Gravity is getting some pretty rave reviews. I think I'm going to have to go see this one. Unusually, most of the reviews are saying to see it in Imax 3d.
Just one problem, the closest Imax theater is over an hour away. I have a RealD 3d theater close by and a new new dolby 3d theater not much farther. So I need some help to decide which one to go with. I saw Avatar in RealD and it was excellent so I will probably go that route but could use some feedback.
If you go to see it, please post what you thought of it and which format you saw it in.
Posted by Marlozhan (Member # 2422) on :
I am hoping to see it tonight, and probably in IMAX. Will let you know, but I will probably be telling you it is worth the drive. But then again, I like driving.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
I've seen it. It's okay.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
I am planning on seeing it this evening in 3D.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm seeing it in IMAX 3d on Sunday. 98% on rotten tomatoes.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: 98% on rotten tomatoes.
I used to think this meant "Definitely a great film!" Over the years I realized it can also mean a bunch of critics agreeing that a film is not bad.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: 98% on rotten tomatoes.
I used to think this meant "Definitely a great film!" Over the years I realized it can also mean a bunch of critics agreeing that a film is not bad.
True but it also has 96/91 on metacritic so the public seems to like it too, though not quite as much as the critics.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
Yeah, most people are raving about it. That can happen, though, where a movie plays it safe but does it well. Like Iron Man.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Do you like anything, umberhulk?
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
I like Iron Man a lot. And I like Gravity. I'm not sure I understand the question.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
I saw it tonight with some friends.
SPOILERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It was a pretty good movie. Maybe even a great movie. I think, though, that if she had died in space (before she came to accept death, but rather when she was terrified of it), it could have been an amazing movie.
SPOILERS!!!!!!!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It was pretty great. Visually stunning. Unlike anything else I've ever seen.
SPOILER
I'm not sure how I feel about the ending. I think killing her when she was terrified would have been very unsatisfying in part because there was nothing else happening. The movie simply would have ended. Killing her when she accepted it would have been a bold choice as well.
The only parts I didn't like we're some of her monologue by herself in the Soyuz. Some of it felt just a little awkward, like no one would say that to themselves. But that was 45 seconds out of a 90 min movie.
END SPOILER
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
SPOILER
I loved it. Loved the cinematography, loved the script. The scene with Matt getting into the Soyuz with her was done just right--it didn't stretch the believability too much, because you knew he was dead, but it made it feel like she was drawing on him once more to get through another impossible situation.
The ending scene with her swimming out of the lake and climbing out into an empty landscape was awesome.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
SPOILER SPOILER!!!
I thought for maybe 5 seconds that he might in fact have found a way to survive. The Soyuz hung around for a lot longer than it was supposed to, and he'd already executed a bunch of maneuvers and tricks through skill and luck. I figured, maybe he figured something else out.
But much as he was smooth-talking Clooney, I knew there was 1. No way he would be THAT calm after probably being just about out of air, or B. I thought it unlikely that he'd pop the door that readily unless he was desperate. It was a pretty cool scene.
The multiple "birth" scenes were interesting, though I felt like they could have perhaps been better positioned to more accurately reflect what was happening with the character. But the one at the end was the most telling and excellently placed.
END SPOILER END SPOILER!!! . . . . .
I've read a lot of reviews of Gravity lately to see what people are saying and I find myself agreeing more with the positive ones than the (albeit few) negative ones. There WAS something a little....clunky? Ham-handed? forced? about the movie that I can't totally describe without seeing it once or twice more. Some of the dialogue and rushed character development was I think what was clunkiest.
I think that's because Cuaron was trying to make this the perfect version of what it could be. He had this visually sumptuous movie that's absolutely gripping, eye-poppingly done. And for every negative review that merely calls it a retread of what we've already seen, I call BS. It's on another level. He also wants it to have a heavy emotional impact. It does. I was pulled into Dr. Stone's survival. And he wants it to have a larger, philosophical character developmenty hardiness. This, I think, is where it stumbles a little bit, and I'll tell you why in another spoiler section.
. . . . . SPOILER AGAIN SPOILER AGAIN!!!
I think it stumbles a bit because we aren't given enough set up. In many ways I like that we launch right into the movie without much fumbling around. But if the movie is supposed to be in part about Ryan searching for a reason to live, about her rebirth and acceptance, they needed to do just a little more heavy lifting on the BEFORE to get us to buy the AFTER. I bought the change, and I liked how he did the after, but it felt a little forced because I didn't really realize she needed a change until she was in the midst of changing, and then I was like "oooh, she's looking for a reason to survive AND a reason to live once she gets back to Earth, she's looking for solid ground physically AND metaphorically...oooooh!"
But our only two real hints that this is her mental status come from her sort of blase attitude at the beginning, and the much more direct mentions of her daughter and the radio on the ride home. That's the only hint we get that she's basically dead inside. I think that could have been made a little more clear with a touch more dialogue. I did love the part where Clooney looks at his hand mirror to see her behind him though. That was a nice shot.
And I feel like every scene where they are trying to make that character shift clear to us was clunky, from her monologue in the Soyuz (the only real letdown I thought in an otherwise absolutely stellar performance) to half her dialogue with Clooney.
END SECOND SPOILER END SECOND SPOILER.
Still...probably the best movie I've seen so far this year, and I find it unlikely that it will be unseated.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Saw it in IMAX 3D - this is a movie that was *made* to be seen this way, I really highly recommend doing so. The visual effects are absolutely beautiful.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Saw it in not-IMAX. Should have seen it in IMAX.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Avoiding the spoilers for now: is it more important to see it in IMAX or in 3D, if you can only do one?
Hobbes Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
I like Imax more than 3D, by a lot. But the 3D in this movie is kind of the point.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
It's quite a neat experience in 3D. I'm not sure it would have been quite as stunning in 2D. It's not a movie I would enjoy quite as much on our TV at home, similar to Avatar.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
Remember there is Imax and then there is Imax 3d. Most people seem to be recommending Imax 3d. I think we are going to go see it Wednesday but in Dolby 3d instead.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
AFAIK, all of the IMAX theaters are doing IMAX 3D showings. There's a grand total of 1 IMAX theater here on island, so that's not necessarily saying much, but...
It's probably the most visually driven movie I've ever seen, and the IMAX 3D is immersive enough that it legitimately feels like you're floating in space with the action. The screen wraps around and it has the effect of making it seem like the entire movie is happening in 3 dimensions a few feet in front of your face. I haven't seen it in regular 3D, but I know that most "3D" movies are actually 2D movies with a couple of cool 3D gimmicks. I don't know how it would translate to a flat screen, if it retains most of it's coolness or turns into a gimmicky type of movie. If I had to choose between IMAX 2D or regular 3D, I would pick IMAX.
But really, it's a stunningly beautiful movie. You won't regret the extra 4 bucks to see it in IMAX.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I am going to see it this weekend, maybe. We JUST had an IMAX theater open in Ocala THIS WEEK, and THIS movie will be the first ever shown on it.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
Maybe he can cancel out JJ Abrams.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
^^^Haha.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
Is this the same guy who directed Black Swan?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
That was Darren Aronofsky.
But I can see why you'd think that.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
No, this is the guy that did Children of Men and Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkeban.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
children of men is more than a movie
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
Saw this film last night. It is AMAZING, but you should really watch it in IMAX 3D. Anything less would be cheating yourself. The cinematography is breathtaking.
Posted by LargeTuna (Member # 10512) on :
I saw it in 3D this weekend and it was pretty remarkable.
I had some issues with the script and the constant barrage of action sequences, but it's still a great feature.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I'm probably going to see it, although I'll admit that the plot sounds to me like Three Little Pigs in Space.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
It kinda is. But don't go to see it for the plot, go for the view.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I predicted the entire plot within the first 10 minutes, but that wasn't really the point.
I do want to bring up - I was kind of bothered by the strong confident man being the one who has to guide the hysterical women into a state of confidence and calm. This wouldn't be problematic in.... a vacuum (pun not intended but endorsed), but given the general state of hollywood it bugs me.
Someone in another forum suggested Sigourney Weaver should have had Clooney's role, which I heavily endorse.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
I actually just got back from it, and to be honest I was let down.
The special effects were great. The technical work was top notch. Even the story was pretty good. I had no problems with Bullock and Clooney in the roles they were in.
My problem was with the dialogue. There was so much going for this movie, but Cuaron should not be allowed to write dialogue. Good director, horrible writer. Almost every line made me roll my eyes. It just came across as fake and cheesy.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I kind of agree with that. There were some lines that were so I realistically cheesy I really did roll my eyes.
But for a movie he create all on his own, it was okay when taken in concert with everything else.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I kind of agree with that. There were some lines that were so I realistically cheesy I really did roll my eyes.
But for a movie he create all on his own, it was okay when taken in concert with everything else.
True!!! Fun fact: The scene in which Clooney somehow enters the escape pod and motivates Bullock into fighting for her life was actually written by Clooney.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
I would definitely recommend seeing this in 3D first. First time I've ever said that without hesitation. I really think something would be lost in 2D.
SPOILERS!!!!
There's actually a subtle hint beyond Ryan's blase attitude, it's the fact she wouldn't stop working. I mean sure she may have really wanted to finish that last step, but most people when they are told there is a good chance they are going to get hurt, stop and run so they can live. But she has to be physically told to stop working, she has to be told to start trying to survive. She basically has to be told to keep talking because you never know if somebody is listening. Stop freaking out and breath slower to save oxygen.
I really liked the two birth scenes, especially since in zero gravity your body does move into a position more close to the fetal position.
I really thought they were going to let her die on reentry. It would have been a very bold move. But I also really liked the scene after she swam to shore. It was seriously perfect. Birth, swimming up for that breath of air, crawling, then standing. The screenwriting Gods were very pleased with that scene.
[ October 18, 2013, 05:43 PM: Message edited by: JanitorBlade ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I like everything you just said. I agree.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
More Spoilers!
Also, as sad as it is. I think they very clearly stated her future would not involve space. What with the "I hate space" and her needing to tear off her space clothes one last time, so as to get to the surface.
Both times that debris field hit I just loved the spectacle. Space honestly is the scariest environment for me. We have no business trying to live out there. Even in the safety of a space station, we slowly turn to goo basically. The beginning of the movie basically says it all. "Nothing can live in space."
Which may have been a subtle hint that Ryan wasn't living in space, she was passing the time.
I remember watching the trailer and thinking, "How on earth are they going to stretch this scene into a 90 minute movie. The station has already been obliterated."
They sure showed me.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Huh, nice observations. The more one looks at the movie the more layers become apparent. There are some story problems, maybe mostly some of the dialogue. But there's a lot more going on than just the pretty visuals.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I know right? It was after I left the theater that I really started seeing the themes. It's been way too long since I experienced cinema. I love me some comic book movies but it was nice to see an original story told as only a film can.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Oh! Even her conversations are making sense. She doesn't notice how gorgeous Earth looks and her response about space is that she enjoys the silence and could get used to it. Clooney has to do all the talking and keeps making her talk about things. But later she connects with somebody she doesn't know in a different language. She finds comfort in him even without understanding each other.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
So apparently OSC has no interest in this movie:
"That's right. I'm not going to see Gravity. Two reasons:
1. I don't wear 3D glasses. No movie is worth the headache.
2. The story sounds like 1950s print science fiction. Hollywood comes to an idea sixty years late, but they're so ignorant they think they've invented the wheel. Yeah, we get it, it's lonely out in space. Especially when you don't know the laws of physics ..."
I don't really understand his reasoning. To begin with, they play this film in 2D, so his anti-3D reasoning is invalid. His second reason also doesn't make any sense. Is he suggesting that the idea of being alone in space is unoriginal? So what? Plenty of ideas are old and reused. That's not the point. The visuals alone are worth the price of admission, not to mention the acting and suspense.
The movie is great and even astro-physicists like Neil Degrasse Tyson are praising it. I've seen several reports of astronauts who have done these repair missions to the Hubble and they agree that it is realistic. Not sure what OSC is talking about here...
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
And surely the laws of physics are assiduously followed in Ender's Game.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
I saw it last night in 3D and was impressed. Sure, the story was a bit hokey, but hokey in a way that still works.
My girlfriend is an avid sailor. She's sailed many times for days with no land in sight. That's as close to floating in space as most humans are going to get. And she felt the movie captured that feeling perfectly.
SPOILERS
.
.
.
When your only lifeline is a little piece of technology floating in a vast, uncaring void, you rely on your crew, your leader, and yourself, usually in that order.
Before the debris hit, Bullock was able to cruise, following orders, following protocol, not thinking all that much, not caring all that much.
When the debris hit, it was just Bullock and Clooney. The crew was gone. She followed his orders because he knew best, she trusted him, and she did not want to have to face life at that point. She did not want to be in control, be in charge.
When Clooney died, the only thing she had left was herself. That's truly terrifying. That's when her real panic set in.
Other friends who saw the movie didn't like how Bullock reacted, how she panicked. Especially when she panicked the most when she realized she was on her own. One of them said "when I'm panicked, I focus on what's in front of me and just do the things that have to be done." Frankly, I think that friend doesn't know what panic is.
I felt that Bullock's panic was perfect. You don't have control of it. You're not thinking rationally. You're panicking! And I thought that Bullock did an excellent job. I was totally engaged and caught up in her bouncing from panic to despair to intense focus. She made everything feel both claustrophobic and utterly vast.
I also loved the ending. After 90 minutes of zero-gravity, I suddenly felt how powerful gravity really is. It's oppressive. It's never-ending. It's draining. You have to fight against it every second of every day.
I love when science fiction does that. When it makes me see a small part of the normal, real world I live in with a slightly different POV. It's too bad that most of science fiction doesn't do that, but then again, 90% of sf is crud, because 90% of everything is crud.
Two thumbs up.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't think most people know what true terror, true panic, really is. Not the kind that actually involves your life being in jeopardy. They like to think that in the moment, their brain would follow them through a clean, clear set of instructions on how to get out of that situation and get back to safety. But for most people, especially those without any training to deal with that feeling, there is no rationality. There's gut reaction, instinct, a primary response hardwired into the body to act a certain way in order to survive just a little bit longer.
I don't know if that's something people can identify with until they actually experience it, otherwise the decisions people make in movies always seem silly because we can calmly, rationally look at it and say "well, why didn't they just do this?"
But terror when your life is in imminent jeopardy is utterly paralyzing.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: And surely the laws of physics are assiduously followed in Ender's Game.
It's funny how he is bashing this movie without even bothering to see it. I would have at least preferred he watch it before he starts bashing it.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
He did the same thing but even more extensively with Lincoln last year. He's obviously free to see or not see whatever movies he sees fit, but it's somewhat disingenuous to post a negative review of a movie you've never seen... especially criticizing a movie he's never seen for not understanding the laws of physics when the creators put a tremendous amount of work into making the movie realistic accurate.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
As if nobody ever uses a trailer as the basis for excoriating a movie? The movie is great, Mr. Card still hasn't seen Gattaca because somebody he trusts told him he'd hate it.
His loss, I guess. The movie is still there. If he happens to catch it in 2D on TV, I bet he'll watch it.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
I wouldn't say his anti-3D argument is completely invalid. The entire movie is blocked with 3D in mind. If it weren't meant to be watched in 3D I promise you a lot of direction would be different. A lot of 3D movies feel a lot more awkward when you don't watch them in 3D. With that in mind, I can understand not wanting to go and watch it, if he hates 3D that much.
That said, these fake reviews are incredibly stupid.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: As if nobody ever uses a trailer as the basis for excoriating a movie?
Yes, of course, that's what trailers are there for.
He wasn't reviewing or trashing the trailer, though, he was trashing the movie. There's a difference between me seeing a trailer and thinking "that movie looks dumb, I'm not going to watch it" and me publishing a review that says "hey, I've never seen this movie, nor do I have a clear idea what it's about, but rest assured that it's stupid, has a recycled, boring, pretentious plot, and the creators clearly don't understand the laws of physics."
His column is about *reviewing* things, and he's now made of trend of reviewing and trashing movies he's never seen. Heck, I would have been fine with him saying what he said about 3D, or even him saying "I'm not going to see it because the trailers look dumb", but him arrogantly trashing the movie itself (making wrong assumptions about it's content in the process and passing it off as fact...) is disingenuous. He hasn't seen it, he doesn't have an informed opinion about it.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
What's actually kinda funny is that there's a lot of people who kind of do the same thing to his books these days.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Really? I don't doubt you, I just haven't seen anyone who hasn't read his books attack them. Him and his beliefs? Definitely. But the only criticism I've seen of his books comes from people who have, you know, read them. (Though a morbidly curious part of me would really like to see it)
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: As if nobody ever uses a trailer as the basis for excoriating a movie?
Yes, of course, that's what trailers are there for.
He wasn't reviewing or trashing the trailer, though, he was trashing the movie. There's a difference between me seeing a trailer and thinking "that movie looks dumb, I'm not going to watch it" and me publishing a review that says "hey, I've never seen this movie, nor do I have a clear idea what it's about, but rest assured that it's stupid, has a recycled, boring, pretentious plot, and the creators clearly don't understand the laws of physics."
His column is about *reviewing* things, and he's now made of trend of reviewing and trashing movies he's never seen. Heck, I would have been fine with him saying what he said about 3D, or even him saying "I'm not going to see it because the trailers look dumb", but him arrogantly trashing the movie itself (making wrong assumptions about it's content in the process and passing it off as fact...) is disingenuous. He hasn't seen it, he doesn't have an informed opinion about it.
He never claims to have an informed opinion in the first place. It's a from the hip review. It's inherently less useful than an informed review. He of all people would admit to that. People make snap judgements about things they have no intention of trying all the time, why should he be any different?
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Actually, Gravity is refreshingly fresh as a sci-fi movie in that it does attempt to stay within the laws of physics. That was one of the main reasons I enjoyed it. There are not enough movies like it.
And Gattaca--OSC doesn't know what he's missing. It's one of the few really good short stories that Hollywood didn't botch, but instead told superbly on the big screen. It's still one of my all-time favorite sci-fi movies.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
BlackBlade: Because he published it. Because he made inaccurate claims about something he knows nothing about and *published it.* Do you understand the difference? If I wrote an article where I wrote "I'm not going to read Ender's Game, it's nothing but a Hitler apologia that sexualizes young boys. Oh, and giant bugs from outer space? That was new in like, the 1950s, though I'm sure Card is smug enough to think this Starship Troopers knockoff is original. Not that I've even read it, I just read the back. And some article someone wrote about it once. But I'm still confident enough in my absolute rightness about things I don't know that I'll publish this in a newspaper read by thousands of people." I imagine you wouldn't be too fond of me. Why does Mr. Card get a free pass to slander movies he's never seen?
Again, (I keep saying this) this is not about him deciding not to see it. People do that all the time. It's fine. It's not about him saying he doesn't want to see it. Again, fine. It's about him reviewing a movie he *hasn't seen* and criticizing it for things that aren't actually true. And then publishing that review! Do you not see the problem with that?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: He did the same thing but even more extensively with Lincoln last year. He's obviously free to see or not see whatever movies he sees fit, but it's somewhat disingenuous to post a negative review of a movie you've never seen... especially criticizing a movie he's never seen for not understanding the laws of physics when the creators put a tremendous amount of work into making the movie realistic accurate.
What degree of credibility do you actually assign to Orson Scott Card when it comes to film? Because for me, very little he has ever written has had much merit. And that's before you consider the depths of ignorance he trolls when posting reviews of multiple films he refuses to see. The man is an ogre. Who cares?
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: BlackBlade: Because he published it. Because he made inaccurate claims about something he knows nothing about and *published it.* Do you understand the difference? If I wrote an article where I wrote "I'm not going to read Ender's Game, it's nothing but a Hitler apologia that sexualizes young boys. Oh, and giant bugs from outer space? That was new in like, the 1950s, though I'm sure Card is smug enough to think this Starship Troopers knockoff is original. Not that I've even read it, I just read the back. And some article someone wrote about it once. But I'm still confident enough in my absolute rightness about things I don't know that I'll publish this in a newspaper read by thousands of people." I imagine you wouldn't be too fond of me. Why does Mr. Card get a free pass to slander movies he's never seen?
Actually it's print, so libel, not slander.
quote: Again, (I keep saying this) this is not about him deciding not to see it. People do that all the time. It's fine. It's not about him saying he doesn't want to see it. Again, fine. It's about him reviewing a movie he *hasn't seen* and criticizing it for things that aren't actually true. And then publishing that review! Do you not see the problem with that?
Exactly. The aggressively unironic, totally unself-conscious hypocrisy of a sci-fi writer with his share of media misunderstandings and pre-judgements perpetuating these types of attitudes is mind boggling.
[ October 29, 2013, 07:31 AM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk: What's actually kinda funny is that there's a lot of people who kind of do the same thing to his books these days.
To be fair, I secretly, shamefully read all of the books I discuss when it comes to OSC. Even when I say I won't, I do it anyway. If I wrote about it, I read it. Every time.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: And Gattaca--OSC doesn't know what he's missing. It's one of the few really good short stories that Hollywood didn't botch, but instead told superbly on the big screen. It's still one of my all-time favorite sci-fi movies.
Agreed, Gattaca is in that sense perfect as a film: it is exactly what a short-form sci-fi piece should be as a film.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: As if nobody ever uses a trailer as the basis for excoriating a movie? The movie is great, Mr. Card still hasn't seen Gattaca because somebody he trusts told him he'd hate it.
Whoever that person is, they are a terrible friend to tell him that. Gattaca is one of the best scifi movies I've ever seen.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)