Chris Reich This film is slow, beautiful, emotionally subtle, full of (old.fashioned) dignity, and abstains from spectacular action. It is totally based in reality, and it examines two of the most important issues of today: Life and its origin and the problem of (fake?) religious fanaticism. It is very serious, so serious that it's almost not entertaining. You don't know what to think about it while watching, and you continue to ask yourself questions for hours and days after watching it. A feeling of vulnerability, concern and longing - by all means positive - will accompany you after watching, for a long time - provided you have a soul were able to get touched by the film. For me, there are just two major weaknesses: 1. People and places are *to* beautiful and perfect. 2. It's to short for its pace. I want a 3.5 hours directors cut. You have to know what you are doing when you go watch a Wim Wenders movie. If you do so, you won't be disappointed.

Peter Pluymers Our world is firstly about power, it's only secondly about education.A calm movie from time to time is something I welcome. Not again such a flashy, action-packed hero film where you'll get nervous because the scenes follow each other in a rapid pace and stroboscopic effects get you a cutting headache. "Submergence" undoubtedly belongs to the first category. So, no nauseating headache. No disorientation feeling. You will certainly not experience that with this ultra slow film. The only thing that made me nervous was the forth and back jumping between the stories of the two protagonists Danielle Flinders (Alicia Vikander) and James More (James McAvoy).James is the kind of guy who knows something about every subject. A whiskey connoisseur, people connoisseur (one look and he knows that the bartender was an ex-rugby player) and also a literary man. He's such a man who'll sweep any woman off her feet. And not only because of his good looks but also because of his engaging and charming behavior. And mainly because he has mastered the art of listening. James works in Nairobi where he consults on water projects. In reality, he works for the British Secret Service. Well, I guess he does, judging by the mysterious briefing he got while walking around in an art museum. And also the situation he's in afterward, has nothing to do with water sources.Danielle is a bio-mathematician (and not an oceanographer as James calls it) and is looking for proof that life exists in the darkest depths of the ocean. A pioneering (and Nobel Prize-worthy) research that can result in eternal fame. So expect a lot of incomprehensible, scientific gibberish. Like this for example: "Some of the most common pathways of energy production in microorganisms, who live along the hydrothermal vents, are oxidation or reduction of sulfur compounds. The most common electron donor along the vents is hydrogen sulfide, making oxidation of sulfur-containing compounds the base of the food web in this environment." Not exactly fodder for an average conversation. Danielle is such a typical female nerd whose work determines and directs her entire life.In fact, they are two realists whose profession plays a central role and who probably don't have the time or desire to make an eternal bond with someone of the opposite sex. Until they happen to meet on a Norman beach."Submergence" is not exactly an exciting movie. It all feels rather poetic. Even the title is an abstraction of the different facets of the film. The sudden blazing love. The predicament that James finds himself in Somalia. And the claustrophobic situation in a (Yes it's yellow) submarine for Danielle. And the whole film gently bounces back and forth between all these storylines. To be honest, I found the romantic part the most impressive. It was a pleasure to watch how these two lovebirds explore and discover each other in one long passionate mating dance. Every time the film returned to this part, it became fascinating. I looked at the other two parts with a kind of indifference. Still weird that Alicia Vikander seemed too young to me in the role of Lara Croft in "Tomb Raider", while in this film I didn't have that feeling. I do understand the metaphors used in this film. But to be honest, I think it was neither fish nor fowl (no pun intended). In the end, I thought the storyline in this potpourri of romance and drama was pretty thin-skinned.

juanmuscle Submergence - Firstly, this is an adaptation to the novel, which I did not read - But unlike film , there is unlimited time to build on the characters so that somewhere along the prose timeline we manifest human beings. But in film there are stringent strictures on timeline, this is a bold attempt to perhaps take what prose delineated with many didactic facts circumnavigating round every little nook and cranny erelong we understand everything perfectly, so when we finally close the book we say dang, these two fine characters were this and they did that and that happened to them. But in film, alas there is not enough time. I feel this is a giant bold attempt through the vehicle of abstract surrealism to go outside the outskirts of normalcy outside the outposts of conventional didactic facts by turns, page after page to use the characters (of whom I have no idea what the pretty girl did or why she was under the water, or why the handsome gent was there and all groddy and captured and all those pesky facts) So I just let myself go with what we have in front of us, an attempt at using the characters as symbols allegorical ideals in an intangible world drifting here and there through the ebb and flow of our spirit's inner ocean, the deep connection, the rift therein due to the character's particulars no matter how singular, to there final "re-connection" and we come to their final page and close the book on a film that hovers over words and is suspended in that area outside of time and space which transcend the characters as manifestations of an innefable ideal. The characters are sort of spectral in the lambent light of our inner hearth but at length ideas here on this sphere must collide with reality whereby this script was written in a way so that our unique characters reach their crisis as it were, transposed, but upon the whole, we must re-connect with this realm's reality and it is just too stark, to striking, to ungodly, so we can't really say, this is a sad ending nor a happy ending, its just as it started, odd singular as the characters and their connection, their fates, its all woven in this deep solemn meditation that reaches from beyond and asks us to just wonder a bit on what is truly important in life, real love, could there be more than just this realm, did the book do that? I don't know. The film yes, it touches us in places that rubs us the wrong way, at once, there is this voice inside that wells up and wants to expel this giant guttural scream WHY? These two people are so cute, they are yet young, handsome rich famous movie stars, why can't they just drop all this waked nonsense and go chill out at the mall? lol....

cristina-679-5038 I understand why people would see it as boring, it has philosophy in it, a depth that not everybody can reach. The actors play their parts magnificat, I was waiting for MacAvoy to do something like this and it wasn't a surprise from Vikander. I loved it and I hope more intelligent people would watch so that the rating will go up but again, it's not for mainstream audiences, they only need obvious entertainment, explosions and action.