samwalmsley I enjoyed watching this film as it's your typical Dwayne Johnson action packed movie with enough "action" and "disaster" scenes to keep you entertained even though early on in the film you start to realise that they have compromised reality and scientific fact for dramatic scenes. My one main observation of this film is that, however much I like her as an actress, Alexandra Daddario's role in this movie seems to be more about how many scenes they could get her in running in a low cut top rather than using her to her full acting potential. Don't get me wrong I'm not complaining about this and I know pretty much the whole story line is centred around her character being rescued but I just feel they overkilled the scenes with her running in a wet or low cut top to compensate for lack of reality and the amount of continuity errors in this film.Over all I enjoyed watching San Andreas with the none stop start to finish action and some very well shot disaster scenes but infeel they could have cut down a bit on The two female leads "revealing" outfits and it would have still been a decent fun to watch.Again I'm not complaining about the use of very attractive women in low cut tops but it almost feels like they knew this film wasn't going to be amazing so they tried to compensate by showing a fair bit of cleavage throughout haha.Anyway I enjoyed the film and would recommend it for one of those "I'm bored and fancy an easy to watch" film nights :)

chubbydave San AndreasThis is a movie about "The Big One", a huge earthquake in California. It focuses on The Rock who plays the worst first responder in the history of first responders. In the beginning they show him saving a young woman from a dramatic car accident without any regard to the spinal injury that she would have had to have suffered in such a horrific accident.Then when the earthquake hits, instead of reporting for duty to coordinate rescue efforts, he abandons his responsibilities and steals a rescue helicopter and uses it for personal use. He's just awful, and I cringe at such a horrible person this character is meanwhile being thankful for the many, many unselfish first responders who help people in need.But it's an exciting movie with a lot of special effects so it's fun to watch if you can stand this evil main character.

Mihai Toma After a massive earthquake which almost shatters California, a rescue helicopter pilot finds himself in the terrible position of saving both his wife and his daughter from the debris. As nature seems to have yet another shake in store for the people, he must act quick in order not to repeat an event from the past which marked his life ever since.It's one of those movies which has prepared a massive cataclysm for people to endure while focusing on a couple of characters and their fate throughout the fatidical moments. It simply impresses and amazes with its visual effects and CGI, but manages to be below par in every other aspect which is more or less movie related. Besides the fact that the pilot ditches any work related service and uses the work helicopter to save only his family, the main characters seem to have some kind of supernatural powers, those of high endurance to crashes, hits and wounding in general. It get it, it is supposed to be exaggerated, otherwise the movie wouldn't have existed, but it takes this exaggeration aspect to a mind boggling and even logic insulting level, thus spoiling the satisfaction which could have been provided afterwards. I honestly think that you can do it without having such unbelievable events which simply do not bring anything good (maybe irony), because we're not talking about a super-hero movie here.The main characters, on which the whole story focuses, aren't very sympathetic, creating little care from the viewer as far as their fate is concerned. Anyway, being as predictable as this movie is, you won't even think that something bad could happen to them, thus little worries here. I did enjoy some of the actors' performance though. The dialog also has a very important role, but not through its complexity or intelligence, but through its simplicity and complete lack of imagination, almost every line being composed of two or three words or something really obvious which simply stalls the action without any reason. The plot is overall simplistic and linear, managing to be have a complete lack of drama, or at least of drama which can be transmitted to the viewer. If you consider a drama only the fact that a quake struck a highly populated area (of course, movie-wise speaking; in real life of course it would be a massive drama) then it is highly dramatic. If you're looking for drama as far as the main characters are concerned, then you're completely out of luck.As an overall impression, it's just another "disaster" movie which has, as most of them, very impressive visuals, but fails in terms of logic, story-telling, characters or even plot. To be honest, I didn't have high expectations regarding it and I saw it just for the visuals which didn't let me down. If you're looking for anything else, you'll have to search elsewhere.

bowmanblue I 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.