San Andreas

Going into this film I knew it wasn't going to be one of the best films I've ever seen I just knew I would like the visual effects and the action, although there were some parts that wouldn't have happened in real life but that's standard Hollywood, it's expected. The story line and plot wasn't anything spectacular. It wasn't anything you haven't seen before, very clichéd and predictable. The Rock's performance in this film did give it that extra kick that was needed to make this film a bit more tolerable. If you're planning on seeing this film enjoy the ride for the visual effects and the action, don't expect very much more. I'm not going to say it's bad and I'm not going to say it's good. It's just a clichéd Hollywood work of art. You be the judge.

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.

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.

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. :)

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.