2012 (2009)

The critic finds the film thrilling, ridiculous and unexpectedly thoughtful. They single out its spectacular effects and political satire, while praising the cast’s humanity.

Huddleston acknowledges the film is infantile but presents it as a near-perfect disaster movie. The available text offers no further detail on what the review singles out for praise.

Brooks finds the film dumb and over-the-top but exhilarating, and expects it to be a hit. He praises its relentless, gut-wrenching action set-pieces, while faulting its lack of nuance and schmaltzy moments.

The review text is behind a paywall, so its verdict cannot be determined. No praise or complaint from the critic is visible.

Ebert finds the film entertaining as a disaster spectacle, though its human story is weak. He singles out the elaborate visual effects as its chief strength.

Newman calls the film fundamentally terrible but almost irresistibly entertaining, with its horrors growing monotonous in the middle. He praises its spectacular, value-for-money destruction and finds the overblown disaster spectacle hard to resist.

Russell finds Emmerich firmly in his comfort zone. He praises the expensive, dramatic and genuinely awesome CGI destruction.

Farber finds the film entertaining despite its excessive running time, but says its cheesy script fails to match its grand production. He praises the spectacular effects and set pieces while criticizing the predictable character fates and unclear climax.

Phipps finds the film’s destruction-heavy spectacle stale and its story overstuffed with aimless subplots. He singles out the soundtrack’s rumbling low end as more impactful than the visuals.

McCarthy finds the film visually spectacular but ultimately silly and without a meaningful point of view. He singles out the cutting-edge visual effects for praise, while criticizing the overlong, confusing final act.

The critic finds the film soulless and tedious rather than entertaining disaster spectacle. He especially faults its hollow moralizing and implausible, poorly grounded science.

The critic finds 2012 an enjoyable, over-the-top spectacle despite its plot holes and diminishing returns. He singles out the spectacular visual effects and the frantic Los Angeles escape sequence for praise.

Carty finds the film overlong, repetitive and weighed down by weak writing and clichés. He praises the impressive special effects, while noting that the destruction quickly loses its impact.

The critic delivers a sharply negative verdict, treating the film as an unintentionally hilarious failure. They single out its exhausting destruction scenes and implausible attempts at emotional drama.