The Criterion Collection

[Carletty]

Originally Posted by JJJ225

Comparing Gravity to 2001 is ludicrous. Gravity is a well-made thriller, but very little more. Entertaining and tense. Go see it for sure! My biggest complaint, however, is that some of the dialogue is awful. I was cringing during one or two scenes because it was so bad. It's unfortunate because there are so many amazing silent moments, and then they felt to the need to fill similar moments with that awful dialogue. Made no sense.

I know I'm devastatingly good looking but you gotta stop staring at me.

[SammyJankis]

Originally Posted by Carletty

The philosophical value of Gravity is 0.

Er, no. There's a philosophical approach to the material, for sure.

[JJJ225]

Originally Posted by Carletty

I know I'm devastatingly good looking but you gotta stop staring at me.

It's less Clooney's dialogue (which is supposed to be kind of cornball, goofy, and ultimately not very funny), and much more some of Bullock's scenes alone.

[lemonski]

Originally Posted by SammyJankis

Er, no. There's a philosophical approach to the material, for sure.

It's hardly what you would call sophisticated though, it's got a Hallmark feel about it. Comparing it to 2001 is laughable. See it because it's a great, edge-of-your-seat thriller, not because there's anything profound about it.

[GentleGiant]

Originally Posted by JJJ225

It's less Clooney's dialogue (which is supposed to be kind of cornball, goofy, and ultimately not very funny), and much more some of Bullock's scenes alone.

It's funny but the mere fact of Bullock and Clooney being involved in this makes me a little apprehensive and rather doubtful as to whether I'm going to like this film at all. Too recognizable. I wish they'd cast somebody else for the roles - somebody more obscure.

[JJJ225]

Originally Posted by lemonski

It's hardly what you would call sophisticated though, it's got a Hallmark feel about it. Comparing it to 2001 is laughable. See it because it's a great, edge-of-your-seat thriller, not because there's anything profound about it.

We've got some pretty obvious birth/rebirth imagery. That's about it.

[SammyJankis]

Originally Posted by lemonski

It's hardly what you would call sophisticated though, it's got a Hallmark feel about it. Comparing it to 2001 is laughable. See it because it's a great, edge-of-your-seat thriller, not because there's anything profound about it.

The comparisons to 2001 are apt. Not for its thematic concerns (which are wildly different), but for its spectacle, ambition, and scope. Gravity has more in common thematically with Cuaron's own Children of Men.

I think the people that dismiss it as nothing more than a thriller aren't giving it the analytical approach it needs. There's more to it than sheer sweaty palms. It's coming from an art-house director that is working with material that has, apparently, been near his heart since he was a child. Sheer spectacle aside, there's a lot to be found: the narrative structure that mirrors our advancement in technology, imagery that represents a new beginning, etc. I even talked to a friend who believed the film was an allegory for childbirth.

When it comes to its flaws (which it does have), it just seems trivial when I point them out. The dialogue is spotty here, Clooney's characterization isn't as rich, etc. They don't seem to matter much when I place them alongside the film's accomplishments - which are so grand and successful that they make every modern blockbuster look amateurish.

It has a lot going for it. It seems like every other year we get a blockbuster that is given the 2001 comparison and, what do you know, they end up being nothing like the film (eh hem, Inception.) This is the first time where I've felt the comparisons were justified. I haven't felt a sense of awe like this from a film in my lifetime, and I haven't seen a blockbuster that moved me like this one in decades.

But this is really getting off topic, so I'll just end it here.

[JJJ225]

Originally Posted by GentleGiant

It's funny but the mere fact of Bullock and Clooney being involved in this makes me a little apprehensive and rather doubtful as to whether I'm going to like this film at all. Too recognizable. I wish they'd cast somebody else for the roles - somebody more obscure.

I think they're both great choices and Bullock gives a career best peformance.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by lemonski

It's hardly what you would call sophisticated though, it's got a Hallmark feel about it. Comparing it to 2001 is laughable. See it because it's a great, edge-of-your-seat thriller, not because there's anything profound about it.

Does that even matter? Do you evaluate films solely based on their perceived "sophistication"? Ugh, you sound like pleasant company. Another one of the "it's good, but" crowd.

I do think the simple story it tells is very profound, by the way. A film doesn't need to be elliptical, impressionistic or head scratching to be deep.

[GentleGiant]

Originally Posted by JJJ225

I think they're both great choices and Bullock gives a career best peformance.

That sounds promising, thanks.

[Carletty]

Originally Posted by SammyJankis

Er, no. There's a philosophical approach to the material, for sure.

Bullock in the fetal position? That's a copy of 2001.

[JJJ225]

Originally Posted by GentleGiant

That sounds promising, thanks.

You should definitely go see it. I don't mean for it to seem like I didn't like the movie. I was totally into it and the visuals are astounding. I just feel like much of the hype surrounding the film is hyperbole.

[SammyJankis]

Originally Posted by Carletty

Bullock in the fetal position? That's a copy of 2001.

That literally has nothing to do with what I said.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by JJJ225

You should definitely go see it. I don't mean for it to seem like I didn't like the movie. I was totally into it and the visuals are astounding. I just feel like much of the hype surrounding the film is hyperbole.

Ugh. Can we evaluate a film on its own terms, not weighing it against "the hype"? This is starting to resemble the petty "Argo ain't all that" bashing from earlier this year

[joie]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

Ugh. Can we evaluate a film on its own terms, not weighing it against "the hype"? This is starting to resemble the petty "Argo ain't all that" bashing from earlier this year

But an evaluation of anything on its own terms can be used to give it a pass, to ignore things worthy of consideration. Hollywood and movie-goers hype movies all the time, so it's reasonable to ask whether they live up to expectations.

edit: and what are any movie's "terms?"

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by joie

But an evaluation of anything on its own terms can be used to give it a pass, to ignore things worthy of consideration. Hollywood and movie-goers hype movies all the time, so it's reasonable to ask whether they live up to expectations.

edit: and what are any movie's "terms?"

Terms: what you feel a film is attempting to achieve. So if it doesn't get there, explain why. If you think it aims for realism, explain why the physics are off. If it aims for allegory, explain why you think it is "unsophisticated".

[Abdrewes]

Joie,
As a matter of fact, you got it right several months ago. As opposed to simply weighing Samuel Fuller against similar filmmakers that you deemed superior, you explained why Fuller failed on his own terms in getting you interested in his work. From what I remember, you satisfyingly explained why you felt his work was heavy handed. That's basically what I mean by "it's own terms".

[JJJ225]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

Ugh. Can we evaluate a film on its own terms, not weighing it against "the hype"? This is starting to resemble the petty "Argo ain't all that" bashing from earlier this year

I did evaluate it on it's own terms, in previous posts and even the one you quoted. I then went on to evaluate it in relation to "they hype" and expectations. Comparing a film to other films or the film's response is not terribly helpful in judging a film, nor should it be the prime discussion of a film's merit. That said, it's not totally irrelevant.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by JJJ225

I did evaluate it on it's own terms, in previous posts and even the one you quoted. I then went on to evaluate it in relation to "they hype" and expectations. Comparing a film to other films or the film's response is not terribly helpful in judging a film, nor should it be the prime discussion of a film's merit. That said, it's not totally irrelevant.

It kind of is irrelevant. Sure, it's fun to see what other think about it, or where you lie within overall consensus, but that's the extent of its value. The term "overhyped" is just an quick and easy offhand one uses to evade going into depth about a film.

On the subject of the dialogue, the only line that struck me as cringe-worthy or false is when Ryan says, after almost being killed at one point, "I hate space."

[JJJ225]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

It kind of is irrelevant. Sure, it's fun to see what other think about it, or where you lie within overall consensus, but that's the extent of its value. The term "overhyped" is just an quick and easy offhand one uses to evade going into depth about a film.

On the subject of the dialogue, the only line that struck me as cringe-worthy or false is when Ryan says, after almost being killed at one point, "I hate space."

I explained what I liked and didn't like about (not terribly in depth, I will admit), and said almost as an afterthought that much of the hype was hyperbole. It's not like I offered a one sentence review of "Gravity was overrated."

The scene that sticks out to me is when she's

[Show spoiler]"talking" to the dead Matt about her daughter.

There were also 1 or 2 more scenes that I don't remember the content of, but it was just so unnecessary when the there are so many beautiful awe-inspiring moments of silence. Someone said to me that there's an 80-minute near silent masterpiece in Gravity. I totally agree.