I saw it yesterday and thought it was good but it isn't a great movie. The story is pretty ass but the cinematography is great.
i saw people coming out of gravity saying this too. they were women o course. i assumed they thought sandra and clooney were going to hook up by the end and when that did not happen it probably rubbed them raw. it also doesnt help that this film has been hyped up to unrealistic levels. this is an epicly awesome film but its still just a film and people need to realize that its not going to cause people to change religions or solve all the world's problems.
I saw it yesterday and thought it was good but it isn't a great movie. The story is pretty ass but the cinematography is great.
Last edited by Araxen; 11-16-2013 at 09:49 PM.
PSN: Araxen, Xbox Live: Araxen II, WiiU: Araxen, Steam: Araxen
yeah, that scene was done EXTREMELY bad. Watching it you have the clear impression that he is getting dragged away from some kind of force even if at least 3 times you can clearly see they have stopped their momentum. They should simply be floating, but then all of a sudden he get pulled back again by i_have_no_fucking_idea_what
The entire scene worked like they were hanging from a cliff, with him suspended in the air while she try to pull him up. Except they are in a zero-G enviroment. /rolls eyes
Last edited by fucker; 10-27-2013 at 09:31 PM.
Went to see this on Saturday. Good film, and very good and believable cinematography and special effects. Never been a big fan of Sandra Bullock, but she didn't suck in this (too much). It's amazing how suspensful they can make floating around in space!
Worse then a movie snob, the only people that "hated" it were the hipster douche bags who realized it made a pile of cash after the first weekend.
If I remember correctly this is only the 4th movie in my 47 years of life that I've walked out of in a theatre. Even went to their "arcade" area and played 2 games of Galaga on the dual retro game (Ms. Pacman was the other game). Still $0.25 after all these years.
You're trying to say having diarrhea is more enjoyable than sitting through a movie? I guess it would be if the movie was that bad, lol.
Ahaha. Fury if you're going to neg me at least find a post you don't like, not counter neg because people call you out on your horrible posts. Confirmed fag.
Me and the person I was watching it with wanted to walk out also but we each thought the other was enjoying it so we stuck it out . Neither of us hated it but we were bored after the first explosion due to lack of character connection, story and excess of CGI debris and booms. I couldn't bring myself to care about Bullock or the red shirts that died around her as we never got to know them in any meaningful way + her survival was a forgone conclusion. I couldn't help but sit there and think how much better Apollo 13 was 18 years ago.
It's my own fault though I know as I didn't look into it enough before going and was expecting a film rather than an effects/technical showcase.
It was of course not "forgone conclusion" that Apollo 13 will make it back to earth, right?
I bet my lunch money you also watch Titanic every other year thinking: Maybe they will miss the iceberg this time, so i can enjoy the fully fleshed out characters plus love story in it, even more.
Thankfully neither Apollo 13 nor Titanic were over 1 1/2 hours of non stop malfunction / berg which is the problem I have with Gravity. In a film with an engrossing story you can lose yourself in the narrative and suspend the voice in your head that says "yeah they will be just fine, whatever" yawn. Gravity instead shot for pure adrenaline to attempt the same thing which burned out quickly for me and some others after the first explosion. Anyway, everyone has different tastes towards these things.
Last edited by Gask; 11-02-2013 at 01:35 AM.
It was okay, it had that 90's action vibe nostalgia going for it and at least an attempt at a story. But yeah I didn't like that whole: lets turn this level into swiss cheese!! moment (I have no soul I guess ) . YMMV
Last edited by Gask; 11-03-2013 at 02:05 AM.
She trained for that part like half a year / 9 month or whatnot and it clearly showed. I was just kind' annoyed on her eyes, they looked fresh outta eye lid lifting surgery or something.
Gask and Fury must scissor relentlessly together as they read this thread and peeps reactions, confirmed fags.
Finally saw this. Loved it. IMO best movie this year.
I sea the cynics and haters in this thread and that's fine, it's a unique movie.
The technical aspect is amazing, as has been mentioned, but beyond that, I really loved how simplistic yet powerful the movie was. The whole movie was similar to the acclaimed intro to Wall-E. The score was great and the movie was paced well.
The common complaint is "lack of story" yet just because there were only 2 actors in the entire movie doesn't mean it lacked story. Sure, it doesn't have the branching story arcs like some fanatasy epic, but there was story nonetheless. To me the story wasn't even about the actual characters or the possible nightmares of space. The greater story was simply about life and our planet. Gravity and how it's taken for granted. After watching the first 85 minutes of the film, when those final scenes were displayed and we finally saw "Gravity", I actually felt the weight of it. It was unique in that to finally experience gravity - which we just accept everyday - I had to first experience weightlessness for 85 minutes.
Beyond that, it did hash out the generic story of life & death. Being afraid of death, accepting death, evaluating life, and the human desire to live. These have been told countless times in countless ways. But all movies rehash the same concepts and I can't fault this movie just because it tells the same story we've seen before.
The other smaller bits are the hypotheticals. The what-ifs of space and the affects on earth. A satellite apocalypse is most likely a real fear for space agencies, yet the consequences would affect so many more people.
The only gripe I had with the film were a few bad(annoying) acting bits by Bullock. The "I don't know what to do!" reminded me of her debut in the movie Speed.
i have heard much worse dialogue from films hailed as classics. you and the red letter media guys are being way too harsh on it when its not a problem and the dialogue has very little to do with the film since like 90% of the story was visual. you could have had no dialogue and you still would have been able to follow the movie with no problem.
Loved the part with her spinning in orbit on the severed extending arm.. sounded like an orgasm
I am seriously considering making a trip to Paris France to watch it in 4K and Dolby Atmos. Anyone here saw it in Atmos?
This movie was visually stunning. However, every other aspect of the movie was terrible. How has no one mentioned this?
Because you didn't read the thread? Anyways it was mainly the dialogue people had issue with, well the fire extinguisher as well but whatever.
Last edited by Juvarisx; 11-19-2013 at 04:46 AM.
Walking out of the theater I told my wife that the movie would probably suck on DVD/Bluray. The main draw for this movie was the theater experience. Seeing it in Imax 3d with sound so loud/deep it shook the seats was an incredibly intense experience.
I'm not really sure why I posted that. I read maybe 10% of the thread before concluding that no one said it was bad.
Is it just me or is George Clooney a smug douchebag in pretty much 100% of all movies he's in?
Anyone who has smashed as much smoking hot pussy as Clooney is allowed to be a smug douchebag all they want.
she ruined the movie for me, she didn't rely on her training. she didn't listen to orders and why in the fuck would you stop and take a break knowing in 90min's shit was about to get real. no you want to curl up into a ball and chill.
"I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology.
if it wasn't for george clooney and sandra bullocks, I would have enjoyed this movie.
Saw the screener tonight. It was worth the once off viewing, but I'm glad that I didn't pay to see it. Visually stunning, but overall pretty mediocre I think. It will probably win all kinds of awards because shit like this always does. That said...
Just watched this earlier today. Wasn't terribly impressed. It wasn't complete shit or anything but it wasn't memorable either.
I loved this movie, but it would be completely worthless to watch it now. It required a real IMAX 3D screen to appreciate it.
As far as the macho "leave him to walk the fuck home", well good luck with that. I'll call bullshit on you doing that ever. But it sure sounds tough and cool on the board.
Preferring to wait in a lobby for an hour over seeing even a mediocre movie seems pretty silly and weird. I guess if you had a phone to surf the net with it'd make sense.
I call bullshit. No one is that fucking retarded to go wait in the lobby rather than fall asleep.
ive walked out on several movies, but i never walked out alone on a movie. its kind of a dick move to walk out and leave the other person in the theater by themselves. this has happened to me, i wanted to see natural born killers and my friend wanted to see beverly hills cop 3 or something and he actually got all pissy when i said i didnt want to watch that shit, so he went off in a huff and i was stuck with NBK. looking back on it now, my friend was a fucking moron. that BHC3 was a massive pile of shit.
Edit: Fuck it. Movie wasn't worth spending that much time in the thread lol.
Last edited by Lost Ranger; 12-12-2013 at 05:52 AM.
i feel sorry for anyone who didn't like this movie in theaters, makes me think you have a small neglected imagination. and probably a tiny dick too.
Sandra looks pretty fit still for an old lady. Would still pee in her butt.
That's silly, you would never go into space with a celebrity because you know something dramatic or horrific will always happen and the odds are you're not the hero who is going to survive.
im curious how this movie looks on someone's big screen tv. i saw this on the faux Imax 3d screen and it still looked amazing. i am willing to buy it on blu ray, but not sure if its worth it on a smaller screen
My theory is she died at the start of the film, and the whole movie is just her moving on to whatever lies beyond death.
For her it was forgiving herself for her daughter.
I don't give a shit what the filmakers wanted it to be, thats what i'm going with.
I like prisoners allot, but this is my favorite movie of the year.
As far as I am concerned there was too much story. I don't think you need to make that much corny dialogue driven back-story to show someone facing hardships being tempted by giving up and ultimately deciding to fight. Still an extremely impressive movie.
Space realism question: after all these efforts and all this stress, wouldn't an astronaut be drenched in sweat inside they space suit? Or does temperature/humidity control prevents that?
People watching the screener rips of this have completely missed the point of the movie in my experience. This one was all about immersion and needed the 3D IMAX experience. I cant at all imagine this would have had the impact on a first viewing sat at home or even worse on a desktop / laptop. While I enjoyed it in theater, this is not a rewatchable film at home at all. You guys missed the boat.
That's elitist horseshit, a good movie stands on its own in any format.While I enjoyed it in theater, this is not a rewatchable film at home at all.
You sound like one of those videophile nerds that misses the point of all movies.
Last edited by Column; 12-17-2013 at 11:27 PM.
On some films its true. One of my biggesr regrets is not watching the original total recall in the theater.
Watching a live performance, and comparing that to watching a movie on a Imax screen should get you smacked in the head for being a dumb ass...
Do you think they rocket you into space, and you are watching the actors perform it live?? WTF's wrong with you, someone delete this child before he can reproduce.
Clearly that's what Simas meant. Clearly!
Watching a movie on your home theater vs watching on a Imax screen isn't even the same ball park as watching a movie of a live music performance vs going to see the live music performance.
That comparison is asinine.
If you missed the movie on Imax you are not missing much imho... 3D fucking sucks anyway.
Last edited by Column; 12-27-2013 at 04:24 AM.
i have been to many live concerts, mostly metal bands with eardum shattering PA systems and mosh pits that extend to every section of the venue. you simply cannot duplicate that experience with a movie. that being said, as an old fart, if i want to see a band and only want to see a band for their music and not get into a 2.5 hour mock fistfight with 5,000 people and walk around for the next 2 days with nothing but a loud ringing in my ears, im quite happy watching it on a screen from the comfort of my home.
This movie is basically a 90-minute visual effects show. Watching it on your TV at home compared to the IMAX 3D experience is about the same difference as if you watched something on your phone compared to your big screen TV with surround sound. It's a massive, massive step in quality of experience. Honestly, the script and story is mediocre, its the visuals that are 90% of the entertainment value, and much of that is lost as you downgrade to TV sized, non-3d viewing. I generally hate 3D and think it's a gimmick, I didn't even enjoy it in Avatar, but this was the first movie that I felt was actually better because of the 3D.
Massive? you kid yourself. I watched it at the Houston Marquis which houses one of the biggest Imaxs in the country, and I've watched it in my living room on a screener.
The movie is solid no matter what format. The performance by Bullock, the direction by Alfonso Cuarón, and the Cinematography by Emmanuel Lubezki is what made this movie not some CG green screened bullshit.
If by Visuals you are identifying the talent behind the film,and not the tech behind it then all art films are highly visual. This is not some Demo for 3D..
And this is a much better film then City of Men, which they also did an amazing job visualizing for an audience.
It's the definition of an art film, and is 100% a character piece playing out like a dream with highly symbolic compositions that make no sense in reality, but are accepted in art.
Also 3d is total ass, not only does it darken everything destroying it's contrast, and original colors, but the motion is absolutely horrible.
Last edited by Column; 12-27-2013 at 05:39 PM.
It should be noted that modern projectors have a regular and a 3D intensity level that can be switched depending on the movie being screened, but, sometimes, you have 2D films that are projected through the polarizing filter with regular intensity. That is a nightmare, but the theater is to blame.
Watched this at home and I thought it was good.
Would like to see it in 3d though
I think there's two type of people. the first dreamed of being an astronaut ever since being a little kid, wanted to visit Orlando not to see Disneyworld but to go to Cape Canaveral and see a space shuttle launch, and would sign up for an interstellar one way colonization ship in a heartbeat, even if its solo. We were mesmerized by how Gravity looked on an imax screen in 3d and for 90 minutes were completely immersed being in space.
The second type, not so much. but then again different people are into different things, I don't really get much into car shows like Top Gear or sports shows/movies but I can understand how some people do really, really get into them.
I think people are overstating the difference between Imax + home theater for this movie. I watched this with 3D glasses on a 90 foot screen at Chicago Navy Pier Imax and while a pair of shots I remember seemed really cool like a bolt slowly tumbling towards me and droplets of water in zero gravity - the remaining scenes didnt really take advantage of that kind of stuff. I watched the screener at home on a 42" LCD and didnt feel like I missed out on anything.
The reason people keep having this argument is because they feel there's a need to validate this movie in the absence of any other aspects that would normally be discussed: good plot, good characters, good dialogue - all these things that Gravity lacks entirely.
The opposite can be argued: there are a lot more movies with good plots than there are with amazing direction and stunning visuals.
Also, if the plot and dialogues of Gravity are indeed sub-par, the tension is amazing. There are long stretches of the movie where you just can't breath or blink.
Last edited by Szlia; 12-29-2013 at 11:36 AM.
C'mon - this argument is specious.
People feel the need to defend this movie on some level because its a relatively smart big budget movie and it tackles a subject that is largely ignored (space). Its a welcome change from every other big budget movie we get which is typically dumb as shit: Star Trek: ID, Iron Man 3, Pacific Rim and Man of Steel just this year alone. But you cant tell me that Gravity special effects are some ground breaking tour de force that made you drop your jaw like the first time you saw Jurassic Park or Terminator 2.
Last edited by Araysar; 12-29-2013 at 02:28 PM.
Nothing drops my jaw anymore.
These days you can only hope for a movie that doesn't make you want to throw your popcorn at the screen.
It was terrible. The movie was so bad that when smuggy found her capsule or whatever it was she finally landed with, in the insane vastness of space, I actually didn't expect it to be the dream it so obviously was because the movie was so bad I thought there is nothing these retards wouldn't do for dramatic effect (like have smugs mysteriously get oxygen and somehow find her shuttle and somehow float there)
This back and forth puts me in mind of the Life of Pi for comparison as both films are essentially the same at their core: lone protagonist caught in a hostile, blank and deadly environment. A story of perseverance and survival but one oozed character and created a bond with the viewer while the other (IMO) completely failed to do so.
Last edited by Gask; 12-30-2013 at 03:11 PM.
You people are starting to sound like idiots who bitched at Superman for having insane levels of destruction and it being so terrible and unrealistic when every single other movie has it. Avengers was filled with buildings get knocked down and out of this world chaos yet no one bitched about that.
To be fair, they are not bitching about the presence of spectacular elements, they are bitching about the fact that these spectacular elements are enough for some people to enjoy Gravity.
I'll not defend Superman, but The Avengers also had effective comedy elements and very clever writing (most notably the way the plot paired the superheroes in many different combinations and each time explored what sparks could fly when bumping them together).
Gravity wasnt Citizen Cane or Shawshank in terms of character development or story telling, but that does not mean it was not a good movie and something that is enjoyable.
this movie was horrid
That's three occurrences of spectacular destruction in movies, but in The Avenger the perception was it was a cherry on top of a movie that had other qualities, in Superman it was attacked for being a super faux pas and in Gravity it is dismissed as being the only quality of the movie. I don't remember many people in the Superman or in this thread saying these scenes failed to be spectacular, whether or not they liked the movie.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)