Submergence

I am shocked at the negative feedback to this film. It is by no means perfect, but I was moved and genuinely enjoyed it.

The Good: -The acting is fantastic from every performer. -the MUSIC -it's beautiful to look at

• James's story I felt to be very interesting and compelling.

The Negative: -I feel they took too long introducing the characters and letting their love form. On one hand, yes it's nice to not see feelings rushed and force you to try and care. But on the other hand the film isn't about them falling in love, it's about their passions for their respective causes, and that bringing out the best in both of them by seeing it through their love. -Danny's story wasn't near as interesting to me as James's was. Not because of the performances, but I believe the script could have used some tightening, and focused more on the purpose of her expedition instead of her not being able to focus on it because he hasn't replied to her.

Overall:

Solid film, I think it is a bit too long but at the same time I didn't expect it to end, it is very sad and makes you think for awhile after. It's honestly in my opinion, a great film to watch by yourself and just invest yourself into.

7/10

This movie could have worked, and in some ways it really does. Though some people don't agree, I found the chemistry between Vikander and McAvoy to be good and very believable.

What wasn't at all believable was the script. Oh looordy, lord, there's some bad lines in there. Everything drowned in pointless talks about the ocean and suuuure it's an analogy and all, but yeezus give it a rest, will ya? The story isn't really there. It could have been an epic love story, but it's not - though that's not the actor's fault. Vikander and McAvoy give it everything they have to deliver those at times painful lines.

If you love everything else Vikander has done, you'll probably like this one as well. The male gaze is all over her, and it truly works.

The cinematography for this film is absolutely spectacular and almost worth the time just because of that (almost).

I went into this movie with high hopes. There aren't enough romantic dramas out there and I loved that it was described as a "haunting love story." Well... it was more like a disappointing love story to me. Without giving away any spoilers, the format of this movie intercuts between the past romance and the current separation of the two main characters portrayed by James McAvoy and Alicia Vikander. While I like both of these actors individually, I didn't really feel the chemistry between them. That said, I was still interested in their separate storylines (he is taken prisoner by jihadists and she is doing deep water sea exploration). But... after all that waiting, I didn't think the ending was very well done.

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."

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.