filipemanuelneto

Disaster films have always been a good guarantee of forgettable entertainment that the public consumes without much concern, without thinking about it. This is just one of many, and it is not one of the best, although there are also more infamous examples.

The plot is set in a reasonably near future, where the human race has responded to climate change in the laziest way possible: instead of adopting a lifestyle in harmony with the world, it has simply taken control of the world climate through an imaginative system of stationary satellites controlled from the International Space Station. The problem is that, just a few months before the system passes to the UN (it would be in the hands of the North American administration or NASA), it begins to present very serious flaws that endanger the survival of life in the world.

Perhaps I should try not to dwell too much on the verisimilitude (or lack thereof) of this plot. In fact, in addition to being morally reprehensible (we are tired of seeing Man pretend to be God in many ways), the idea of such a climate control network seems stupidly expensive and absolutely unfeasible considering the scope (it would require a broad consensus of all nations and financing in which everyone took part), the complexity, costs and number of problems to overcome. It's extremely unrealistic, and I don't know if the public accepted the idea to the point to watch the film. However, once this strangeness has been overcome, the film unfolds decently and gives us a plot that, although predictable, cliché and occasionally tedious, is at least capable of entertaining. And of course, it's best to forget about character development, which is limited to the most basic.

On a technical level, the film invests all its resources in visual effects and high-quality CGI, embellished by excellent filming and photography work, and by good sets and costumes. We cannot complain about the lack of grandiose scenes or spectacular action, especially when disasters and storms truly begin to devastate several parts of the planet simultaneously. The visual effects do a lot for the most impressive scenes, and the soundtrack provides a happy and well-made support.

Dean Devlin is an established producer, but it is clear that he is not fit to fill the role of director. He is not able to properly coordinate or guide the cast, and the result of this is the random way in which each of the actors does their work. You feel that the atmosphere behind the scenes may not have been the most fluid: Ed Harris, the veteran here, escapes a lot from all this and uses the wisdom of experience to give us an interesting and well-made interpretation of a character who almost didn't appears, although it is important. The rest of the actors are adrift: Abbie Cornish seems to have found some port of call that allows her to extricate herself better, but Jim Sturgess, Gerard Butler and Andy Garcia are lost and confused by their material and their respective characters, eventually wasting much of their talent.

I usually don't have high expectations for films that emerged from the world of games, conventional or electronic. This film bases its plot on a board game, but I felt that it had very little relationship with it, and could perfectly be independent, using only the name and some very slight influences that only the most knowledgeable will be able to identify.

The best thing about the film is the production values and visual aspects. Making good use of the filming locations close to Hawaii and providing us with decent costumes and sets, it places us well in the naval environment. The sound effects are excellent, especially in combat and action scenes. However, the soundtrack doesn't do much: it limits itself to shouting to please the "rock" audience that wants to see simple beatings. The most valuable aspects are high-quality CGI and visual effects with great entertainment value. I would venture to say that the film was conceived on this premise, not the plot or the script: "let's make an action blockbuster that we can load up with CGI and visuals to fill our pockets with dollars". As expected, a project with such principles could not have good results: it is still capable of entertaining, but it is so forgettable and uninteresting that we only see it once.

The film's problems begin with Peter Berg, the director. I only know his work because I saw "Hancock", an absolutely forgettable film, and "Deepwater Horizon", a later work, where he seems to show what he learned. Here, he did a weak and lazy job, taking much of the blame for the failures I will list. For example, he was unable to model dramatic tension in a solid way and to insert action when it would have the greatest impact. As it stands, the film is as exciting as a video game. There is also a lack of a strong enemy, who can instill fear in the public: we never fully see the extent to which aliens can be a threat, they are there because there has to be an enemy to throw bombs at. It is too simple, lazy and sloppy, all the plot is unrealistically inflated, leaves too much to chance and loses all logic.

To crown the disaster, the film has a cast where each actor is alone doing what they want, since the director is reduced to a decorative figure. The greatest proof of this is Liam Neeson. He needs no introduction, has a CV to envy and, yet, seems uninterested in the character, doing the minimum he needs to do to receive the paycheck in the end. Let's be honest, the script doesn't give him anything to do either, the actor simply has to be out there and look imposing. The one who struggled the most was the protagonist, Alexander Skarsgård. He seems truly dynamic and committed to making his work enjoyable, and I commend his effort. Unfortunately, Brooklyn Dekker, his romantic partner, is an inedible loaf of saltless bread and Rhianna proves to the world that she did a good choice by becoming a singer and not an actress. Her character is so miserable that she could have been one of the first to die.

I loved the film, I watched it just now, and I was truly impressed when I discovered, while reading some things to prepare this text, that the trial was real and the characters correspond to real people. As I have already mentioned in other texts, I am a historian, which is why this film is so important to me, highlighting the importance that we, History professionals, can have for the rigorous interpretation of the past.

The film's theme is the lawsuit that David Irving, a self-proclaimed British historian, brought against the American historian of Jewish origin Deborah Lipstadt after she published a book in which she incisively attacked Irving's theories, in which he sought to exculpate Hitler for the Holocaust, even stating that no Jews had been killed in Auschwitz and that there were no gas chambers in this or other extermination camps. One thing that the film does not clarify is that this process arose some time after the British author suffered another type of reprisal because of his ideas, such as being considered "persona non grata" in countries like Austria, where denying the Holocaust is criminally punishable. The film also makes no mention of the fact that Irving continued to deny the Holocaust and defend Hitler as he can, and remains an active defender of these ideas.

The biggest conclusion I draw is the importance of being serious and neutral as a historian. Many people confuse everything, including fellow historians, and tend to become "judges of the past", saying that this was good and that was horrible. The true historian must not judge the past in the light of today's mentality, but in the light of what was felt, experienced and known at that particular time and place. The historian is not a judge, he is an analyst who allows the facts to speak for themselves. Irving, to me, is not worthy of calling himself a historian, but I also have difficulty accepting Lipstadt's position: she is right, the Holocaust is undeniable, but she made the mistake of letting her heart lead her when she should have been as dispassionate and neutral as her lawyers. As a historian, I try to avoid topics that move my emotions. If I can't be calm and neutral when I deal with some subject, the best I can do is call a colleague capable of doing so to help me with my work. Being partial is not the same thing as being dishonest, but it is still a disservice to History as a science.

The film is not memorable: in terms of production values it is completely within the generic standard for a good film, without glaring errors or great artistic notes. It's just a good piece of entertainment that does what it promises and allows us to spend some quality and productive downtime. For international audiences, the film needs to explain a little how English judicial mechanics work, but I didn't have any major difficulties understanding how everything happened there. What remains of this film is the solid performance of the cast, full of great actors. None of them leave us with a bad impression. Timothy Spall is suitably despicable and gives his character all the tics we need to disgust her; Rachel Weisz is convincingly strong and emotional in her role, giving us a romantic heroine out of her time; Andrew Scott provides a very happy support and Alex Jennings fulfills his role discreetly, but effectively and sincerely. The highlight goes entirely to Tom Wilkinson, in a remarkable performance punctuated by a seriousness and oratory full of dignity.