I like how gory 'Alien: Covenant' is, though apart from that there isn't much to shout about. It's good, but that's it.
I'd say it's one of the weaker cast lists of the franchise, not that I have anything against the performances here but I wasn't blown away or overly interested in anyone in this 2017 production. Michael Fassbender is the obvious standout from an acting viewpoint, though I don't really dig his character all that much to be honest. The rest are a bit forgettable.
You can tell it's well made and it does look the part, with it being worth the watch to complete the franchise and all that. Of the sixth films, though, it'd be in my personal bottom two (*excl. short films) - in fairness, that isn't as bad as it sounds, it's just the series has seen better.

I would hate to be in the shoes of a filmmaker that needs to please a rabid fan base. The "Star Wars" sequels are a perfect example of this. Ridley Scott has the same challenge with the "Alien" prequels which you see in user scores.
I loved "Prometheus" with its attempt at something bigger than just more face huggers and xenomorphs wreaking havoc. It was clear he was building a grander story to the eventual bridge to the original "Alien."
He continues that bigger story with "Alien: Covenant" and whether he meant to provide fan service or not, we get that with face huggers and xenomorphs. (No spoiler as both are in the trailers.)
Do yourself a favor and watch the short clip "Last Supper" (youtu.be/EkXgRlRao5I ) before you watch the movie. At only five minutes, it gives a better introduction of the Covenant crew than the movie does providing deeper emotional investment in these characters.
Ultimately "Alien Covenant" delivers an excellent, fast-paced sci-fi action horror thriller (yes, it hits that many genres) like only Ridley Scott can that continues exploring the "Prometheus" theme of creation.

Though Michael Fassbender did a sublime job and the movie itself was visually immersive, the actions of the main characters did not seem very smart. I could forgive the decision that the newly installed captain Oram (Billy Crudup) took about going to the unknown planet. But everything that happened after David cut his hair exactly the same way Walter head just makes you shake your head in amusement and think ‘Oh, come on!’.
David, obsessed with the act of creation that had value in its end, uses any means available. It is remarkable that no one from the remaining crew has questioned imposter Walters’s identity and just carried on like the worst was left behind. Meanwhile, the last scene when Daniels (Katherine Waterston) realizes (finally!) that Walter is, in fact, David and she had totally screwed up with the thousands of colonizers and embryos on the ship… does give you slight goosebumps.

I paid to see the movie, just to see what all the hype was about. It's a mess, of course, from David going Nazi and practicing genocide, to the mindless violence of "an earthworm impaled on a hook to catch fish," to space idiots/children who aren't smart enough to be hall monitors.
I had wondered why some folk considered the first three "Alien" movies Canon and NOT the current set.
I'm with the "three and done" crowd, this movie is a Hollyweird popcorm flick.
"Do not watch this movie. God complexes and stupidity abound. Stay away if you value your peace of mind." (Repeating acoustic beacon)

**Good robot! Bad robot!**
After some gaps, the 'Alien' franchise came alive with the prequel 'Prometheum' which originally said to be a spin-off. Particularly, it landed in the hands of the original maker. Now, even the original title back in action. It's another prequel, hence the prequel series on the making. The next film too will be the same kind, before the overall storyline in the franchise align in a straight line.
I enjoyed it. But not as good as 'Prometheum' or the first two 'Alien' films. The issue with it was, the same old cliché. There's nothing in the story. It was like any space film that's set in a similar fashion. The 80 per cent of the film was what we had seen in the earlier 'Alien' films. Just altered scenes with a new cast and a great visuals. So the update makes it the special.
The story focused too much on the robot. The alien parts were reduced. Because it was like the first appearance of the original aliens we saw in the old films. Precisely to say, the origins. Genetic modification, crossbreeding, there comes the beast. From this film what I have learnt was, it was nothing but more or less the same old fear the humans have about that the robots which are the ones going to make humans go extinct. Except here the aliens come between them. Hence, falling prey to the same clichéd theme from any sci-fi that had humanoid.
Nevertheless, well maintained film in its balance coming from previous hits in the series and going forward to bring more hits. This flick would serve as a fine bridge between them. So only 18 years to go between this, from 2104 to 2122. I'm already anticipating the next film. As I have heard, that film would be focused more on the robot. That's going to be a different experience. Fassbender's time to have some space adventures.
_7/10_

Even the monkeys stood upright at some point.
Hee! Ridley Scott, it seems, is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't as regards the Alien franchise he so gloriously kick-started back in 1979. Prometheus was too cerebral for many and definitely bogged down by expectation levels. Not without flaws of course, but a very tidy science fiction piece it be. So we roll on to Alien Covenant, which while not universally reviled, has certainly garnered some fearful scorn in Alien franchise fan circles.
Alien Covenant is a cover version, no two ways about it, it's a retread of what was showcased in 1979, only with the tie-in to Prometheus and a continuation to the origins of Xenomorph and pals. Clearly we have a case of Scott making one for the fans, a return to chest busting goo and space adventurers under great duress, all of course while he fills in the blanks as well. For sure it's lazy when put up against Alien, and indeed against his other superlative sci- fi offerings such as Blade Runner and The Martian, but for those who lambasted Prometheus for its non Alien conventions, you have now got what you hankered for. Any expectation of this turning out to be a fresh masterpiece was always going to be crushed, so really it's best viewed as a loving retread. Yes! Bad science, plot and logic holes, average acting etc, these rightly don't deserve forgiveness, but it's hardly the devil's spawn here, in fact its's great fun as much as being a visual treat.
Log cabin on the lake.
We start with a prologue involving Weyland and David, the conversation involving creation, the most pertinent of which being the question of the ages, where do we come from? Then after a tantalising tinkle of the ivories for Wagner's "The Entry Of The Gods Into Valhalla", we are whisked into outer space 2104 to be in the company of the Colonisation Vessel Covenant. Crew 15 - Colonists 2000 - Embryos 1140. The destination is ORIGAE - 6, ETA in 7 years and 4 months. Only Walter the Android (Michael Fassbender) is awake, until it's time for the crew to be abruptly awakened from their hyper sleep...
Crusoe and the pathogen.
From the off disaster strikes, thrusting the crew into emotional strife. Characters are introduced, conversations and traits establishing the bare minimum that we need to know, then a ghost transmission is received from Sector 87, planet number 4, and off we go into familiar territory. Things inevitably go from bad to worse and the action, blood flow and creature feature conventions are all laid out for our digestion. There's some surprises in store, with Fassbender a double bonus, and there's some striking chatter ranging from if there's benefits of the human race? and even that involving the poets Byron and Shelley.
Bed Bugs.
Who will survive? If anyone? Just what does the finale have in store? As we get devilish answers, and the barn storming aural pleasures of the full orchestral version of "The Entry Of The Gods Into Valhalla", it's tied up nicely and the pulse rate can settle. Job done. No bar raising here, no film to push the space lander out into new dimensions, just a good honest sci-fi thriller to be viewed with that in mind. 7/10

Watched Alien: Covenant a 3rd time. It is a lot better than first meets the eye. The drastic difference from what we were expecting in direction from Prometheus threw all of us off. We had expectations of what we would get to see and we didn't get those. There is so much detail and such good acting. It takes multiple watches to pick up on it all. It blends the styles of Alien, Aliens, and Prometheus all together and does it very well. There is also a lot of subtle reference to Terminator 2. The dynamic between the androids Walter and David and the acting that went into that is something quite special. In that alone is a reference to T:2. My first 2 watches I didn't appreciate the android Walter like the character deserves. I was biased against his character in light of the android David. The android Walter and how he was portrayed also blends the style of android we see in Aliens. The actor's voice and demeanor reflect that of the android Bishop and gives us a bridge to his design. Michael Fassbender really did one hell of a job acting those two parts of Walter and David. Near the end of the movie there is another nod to T:2 as a beam is clearly marked as such and the scene that follows has a strong T:2/Aliens sequence and taste in styling to it. Through and through the acting is very good. Details are abound everywhere. There are a few points of rather convenient plots however overall the film is now among my favorites right along side Aliens and T:2.

Not sure about all the bad reviews, I enjoyed the movie. I'm guessing because I wasn't expecting it to be particularly cerebral. Its a sci-fi/horror flick, I was looking forward to Sir Ridley Scott coming up with new and disgusting ways to terrorize the cast and I wasn't disappointed. Of course, the android going rogue was pretty obvious, but if the Star Wars franchise can feature a planet destroying space station in 3 of 7 movies, I'll give Sir Ridley a pass. If you are looking for the loose ends from Prometheus to be tied up, I suggest you include Sir Ridley in your prayers so he can survive long enough (the man is friggin 80) to film the prequel to _Covenant_ currently titled _Awakening_ that will hopefully meet your expectations.

I agree with most of the negative comments about this movie.It is a gigantic missed opportunity.My biggest issue apart from the utter predictability and nonsensical,inept script,was the disappointment of seeing 'Prometheus' mixed up with 'Alien'
Alien covenant gets locked up in its own self importance while forgetting why we loved 'Alien' in the first place.I really wanted to like it but came a way with a huge sense of disappointment

**Limps along under the weight of its own importance.**
I love my films dripping with self importance and this one is definitely one of them. I can't get enough of these films that positively bubble over with a high handed, serious and arrogant attitude that indicates that there is no film quite as important as this one.
This film knows it all. It knows everything that we- the lowly, pathetic and simple minded audience do not know and could not ever possibly know because we are not intelligent enough to grasp anything, you see?
For such an authoritative, superior and intelligent film - I find it odd that every character stumbles around like a simple minded cretin making unwise decision after unwise decision.
Ridley and his scriptwriters seem to think that they are intellectuals but somehow they just _can't pull off_ the role of **being** an intellectual.
- Simon Quinlank

I had a few reservations going in to _Alien: Covenant_. In my opinion there hasn't been a truly great entry to the franchise since _Aliens_, so I was worried that the statistics were against it. I thought _Prometheus_ was incredible from a technical standpoint, but not a very engaging movie, and I was worried we might get the same here. The trailers had been mostly good but I was worried I had seen too much of the third act in them, and I was worried this would spoil the experience for me a little.
What I was not worried about was within ten minutes of the damn thing starting I would think to myself: "Wow, this movie is really poorly made."
Well I guess I'm an idiot because that is exactly what happened. And that feeling never entirely abated over the course of the whole thing.
Don't get me wrong, it's no "_AVP: Requiem_", but I was still very disappointed.
_Final rating:★★ - Had some things that appeal to me, but a poor finished product._

Alien Covenant marks the third Alien movie directed by Ridley Scott and the second prequel to the franchise after Prometheus. They also seem to be getting worse with age.
Prometheus was really a lot of questions searching for answers, ambitious in asking not only about the creation of alien life, but human life as well. However the plan to stretch out these topics into 3 or 4 movies should be met with some skepticism.
Especially considering the basis for this was started by Damon Lindeloff, the creator of Lost and the man most of us are still waiting for answers for most of the things that happened on Lost.
He of course has abandoned this second movie, leaving it in the hands of the far more capable John Logan, but even he struggles to find meaning here, or escape the clichés that have started to grow like a Xenomorph in John Hurt's stomach.
We're dealing with a whole new crew this time; the Covenant. They are headed on a colonial mission to another planet before an electric shock takes out the ship, the Captain, and 47 other members.
Reluctant to get back into their pods for a 7 year journey, the on board crew responsible for the ship's upkeep decide instead to answer a distress transmission coming from another planet.
That's where they find what continues to be the best character in these prequels; Michael Fassbender's David the Android. His motivations and whether he considers himself human or God is constantly in question and Fassbender's soft-spoken performance continues to haunt.
I also really do consider Prometheus to be one of the most gorgeous-looking special films of the last decade and this continues that- from the Covenant ship to the grain fields and other vegetation eerily covering the mostly desolate other terrain of the planet.
We also get the first look at the Neo-morph, who is born the same way, seems a bit faster than the Xeno-morph but the main differences are it doesn't have the Venus fly trap tongue and it can stand like a human. Pretty cool.
Just it's at this point I should probably say that after Aliens there started to be less reason to want these. Alien 3 was fine, Prometheus I thought could really go either way depending on the sequels, and Alien 4 of course was garbage.
The biggest problem here is that it feels so redundant. We get a distress call, the crew investigates, some background characters do stupid things leading to impregnation, someone says "we never should have come", final alien chase.
The aliens, when you can see them, are cool, but there is a lot of downtime between them, and a few quality kills does not a 200 million dollar mega blockbuster make.
It's also really odd that Prometheus does this whole thing of setting up the engineers as the creators of human beings but here they only get one scene and let's just say those looking for more info about them will get angry.
The promise of some larger conversation is in here somewhere but these movies feel so stretched out at this point that when this does get to the few moments of actually having something to say, it's hard to get re-engaged.
The characters don't help either as most just come off like archetypes. Katherine Waterston is the Captain's widow and really the bargain basement Ellen Ripley here.
Billy Crudup plays the faith-based character, and like the last movie, this movie seems to be including that without ever really giving it value in the meaning of life conversation.
But at least those two have some background. I'm so tired of most of these others. The ones who just go tramping through the woods of an unknown planet or show the decision making skills of the Trump administration. You're not supposed to make us root for the alien, guys.
Finally i'm no closer to understanding why these movies are necessary. It's easy to tell what this movie wants to do and it's even easier to see the twist coming a half hour before it even comes.
There are a few nice kills here, I will give the movie that. If you can remember to wake yourself every time Fassbender and Fassbender (he also plays an android named Walter) have a philosophy conversation, you might find some interesting stuff there too. But overall not enough action or thought to make this overly drawn out series seem necessary.
So I go 5/10. For more reviews, check me out on Youtube here- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCY_IvAm1bJADConJhDCuq6A

"At times a thrilling, stomach-churning journey, but one that leaves those on board wondering if the disorientation and down time was worth the investment..."
Read the full review here: http://screen-space.squarespace.com/reviews/2017/5/8/alien-covenant.html

When a domestic mission goes quite spectacularly, if quite innovatively, wrong the enthusiastic but somewhat naive FBI agent "Kate" (Emily Blunt) is offered a chance to sign up for a team that's going to avenge things. It's to be run by "Graver" (Josh Brolin) and feature the strong, silent and enigmatic type that is "Alejandro" (Benicio Del Toro). She doesn't much like the look of him, indeed she finds the whole operation a bit dodgy but off to El Paso they go to try to stop the war against the increasingly well armed and successful drug cartels. Their objective is not to tinker with the mechanics of these operations, but to identify the kingpins and remove them from the board. What she (and we) soon realise is that this is one of those missions far more clandestine than it is lawful. Plenty of rules are stretched, ignored or just downright broken as their team must fight with the weapons of the enemy if they are to have any chance of tracking down their primary target - "Manuel Díaz" (Bernardo Saracino). What she also comes to realise quite quickly is that she is not fully briefed, indeed she is being drip fed information in a fashion that frequently drives her to want to throw in the towel. She prevails, though, and as the plot unravels we are all exposed to a ruthless, efficient and internecine network that is easily a match for it's theoretically better armed and informed pursuers. It's also at this stage that we appreciate that "Alejandro" does have his own agenda, and woe betides anyone who gets between him and his self-appointed task. Though Brolin is really neither here nor there here, this features a strong effort from Blunt as "Kate" comes to terms with some fairly profound challenges to her morals and principles. Del Toro doesn't have too much to say, but again he delivers well in his usual less-is-more style. Little dialogue just a menacing style of characterisation that you just know is only on her side until, well, he might not be. It hits the ground running and takes care to establish characters that are plausible, if not especially likeable, whilst showing us what might be as true an assessment of the war for control of the billion dollar narcotics industry as we'll have seen on a big screen.

Great cast performances!
'Sicario' has a lot going in its favour, for example the cinematography and the sound design, but it is those onscreen that elevate this release up for me. Emily Blunt is excellent, Josh Brolin is very good himself. Benicio del Toro is, though, the strongest performer in my opinion, I thoroughly enjoyed watching him portray Alejandro. Elsewhere, neat to have Jon Bernthal involved, Daniel Kaluuya too.
I will say that the film didn't totally enthrall me as much as I was anticipating/hoping it would, but that's not to take away from the fact that this is an entertaining movie and one that is definitely worth a watch. Looking forward to seeing what the sequels hold.

**A good kind of mystery**
A security operation through which a large number of corpses are explored reveals that there is a cartel war rising on the horizon, but in a hidden way, and ends with the formation of a team to eliminate the cartel in Mexico and target the big heads.
The film focuses on the points of view of 3 people in the direction of the case, the first is Kate, a beginner who follows the laws strictly and considers that the mission is a moral responsibility, the second is Alejandro as Benicio Del Toro, who is experienced with mysterious intentions, and the third is Silvio (asiliano Maxim Hernandez), the Mexican policeman on his mission own.
All of these personalities have their own side, who pulls the other into his world, and who is the correct point of view among them. The film focuses on questions and personalities, not events, in order to reach the Mexican cartel. Each character has a special direction to reach the goal, and this makes their opposing ideas cause a sharp collision between order and chaos, and between formulas that allow bad action and the fine line between good and evil.
The film's opposing characters gave the film a mystery and made us wonder what exactly is happening and why it is implemented in this way. Then we quickly get to know the characters, but they are opposite through their actions and reactions. With these details, the director and writer were able to communicate their point of view to the viewer, and it was three things: how and when does information reach the viewer How do they hide this information, how do they benefit from this concealment, and finally how is tension built.
Are Kate right or Matt and Alejandro right? Those who made Kate a marginalized role, so why did they choose her from the beginning until she abused her reactions, as if they were deliberately provoking her? We see the words of Matt and Alejandro and their side conversations, as well as their planning and movements with the mission and Kate, and we do not know what is happening, but when the information reached us, it reached us without value, as if they were taking advantage of Kate's ignorance and her presence for goals, but she is in the first place These targets are unknown.
These vague goals are considered a problem in the subtraction, because when the viewer is not aware of what is happening, the matter becomes blurry and the events are considered vague, but Kate, since she is the character, has the same problem as the viewer, so she became a source of strength and is the basis of the course of the movie. It was wonderful when you see a mystery of this kind.

Still a fantastic crime suspense-thriller featuring great performances but one better than Benicio Del Toro who should have gotten an Oscar nomination for that role, not to mention the direction from Denis Villeneuve. As always Roger Deakins's cinematography was brilliant. **4.75/5**

Not since the opening farmhouse scene from _Inglourious Barsteds_ have I seen such masterful control of palpable tension.
_Final rating: ★★★½ - I strongly recommend you make the time._

'Sicario' was a really good action film. The acting all around was very good (in particularly Emily Blunt). The set pieces were very well made.
★★★½

An stereotypical plot with, somehow, some interesting addition.
The plot is not superb but the script is really good, Del Toro makes a good performance and, as alway, a great pleasure to watch any movie with Emily Blunt on it. Great performance.
The directing is also really good and the soundtrack is remarkable, creating quite an atmosphere.
Finally, the action scenes are very well done, with a sense of contempt. No fireworks here, just something that can be the closest to reality.

> One of the finest movie about the raids on cartel gangs.
This was really a great film. Fighting against the drug trafficking was the theme. The story of an FBI agent who was recruited to work in an elite force that no one knows its existence. Their's aim is to tackle the main source, instead to deal with its lower order. Something that impossible to do without international cooperation. Every raid is done in secretively, sometime if required at any cost in whatever effort to stop it. Like I said, this was an awesome movie, and good to see it after the documentary like 'Cartel Land'.
The story is kind of hard to detail it out, because it was more an action movie than the talking. How a special force unit goes after the bad guys and stops them is the main plot. But the characters were so distinctive, every main roles had their own agenda for what they are doing and that's how the narration dominated with the high standards.
The cast who played them were simply outstanding, including that starts with Emily Blunt, who is someone looks changed the attitude to play physically challenging roles after 'Edge of Tomorrow'. And then Josh Brolin and another one, an upcoming young British actor who I really don't know, but Benicio Del Toro was actually the show stealer.
His part was unexpectedly great, totally raw and aggressive. Especially the his end scene, no one could have guessed it, but that's how the way it is. No doubt any top actors would have denied to perform that, anyway well shot with minimum violence, but the intention was very clear as fighting against the dark forces to cut off the head first. One of the best movie of the year, so definitely recommended if you're interested.
8½/10

Top Gun is incredibly cheesy but has a ton of heart leading me to fall in love with the characters of this film. The plot was a bit weak, but the connections and development these characters had is what really made me enjoy it. The action sequences with fighter jets were bad and filmed poorly where I had a hard time distinguishing what was happening in the air. I enjoyed my time on the ground much more, and that held it back quite a bit.
Score: 64%
Verdict: Decent

Back in 1986, "Take My Breath Away" was ubiquitous. It had airplay everywhere and made the band "Berlin" an household name. That is just about all, I have to say, that is memorable about this otherwise rather dull, testosterone driven, airborne adventure movie that really doesn't show these military elite in much of a good light. "Maverick" (Tom Cruise) is the aptly named hot-shot who is sent to the "Top Gun" flying school for the top 1% of the top 1%, where his individual style - along side his co-pilot "Goose" (Anthony Edwards) - manages to irk just about everyone; especially his arch rival "Ice" (Val Kilmer). Who will win out in this ultimate of willie-waving exercises? Well if you can't guess that from the very start, then don't bother. I suppose this is meant to extol the virtues of pride and loyalty, but for the most part - for me anyway - this is the kind of movie that does those is the military no favours at all. The dialogue is frequently vulgar and puerile, offering us characterisations that are at best smug, at worst just plain irritating. Of course, there is a romance as our Levi-clad diminutive star hits it off with his tutor "Charlie" (Kelly McGillis); we have a little bit of tragedy and then, of course, a denouement that was simply never in doubt. Tony Scott has managed to deliver a film that is quickly paced, with plenty of decent action photography as the planes and the aircraft carriers do their stuff, but the substance to the characters and the acting itself - Kilmer and McGillis are really just acting by numbers - leaves this film to ride on it's handsome and mischievous star who does exude a certain charm, as he always does, and on it's AOR soundtrack that features many songs way more memorable than the movie. I appreciate that those more technically savvy have poked loads of holes in the detail of the film. I am not one of those folks, so I watched it the other day in the cinema on face value, and I can't say these flaws seem to matter too much to the overall look of the film. It's just that it's not really very good.

MORE REVIEWS @ https://www.msbreviews.com/
Rewatched Top Gun before seeing the sequel.
Its treatment of female characters clearly didn't age well, but I still had tons of fun. The aerial sequences remain exciting and the male camaraderie originates many memorable dialogues. Awesome score and iconic sunglasses.
Rating: B

You'll struggle to find a more cheesy film, even so 'Top Gun' is a super film.
I need to check out more of Tony Scott's work because he has yet to let me down from the flicks of his that I've seen; on that note I'd put this below 'Crimson Tide' and Unstoppable', but it is still one of his best I'm sure. The action is great, as is the pacing and music; even with "Take My Breath Away" being slightly overused at one point.
Tom Cruise is excellent in the lead role, no doubt the perfect choice to play Maverick. Kelly McGillis, Val Kilmer, Anthony Edwards, Tom Skerritt, Michael Ironside... ace cast! Tim Robbins, Andy Dufresne himself, is even involved too. They all commit to their roles and give noteworthy performances.
'Top Gun: Maverick' is literally right around the corner. I'm expecting positive things from that sequel.

Solid enough, if not overly long, disaster movie. Dwayne Johnson is... well Dwayne Johnson but has more than enough charisma to carry this and never a bad thing having BOTH Carla Gugino and Alexandra Daddario either. Some of the effects were pretty good, others a bit iffy however. Still, I enjoy these disaster movies and while it doesn't measure up to The Poseidon Adventure or The Towering Inferno, but entertaining nonetheless. **3.5/5**

This is a classical Hollywood movie, thin plot and a lot of effects. However, this time, I quite liked it. Actually I liked it a lot. The plot, although thin, is not altogether bad, it holds together even though are quite a few unbelievable moments. However, put in the context of a traditional disaster movie, it is not bad.. Maybe this is what I like about the movie. It is really a good old fashioned disaster movie.
When I first read the blurb about this movie I was afraid that it was going to be a big apocalypse at the beginning and then it was going to be a “slow” search for Ray’s daughter. It is nothing of the kind. It has a decent build up of suspense up to quite a few more or less spectacular earth quake scenes … and then it continues. I was pretty happy that there was a decent build up from the start but I was even more happy that the initial earth wrecking event was actually not the big event.
As I wrote at the beginning, the plot is pretty thin. The special effects are not however. At least, I liked them. Not surprisingly houses a are falling over like there was no tomorrow (which for a lot of people there are not) but it is done quite well. I also liked the scenes where the earth wobbles when Ray and his wife flies over it in his chopper. I found that quite cool. There are a few moments that are, well let us say not too well thought through. For instance the classical collapsing building that collapses in the just the right pace for the heroes to do there job. The we have when Ray and his wife speeds through the waters of Los Angeles after the quake, which are riddled with trash. The amount of trash in the water would have rendered their propeller useless after a few hundred meters. But then, I think I am too much of an engineer now.
Speaking of Ray’s wife. That was one of the things I really did not like with the movie. Maybe the movie directors and actors in Hollywood are so used to divorcing all the time that they think it is a “standard” plot element and do not think twice about it but for us other “ordinary” people it is a tragedy (especially people outside of the US apparently if one should go by the trash that is spewed out from Hollywood all the time) and I really do not want to watch that crap all the time in movies and TV-shows! I was actually tempted to downgrade the movie at last a star, even two, for that crap but what the heck, it is a good movie and I do like “The Rock”.
So after, after that little outburst, I have to say that I this one was a really enjoyable movie. One of the few lately that I have watched. It is a quite good, classical, disaster movie with a good build up, really good effects and a good and happy ending (for the main characters at last) and I am a sucker for happy endings.

I have never been a fan of the Disaster genre, I don't seem to be able to take much more away from it than visual noise. I was hoping that the combined might of Alexandra Daddario and The Rock would be enough to turn me around on _San Andreas_, alas, it was not to be.
_Final rating:★★ - Had some things that appeal to me, but a poor finished product._

Lots of rocks everywhere...
It's CGI destruction time as Dwayne Johnson battles earthquakes and a tsunami to go rescue his daughter - with estranged wife in tow of course.
Disaster films are easy to kick because very rarely they are nothing more than candy carnage with a trite screenplay and cheese laden dialogue. Such is the case with San Andreas. In essence this is a remake of Roland Emmerich's 2012, only this is the shorter version with the time span that 2012 should have had. This does exactly what the marketing department promised it would, namely lots of crash bang and wallop, but just like Emmerich's behemoth it gets boring entering the final third, the writing just not good enough to hold interest once the noise and destruction dies down before the big finale arrives. Suspense is absent, emotional investment in characters is null and void, while there are no worthwhile surprises in store. But on the plus side Johnson is a likable guy and he carries us through till the end of what is a fun movie if expectation levels are appropriately set at dumb popcorn fodder. 6/10

> Film San Andreas nice but to be honest I do not like the plot, why? because in the story of this movie seem monotonous and selfish. Many victims around but why Ray and Emma only focused to rescue his daughter (Blake) alone, but Ray is living as rescuers, the film tends to be lacking in the delivery of its humanitarian message.