All is Lost

Another film about the human spirit’s ability to persevere we do not need, yet here we are again.

In the straights on Sumatra off the coast of Indonesia a lone sailor (Robert Redford) awakens to find his sailboat's cabin filling fast with sea water. A massive whole has been torn through the side after a freak, overnight collision with a rogue shipping container. In the vastness of the Indian Ocean the spectacular odds of this collision’s happening seem staggering, and yet this is only the beginning of the misadventure.

After patching up the side of the boat, even despite the total loss of all modern navigation equipment, the danger seems to cease. For a moment it seems like all that’s left is for the lone sailor to venture into the nearest port and seek repairs, but of course we know this is not the story.

It is as if the hulking metal mass has delivered upon the lone sailor a divine wrath from which there is no escape. When we see the container, a faceless representation of some mega conglomerate, smashed through the side of the delicate sailboat, sweatshop-produced shoes spilling out into the ocean, the irony is overwhelming. The very world the lone sailor has set out to get away from has tracked him down.

Before we start the film, just from the title alone, we know what the outcome will be, yet despite the unoriginal plot and standard shipwreck story conventions, the film succeeds. Fantastically succeeds.

Almost completely devoid of dialogue, Robert Redford exudes a stolid, matter-of-fact persona in the face of catastrophe. He toils steadily, remaining steadfast in his manner. It is exhausting just watching him labor endlessly and even though he is performing, this performance cannot really be considered acting. Simply going through the motions of this role is enough to exude awe, especially when he is being thrown around wildly by the untamed, open ocean; the work that it must have taken to play this role is obvious and seems to strip away acting practices; what we really see is a man just trying not to die.  

9/10

Flight

In this 2012 film, Director Robert Zemeckis shows-off his filmmaking chops in the film’s first forty-five phenomenal minutes. The plane crash in Flight is spectacular and original. A fresh new take and a welcome addition to the genre, it’s unlike any other plane crash I’ve seen before.

Preparing for its final decent into Atlanta the MD-80 aircraft of Southjet Flight 227 severely malfunctions. The elevator, the hinged wings on the plane’s tail stick downward, sending the plane into a steep dive. A disastrous crash is almost certain, but with ace pilot Captain Whip Whitaker (Denzel Washington) at the controls, he and his crew pull off a remarkable feat and save hundreds of lives.

After the gripping first act, the rest of film the film is propelled forward solely by Washington who is in fine form, yet despite this, the film mostly drags on. Many long, unnecessary, and awkward scenes could have easily have been cut, and the film would have been better for it. Parts of the back-story of Whitaker’s life work great, while others are just too convenient to be believable.

Flight tries to be more than just a plane crash film. The film delves deep into the destruction alcoholism can cause, and also attempts to tackle the question of what it is to be a hero.

While drudging up some very interesting and heavy material, considering the film’s length of 2hr 18min, a much clearer statement of intent would have been nice. Since Captain Whitaker is an alcoholic, there is a ton of backlash against him, but the dialogue on the subject of whether or not a drunk can be a hero, is far from concluded.

7.5/10

Errata: Can an MD-80 aircraft fly upside down? These aircraft were never designed to fly inverted, obviously, but can they? According to Larry Goodrich, the film’s flight consultant, the answer is no, or at least not for very long. He says the aircraft’s wings would lose lift, and after that the plane would come down[1].

---

[1] Can airliners really fly upside down? - CNN.com

Hunger Games: Catching Fire

The fact that the Hunger Games stories are not crushed by their own weight is mystifying, and an achievement.

It seems crazy that a film whose ideology is as savagely brutal as the fictional Games would become such a hit. Despite all its violent connotations and tyrannical regimes, the film comes off as the year’s pinnacle of entertainment. Maybe the allure lies in ourselves? We project ourselves on screen. We are Katniss fighting back against the oppressors. The film’s core audience is essentially the same demographic that would be sacrificed if such games were ever to become a reality, so maybe everyone is really just preparing for the future? When the Games start, we’ll know what to expect.

According to IMDB, Post-apocalyptic thrillers are not particularly big money makers; The Hunger Games franchise being the only series that nearly approaches real commercial heavy weights. The first two Hunger Games installments together hold the top grossing spots in the genre, but even then, they don’t come near grossing anything like the top 50 overall films. Avatar and Titanic are the top two. Both have over two billion worldwide gross. Still, Hunger Games has a hard-core devoted fan base that rivals even Twilight.

At the Los Angeles premiere of The Hunger Games: Catching Fire, young fans camped out for three days just to be front and center on the red carpet, catching glimpses of the film’s stars.

The best scenes of the film visually were the ones shot in the districts. The New Yorker review describes these scenes like “Eastern-bloc depression…drained of vitality,” but Katniss is exactly the opposite. As a hero she is so strong that alleviates the vitality drainage. Once we leave the districts, the filmmakers deflect the intensity of the subject matter using Katniss as a distraction. Katniss keeps the film from being engulfed into an R-rated abyss. I love R-rated abysses, but they don’t draw fans like Jennifer Lawrence’s strong performances in these PG-13 flicks.

There were some weaknesses. The coincidence that Katniss and Peeta would be drawn back into the turmoil was too much, an obvious excuse just to get Katniss back in the ring. How is that we didn’t hear of these conflicts in the past film? Surely Katniss and Peeta would have the known the traditions of the world they live in.

Also, why are all the people in the capital dressed so outlandishly? How do they assemble for all public events in perfect symmetry? Why is the President’s only concern with the games? Doesn’t he have other duties?

What the story lacks in depth, and it certainly does lack, it makes up for in action-packed, well-shot scenes. Despite an appearance by Phillip Seymour Hoffman as the gamemaker, the curves thrown at the participants in this rendition of the Games weren’t as exciting as the first film.

The most annoying thing in the film was Peeta Malark. He is a weakling and not an interesting character. On the battlefield he hardly contributes. He seems to function only as a male counterpart to Katniss in the political spectrum as Katniss ends up fighting battles for two in the forest.

Overall The Hunger Games: Catching Fire was worth the price of admission, and at 2 hours 26 minutes, it flies by quick. 

7.5/10