mbredeck

I was surprised to read such negative comments here on this movie, but there is no accounting for taste. Several find fault with the "cinematography" without going any further to explain what they mean by that. It was well-reviewed when it came out, and several of the External Reviews linked in here that I read were equally complimentary on this very aspect. This movie is both a glimpse of reality and fantasy, and it picks and chooses from both columns of that Chinese menu. It deals with manipulation, illusion, and chaos and is, in turns, manipulative, misleading, and chaotic. It has great energy which is owed to peak performances from the three principals and a story that is both intricately involved (a fugitive, impersonating a stunt man, who stands in for an actor...) and charmingly simple (leading lady falls for mysterious stranger). The interpersonal dynamics are dealt with in very realistic fits and start, and the action is peppered in perfectly to keep the frantic, kinetic momentum hurtling forward. The main character must cope with situations where he is off balance (figuratively and literally), misinformed, and not in control, and this makes me sympathize with him. We are all writing, acting, and directing ourselves in life, and a film on film-making is commentary on this. Overall, the movie is good fun that doesn't insult the intellect and is full of little artistic touches and tricks. The poster art does, after all, feature a devil at the camera, not an angel.

I can't think of a "disaster movie" that I liked, so I may be the worst judge. Sebastian Junger's book was engrossing to me for the many things that cannot be expected to translate to the screen: detailed meteorology, a description of the physiology of drowning, the details unearthed in his investigation, and the rough portrait of the people involved that emerges. In the movie, we travel toward a known destination, so the question is, "why make the trip?" The director appears to think that it is to bear witness to the heroism of superhuman George Clooney (not Billy Tyne) as he improbably hangs onto an outrigger during a hurricane with an inextinguishable torch to cut loose a chain threatening to flail them to death. He does! Hurrah! Other crewmen are saved from drowning, too, but they are all doomed, so concentrating on this drama felt unsatisfying. To be fair to the real people involved, this sort of Hollywood action should have been jettisoned, and we should have been treated to a more documentary treatment of the story to do the book justice, as well. The closest we get to that is the painstaking recreation of reality through the setting, costumes, etc. Why wasn't this the movie I wanted made? Because an actual rotting swordfish would attract a bigger audience than a documentary about Gloucester fishermen. Audiences want to see George Clooney and some special effects while they munch their popcorn. This is also why the musical score is an intrusive element that lacks any subtlety, whatsoever. Moviemakers are not so unlike fishermen in this regard, and they cast their nets where the shoals of patrons are, and must use flashy tackle to attract them. If you are a little more discerning in your choices of entertainment, you probably would prefer the book.