Can anyone think of another film that had a cast of just 2?

Wow...yea, that DOES sound pretty darn good!

When I saw it in theatre, there was an elderly couple sitting beside me, probably in their mid-late 70's. I thought back to the last time I saw that happen...and figured it was probably some time in the late 80's or early 90's. And it occured to me that maybe they decided to see it based on word of mouth, and that this movie didn't depend on harsh swearing, sex gags and jokes, no stupid car chases or "gun play" and other irresponsible behavior. Just plain old fashioned survival drama, but with a somewhat unique setting, relentless realism (mostly) and a lot of care and quality. I've recommended my parents see this in theatres, and I rarely give such recommendations!

I'm sure that being adults during the famous "Space Race" probably had something to do with their interest in seeing the movie...I somehow doubt they went to see Prometheus, for example!

Moon


The guy and his smile robot.

Well, not including the


Dead Calm only had 3:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Calm_%28film%29

Ah yes I remember "Dead Calm" with a very young Nicole Kidman.

Watched last night in IMAX3D with the wife. Man what a great movie. The plot was about survival, but also touched so deeply on sacrifice, life, death and rebirth.

Throw the stunning visuals in there and its such a great film going experience.

Saw it the other day in 3D, loved it. Great film all around.

Did you forget the other astronaut with the Indian accent? Although we didn't see his face, he was there.

No I didn't forget him but he doesn't count since when you do see his body it's all CGI. The deceased astronauts don't count!

Actually, you GOT to see his face

However, given that no actors were killed in the making of this film, so I suppose that was CGI too.

That's why I had the Wink'n'Grin.

Visually engrossing film, I found the story cliched and boring. Even with the fantastic imagery, I was bored. Many scenes seemed coincidental or improbable, sentimental and dramatic in a way that was very predictable.

I consider it as the price they probably had to pay to get the film funded at all ... or the fact that most science fiction work sucks by default when it comes to describing characters (which may be a result of the demographic of SF authors (and I consider myself belonging to that group)):

There's buzz that All is Lost is already in Oscar contention, some are saying the best film to come out in years- and with only Robert Redford in the film and almost no dialogue.

I belong to a different group- the 'psychologist' in me reads people and their motivations, studies art as forms of propaganda or manipulative pieces. Sentiments are fine where they join a relevant story arc, but there are times when it's just saccharine, in other words so weak and contrived, case in point, that Robin Williams film Bicentennial Man.

I thought it was ironic that this film understood that making certain scenes occur in silence, as there is no atmospheric medium for sound to exist actually makes the film better- except by adding film score, dramatic theme music or danger music, that kind of undermines the psychological effect of being 'trapped' in an inhospitable environment as space.

Don't get me wrong - I'm with you. The film would have been better that way. But cinema has never just been about art. First and foremost it is a business whose products occasionally - and rather incidentally - become art under fortunate circumstances.
Maybe I'm just too forgiving here. I can look over those deficits and accept them as necessary compromises to get investors on board to finance the whole project. Gravity is substantially different from most contemporary pictures in many areas already. Diversity as such is seen rather as a detriment among film investors. We may regret this, but it's a reality.

I understand completely- it's a business, surely.

What makes this scene so beautiful is that Kubrick doesn't use theme music- it's actually more effective without it, more chilling. Dr. Poole dies in a violent struggle- and it's as if it's not worthy of sound, a life snuffed out is meaningless against the endless backdrop of space that it doesn't elicit theme music. Nothing sentimental about it, but horrifying.



Theme music is by definition a manipulative component of a film- the filmmakers are trying to elicit the audience's emotional response, or have the audience's attention directed at something, or feel a certain way, or identify with something. Yet, the lack of music sometimes does it much better, particularly when it's consistent with the cold, silence of space...

I can't say I saw what everyone else saw in the movie. I sat through the entire movie thinking when is this going to end. If I had went by myself I would have left after the initial accident that stranded them.


Wheels

Even the "art house" film scene is a business in that independent studios don't decide to buy a film unless they specifically believe they can make money out of it.

Excellent film if you're a space fan. Outstanding even. But you must see it in 3D. I saw it twice, once in 3D and once in regular. It's a different movie in 3D. I'm not a fan of 3D. For me, 3D is a gimmick for 9 out of 10 movies. I refuse to waste my money on it. Notice 3D TVs have plummeted in price because they can't get rid of them. The 3D TV shows never emerged like the TV makers were gambling on. It's a gimmick. But in Gravity, it's a huge enhancer. You don't need IMAX, as long as you see it in at least standard 3D.

Oh yeah. By the way, I was NEVER bored. Not for one minute. I had to find out how it would end. Good screenwriting; the script actually made me care about the characters, and that's rare.

If anyone who saw it became bored, they probably didn't see the flick in 3D.

I saw it in 3D, IMax- it was boring in the way a chick can be good looking but boring. The reason why is that these characters were added to glue the special effects together, rather than a story about the characters, to me it was like every good looking CGI film yet not very arresting. The lead characters were good looking, the film was good looking, but it stopped there with me- of course, that's what they were going for. The astronauts who survived initially weren't going to be the others who might not be as attractive or something. The ones to survive are the ones who look like Hollywood A-list actors rather than what astronauts usually look and act like. Have you noticed how many people mentioned how hot Sandra Bullock is? That's no accident, that's deliberate. That's part of the pull that makes the film attractive.

Right off that bat I thought the chemistry between Clooney and Bullock was bogus- the filmmakers were trying to throw that in there really fast but the relied on stock formulas, even Bullock's character's name: Ryan Stone. What is it with the name Ryan in big marquee films, anyway?

Just throwing a layer of sentimental sap in there immediately with the dead child and Clooney's flirty, loveable frat dude, for me it was like the added romance in that awful film Pearl Harbor because a film centered around one event is hard to connect audiences with. These are story gimmicks just because as Ssnake alluded to, it's not necessarily the easiest thing in the world to write natural dialogue which connects audiences to characters, the easiest thing in the world to write in some tragedy to the backstory which is supposed to manipulate the audience into some feeling or identification with something deep going on without trying too hard- because a dead child, what could be more sentimental that? Cheap story point to get the audience. Bad storytelling. Lazy.

Now call me heartless, empty or shallow, but you have to work to get my attention. I've seen this all before, it's easy, and it's transparent to me. On the other hand, you get my praise, you've done something.