Platicsco Good story, Not enough for a whole film

Limerculer A waste of 90 minutes of my life

Voxitype Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

Jenni Devyn Worth seeing just to witness how winsome it is.

rodrig58 I wanted to start by calling this film the poor man's "2001: A Space Odyssey", strictly referring to the film's budget. But I realize that, in fact, the director William Eubank it's poor in ideas and imagination. Indeed, after Stanley Kubrick's masterpiece and after "Solaris" by Andrei Tarkovsky, it's not easy to achieve another great film in the same genre. To stay 1h 24 min looking at an insipid guy, who do not eat, do not drink, do not poop, do not masturbate, he's just talking to himself and we see how practical his beard grows in space, it is really stressful and claustrophobic, even more stressful and claustrophobic than the movie character says he feels. And there was nobody to tell Mr.Eubanks that in space there is weightlessness? His haunted character and all the objects in the space station do not respect the law of gravity. Still, the film's music is not bad and the last 5 minutes of the movie have something beautiful and poetic.

Prismark10 First time director William Eubank made this very low budget feature that stars Gunner Wright as an astronaut stranded on a space station orbiting earth.The film starts during the American civil war where a soldier discovers something, maybe remnants of a spacecraft. We also have excerpts of various interviews as the film progresses, a device that breaks up the monotony of the sole cast member in the space station.It is also serves a back-story of an ark that crash landed during the civil war era USA and it seems to have interviewed various people.The main story though is the astronaut who is left isolated after he loses communication with mission control. It seems some incident has happened on earth and it looks like he is on his own and maybe the only human alive.The astronaut slowly disintegrates with his lack of contact with another person and left wondering what has happened on earth. He has a yearning to connect, to connect with someone else hence the film title, Love.The low budget of Love and the fact that he has the solo cast member in space plus a computer voice reminds you of Moon with the space station aesthetics giving you the visual reminder of 2001: A Space Odyssey.Conceptually I was impressed with the film even though the film is rather cloudy and ambiguous and I do not pretend that I understood it all.What the director has done with the minuscule budget is breathtaking and has to be applauded. Apparently, the space station was constructed in Eubank's parents yard.

Mork_the_Borg Sorry, but I don't buy in to the line that this movie was so well made for its budget. I found it a horrible cheaply made rip off of one of the best movies ever made: Space 2001 a Space Odyssey. What the heck is wrong with the physics of this movie? Did the makers ever hear of zero- gravity or micro-gravity? Mmmmm... well maybe just maybe, the lack of any form of close to reality physics would have been okay if the story would have been superb, but the story is even bigger crap than the lack of physics applied to the ISS. This movie is most definitely not about 'love' or 'relationships', but more about how can I make a name for myself by copying Stanley Kubrick's genius cinematographic insight! Even some of the shots were direct copies of the original 2001 movie - makes me wonder if they got sued for copyright infringement. It's a shame, as I'm such a huge S.F. lover, and this cheap rubbish should be banned from ever being published to DVD or BD!

jzakany I watched the movie due to the synopsis on Netflix and the awards it displayed. Have you ever seen a painting that looks like a dog ate a box of Crayola crowns then threw up on a canvas? Then a bunch of art critics rave over the painting as "insightful" and "deep" and "awe inspiring"? Then you find yourself scratching your head and wondering if you're in the midst of a live reenactment of "The Emperor Has No Clothes". The painting is clearly garbage, but no one wants to speak up and say so because they don't want to be seen as an imbecile by the art community. That's what we have with this movie. This should have been a 10 minute short. So much of it is just a waste of time. Well, the guy is in a space station all by himself. He gets lonely. We don't need an hour of him being lonely to get that point. In the end the parts and pieces are not tied together. Some reviewers say it does. *** Contains Spoilers *****For example, there is an Ark containing human knowledge and the thoughts and memories of certain humans. The Civil War soldier stumbled on it back in the 1860's. How did it travel back in time? How did it get built in the first place? Did humans build it knowing the end of mankind was near? If so, why did they leave the guy on the space station?Apparently the humans on Earth have all died. We can assume it was due to a war, but we don't know. In the end of the movie it appears that he found out he was rescued by aliens. Ironically, the message he receives is that in order to survive humans need to form a connection with another human being (Love). But, the aliens don't provide him with any kind of interaction. He's all by himself with an alien sending messages telepathically. I assume it's telepathically because the movie does a horrible job at conveying this message. So the entire point of the movie is that he is the last human being alive, aliens have found him, aliens have told him humans need a bond of love with others to survive, but the aliens leave him all alone. To me that's the ultimate form of torture. Well, the next to the ultimate form of torture. The true ultimate torture is sitting through this movie.