Tras un terrible terremoto en California, un piloto se embarca en un peligroso viaje a través del estado con su exmujer para rescatar a su hija.Tras un terrible terremoto en California, un piloto se embarca en un peligroso viaje a través del estado con su exmujer para rescatar a su hija.Tras un terrible terremoto en California, un piloto se embarca en un peligroso viaje a través del estado con su exmujer para rescatar a su hija.
- Dirección
- Guionistas
- Elenco
- Premios
- 2 premios ganados y 10 nominaciones en total
- Director
- Guionistas
- Todo el elenco y el equipo
- Producción, taquilla y más en IMDbPro
Opiniones destacadas
San Andreas (2015)
*** (out of 4)
After a massive earthquake strikes California, a father (Dwayne Johnson) must struggle to try and rescue his estranged wife (Carla Gugino) and his daughter (Alexandra Daddario) who finds herself somewhere in San Fransisco. While people are trying to dig themselves out of the damage, a seismologist (Paul Giamatti) warns people that the big one hasn't yet happened.
SAN ANDREAS is without question one of the dumbest movies that you're going to see in the year 2015 or perhaps any other year. I mean, things happen here that are without question quite stupid and that includes a really dumb love story and the logic of some of the scenes are downright laughable. With that said, one really shouldn't go into this movie expecting anything other than a popcorn movie meant to keep you entertained and this film certainly does that as it's a pretty good throwback to the Irwin Allen disaster pictures like EARTHQUAKE, THE TOWERING INFERNO and THE POSEIDON ADVENTURE.
I really can't believe I'm saying this but the special effects are certainly the highlight of the picture. I'm usually not a fan of CGI because more times than not it just looks fake and takes away from the story but we're reaching a point in technology where it's really hard to see the effect, which is just great. There's a massive amount of destruction throughout this film and I must admit that the effects make you feel that everything you're watching is real. This includes the actual earthquake footage as well as all the destruction around the state. There are countless buildings that fall and the aftermath of the quake looks extremely realistic.
The story itself is quite stupid as we get all sorts of predictable scenes but I can't really blame the film for this as the entire disaster genre had silly melodrama going on. The relationship issues between Johnson and Gugino are quite stupid and of course there's a side story dealing with him not being able to save a daughter that died. The screenplay pretty much throws everything into the mix and just hopes any of it sticks. Again, it's hard to bash the "dumb" story too much since the film is so entertaining but I will give the film credit for delivering the highest body count in the history of cinema.
Again, going into SAN ANDREAS expecting anything other than entertainment probably isn't the best idea. The actors are all entertaining in their own right and that's especially true for Daddario. As far as Johnson goes, he's certainly not the greatest actor in the world but he makes for a great action star.
*** (out of 4)
After a massive earthquake strikes California, a father (Dwayne Johnson) must struggle to try and rescue his estranged wife (Carla Gugino) and his daughter (Alexandra Daddario) who finds herself somewhere in San Fransisco. While people are trying to dig themselves out of the damage, a seismologist (Paul Giamatti) warns people that the big one hasn't yet happened.
SAN ANDREAS is without question one of the dumbest movies that you're going to see in the year 2015 or perhaps any other year. I mean, things happen here that are without question quite stupid and that includes a really dumb love story and the logic of some of the scenes are downright laughable. With that said, one really shouldn't go into this movie expecting anything other than a popcorn movie meant to keep you entertained and this film certainly does that as it's a pretty good throwback to the Irwin Allen disaster pictures like EARTHQUAKE, THE TOWERING INFERNO and THE POSEIDON ADVENTURE.
I really can't believe I'm saying this but the special effects are certainly the highlight of the picture. I'm usually not a fan of CGI because more times than not it just looks fake and takes away from the story but we're reaching a point in technology where it's really hard to see the effect, which is just great. There's a massive amount of destruction throughout this film and I must admit that the effects make you feel that everything you're watching is real. This includes the actual earthquake footage as well as all the destruction around the state. There are countless buildings that fall and the aftermath of the quake looks extremely realistic.
The story itself is quite stupid as we get all sorts of predictable scenes but I can't really blame the film for this as the entire disaster genre had silly melodrama going on. The relationship issues between Johnson and Gugino are quite stupid and of course there's a side story dealing with him not being able to save a daughter that died. The screenplay pretty much throws everything into the mix and just hopes any of it sticks. Again, it's hard to bash the "dumb" story too much since the film is so entertaining but I will give the film credit for delivering the highest body count in the history of cinema.
Again, going into SAN ANDREAS expecting anything other than entertainment probably isn't the best idea. The actors are all entertaining in their own right and that's especially true for Daddario. As far as Johnson goes, he's certainly not the greatest actor in the world but he makes for a great action star.
If you understand what a disaster movie is about and how it works you will go and have a nice experience just as I did, certainly superior to the "2012" or "Day After Tomorrow" dullness.
The usual cheesiness in disaster movie is there, the characters are so stereotypical it's hardly believable and worst of all it commits the usual, stupid mistake of having characters make it out of a situation just in time before everything collapses. This mistakes really annoys me firstly because it repeats itself a dozen times in the film but most of all because it's worthless: it does not add stakes or tension, they would be exactly the same, but except for maybe twice in the film situations get resolved just in time and the uselessness of it really annoyed me. The film tries too hard to give it's characters depth and barely succeeds in it. I cannot deny I was rooting for them, that maybe being due to the fact that the actors involved are honestly all doing a good enough job, but the fact that it tries to achieve character empathy through clichés that have been present in cinema since the beginning of time is ridiculous.
That being said, it does deliver the goods of a disaster movie and delivers them much more competently than the recent disaster films we have seen on the big screen. With the exception of the finale where things are unnecessarily blown up to eleven, there isn't exaggeration. The set pieces are for the major part breath-taking and original enough. I counted actually two times where my mouth totally dropped in genuine amazement. I was riveted by many scenes and this is probably due to the fact that the director never overuses CGI. It is used in the perfect dose, there is enough practicality involved and the fact that the set pieces aren't always the biggest most blown up ones made it better, it gave the film more stakes. Moreover there is a great use of long takes in certain parts of the film, one in particular is very long and threw me right into the action like no other disaster movie ever had done before.
If you know what you are in for you will have a good time and you will be given back your money's worth, you won't want to be re-watching this movie anytime, but that is perfectly fine and fits the film in what it is trying to achieve.
The usual cheesiness in disaster movie is there, the characters are so stereotypical it's hardly believable and worst of all it commits the usual, stupid mistake of having characters make it out of a situation just in time before everything collapses. This mistakes really annoys me firstly because it repeats itself a dozen times in the film but most of all because it's worthless: it does not add stakes or tension, they would be exactly the same, but except for maybe twice in the film situations get resolved just in time and the uselessness of it really annoyed me. The film tries too hard to give it's characters depth and barely succeeds in it. I cannot deny I was rooting for them, that maybe being due to the fact that the actors involved are honestly all doing a good enough job, but the fact that it tries to achieve character empathy through clichés that have been present in cinema since the beginning of time is ridiculous.
That being said, it does deliver the goods of a disaster movie and delivers them much more competently than the recent disaster films we have seen on the big screen. With the exception of the finale where things are unnecessarily blown up to eleven, there isn't exaggeration. The set pieces are for the major part breath-taking and original enough. I counted actually two times where my mouth totally dropped in genuine amazement. I was riveted by many scenes and this is probably due to the fact that the director never overuses CGI. It is used in the perfect dose, there is enough practicality involved and the fact that the set pieces aren't always the biggest most blown up ones made it better, it gave the film more stakes. Moreover there is a great use of long takes in certain parts of the film, one in particular is very long and threw me right into the action like no other disaster movie ever had done before.
If you know what you are in for you will have a good time and you will be given back your money's worth, you won't want to be re-watching this movie anytime, but that is perfectly fine and fits the film in what it is trying to achieve.
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!
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!
May contain spoilers!!!
The Script was AWFUL!
The film starts with the introduction of The Rock and his job. He's a search and rescue pilot and he's attempting to rescue a girl trapped in a car on the side of a cliff. He and his buddies find this amusing as they jokingly begin with the routine rescue. There is a reporter who has tagged along for an interview and now she's asking questions about the rescue and they're are answering like there's no emergency to begin with. They fly the helicopter into the ravine. Really? I guess the basket rescue line was not long enough. Anyway we'll leave it at that.
Cut to a class in session at a University where a professor is lecturing about seismic activity and that the west coast is due for a biggie. Of course the cliché "not a matter of IF but WHEN", spits out.
Cut to Hoover Dam where same professor and assistant are doing seismic field tests when.. guess what...yup. The entire dam, gone in a matter of seconds. Like a sand castle at the beach. No repercussions, cause and effect. No small local towns obliterated, washed away. This news never makes it to the local media nor the citizens of LA. Only a mere throw- away line to the professor at a later date; "sorry about what happened to your friend"
I swear this script was written in the back of a limo on the way to the studio.
Now, it's soap opera time.The Rock and his wife are finalizing a divorce. This drama goes on throughout the movie. It's like I am watching "As The World Turns" with an earthquake in the BG.
Rock's wife is dating an architect; not just any architect; he's got his own building named after him. The daughter, sat in the waiting area of the skyscraper, meets a dude who is there for a job interview. They hit it off. She pens him her cell number and he exits the scene.
Later, "WHEN" happens and the buildings are crumbling and shaking, people screaming and panicking. Remember the dude the daughter met, briefly? His No.1 priority is to find her. WHAT??? Yes, that's right. I just met you, and rather than seek shelter and escape this hell, I am going to try to find you. AND HE DOES!!!
You know it took 3 people to write this script??!!
How can the writers think we're all stupid. That we do not know what happens in an earthquake. We've seen the images and documentaries, and testimonials on You Tube. Including the notorious Tohoku Chihou Prefecture disaster a few years back. We know that making a trying to make a call on your cell after a major quake would be impossible. We know that bottles on the shelves at a restaurant would be the first victims in a quake. But not in this movie.
I broke out laughing at a scene where The Rock, riding a motorcycle through the disaster area, passes by an elderly couple who are stranded, roadside. They're waving for help. He passes them with no interest in stopping. This, from a trained search and rescue worker. Hilarious!!!
There are scenes where The Rock and his wife are the only people in LA. wandering through the rubble. Or boating through the floating debris.
MINIMAL VIOLENCE!
That all being said, I think the most disappointing aspect of the film is that you rarely see people die. It sounds morbid but it's what you come to expect in a disaster movie. Would the "Titanic" be just as good without "Propeller Guy" and the countless screaming bodies falling off the ship? The death count in SA is really low. There's 3 dudes that fall to their death and another engulfed in flames. It's suggestive violence and not like you would find in a Final Destination movie. I think because The Rock attracts a younger audience, they wanted a PG 13 rating, minimizing violence, therefore, a bigger box office demographic.
Anyway, that's my opinion. There are pages of wonderful reviews from people who praise this movie. I will respect that. To each his own. Watch, and decide for yourself.
The Script was AWFUL!
The film starts with the introduction of The Rock and his job. He's a search and rescue pilot and he's attempting to rescue a girl trapped in a car on the side of a cliff. He and his buddies find this amusing as they jokingly begin with the routine rescue. There is a reporter who has tagged along for an interview and now she's asking questions about the rescue and they're are answering like there's no emergency to begin with. They fly the helicopter into the ravine. Really? I guess the basket rescue line was not long enough. Anyway we'll leave it at that.
Cut to a class in session at a University where a professor is lecturing about seismic activity and that the west coast is due for a biggie. Of course the cliché "not a matter of IF but WHEN", spits out.
Cut to Hoover Dam where same professor and assistant are doing seismic field tests when.. guess what...yup. The entire dam, gone in a matter of seconds. Like a sand castle at the beach. No repercussions, cause and effect. No small local towns obliterated, washed away. This news never makes it to the local media nor the citizens of LA. Only a mere throw- away line to the professor at a later date; "sorry about what happened to your friend"
I swear this script was written in the back of a limo on the way to the studio.
Now, it's soap opera time.The Rock and his wife are finalizing a divorce. This drama goes on throughout the movie. It's like I am watching "As The World Turns" with an earthquake in the BG.
Rock's wife is dating an architect; not just any architect; he's got his own building named after him. The daughter, sat in the waiting area of the skyscraper, meets a dude who is there for a job interview. They hit it off. She pens him her cell number and he exits the scene.
Later, "WHEN" happens and the buildings are crumbling and shaking, people screaming and panicking. Remember the dude the daughter met, briefly? His No.1 priority is to find her. WHAT??? Yes, that's right. I just met you, and rather than seek shelter and escape this hell, I am going to try to find you. AND HE DOES!!!
You know it took 3 people to write this script??!!
How can the writers think we're all stupid. That we do not know what happens in an earthquake. We've seen the images and documentaries, and testimonials on You Tube. Including the notorious Tohoku Chihou Prefecture disaster a few years back. We know that making a trying to make a call on your cell after a major quake would be impossible. We know that bottles on the shelves at a restaurant would be the first victims in a quake. But not in this movie.
I broke out laughing at a scene where The Rock, riding a motorcycle through the disaster area, passes by an elderly couple who are stranded, roadside. They're waving for help. He passes them with no interest in stopping. This, from a trained search and rescue worker. Hilarious!!!
There are scenes where The Rock and his wife are the only people in LA. wandering through the rubble. Or boating through the floating debris.
MINIMAL VIOLENCE!
That all being said, I think the most disappointing aspect of the film is that you rarely see people die. It sounds morbid but it's what you come to expect in a disaster movie. Would the "Titanic" be just as good without "Propeller Guy" and the countless screaming bodies falling off the ship? The death count in SA is really low. There's 3 dudes that fall to their death and another engulfed in flames. It's suggestive violence and not like you would find in a Final Destination movie. I think because The Rock attracts a younger audience, they wanted a PG 13 rating, minimizing violence, therefore, a bigger box office demographic.
Anyway, that's my opinion. There are pages of wonderful reviews from people who praise this movie. I will respect that. To each his own. Watch, and decide for yourself.
My love of the disaster genre means that I can enjoy this type of movie despite the myriad problems with it, alongside the inherent cheesiness and the poor writing which makes it laughable in places. It pales in comparison to stuff from the 1970s like THE TOWERING INFERNO and EARTHQUAKE, but it's certainly better than modern SyFy Channel and Asylum offerings, even if that's just because of the massive budget alone.
The story is written so that the disaster scenes keep occurring throughout the movie. The CGI effects work is extensive, but it's also pretty good, and certainly better than in the awful 2012. Yes, you get all the flag-waving nonsense associated with this type of film, but you also get plenty of suspense scenes and depictions of post-earthquake devastation that you don't usually get to see in the movies.
Dwayne Johnson continues to be a hulking, mildly charismatic presence in the movies, although he's no Schwarzenegger. Alexandra Daddario is there for her looks and certainly succeeds in that respect. The rest of the cast don't fare so well, with Ioan Gruffudd virtually reprising his role from SANCTUM and Paul Giamatti on autopilot, although at least we get to find out what happened to Art Parkinson (the disappearing Rickon Stark from TV's GAME OF THRONES). SAN ANDREAS is certainly undemanding entertainment, and not a film I'm in any hurry to sit through again, but compared to other offerings in this packed sub-genre, it's not THAT bad.
The story is written so that the disaster scenes keep occurring throughout the movie. The CGI effects work is extensive, but it's also pretty good, and certainly better than in the awful 2012. Yes, you get all the flag-waving nonsense associated with this type of film, but you also get plenty of suspense scenes and depictions of post-earthquake devastation that you don't usually get to see in the movies.
Dwayne Johnson continues to be a hulking, mildly charismatic presence in the movies, although he's no Schwarzenegger. Alexandra Daddario is there for her looks and certainly succeeds in that respect. The rest of the cast don't fare so well, with Ioan Gruffudd virtually reprising his role from SANCTUM and Paul Giamatti on autopilot, although at least we get to find out what happened to Art Parkinson (the disappearing Rickon Stark from TV's GAME OF THRONES). SAN ANDREAS is certainly undemanding entertainment, and not a film I'm in any hurry to sit through again, but compared to other offerings in this packed sub-genre, it's not THAT bad.
Rock On: The Life and Times of Dwayne Johnson
Rock On: The Life and Times of Dwayne Johnson
Take a look back at The Rock's career in photos.
¿Sabías que…?
- TriviaDirector Brad Peyton brought in Thomas Jordan, USC professor and director of the Southern California Earthquake Center to fact check the script for plausibility. Though both Peyton and lead actor Dwayne Johnson contend that the science portrayed in the film is accurate, Thomas Jordan was quoted as saying "I gave them free advice, some of which they took... but much of which they didn't - magnitude 9's are too big for the San Andreas, and it can't produce a big tsunami."
- ErroresWhen Ray steals the truck, he has to hot-wire it to start, but when he gets to the crack, he turns off the engine using the key.
- Citas
Raymond Gaines: [upon landing with Emma in a baseball stadium by parachute] It's been a while since I got you to second base.
- Créditos curiososThe end credits scroll with a bend at the top and bottom of the screen, as though they are on a rotating seismograph drum. Seismic lines, increasing in intensity, can be seen on the left side of the frame.
- ConexionesEdited into The Green Fog (2017)
- Bandas sonorasStyle
Written by Ali Payami, Shellback (as Johan Schuster), Max Martin and Taylor Swift
Performed by Taylor Swift
Courtesy of Big Machine Records, LLC
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y agrega a la lista de videos para obtener recomendaciones personalizadas
- How long is San Andreas?Con tecnología de Alexa
Detalles
Taquilla
- Presupuesto
- USD 110,000,000 (estimado)
- Total en EE. UU. y Canadá
- USD 155,190,832
- Fin de semana de estreno en EE. UU. y Canadá
- USD 54,588,173
- 31 may 2015
- Total a nivel mundial
- USD 474,609,154
- Tiempo de ejecución1 hora 54 minutos
- Color
- Mezcla de sonido
- Relación de aspecto
- 2.39 : 1
Contribuir a esta página
Sugiere una edición o agrega el contenido que falta