Quote:
Originally Posted by Gonzirra
Gravity
This is a lot harder for me to review than your typical movie.
Where it's strong (the cinematography and CG) it's exceptional, to the point of being a masterpiece in those areas. To me it's about on par with what the first Jurassic Park did in it's day, CG-wise, as far as setting the bar. Only with vastly more style, clarity, and [extremely] long continuous shots that were tastefully done.
Where it's not strong (the story and characters), it's just cheesy, cliche, predictable and just very shallow. George Clooney and Sandra Bullock are two astronauts. I can't tell you much about them, and don't really care about either. Clooney was the same Clooney he's been in just about every character he's ever been. And I know there are people raving about Bullock but I must have failed to see whatever they did. Characters aren't really a big part of this movie.
I don't want to spoil the story but honestly there's not much to spoil. Like at all. If you're seen the trailer you know the setup. I kind of expected a lot of flashbacks, some sort of character development, or just something to make it all more meaningful than just a desperate survival action movie.
I guess it all comes down to what you require out of a big blockbuster-type movie. For my part I don't mind buying tickets purely for a visual eye-candy movie, and at that regard it delivers everything I think you could possibly ask of a (mostly non-scifi) space disaster movie. It's just one of those where you just have to see it and ideally on the big screen. However some people may want to see real characters and more than a super-simple plot. They tried to throw a little in with Clooney-ness and another cringeworthy radio bit but not really.
A movie that comes immediately to mind in comparison is Apollo 13, given the similar circumstances. But it's the differences between the films and not similarities make me compare them. Where Gravity is a visual spectacle and empty-ish character- and story-wise, Apollo 13 was the opposite. And while I think the design of Gravity deserves every award it's going to receive, the latter ****s all over it as a movie. I've see that a few times and not sure I'll ever watch this again beyond a few minutes here or there when channel surfing.
Usually I'd put a letter grade on it but again, it's all what the viewer values for their ticket price. It's unquestionably an A+ movie visually and great technical achievement, so if that's enough by itself then yeah must see and on a good screen. The rest is a C- if that, and I'm disappointed that such a high level of work had so little meat to the story. This potentially could have been an all-time classic had they put more into that end of it.
I would argue that if anything the movie had too much back story and not too little. Any time they went away from focusing on space for backstory was meh and any flashbacks would have been a travesty. This movie had one phenomenal character that was developed nicely: space. And that's really the only character it needed.
I would give the movie an A- with the only detraction being the added backstory they shoehorned in for Bullock's character.
Its been a long time since I've seen Apollo 13 but isn't it generally regarded as Hollywood cheese? It seems like you like the stuff Hollywood tries to force into every movie a lot more than I do. I for one applaud the simplicity of Gravity. It does have somewhat limited rewatchability, but that's beside the point. I would never consider watching it on TV but would totally go see it again in IMAX3D every few years for the rest of my life.
Last edited by WalterS; 10-22-2013 at 02:57 AM.