Movies  •  Critics  •  About
Existimatum  >  Movies  >  Gravity  >  Reviews  >  Financial Times

Nigel Andrews’s “Review—Gravity” Is One Long Series of Misfires

In response to Nigel Andrews’s 499‑word review of Gravity on Financial Times 

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/7fcac20e-47a4-11e3-9398-00144feabdc0.html

By Marcus Julianus, Associate Critic

Nigel Andrews’s “Review—Gravity” is a very disagreeable experience. Not only is it dismissive and smug, it’s disjointed, muddled, and contradictory. Andrews can’t decide what angle he should take in approaching the film, and spends a lot of time trying to find the right footing, he never does.

The plot description has a palpable lack of focus, jumping around mid sentence as Andrews clearly expects his readers to have come to his review prepared in some way that they aren’t.

The phrase “No Spoilers” is used in the same paragraph as Andrews reveals a character’s backstory. Strange arguments are included but framed as if they come from someone else. The whole review is a long series of misfires.

The arguments are phrased as if they were the second punch in a one-two combo. The only problem is that there’s no first punch. Andrews if following up to a bunch of points he leaves unsaid. It makes for a disorienting and frustrating read that will leave most readers cold.

There’s an unrevealed backstory in here somewhere. Andrews’s piece reads perfectly as a reaction, but the audience is never told what motivates the piece. Reading Review is like only hearing one side of a telephone conversation.    

Quality of Writing Quality of Argument Spoiler Avoidance Presentation

Marcus Julianus was born and raised in Byzantium, where he spent his youth herding goats and making cheese. As a gatekeeper of the review world, Marcus offers his background in poetry and drama to opine on the work of the film critics.