San Andreas

LovesustiThe Worst Film Ever

ChirphymiumIt's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

FairaherThe film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

RoxieThe thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

slightlymad22Dwayne The Rock Johnson is an actor whom I like. He seems like one of the nicer celebrities out there, but for some reason his movies just seem bland, and dont interest me that much. Outside of one Fast & Furious movie (whatever the last Paul Walker one was) I have not seen a movie starring him since Faster in 2010. So I decided to give San Andreas a go when I spotted it on Netflix tonight. Sadly it was as bland as I imagined!! Plenty of innocents who we didn't care about bit the dust, but the main cast all survived with just a few scratches. OK I wasn't happy Kylie Minogue came and went so quickly, but I'm probably in the minority in that one!! At times the effects looked decent, but at others not so much. All in all, I found it to be a bland by the numbers disaster movie.All I took away from it was I will always have a crush on Carla Gugino and Alexandra Daddario (the actress playing The Rocks daughter) is HOT!!

svr-2200San Andreas: Movie Review.San Andreas is an okay film with some spectacular stunning visuals and effects and an amazing 3D, and entertaining performance by Dwayne Johnson.San Andreas has some epic disaster action visuals and visual style but offers nothing more than that. Dwayne Johnson delivers an enjoyable performance but seems and feel very underutilized at certain times. The rest of the cast and characters feels very underdeveloped. The movie also has some very unnecessary, boring and irritating characters that are totally useless in the film. San Andreas has many flaws and issues. The movie falls back in the terms of story plot, script and character development and lack of script originality in a disaster movie. And some times too much over use CGI effects in the movie makes it little bit of less interesting.(Please Note: That This Review represent only my professional point of view and my personal honest opinion about the film, and does not represent others. Thank You).

LouAbbottHalfway through "San Andreas", I couldn't help but visualize construction workers around the globe salivating. "We have jobs forever." Send the Japanese construction guys to California; they've dealt with another "force of nature" named Godzilla for many years. These guys could have California up and running again faster than you can say sequel. With the film's $474M worldwide gross, according to IMDb, you know there is a sequel on the way: "Godzilla vs. the San Andreas Fault."

bowmanblueI have to start by saying that I do ten to watch anything that Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson is in. For someone primarily known as an action star (and former wrestler to boot!) he does tend to offer *slightly* more range in the acting stakes than some of his contemporaries. Here, in 'San Andreas,' he doesn't have to utilise an awful lot of acting ability to portray a tough-as-nails helicopter pilot who must utilise his aerial skills to save his family when a freak earthquake hits the city. Yes, that's about the size of the plot. Anyway, I knew what I was getting. I've seen enough disaster movies to know the score – the actors normally come secondary to the special effects. And this film was no different.I began by actually quite enjoying the film. It doesn't take long before buildings start crumbling on a large scale and, when this happens, the special effects are indeed well done enough to at least make the devastation appear believable. Plus you have the ever-great Dwayne Johnson at the helm, who, as I've said, is always fun. However, it was about there that the fun started to come to an end.There's little even Johnson and the special effects department could do to prevent not only the city of San Andreas, but also the entire film, from slipping into oblivion. It was about a quarter into the film when I started asking the question: Is this film trying to be serious, or not? You see… these kind of disaster movies do follow patterns, or to put it a little harsher, have their own clichés. And 'San Andreas' starts to conform to so many of these that I was left wondering if they were checking every box on purpose in some sort of 'self knowing' kind of way. Sadly, by the end of the film I can confirm that they never had their tongue anywhere near their cheek.Once the disaster is underway, we're also treated to the couple who have split up getting back together, their subsequent inability to die while all around them drop like flies and the search for the child in danger. Now, I could almost forgive all of those if it wasn't for the fact that some actors appeared to be doing possibly the worst British actors since Dick Van Dyke! (Feel free to correct me and look them up online and inform me that they really WERE true Brits – but I'd be shocked!) So, a film that could have been really good fun was only reasonably due to Johnson and the effects. It's a shame that they couldn't have at least tried to make the sub-plots a little more original, as it makes the film pretty forgettable if you've seen as many disaster movies as I have. Plus Paul Giamatti was wasted and only there to try and give the film more of an air of gravitas.