By Jake Howell jake.howell@utoronto.ca

The Torontonian Reviews: Storm Surfers 3D

A 3D documentary about riding massive waves, Storm Surfers follows Tom Carroll and Ross Clark-Jones, two world-class boarders who are pushing 50 and enjoying the twilight of their careers. Best friends and professional partners, they’ve moved on from the days of reckless water-chasing and winning competitions, but they’re still superstars in their element.

Because they’re older now, Tom and Ross approach surfing with less abandon and more humility. While they still want to ride the fastest, biggest waves possible, they also want to return home to their wives and kids at the end of the day. That’s why they’ve befriended storm forecaster Ben Matson, a weather whiz who helps the two scout where storm swirls are generating. Matson plots the trajectory and force of these storms, granting the team plenty of time to prepare a mission out from HQ. The goal is to find uncharted, previously unsurfed water, and exploration is the name of the game.

Storm Surfers was shot natively in 3D, and for once a film is better for it. The added dimension instills a greater sense of scale, reminding us of the inherent danger to this thrilling sport. Thankfully, none of this ever feels shoehorned: water froths at the screen like it would while boating; waves in the foreground seem touchable. This isn’t a gimmick, because the filmmakers have used the medium with legitimate intentions.

(Side-note, but the two images also appear to be split further apart than the majority of 3D films, making the “pop” effect of 3D seem deeper in Storm Surfers. The technology accomplishes what Hollywood has failed to replicate much since Avatar: the screen becomes a portal into another world.)

Directors Justin McMillan and Christopher Nelius have secured some breathtaking images here, be it via helicopter or GoPro cameras attached to various seacraft. There are also several shots filmed by the surfers themselves, accomplished by holding a camera out behind them. These handheld shots are the likely most astonishing thing about Storm Surfers, because they present an unprecedented 3D look into what it’s like to ride the “curl”, whether or not the surfers remain standing by the time their ride is over. Cross that off the bucket list, then.

By also documenting the ever-growing modesty of the surfers, the film is elevated from “exciting surfing footage” to an interesting, albeit unusual portrait of the human spirit. These best friends know their limits and don’t pretend to go further than they are capable of, as their families are just as important as wave-chasing. This gives the film some extra buoyancy, as the remainder of the film is cinematic water-riding. For some, this could and will result in some audience wipeouts.

It seems almost criminal to call Storm Surfers repetitive, as it implies a sense of boredom with the natural world. Don’t get me wrong: thirty-foot waves are marvelous to behold, and seeing maniacs surf them is even more so. Unfortunately, as the 50th wave crashes exactly the same way the previous 49 did, the film begins to submerge. Storm Surfers never sinks very far, however, because of some slick editing and top-notch transitions. McMillan and Nelius employ fancy maps and detailed graphs to make basic meteorology look sexy.

As documentaries go, Storm Surfers is a rather ambitious one – these are characters who risk their lives for great footage. They’ve succeeded, which is to our benefit (and theirs too, by the looks of how much fun they have on “set”). The film is ultimately worth it; both for those interested in seeing excellent 3D and viewers looking for a more thoughtful adventure doc.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments are closed.

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon