Jennifer's Body & Spring Breakers

Women in film have been misrepresented for decades and are often misunderstood. Whilst some would insist that an image of a sexually promiscuous woman is belittling, many would argue that the film’s creators are simply trying to display the different types of women in the world in an honest light. Painting all women as polite and perfect is just as insulting as depicting them all as ‘crazy’ men obsessed hags. Stereotyping works on many levels and expands past geographical and racial staple points. By identifying women on a ‘one or other’ type basis, we limit our development in society.

Both Harmony Korine and Karyn Kusama are popular for displaying sexuality amongst teenagers and being unapologetic for doing so. In Kusama’s Jennifer’s Body both of the female leads can be seen engaging in sex.[1] Similarly, in Korine’s Spring Breakers, the girls are very clearly sexually active even before their fateful meeting with Alien.[2] It can be easy to forget that the girls in these movies are in high school or college, making most of them under the age of twenty. But many directors, and writers alike, chose to highlight the sexual nature of these young woman to mirror the increasingly over sexualised society that children are growing up in. The female characters in both films could be described as being dangerous on varying levels, whether it be their brain that acts as a threat, their sexuality or in the case of Kusama’s film, the actual body is a weapon.

The women in Jennifer’s Body are represented as growing increasingly more dangerous as the film builds to the climax – a fight to the death between our two female protagonists. Amanda Seyfried plays timid, smart Needy who embodies the qualities of a typical ‘best friend’. She is loyal, despite differences and is protective, despite the danger associated with the friendship. Needy is challenged by her best friend Jennifer after a mistake involving a virginal sacrifice. Jennifer becomes increasingly more possessive and blood thirsty and as she quenches that thirst, her body becomes stronger and she becomes somewhat indestructible. She uses her seemingly perfect body to lure her prey before devouring them. Kusama, producers and casting director Mindy Marin, selected popular actress at the time Megan Fox to star as Jennifer. This was due to the overwhelming response that Fox got for her movie Transformers, however this response was not about her acting but rather focused on the actresses ‘perfect’ looks.[3] Even Needy, a girl written as awkward and homely, is played by stunning Hollywood actress, Amanda Seyfried. Both girls’ strengths are tested with some insisting that despite her demise, Jennifer won the final battle because Needy, bitten in battle, contracted some of the ‘evil’ essence inside of her best friend. The film displays gradual increases in danger levels and the accusation of power over time.

This is in comparison to Spring Breakers, where from the very beginning of the film, at least three of the girls are very willing to be violent and aggressive. From the outset of the film, character Brittany seems to have a strange obsession with guns and makes the symbol for one with her hands. This foreshadows the role that guns later play in the film. The girls are all open about their illegal activities and have no shame or regret until they are arrested. It could be noted that the arrival of Alien was the beginning of the groups downfall when in actual fact, the way they conducted themselves and the risks that they take from the beginning suggest that had it not been Alien it could have easily been someone else. The dangers that the Spring Breakers encountered were more realistic as they included drugs, alcohol and gangs. These are very real in comparison to Jennifer’s Body’s satanic sacrifices and boy eating teenage girls. However this can be explained by one film representing a symbolic journey and the other being an exaggerated truth. 

The symbolism within both films is very apparent however, the metaphors conceived in the final scenes of Jennifer’s Body are perhaps a little more controversial. The scenes are highly suggestive and metaphorically similar to the ‘postfeminist media representation: women who embrace violence as a refusal of victimhood.’[4] Needy escapes the mental institution at the end of the film and hunts down the band that initially sacrificed her friend, causing the ripple effect of damage and pain in her life. She chooses to embrace the powers she inherits and decides to use them to gain revenge. This ‘power feminism’ wave is common amongst women who have experienced abuse and refuse to be seen as the weaker individual therefore they can themselves become aggressive and abusive, starting a destructive cycle of abuse.[5] 

This adoption of violence in an attempt to better their lives is also seen in Spring Breakers. By the end of the film, only two of the girls remain and despite watching their ‘leader’ shot down in front of them, they continue on their killing spree to the sound of a voiceover where they can be heard promising to ‘be better’ now. If anything, this final scene showed the girls killing in an attempt to assert their own power to each other and to prove that they are capable of even the darkest behaviours, after all they never took anything away from the scene. They never took money, jewels or drugs. Out of the senseless violence, emerges two better people? Korine never lets us know what happens to the girls once they get home, but it’s unlikely the two go on to do great things just because they were able to senselessly murder. 

Interestingly Korine casts his own wife to play one of the spring breakers who is in a bikini for 90% of the film. The film mirrors the recent over sexualisation of young girls in society. Popular culture tends to show the western world as being ‘a society that is “postfeminist” and situates girls and “women” as liberated and empowered’ when we prematurely sexualise our young girls and teach them to value the materialistic and shallow values of a pre-second wave society.[6] Spring Breakers visually reminds us of how semi-nudity and scanty clothing is now acceptable for young girls. Bikinis and other provocative small items of clothing are considered more than just beach wear. In the opening sequence of the film, an explicit montage of half-naked women shows breasts and asses but not a single shot of a man displaying his genitals. From the very beginning of the film we assume that women are objects to be played with and ogled at. And even during emotional and poignant moments of dialogue within the film, the girls are still dressed in bikinis which works to belittle the words they say. An important aspect that Korine may have employed in order to show the difference between how far we think we have come and how far we actually have developed in relation to equality and viewing women equally.

Jennifer’s Body deals with virginity and the ‘first time’ in terms of sexual activity. Rather than displaying the female body as candidly as in Korine’s film, Kusama takes a more conservative approach whilst still making sure to emphasise the allure of a young woman’s body. This is due to the characters in this film being a lot younger than those in Spring Breakers. The catalyst for the entire story stems from Jennifer being wrongly identified as a virgin. This was because one of the band members insisted that girls who dress ‘slutty’ are hiding the fact that they are still a virgin – as if it is something to be ashamed of. They sacrifice Jennifer and because she was not a virgin she didn’t die and instead came back to life as a succubus. The viewer also sees the awkward first sexual encounter between Needy and Chip and how the two are overly concerned with making it ‘perfect’. Virginity and ‘losing it’ has become an obsessive aspect of young girl’s life in the last decade in particular. This is down to the average age of ‘first timers’ gradually getting lower and the increasing pressure for a girl to be admired from a younger age. Jennifer’s Body was written by Diablo Cody, a self-confessed Feminist, who is no stranger to writing about the first time between teenagers. Her first feature film, Juno, centred on a teenage girl who falls pregnant.[7] She was her friends ‘first’ sexual partner and the film follows the feelings that can develop or intensify once sex is involved. 

Whether it be a symbolic journey or a more realistic interpretation, both Kusama and Korine work to depict what it means to be a woman in the 21st century with the dangers and pressures that it poses. Both directors embrace Feminist issues and works towards highlighting them in a non-threatening way that can appeal to even the most unwilling viewer. Whilst both films discussed were not critically acclaimed, they stand as interesting works that can be dissected and explored in relation to each other and to other films within the Women’s Cinema genre. They depict strong, independent women who find themselves in positions that are beneath themselves mentally. Both Kusama and Korine successfully created films that were designed to show the changing view of women in society, and were uncredited for doing so. The harsh reality of how our young women are growing up is being shown to us on film but many choose to ignore such characters and forget that what we see on screen is often simply a reflection of our own society.

---

[1] Jennifer’s Body, dir. by Karyn Kusama (20th Century Fox, 2009)

[2] Spring Breakers, dir. by Harmony Korine (A24, 2013)

[3] Transformers, dir. by Michael Bay (Paramount Pictures, 2007)

[4] Martin Fradley, ‘Hell is a Teenage Girl?: Postfeminism and Contemporary Teen Horror’ in Postfeminism and Contemporary Hollywood Cinema, ed. by. Joel Gwynne and Nadine Muller (Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013), p. 214

[5] Mary M. Talbot, ‘Strange Bedfellows: Feminism in Advertising’ in All the World and Her Husband: Women in Twentieth-Century Consumer Culture, ed. by. Maggie Andrews and Mary M Talbot (London, UK: Margaret R Andrews and Mary M Talbot, 2000), p. 182

[6] Jessica Ringrose, Postfeminist Education: Girls and the Sexual Politics of Schooling (Oxon, MD: Routledge, 2013), p. 42

[7] Juno, dir. by Jason Reitman (Fox Searchlight Pictures, 2007)

Cake

I had heard very little about this film before finally seeing it this month. What I had heard consisted of small rumblings of disappointment that Aniston had not received proper recognition for her role and efforts in Cake. Directed by Daniel Barnz and written by Patrick Tobin, Cake explores the life of Claire, a woman whose life was shocked and shattered by a car crash that killed her son and resulted in Claire having chronic pain. With intense themes such as suicide discussed from the outset, it was clear that this film was going to be a tough watch. After befriending a deceased woman's husband through her chronic pain support group, Claire attempts to deal with her loss and the pain that accompanies her day in and day out.

I thoroughly enjoyed the element of surprise with this film. Considering I hadn't done much research into the film or its cast, it was great having the opportunity to watch a film with no previous expectations. The first surprise came with the casting of Anna Kendrick. Although she's well on her way to forging a name for herself in both Hollywood and Independent film, I'm always a little surprised when she's cast in anything. Perhaps I don't quite trust her ability to be as diverse as she has actually shown herself to be, or maybe I've just not warmed up to seeing her face everywhere just yet! The second and perhaps most poignant surprise was the candid way in which the film speaks about suicide and addiction. Whilst these are not uncommon themes in cinema, they can often be treated poorly. Over exaggeration or the equally as disappointing under representation of suicide, drug use and grief can ruin an otherwise good film. Cake deals responsibly with this subject matter and attempts to root the problems in realism. The film is unapologetic and allows it's character to explore all emotions that come with addiction and death. I enjoyed the inclusion of the support group as a core catalyst of the action within the film and almost with Barnz and Tobin had delved further into the world of group support.

Aniston fantastically portrayed struggling Claire. Never one to shy away from Indie projects, she shines in this dark role - a happy break from her Rom-Com persona. Although having been nominated for a Golden Globe among a few other minor awards, Aniston failed to break through with this film. Her only win's being at two lesser known film festivals and an award from People Magazine - a publication that earns millions berating and humiliating the actress. Personally, this film held more wait that Oscar favourite Still Alice and I'm disappointed that one excelled above the other. I am definitely excited for Aniston to continue in a serious direction and expect great things as she gets older. Particularly if Aniston commits herself in the same way she has done for Cake.

The one critique I have for this film is the overuse of hallucinations. Whilst this may sound contradictory in comparison to my previous comments regarding the honest way that the film deals with prescription drug abuse, I feel that the constant appearance of Kendrick throughout the film felt forced. Almost as if to give the actress more of a role within a film that didn't have room. I understand the side effects associated with such drug use but quickly the appearance of Claire's visions became more concerned with providing plot turning points opposed to the representation of a drug users hallucinations. This aspect could have quickly spoiled the film but I felt inclined to keep focused due to the other elements that didn't fall as flat. 

I would recommend watching this film with a little time on your hands. It deserves a conscious and engaged viewer. Overall I enjoyed Cake and can now understand the backlash regarding Aniston's snub during awards season. 

Mortdecai

Johnny Depp in yet another flamboyant and outlandish role? Of course! Depp has certainly found his niche and makes very few trips to other genres. Mortdecai, is an art dealer who found himself in some financial trouble and as a result accepts a contract job with the government to recover a stolen painting. The film then takes its viewers on a bizarre journey that rarely contained moments of sanity. Directed by David Koepp with a screenplay by Eric Aronson, Mortdecai was poorly received by critics. And whilst I do enjoy Depp in some roles, I cannot help but agree that this film was one of his worst. In fact, there were very few redeeming qualities in the film that boast such a great cast of Hollywood heavyweights. Dubbed a flop by popular review sites, I'm thankful I skipped this film at the cinema and opted for free home viewing instead.

The strange subplot focusing on the character Mortdecai's moustache, was bizarre but I suppose it was necessary in displaying his ostentatious and extravagant nature. For some reason the moustache carries more importance to the films plot than basic character development. The viewer is thrown into Charlie Mortdecai's world and promised a lavish journey, by a poorly executed voice over, that never quite comes to fruition.

I couldn't help but be distracted throughout by the varying, faulty accents. With Depp's accent thrust in my face, or rather my ears, every few minutes with the relentless voiceover, it was hard not to notice how inconsistent it was. At this point, I would also like to mention how unnecessary the voice over truly is. Used to provide backstory and occasional description of the action seen on screen, Mortdecai's voice over is one of the worst I've witnessed in a while! But when accompanied by an accent that changes almost on a scene by scene basis, I very quickly regretted my choice of evening entertainment.

I will admit however that I chuckled a few times. No more than maybe five small laughs during this two hour flop. The real comedy within the film comes from the leading characters ludicrously stupid behaviour and comments. In particular, I found myself strangely amused when he was atop of a car bonnet during the film's first proper fight scene at the mechanic Spinoza's workshop. Equally, the small comments and mannerisms perfected by Depp were occasionally pretty funny. Then again, I'm sure my exhausted state contributed to jokes that might not have otherwise been funny to me.

Don't waste your time on this film unless you're easily amused or incredibly bored.

Inside Out

Pixar Studios released their latest emotional journey at Cannes in mid May. A month and a half later, I saw Inside Out at the Edinburgh International Film Festival (a full month before the UK release date). Surrounding the notion that each person is led by a selection of primary emotions, Inside Out is the story of Riley and her emotions Joy, Anger, Fear, Disgust and Sadness. At 11 years old, Riley's family uproots and moves from Minnesota to San Fransisco and during this move her emotions begin to lose control. Sadness discovers she can alter memories and Joy panics that she's losing control of young Riley. As these two emotions clash, they are sucked out of their safe headquarters and find themselves lost in the cavernous long term memory section of Riley's brain.

The films message is clear throughout. It's not healthy to bottle up or conceal your feelings nor is it healthy to hide the stereotypically 'bad' emotions. Inside Out shows its audiences that sometimes allowing yourself to cry and be sad is better for your longterm happiness. In typical Pixar fashion, the film ends happily with all five emotions reunited in their headquarters and working together on each memory. An interesting, secondary, message that came across was the similarities and distinctions between people. The film delves into both of Riley's parents brains during their first family dinner in San Fransisco. Both brains have the same primary emotions as Riley but they are slightly different in their dynamics. For example, Riley's Mother had emotions with long hair and were led by Sadness (but not a destructive Sadness like the one in Riley's brain). Whereas, Riley's Father's emotions were led by Anger and had moustaches. This is one of the ways in which the film's visual design was outstanding. Each character was the same yet different. Clearly differentiated from each other yet they all were clearly connected. 

Speaking of the design... Wow. It seems like year after year, Pixar and Disney are producing better, more visually stunning work. I found myself particularly fascinated by the skin of each emotion. Almost like they were made of particles, their skin was not solid. Each particle looked soft and glistened like glitter. Especially against the stark darkness of the 'memory dump', Joy's skin was beautifully animated to stand out against the background. Another captivating aspect of the film's overall aesthetic was the use of colour. Obviously each emotion is assigned a colour that's commonly associated or the colour that is culturally appropriated to suggest a connection to a particular feeling. But outside of this, the mind landscape was filled with bright colours, colour blocking and shining balls symbolising individual memories. During the abstract thought scene, the use of colour and design was hilarious. Of course, made funnier by the running commentary from Sadness. 

I laughed out loud from beginning to end and teared up twice. Inside Out was beautiful and will likely be referred to in the future as 'classic' Pixar. Also, if you're not going to see this film at the cinema, have a look for Lava - Pixar's new short. A beautiful, musical short about a lonely volcano - it was such a wonderful way to start this film. It was probably my favourite pre-film short from Pixar since Day/Night.

Jurassic World

It is back. Fourteen years after the release of Jurassic Park III, everyone's favourite dinosaur franchise is back. To say this film was eagerly anticipated would be an understatement. Originally scheduled for a 2005 release, fans have been waiting ten years for this film. Each time the trailer appeared in the cinema, audiences hushed and everyone's full attention was directed towards the screen. After seeing the trailer for Jurassic World, about 50 times, I was hopeful that the film would live up to expectations and surpass the successes of its predecessors. A big question on the lips of thousands of die hard movie lovers is: will it be better that Jurassic Park (1993)? I've never had much interest in the second and third movies of the franchise... but the first. The first Jurassic Park was and always will be astounding. But from the promotional material released, interviews and the clear advanced technology - compared to 1993 - seen in the new film got me very, very excited. I saw the film on June 11th 2015, the day it was released here in the UK. I was not going to waste any time!

Produced, written and directed by an entirely new team of creative minds, Jurassic World stars Chris Pratt and Bryce Dallas Howard (not to be confused with Jessica Chastain!). The franchise's only returning actor, from previous instalments is B.D Wong - someone whom I only really recognise from his time on Law & Order: SVU but good for him! Director Colin Trevorrow, who also had a hand in the screenplay, guides his cast through the story of genetic mutation gone wrong. Again. Led by Pratt and Howard as Owen and Claire, the film explores the risks and failures behind genetic modification in dinosaurs. The new genetically engineered dino, Indominis Rex, is quickly discovered to have out-smarted its creators and escapes the enclosure to cause havoc in the theme park. I won't go into further plot details, in an attempt to keep this review as spoiler free as possible, but an aspect I thoroughly enjoyed was the subplot surrounding the use of the velociraptors as trained animal weapons by a private contract company!

I respected the films ability to acknowledge its past. Not only is Jurassic Park referenced but it is mentioned regularly throughout. There are visual reminders of the iconic moments from past films too, including the original squiggle animation and the waterfall from the first instalment of the series. Moments of comic relief were welcome breaks from tense dinosaur hunting and evading! Jake Johnson, who most people know from New Girl, was a fantastic addition to the team and acted as a representation of many Dino-film fans! During the film he sports a classic Jurassic Park t-shirt and decorates his work station with plastic dinosaur figurines. This was an example of respectful film making. The creative team are not ignoring the franchise's roots and the iconic images that made it so popular. This gives me hope that the new Star Wars films will be equally as accepting of the world that had already been accepted and loved by so many.

I found myself wanting less and more at times. Less of the scenes focusing on the young brothers and more of dinosaur hunting, training and killing. The brothers were a lovely addition to the film and provided depth and emotion to the otherwise cold character Claire, but there were more than several moments of unnecessary plot development for two characters who don't really matter. In particular, the scene on the monorail when Gray is telling his older brother Zach that their parents are likely getting divorced... was really boring. Especially considering the end of the film as the audience receives no indication of the families future whether that be together or apart. It was sweet to see the two bond and come together during hardship/potential death, but I would have rather had 20 minutes more of dinosaur footage. The only other aspects of the film that irked me were Howard's perfectly styled hair - no one's hair goes from bone straight to perfectly wavy without getting it wet or popping in some curlers - and everyone's ability to out run dinosaurs. Seriously, why were all of the main characters who didn't die able to out run dinosaurs that were sometimes over 10 times their size? **SPOILERS** In particular it really annoyed me that little Bryce Dallas Howard took it upon herself to lead a T-Rex into battle by running ahead of it (in heels) with a flare. He would have easily stepped over her, on her, or eaten her within three seconds of his paddock door being opened so forgive me if I found it a little unbelievable that one of the biggest and most dangerous dinosaurs just slowed his pace down so that Howard could act like the hero. 

As for the things that really made the film shine... The cast were well picked and performed well. The plot could allow for over dramatic acting but actually there were few cringe worthy moments. Howard and Pratt's on screen chemistry was sweet, though a little forced and underdeveloped at times. But a film like this should not be focusing on love interest story lines! The dinosaurs should be the real stars of the film and I believe they came close. The Velociraptors, who were surprising underdogs, were well depicted and creatively distinguished from each other - with Pratt's favourite having a blue stripe down his back. The main bitch herself, Indominis Rex, was also a wonderful display of CGI technology. Her ability to camouflage made for an interesting scene that would have looked a lot less impressive back in 1993. Even during the final dino-on-dino fight scene, the image on screen was sharp and clear. Something that doesn't always occur in CGI heavy 3D films! 

Overall I was incredibly pleased with the film and will see it again, probably in 2D so I can have a proper scan of all the smaller elements in the film. This is a fantastic reinvention and extension of an existing, wonderful franchise. Hopefully this begins a trend of respectful film making in regards to remakes and modern day sequels. 

Far From the Madding Crowd

Accompanied by my film partner-in-crime, Emma, I trotted along to the cinema for a mid-day showing of Far From the Madding Crowd. The British Drama stars Carey Mulligan and Michael Sheen alongside two of my favourites - Juno Temple and Tom Sturridge. This adaptation of Thomas Hardy's novel (there have been four in total) was released two months ago for the first time at the Istanbul Film Festival before general release on May 1st. At just under two hours long, the Victorian set film is far from being a profound piece of cinema... yes, I did just make that joke. But seriously, the film was fine. Just fine. And here is why:

The plot is basic and uninspiring with the focus of the films action left in the hands of Mulligan who often falls short in roles that many others would shine in. Perhaps directors and producers alike simply have too much faith in her abilities or are blinded by her 'classic' English beauty. This is also not the first book adaptation that Mulligan has starred in that has left me disappointed. Back in 2010 she joined Andrew Garfield and Keira Knightley to publicly humiliate themselves in the adaptation of Kazuo Ishiguro's novel Never Let Me Go. But, Carey Mulligan was thankfully carried by a competent supporting cast, this time around, which resulted in a fairly easy to watch film. However, with Michael Sheen at Mulligan's side during many scenes, I had expected a little bit of his talent to rub off on her. 

Despite recieving astonishingly high reviews on Rotten Tomatoes and IMDb, Far From the Madding Crowd really is not that special. Many of the novel's most famous and appreciated moments are skimmed through and overlooked by dream-like sequences. Understandably this was done to shorten the length of the film, but at the risk of diluting a plot to the point of it becoming boring? Is it really worth it? In fact, the film has strayed far from the original novel's focus on countryside society and the land from which many earn their keep. Thomas Vinterberg, the director, clearly tries to distance his adaptation from previous ones as the atmosphere in his film feels deliberately darker and less like a traditional romance that the poster [left] may suggest. Which is appropriate considering the plot is certainly not traditional. In terms of studying adaptation, however, this film is incredibly interesting because of the differing views and opinions that it offers. Proving that an adaptation does not need to stick rigidly to the structure created before it. 

As afore mentioned, I am quite a fan of Juno Temple. So I was incredibly pleased to discover that she would be playing Fanny Robin, a pivotal role within the novel's plot. Unfortunately she did not feature as heavily during the film as I would have liked. The way in which her relationship with Frank was only touched upon, left me wondering why they even bothered continuing with their story line at all. In order for viewers to understand Frank's actions and frustrations his relationship with Fanny needed to be explored properly. 

In summation, this film was more captivating than I had expected it to be with beautiful costuming, scenery and moments of real talent amongst the cast. I think that several moments could have been reexamined by the director and his team but overall the film was fine. This film has cemented one thing for me. If a man gives you a lamb, that is the man you should marry. 

San Andreas

San Andreas, where do I even start? With a screenplay written by Carlton Cuse and directed by Brad Peyton, Dwayne Johnson's latest film is even more stereotypical than his last. The role is practically made for the wrestler-turned-actor. From beginning to end, his bulging muscles and soft gooey centre are seen saving lives and kicking nature's ass. San Andreas was filmed and produced in just over a year, making it an incredibly quick process for an action film. Released worldwide on May 29th in both 2D and 3D, the film is just under two hours long and was distributed by Warner Bros Pictures with a budget of just over $100 million. The plot is simple and not over complicated, with Dwayne Johnson, playing Chief Ray Gaines, desperately trying to save his ex-wife, Emma, and daughter, Blake, from the impending doom of an earth shattering earthquake.

From the trailer, the impression I got about this film was that it was a shameless attempt for Johnson to be further branded as an action movie hero. Every clip is of him stretching his arm out to someone in need or carrying the injured. I guess you could say that from the outset, I knew this film was going to glorify Johnson (and his muscles). I'm a follower of his Instagram - which I recommend for a few giggles - and have been aware of all the promotional junkets and press surrounding the film because of this. I am also a fan of natural disaster films as I feel it is a reflection of a deep rooted societal fear and anxiety for many. And who wouldn't be intrigued to see a visual representation of the world's power and force without there being real world consequences? I saw the film on preview day at Cineworld on May 28th with one of my besties and prepared myself for a laugh. Even when explaining the film to her I used to words 'so bad it could be good'. Armed with some juice and good spirits we settled in for two hours of watching an extreme natural disaster. But it really wasn't that bad! Like really, it was kind of awesome!

There were moments of weirdness. Like the brief cameo from Kylie Minogue and the presence throughout of incredibly obvious fake teeth. But overall, San Andreas is a wonderful addition to the disaster movie catalogue. It included multiple earthquakes and a tsunami to top it off, so it certainly fits nicely into the disaster genre. The film had real heart to it. Not just from the main plot line of the Gaines family trying to find each other, but because even the subplot involving the Seismologist and reporter, was incredibly touching. There was a clear desire to stress how uncontrollable these events are, even after we've learnt how to predict them. I also enjoyed the two English brothers. Whilst the elder boy was included to provide a love interest for Blake, the younger acted as additional motivation to make it out of San Fransisco alive. I found myself rooting for the characters and on the edge of my seat as each earthquake hit.

With films like this, I can't help but feel disappointed. My parents would never be able to save me! Similarly after watching Taken, I was left wondering how quickly I would have died in the particular situation due to my parents lack of physical or lifesaving skills. My Mother and Father are great people and are wonderful high achievers in their professional and personal lives but there is no way in hell they would be able to save my from a sinking building in San Fransisco. I'm sure they would be thinking of me and worrying about me, but there is very little I can imagine they would be able to change about the situation.

Johnson, as much as I would like to make fun of him, has found his niche and he plays his role well. Although sometimes he fails to fully portray genuine emotions on screen, his acting in San Andreas was spot on. His onscreen chemistry with Carla Gugino, who played his ex-wife, was great and the two fit well together visually. I become a bigger fan of his every time I see one of his films. I think this will be a huge hit this year as it checks all of the basic boxes for action film and Summer Blockbuster! There was only one 'fucking' said too... so I suppose that's a thing that helps widen the target audience. Kids will love it, adults will love it. I loved it.