>>See, I don't really get this criticism. Granted, there are
>no
>>tearjerker moments, but I thought the movie was pure emotion
>>from beginning to end. Much of the emotion was conveyed in
>an
>>unorthodox way, but it was certainly prevalent nonetheless.
>>
>>(Spoilers)
>>You didn't feel emotional resonance when she was flung out
>>perpetually spinning into space? You didn't feel emotion in
>>the sheer vastness that is deep space? No emotion when she
>is
>>finally able to get to the ISS and strip off her suit? What
>>about her desperate attempt at human contact in the Russian
>>satellite?
>
>Emotion to me isn't about tear-jerker moments or putting a
>character in a perilous situation, it's developing a character
>or relationship in order to earn an emotional connection and
>personal attachment with the audience. Yes, drifting in space
>is a frightening situation and Cuaron did an amazing job of
>representing that visually but it is also up to the writer and
>director to bridge the emotional chasm between viewer and
>movie. I was completely immersed visually but never engaged
>emotionally because outside of basic human decency and
>survival, I was never given a developed reason to care. Cuaron
>tried but with that script and limited time, it didn't work.
>The story of the movie for me was the technical brilliance,
>and the characters were just basic vehicles to show that off.
>
>

Fair enough. Though I think any additional character development would've jarred the pacing and overall tone of the film. Personally, I connected w/ Bullock's character as soon as Clooney left the picture. Her monologue was the icing.