This is a minor point, but it's come up here and there. If you've ever seen him interviewed, it seems to me Alfonso Cuaron (and Jonas for that matter) speaks English extremely well. He simply speaks it with a thick Spanish accent. Which can make it seem to native speakers like he doesn't have full command of English. But if you watch the above clip, it's pretty clear he speaks English with more perspicacity than most Americans. So the notion that there's somehow a language barrier, and that that accounts for the as-you-knows etc., might be a stretch.

I'm starting to come to terms with Gravity and my love/hate relationship with it. First, I think it's a brilliant piece of cinema. As a work of art in that medium, it's undoubtedly one of the best ever produced. Second, I don't think it's a great movie. I think that using the vast, endless expanse of space to tell a super personal story about one character is interesting, but a mistake. I would have loved to see a more universal, almost existential story using that framework. But that's pretty much just All Is Lost.

So, yeah. Gravity isn't all that great as a story. But the way that it uses its art form to tell its story is just phenomenal. I don't know if that makes any sense, but whatever.

So, could you say that Gravity is Caurón's version of a Kubrick film? Yes, the story of Gravity isn't original, but I think what it relies on is immersing you in the experience of how hopelessly small the expanse of space can make you feel, especially when your all alone. I also just re-listened to The Shining commentary and both films seemed to emphasize the visceral nature of fear (The Shining) and hopelessness/depression (Gravity) in a similar manner and the story seemed to take a back seat.

And I'm about to get all snooty here, but do you think that the tale of one individual in the vacuum of space, all alone could be symbolism for Bullock's character and how some of those who experience severe depression view their world when suffering through it? I recently lost my father to an auto-immune disease at age 49, and grief counselors say after loss, people who tend go fall into depressive episodes close themselves off from the world and view their situations as ones that no one else can relate to. Leaving them trapped in their misery all alone, existing but not living. It's only after persevering through her feeling of loss, does Bullock's character realize not only that all is not lost but that she has control of her destiny. Coming to this realization gives her hope, and after confronting her depression and self-doubt does she conquer it through saving her life. (Moves hipster glasses around pretentiously)

I probably would have hated it. GRAVITY's strength, IMO, is its simplicity. The fact that it isn't complicated isn't the same as not being good.

Does she watch romantic comedies?

As we discuss during the ep, I think seeing this as a metaphor for depression is too narrow -- it's a story about overcoming tragedy. Depression can be part of that but depression can also hit for no reason at all. If anything it's about overcoming grief.

Ah, well there's where we split. If Gravity told a simpler story, I would have liked that version more. The stuff with Bullock's backstory and her daughter and her sadness just didn't do anything for me, and I don't think it necessarily strengthened the movie. Especially given the somewhat heavy-handed way the script treats that backstory.

Yes, I think your right there, I think I should've prefaced it that specifically in the context of Bullock's character, the depression metaphor (even how narrow it may be) could suffice as it seems that her character battled it in some form. However, overcoming tragedy seems to be the film's true story, as there are people who suffer loss and don't battle depression. I just find it interesting thinking of how the impact of the events in the film that Bullock's character endures effect her going forward after the credits roll as depression is something that is truly never cured.

Yeah, if Gravity was a metaphor for "overcoming depression," it would be kinda shitty, because the implication would be, "Hey depressed people! Maybe you should, like, try really hard to not be depressed. That should fix it!" The idea of rebirth makes a lot more sense with the backstory.

Totally agree. It just occurred to me today that All Is Lost is probably the sort of film Ernest Hemingway would have made.

I think All Is Lost works so well because Redford has no backstory. He could be a serial killer, or he could be the President. But when you're alone and your boat starts sinking in the middle of nowhere, none of that matters.

That's exactly my sentiment, Trey saying how daring the film was to be so scant with detail and backstory, I couldn't think of any other way, outside of

that could've made it any more "daring". Love the movie, can't wait for the blu-ray, but I put it in the same category as Winter's Bone. I love it but I need to watch funny cat videos for about 30 minutes after so my soul can heal.

EDIT by mod to hide spoiler until the rest of you see All Is Lost which you should

^ I deny this.

If you're referring to Khan, he's an identical antagonist to Nero. He's come to get revenge on the Federation for what they did to his family.

If you mean Peter Weller -- what was his thing? He wanted to start a war with the Klingons or something? I can't even remember.

Here's the thing. Let's agree for the sake of argument that the two J.J. Trek movies are on about a par when it comes to their general quality, just at face value. INTO DARKNESS starts taking penalties beyond that, in comparison to 2009:

-Derivative. Like it or hate it, TREK 2009 had the brass balls to throw some hard curves, destroying Vulcan etc, and open up the whole universe to explore, as well as an opportunity to reinvent the characters. It was a signal that we might get some real reimagining going on. STID then did a bloodless rehash of the first sequel from the last franchise, with a few lazy reversals. It was also simultaneously derivative of TREK 2009, with most of its moments relying more on hearkening back to the fun bits of that film than creating new moments to enjoy.

-Badly plotted/paced. TREK 2009 had fridge logic all over the place, but it always had a sense of forward momentum to get you through it. STID opens strong enough, but then throws the film into reverse and GHOSTBUSTERS 2s the franchise by taking away everything Kirk gained in the previous film, only to throw the film back into forward gear and give it all back to him immediately, then zig-zag back and forth between all these different half-cocked plotlines.

-Loss of character. The plots are so busy and confused that the film loses track of the primary character stories which made TREK 2009 compelling and drove things forward. People point out that Spock's death in WRATH OF KHAN was earned by decades of fan affection for the characters. This movie not only didn't have that to draw upon, it didn't bother to use its OWN running time to build to that moment. The opening sequence of TREK 2009, with the death of the Kelvin, had more heart and character development than all of STID.

So you start with both on an even footing, and then you make adjustments for the fact that INTO DARKNESS couldn't even do the same thing as well as its predecessor did, and it quickly dips below the shitty threshold even for those of us willing to give the films a big floater for popcorn fluff.