Dear Reader: Update, Movie Review Intelligence will discontinue
publishing this website at the end of May (more...)
Search a Movie:
2012Movie Reviews
Science fiction action tale about those who survive the destruction of the earth, brought about by solar fires that trigger massive earthquakes. Cast:John Cusack, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Danny Glover, Amanda Peet, Thandie NewtonDirector:Roland EmmerichRelease Date:November 13, 2009DVD Release:March 2, 2010From:Columbia PicturesRating:PG-13Length:2 hr. 38 min.
2012 played to mixed reviews. • Joe Williams wrote in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, "Guilty pleasures don't come guiltier than '2012.' It's amazing to behold but, taken at face value, '2012' is a dozen kinds of dumb." • And Claudia Puig wrote in USA Today, "...an undeniable visual spectacle, but just as unequivocally a cheesy, ridiculous story..." More Reviews Below...
Richard Corliss, Time: GOOD (NOT GREAT) "Emmerich tinkers with Darwin's law so that it's the survival of the top-billed.... a ludicrous, fitfully enjoyable movie.... a dead-serious hoot."(See all of Richard Corliss's reviews...)(Read the full review...) 861 words, 11/13/09
Jake Coyle, Associated Press: WEAK(cg) "...just another doomsday film, with new digital effects and stock scenes patched together from 'Jaws,' 'The Poseidon Adventure' and 'Armageddon.' "(See all of Jake Coyle's reviews...)(Read the full review...) 776 words, 11/12/09
Claudia Puig, USA Today: MODERATE(cg) "...an undeniable visual spectacle, but just as unequivocally a cheesy, ridiculous story.... And, at more than 21/2 hours, the annihilation nearly unfolds in real time."(See all of Claudia Puig's reviews...)(Read the full review...) 411 words, 11/13/09
we have an app for when you're out and about
get our iPhone app... or get our mobile web app...
movie review intelligence
NEW YORK/LOS ANGELES/CHICAGO/TORONTO (13 Reviews)
Manohla Dargis, New York Times: POOR "Despite the frenetic action scenes, the movie sags, done in by multiple story lines that undercut one another and by the heaviness of its conceit."(See all of Manohla Dargis's reviews...)(Read the full review...) 804 words, 11/13/09
Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times: OUTSTANDING(cg) "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."(See all of Roger Ebert's reviews...)(Read the full review...) 863 words, 11/12/09
Kenneth Turan, Los Angeles Times: MODERATE "...the world will end with both a bang and a whimper, the bang of undeniably impressive special effects and the whimper of inept writing and characterization."(See all of Kenneth Turan's reviews...)(Read the full review...) 681 words, 11/13/09
Lou Lumenick, New York Post: VERY GOOD(cg) "About the only thing that's missing from '2012' (except sanity) is 3-D, IMAX and Sensurround. For those, I would gladly pay $20 a ticket."(See all of Lou Lumenick's reviews...)(Read the full review...) 553 words, 11/13/09
Michael Phillips, Chicago Tribune: VERY GOOD(cg) "For visual noise by the ton, Emmerich is my kind of hack, the pluperfect blend of leaden self-seriousness and accidental-on-purpose self-satirist."(See all of Michael Phillips's reviews...)(Read the full review...) 623 words, 11/13/09
David Edelstein, New York Magazine: WEAK "...rides in on and reinforces an especially idiotic wave of evangelical doomsday predictions with supposed roots in the Mayan calendar, and it's too trivial to live."(See all of David Edelstein's reviews...)(Read the full review...) 602 words, 11/11/09
Rick Groen, Toronto Globe & Mail: POOR(cg) "...the cannon speaks with an expensive bang, while the fodder gets afforded nary a whimper. Of course, that's just part of disaster's simple recipe: Blow us up, then blow us off."(See all of Rick Groen's reviews...)(Read the full review...) 792 words, 11/13/09
Chuck Wilson, Village Voice/LA Weekly: FAIR "Millions of people die in this movie -- among them a few we've come to know -- but not one of those deaths is affecting or memorable..."(See all of Chuck Wilson's reviews...)(Read the full review...) 320 words, 11/11/09
Norman Wilner, Toronto Now: GOOD (NOT GREAT)(cg) "Give the guy credit for consistency, if nothing else. When Roland Emmerich destroys the world, he destroys it exactly the same way every time."(See all of Norman Wilner's reviews...)(Read the full review...) 206 words, 11/12/09
KEY CITIES (16 Reviews)
Dan Kois, Washington Post: OUTSTANDING(cg) "...astonishingly accomplished, reprehensible-yet-irresistible... the crowning achievement in Emmerich's long, profitable career as a destroyer of worlds."(See all of Dan Kois's reviews...)(Read the full review...) 768 words, 11/13/09
Bill Goodykoontz, Arizona Republic: POOR(cg) "If it sounds absurd, that's because it is. But the effects are so unapologetically outlandish, it almost rises to the level of guilty pleasure. Almost."(See all of Bill Goodykoontz's reviews...)(Read the full review...) 601 words, 11/13/09
Ty Burr, Boston Globe: MODERATE(cg) "It may look like a giant Jacuzzi to you, but you're not a scientist in a Hollywood movie.... It's one huge, overlong, cornball 'Armageddon' - a work of shlock and awe."(See all of Ty Burr's reviews...)(Read the full review...) 1,093 words, 11/13/09
Jeff Shannon, Seattle Times: GOOD (NOT GREAT)(cg) "...has an appealing cast and delivers exactly what you'd expect: mass destruction through state-of-the-art digital effects."(See all of Jeff Shannon's reviews...)(Read the full review...) 561 words, 11/13/09
Clint O'Connor, Cleveland Plain-Dealer: GOOD (NOT GREAT)(cg) "It's Emmerich's everything-but-the-kitchen-sink approach to filmmaking, which has its wow-factor merits, but usually just goes overboard. He easily could have cut an hour..."(See all of Clint O'Connor's reviews...)(Read the full review...) 485 words, 11/13/09
Marc Mohan, Portland Oregonian: MODERATE(cg) "...part of the appeal is the way director Roland Emmerich, no stranger to the genre ('Independence Day,' 'The Day After Tomorrow'), faithfully fulfills expectations."(See all of Marc Mohan's reviews...)(Read the full review...) 626 words, 11/13/09
Joe Williams, St. Louis Post-Dispatch: GOOD (NOT GREAT)(cg) "Guilty pleasures don't come guiltier.... It's amazing to behold but, taken at face value, '2012' is a dozen kinds of dumb."(See all of Joe Williams's reviews...)(Read the full review...) 398 words, 11/13/09
Steve Persall, St. Petersburg Times: EXCELLENT(cg) "...as massively entertaining as it is stupid. It's the first time I ever felt like I was witnessing the end of not only the world but also a genre."(See all of Steve Persall's reviews...)(Read the full review...) 604 words, 11/12/09
Roger Moore, Orlando Sentinel: GOOD (NOT GREAT)(cg) "You make the disaster this real and it's not entertaining or chilling.... it's more depressing than entertaining."(See all of Roger Moore's reviews...)(Read the full review...) 613 words, 11/13/09
Rene Rodriguez, Miami Herald: MODERATE(cg) "The last 40 minutes test your patience - and intelligence - in a way the rest of this big, dumb, crazy movie never does: The film starts taking itself too seriously."(See all of Rene Rodriguez's reviews...)(Read the full review...) 686 words, 11/13/09
Christopher Kelly, Sacramento Bee: VERY GOOD(cg) "...the ultimate Roland Emmerich disaster picture.... overwrought and overproduced. It's also among the most entertaining movies you'll see this year."(See all of Christopher Kelly's reviews...)(Read the full review...) 390 words, 11/13/09
ALTERNATIVE/INDIE PRESS (5 Reviews)
Chuck Wilson, Village Voice/LA Weekly: FAIR "Millions of people die in this movie -- among them a few we've come to know -- but not one of those deaths is affecting or memorable..."(See all of Chuck Wilson's reviews...)(Read the full review...) 320 words, 11/11/09
Peter Travers, Rolling Stone: POOR(cg) "...works the dubious miracle of almost matching 'Transformers 2' for sheer, cynical, mind-numbing, time-wasting, money-draining, soul-sucking stupidity."(See all of Peter Travers's reviews...)(Read the full review...) 402 words, 11/13/09
Peter Keough, Boston Phoenix: WEAK(cg) "Things look bad, and after a few repetitions of 'What the hell is that?' and 'Oh my God!', big slabs of Los Angeles are flying into the void..."(See all of Peter Keough's reviews...)(Read the full review...) 633 words, 11/12/09
Norman Wilner, Toronto Now: GOOD (NOT GREAT)(cg) "Give the guy credit for consistency, if nothing else. When Roland Emmerich destroys the world, he destroys it exactly the same way every time."(See all of Norman Wilner's reviews...)(Read the full review...) 206 words, 11/12/09
HIGHBROW PRESS (5 Reviews)
Bob Mondello, NPR All Things Considered: POOR "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."(See all of Bob Mondello's reviews...)(Listen to the full review...) 184 seconds, 11/13/09
Manohla Dargis, New York Times: POOR "Despite the frenetic action scenes, the movie sags, done in by multiple story lines that undercut one another and by the heaviness of its conceit."(See all of Manohla Dargis's reviews...)(Read the full review...) 804 words, 11/13/09
Anthony Lane, New Yorker: POOR "...so long... by the time I lurched from the theatre I felt that three years had actually passed and that the apocalypse was due any second."(See all of Anthony Lane's reviews...)(Read the full review...) 620 words, 11/16/09
Kenneth Turan, Los Angeles Times: MODERATE "...the world will end with both a bang and a whimper, the bang of undeniably impressive special effects and the whimper of inept writing and characterization."(See all of Kenneth Turan's reviews...)(Read the full review...) 681 words, 11/13/09
Kenneth Turan, Los Angeles Times: MODERATE "...the world will end with both a bang and a whimper, the bang of undeniably impressive special effects and the whimper of inept writing and characterization."(See all of Kenneth Turan's reviews...)(Read the full review...) 681 words, 11/13/09
Manohla Dargis, New York Times: POOR "Despite the frenetic action scenes, the movie sags, done in by multiple story lines that undercut one another and by the heaviness of its conceit."(See all of Manohla Dargis's reviews...)(Read the full review...) 804 words, 11/13/09
24.6 Percentage Points Average Difference Between Reviews (Norm is 18.4pp; <18.4pp = More Consistent; >18.4pp = More Mixed)
2012's reviews are separated by an average 24.6 percentage points. The norm for this measure is 18.4 percentage points. Less than 18.4 indicates more consistent reviews; greater than 18.4 indicates more mixed reviews. In the chart below, each dot represents a review, with the dots at the top more positive than the dots at the bottom. From left to right, the dots represent reviews in big, bigger and biggest publications. Roll over each dot for more detail.
Coverage:2012's reviews cover 68.1% of potential readers (average is 67.9%). Volume:The film's reviews total 25,256 words involume (average is 20,172 words). Length:The film's reviews average 616 words in length (the norm is 517 words).
Reviews Broke 0.5 Hours Before Release (Norm is 1.2 Release)
2012's reviews on average broke 0.5 hours before opening. Norm for this measure is 1.2 hours before. The chart below shows reviews on opening day and the days before and after opening; the left side is earlier and the right side is later. The red bars extending above the horizontal mid-line represent more positive reviews, and the red bars extending below represent more negative reviews. The white space/red bar in the middle is 2012's opening day. Click on any bar for a list of the reviews for that day.
Mobile Web App version 1.2 shows a list of all current movies and review information. You can click through to the cast, director, synopsis, release date and rating on page two, plus individual reviews on page three. The information is updated on a live/real-time basis. You can also search our database of films. Designed for when you're on the move and want the latest info, this app will work on any mobile web browser. From your mobile device -- only from a mobile device -- open our Mobile Web App here...
