This year's "Crash."
Well, maybe that's overstating.
It has way more visual interest than Crash.
But the screenplay is nonsense, the characters nonexistent, and, for me, after the first half-hour, once the "oohs" and "ahhs” of the 3-D (which I didn't see as essential) wore off and Clooney disappeared and we were left Sandra Bullock doing her little human-emotions parade, I got pretty bored and stayed pretty bored, except for **SPOILER** the five minutes that old George showed back up to tease us. It was obvious that this was a dream sequence, though, and I knew I'd be bored again shortly. **END SPOILER**
And did we all enojy how the soundtrack went suddenly tribal in the final sequence? That's LIFE, man. My jaw hung open at the audacity of the unearned bombast of it all.
And in re: Namo's conjecture about what happens in *that* scene, I definitely didn't see that while watching the movie, and reflecting back, I still don't see it. One can choose an interpretation that makes a piece of art more interesting for them, and, hey, that’s cool. I’d love to think of “Gravity” as more than gorgeously shot, reductive tripe, but I don’t think Namo’s interp was Cuaron’s intention. And I don’t begrudge him his choice to view it that way, but, for me, it just obscures the fact that Cuaron didn’t make a very interesting movie.
CHURCH DOOR TOUCAN GAY MARKETING PUPPIES MUSICAL THEATER STAPLES PERIOD OIL BITCHY SNARK HOLES
Updated On: 10/14/13 at 08:09 AM