ReaderKenka Let's be realistic.

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

Teddie Blake The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

Skyler Great movie. Not sure what people expected but I found it highly entertaining.

Michael Ledo PLOT SPOILER REVIEW???Ray (Dwayne Johnson) is ex-military working for LA Fire and Rescue. In the opening scene, God rightly attempts to kill the world's most distracted driver, and Ray foils the plan with a helicopter that has its own swagger music. In a subplot that never connects, Paul Giamatti plays Professor Hayes at Cal Tech who predicts the big one, i.e what happens in Vegas, happens in LA.The basic plot is the same as an Asylum disaster movie plot. A great disaster happens, and the film concentrates on one typical 2.3 child family trying to come together. In this case substitute a new male friend and his brother for 1.3 kids. The main difference is that Ray is separated from his wife (Carla Gugino) who is going to live with her new boyfriend Daniel (Ioan Gruffudd) and his daughter Blake (Alexandra Daddario). Yes I had "Taken" plot flashbacks and wondered if they were going to include Albanians. Liam Neeson would have stopped the looters.As far as the plot, I really don't have to say anything more. Unless you are younger than the film rating, you will have the whole thing figured out in the first 10 minutes. Even the action within the scenes are predictable, like the Hoover dam scene hand off.The soundtrack was typical. What separated this from an Asylum flick was the special effects, actors, and lack of insignia gaffs.If you want on overly predictable action/disaster film, this is it.Guide: 1-2 F-bombs. No sex or nudity.

stanward Sure the film is not meant for a huge complex audience or even to win awards, it's meant to be a feel good, suspenseful action disaster movie. There was a lot of negative critical reviews but I, personally, can't see what or where that has come from. The CGI is good and realistic. The plot is fairly solid and the acting is good. Dwayne johnsons performance is good. So are the other cast members. Overall the age rating to the film is agreeable. The violence is not too graphic but not suitable for audiences under 10. Language isn't perfect with one f word and other milder profanity. The film is very intense throughout. Overall my verdict to the film is that it is a very good, feel good, emotional, rollercoaster thrill ride of a movie that keeps you on the edge of your seat.

iamtherobotman Ok, so what can I say? If you enjoy pure action, high drama and a barrowload of coincidences and near misses then this is the film for you. I lost count the number of times someone escaped by the skin of their teeth sheer moments before a building collapsed or a bridge or a ship comes careering up Main street.Don't get me wrong, this isn't a bad film, it's just all so predictable and gung ho and overly 'YEAH USA, USA, USA'. Sometimes it would be good to watch an Action film that perhaps wasn't quite as far fetched as Hollywood seems to like. The ease at which buildings were ripped apart like sheets of paper was frightening. Surely in an area such as San Francisco which is in a high risk Earthquake zone buildings are constructed to a standard so as to be resistant to tremors. The buildings here were destroyed like the Three Pigs house of Straw. No building or structure escaped undamaged and that just simply wouldn't happen.Much of the film was well acted, i'm beginning to become a bit of a fan of Dwayne Johnson, he's not a bad actor in the films I've seen him in ( other than the Mummy/Scorpion King which were just really bad films), Alexandra Daddario seems fairly versatile in her acting and done a decent job here... On the whole there were no major complaints about the acting ability of the cast, perhaps the direction left a bit to be desired at times, but you can't blame the Actors for that.Some of the effects were well executed, the rippling of the ground as the tremors struck was nicely done, though as mentioned earlier they went a bit OTT with the destruction side of things.Overall not bad as a film, as a piece of eye candy not to be taken seriously. But please, Hollywood, can we have a change from the norm. This type of film could be excellent but they rely far too heavily on these coincidental occurrences tightly packed into the 90 minutes and often the storyline ends up lacking.

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.