An account of a family caught, with tens of thousands of strangers, in the mayhem of one of the worst natural catastrophes of our time.
First, let us talk about the Oscar nomination for Naomi Watts. I get it. She did a fine job here looking beat up and nearly dead. That probably deserves a nomination. But her performance is overshadowed by that of the young Tom Holland, who received no such nomination. So, to me, if he is not eligible, she should not win. Is that fair? Maybe, maybe not. But that is how I feel -- Tom Holland carried this picture.
Beyond that, I have mixed feelings. The tsunami effects were incredible and I really felt the panic involved. But we have here an English family that gets separated -- and they all survive and become reunited within one or two days (I am a bit fuzzy on the timeline). Sure, this really happened (although the family was Spanish -- and I find it odd that a Spanish production company did not use Spanish actors). But it seems too clean, even with all the danger and death.
Sure, the film is "the impossible", which would imply that this should not have happened but did. Yet, to put a basically happy ending on a tragedy that killed 230,000 people seems insulting to me. Apparently others have called it "whitewashed". I do not think that is the case -- that term is too extreme -- but I have to wonder why we have to focus on a family who seemingly came out unscathed. Where is a family that did not?
Roger Ebert gave the film a perfect rating and called it "one of the best films of the year". This to me signals Ebert's growing disconnect with reality. If he means "one of the 50 best", then yes. But I assume he means more like ten best, and that is just plain wrong.
First, let us talk about the Oscar nomination for Naomi Watts. I get it. She did a fine job here looking beat up and nearly dead. That probably deserves a nomination. But her performance is overshadowed by that of the young Tom Holland, who received no such nomination. So, to me, if he is not eligible, she should not win. Is that fair? Maybe, maybe not. But that is how I feel -- Tom Holland carried this picture.
Beyond that, I have mixed feelings. The tsunami effects were incredible and I really felt the panic involved. But we have here an English family that gets separated -- and they all survive and become reunited within one or two days (I am a bit fuzzy on the timeline). Sure, this really happened (although the family was Spanish -- and I find it odd that a Spanish production company did not use Spanish actors). But it seems too clean, even with all the danger and death.
Sure, the film is "the impossible", which would imply that this should not have happened but did. Yet, to put a basically happy ending on a tragedy that killed 230,000 people seems insulting to me. Apparently others have called it "whitewashed". I do not think that is the case -- that term is too extreme -- but I have to wonder why we have to focus on a family who seemingly came out unscathed. Where is a family that did not?
Roger Ebert gave the film a perfect rating and called it "one of the best films of the year". This to me signals Ebert's growing disconnect with reality. If he means "one of the 50 best", then yes. But I assume he means more like ten best, and that is just plain wrong.