Gravity (2D) (2013)

[riahc3]

Hello,

Saw Gravity today in 2D.

A good movie is not based on how good it looks in 3D. Ive seen this today in Gravity.

You have only two main actors in the film (glad Robert Downey Jr. backed out of this film) and none of them really add anything to the film. Almost at all. Clooney tells stories and thats it and Sandra goes from always scared to this brave joking making first timer.

The plot: A missle launches into a sat and causes all this? Ive seen some backstories to some plots but this...at least its better than Grown-Ups 2 :p

Anyways, I dont know if this looks awesome in 3D (problably does) but films IMO are like games: It isnt all about the graphics.

2 out of 10.

[heslo]

Agree, turd of a film

[Aergan]

6/10 for the poor buggers who had to do all the 3D modelling / texturing.

[+E.Worm Jimmy Subscriber¹]

i watched in imax 3d and i loved it,  alot

 

i even enjoyed rewatching it on 22 inch monitor later.

 

 

maybe this is not your type of film

or maybe you just could not immerse yourself enough

[riahc3]

Hello,

i watched in imax 3d and i loved it,  alot

 

i even enjoyed rewatching it on 22 inch monitor later.

 

 

maybe this is not your type of film

or maybe you just could not immerse yourself enough

Film? This isnt a film.

The plot is basically null.

You want something in IMAX similar and better: Space Station 3D

[Setnom]

I loved it. I'm sorry you guys feel this way. Oh well, can't please everyone, I guess.

 

Is it worth trying to refute some of the opinions written in the OP's post? I noticed a few factual errors.

[Dick Montage]

Shame you feel that way.  To me it was a tour de force in character acting from Bullock.  No, it's not about the SFX or how it looks in 3d, but by the same token those things are too often held against a film.  Just because it's an amazing 3d experience, you can't write off the rest of the film as "just an sfx-fest".

[Arachno 1D]

On the good side it was a spectacular panoramic film and would be great in 3D given the subject matter but on the bad side the science behind it is flawed in many places but I guess as a Babylon 5 fan [Watch 5pm weekdays] I can let them off and enjoy the film for what it is.Oh and Bullock would never have left Space Camp with the hypochondriac fear she shows throughout the film..........just saying.

[riahc3]

Hello,

I loved it. I'm sorry you guys feel this way. Oh well, can't please everyone, I guess.

 

Is it worth trying to refute some of the opinions written in the OP's post? I noticed a few factual errors.

Well, this is the Movies Reviews section. You are free to review it in your own way...

 

To me it was a tour de force in character acting from Bullock.

Compared to? Speed? Crash? Miss Congeniality? All About Steve?

I ask you just to compare what you think of her performances in some of here worst and best work. I thought she was terrible in Gravity.

[Setnom]

Hello,

Well, this is the Movies Reviews section. You are free to review it in your own way...

 

OK, then. :)

 

Clooney tells stories and thats it 

 

- Clooney's character saves Bullock's character from drifting into space early in the movie;

- He's the one that comes up with the idea of how to get to Earth (drifting in space -> ISS -> Soyuz -> Tiangong -> Shenzou);

- He's the one that helps her get to the ISS (cable and thrusters in backpack);

- He also gives her lots of technical advices (about O2 conservation, breathing CO2, piloting);

- He gives her courage, strength and moral support during a terrible situation.

 

Basically, without Kowalsky, Ryan could never get to Earth, she would die in space as well.

 

People may think his behavior is too "hollywoodized"/humoristic/optimistic, but I've read a few informed and knowleadgable opinions about this, and all say that astronauts behave in exactly the same calm manner, so it is a realistic portrait. If you can, search Neil DeGrasse Tyson's thoughts on it.

 

Sandra goes from always scared to this brave joking making first timer.

 

She is always scared during the movie. Who wouldn't? But she chooses to live and fights for her life.

By joking, you must be talking about the barking dogs scene. Yes, I agree the barking is a bit ridiculous, but there is only that one moment. She doesn't become a joker henceforth.

Who knows how we might behave when we think we are about to die? I might get a bit crazy too.

 

By the way, before anyone begins criticizing why a medical doctor is working on Hubble (sorry, it's a complaint I read a lot, it's not meant for you :) )... Ryan Stone was a medical engineer. She was researching some technology when she was working in a hospital. She later begins working for NASA, and develops a prototype that was being installed in the space telescope.

 

The plot: A missle launches into a sat and causes all this? Ive seen some backstories to some plots but this...at least its better than Grown-Ups 2  :p

 

What exactly do you find far fetched?

- Missile launches to deal with satellites? Has been hapenning for years, here's a video example. More information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-satellite_weapon

- The fact that the strike is a failure, and that the debris hits other satellites causing that massive cascade? This is based on a very possible cenario, researched by scientists, called Kessler Syndrome. Thankfully it hasn't happened yet, 

[Shiranui]

There was NO need for her to 

let go of Clooney

.

[Arachno 1D]

People may think his behavior is too "hollywoodized"/humoristic/optimistic, but I've read a few informed and knowleadgable opinions about this, and all say that astronauts behave in exactly the same calm manner, so it is a realistic portrait. If you can, search Neil DeGrasse Tyson's thoughts on it.

Yes very true and if people read Chris Hadfields book they will understand why but as I said Bullocks character displays none of this characteristic.

[riahc3]

Hello,

- Clooney's character saves Bullock's character from drifting into space early in the movie;

- He's the one that comes up with the idea of how to get to Earth (drifting in space -> ISS -> Soyuz -> Tiangong -> Shenzou);

- He's the one helps her get to the ISS (cable and thrusters in backpack);

- He also gives her lots of technical advices (about O2 conservation, breathing CO2, piloting);

- He gives her courage, strength and moral support during a terrible situation.

 

Basically, without Kowalsky, Ryan could never get to Earth, she would die in space as well.

 

People may think his behavior is too "hollywoodized"

Yup, thats the only reason the movie gets a two. Clooney dialogs the entire movie. Thats it.

 

She is always scared during the movie. Who wouldn't? But she chooses to live and fights for her life.

By joking, you must be talking about the barking dogs scene. Yes, I agree the barking is a bit ridiculous, but there is only that one moment. She doesn't become a joker henceforth.

Who knows how we might behave when we think we are about to die? I might get a bit crazy too.

I wasnt refering to the barking scene in particular but you did mention it....

 

 

What exactly do you find far fetched?

- Missile launches to deal with satellites? Has been hapenning for years, here's a video example. More information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-satellite_weapon

- The fact that the strike is a failure, and that the debris hits other satellites causaing that massive cascade? This is based on a very possible cenario, researched by scientists, called Kessler Syndrome. Thankfully it hasn't happened yet,

If both would have died, I would have accepted it and it might have even been a better movie. But a first timer saving their own life? Thats far feteched.

- A missle launches to deal with a satellite out of nowhere. No planning. Just happens. Hell, I accept 2012's heating of the sun's core more than a random missle strike.

- That I have no doubt is true :) I referred to the prior point.

And I read reviews that say this is a great film and very "real" compared to other space films.

You know makes this more of a documentary than a movie film? There is no backstory.

Why is this Clooney's last mission? What makes him such as great astronaut?

Why is Sandra sent up there for the first time after 6 months training? What was she like before this mission with her daughter's death?

Why is that sat being planned to blown up?

Who is the person (at Houston) sending them orders and what is their relationship with both of them?

Who the hell is the third member of them team which all we see of him is a hole in his head?

Those questions would have made this more a film than a cheap 3D showcase of a documentary

[Setnom]

Yes very true and if people read Chris Hadfields book they will understand why but as I said Bullocks character displays none of this characteristic.

 

True! Because she was kinda of a "civilian", she had just 6 months training and no prior experience!

She wasn't a pilot or a mission commander, she wasn't a seasoned astronaut like Clooney, who had lots of missions under his belt. She was a mission specialist who was in space with the ONLY objective to install an instrument in Hubble. Mission specialists are a limited sort of astronaut, and they might not reflect the characteristics someone like Hadfield or Clooney's character have (astronaut"-ing" is their job).

 

I distintively remember a school teacher also being an astronaut (payload specialist), who was on board during the Challenger disaster. Not every astronaut makes space his/her job, sometimes they're just along for the ride.

[patseguin Global Moderator]

I loved it. No film has ever addressed a modern day space catastrophe like this and I thought it was done, and acted, brilliantly.

[Setnom]

There was NO need for her to 

let go of Clooney

.

 

Kowalsky thought there was. This might explain a bit better:

 

Isaac Newton tells us that an object in motion will remain in motion unless acted upon by an outside force. Kowalski was unable to arrest his forward movement by grabbing ahold of the ISS, so he goes floating off into space. Other than gravity, which we can ignore for this close contact scene because it is acting upon everything in the same way, there are no forces acting on Kowalski. He is moving away because he was moving in that direction and nothing stopped him. Ryan (Bullock) goes after Kowalski...

 

This is where I think the scene gets a little hard to interpret. The fact that she just barely grabs him and doesn't continue closing in on him tells us that she is decelerating. She is decelerating because her leg is caught up in the parachute cords from the Soyuz. If we imagine the parachute cords are a rubber band, what would happen? The band would stretch and the energy needed to stretch it would be taken from Ryan. She has a kinetic energy equal to half her mass times her velocity squared. Her mass can't change, so her velocity would go down.

 

Now, what affect does Kowalski have on the situation? There is no force acting on him. But he too has a kinetic energy equal to half his mass times his velocity squared. So, if the rubber band is to slow Ryan to a stop it also has to slow Kowalski. So now it has to absorb her energy and his energy. Kowalski's interpretation of the situation is that the parachute cords can't absorb that much energy. So, he figures that if he lets go of her hand, the parachute cords, instead of absorbing Ryan's kinetic energy AND his kinetic energy, will only have to absorb Ryan's kinetic energy.

 

(source)

[Lamp0]

Why do people think there was no plot?

 

I mean if we can't at least get a handle on that then we can't even begin to have any kind of discussion as to whether Gravity is a good film.

 

Haters love to "over hate" though.

[Setnom]

Yup, thats the only reason the movie gets a two. Clooney dialogs the entire movie. Thats it.

 

Come on, riach3, now you're being stubborn. He's not in the movie just to talk (and if he was, which he isn't, what would be the problem?). Didn't you notice him rescuing Ryan Stone from drifting away into space? I gave you that specific example before, you even quoted it!  :D

 

I wasnt refering to the barking scene in particular but you did mention it....

 

I don't perceive her desperate state of mind as straight up humorous. I see a fragile human being stuck in a life or death situation, doing the best she can with little hope of surviving. She realizes she is going to die. "I'm going to die today!", she exclaims. Those "jokes" she makes (I don't consider them jokes) are part of her stress management, they are a way of venting, of coping with her very probable demise.

 

- A missle launches to deal with a satellite out of nowhere. No planning. Just happens. Hell, I accept 2012's heating of the sun's core more than a random missle strike.

 

What do you mean, random? It maybe unknown to NASA up until the very minute (we don't know that, it's pure speculation), but how do you know it wasn't planned by the russian space agency? Remember, the US and Russia are no longer the sworn enemies they were, but would you disclose the destruction and existence of an old spy satellite to them? Who knows, maybe it was a russian top secret mission. The movie simply gives us the bare minimum on this.

The russians must have also assumed the missile strike would pose no threat to other satellites or space stations in orbit, because they thought it would be successful. When these kinds of things work, the debris is virtually zero and burn up during reentry. Clearly, the strike doesn't go as planned, leading up to this cascade of junk.

 

You know makes this more of a documentary than a movie film? There is no backstory.

(1) Why is this Clooney's last mission? What makes him such as great astronaut?

(2) Why is Sandra sent up there for the first time after 6 months training? What was she like before this mission with her daughter's death?

(3) Why is that sat being planned to blown up?

(4) Who is the person (at Houston) sending them orders and what is their relationship with both of them?

(5) Who the hell is the third member of them team which all we see of him is a hole in his head?

Those questions would have made this more a film than a cheap 3D showcase of a documentary

 

Do we need that much backstory?

 

Some of these are open questions better left for the audience to imagine. Movies don't always need to answer all of them. They [should] give you only what is needed to further the plot and to introduce and/or develop the characters.

 

I can try and answer some of the questions, if you want:

 

1 - It's Clooney's last mission because he is retiring. He's a great astronaut because he has decades of experience and has flown countless missions before.

 

2 - This can be deduced by the dialog between Kowalsky and Ryan. She is being sent there because when she was working as a medical engineer in a hospital (before starting to work for NASA), she researched some new breakthrough or instrument, which later turned out could also be used to study the Universe. NASA asked her to develop a prototype for Hubble, and therefore she was the most qualified person to install it (this usually happens. "Civilians" (scientists) usually train for a few months as an astronaut, and are sent to the ISS in order to research stuff or, in this case, to upgrade Hubble; being astronaut is not their job, and therefore they don't have the kind of experience and calm manner characteristics like a professional astronaut, which Clooney portrays).

 

3 - Kowalsky has a likely answer for it. It's and old spy satellite. It's basically space junk, slowly falling to the Earth. The russians wanted to destroy the "evidence" of its existence or to prevent harm when crashing.

 

4 - It's the flight director in mission control.

 

5 - It's another professional astronaut. We never find out his specific role on board STS-157. He's not the space shuttle pilot, that's for sure, so he probably had the same role as Kowalsky.

[riahc3]

Hello,

Why do people think there was no plot?

Plot: Astronauts are in space, installs a hardware device, catastrophic event happens so they cant return to earth, main actor saves main acctress, main actor sacrifies himeslf for main actress, main actress having no experience in her role manages huge overcomes and survives.

The daughter? Irrelevent

Exact experience of main actor's role? Irrelevent

we could go on...

I just told you the entire film. Thats not a plot. Thats a short story.

 

Come on, riach3, now you're being stubborn. He's not in the movie just to talk (and if he was, which he isn't, what would be the problem?). Didn't you notice him rescuing Ryan Stone from drifting away into space? I gave you that specific example before, you even quoted it!  :D

Talking and saving the main actress. You want me to give the movie a 3 for that?

 

I don't perceive her desperate state of mind as straight up humorous. I see a fragile human being stuck in a life or death situation, doing the best she can with little hope of surviving. She realizes she is going to die. "I'm going to die today!", she exclaims. Those "jokes" she makes (I don't consider them jokes) are part of her stress management, they are a way of venting, of coping with her very probable demise.

Sandra did a horrible job of acting that. It seemed at one point she was scared being her first time with her vitals showing several warning readings and after that (when she knows she is going to die) hey, its all good! I think they even added that she is running out of O because it would have been boring.

 

What do you mean, random? It maybe unknown to NASA up until the very minute (we don't know that, it's pure speculation), but how do you know it wasn't planned by the russian space agency? Remember, the US and Russia are no longer the sworn enemies they were, but would you disclose the destruction and existence of an old spy satellite to them? Who knows, maybe it was a russian top secret mission. The movie simply gives us the bare minimum on this.

The russians must have also assumed the missile strike would pose no threat to other satellites or space stations in orbit, because they thought it would be successful. When these kinds of things work, the debris is virtually zero and burn up during reentry. Clearly, the strike doesn't go as planned, leading up to this cascade of junk.

This is going way too much into the film and reality; A missile strike would not only be detected but because of space policy, Russians would advice that they are doing a missile strike into space (dont need to specify what the sat did or didnt do)

That "we don't know that, it's pure speculation" is what is failing in this film

 

 

 

Do we need that much backstory?

Yes. If not, we have basically a 3D documentary, nothing else.

[riahc3]

Hello,

Some of these are open questions better left for the audience to imagine.

Not really.

Movies don't always need to answer all of them.

Correct but for SOME of these, it is neccesary to fill gaps and character development.

1 - It's Clooney's last mission because he is retiring. He's a great astronaut because he has decades of experience and has flown countless missions before.

:laugh: You just stated what is said in the film! WHY is he retiring? Does he have a family to go to (he ask Sandra about someone special down there but neither he says or Sandra asks)?

2 - This can be deduced by the dialog between Kowalsky and Ryan. She is being sent there because when she was working as a medical engineer in a hospital (before starting to work for NASA), she researched some new breakthrough or instrument, which later turned out could also be used to study the Universe. NASA asked her to develop a prototype for Hubble, and therefore she was the most qualified person to install it (this usually happens. "Civilians" (scientists) usually train for a few months as an astronaut, and are sent to the ISS in order to research stuff or, in this case, to upgrade Hubble; being astronaut is not their job, and therefore they don't have the kind of experience and calm manner characteristics like a professional astronaut, which Clooney portrays).\

Some new breakthrough or instrument; Yup, clears it all up...

And her daughter?

 

3 - Kowalsky has a likely answer for it. It's and old spy satellite. It's basically space junk, slowly falling to the Earth. The russians wanted to destroy the "evidence" of its existence or to prevent harm when crashing.

Its a likely answer....

 

4 - It's the flight director in mission control.

Who and what he does are different...

5 - It's another professional astronaut. We never find out his specific role on board STS-157. He's not the space shuttle pilot, that's for sure, so he probably had the same role as Kowalsky.

...are you kidding me?

Im saying WHO is he; There is NO character development on him AT ALL. He could have been missing from the film and it wouldnt have matter at all.

Anyways, Im glad some of you enjoyed the film. I personally thought Space Station 3D was WAY better but...

[Setnom]

There is a plot, and there is also symbolism. I'm sorry you missed it. The movie is an allegory that delves into themes like death, loss, letting go, rebirth and life (here is an opinion and comments on that). If you want, you can search the director's thoughts, I think there's a featurette on YouTube about it.

 

--------------

 

The general consensus is that Sandra Bullock gives a wonderful performance in "Gravity", as demonstrated by the numerous praises and nominations she received (Golden Globes, BAFTAS, Screen Actors Guild, Critics Choice Awards, etc.).

 

--------------

 

Here's what I think your "beef" is: you have the opinion that movies should explain everything and answer even the most irrelevant questions, like the backstory on that extra (the astronaut with the hole in the head), or what exactly was the instrument she was installing on Hubble.

 

Basically, you want lots of exposition. You see, that's a big no-no in scripting. You want the movie to basically dump information on the viewer, and that's a bad thing.

 

A movie should tell you only just enough to move along the plot and to introduce characters. Information like detailed backstories of extras are not necessary to further the story, so those shouldn't be there.

 

Why should exposition be minimal?  When a writer conveys back story (such as history of the characters or previous incidents) he often loses his audience if the exposition delivers long, drawn out explanations.  The audience no longer discovers the story through character actions.  Instead the action is stopped while the characters recite history -- talking to the audience and explaining the story.  When this happens, empathy with the characters disappears.

 

By the way, +riahc3, what do you think about "Prometheus"? That movie leaves unanswered questions up the wazoo. Even I had trouble with that movie :P

[riahc3]

Hello,

There is a plot, and there is also symbolism. I'm sorry you missed it. The movie is an allegory that delves into themes like death, loss, letting go, rebirth and life (here is an opinion and comments on that). If you want, you can search the director's thoughts, I think there's a featurette on YouTube about it.

When I said it doesnt have a plot, I mean the plot is so weak, it doesnt deserve to be called a plot.

And symbolism? Are you kidding me? Grown-Ups 2 (another movie I reviewed here with no plot) has more symbolism than this! And if you think this movie dives into those themes then Im sorry but its clear you havent seen much flicks that are decent or are just a big space movie fan.

So let me guess: District 9 has no symbolisim at all right? Because if you consider Gravity to have symbolisim :laugh:

 

The general consensus is that Sandra Bullock gives a wonderful performance in "Gravity", as demonstrated by the numerous praises and nominations she received (Golden Globes, BAFTAS, Screen Actors Guild, Critics Choice Awards, etc.).

I asked a member this before: She gives a wonderful performance compared to what? Herself, other actors, other films, etc?

 

Here's what I think your "beef" is: you have the opinion that movies should explain everything and answer even the most irrelevant questions, like the backstory on that extra (the astronaut with the hole in the head), or what exactly was the instrument she was installing on Hubble.

I can go by without know the instrument being installed but a a extra astronaut not being explained his purpose or any relation at all to the "plot"? I mean, that isnt irrelevent, thats just being lazy.

 

Basically, you want lots of exposition. You see, that's a big no-no in scripting. You want the movie to basically dump information on the viewer, and that's a bad thing.

This isnt about scripting, this is about making a good movie that is enjoyable. This is a great documentary of space but a movie?

 

A movie should tell you only just enough to move along the plot and to introduce characters. Information like detailed backstories of extras are not necessary to further the story, so those shouldn't be there.

OK tell me about all the characters in the film.....excluding Sadnra a Clooney of course.

 

 

By the way, +riahc3, what do you think about "Prometheus"? That movie leaves unanswered questions up the wazoo. Even I had trouble with that movie :p

I havent seen the film and reading a bit about it, isnt a movie that really draws me at all. So I am sorry but I cannot give my opinion about the film.

Here's what I think your "beef" is: you have the opinion that movies based on real space facts are all good movies and you will defend them at all cost. For all we know, you might be a NASA employee :) I suggest relooking at the film and see you as basically looking at space: both literally and metaphorically.

[uniacidz]

Great movie

[Setnom]

(YouTube featurette, Cu?ron says the movie is a metaphor for adversities (near 0:30))

 

 

The film was a metaphor of rebirth; literally, at the end, she goes from a fetal position [earlier in the film, when she floats after undressing in the space station], then in the water [shot at Lake Powell, Arizona, with significant postproduction alterations to make it green and lush and butterfly-filled], to come out, crawl, go on her knees, and then stand on her two feet and walk again. (source - Alfonso Cuar?n full interview)

 

 

The rebirth metaphors were strong in Alfonso Cuar?n's Gravity. But did you catch all of the little hints the director slipped into the end? We spoke with the director about the deeper meaning behind his space movie's powerful ending. Here are his thoughts. Big time spoilers ahead:

 

This movie is full of rebirth metaphors and analogies. [sandra Bullock] getting into the fetal position with an umbilical cord floating behind her. How important were those images to you in this film. And why does space lend itself to rebirth? Why does it work so well in space?

 

Alfonso Cuar?n: That was the point, for us, of the film. Adversities and the possibility of rebirth. And rebirth also metaphorical in the sense of gaining a new knowledge of ourselves. We have a character that is drifting metaphorical and literally, drifting towards the void. A victim of their own inertia. Getting farther and farther away from Earth where life and human connections are. And probably she was like that when she was on planet Earth, before leaving for the mission. It's a character who lives in her own bubble. And she has to shred that skin to start learning at the end. This is a character who we stick in the ground, again, and learns how to walk.

 

Space already lends itself to all these metaphorical possibilities. I think rebirth in many ways is part of the journey for everybody, not only every human in Earth, but it's also the journey of great characters. Great characters in literature or in cinema they go through the stages of rebirth and of a new understanding.

 

And also while in the dirt, [that] was something that we wanted to have as a nurturing aspect of life. A character who has to reconnect to her inner nurturing side. The amazing side of life, that keeps us alive. Even if inside you feel you want to die, there's a bigger life impulse that keeps us alive.

 

So obviously the red rocks and mud that [sandra] pulls herself up onto [after she lands] was an intentional nod to the rebirth idea?

 

Well yes, more literally there. She's in these murky waters almost like an amniotic fluid or a primordial soup. In which you see amphibians swimming. She crawls out of the water, not unlike early creatures in evolution. And then she goes on all fours. And after going on all fours she's a bit curved until she is completely erect. It was the evolution of life in one, quick shot.

 

(source)

 

?I wanted to create a roller coast ride where audiences could connect with the main character,? says Jon?s Cuar?n, who co-wrote the screenplay for ?Gravity.? The film ? starring George Clooney and Sandra Bullock as two astronauts stranded in space without a means to return to earth ? does feature Cuar?n?s childhood obsession with space. But more than anything, says the Vassar College graduate, space and weightlessness are ?visual metaphors to talk about life? in a philosophical way.

(source)

 

In Gravity nearly everything is a metaphor for the main character. The way I tend to approach a film is that character and background are equally important; one informs the other. Here, Sandra Bullock is caught between Earth and the void of the universe, just floating there in between. We use the debris as a metaphor for adversity. 

 

(full interview - source)

 

 

 

 

Was it a conscious decision to never show the people who were actually on the ground? 

 

CUARON:  That would break the existential experience that you get with the characters.  You can see this film as just a big metaphor.  This is a film about a woman.  Forget about space.  It?s a film about a woman that is drifting into the void.  It?s about a woman who is a victim of her own inertia and who lives in her own bottle, and she confronts all of this adversity that brings her further and further away from human connection, and a sense of life and living.  All of these other elements are voices that are part of her own psyche.  They represent that surge of life.  Even as she?s despairing, there?s that part of you.  Your brain can be telling you, ?I?m giving up,? but there?s something that makes species keep on going.  Life keeps on going.  In many ways, you can see this as a metaphor for an internal journey for a woman.  Instead of taking this story and placing it in a city, in an apartment with all of the other adversities, it?s in space.

(full interview - source)

 

 

 

 

 +riahc3, I'm sorry you feel this way and are unable to discern them, despite the director's own words on the subject (which really shouldn't be necessary, they are pretty evident during the movie). There's no need to resort to Reductio ad absurdum.

 

Like I thought in the beginning of the thread, there really was no point in arguing about your misconceptions about "Gravity".

[Lamp0]

Hello,

Plot: Astronauts are in space, installs a hardware device, catastrophic event happens so they cant return to earth, main actor saves main acctress, main actor sacrifies himeslf for main actress, main actress having no experience in her role manages huge overcomes and survives.

The daughter? Irrelevent

Exact experience of main actor's role? Irrelevent

we could go on...

I just told you the entire film. Thats not a plot. Thats a short story.

 

 

What you've done is purposely shallow a summary of the plot. But it's still a plot. Wikipedia has five paragraphs on the plot.

So, it's pretty darn reductionist to say that your summary covers the entirety of the film. I mean you could probably simplify any film narrative like that if you really wanted. But plot complexity is not a requisite for a good film. The thematic & dramatic forms of film are just as, if not more far important.

It honestly seems to me like you are just trying to force your point, perhaps because you actually can't quite figure out why you didn't like this film & others do.

But you didn't like the film & that's absolutely fair, we all read & experience films differently, but it's irritating when people try to assert, in an objective manner, how a film is dumb, simplistic or otherwise unintelligent & bad.

Don't get me wrong though, I don't think Gravity is the best picture ever or anything, I found the dialogue got pretty cringey at times. Not something I'll be rushing out to buy on Blu-ray, but for the most part I thought it was good, even darn good at times.