I really don't understand why Gravity is nominated for best picture, it's a crappy movie with a crappy plot and awful acting, can someone explain me what's so great about this film?
I'm not the film's biggest fan, but I can say with confidence that it was nominated because as a film, it pushed the boundaries of film language. It's fine if you don't understand that; it's just film theory lingo meaning that it changed some of the rules in cinematic storytelling. There's no other movie quite like it... At least on a technical level.
Beyond that, I too was like "Huh? Why do people think Sandra Bullock did a good job?" and then I learned why. Again, it's a lot more technical and as such, it might even get you to question why they call it acting. Basically, in order to get the shots right (think about the placement of light due to where the source of light is at any point in the story, along with the intricacies of the VFX), she had to hit her marks perfectly in the studio or else it wouldn't work. She rehearsed for hours and hours and hours... Not to get her dialogue right, but to know exactly where to be (not a centimeter further) at the exact right moment (a second later might ruin the shot).
I honestly don't think it'll win much other than the technical awards it's up for. I think Cate Blanchett makes for a better winner, too.
