card reads: "Director and multiple times destroyer of the world" You gotta love him!
Rated 21 Mar 2012
misterlizardmisterlizard
Rated 25 Feb 2011
40
43rd
I think the intention was to make a deliberate 'so bad it's good' film. The alternative, that every one of the hundreds of people involved was lobotomized at birth, doesn't bear thinking about. The junk science a grade-schooler would laugh at, the terrible physics (the world's largest volcano exploding at the speed of a clapped-out camper van), every line of dialogue dripping with cliché and cod-philosophy, mushy sentimentality - it's all here. Not recommended if you're sober or you like movies.
Rated 25 Feb 2011
mr_filmMr. Film
Rated 25 Jul 2010
27
12th
Unrealistic, badly written, awfully acted and mediocre direction. The mayans were right: maybe 2012 is the end of the world... because the film is bad enough to end it
Rated 25 Jul 2010
calhardingcalharding
Rated 02 May 2010
46
17th
Endless scenes of cars flipping through the air, buildings toppling and airplanes being chased by lava, punctuated by painfully forced dialogue and so many cliches you'd think Emmerich was going for a Guinness record. 2012 would be worth watching if you're eight and the film wasn't 40 minutes too long. Only Roland Emmerich could turn a mammoth special effects budget into a yawning exercise for the audience.
Rated 02 May 2010
sirstuckeySirStuckey
Rated 12 Mar 2010
35
10th
So many bad parts about this movie. The way that John Cusak and his family survived were based on the luckiest set of circumstantial events that it is one of the most unbelievable storylines in the history of film. Add to that the cliches and over-dramatic dialogue and you have yourself a stinker. It's only real saving grace (besides Woody Harrelson) is that it looks really good. And even though you put a pretty bow on the turd, it's still a turd. A stinky, stinky turd.
Rated 12 Mar 2010
torontodogtorontodog
Rated 05 Feb 2010
40
14th
It is as terrible as you would expect! However, you can't deny that it delivers what it promises, a bunch of idiotic, cartoonish destruction. Could have used less scenes of Cuasack escaping inches ahead of massive destruction, and maybe mixed in some different types of effects sequences, but then it wouldn't really be a Roland Emmerich crap-fest.
Rated 05 Feb 2010
overratedoverrated
Rated 10 Jan 2010
65
70th
I saw this drunk and had the time of my life - the whole limo sequence is one of the longest laughs I've ever had. It's the only movie where I've stood up in the cinema and clapped at the end; I never want to see it again.
Rated 10 Jan 2010
therealj_roTheRealJ-Ro
Rated 27 Dec 2009
55
20th
I won't totally shit on it - because I fear that if I do, John Cusack won't save us - but like most other cliche-driven disaster flicks, it's very hard to take it seriously, even as art. It's a spectacle piece, and Emmerich should be commended for the grand scale he achieved. And for casting Woody in a borderline-perfect role. It had decent pacing, and I think the scenes in the Antonov aircraft were some of the film's best non-disaster-scenario scenes. But ultimately, it's a forgettable movie.
Rated 27 Dec 2009
mjvmoviemanMJVmovieMan
Rated 02 Dec 2009
47
16th
Did we really need '2012' after 'Day After Tomorrow'? Okay, maybe I love silly big budget disaster films, but Roland Emmerich ought to pass on the torch. At least the forgettable '2012' has some borderline great (yet un-involving) special effects sequences... and that's all. The characters are junk, the story is trash, the heroes/villains fall in their foreseeable order, and the movie jumps into 'repeat mode' for 2.5 hours. On top of that, Emmerich makes humanity look ugly. Pass the popcorn.
Rated 02 Dec 2009
jswinderjswinder
Rated 28 Nov 2009
12
6th
Don't come into this with any expectation of a good film. I was entertained, laughed a bit. I fucking wanted the poodle twins to bite the dust, whatever.
Rated 28 Nov 2009
auritechauritech
Rated 21 Nov 2009
28
15th
I don't even know where to begin! From the horrible plot and writing to the implausible situations and the hilarious way the characters get out of them, this film is the total summation of Terrible Disaster Flick. Plus it had the most product placement I've ever seen. Let me call special attention to the directing, too: while the CG looked fine, Roland Emmerich is such a by the books director that someone needs to keep him away from the camera. And yet, I paid money to see it. For shame.
Rated 21 Nov 2009
unluvableunluvable
Rated 18 Nov 2009
50
10th
There are finally enough disaster films to make Earth the star of her own bukkake film flick! Yeah! This was a two hour montage to disaster montages. The twist in "the end" was laughable. I watched this before. It was every tense scene in "The Love Boat." Roland Emmerich... you suck balls.
Rated 18 Nov 2009
sumanaustinsuman.austin
Rated 16 Nov 2009
68
20th
The only reason why anybody should watch this movie is because of the CGI. The sound effects were also quite good. The first half was so stupid that it was funny. It was like watching the scary movie and then the second half was quite boring but could have been a better one if the story was more interesting.
Rated 16 Nov 2009
sliderccslidercc
Rated 14 Nov 2009
35
33rd
Good Action, bad pretty much everything else. Also, Science 100000 Religion 0.
Rated 14 Nov 2009
sproostsproost
Rated 07 Jan 2022
60
44th
This is no doubt one of the dumbest movies I’ve ever seen, but the cgi destruction and nonsense of it all is pretty catchy. Last third suffers from a common problem with disaster movies: it’s set in the dark, so you can’t see shit
Rated 07 Jan 2022
philamentalphilamental
Rated 24 Jul 2020
38
8th
In a movie filled to the brim with ludicrous nonsense, perhaps the most unbelievable aspect is an American President listening to and acting on the advice of his scientists! I mean they must think we'll swallow any tripe they feed us with these days!
Rated 24 Jul 2020
sheepslashersheepslasher
Rated 02 Apr 2020
1
11th
Maybe the most dismal movie ever made. Roland reaches new levels of black-hearted cynicism.
Rated 02 Apr 2020
vv238vv238
Rated 17 Mar 2019
17
11th
Is this the cinematic equivalent of someone desperate for attention? It feels like someone constantly yelling and waving their arms at the back of a party. Sure, it grabs your attention but it makes you hate that person and never want to invite them to a party ever again.
Rated 17 Mar 2019
hiromiyamotohiromiyamoto
Rated 20 Sep 2016
0
1st
Words cannot describe how much I hate Roland Emmerich.
Rated 20 Sep 2016
bearmasterbearmaster
Rated 18 Jun 2016
60
30th
I was high as hell and I loved every second.
Rated 18 Jun 2016
gnalkhereGnalkhere
Rated 25 Oct 2015
20
2nd
It's a bloated dated piece of shit
Rated 25 Oct 2015
lookjabbaLookJabba...
Rated 15 Aug 2014
2
7th
2012 is another overblown Roland Emmerich disaster film. I have no idea why any studio would keep funding him to make these awful films. And this is arguably Roland Emmerich's worst yet. It now feels like when you've seen one you've seen them all. Theres a handful of fun set pieces and the visuals are impressive. But that's not enough. If it simply cut 60 mins and included engaging and developed characters who you could actually care about then maybe, just maybe this could of been watchable.
Rated 15 Aug 2014
desertpunkDesertPunk
Rated 11 Nov 2013
43
12th
John Cusack, please.
Rated 11 Nov 2013
guy-piranhaguy piranha
Rated 30 Jul 2012
40
12th
i'd rather have the world end than watch this again.
Rated 30 Jul 2012
biffjusticeBiffJustice
Rated 28 Oct 2011
12
1st
The only thing you can take away from this movie which is horrible in every way, is that it is possible to survive the apocalypse by staying roughly 10 feet in front of John Cusack at all times.
Rated 28 Oct 2011
realmacgyverRealMacgyver
Rated 10 Sep 2011
60
30th
Too long, the focus would have been better spent on the long build up rather than the start of the disaster, followed by an hour of shit going mental. And the science is REALLY bollocks. And inconsistent. I don't mind bollocks, I LOVE The Core but the difference is it finds it's nonsense and stays consistent. This goes *real neutrino science*, "ah but that's nonsense" then just Michelle Bachman's for 2 hours. All the ash just cleared in 27 days huh? Nice one. Dissapointed. Some fun bits though.
Rated 10 Sep 2011
jameskeyjameskey
Rated 25 Jul 2011
50
14th
Visually quite impressive, but only worth seeing in a cinema or on a projector. Otherwise garbage.
Rated 25 Jul 2011
vheujgevheujge
Rated 02 Jun 2011
45
23rd
Way too much focus on special effects and not enough on telling a good story or making you care about the characters. Also, the story is painfully convenient and the movie is way too long.
Rated 02 Jun 2011
tnmoviefan2TnMovieFan2
Rated 24 Dec 2010
9
3rd
One of the worst movies I've ever seen
Rated 24 Dec 2010
kingofjewkingofjew
Rated 09 Nov 2010
70
39th
Great effects and not a whole lot else. Most of the script is oozing cheese but some decent bits most notably with woody harrelson and the always lovely Amanda peet make this movie watchable. That and 200 million dollars worth of CGI.
Rated 09 Nov 2010
dienachtdie_nacht
Rated 09 Nov 2010
0
0th
I'd rather watch rats fuck than to watch this movie. I did however laugh really fucking hard at the terrible disaster chase scenes. Worst Hollywood movie I've seen, bold but true.
Rated 09 Nov 2010
njoynJoy
Rated 05 Oct 2010
50
21st
So bad it was funny.
Rated 05 Oct 2010
hellboy76hellboy76
Rated 21 Sep 2010
45
13th
Some impressive visual effects don't make up for the melodramatic over the top silliness of this movie.
Rated 21 Sep 2010
micahmicah
Rated 14 Aug 2010
50
18th
The world blows up, but it takes way too long.
Rated 14 Aug 2010
anselmi86Anselmi86
Rated 20 Jul 2010
66
45th
Really not too bad, surprisingly. I had turned it on background noise while I worked and ended up being hooked for the rest. Despite the overtones of Christian dogma and cheezy moments of dialogue, and a lousy third act, this is a disaster movie that delivers. I feel like I'm the only person who did not hate this movie, but I thought that it was Emmerich's most entertaining film since Independence Day. I was truly on the edge of my seat at moments. Oh, and the special fx are dazzling.
Rated 20 Jul 2010
forehead1forehead1
Rated 17 May 2010
30
11th
The world as we know it is being destroyed, billions are dying, yet we're supposed to care about the fate of these few cheeseballs and stereotypes?? Quite possibly the stupidest shit I've ever seen, it actually gains a point for being so unintentionally funny. Even the 'amazing' effects look like cheap CGI from a decade ago (physics awful, structures seeming to 'melt' into thin air, bluesceen obvious, etc.). The last Emmerich film I'll waste my (considerable) time on.
Rated 17 May 2010
eastondEastonD
Rated 03 May 2010
72
51st
kerrylandkerryland
Rated 12 Apr 2010
50
3rd
Long and boring. Some nice effects though
Rated 12 Apr 2010
lovejoylovejoy
Rated 03 Apr 2010
20
4th
Wouldn't it be nice to have a really well made disaster movie where the world falls into a hole without having to sit through all the stories of broken families triumphing through adversity and coming together against the most ridiculous odds. One day, but not today.
Rated 03 Apr 2010
msworddocmsworddoc
Rated 25 Mar 2010
35
10th
EPIC WIN!!!!!!!! AND NOT MUCH ELSE
Rated 25 Mar 2010
tweedaleTweedale
Rated 19 Mar 2010
7
59th
Week story, poor dialogue, stereotyped characters poorly illustrated by mediocre performances, sentimental ending, overuse of Biblical references... but damn it was entertaining. I can't help but give credit to a film that not only destroys America completely, but also floods the Himalayas. Hilarious.
Rated 19 Mar 2010
astrakhanastrakhan
Rated 13 Mar 2010
71
20th
Sad that such a spectacular event could lead to such an average movie. There are a couple of really great-looking scenes (e.g. flying a prop plane through a collapsing Los Angeles) but mostly it's just painted-by-numbers disaster movie stodge with a multitude of uninspiring characters. Flat, dead storytelling and everything we saw before in Deep Impact, Armageddon, Dante's Peak, and others. Films like this make me hope nobody survives when disaster does strike our planet.
Rated 13 Mar 2010
derbarneyDer_Barney
Rated 04 Feb 2010
50
3rd
No review, just some thoughts: I think I'm going to have to up-rate Godzilla from its current 63 points. Because that movie was more fun, with more likable characters you could actually care about and more actual drama than this. These by-the-numbers cliffhangers and family reunions just p**s me off, the science doesn't work and the big "moral issue" at the end is totally artificial with zero impact. Yes, Harrelson is very good here, but that's just not enough.
Rated 04 Feb 2010
cruelclowncruelclown
Rated 30 Jan 2010
50
21st
Great, very impressive CGI. For the script, I really can't say "it's so bad, it's good" because it reinvents the bad as a concept. I love how in the end, while we are being taught solidarity etc. the director lets the stepdad go in a whimper only to be forgotten in a few minutes - this is "nature" repairing and conserving itself. Hooray for the nuclear family!
Rated 30 Jan 2010
kavuKavu
Rated 24 Jan 2010
20
7th
The effects are ugly and plastic, the characters badly written and equally badly acted and the plot straight out of every other catastrophe movie you've seen.
Rated 24 Jan 2010
mikmakmikmak
Rated 28 Dec 2009
10
0th
Two hours to discover the little girl doesn't need to wear pull ups anymore.
Rated 28 Dec 2009
stradivariusStradivarius
Rated 21 Dec 2009
40
11th
I went hoping for some fun destruction effects, but each and every shot of the world falling apart was presented in the most banal way possible. It acts like its the first ever disaster movie and doesn't need to add anything to the genre to justify its existence. Instead it rehashes the overused trope of featuring a few bad father/kids husband/wife relationships that mend as the world falls apart. Completely stupid.
Rated 21 Dec 2009
stflyst_fly
Rated 13 Dec 2009
9
14th
Lousy. Its the same old premise done better and right a number of times before. The CGI looks plastic, the hero acts plastic, everyone dies, the hero party's dog survives. I'm getting sick of this shit they dole out. As usual, watch only if you want to feel like a moron at the end knowing that's a 120 minutes of your life down the drain which you could have spent watching paint dry.
Rated 13 Dec 2009
naurunauru
Rated 08 Dec 2009
18
12th
Basically this is a standard disaster movie with the same script as all other disaster movies, and updated over-the-top special effects. There is no justification for such a long running time. Totally formulaic.
Rated 08 Dec 2009
deaddillydeaddilly
Rated 07 Dec 2009
0
0th
I found it insulting if anything.
Rated 07 Dec 2009
nathandarkoNathanDarko
Rated 07 Dec 2009
66
25th
ridiculous!!--the whole world is falling into pieces but they got exact satellite pictures and handy connections ?? beside the fact that it's so wacky, emmerich tells a boring story. the whole world stick together and opens the gate for the less-well offs *lol* as if... ;-) Emmerich wake up and watch the news there is no cohesion. only the strong ones will survive. boring hollywood crap forget it
Rated 07 Dec 2009
davidblastDavidBlast
Rated 06 Dec 2009
20
6th
It's The Day after Tomorrow 2. Twice as good effects, Twice as bad a story.
Rated 06 Dec 2009
abunchofcatsABUNCHOFCATS
Rated 05 Dec 2009
70
29th
Hilarious and well worth watching just for the effects and cgi. The scenes and especially the dialogue are more often than not goddamn hilarious (the mutated particles are destroying the earth's crust!!) and it features an awesome role from Woody Harrelson whose scenes alone would make this movie fun. It does tend to drag on and the dialogue and corniness never gets better, but if you liked ID4 you'll probably like this, it's the disaster movie to end all disaster movies, and it's ridiculous.
Rated 05 Dec 2009
doctor7doctor7
Rated 24 Nov 2009
30
18th
Renders every other disaster movie completely obsolete due to it's absolutely massive scale. Good thing too because I, for one, am absolutely sick of these stupid films. Still, I have to give Emmerich credit, the sheer spectacle of 2012 is damn impressive.
Rated 24 Nov 2009
kusanagiKusanagi
Rated 23 Nov 2009
50
7th
After the car driving through a falling building, I pretty much lost hope. The end of the world has never been more boring.
Rated 23 Nov 2009
panzerwolfpanzerwolf
Rated 21 Nov 2009
40
12th
The special effects were as awesome as one can expect, but the movie dragged on too much and could have worked better if it hadn't been quite as long. Has your usual plot holes, annoying characters and the works, but I just love to see the whole world getting destroyed. Again.
Rated 21 Nov 2009
pompousasspompousass
Rated 19 Nov 2009
40
71st
Emmerich has inched closer to the edge of the abyss for a view of the apocalypse. In this, he has achieved his fullest view to date. One can say that he has gotten more and more serious without saying that he has yet gotten really serious. In the inadequacy of its response to its chosen subject matter, in its merry refusal to think about the unthinkable, in its whistling past the graveyard, the film after all seems only human. Strange to say about an FX extravaganza.
Rated 19 Nov 2009
thedicemanTheDiceman
Rated 19 Nov 2009
25
6th
How this man is allowed to spend the amount of money it must have cost on the special effects on such a complete dumbfest is beyond me.I have no doubt I could have come up with a better film with a tenth of the budget.
Rated 19 Nov 2009
lennyneroLennyNero
Rated 19 Nov 2009
75
71st
Emmerich's best movie by far (although it doesn't mean much). The FX are as expected great, the movie has a great rhythm and I really liked Ejiofor's performance.
Rated 19 Nov 2009
kmcneilKMcNeil
Rated 15 Nov 2009
2
15th
Pretty ridiculous, predictable, clichéed and deeply forgettable. However, the special effects were expectedly impressive. Needed more Stephen "Pontypool" McHattie.
Rated 15 Nov 2009
langelundLangelund
Rated 15 Nov 2009
5
2nd
A disaster in every way - except for one, great one-liner from Zlatko Buric
Rated 15 Nov 2009
dst7175dst7175
Rated 14 Nov 2009
40
27th
The special effects are awesome but that is about it.
Rated 14 Nov 2009
muhammadjhhMuhammadjhh
Rated 21 Sep 2024
100
92nd
It's a very cool and underrated catastrophical film
Rated 21 Sep 2024
theristheris
Rated 20 Jul 2024
65
16th
crappy
Rated 20 Jul 2024
anotherbullanotherbull
Rated 18 Mar 2024
39
17th
It excels at depicting scale in impressive CGI, but fails just about everywhere else.
Rated 18 Mar 2024
romofinRomoFin
Rated 05 Mar 2024
45
1st
Kinda funny I guess
Rated 05 Mar 2024
mrtdxxiimrtdxxii
Rated 05 Jan 2024
55
25th
Görsel efektleri için izlenilebilir.
Rated 05 Jan 2024
omniavanitasOmniaVanitas
Rated 20 May 2023
1
10th
A flat film that didn't seem to grasp the scale of its own subject, it was too empty to care about and too tame to even be good apocalypse porn.
Rated 20 May 2023
dieeinzigeDieEinzige
Rated 19 May 2023
10
4th
I went in to this expecting it to be crap and by Jove was it ever.
Rated 19 May 2023
mswellermsweller
Rated 08 Apr 2023
66
23rd
Looking back from many years later, this remains a terrible film in terms of acting and plot. The best thing about this movie were the special effects which were amazing back in 2009, but the cgi has actually not held up that well. So much for that as a solitary plus.
Rated 08 Apr 2023
zachreviewsZachReviews
Rated 24 Jan 2023
1
1st
My favorite part was when the credits rolled.
Rated 24 Jan 2023
jessjess125Jessjess125
Rated 12 Aug 2022
78
43rd
I actually had a birthday party themed after this movie because I turned 12 the year it came out. Maybe 11. It was a little weird and freaked my friends out.
Rated 12 Aug 2022
lonewolf2003Lonewolf2003
Rated 23 Jan 2022
60
20th
Well apparently Emmerich did learn a thing since The Day After Tomorrow, cause there is more suspense in this one during the disasters. It also even more extravagant than TDAT, and more enjoyable for it. The mega-tsunami, whole cities sinking into the ocean; it all extremely impressive. Alas in the moments between the movie is way less engaging, and with an overlong movie over 2.5hrs this does take it toll.
Rated 23 Jan 2022
croweycrowey
Rated 16 Nov 2021
25
16th
Hahaha
Rated 16 Nov 2021
minorsageMinorsage
Rated 18 Oct 2021
75
73rd
If you watch disaster movies for the great plot, plausible situations, and amazing character arcs - who are you even? If you watch them to see awesome CGI of the world coming to an end in scary and fascinating ways - this is your film
Rated 18 Oct 2021
metismetis
Rated 06 Aug 2021
65
32nd
2014.8.4
Rated 06 Aug 2021
hssnozdagghssnozdagg
Rated 26 May 2021
0
1st
Exact definition of shit lmao.
Rated 26 May 2021
dustoccoxDustoccox
Rated 01 May 2021
45
11th
It's just a movie with a lof os special effects haha
Rated 01 May 2021
joelwatchesmoviesjoelwatchesmovies
Rated 22 Dec 2020
4
12th
It's intense, no doubt, but in a discomforting, empty sort of way-feels hard to feel relief at the constant near escapes of our protagonists when 99.9% of the rest of the world is completely annihilated in massive dumps of CGI. On one hand, this numbness as a response to such widespread devastation rings partially true, but on the other, it speaks to a certain blockbuster gloss that leaves the film's themes of human desperation and end-of-the-world values inconsistent and underdeveloped.
Rated 22 Dec 2020
scholar69420Scholar69420
Rated 02 Oct 2020
38
10th
Boring
Rated 02 Oct 2020
punqPUNQ
Rated 28 Aug 2020
60
89th
I had a morbid appreciation at the multi-layered disaster this was.
Rated 28 Aug 2020
eatbeanseatbeans
Rated 11 Jul 2020
5
46th
Idk, are there any good disaster movies? Poseidon adventure? Definitely not Titanic.
Rated 11 Jul 2020

Collections

Loading ...

Similar Titles

Loading ...

Statistics

Loading ...

Trailer

Loading ...