tcara111 Reviews

All Is Lost (2013)

The Old Man and The Sea: a struggle for survival

[8/10 · 24 November 2013]

Let me start by stating a definitive: All Is Lost is a good movie. While I can't honestly say its the BEST movie I've ever seen, its in the top twenty percent. And that's saying a lot, if you knew my personality. I admit, it takes a lot to please me. Now, I'm not a sailor (I actually detest the one boat I do have), and from what I've gathered from other reviewers who DO know something about sailing, nautical accuracy is, apparently, not this film's strong suit. While I'm most definitely in the camp of those for whom technical accuracy greatly enhances that "suspension of disbelief" necessary for becoming emotionally invested, I recognize that there is a difference between technical accuracy and the situational/emotional accuracy that is even more important for establishing believability. And, if perhaps not technically accurate from a nautical viewpoint, this movie is emotionally accurate. The sailors in the crowd may just have to hold their upturned noses and not get their collective panties in a bunch over the fact that most of us won't know a jib from a Genoa. And, since we don't, we can go right on believing (in the bliss of our ignorance) while the sailors squirm and look down their noses at us landlubbers. But I digress. For those, like me, who are constantly griping about Hollywood's frustrating penchant for catering to the lowest common denominator in order to appeal to the unsophisticated masses, I applaud director J. C. Chandor for his courage on this one. I can just imagine how this pitch must've gone to the room full of 17 producers: "How many characters in the film again, Mr. Chandor? "One." "Hmmm." "And how old is Mr. Redford again?" "76". "Oookaaay"( looks over at colleagues). And what is the dialog word count, again? "One." "Reaaaalllyyyyyy?" "And what on Earth does Mr. Redford say?" "Fuuuuuccccckkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk! ....Silence envelopes the room, and, finally: "Hmmm! Let us mull this one over and get back to you, J. C." Not since Castaway has there been such dramatic minimalism and it is to the producers' credit that they gave this project the green light. This film is what I would call "situational drama" in which the interest derives from the dire straights that the main (and only) character finds himself in. And except for that one aforementioned expletive, which is, mind you, totally appropriate, the dialog is almost exclusively internal. In essence, the film revolves around Redford, whose yacht suffers a freak encounter with a wayward shipping container floating aimlessly at sea. The incredulity that Redford's character must feel in that moment is palpable, given the improbability of any two objects ever crossing paths in the vastness of the ocean. The irony here is that this man's very life must now depend upon just such an improbable occurrence and thus Redford's intuition is that all is, indeed, lost. Redford gives a superb performance in expression and movement so that we understand implicitly that this is an older man suddenly thrown by events into a struggle for survival. We see it in the strained movements, the subtle grunts, the pained expressions. However, Redford's utter desolation results in a dynamic tension limited to that between Redford, himself, and perhaps the Sea and so we cannot know the specific inner dialog that Redford is having as he encounters shock, disbelief, denial, struggle and, finally, the loss of hope and the acceptance of fate. Admittedly, at times, this process feels like it is dragging on a bit. Unlike Castaway, in which Hanks actually verbalizes his inner dialog in his anthropomorphic interaction with Wilson the volley ball, no such device is used here and we are left to infer what must be going through Redford's mind and the paucity of dialog will represent a challenge to the average viewer who is used to being spoon fed and told what to think. This film is different in that regard and it is a testament to his ability that Redford is able to communicate this struggle tacitly. In the end, Redford appears to accept his fate. You, dear reader, will just have to wait and see what that fate turns out to be.

Gravity (2013)

Gravity is Weightless

[1/10 · 6 October 2013]

Did those who've written glowing reviews of Gravity see the same movie I did? Look, I wanted to like this flick, I really did. And I don't want to rag on it, but if you're going to make a dramatic science thriller, you had better get it right or expect to catch it from the smart people. Despite the cosmic setting, the only star I can give Gravity is for the computer generated graphics.That said, this is not a movie for intellectuals and those of a scientific bent will be sorely disappointed. What made Ron Howard's Apollo 13 so gripping was its dramatic realism and superb acting. Unfortunately, none of those adjectives applies to Gravity, with the possible exception of some drama. However, for thinkers, effective drama requires an intellectual investment in the credibility of the story, the characters and the interaction between them. Intelligent humans need to believe that what is being depicted could actually happen. Unfortunately, the events depicted in Gravity are likely to alienate anyone with an above average IQ. Once one has acknowledged the impressive graphics, any anticipation of emotional investment is quickly dashed to smithereens by the unbelievably vapid and inane dialog. It is painfully obvious that someone with a double-digit scientific IQ appears to have awoken one morning and haphazardly decided to write a "space movie". The physics are off, the events highly improbable. The entire story demands a suspension of belief in reality. Worst of all, the dialog and interaction between the characters is so juvenile that anyone with a brain gets the immediate impression that the project is the product of sophomoric show-biz types who think that the way to move the product is to recycle hackneyed clichés, shiny objects and big explosions. Bullock's character, Dr. Ryan Stone, is so unprepared and emotionally disabled by adversity that it is impossible to believe that she would have been selected as a mission specialist. Yet, she manages to flit from one space wreck to another and yet another. She consults operation manuals in Russian and, later, Chinese, yet she is heard muttering "eeny meeny miney mo" while haphazardly pushing control buttons like some clueless chimpanzee. The space vehicle's communication equipment fails to pick up "Houston Control", yet, miraculously, is able to receive a bizarre Chinese comedy and howling dogs, which Bullock's character feels compelled to imitate. Clooney's character, Matt Kowalski, is such a clichéd hero that he is depicted as nonchalantly jesting with the hysterical Dr. Stone while he himself is drifting into a desperately life-ending situation. We are expected to believe that, despite having trained intimately together for this mission, these characters address each other by their formal titles and make clichéd announcements back to a non-responsive mission control. Kowalksi has waited until he's drifting to his death to ask where Dr. Stone is from and if she has any kids. Finally, director Cuaron makes a supremely lame attempt at cinematic iconography depicting Bullock floating in a fetal position, a la Kubrick's Space Odessey. And after having had such a bad day and having plunged to Earth in a flaming meteor-like reentry, Stone emerges, unscathed and barefoot mind you, from the ocean onto an idyllic, uninhabited beach like some primal human emerging from the sea. Now, I feel bad about feeling bad about this movie. And I respect Ms. Bullock and Mr. Clooney as actors. However, it is my humble opinion that actors must assume some responsibility for the roles they accept. This movie was so cringe-worthy that the only reason I sat through it was to see how ridiculous it would get. Alas, other than the black hole into whose abyss was irretrievably sucked away any hope I once had for discovering intelligent life in this movie, "Gravity" lacked gravitas.