San Andreas (2015)

Sexton finds it a thrilling, satisfying disaster movie, though its dialogue is unremarkable. He particularly praises Dwayne Johnson’s understated, gentle performance.

The review finds the film a predictable, overstuffed disaster movie that is entertaining largely because of Dwayne Johnson. It praises the jaw-dropping CGI and Johnson’s screen presence, while noting the screenplay can cause audience fatigue.

Bradshaw finds the film spectacularly silly and entertaining, recalling the pleasures of 1970s disaster movies. He singles out the rooftop pool frothing like a Jacuzzi as a memorable visual moment.

The accessible page identifies this as a review, but provides no verdict. Its specific praise or complaint is unavailable because the article is paywalled.

The accessible page does not reveal the critic’s verdict. Its headline describes Johnson rushing to rescue a collapsing world, but provides no evaluative detail.

The page could not be accessed, so the critic’s verdict and specific praise or complaint are unavailable. The URL identifies this as a RogerEbert.com review of the 2015 film.

Collins finds it an adrenaline-fuelled, large-scale thrill ride with a fairly conventional emotional focus. He praises the digital artistry that immerses viewers in the collapsing buildings.

Lowe finds the disaster film entertaining but not especially earthshaking, with its family drama an uneasy fit for the action. He praises Dwayne Johnson’s emotionally engaged performance and the convincing blend of practical effects and CGI.

Lane finds the film’s family-rescue story and acting unconvincing, but considers its disaster spectacle entertaining. He singles out the flooded city’s eerie atmosphere and Johnson’s more effective performance underwater.

Turan finds the film technically compelling but dramatically formulaic, making his verdict mixed. He praises the visual effects and Dwayne Johnson’s stabilizing screen presence, while criticizing the clichés and implausible plot.

Edelstein finds the film clunky and ridiculous but enjoyable in a suitably camp spirit, while criticizing its hollow spectacle. He praises Paul Giamatti’s performance and the film’s effects, but says its destruction lacks emotional weight or reverence for San Francisco.

The critic finds the film crushingly dull despite the scale of its destruction. He faults the spectacle for smothering authentic human drama and leaving its emotional core hard to locate.

The critic calls it a patience-testing disaster movie. The review singles out its earthquake spectacle, including a striking parachute sequence, while suggesting the spectacle does little to ease the film’s tedium.

Harley finds the film a familiar, uninvolving disaster spectacle whose script undermines its cast. He singles out the likeable performances, especially Alexandra Daddario and Hugo Johnstone-Burt, as a bright spot.

Gonzalez condemns the film as cynical and arrogant in its equation of Hollywood and American values. He particularly criticizes its use of mass destruction as a backdrop for reuniting a nuclear family.

Jolin finds the film entertaining as disaster spectacle but criticizes its familiar, shallow plotting. He praises the visual effects and Dwayne Johnson’s charisma, while objecting to the women being reduced to damsels in need of rescue.

Barker finds the film delivers foolish disaster-movie thrills at first but loses its appeal through spectacle overload and a lack of suspense. He praises Dwayne Johnson’s screen presence, while singling out the film’s best joke as dumb but out of place.

The critic finds the film dumb but entertaining, with its disaster spectacle overcoming its weak plotting. The exciting action set pieces are singled out as the chief reason it works.

McKnight finds the film a gleefully absurd, entertaining disaster spectacle, though its story and characters are thin. He praises the escalating destruction and visual scale, while noting that the effects eventually become numbing.

Crow finds the film an entertaining, broad disaster spectacle, though it is forgettable and occasionally plods. He praises the varied destruction set-pieces, especially the tsunami sequence at the Golden Gate Bridge.

Pape finds the film entertaining but too staged and melodramatic to feel authentic. He praises the breathtaking earthquake effects and singles out Paul Giamatti’s performance as the best thing about it.

The critic finds the film a spectacle-heavy, forgettable take on the disaster genre that fails to refresh its formula. The impressive effects-driven set-pieces are its main strength, though they are judged no more arresting than recent blockbusters.

The critic finds the disaster film spectacular but flawed and cheesy. They praise the crumbling-skyscraper panoramas while criticizing their repetition and the uneven, cheesy script.

The critic finds the film neither genuinely thrilling nor successful at balancing disaster spectacle with melodrama. They single out its visually forceful destruction sequences, but say the relentless effects and grim tone grow tiresome.

Hammond finds the film unintentionally funny and ultimately not much fun, blaming its weak script for undermining the disaster spectacle. He credits the competent effects but singles out the implausible characters and story as the film’s central failure.

The critic finds the film shallow, poorly scripted and lacking believable stakes, despite its impressive disaster spectacle. The visual effects are singled out for praise, while the characters and female agency draw sharp criticism.