Submergence

I watched it at Göteborg film festival som days ago. I really wanted to like this but its just didnt click for me. The actors fail to sell the love story, they dont connect on the screen and that technobabble from Alicia Vikanders character doesnt make it better. Two parallell stories at once. For this to work the love story need to be sold, but it just doesnt work. I dont belive it when the main characters get outburst, the reaction feels to theatric and it becomes a make belive reaction for show. To really make the terrorist look bad and evil they put in things that just oversell the evilness of the terrorist. Yes I get it, they are the badguys but it becomes a bit to much. Sorry. I really wanted to enjoy this but it didnt work for me.

source: Submergence

This is one of those book adaptations that just does not translate into a good movie, regardless of Wim Wenders and great cinematography and music and two good actors. The story just is slow, boring and dull and the 2 story lines do not hold it together which is unfortunate as it is beautiful to watch.. almost like a music video/documentary that yearns for a deeper story to make it come together. Yet as a film it just did not work. And the ending a bit predictable and trite... after the endless wait for something meaningful to happen besides the obvioud...one almost wish they both die to make it more appropriate of the whole depressing theme of the movie and love story that feels forced and out of place. Surely the book has more depth but film is not worthy. And i am a big Wenders fan. I give it a 4 for the acting with limited story, and DP/Music.

Would have liked it if they made two stories instead of the highly improbable melding into one (It was like putting a right hand glove on the left hand - just didn't fit). Didn't have a focus; dragged; lots of stereotypes (e.g. guy uses well worn lines to pick up attractive female at hotel/resort - ughhh!). Too predictable scenarios & acting for both parties - the guy & the female. It's good that Vikander looks younger than she is, but she looks like an older teen which makes this a creepy pickup romance.

The chemistry is non existent and Vikander has about as much charm as a piece of driftwood. They used to say Keanu Reeves was a wooden actor but I even so I kinda like the guy - she is the female equivalent but I cannot stand her poor acting and zero emotions - how did she get into acting? Must be a student of the Harvey Weinstein school methinks! McAvoy's acting far outshines Vikander who is in my opinion another one of the fluff on a stick actresses who cannot act but get the role for her looks but god knows why as her boyish, stick insect figure is definitely not sexy in the least. Apart from those irritations we have an Utterly tedious story with nothing of interest at all; the love story is a joke as there is zero chemistry between the two actors - casting director should leave the business!

Still, there was a haunting texture to the film that made it compelling to continue watching. It was adapted from a novel - was there more depth to the story there? Brilliant idea, but somewhat disappointing execution. Both lead actors are beatiful to watch on screen. Maybe what urges you on is a hope they'll reunite and we'll see what seems to be promised. That, unfortunately, doesn't happen.

I found this film enjoyable from several perspectives. I loved the opening sequence, it sets the tone. The scenes of the beaches in France are gorgeous, although with a grim reminder for Canadians that went ashore in 1942. For me the theme of the movie is the interconnectedness of all things on our Earth. On the one hand we have the latest biotechnology science penetrating the depths of the ocean in search of the origins of life. On the other hand far way, we have the clash of civilizations going back thousands of years, with no solutions in sight. Danielle and James are extremely well portrayed. Danielle is a scientist that is earthy and connects well with people and also senses the presence of the smallest organism. James is a hardened paratrooper that is willing to put his life on the line for a higher purpose. They both connect on a physical as well as psychic level. If you like adventure don't miss this.

Well if you were expecting a boring romance movie among candles then you're in the wrong place! The idea is brilliant and it's all about the connection .. Both made a fabulous job honestly!

Trust me, the question in my title is leading somewhere with regard to this movie. And I'll reward you with my favorite art joke at the end of this review. But for now just indulge me. Have you visited an art gallery, or would you like to if you had the chance? All the NOs may leave the building (no hard feelings, I'm just trying to save you 112 mins of your time). All the YESs and MAYBEs and I GUESS IF I REALLY NEEDED TO USE THE BATHROOMs, please read on. "Submergence" is a powerful film which, much like a painting, defies any attempt to sum it up in 500 words or less. Even the genre that it's listed under, "drama, romance, thriller", is as misleading as calling "2001: A Space Odyssey" a scifi flick. The story follows 2 people on 2 opposite sides of the world, each coming to grips with their own likely death, their own duty to a cause that no one cares about, and the thing that binds this whole story together: their love for each other. Thus "Submergence" is the ultimate long-distance-relationship, but with a clever existential spin: neither one knows if the other is alive, or even if the other person is still in love with them. That's all that needs to be said about the plot because the plot is secondary to the real power of this film. I don't need to tell you about the guns, grenades, suicide bombers, sinking submarines, psycho soldiers, or James McAvoy's cute pet centipede. All that stuff is just dressing atop the great lines and magnificent imagery. If you watch this flick, I highly recommend turning the subtitles on so you don't miss any of the wonderful dialogue and poetic thoughts that are peppered throughout. Back to the art gallery, as promised. It shouldn't come as too much of a surprise that director Wim Wenders considers himself an artist/photographer foremost, while to him being a filmmaker is almost secondary. It's evident in all of his films that he's telling us stories through visual composition rather than action. If you're new to Wim Wenders, this is a pretty good place to start because "Submergence" is very poetic and challenging, but it's not so abstract that it might lose you (such as his earlier masterpieces from the 1980s "Paris, Texas" and "Wings of Desire"). Wim Wenders is really like a classic painter who happens to have the technology to make films. So with that in mind, I think if you're ready for an "art gallery" experience, then this flick is for you. Oh right. I promised you an art joke. Ok, here goes. A woman and her dumb boyfriend from (insert name of place you want to ridicule here) go to an art gallery. The dumb boyfriend looks at a painting and says "that looks like something the cat threw up." Woman says: "That's a Monet." Dumb boyfriend moves to the next wall and says "that looks like some chick stuck her face in a blender." Woman says: "That's a Picasso." Dumb boyfriend moves to the next wall and says "that looks like a monkey picking his nose." Woman says: "That's a mirror."

Movie starts, a heap of production companies show their logo, dozens of producers and makers are listed. The intro feels like the credits are rolling and that would have been a good idea. Just those 5 minutes of sweet music and the book promotion would have done so much more for this story. First scene, female star mumbles her text to a supporting actor, who is hard to understand also. Granted, not many people in real life speak load and clearly, like an actor, but maybe an actor should. I would be willing to suspend disbelief, I have done so for wilder stories than this one. Next scene, french captain briefs his crew in a heavy accent, but what he says sounds like an American putting the words in his mouth. Probably what happened. At least the viewer can understand. Not that the narrative does anything for character development, story progression, sparking an interest or doing anything at all for the film. Then we see something unusual, a wounded looking man deep in trouble somewhere in an underdeveloped country. What is he doing there? Don't worry, the next disjointed time and space jump will explain more than you want to know. Literally. Cameras cut on the faces during dialog like following some kind of guidebook. Again, not a good idea. The European actors in this movie are not exactly models. If you have the money to shoot this, why not give us some interesting angles and show off the acting skill of the uglies you cast and not cutting every 5 seconds. This major production looked like a telenovela, what a disappointment.