The story of 2067: Time travel meets environmental reckoning
2067 follows a working-class utility technician whose life takes a surreal turn when he receives a mysterious radio transmission from the future. The signal pulls him into an impossible mission: travel forward decades to a world ravaged by oxygen depletion, deforestation, and the consequences of unchecked environmental destruction. What makes this premise sting is the personal cost—he must abandon his dying wife to pursue a journey that demands he confront not just external threats, but the deepest fears he's buried inside himself. The film positions its hero as an unlikely savior, someone ordinary thrust into extraordinary circumstances, forced to grapple with whether changing the fabric of reality is even possible when the damage may already be done.
Behind the making of 2067: Australian sci-fi ambition and production challenges
2067 is an Australian science fiction film directed and written by Seth Larney, working from a treatment by Gavin Davis, released in 2020. The production brought together Arcadia, KOJO Entertainment, Elevate Production Finance, Futurism Studios, and Rocketboy to fund what was clearly an ambitious vision—a 114-minute feature attempting to tackle climate science, time paradoxes, and existential dread on what appears to have been a modest budget. The film stars Kodi Smit-McPhee in the lead role, alongside Ryan Kwanten, both actors with solid television and film credentials. However, 2067 faced significant commercial headwinds; it became a box office disappointment, failing to find the audience its thematic ambitions might have warranted. Awards recognition proved sparse as well, with the film earning just two nominations total. The project arrived unrated, allowing it to pursue its darker thematic material without MPAA constraints—though that freedom didn't translate into critical or commercial success. What's striking is how the film's production timeline (shot and released during 2020, a year when Australia itself was grappling with catastrophic bushfires and air quality crises) made its environmental messaging feel less like speculation and more like documentary urgency.
What makes 2067 stand out: Ambition, performance, and uncomfortable timing
Critically, 2067 didn't land the way its makers hoped. The film holds a 32% on Rotten Tomatoes, a Metascore of 39/100, and an IMDb rating of 4.9/10 from over 12,800 votes—numbers that suggest audiences and critics alike found the execution uneven, even if the premise intrigued them. Yet there's something worth examining beneath those scores. The film doesn't shy away from the bleakness of its premise; it leans into it. There's no last-minute salvation narrative, no convenient technological fix that makes everything okay. Instead, what emerges is a portrait of someone wrestling with the possibility that humanity's mistakes might be unfixable—that even with a chance to go back and change things, the weight of consequence is too heavy to move. Kodi Smit-McPhee carries much of the film's emotional burden, and his performance captures that particular kind of desperation that comes from being asked to save the world when you can barely save yourself. The environmental backdrop isn't window dressing either; it's woven into the DNA of every scene—oxygen depletion, nuclear explosions, the erasure of forests. For viewers living through actual climate anxiety (and Sydney residents in particular experienced this acutely during the 2020 fire season), the film's refusal to offer easy comfort can feel almost documentarian in its honesty.
Where to stream 2067 online
2067 is available on major OTT services, and Movie OTT maintains current streaming availability across platforms so you don't have to hunt through multiple apps. Since streaming rights shift frequently by region and service, checking the Where to Watch widget at the top of this page will show you exactly where you can access the film right now—whether that's through subscription services, rental, or purchase options. The film's availability has expanded since its theatrical release, making it far more accessible to audiences who might want to experience its climate-forward narrative on their own schedule.
Frequently asked questions
Q: Who directed 2067?
Seth Larney directed and wrote the film, working from a treatment by Gavin Davis. It's an Australian production that brought together multiple production companies including Arcadia and KOJO Entertainment.
Q: Is 2067 based on a true story?
No, 2067 is an original science fiction screenplay. However, its environmental themes—oxygen depletion, deforestation, nuclear risk—are grounded in real-world climate anxieties and scientific concerns about Earth's future.
Q: How long is 2067?
The film runs 114 minutes, giving it enough runtime to develop its time-travel mechanics and explore its protagonist's internal journey without feeling rushed.
Q: What's the IMDb rating for 2067?
The film holds a 4.9/10 rating on IMDb from over 12,800 votes, indicating mixed-to-negative audience reception, though critical scores don't always capture what individual viewers find valuable in a film's themes or ambition.
Q: Why did 2067 receive negative reviews?
Critics found the execution uneven, with a Metascore of 39/100 and 32% on Rotten Tomatoes. Common critiques likely centered on pacing, narrative clarity, or the gap between the film's thematic reach and its storytelling precision—though the ambitious environmental messaging resonated with some viewers facing real climate concerns.
Final thoughts on 2067: Who should watch this film
2067 isn't for everyone. It's deliberately bleak, narratively ambitious, and willing to sit with uncomfortable questions about whether humanity can actually change course. But if you're drawn to science fiction that treats environmental collapse as more than backdrop—if you want a film that refuses easy answers and asks its protagonist (and by extension, its viewers) to confront complicity and consequence—then it's worth your time. The film's commercial failure doesn't diminish what it was trying to do. Sometimes the most interesting films are the ones that don't quite land with mass audiences but find their people anyway.