Sorry haven't been active on Facebook recently. To make a long story short I had to work 12 hours shifts in the recent weeks because of lazy coworkers (thus had to complete certain unfinished reviews of time to be active here). Sadly the factory I work at didn't hire a second shift staff to take my place so I won't work as late and have more focus on firing people than hiring so either way I'm in a no win situation currently. Thankfully it will be August soon and can return to college and hopefully never have work in a similar place again. It's a sad realization seeing grown adults not committing to the job they chose. Like the music you shared with me. I'm surprised I like since I don't listen much to old music. If you got the chance you should listen to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r83_iyO4rhI. Thanks for checking up on me. Your a good friend indeed Dave! :)
I'm 16 and I'm from Venezuela. My love for movies comes essentially from the thin and almost undiscerned line between entertainment and filmmaking as an artform. I make my best not to mix both, and to always argument my points of belief.
5 Faves: 1. THE GODFATHER, PART II
2. STAR WARS EPISODE IV: A NEW HOPE
3. THE DARK KNIGHT TRILOGY
The director who is perhaps mostly known for one of the few remarkable ''Harry Potter'' entries journeys into the depths of visual spectacle and obviousness in ''Gravity'', a semi-filmic roller coaster that sacrifices its chances of being one hell of a ride to being half an impressive ride with an unnecessary, mediocre attempt to achieve character development. Naturally, James Cameron can be thanked for that. In fact, he is, at the end credits.
As a film with shocking special effects begins with an obvious and uninspired intro that seems to come out of Discovery Channel, we find, among many things, that 3D does decrease the power of visual effects. Why? Because the visual department in this movie did a brilliant job, but ever since ''Avatar'', priority is given to a useless technology that decreases the visual power of those effects at least by 40%.
We meet a trio of astronauts, intense loud-speking hot-shot Matt Kowalski played by George Clooney, easygoing doctor Ryan Stone played by Sandra Bullock, and an unnamed Indian scientist who likes to fool around as kid we never come to individualize as a character, who's just there the first 10 minutes and then killed off for emotional grasp, and who is Indian only because cultural relativism is in right now.
For no reason other than incompetence, NASA warns the three astronauts too late about an incoming debris storm that, for some reason, is Russia's fault. Even though Clooney's character comes to his senses and urges Stone to go back inside the shuttle and wait for help/head toward the ISS, they are still unable to do anything as they would leave their work incomplete. Stone, who is only basically trained as an astronaut, is left wandering the inmensity of... Earth's orbit... for a bit. Kowalski shows Stone how to move through the vacuum, where to go, how to keep her dropping levels of oxygen on a standby, and what to do so they don't die perpetually a couple of space balloons. That part of ''Gravity'' is really good. Had it stayed that way to the end, it would be one of the year's best attempts at filmmaking. What makes ''Gravity'' not being able to evolve a 'merely out of mediocre' standard is its stupid, hasty, unnecessary approach it adopts inmediately afterwards, which revolves around Bullock telling her character's backstory to an emotional Clooney, explaining how she had a daughter who had a problem, and her daughter died, and how she likes to drive, and how she never has had any purpose in life... it is annoying as hell, utterly distracting from the visual splendor of a film that is decisively straightforward, and let's face it, one of the poorest plots in the last 13 years.
From then on, Stone is arbitrarily abandoned by Kowalski so he can get a Guinness record. She moves to the International Space Station, but because of her fault, the station explodes, and then moves to another station, hopping on a capsule, encountering an imaginary Clooney ghost along the way, listening to some farmer's dogs over a commlink, and then speeding through Earth's atmosphere (literally), crashing on some beach. At that point, after all that journey, she can't die on some stupid beach, so she crawls out, walks along the coast and ''Gravity'' ends.
So far, I've been careful not to mention the word ''movie''. Why? Because I don't think ''Gravity'' is one. It doesn't have anything to be considered a movie. I don't see a fully realized script, the director's vision, or even the rawest, most derivative thriller formula. This is a post-modern load of pretentious goals with a possible David Bowman that transforms in a matter of 10 minutes into Jake Sully. Hell, even as an attraction, ''Gravity'' feels underdelivered. Cuarón should have made the main character relatable merely by being human, since barely none of us, the audience, have really been in space. Introducing Bullock's role partly inmediately calls for the necessity of developping her, when it does not, it's just boring and frustrating as Pi's idiotic confession at the end of the Ang Lee disaster. Clooney's ironic, Han Solo-like character was far more interesting, although both actors are solid.
I see Cuarón sees an idol in James Cameron, at least financially (who wouldn't?). What he makes of ''Gravity'' is the same Cameron seems to do every ten or fifteen years, everytime he feels the need to raise the scope for Hollywood blockbusters in obvious aspects such as marketing and visual splendor, while leaving other things to rot, like quality and filmic traits. The visual part, and the score, definitely make ''Gravity'' something worth experiencing at least once, but everything else prevents this ''movie'' from being anything more than ''Avatar''. Like the latter film, I expect this one to be quickly forgotten.