Terremoto: La falla de San Andrés

I'm a sucker for a disaster film, I pretty much love all of them but I do have 'some' limitations.

This one does enough to stay on the good side of the ledger.

What works, the effects (mostly) and The Rock. What doesn't, The Rock and the Disney-fying of anyone dying.

What do I mean? The Rock is hit and miss in this one, he pulls of some great scenes whereas others are just a bridge too far (he may have caught this from Fast Furious). The effects are excellent. The deaths are sanitised for perhaps younger viewers, the cost of this is tension and any real concern you may have had for the family. They are obviously going to come out ok so we don't have to explain anything to the kiddies!

But a disaster movie is a disaster movie so thumbs up from me!

I read some of the reviews here and am wondering what all the negative reviewers expected. Who didn't know this was a huge, costly disaster movie? Who didn't know there were going to be many unbelievable scenes? Who didn't know there would be some cheesy dialogue?

Well, I, for one, enjoyed it. The last good disaster movie I saw was The Towering Inferno, and you know that was a long, long time ago. It's still my favorite disaster flick. San Andreas, of course, had much better special effects. (several decades later, better effects, right?) I thought the scenes of the destruction were amazing.

We all know disaster movies usually focus on a handful of people in it and this one was no different. The movie was entertaining for me. I hope it is for you, too. :)

Story: Man uses taxpayers' rescue service chopper to pick up his ex-wife and daughter while thousands die beneath them.

Sure, the movie has a lot of clichés, inaccuracies, common mistakes in destruction scenes (a suspension bridge's towers not bending outwards when the span is broken, for example), and a predictable plot, but these things go hand in hand with the disaster movie genre. If you expect those going in, then the movie is pretty entertaining. You're not supposed to take these films too seriously, you're just intended to go along with the ride of destruction--and what a ride it is! This movie has some excellent destruction scenes; although they aren't exactly realistic and don't always make sense, they're a lot of fun to watch, and that's the whole point.

Sure, if you compare this with all other films, it's not great; but in the disaster movie genre, with other such films as 2012, the Day After Tomorrow, and Greenland, it's actually pretty decent. Remember: the whole point of these movies is to show awesome scenes of destruction, and San Andreas does that beautifully, so don't take the movie too seriously and just go along with the ride.

In every sense of its existence this is the prototypical disaster movie, right down to the use of the Rock as the lead character. With that being said I would say it's on the better side of average in terms of his performance.

The movie starts off by allocating a decent amount of time to a couple scientists who discover a new way of predicting earthquakes (which isn't ever really explained how). It's then said that nobody had really listened to them in the past but we don't really observe that part as viewers. The lead scientist is also credited with saving many lives even though his advice to run away was communicated as the disaster was already unfolding. Furthermore we really don't see many who survived at all except the one family.

Overall it is very corny , but in the same light it is highly entertaining . The action sequences transition smoothly and keep your attention the entire time which is mostly what you are looking for with this type of movie.

Sort of like a theme Park ride in a sense. Don't expect an outstanding backstory but enjoy everything it throws at you.