3 of 10 people found the following review helpful
"Gravity" is a word of two meanings.,
This review is from: Gravity [DVD]  (DVD)
When the movie came out I was impressed by the triumphant "professional"reviews and the superlatives used by T.V. reviewers to describe not just the film,but even Sandra Bullocks "masterful" performance.
I like S.B.because she is one of the few women comedians.But a "masterful" drama performance ? Please.....
So I just had to watch this movie......and I was ,to put it mildly,confused.Because I failed to see all the wonderful things that the "professionals" saw.
But then,reading the reviews in this "forum" I realised that I was not in a minority - far from it.Most reviewers agree that this is NOT a masterpiece,probably not even a good movie.
So what gives ? Why is this "product" which is distinguished only by its special effects being presented as a great movie by the "systemic" reviewers ?
Well,I believe that the answer is simple enough.Because there are practically no "great movies"any more.So the public's standards must be lowered considerably in order that these current "products"are accepted and continue to sell.
If we were to go back in time 40,50, or 60 years and choose one year,any year,at random.And if we were to "collect"all the movies produced during this year(in the U.S. and Europe)and compare them ,quality wise,to those produced in 2013,2012,2011 and so on,the results would be devastatingly in favour of the "oldies".I seriously doubt that even one "current" movie would finish in the first 10 or 20.
Why is this happening ? Well,it is not by accident,obviously.It must be by design.
I believe that the concept is to make "cinematography" simple.And even simpler.Or simplistic.To substitute meanings by special effects,i.e. technology.People will learn to accept this as something natural,something to be expected.And will think less,and less,because thinking is not necessary in order to to enjoy special effects.Just sight and hearing.
And then,inevitably,the thinking process will begin to fade away.And with it,judgement.Without it the public will just accept.Anything.It will question nothing.And will demand nothing.
A much "easier to handle" public,don't you think ? Especially in "grave" conditions.
"Gravity" is a word of two meanings.
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-7 of 7 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 13 Feb 2014, 18:32:48 GMT
Last edited by the author on 18 Mar 2014, 00:23:15 GMT
Excellent points and i was also thinking are they trying to dumb people down or what at the amount of empty effects loaded films out in the last few years.
In reply to an earlier post on 13 Feb 2014, 19:17:37 GMT
Dear James g ,I thank you for your comment.Unfortunately the situation I describe must be true.
Regrettably it does not appear to be limited in the realm of the "7th art",but it spreads into every facet of life.The creation ,and maintenance,of a populus that is unable to think for himself ,is the greatest "gift" for any "system" in power,throughout the ages.More so today,where technology has enabled the "media"to enter any home and dictate anything they like to the citizenry.
Alas,all we can do,is to point out what is happening to our fellow viewers-or citizens.And hope for the best.
Posted on 13 Feb 2014, 19:32:45 GMT
[Deleted by the author on 22 Feb 2014, 17:28:15 GMT]
Posted on 19 Feb 2014, 12:35:02 GMT
E Whitehouse says:
I can't help but laugh at this and your other reviews. You label this as a word of two meanings and denounce it, also slating Django Unchained and Lincoln and several other works of excellence. And you give the likes of Cloud Atlas, Olympus Has Fallen, Deep Blue Sea and BATTLEFIELD EARTH high ratings. Sorry but when you praise the likes of this atrocious cinema I find it considerably difficult to value any opinion you give. And I'm sorry but if you believe that there are no 'great' movies any more then you need to considerably widen your film knowledge. Or if you want to be a bit lazy, may I point you in the direction of 12 Years a Slave.
In reply to an earlier post on 21 Feb 2014, 18:28:55 GMT
I must first thank you for your comments.It is obvious that you are an educated person who has felt the need to explain to me why you -violently-disagree with my reviews,or,possibly,even to "chastise"me for my opinions.
I find it to be a healthy procedure.As we cannot both be right,the one who is wrong should be given the opportunity to see the "error of his ways"and,hopefully,"repent"
Yoy find my reviews laughable.This,of course,is your prerogative.You do not,however,explain why.Which points do you find erroneous,inappropriate,or even slanderous ? As I have learned early in my life one can have any opinion whatsoever,provided one can justify it.I believe that in all my reviews I explain,occasionally in boring detail,why I dislike a movie,in part or in whole.You have not,however,done the same.I shall,therefore,be looking forward to your "explanations",which may well help me understand where I have gone wrong.
There is one more thing,however, that I would like to draw your attention upon.
I suggest that you re-read my reviews carefully.Especially the one of "Battlefield Earth".Whilst it is true that I gave it the highest rating,the reasons I did so are explicitly explained in the text of my review.I rated the extremely succesful money-making concepts of R.L.Hubbard,and his "acolyte" John Travolta.This movie is,of course, worse than terrible from an artistic,a literary,or a sociological point of view,as is Scientology itself.But my way of drawing attention to this "chamber of horrors"is through humour and reverse psychology.If my attempt to do so is not easily comprehended,I am,indeed, sorry.To me it is more than obvious that this is what I intended to do.Unfortunately-or fortunately-we do not all think alike.After all this would be a very boring world if we did.
I am looking forward to a continuation of this ,very interesting,exchange of opinions.
In reply to an earlier post on 21 Feb 2014, 22:29:04 GMT
Last edited by the author on 21 Feb 2014, 22:30:17 GMT
E Whitehouse says:
You sound like a genuine guy Mr Lazaros, so I will indeed try to elaborate on why I very much disagree.
The first issue I have is the sweeping generalisation of yours that there are 'no great movies' in modern day cinema. Whilst I can of course agree that countless classics of the late 20th century are far superior to many pictures that are given to us today, but this is not to be applied to all modern releases. You say that the public's expectations have diminished so that many rely on simply visual aesthetic to be entertained by a film, whilst this is certainly applicable to some recent blockbusters (Transformers, Avatar, Pacific Rim, Welcome to the Punch, Gangster Squad etc), these films rely on flashy surfaces to satisfy your average audience, a notion which you feel applies to Gravity. Now I can sympathise with this notion, as some have dismissed it as style over substance, and indeed the visuals are more impressive than the script, but I feel that there is still depth.
Throughout the film you have a key grounding theme of humanism, the will to survive, the psychology of coping with disaster and the lengths the human mind must go to to survive or accept responsibilities to protect others. This is where I believe Bullock shines strong - I will confess I have never been a huge fan of her works previously, but here she did win me over. She doesn't have numerous bursts of emotions (excluding one very good scene when talking to a Spanish man on the coms) but it's her film and she holds it brilliantly throughout with serious mental strength, and it never overwhelms. As for Clooney, I'm perfectly happy watching him give a decent Buzz Lightyear impression.
With regards to visuals, I believe them to be so impeccable, so real, so well crafted that I can't help but be immersed. It took 4 years for the director to get this to us, and it shows just how much commitment there is, the long sweeping unedited takes, the incredible musical score which accompanies it is simply faultless, and it's the first film I believe to be worthy of 3D.
Whilst your points carry validity in many other circumstances and examples, I simply believe Gravity is more than just visual style. I believe it to be pure cinematic, masterful, committed craftsmanship. This of course, like you said, is my opinion.
And I can give you a huge list of current 'great movies' to go and see right now, to name a few: 12 Years A Slave (as previously mentioned) The Wolf of Wall Street, Blue is the Warmest Colour, Her, Nebraska, Inside Llewyn Davis, Stranger By the Lake and Only Lovers Left Alive. Once you have seen these, I guarantee you will believe there are still 'great movies' being released today.
In reply to an earlier post on 22 Feb 2014, 09:16:01 GMT
Thank you for your prompt ,as well as very consise.reply.Not to my surprise I found out that,essentially,we do not disagree about "Gravity".We both accept that the visuals dominate the movie,and we both find the topic interesting.Our disagreement is limited to S.Bullock's "acting".But this is a purely subjective issue.You assess it as great,I do not.You find the movie to be very good,I think it is mediocre.If you take the time to read all the reviews you will see that the reviwers are also "split" accordingly.So there is nothing strange about it.
We also appear to agree that the term "masterpiece" could be used far more frequently to describe a movie some decades ago,than it is today.If you would like to do the comparison I suggested and let me know your conclusions,I would,indeed,appreciate it.
With regard to your assessments about' ""....some recent blockbusters (Transformers, Avatar, Pacific Rim, Welcome to the Punch, Gangster Squad etc""I am at a disadvantage because I have seen only Avatar.The same applies to your proposed good movies""......12 Years A Slave , The Wolf of Wall Street, Blue is the Warmest Colour, Her, Nebraska, Inside Llewyn Davis, Stranger By the Lake and Only Lovers Left Alive."" none of which I have seen yet.
I do not ,however,wish to stray away from the real issues on hand.The secondary one would be to help me locate any" incorrect "point used in my reviews to justify my negative assessment of a movie.Barring a potential misunderstanding owing to my blatant use of sarcasm in the text (as is the case with "Battlefield Earth")I think that cannot be held accountable in this respect.
I would,if I may,suggest that you re-read my other reviews carefully.You may,for instance,do so with the one on "Django unchained",and then be kind enough to let me know wich,if any,part of it you perceive to be incorrect ,inaccurate or unfair.This would be most interesting.
The primary issue ,however,is the decay of the quality of recent filmography,and the reasons behind it.I have laid down mine .I would be thrilled to hear your point of view on this issue as well.
Thank you ,once again,for your most interesting comments.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›