User reviews

Story: Man uses taxpayers' rescue service chopper to pick up his ex-wife and daughter while thousands die beneath them.

Sure, the movie has a lot of clichés, inaccuracies, common mistakes in destruction scenes (a suspension bridge's towers not bending outwards when the span is broken, for example), and a predictable plot, but these things go hand in hand with the disaster movie genre. If you expect those going in, then the movie is pretty entertaining. You're not supposed to take these films too seriously, you're just intended to go along with the ride of destruction--and what a ride it is! This movie has some excellent destruction scenes; although they aren't exactly realistic and don't always make sense, they're a lot of fun to watch, and that's the whole point.

Sure, if you compare this with all other films, it's not great; but in the disaster movie genre, with other such films as 2012, the Day After Tomorrow, and Greenland, it's actually pretty decent. Remember: the whole point of these movies is to show awesome scenes of destruction, and San Andreas does that beautifully, so don't take the movie too seriously and just go along with the ride.

I'm a sucker for a disaster film, I pretty much love all of them but I do have 'some' limitations.

This one does enough to stay on the good side of the ledger.

What works, the effects (mostly) and The Rock. What doesn't, The Rock and the Disney-fying of anyone dying.

What do I mean? The Rock is hit and miss in this one, he pulls of some great scenes whereas others are just a bridge too far (he may have caught this from Fast Furious). The effects are excellent. The deaths are sanitised for perhaps younger viewers, the cost of this is tension and any real concern you may have had for the family. They are obviously going to come out ok so we don't have to explain anything to the kiddies!

But a disaster movie is a disaster movie so thumbs up from me!

San Andreas (2015)

*** (out of 4)

After a massive earthquake strikes California, a father (Dwayne Johnson) must struggle to try and rescue his estranged wife (Carla Gugino) and his daughter (Alexandra Daddario) who finds herself somewhere in San Fransisco. While people are trying to dig themselves out of the damage, a seismologist (Paul Giamatti) warns people that the big one hasn't yet happened.

SAN ANDREAS is without question one of the dumbest movies that you're going to see in the year 2015 or perhaps any other year. I mean, things happen here that are without question quite stupid and that includes a really dumb love story and the logic of some of the scenes are downright laughable. With that said, one really shouldn't go into this movie expecting anything other than a popcorn movie meant to keep you entertained and this film certainly does that as it's a pretty good throwback to the Irwin Allen disaster pictures like EARTHQUAKE, THE TOWERING INFERNO and THE POSEIDON ADVENTURE.

I really can't believe I'm saying this but the special effects are certainly the highlight of the picture. I'm usually not a fan of CGI because more times than not it just looks fake and takes away from the story but we're reaching a point in technology where it's really hard to see the effect, which is just great. There's a massive amount of destruction throughout this film and I must admit that the effects make you feel that everything you're watching is real. This includes the actual earthquake footage as well as all the destruction around the state. There are countless buildings that fall and the aftermath of the quake looks extremely realistic.

The story itself is quite stupid as we get all sorts of predictable scenes but I can't really blame the film for this as the entire disaster genre had silly melodrama going on. The relationship issues between Johnson and Gugino are quite stupid and of course there's a side story dealing with him not being able to save a daughter that died. The screenplay pretty much throws everything into the mix and just hopes any of it sticks. Again, it's hard to bash the "dumb" story too much since the film is so entertaining but I will give the film credit for delivering the highest body count in the history of cinema.

Again, going into SAN ANDREAS expecting anything other than entertainment probably isn't the best idea. The actors are all entertaining in their own right and that's especially true for Daddario. As far as Johnson goes, he's certainly not the greatest actor in the world but he makes for a great action star.

My love of the disaster genre means that I can enjoy this type of movie despite the myriad problems with it, alongside the inherent cheesiness and the poor writing which makes it laughable in places. It pales in comparison to stuff from the 1970s like THE TOWERING INFERNO and EARTHQUAKE, but it's certainly better than modern SyFy Channel and Asylum offerings, even if that's just because of the massive budget alone.

The story is written so that the disaster scenes keep occurring throughout the movie. The CGI effects work is extensive, but it's also pretty good, and certainly better than in the awful 2012. Yes, you get all the flag-waving nonsense associated with this type of film, but you also get plenty of suspense scenes and depictions of post-earthquake devastation that you don't usually get to see in the movies.

Dwayne Johnson continues to be a hulking, mildly charismatic presence in the movies, although he's no Schwarzenegger. Alexandra Daddario is there for her looks and certainly succeeds in that respect. The rest of the cast don't fare so well, with Ioan Gruffudd virtually reprising his role from SANCTUM and Paul Giamatti on autopilot, although at least we get to find out what happened to Art Parkinson (the disappearing Rickon Stark from TV's GAME OF THRONES). SAN ANDREAS is certainly undemanding entertainment, and not a film I'm in any hurry to sit through again, but compared to other offerings in this packed sub-genre, it's not THAT bad.

In every sense of its existence this is the prototypical disaster movie, right down to the use of the Rock as the lead character. With that being said I would say it's on the better side of average in terms of his performance.

The movie starts off by allocating a decent amount of time to a couple scientists who discover a new way of predicting earthquakes (which isn't ever really explained how). It's then said that nobody had really listened to them in the past but we don't really observe that part as viewers. The lead scientist is also credited with saving many lives even though his advice to run away was communicated as the disaster was already unfolding. Furthermore we really don't see many who survived at all except the one family.

Overall it is very corny , but in the same light it is highly entertaining . The action sequences transition smoothly and keep your attention the entire time which is mostly what you are looking for with this type of movie.

Sort of like a theme Park ride in a sense. Don't expect an outstanding backstory but enjoy everything it throws at you.

With disaster movies there are always liberties taken, San Andreas has more than typical. The helicopter in the gorge and the tsunami are just one step too far off the cliff of reality. However, it does have some glorious destruction and a few cheesy heartfelt moments.

If you understand what a disaster movie is about and how it works you will go and have a nice experience just as I did, certainly superior to the "2012" or "Day After Tomorrow" dullness.

The usual cheesiness in disaster movie is there, the characters are so stereotypical it's hardly believable and worst of all it commits the usual, stupid mistake of having characters make it out of a situation just in time before everything collapses. This mistakes really annoys me firstly because it repeats itself a dozen times in the film but most of all because it's worthless: it does not add stakes or tension, they would be exactly the same, but except for maybe twice in the film situations get resolved just in time and the uselessness of it really annoyed me. The film tries too hard to give it's characters depth and barely succeeds in it. I cannot deny I was rooting for them, that maybe being due to the fact that the actors involved are honestly all doing a good enough job, but the fact that it tries to achieve character empathy through clichés that have been present in cinema since the beginning of time is ridiculous.

That being said, it does deliver the goods of a disaster movie and delivers them much more competently than the recent disaster films we have seen on the big screen. With the exception of the finale where things are unnecessarily blown up to eleven, there isn't exaggeration. The set pieces are for the major part breath-taking and original enough. I counted actually two times where my mouth totally dropped in genuine amazement. I was riveted by many scenes and this is probably due to the fact that the director never overuses CGI. It is used in the perfect dose, there is enough practicality involved and the fact that the set pieces aren't always the biggest most blown up ones made it better, it gave the film more stakes. Moreover there is a great use of long takes in certain parts of the film, one in particular is very long and threw me right into the action like no other disaster movie ever had done before.

If you know what you are in for you will have a good time and you will be given back your money's worth, you won't want to be re-watching this movie anytime, but that is perfectly fine and fits the film in what it is trying to achieve.

Going into this film I knew it wasn't going to be one of the best films I've ever seen I just knew I would like the visual effects and the action, although there were some parts that wouldn't have happened in real life but that's standard Hollywood, it's expected. The story line and plot wasn't anything spectacular. It wasn't anything you haven't seen before, very clichéd and predictable. The Rock's performance in this film did give it that extra kick that was needed to make this film a bit more tolerable. If you're planning on seeing this film enjoy the ride for the visual effects and the action, don't expect very much more. I'm not going to say it's bad and I'm not going to say it's good. It's just a clichéd Hollywood work of art. You be the judge.

I read some of the reviews here and am wondering what all the negative reviewers expected. Who didn't know this was a huge, costly disaster movie? Who didn't know there were going to be many unbelievable scenes? Who didn't know there would be some cheesy dialogue?

Well, I, for one, enjoyed it. The last good disaster movie I saw was The Towering Inferno, and you know that was a long, long time ago. It's still my favorite disaster flick. San Andreas, of course, had much better special effects. (several decades later, better effects, right?) I thought the scenes of the destruction were amazing.

We all know disaster movies usually focus on a handful of people in it and this one was no different. The movie was entertaining for me. I hope it is for you, too. :)

May contain spoilers!!!

The Script was AWFUL!

The film starts with the introduction of The Rock and his job. He's a search and rescue pilot and he's attempting to rescue a girl trapped in a car on the side of a cliff. He and his buddies find this amusing as they jokingly begin with the routine rescue. There is a reporter who has tagged along for an interview and now she's asking questions about the rescue and they're are answering like there's no emergency to begin with. They fly the helicopter into the ravine. Really? I guess the basket rescue line was not long enough. Anyway we'll leave it at that.

Cut to a class in session at a University where a professor is lecturing about seismic activity and that the west coast is due for a biggie. Of course the cliché "not a matter of IF but WHEN", spits out.

Cut to Hoover Dam where same professor and assistant are doing seismic field tests when.. guess what...yup. The entire dam, gone in a matter of seconds. Like a sand castle at the beach. No repercussions, cause and effect. No small local towns obliterated, washed away. This news never makes it to the local media nor the citizens of LA. Only a mere throw- away line to the professor at a later date; "sorry about what happened to your friend"

I swear this script was written in the back of a limo on the way to the studio.

Now, it's soap opera time.The Rock and his wife are finalizing a divorce. This drama goes on throughout the movie. It's like I am watching "As The World Turns" with an earthquake in the BG.

Rock's wife is dating an architect; not just any architect; he's got his own building named after him. The daughter, sat in the waiting area of the skyscraper, meets a dude who is there for a job interview. They hit it off. She pens him her cell number and he exits the scene.

Later, "WHEN" happens and the buildings are crumbling and shaking, people screaming and panicking. Remember the dude the daughter met, briefly? His No.1 priority is to find her. WHAT??? Yes, that's right. I just met you, and rather than seek shelter and escape this hell, I am going to try to find you. AND HE DOES!!!

You know it took 3 people to write this script??!!

How can the writers think we're all stupid. That we do not know what happens in an earthquake. We've seen the images and documentaries, and testimonials on You Tube. Including the notorious Tohoku Chihou Prefecture disaster a few years back. We know that making a trying to make a call on your cell after a major quake would be impossible. We know that bottles on the shelves at a restaurant would be the first victims in a quake. But not in this movie.

I broke out laughing at a scene where The Rock, riding a motorcycle through the disaster area, passes by an elderly couple who are stranded, roadside. They're waving for help. He passes them with no interest in stopping. This, from a trained search and rescue worker. Hilarious!!!

There are scenes where The Rock and his wife are the only people in LA. wandering through the rubble. Or boating through the floating debris.

MINIMAL VIOLENCE!

That all being said, I think the most disappointing aspect of the film is that you rarely see people die. It sounds morbid but it's what you come to expect in a disaster movie. Would the "Titanic" be just as good without "Propeller Guy" and the countless screaming bodies falling off the ship? The death count in SA is really low. There's 3 dudes that fall to their death and another engulfed in flames. It's suggestive violence and not like you would find in a Final Destination movie. I think because The Rock attracts a younger audience, they wanted a PG 13 rating, minimizing violence, therefore, a bigger box office demographic.

Anyway, that's my opinion. There are pages of wonderful reviews from people who praise this movie. I will respect that. To each his own. Watch, and decide for yourself.

I went in to this with admittedly very low expectations, however I genuinely enjoyed the 2 hour action packed adventure. The premise is not exactly original; following the worst earthquake in history The Rock, a helicopter rescue pilot, sets out to rescue his ex-wife and then with her help his daughter.

The science is not too shaky (if you'll forgive the pun); major earthquake along the San Andreas fault is not beyond the bounds of possibility and the scientists subplot is only mildly irritating and does not detract from the action much.

And there's a lot of action! The Rock + ex-wife and daughter + friends bounce from one disaster to the next, barely scraping though intact in their request to re-unite. Each of these near-misses are edge of the seat stuff - you know at the back of your mind they're going to get through it but still you find yourself holding your breath each time. The stunts are excellent and the special effects are brilliant in their realism - yeah they're a bit over the top but it genuinely looks like they destroyed San Francisco in their quest to make this film.

It's not Shakespeare and no-one is expecting any of the leads to win best actor at next years Oscars for this but Dwayne proves a strong lead with the rest of the cast doing an amiable job with the exception of Aussie actor Hugo Johnstone-Burt who seems to be doing a Lee Evans impression in his attempt to play a Brit.

If you like disaster movies you'll love this; everyone else switch your brain in to neutral and enjoy the thrill ride!

ACTORS' PERFORMANCE: For a disaster movie you don't expect much in terms of acting outside of lots of screaming and a stone cold, brave protagonist. Surprisingly San Andreas' characters slightly deviate from that formula. Johnson is ever the stoic macho man, who seems capable of anything. He primarily keeps his cool, but for once has some tragic backstory that adds some emotional turmoil and realism to his pallet. Daddario has certainly grown up from her Percy Jackson days, and continues to impress with me with her roles. Despite looking like a shallow twenty year old, Daddario has some depth to her simple role as her character pulls out some survival skills while still be vulnerable to fear. Gugino further shows women rock, as she too jumps into the ravaged quake zones to help Johnson achieve his goals. Her character starts off moot, but eventually transitions into an action woman while also assisting in keeping the plot moving, something that can be hard to do. Paul Giamatti nails the tectonics expert role, bringing a plethora of qualities to a stereotypical role that not only "explains" the science involved, but also brings some purpose to the film.

SCENES: San Andreas brings jaw dropping special effects to the fray, showing what a major earthquake in California could look like. The design team has done a fine job editing computer-generated sequences of buildings collapsing alongside live action sequences involving props "falling" on extras. Camera work adds some depth to the scenes, and for once tumbling cameras actually add to the detail of the movie, "It's a Miracle". Sound editing also hits home as a powerful symphony score is mixed into the rumbles, crashes, and explosions granting the feel as if this was a judgment from the heavens. In case you haven't gotten yet, this may be the best part of the movie.

LIKED: San Andreas is one of the better suspense movies I've seen in a while. Most movies involve the cast making stupid choices so that we can get more suspense and thrills. This film does a decent job of piecing the events together to give a point to the adventure and putting the chaos as a secondary quality. This is helped by dividing the story into three components: detecting the quake, being in the quake, and getting into the quake zone to rescue. By balancing these three plots, I felt as if I was watching a disaster unfold, while also experiencing the horror of the city coming apart. Jumping around kept the movie entertaining, while keeping the simplistic plot moving as the three plots converge to a close. Another like is the variety of action involving stunts like aircraft piloting, debris dodging, and even skydiving all used to get to their goals. The character development was not half bad, not only adding definition to a limited role, but also helping maintain interest and emotional connections to the cast.

DISLIKED: Like all disaster movies, the obvious foreshadowing in both dialog and camera-work, gives away an already predictable plot. Most likely that won't "shake" you up too much, but still surprise keeps things interesting. Second is the lack of buildup of the earthquake. Think about how most disaster movies start to teasing you before the storm hits, you get hyped up for what is about to come and it makes the movie more exciting. Not this one, the earthquake just hits and then bam the buildings begin to fall. In addition we could have used a little more character development to help out with the simple heroes, especially when there was so much tension at the start of the film. Conflicts kind of died down, forgiveness and acceptance happening in the blink of an eye (like that ever happens). As a side note, I wished they had done more with the Rock's team they introduced in the beginning. Some of my favorite natural disaster movies involve a crack team going into the void to save the innocents, and this one could have greatly benefited from such an element.

FINAL THOUGHTS: All in all, San Andreas plays its role as a thriller, giving you some suspense, some laughs, and digital destruction in one weekend. It was better than I expected, but still lacks a lot of other qualities I like to see in a movie. One thing that most will like is the beautiful specimens on the screen and the strong heroic qualities they have that may get your fire going. Those looking for some fantastic digital work and an exciting adventure should pay a visit to the theater for this one, but otherwise stick to the home renting.

My scores are: Action/Drama/Thriller: 7.5-8.0 Movie Overall: 6.5

I like this movie a lot. It is a good disaster film. San Andreas is directed by Brad Peyton and stars Dwayne Johnson, Carla Gugino and Paul Giamatti. While this movie is well done, it doesn't quite compare with movies by the disaster movie king, Roland Emmerich. After seeing one of Brad Peyton's other movies, Journey 2: The Mysterious Island, I had my doubts, but he does a pretty good job here.

There are three reasons why I enjoyed this film so much. First, are the special effects. Special effects in a disaster movie can make or break it. In this film, the CGI is eye-popping. At certain moments, it feels like there is a little too much going on all at once. But at the same time, it makes you feel as if you are in an earthquake, which probably feels pretty overwhelming.

The second reason I like this film is the acting. The acting is pretty strong for a disaster movie. Sometimes in disaster movies, it's all about stunts and action sequences. In this film, the acting makes you feel invested in the characters and you are really rooting for them.

The last reason I like this film is the story. Though corny at times, when adding humor or romance into the big earthquake scenes, the interplay between the action scenes and the family scenes keeps you emotionally involved.

There is a bit of a downside. The dialogue, characters and the some of the story are very predictable and filled with clichés. While some of the lines are clever, they often seem out of place. There are lots of pretty standard panic, action lines such as "Run," "Hold on," and similar. The main characters are well fleshed out, though some of the cast seems like simple stereotypes representing selfishness and greed.

They spend a lot of time showing the destruction of the earth quake and less on the aftermath of the quake, such as having the main heroes trying to survive riots, gas leaks, crumbling buildings, etc. With all the devastation, it is a bit dull seeing the Golden Gate Bridge collapse for the 1000th time in a disaster flick.

It is humorous that scientific accuracy is thrown out the window. For example, they say the earthquake is a 9.1 but, according to what I've read, that magnitude cannot happen on the San Andreas fault.

I give San Andreas 3.5 out of 5 stars and recommend it for ages 12 to 18. If you like Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, Paul Giamatti and disaster movies, you'll like this one. Reviewed by Will S., KIDS FIRST! Film Critic. For more reviews by youth, go to kidsfirst dot org.

My first experience in the UltraScreen®DLX with massive screen, Dreamlounger™ leather reserved recliners, and Dolby Atmos immersive sound with bass you can feel (it's true), was none other than to see San Andreas. If you haven't been following my reviews this summer, my goal is to review all of the summer blockbusters on cheap movie days for $5.

My first surprise was that the seats are reserved. You get to pick your seat, although there were few left to choose from when I arrived. The second surprise was that the chairs are power recliners, so you just push a button and wham you go back and your legs go up. The third surprise was a smell I hadn't smelled in years, not since junior high locker room. It was a mix of people who don't like to shower, don't like to wash their gym clothes, and wet tile. Then a nice young couple who dry humped the whole movie sat next to me and at least she was wearing a strong perfume that mostly covered up the smell.

But I digress. What about this disaster movie? It features a family (that apparently has no last name, at least not that I ever learned, nor is there any last name listed for them in the credits, so I will call them Family #1), a pretty family, an upper-middle-class family that is going through a rather benign divorce and Emma causes trouble immediately because she is moving in with a richy rich dude (who has a last name, because he's Daniel Riddick), a thoroughly loathsome man incapable of love except for buildings.

Ray is solid as a rock, he's something sturdy, like a real man, someone you can cling to or hold on to no matter what. He loves his daughter, Blake, very much, because he blames himself for the death of his other daughter, whom we eventually learn died while rafting. You see, Ray is a professional rescue-chopper pilot, so the death of his daughter is as much personal as it was a professional blunder.

The main problem with this disaster movie is that Family #1 is split in two groups, and there is no real belief that any of them will ever actually die, although San Andreas does feature Blake enduring the longest non-death sequence I've ever seen. In better disaster movies, like the original Poseidon Adventure (it's unfortunate that I have to clarify the "original" Poseidon Adventure) the protagonists are traipsing and shambling through the disaster together, and they drop like flies until the very end, when only a handful of the worthy and fortunate survive.

The acting in San Andreas isn't bad, and it's not good. It's extremely okay. Poor Paul Giamatti, who seems typecast as himself these days.

Things blow up, collapse, and fall apart real good. The special effects are pretty amazing and realistic. It's nice to see so many Californians perish as a precursor to the Great Water Wars of 2016. In fact, even though Ray is a civil servant responsible for saving lives, he tries to fly the chopper from L.A. to San Francisco to save his daughter instead of trying to save anyone in Los Angeles or elsewhere along the way. He _does_, however, trade a stolen pickup for directions to an airfield, which I suppose is a fair trade and shows he's a Really Good Guy.

There is a bit of adventure. Ray commandeers trains and boats and planes. Well, no trains. That would've been pretty cool to drive a train through an earthquake. A simple oversight, I suppose. Nevertheless, I sensed the feeling of excitement at the thought of being in a real disaster, stealing whatever vehicles were around to go wherever I wanted. And it's nice to see a lot of chopper scenes in a movie. There should be more chopper scenes in every movie.

Forget the millions of Californians who died or were dying along the way. All we care about are a handful of pretty, well-off people trying to survive the worst earthquake in human history. We rarely see anyone die, because they get swooped up or down or crushed. No bones, no blood, no limbs flying everywhere. It's pretty WASPish death, as people disappear in clouds of dust, never to be seen or heard from again.

Despite all the Californian death and destruction, Americans can be jingoistically proud to see a final flowing flag confirming we are the best nation-state on Earth, and we will rebuild it all for the next disaster.

San Andreas is the newest disaster movies and it's essentially like every other disaster movie. Even so, this movie was exceedingly entertaining with it's visual effects and impressive sound design. I wasn't expecting much when going into this movie but it definitely exceeded my few expectations.

When going into this movie, one isn't going into it expecting an inventive story and lots of talking. One is instead expecting insane amounts of destruction and a visual spectacle. That's exactly what one will get when watching this movie. The visual effects are insane in this movie and just a blast to behold in 3D. The amount of detail to every CGI shot was impeccable. That being said, there were a few shots that were very obvious that it was CGI being used there. But those shots were few and far between and it didn't ruin the movie at all.

I have to give light to the sound design as well because it was amazing. The sound department deserves an Oscar for their incredible work on this film.

The story/plot is where this movie is weakest. This movie is basically as generic as a movie can get. Then again, this movie is considered to be an entirely original movie because it's not based off of previously created material. The actual story/plot is solid enough but still a little messy. Character development was generally pretty good but it could have been better. I suppose the worst part about this category is the pacing. The pacing is very messy and it jumps around a lot. The ending is quite abrupt as well I might add.

Finally, all the actors did a fine job doing their thing and Brad Peyton delivered the goods with his directing skills.

In the end, San Andreas is a movie boasting insane visuals, and a great sound design. It is generic and the pacing is off but at the end of the day, this movie is all about the visual effects and destruction. And it delivers just that. This movie is definitely worth seeing on the big screen and preferably in 3D.

It will be impossible to chase after logic and sense once the Earth ruptures open in SAN ANDREAS. This doesn't mean there's plenty to find, because the truth is, there's barely any, but SAN ANDREAS doesn't really need to be logical for it to be able to deliver its sense-juddering capacity. The film works with eye-popping visuals alone, and this is why the film, amidst of all its shortcomings, is still worth seeing.

SAN ANDREAS is exactly the film you would expect to see from a big-budgeted disaster movie. It teems with ground-cracking quakes, earth shattering explosions, and gigantic earth-wiping tsunamis. Through these visual tactics, the movie keeps the audience's attention glued on screen, that it would be impossible to ponder whether what's happening is still logical or not. This makes assessing the performance of the actors not an easy job, and I'm not saying it's necessary. Dwayne Johnson charms his way through his thinly structured character by appearing someone with heroics written all over him, that you may have your eyes the entire time following him as he saves both his family and the world. Carrying such responsibility would, of course, give way to making stupid and. brow-arching decisions (like when characters take pauses to have tender moments, cry, hug, and play the emotional blame game, in the middle of what could be an apocalyptic doom), and you would be incredibly happy laughing about such preposterousness, while also thrilled, watching the characters defeat the impossible. But its hard to appreciate such effort of putting emotional touch on the characters when they rarely go in congruence with character development.

In the end, the film is nothing but one powerful quake that has just passed by before abruptly ceasing to exist. What is left after drowning entirely in the imminence of cataclysmic dangers and horrors of apocalyptic annihilation, is a feeling of voidness. SAN ANDREAS' greatness is as seismic as any cgi-packed disaster movie can be, and it's epic in such way, but it hardly leaves a sense of emotional satisfaction, making it a forgettable entry to the disaster category. 6/10