posted
Uncle Orson expressed disinterest in the movie "Gravity" for a couple of reasons, one being getting headaches from 3D glasses. Is it the case that in some areas, only the 3D version is shown? Here in the CA Bay Area, there's a non-3D version too. I'd recommend giving either a try. Despite some the unbelievable coincidences, physics, space technology, and piloting feats (spoiler alert: flying a Chinese module where the button labels are in Chinese characters) it was one of the most edge-of-my-seat thrilling movies in a long time.
posted
My reasons for not wanting to see it are twofold - it sounds like Apollo 13 combined with Cast Away, the former needs to repeat, the latter as well, but for completely different reasons; and a general dislike of the director's work.
Posts: 428 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I very much enjoyed Gravity. But I would say the film was absolutely wonderful, maybe even essential in 3D. But I won't know until I see it again in 2D.
Either way, it was a pleasure to watch.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well I know you said beside the visuals, but I can't emphasize this enough. In space you have true equal three dimensional movement. I mean sure you have that anywhere, but on Earth we are fixed to the ground, so there's a plane we just aren't going to cross. That takes away 50% of possible movement by itself. Add to that that we are pulled to the planet, and that's another chunk of movement we can't do. I mean we can depict people flying, and hovering, but typically we are anchored.
In Gravity, when disaster strikes, millions of things fly in every which direction. The characters as well. It's a breath taking spectacle.
Beyond this point you are getting SPOILERS!!!! I posted this on the other side of the forums.
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.
It was such a wonderful *cinematic* movie. With themes, symbolism, meaningful dialogue, meaningful monologues, a moving story, edge of your seat tension, all put together.
I wouldn't put it up there with the master examples of cinema, but it was a breath of fresh air in the medium. I'm actually sad people won't see it in 3D because they can't or won't. It's an experience worth having.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmm. People keep recommending the film, but I'm resisting because I really dislike the director and his previous work. The film itself sounded like a (admittedly well made) cross between Apollo 13 and Cast Away, and although I like Apollo 13 quite a bit, I don't really have a huge desire to see a mostly one-hander narrative imitating that structure. I tend to like relationships that aren't mostly told in flashback, as well.
I like the way you analyze it, though. Thanks!
Posts: 428 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not very similar to Cast Away, I'd say maybe Apollo 13 in that it's a crisis in space. But unlike Cast Away the tension doesn't really let up, ever until the very end. I don't know much about the director's previous work (quite unusual that), I went because people I trust loved it.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
