San Andreas

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. :)

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.

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.

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.

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.