Go back

San Andreas’s only fault is clichés

Oh my God, that was the most awesome movie I’ve ever seen.

Yes, yes, I know, no written work, let alone a film review, should start with those words, but it’s truly the only way you can talk about San Andreas aside from making the loud grunting noises of an excited ape.

From a film critic or snob’s point of view, it’s a terrible movie. The plot depends on every cliché in the book — if there was a book on writing disaster movies, this movie would probably be sued for plagiarism.

Let’s do a checklist of clichés in this movie. Likable single dad? Check. Said dad has emotional issues that led to his wife leaving him, but his ex-wife is still on good terms, and the dad, despite having an “emotional distance,” is sociable and everybody likes him? Check. Dickhead stepfather? Check. Disaster brings the family together? Obviously.

Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson plays Chief Raymond “Ray” Gaines, a search and rescue helicopter pilot for the LA fire department. He has a team, and they apparently came from the military together, but that’s not really important; his team just disappears after the first ten minutes. They don’t die, but The Rock is just a one-man team, I guess.

His family life has suffered since the tragic death of one of his daughters, however his other daughter (Alexandra Daddario) is going to college, while his wife (Carla Gugino) surprises him with divorce papers (she’s dating a millionaire real estate developer (Ioan Gruffudd)).

Meanwhile, the clichéd scientist character (Paul Giamatti) has some new theory to predict earthquakes. He and his scientist partner (who might as well be named Redshirt McDead), go to Las Vegas where there’s seismic activity, but no supposed fault lines. McDead suffers a heroic death, as there’s a big earthquake that destroys the Hoover Dam. Giamatti doesn’t have any time to grieve as he finds out a big one’s headed for San Francisco.

The Rock’s daughter has gone with her stepfather to San Fran on her way to college, while her mother is meeting with Kylie Minogue for some reason. The daughter meets some British kids, which is lucky because Mr. Fantastic turns out to be a complete coward when the earthquake hits, before eventually going full heel and pushing people out of his way. The British boys save The Rock’s daughter, and hang out with her for the rest of the movie, while The Rock tries to save his family.

You’ll never guess how it ends.

It’s always awesome to see a big city get destroyed (in the movies). The Rock is actually a pretty good actor — I nearly cried at his dramatic monologue — and the rest of the cast performed pretty well too.

My only qualm is that the movie drags on a bit too long; with a running time of 114 minutes, it could have afforded to be a bit closer to an hour and a half.

I may have exaggerated a tad, calling it the most awesome movie ever — that title belongs to either Flash Gordon or Highlander — but seriously, it’s the best. Everything’s so cheesy and formulaic that it just. . .works.

Was this article helpful?
0
0

Leave a Reply

Block title

Less is more for future FIFA World Cup and the environment

By: Tomos Land, Staff Writer It has barely been a week since the 2026 FIFA World Cup final, yet the focus has already shifted to future iterations of the tournament. After enjoying a bountiful event, which is forecast to bring in record levels of revenue, FIFA — the sport’s world governing body — is reported to be considering plans to expand the number of nations taking part. More teams at future world cups means more matches, fans, and host cities. Each of these factors come with a higher cost to the environment. Governments need to step up and require FIFA to host the competition in a country that has better green infrastructure. By reverting to a single host nation, the governing body can meaningfully reduce...

Read Next

Block title

Less is more for future FIFA World Cup and the environment

By: Tomos Land, Staff Writer It has barely been a week since the 2026 FIFA World Cup final, yet the focus has already shifted to future iterations of the tournament. After enjoying a bountiful event, which is forecast to bring in record levels of revenue, FIFA — the sport’s world governing body — is reported to be considering plans to expand the number of nations taking part. More teams at future world cups means more matches, fans, and host cities. Each of these factors come with a higher cost to the environment. Governments need to step up and require FIFA to host the competition in a country that has better green infrastructure. By reverting to a single host nation, the governing body can meaningfully reduce...

Block title

Less is more for future FIFA World Cup and the environment

By: Tomos Land, Staff Writer It has barely been a week since the 2026 FIFA World Cup final, yet the focus has already shifted to future iterations of the tournament. After enjoying a bountiful event, which is forecast to bring in record levels of revenue, FIFA — the sport’s world governing body — is reported to be considering plans to expand the number of nations taking part. More teams at future world cups means more matches, fans, and host cities. Each of these factors come with a higher cost to the environment. Governments need to step up and require FIFA to host the competition in a country that has better green infrastructure. By reverting to a single host nation, the governing body can meaningfully reduce...