--- title: "2012: the reviews" canonical: "https://film.one/film/2012/reviews" title_page: "https://film.one/film/2012" critics_score: 55 critics_reviews: 14 licence: "© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL." --- # 2012 (2009): what the critics said Critics' score 55 from 14 reviews: 4 positive, 5 mixed, 5 negative. The reviews split almost evenly, and the one thing nearly every critic agrees on is where the money went. The digital destruction is praised by those who enjoyed the film and by those who did not: the Los Angeles escape sequence is singled out, and even the harsher notices concede the effects are expensive and often spectacular. The warmer reviews take the film as a knowingly ridiculous disaster picture, dumb but exhilarating, and judge it a success on those terms. The spread is wide, from near-raves to dismissals. Reservations cluster on the script, the running time and the thin human story, and several critics find the destruction grows monotonous before the end. The sharpest dissents come from Slant Magazine and NME, who find it tedious or unintentionally funny rather than entertaining, while The AV Club thinks even the spectacle looks stale. The Evening Standard alone finds it thoughtful, crediting a political satire nobody else mentions. ## Evening Standard Fi1m's normalised score 90/100 (inferred from the text). 10 April 2012. 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. [Read the review](https://www.standard.co.uk/culture/film/could-2012-be-the-greatest-disaster-movie-ever-7417450.html) ## Time Out — Tom Huddleston Rating 4/5. 10 November 2009. 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. [Read the review](https://www.timeout.com/movies/2012-1) ## The Guardian — Xan Brooks Fi1m's normalised score 70/100 (inferred from the text). 31 October 2009. 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. [Read the review](https://www.theguardian.com/film/2009/oct/31/2012-film-review) ## Screen Daily — Mike Goodridge Fi1m's normalised score 64/100 (inferred from the text). 10 November 2009. The review text is behind a paywall, so its verdict cannot be determined. No praise or complaint from the critic is visible. [Read the review](https://www.screendaily.com/reviews/2012/5007581.article) ## RogerEbert.com — Roger Ebert Rating 2.5/4. 11 November 2009. 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. [Read the review](https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/2012-2009) ## Empire — Kim Newman Fi1m's normalised score 60/100 (inferred from the text). 13 November 2008. 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. [Read the review](https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/twenty-twelve-review/) ## Radio Times — Jamie Russell Rating 3/5. Russell finds Emmerich firmly in his comfort zone. He praises the expensive, dramatic and genuinely awesome CGI destruction. [Read the review](https://www.radiotimes.com/movie-guide/b-i73yhb/2012/) ## The Hollywood Reporter — Stephen Farber Fi1m's normalised score 60/100 (inferred from the text). 9 November 2009. 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. [Read the review](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-reviews/2012-review-movie-93745/) ## The AV Club — Keith Phipps Rating D. 12 November 2009. 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. [Read the review](https://www.avclub.com/2012-1798207449) ## Variety — Todd McCarthy Fi1m's normalised score 30/100 (inferred from the text). 10 November 2009. 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. [Read the review](https://variety.com/2009/film/reviews/2012-1200477500/) ## Slant Magazine — Simon Abrams Fi1m's normalised score 15/100 (inferred from the text). 10 November 2009. The critic finds the film soulless and tedious rather than entertaining disaster spectacle. He especially faults its hollow moralizing and implausible, poorly grounded science. [Read the review](https://www.slantmagazine.com/film/two-thousand-and-twelve/) ## Den of Geek — Rupert de Rating 4/5. 9 November 2009. 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. [Read the review](https://www.denofgeek.com/movies/2012-review/) ## Eye for Film — Stephen Carty Fi1m's normalised score 30/100 (inferred from the text). 24 November 2009. 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. [Read the review](https://www.eyeforfilm.co.uk/review/2012-film-review-by-stephen-carty) ## NME — Owen Nicholls Fi1m's normalised score 15/100 (inferred from the text). 12 November 2009. 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. [Read the review](https://www.nme.com/blogs/the-movies-blog/2012-the-end-of-the-world-has-never-been-so-funny-43217) --- © Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL. Our review: https://film.one/film/2012.md