107 min
6.878
2016
Hong Kong
A story set on the offshore drilling rig Deepwater Horizon, which exploded during April 2010 and created the worst oil spill in U.S. history.
Overview
Reviews
Per Gunnar Jonsson wrote:As expected this is a bit of a propaganda movie against BP but that was of course rather expected. It is still watchable. The dramatization is fairly well done and the effects are believable as well as enjoyable. If you watch it as a disaster drama and special effects movie it is definitely okay.
As a documentary, well I would say that it falls short. The movie only covers the initial explosion. Once the platform is evacuated the movie stops. I am somewhat disappointed at that. I would at least have liked to see the attempts to put out the fire. Where are the scenes with the boats trying to douse the rig with water for instance?
I would also have liked the film to cover the attempts to close the well, the technical challenges involved and the fight against the oil spill. This is not at all covered.
I feel that the film attempts to ride on public opinion, pretend to be a action/disaster movie as well as a fact telling one and cash in on the accident. The action/disaster parts were well done but the movie left out a lot of the, perhaps less spectacular, drama around the accident. It is a shame because now it became a rather ordinary movie as well as giving a distasteful feeling they were just trying to make some quick bucks on the disaster.
That also made the factual parts somewhat in doubt. I feel the movie is making a strong effort to portray BP as willful criminals. I am sure there is plenty of blame that should fly BP’s way but at the same time one can read that “On November 8, 2010, the inquiry by the Oil Spill Commission revealed its findings that BP had not sacrificed safety in attempts to make money, but that some decisions had increased risks on the rig.”. As always, things are not black and white and oil drilling is risky business after all.
Anyway, enough ramblings, I found the movie okay, nothing more and nothing less.
Reno wrote:**To remind us our errors and limits.**
It was a surprising film. Because it was based on a real event, but there's nothing much about heroism which is essential for most of this kind of film and its success to inspire the viewers. I liked that. They just wanted to tell the story. Not to create a hero nor a villain. But due to the casting, Mark Wahlberg looks the centre of the story. And also points out a negative character without confirming anything properly. But if the film is depicting the real incident correctly, then it was no man's fault. It should be a technical error that led to the man's push over the limit.
It's April 20 2010 about 60 kms away southern coast of the US in the Gulf of Mexico. A new batch arrives to continue drilling in the deep sea as part of oil exploration. When they felt they have got it, but it's only a back foot. Small small errors, following a big blow, the entire crew with the greater effort to stop it ends in vain. Finally, it is a matter of saving their own life than the drilling platform. With lots of action, how one of the biggest man made disaster in the recent time comes to end covered in the remaining part.
From the director of 'Lone Survivor' and his part in the project was appreciable. It is another sea disaster theme like the recent 'The Finest Hours'. The film was mainly developed from the articles and also got nominated for the Oscars in two categories, but did not win any. Visual effects were the key for such film and I liked those parts. I appreciate for recreating the event for the world know what really happened. It is a must see, not for entertainment purpose, but it will work for that as well. Recommended!
_7½/10_
Filipe Manuel Neto wrote:**Very well-balanced, the film does not tire us and provides good entertainment.**
Disaster and accident films are common, although I feel that, for the last ten years, this has been an underexplored genre. The film is based on a true incident where a massive oil drilling rig suffered critical safety failures, eventually catching fire and collapsing. After investigations, the inadequate operation of a team that was supposed to place a cement lining in the hole opened by the platform was responsible for what happened, as well as the lack of maintenance of the equipment, all situations that would have been avoided if the company contracting the platform, BP, had really been less avaricious in relation to the costs and delays of the undertaking.
The film is quite good, it offers us quality entertainment without major flaws, but this does not mean that it is free from important criticism. In fact, the script could be better if there wasn't such a long delay, at the beginning of the film, to reach the platform. I got the idea that the film takes a long time to gain interest and wastes time, in this initial phase, with aspects of lesser relevance. I also felt that it ends very abruptly, without much consideration being given, beyond the statements in the later process.
Observing the way the film was structured and thought out, it becomes quite obvious that Mark Wahlberg was thought of as the protagonist, the main actor of the film. However, the truth is that the actor erases himself throughout the film and seems to avoid appearing or doing anything that makes him heroic and worthy of this role. Personally, I think it's one of the weakest and most uninteresting performances by the actor, whose merits, abilities or talent – caveat – are not up for debate. Much better, stronger, more impactful and more present on screen, Kurt Russell deserves praise for a job well done. He steals attention whenever he appears or says something. I also enjoyed the contributions by Gina Rodríguez and John Malkovich.
The film had the competent direction of Peter Berg. He was not always successful in his efforts, there are actually some issues of rhythm and editing that should have been worked on better, but it ends up deserving a very positive note, especially if we take into account that he managed to prevent a film so susceptible to eventual CGI overdoses to be turned into an avalanche of effects and technical resources without script support. This is a recurring flaw in disaster movies, and we've seen how much it hurt other productions, like “2012”, for example. The resources are here, the CGI is very evident in the film, and it is, in fact, striking and imposing, but it is not absorbing to the point of making us feel like we are watching something fictional. Another point of success in the technical aspects of this film is the subtle harmony between the construction and development of the characters and the tension that, gradually and unhurriedly, builds up until the accident. A truly realistic scenario and good costumes and soundtrack complete the technical composition of a film that does not tire us and entertains us without being a masterpiece.
