I've heard movies like this described rather pretentiously as "not spoon feeding you the story." There's a difference, though, in telling a story, and having a story loosely associated with a series of tangentially related washed out shots. Movies like this are very artistic. But I'm reminded of other art media which tell a story. Like poetry for instance. Imagine that you have a beautiful poem. Then someone randomly cuts out 75% of the words. What you're left with makes sense in the context of the missing pieces but by itself is an almost random collection of words. Those words might be descriptive and beautiful but they aren't cogent at all. When someone fills in the missing words, the reader may say "Oh, yes! It makes perfect sense and the fact that you tried to convey that idea incompletely makes you a genius!" I'm not that kind of person. I don't think you're a genius when you intentionally leave out part of your story or tell it out of sequence simply for art's sake. In fact, that maneuver is, by now, cliché. The first few films that experimented in partial story telling, forcing the cinematography to carry the film, may have been clever. At this point, however, it's lazy. It's a genre enjoyed almost exclusively by people who like to feel privileged and intelligent by "getting it." There's nothing really to get. It's an art film. It's meant to convey emotion, not a story. Anyone who "gets" the story is the one missing the point. These types of movies are marketed like regular movies which is dishonest. Hell, I just watched a trailer for it that seriously makes it look like an action thriller. The two minute trailer also easily managed to incorporate 90% of the film's dialogue (monologue). If it were an honest trailer, it'd have no ___logue whatsoever and would just be a series of washed out shots of a bikini clad female character who was never actually introduced and a guy running on a treadmill in a space station.

Stories have character development. They have a plot. They have a climax. They make you identify with the characters. Love had a character who changed, yes, but he didn't really develop. We were given glimpses here and there of his daily routine over the course of several years but it was basically the same scene, shot from different angles, for about 70 minutes or so. Realistically, the ending sequence could have happened 45 minutes earlier in the film and nothing would have been lost.

I didn't hate the movie but it did make me frustrated. I hung in there because I kept thinking there'd be a twist or resolution. Some kind of payoff. But in the end, it was a movie that spoke almost entirely in platitudes. It said a lot of very wise things that all seemed to mean nothing.

Love is truly one of those rare films that dares to challenge your knowledge of human existence and experience while allowing you to view the effects of long-term isolation. When astronaut Captain Lee Miller is stranded aboard the International Space Station, he must do his best to survive while coping with the effects of being isolated away from people- without any connection to Earth, for he is oblivious to the catastrophe that is underway. When his life support systems begin to dwindle, he tries his best to save the station, but not before finding a strange discovery that will change everything...

Love, directed and written by William Eubank, is a classic. Yes, it may draw various ties to three other classics (2001, Moon and Solaris (the older version)) but the film has its own unique and impressive take on the "space exploration" sub-genre. Gunner Wright gives an astonishing and breath-taking performance as Captain Lee Miller, who may remind you of Sam from Duncan Jones' Moon; when he begins to lose his grip on reality, you can just see his talent. The visual effects are top-notch (even with the low budget), the sets are convincing, and the feeling of dread and loneliness really hits you when you see its effects on Miller.

All in all, Love is a phenomenal film that is a must-see for anyone who loves the sci-fi genre, and anyone who likes to have their mind screwed with.

9/10 Stars***

I almost forgot to mention, read "Pale Blue Dot" by Carl Sagan for a slightly better understanding of the storyline

Love (2011)

What a weird mixed bag of a movie. With a zinger of a misleading title.

Yes, okay, this ultimately is about what a man abandoned in the space station starts to think about--not sex (according to the movie) but love, some idealized love with a hot babe on a Malibu beach.

And oh yeah, this guy has dreams--or some kind of astral travel memories--of fighting heroically in the Civil War, surround by buff guys being equally heroic and doomed. Gradually the mental state of the one main character shifts and becomes unreliable, and dreams and daydreams become hallucinations, or perhaps some kind of actual revelation of another existence, and it gets surreal.

So the big picture is this is an overly simple movie with a couple well-worn ideas worn further and sometimes to the point of actually boredom. On that level, don't see it.

But, as is typical these days (in a good way), there are some visual and technical moments here that are amazing. Really amazing.

The first of these is a series of scenes of Civil War battles with really complex, layered, smoky, dusty clashes of men and bodies--in delicious slow motion. There's no point to these moments except the drama, but the drama is self-sufficient. They echo the best epic paintings of war of any kind.

And there are other moments with drawings that become moving pictures (again of the Civil War), and some general photography of that past era that works well. Plus the station itself is reasonably interesting, if a little awkwardly uncomfortable (compared to pictures I've seen of the real thing).

Which brings us to the final problem--there is no weightlessness. Almost the entire movie is this single man in an empty space station around Earth, and there would be zero gravity. Not a hint.

What should anyone make of all the derivative stuff here, mainly borrowing (appropriating, stealing?) from the fabulous "2001" and possibly the not-fabulous "Marooned," both from the late 1960s? I don't know. The ending here is an especially, painfully faint echo of Kubrick's great statement about the loneliness of the universe. And the slight romanticizing of this man's isolation (with his visions of a woman with lots of skin showing) reminds me of Soderbergh's romantic remake of "Solaris."

There are better movies about being lost in space.