See, most of the other reviews I've read have said that it isn't derivative like that and that the emotional core of the movie is actually quite moving. But you know, differing opinions and all that. I'm not saying that Bob isn't raising any good points, I'm just saying that I wouldn't be surprised if he went in with a certain level of bias against it, which, to be fair, is hard for any reviewer to avoid. Anyway, I haven't seen it yet so my comments obviously don't really matter. I'm just saying what I'm perceiving. I've enjoyed all of Nolan's movies so far, so I'll probably like this one, but who knows, maybe this is his worst yet (it's just the majority of other opinions seem to suggest otherwise).Ark of the Covetor said:His perception lines up pretty much exactly what what I was expecting from the trailers; a potentially great sci-fi movie spoiled by the usual "power of love" wankery. Of course it turns out it was written as "power of love" wankery in the first place and then evidently Nolan tried to salvage it, but the end result is the same.RedDeadFred said:Eh. I'm pretty sure Bob just doesn't like Nolan movies anymore. I wouldn't be surprised to see him do a revisit of all of his films so that he can talk about how he doesn't think they're that good anymore.
The general consensus seems to be quite positive and I've found all of his non-Batman movies to be quite good in the past. Still, Bob brought up some good points, though it seems that most people have seen the movie would disagree. But hey, if your opinions frequently line up with Bob's (as mine used to) his view of the movie will probably be quite similar to your own.
Protip Hollywood - if I want to be beaten over the head with all this emotions are teh awesumz, love will win the day, poorly-disguised God of the Gaps bullshit, I'll watch a Disney kids movie. When I go to see hard sci-fi, I want to see hard sci-fi. Even better, I want to see hard sci-fi in which the scientists are A; the good guys and B; competent, rather than either malicious caricatures, borderline-psychotic basket cases, or bumbling morons. Yes yes, "scientists are people and people make mistakes blah blah", we've seen that film already. Hundreds of times. We don't need a five-hundredth re-imagining of Frankenstein.
I think it's more likecanadamus_prime said:I don't know what all you people are talking about. Bob didn't say anything in this review that was a slight against Christopher Nolan, he even said that Nolan is a very capable film maker. What he also said however is that Nolan isn't capable of delivering the kind of emotional dramas that Speilberg is known for. He didn't say this was a terrible movie, he just said it wasn't a great movie. So would all you Nolan fans just chill already?
Gee, I wonder why they could possibly be petrified of that... oh, right, Tyson went on CinemaSins to dogpile Gravity.MovieBob said:Unfortunately, the filmmakers don't seem content to simply have made one of the most hard-science-heavy speculative-fiction blockbusters ever... they're also very, very concerned that we know how much homework they did in getting it all right. Which means that scene after scene that might've delivered a high-impact sense of awe, transcendent transportive wonder or even simply a powerful, iconic visual is undercut and undermined by reams and reams of intermittently-interesting but most deathly-dull explanatory exposition -- as though instead of worrying about telling a compelling story, Nolan and company were petrified that Neil DeGrasse Tyson was going to burst into their editing bay and ask to see their figures.
You just know, deep in the back of your mind, he has a costume ready for just that occasion. And his battle-cry will be "FOR SCIENCE!"ThingWhatSqueaks said:I would watch the hell out of that movie.MarsAtlas said:Great, now I can't get the idea of Neil DeGrasse Tyson bursting into the homes of writers with a whiteboard and markers to chastise them for getting things wrong in it.