MOVIE REVIEW: San Andreas (2015)

The disaster movie is among the most predictable kind that Hollywood can offer an audience. In the 1970s, at the height of their popularity, these kinds of films would attract A-list talent and end up becoming the highest grossing release of its year (such was the case with The Towering Inferno). More recent successes, such as Roland Emmerich's Independence Day from 1996 and The Day After Tomorrow from 2004, have only increased the scale and stakes of what audiences can expect from the genre, ranging from alien invasions to extreme global warming scenarios. Brad Peyton's San Andreas keeps the stakes big, but instead uses a somewhat plausible scenario (an enormous earthquake hitting the West Coast) and exaggerates it to an Emmerich-sized popcorn extravaganza. Unfortunately, Peyton's film was released at a time just shortly after recent earthquakes had devastated Nepal, and watching the San Andreas fault cause such huge amounts of destruction while audience members chew on popcorn can create an uneasy feeling in the theater.

There's not a whole lot to say for a movie like this when it comes down to a screenplay. Given the genre's conventions, this is a very formulaic and by-the-numbers disaster scenario. Ray Gaines (Dwayne Johnson) is a pilot for the Los Angeles Fire Department and Rescue, who is first seen in the opening sequence helping a young woman whose car has gotten stuck on the side of a cliff. This is, of course, meant to show Ray's skills and abilities that will come in handy when things start to go awry. Ray is soon to be divorced from his wife Emma (Carla Gugino), who is planning on moving in with her new boyfriend Daniel (Ioan Gruffud), a wealthy real estate developer. Ray and Emma's daughter, Blake (Alexandra Daddario), is heading back to college in San Francisco where she eventually ends up in danger from the 9.1 earthquake that Caltech seismologist Lawrence Hayes (Paul Giamatti) is warning everyone about on television. To go anywhere else from here with a plot synopsis would be to repeat how many buildings, cars, fields, stores, trucks, bridges and several other things get destroyed over the course of two hours.

All of that sounds far more dense or complicated than it really is. It's really just the story of one family coming back together amidst one enormously destructive event. It hits all of the cliches that you expect from this kind of film, and there's never any real suspense as to how things will turn out in the end. Paul Giamatti, the best actor in the whole cast, makes just about every scene that he's in work. It's an impressive feat considering the kind of ridiculous throwaway role he has to work with, and I couldn't help but chuckle seeing him stare gravely into the camera and tell people to get the hell out of San Francisco. I've always liked Dwayne Johnson as an action star; he's charismatic and he even shows some solid dramatic chops in a couple of key scenes here. Carla Gugino and Alexandra Daddario are similarly fine, and actually have more to do in the plot than I would have ever expected. Ioan Gruffud's character seems to be decent early on, but is later turned into a cliched one-note Evil Selfish Boyfriend since, you know, there has to be a villain in these things.

Still, as with any disaster movie, it's the spectacle that is at the forefront and the main reason people pay to watch this stuff. The visual effects look sufficient, but they are hardly anything outstanding. There's a weightlessness to a lot of the destruction as you see buildings collapse on top of other buildings that collapse onto even more buildings. Perhaps the term "disaster porn" is fitting for all of this, as it throws everything but the kitchen sink at the audience in regards to destruction. The whole city of San Francisco (which is yet again a screen casualty after recent films such as Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, Godzilla, and Terminator Genisys) is completely obliterated here. I lost count of how many notable landmarks no longer exist after sitting through this movie. If you've ever wanted to see The Rock drive a boat over a tsunami that is about to swallow the Golden Gate Bridge, your wish has been granted.

Perhaps the most noticeable thing about San Andreas is how much it relies on a lot of 9/11 imagery to generate any suspense. This isn't anything particularly new with a majority of post-9/11 Hollywood blockbusters, but here it's laid on pretty thick. Aside from seeing the large scale shots of buildings collapsing on one another, there are ground-level shots of civilians running away from huge clouds of smoke and debris that look eerily reminiscent of the videos and images from that day almost 14 years ago. To really drive the point home, the film ends with a huge American flag being draped over the Golden Gate Bridge, with Dwayne Johnson's closing line after he's asked what will happen next being, "We'll rebuild." After so many years of these kinds of tropes being exploited in big budget summer movies, you would think that the filmmakers would try to get a little more inventive with ways to induce a sense of fear and terror rather than relying on the same old bag of tricks. At this point it just feels overdone.

Overall, San Andreas works fine while you're watching it. Like any disaster movie, you'll get the most out of it by seeing it in a theater with a large screen and great sound system. It certainly won't have the same kind of effect on home video, since the human story is rather predictable. It's too bad that the film couldn't have been a bit more embracing of its own ridiculousness, as most of Roland Emmerich's similarly bombastic disaster extravaganzas are (his most recent White House Down being a fine example). The film could have also benefited from some tighter editing, as it feels about 20 minutes too long. As it stands, it works decently enough as the kind of movie you'd watch on a lazy Sunday afternoon to pass the time, but nothing really worth going out of your way for.

Rating: 2.5/4