Skip to main content

Are you saying you think the whole San Andreas fault may go off?

San Andreas
(2015)

Carlton Cuse penned the screenplay for San Andreas, presumably the Carlton Cuse of Nash Bridges and The Strain, rather than the one who shepherded Lost and The Adventures of Brisco County Jr to TV screens. The movie’s major claim to fame, and why it did a belter at the box office, is that it was shot in 3D. As such, it’s an unapologetic deluge of spectacle at the expense of any kind of logic, depth of characterisation or self-awareness.


The latter is San Andreas’ key failing, really. Helmed by someone other than Brad Peyton, it might easily have teetered on the brink of Airplane!-type bemusement with its own absurdity and idiocy. This is a movie, as others have pointed out, where our hero Ray, (Dwayne Johnson – The Rock to you and me) who has notched up 600 documented cases of rescues to his name in Afghanistan (he’s a goddam veteran!) and with the LA Fire Department Air Rescue, sods off when he has more important matters cooking; he heads off in his chopper to rescue his wife (Carla Gugino) and daughter. I guess the sheer force of bravery, goodwill and Rock-like decency he has hitherto built up are unassailable, justifying his dereliction of duty; you can derelicte his balls!


Like Bruce in Die Hard, Ray’s wife’s looking to divorce him, having hooked up with loathsome stinker Ioan Gruffudd; if you didn’t know he was a loathsome stinker for being British, the message is signed, sealed and ribboned when he leaves Ray’s daughter (Alexandra Daddario, of True Detective fame) to die in a parking garage. But wait, all English people aren’t awful; impossibly posh Hugo Johnstone-Burt and his impossibly irritating little brother Art Parkinson are on hand to save her.


Joining the dots here, with the towering ineptitude of a swarm of Irwin Allen epics, is Paul Giamatti’s Cassandra figure (“Professor, it looks like the whole San Andreas fault line is being activated, and its headed for San Francisco!” – just as Professor Paul predicted!) Early on he witnesses the Hoover Dam being swept away like it’s 2012 all over again, except not nearly as much goofy fun. We never find out what set off this carnage – terrorists, HAARP, aliens –  although I think it’s safe to say it can’t have been a purely natural phenomenon. With disaster porn like this, however, who has time for reasons?


Or consequences; Peyton and Cuse don’t care about anyone who isn’t within two degrees of Ray, so this is guilt-free destruction; whole cities are flattened as earthquakes quake and tsunamis torrent (how many nuclear power stations went down, I wonder?), and if a few Kylie Minogues or Gruffudds are taken out along the way, well they deserved it for being mean to Ray or Mrs Ray or their daughter. The score runs the gamut from Inception-esque BWAAAs to Lord of the Rings ethereal choirs with little in-between, entirely in keeping with the unmitigated bombast. It doesn’t bear close analysis why Ray must jump out of a plane (“It’s been a while since I got you to second base”, he quips to Carla as they land on a baseball field), or ride a tsunami; just be content in the knowledge that it seemed like a good idea at the time.


San Andreas has earned a sequel, of course, which appears to be taking the Die Harder route of bringing back the entire cast and sending them to another place of impossible peril (The Ring of Fire). Hopefully it will have a bit more fun with its ludicrousness.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

Never lose any sleep over accusations. Unless they can be proved, of course.

Strangers on a Train (1951) (SPOILERS) Watching a run of lesser Hitchcock films is apt to mislead one into thinking he was merely a highly competent, supremely professional stylist. It takes a picture where, to use a not inappropriate gourmand analogy, his juices were really flowing to remind oneself just how peerless he was when inspired. Strangers on a Train is one of his very, very best works, one he may have a few issues with but really deserves nary a word said against it, even in “compromised” form.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

You’re easily the best policeman in Moscow.

Gorky Park (1983) (SPOILERS) Michael Apted and workmanlike go hand in hand when it comes to thriller fare (his Bond outing barely registered a pulse). This adaptation of Martin Cruz Smith’s 1981 novel – by Dennis Potter, no less – is duly serviceable but resolutely unremarkable. William Hurt’s militsiya officer Renko investigates three faceless bodies found in the titular park. It was that grisly element that gave Gorky Park a certain cachet when I first saw it as an impressionable youngster. Which was actually not unfair, as it’s by far its most memorable aspect.

I don’t like fighting at all. I try not to do too much of it.

Cuba (1979) (SPOILERS) Cuba -based movies don’t have a great track record at the box office, unless Bad Boys II counts. I guess The Godfather Part II does qualify. Steven Soderbergh , who could later speak to box office bombs revolving around Castro’s revolution, called Richard Lester’s Cuba fascinating but flawed. Which is generous of him.