Yes, I really want to see it. I'm wondering if you also had major issues with some of the physics and science. A person with your background in science might be more troubled by such shortcomings than the average movie viewer.

@Vitaliy No, I think it's really good. It's so simple and terrifying: Adrift in Space. 3 words and you get it. The trailer conveys the concept in 20 seconds. This is story telling GOLD in my mind. Once they had the concept all they needed were the compelling vfx and camera work which they got. btw, I haven't seen the movie. I might hate it. But I believe they scored a winning a formula with the concept.

GRAVITY had a great concept

Can you tell us this concept? As all I see is completely idiotic thing plus some VFX.

but public funding from tax dollars will never work

No? Virtually every country in the world provides film subsidies. In the U.S. they take the form of state tax credits usually of value only to larger productions, but in other countries both art-house and mainstream movie-making depend on outright state subsidies and grants.

Can't answer for your tastes, but the Cannes Film Festival, for example, would have nothing to program if not for non-commercial sources of film funding -- art films subsidized by the state. Like it or not, this is the way it's worked for many years.

In poorer countries, the absence of state funding means no film industry. In richer ones like ours, the absence of state funding means Sundance -- pious and foolish movies made by privileged, well-connected people about the poor, but without what used to be called "class consciousness", because class consciousness would the offend the rich dudes who attend Sundance and the festival's corporate sponsors.

The fundamental conflict with film, as jean cocteau so eloquently pointed out when he stated that film will only become a true art form when film is as accessible as a pencil and paper, is it's dependance on finances. And everyone knows...people who are concerned with financing are not concerned with aesthetics. There are thankfully, rarely, some exceptions. If you look at the parallel worlds of popular music and art, you see the exact same decline into mediocrity when money became the dominating factor. If anything, the quality of popular music has even declined further than film, into total garbage. And the art world hasn't seen anything happen of importance since the 80's.

Seriously. Films like Gravity are mainstream hollywood money making flicks (heck the original script was "space adventure-the movie") you can nitpick all you like but at the end of the day many people liked it and it made shit loads of money while coming up with new technical innovations for filmmakers to use. Job done.

Not every film has to be about coffee & cigarettes.

Its nearly as bad as music lovers complaining about mainstream music and harp on about how great indie music is. You can enjoy both.

I'm sick of comic book movies myself but accept that they make money so therefor they will keep on coming.

On a side note VK liked that St Trinians remake. I cant gauge the quality meter hes using! :-D

$10 !!!!!!!!!!? I would never see a film if I had to pay $10 ! A dollar for the dvd...an 2 for the bluray ! Of course, what's really boring are uncritical viewers ! There used to be a whole discipline called film criticism . There were even magazines devoted to it. Those were the dayz ! Now we're apparently only interested in the toys.

@brianl

...couldn't agree more...since I get to see snippets of all these dumb special effects movies due to having kids ! But I'd go even further, because I see a crisis in narrative films in general. They simply have nothing more to offer. No more new stories. No more new characters. That's why, personally, I'm more interested in docs, or more experimental cinema. BTW, I thought Bruce Willis's character in Pulp Fiction was the go-to sympathetic character, although in general you are right. The genius of the film, besides it's non-linear storytelling, was the dialogue that allowed the viewer to identify with tasteless people.

....obviously there are some supreme exceptions.....El Labyrinto del Fauno for example.

That's a subjective matter that you're entitled to either way.

It was copy from IMDB film description :-) Not my words. :-)

Either way, I do not like this film.

I just have different view. Or as you say - I do not get it.

Your one line assessment of the film or more specifically who the film is about isn't about whether or not you like the film. That's a subjective matter that you're entitled to either way. As a one-line summation it's objectively incorrect for by your logic I could sum up Spike Lee's Malcolm X as so:

Malcolm Little, petty criminal, zoot suit enthusiast and white woman lover bungles his way into a jail cell

...and then, yeah, not interested. Oh, or how about this for Mandela: Long Walk To Freedom:

Nelson Mandela, terrorist, goes to jail.

@BurnetRhoades

You obviously haven't watched the film. Quoting that as a summation of what the film is about or what his character becomes means you haven't seen it or you didn't get it.

I've watched it twice. The "for your consideration' dvd has been out for months, and then I bought the bluray clone..supporting those criminal copyright pirates. I'd say...maybe you didn't get it. It's called "character growth"

http://www.filmslatemagazine.com/filmmaking/how-to-create-memorable-characters

..or development

http://psychologyinfilm.weebly.com/character-development.html