Some context, before we begin: I’m a geology major at CSU. I went with a couple of my friends (also geology majors) to go see San Andreas the night it came out.

This review is not a summary of the movie, just bits and pieces of what I liked and didn’t like about it. However, spoilers will abound, so if you haven’t seen it yet, and don’t want to have anything spoiled for you, you may want to exit this page now.

The Good:

I don’t even know where to start. This movie was just a delight. I’m a big fan of The Rock, and he was great in this film. I don’t know when he got typecast as the “strong caring father figure action hero who respects women and protects his family as well as everyone around him” but I am so into it.

Also Alexandra Daddario (who plays Blake in the movie) is amazing and I’m a little in love with her. Blake is smart, empathetic, and uses her knowledge to try to help those around her during a crisis. Alexandra plays the role well, keeping Blake human and fallible and making the audience root for her throughout the film.

This movie, because it’s PG-13, got to use an f-bomb only once—and I am so glad of how they used it. Carla Gugino, who plays Emma, Blake’s mom, delivers the line so well half the theater cheered.

Most of the science (besides the geology, see below) was actually really accurate, especially by Hollywood. Landlines will often work even when cell towers are down, water withdrawing from the shoreline rapidly is a warning sign of an impending tsunami, and evacuating up a tall building to escape the tsunami is a real and valid strategy that several cities are implementing, especially those without easily accessible high ground.

The filming of this movie was rather spectacular. I ended up seeing it in 3D, which added to the awe factor, but is by no means necessary to enjoy the movie. There are beautiful fly-over shots of the Central Valley, which contrast nicely with the frequent scenes of destruction in Los Angeles and L.A.

The water physics for the tsunami was head and shoulders above what I’ve seen in other disaster movies. As technology has progressed, the imaging for giant waves has become more and more lifelike, and I’m very impressed.

The Bad:

Your mileage may vary on exactly how good this movie is. The plot is implausible at best, and all the loose ends are tied up quite tidily by the end. While I found this satisfying, some may consider it trite or overly positive for a disaster movie. My main personal critique of the plot of the movie (besides what’s mentioned below in the “Ugly” section of this review) is how remarkably heterosexual and cisgender this movie was, especially considering the vast majority of it was set in San Francisco. Come on, filmmakers, would it be really all that difficult to include a few queer couples holding hands and fighting for their lives in the apocalypse? The Rock rescuing a child and returning them to their two moms or dads? I’m not surprised by this lack, but I am a little disappointed.

The damage caused by the earthquake far exceeds what most models predict would actually occur in cities such as Los Angeles and San Francisco. However, this could be explained by the fact that the earthquake in San Andreas was much larger than can actually occur. The one thing that didn’t occur, which really should have based on historical precedent, was ground liquefaction in and around San Francisco, which would cause buildings to sink, streets to crack, and unconsolidated sediment to turn into a quicksand-like consistency.

The geology of this movie was by far its weakest point, which is why most of my criticism of it goes under

The Ugly:

There’s a lot to go over here, so let’s get going.

For starters, the San Andreas is a transform fault, not a subduction zone. It is also a network of faults, not a single fault (though this was touched on in the film).

Why does this matter?

Well to begin with, transform faults cannot create earthquakes as large as subduction zones can, on average. It’s been estimated that the largest earthquake the San Andreas could ever possibly cause would be around an 8.2. That’s a far, far cry from the 9.6 depicted in the movie. In addition, while earthquakes along subduction zones can cause tsunamis, since the San Andreas is not along a subduction zone, it would not cause a tsunami that could further destroy San Francisco.

The San Andreas Fault System does not go far enough south and east to impact the Hoover Dam. At all. The fault featured in the movie which subsequently destroys the Hoover Dam does not exist.

Seismologists cannot predict earthquakes, except in the most general of terms, as in “There’s a W% chance that an earthquake of X magnitude will occur along Y section of fault in the next Z years”. Not like “There will be an earthquake of at least a magnitude 9 near San Francisco in the next 24 hours!!” No, movie scientist. No.

TL;DR:

San Andreas was an enjoyable movie, but not geologically accurate in the slightest. However, the writing was good, the acting was great, the characters were believable, and the visual effects were stunning. Overall, a good summer movie, and one that I will definitely be buying on DVD.