It's really a shame that a lot of viewers have trouble telling the actors apart, and becomes unsure or misunderstands for example if it's Gibson or Alex that makes it unto the moonstone with Tommy. Or as someone mentioned here, not at first realising Alex is the one who finds George dead. It must take away a lot from the story and the emotional impact of different scenes. I can actually understand all the criticism about character connection and development if people simply can't tell what characters they are looking at. I talked to someone who thought the movie sucked because "we kept being introduced to random people who had nothing to do with the story!", which I obviously don't think is the case. It's just such a shame that a lot of the bad reviews and attitudes to the movie might not have been there if it was simply made easier to distinguish Tommy, Alex and Gibson from each other. It shouldn't be required to have watched a bunch of press interviews with the actors to be able to tell what's happening in the actual movie.

I've wondered if that was intentional on Nolan's part, to not have you be attached to a particular character but rather for them all to represent different facets of what happens to people in dangerous stressful survival situations.

On the other hand, I knew exactly who each of them was but I did not become attached to them. I wish I had. I was hoping for a tearjerker but the only parts that came close for me were the Little Ship arrival and Farrier's final glide. I kept feeling he could have drawn out the emotional parts better - a bit more of George after he was injured, more of a reaction from Peter on finding out George was dead, a bit of Gibson's face as he frantically plugged holes, a bit more of Alex's shame. And maybe a bit more dialogue in general. It did not bother me at all that they had no backstories and I understand the reason for that.

dormouse7 wrote:I've wondered if that was intentional on Nolan's part, to not have you be attached to a particular character but rather for them all to represent different facets of what happens to people in dangerous stressful survival situations.

On the other hand, I knew exactly who each of them was but I did not become attached to them. I wish I had. I was hoping for a tearjerker but the only parts that came close for me were the Little Ship arrival and Farrier's final glide. I kept feeling he could have drawn out the emotional parts better - a bit more of George after he was injured, more of a reaction from Peter on finding out George was dead, a bit of Gibson's face as he frantically plugged holes, a bit more of Alex's shame. And maybe a bit more dialogue in general. It did not bother me at all that they had no backstories and I understand the reason for that.

Even if intentional, as I think is likely, it just seems a shame that it might have been the reason for people not liking it. Like a bit of a bad decision, if you want it to appeal to a general audience at least. And I agree with you, I never came close to shedding a tear. And I think a lot of my emotional responses were because I have watched interviews and such and had a reaction to the actors maybe as much as to the characters.
I really did like the movie, but as I have come to realise the confusion between the characters and bad sound or too dark scenes (people thinking Alex deliberately trapped Gibson, for example) caused, I understand why a lot of people just didn't think it was anything but a visually beautiful film.

Cocal wrote:It's really a shame that a lot of viewers have trouble telling the actors apart, and becomes unsure or misunderstands for example if it's Gibson or Alex that makes it unto the moonstone with Tommy. Or as someone mentioned here, not at first realising Alex is the one who finds George dead.

To be fair, the guy was covered in oil. I didn't bother paying attention to who he was, I just assumed it was one of the other dozens of men in the water. I was probably looking more closely at George anyway. I mean Nolan made no effort to show us when Alex got covered in oil to begin with, so I had no reason to assume it was him.

Frankly, I first thought Alex was the person in the fire (obviously didn't pay close enough attention), which you could argue is a lot worse. I wondered how he got from the fire to the Moonstone. Probably also gave me the reason to believe the fire didn't kill that Highlander.

I've seen a couple of others who thought Harry's character was the one under the fire on the water. I also believe there are people unfamiliar with Harry who don't realize the angry guy in the grounded trawler is Harry's character. I guess I can see how non-fans might have trouble spotting mouth-stuffed Alex, drowning Alex, angry Alex. The very angry face was a new one even for fans (even though we've seen him do joke anger at audience members when on stage). But fans are familiar with Harry's scrunched up face looks - his nose bends down and his dimples become fat folds like a Shar-pei or bloodhound. So fans could spot him drowning and near drowning but maybe others could not.

Lenny's Scienter wrote:Second viewing in 70 mm IMAX was unreal. Love how all the timelines connected and the perspective of characters in certain moments differed from another person (Collins "waving" to Farrier). The civilian boats being cheered on by the soldiers on the destroyer was such a triumphant moment and well earned.

I read that Alex had the only "fucks" but both times I heard:

Collins says "fuck" when his plane is shot.
Tommy says to Alex while in the boat, "Fuck no, I'm going home."

There are definitely four "fucks" in this movie and two are them are somewhat muffled, so maybe that's how they got by the MPAA. Collins and Tommy definitely both swear but I didn't notice either of this until my second viewing. Alex gets the two most prominent "fucks" -- when he shouts "for fuck's sake!" after Tommy informs him that the tide hasn't come in, and when he accuses Gibson of being a "fucking Gerry."

When does Collins say it?

In the message above your question, in the quoted part, someone says:

Collins says "fuck" when his plane is shot.

MuffinMcFluffin wrote:

Cocal wrote:It's really a shame that a lot of viewers have trouble telling the actors apart, and becomes unsure or misunderstands for example if it's Gibson or Alex that makes it unto the moonstone with Tommy. Or as someone mentioned here, not at first realising Alex is the one who finds George dead.

To be fair, the guy was covered in oil. I didn't bother paying attention to who he was, I just assumed it was one of the other dozens of men in the water. I was probably looking more closely at George anyway. I mean Nolan made no effort to show us when Alex got covered in oil to begin with, so I had no reason to assume it was him.

Frankly, I first thought Alex was the person in the fire (obviously didn't pay close enough attention), which you could argue is a lot worse. I wondered how he got from the fire to the Moonstone. Probably also gave me the reason to believe the fire didn't kill that Highlander.

Yeah I understand why a lot of people have trouble telling the characters apart. I don't think it's to any fault of the viewer - sure you could pay more attention or be very familiar with the actors faces and mannerisms, but it's the movie that should be more helpful in aiding the understanding of it.

A lot of you were talking about the guy burning looking bad. I agree, looked extremely unconvincing. He didn't really catch fire, it just looked like he or the fire was superimposed on one another and the man who was supposed to burning just did a little shaking around in the water.