San Andreas - Relentless and Shallow (but Moderately Fun) Disaster Movie

San Andreas - Relentless and Shallow (but Moderately Fun) Disaster Movie

San Andreas is a shorter, more focused version of Roland Emmerich's 2012, and that's okay.

Read Full Article

Wait, this isn't a Roland Emmerich movie?

I just saw the trailers and assumed it was.

I'm pretty sure if your movie has some sort of disaster element to it there's a requirement to destroy the Golden Gate Bridge. Glad to know a movie was based around that.

The lower brain is just wanting to say that disaster films are "sooooooo nineties." But the higher part of the brain isn't here today, as it may have gone off to drink wine. So you only have to endure simple musings for now. Like whether this movie is helping viewers empathise with recent Nepal related disasters or just turning the idea into light entertainment.
2012's cgi was just too cgi-y that I got lost in unbelievable action scenes to feel any impact. But if you've ever seen a daytime TV disaster movie, any cgi is better than those...things. Bah. Wine!

Captcha: Two left feet. Oh really, captcha? Don't get me all surly now.

The ultimate question: Is it better than When Time Ran OUt?

the complete destruction of san francisco?


I thought we all agreed to pack this "disaster movie" shite in with 2012.
Funny thing is there was supposed to be a big-ass earthquake here in California yesterday, caused by a planetary alignment, or some such bollocks.

Whaddya MEAN this isn't Roland Emmerich? I feel BETRAYED.

...Still don't plan to see it. Massive-scale death isn't really how I get my jollies.

I went to see this purely to waste my time at a movie theater instead of at home.

I suppose if I could truly get mad at San Andreas it would be because it didn't tie into an alternate universe where Lex Luthor succeeded in his plan to nuke the San Andreas Fault.

I went in because there wasn't any other releases this week up here and I've seen everything else worth seeing that's currently in theatres, and 8$ for Imax is 8$ for Imax. I enjoyed it, though I went in knowing this was a disaster movie so my expectations where set at the right level (that is: literally none other then wanting to see decent quality destruction of the Bay Area). I wasn't disappointed, well with the only exception being that the first 5 minutes of the movie had the audio be a local radio station instead of that of the movie itself, but that's the fault of the theatre, not the movie (seriously, how hard is it to play the "audio" file and the "video" file at the same time? This isn't the first time this month there has been issues like this with Imax movies at this particular establishment, though usually they only happen during the trailers so no one really cares).

Is it worth watching to ogle Alexandria and Carla at least?

I will never not see a movie with The Rock in it because he always seems to be one of the few people in Hollywood who actually has fun doing his job. Any man that can get into that ridiculous Tooth Fairy outfit and have fuckin fun with it (without that fun being "Look how gay I look!") is someone who will always have my respect, and my money.

Seriously all my money.

It does look like a better movie than 2012, which was so absurd. Earth quakes without Noah's Ark's looks kinda reasonable by comparison.

...not getting the 2012 hate here.

As for this film: when I feel compelled to watch shit blow up and everything to be gloriously stupid but kinda earnest, I'll go back and watch 2012.

Is it worth watching to ogle Alexandria and Carla at least?

The internet exists, so no.

...not getting the 2012 hate here.

I kind of really, really hate 2012.


Reply to Thread

Posting on this forum is disabled.