OK, Gravity is good, but it’s not that great, people

What will we think of Gravity in 10 years, even five?

“You know, I love to talk film. Discuss, to critique. You want to see a film with me?” said Lt. William Kinderman, played by Lee J. Cobb in the 1973 thriller, The Exorcist. That film is rated an 87 on Rotten Tomatoes.

I mention the film because, like Lt. Kinderman, I love to talk film too. In many ways, the extent that I want to talk about a film seems to be an indication of how much I think a movie is great. For me, at least, great movies last in my mind forever.

“I just worry that if we can’t tell the difference between a movie that simply is a diversion and one that changes the viewer, we are doomed for more installments of the Twilight series.”

This past weekend, my wife and I donned our 3D glasses and went to see the new Sandra Bullock and George Clooney film Gravity. It got a 97 on Rotten Tomatoes.

I enjoyed it. But that is it. Entertaining? Yep. Great. By no means.

Now, I don’t want you to think that I did not like the film, because it was an enjoyable roller coaster ride for an hour and a half. But after I left the theater and returned the 3D glasses (that they charged me to use), the movie left my mind. I write about it here only because some Facebook friends seem very enthusiastic about it. I don’t get it.

What is the brand of movies today? Just special effects and slick production, for the most part. Before you start sticking me in the abyss of out of touch with new movies and assume I still pine for Lawrence of Arabia and One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, I also loved No Country for Old Men and a host of others recent releases.

I just worry that if we can’t tell the difference between a movie that simply is a diversion and one that changes the viewer, we are doomed for more installments of the Twilight series.

Today, the brand of moviegoer is tragically a comedy of sorts.