Jump to content


Photo

Gravity


  • Please log in to reply
32 replies to this topic

#1 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

  • Members
  • 5,753 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen

Posted 03 October 2013 - 06:51 PM

I had discounted this movie as I really didn't see a Clooney/Bullock collaboration as that strong, but holy cow! So far it has to be one of the best reviewed movies of the year!

 

MetaCritic has it at a 97 with 41 reviews in thus far. That makes it one of the best reviewed movies of all time on metacritic!

 

This may just be the breakout sic-fi movie of the year I've been looking forward to!



#2 Daysleeper

Daysleeper

    I know FHC by name.

  • Members
  • 537 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany
  • Interests:Music, acting, theatre, film, arts in General

    Check out my band: www.facebook.com/eastportslackers

Posted 04 October 2013 - 02:25 AM

I don't like Bullock that much, but Clooney has made some great stuff, both as an actor and as director. I'm going to see Gravity on Tuesday, and I'm really excited about it. 



#3 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

  • Members
  • 5,753 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen

Posted 04 October 2013 - 05:42 AM

Yeah Bullock I associate with more "schtick" comedy or corny type movies... Not really a great serious actress.

 

I think she's the only actress to ever win a Best Actress Oscar and Worst Actress Razzie in the same year! Though I have to give her kuddos for actually accepting her razzie in person and giving the audience free copies of  the movie (I think it was all about Steve).

 

Clooney I generally like. O Brother where art Though is a master piece IMO!



#4 JMW326

JMW326

    If I don't have it, they never made one.

  • Members
  • 4,836 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Charlotte, NC

Posted 04 October 2013 - 10:58 AM

I like both actors but this movie does absolutely nothing for me. I see it as a catch it on cable "maybe" when it comes out.

 

Goth I completely agree about O Brother.



#5 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

  • Members
  • 5,753 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen

Posted 04 October 2013 - 06:23 PM

I haven't been anticipating it at all, but based on what I have read, I've decided to go see it in IMAX 3D. I'm basically going to go in just only knowing the base premise and not much more.



#6 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

  • Members
  • 5,753 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen

Posted 06 October 2013 - 12:52 PM

Just got back from seeing Gravity in 3D at the IMAX. I liked it. Allot!

 

Without giving spoilers, I'll say IF your the type of person that loves to go see IMAX 3D Space Documentaries for the stunning visuals, I think you'll like Gravity. Its the most visually stunning movie I've seen in 3D since Avatar. 

 

However, if you think all the 3D stuff is pure hype and your looking for lots of fast action and thrills, or witty and clever dialog, this isn't that movie.

 

I found it to be very harrowing at times, and in the end I think it tries to say something about the spirt and will to overcome insurmountable odds.

 

My biggest issue with Gravity, ironically, has to do with some of the ways motion mechanics are depicted, but otherwise its a stellar movie.

 

I think Gravity is really ment to be seen in 3D, and I think it will loose a bit in a 2D transition. It'll be interesting to watch it on DVD and see if it does. 



#7 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

  • Members
  • 5,753 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen

Posted 07 October 2013 - 06:48 PM

Well... it broke the records for an October opening as well as for overall "Fall" opening. Between domestic and international, it pulled in almost 85mil in a 3 day period. They upped the budget to a total of 110mil, so 85 mil on a 110mil investment seems on track to do very very well.



#8 Daysleeper

Daysleeper

    I know FHC by name.

  • Members
  • 537 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany
  • Interests:Music, acting, theatre, film, arts in General

    Check out my band: www.facebook.com/eastportslackers

Posted 10 October 2013 - 03:11 AM

After finally having seen Gravity I must say I was largely impressed by the visuals. The movie definitely conveys the feel of zero gravity and a space walk. But I do have some complaints about some of the events depicted in the course of the movie. Not wanting to spoil anything, I'll just say I'd have done several things different had I been in charge of the movie.



#9 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

  • Members
  • 5,753 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen

Posted 10 October 2013 - 05:46 PM

I would have done somethings different too Daysleeper.

 

Spoiler talk!

Spoiler



#10 Daysleeper

Daysleeper

    I know FHC by name.

  • Members
  • 537 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany
  • Interests:Music, acting, theatre, film, arts in General

    Check out my band: www.facebook.com/eastportslackers

Posted 10 October 2013 - 07:03 PM

Spoiler



#11 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

  • Members
  • 5,753 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen

Posted 10 October 2013 - 07:35 PM

After all those terrific reviews and after having seen the trailer I was expecting a little more depth, too, which could easily have been integrated. But...

Plus: I really cannot stand Sandra Bullock. In my opinion, she isn't good enough to carry such a movie alone. Nor do I find her that attractive, so I couldn't just watch it for the view, if you know what I mean. ;)

 

 

lol! Yes! First, I have to wonder if movie critics are so starved for something that isn't complete garbage, that when something decent (not perfect) comes along, they overrate it. I rate it mid to high 80's, but not at the near perfect scores it was getting.

 

Clooney's Kowalski was well done. I loved it. I bought it. I wanted more of Kowalski.

 

Bullock, I knew was a stretch, and she was a weakness. I figure they cast her to pull in a certain demographic. well, ok. For me her performace didn't greatly enhance the movie, but she also didn't take away from it. I guess I gave her a "pass"



#12 Daysleeper

Daysleeper

    I know FHC by name.

  • Members
  • 537 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany
  • Interests:Music, acting, theatre, film, arts in General

    Check out my band: www.facebook.com/eastportslackers

Posted 11 October 2013 - 04:27 AM

lol
I think Kowalski could have been a little more serious once the situation got tense.
Spoiler


#13 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

  • Members
  • 5,753 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen

Posted 13 October 2013 - 04:57 AM

I decided  to see it again. This time in real-3d instead of Imax.

 

Its def more spectacular on Imax.

 

The second viewing  though, I picked up on more of the details they gave in the early dialog that I missed just because I was gawking at the visuals so much, and a few things actually closed some holes that I, and others had mentioned.

 

Spoiler

 



Spoiler

 

Spoiler


#14 richpit

richpit

    The card is maxed out.

  • Members
  • 261 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Trinity, FL
  • Interests:Star Trek toys, Star Trek props, Star Trek stuff in general!

Posted 13 October 2013 - 01:16 PM

My wife and I saw it in 3D IMAX last night.  The visuals were very good and the weightless effect were well done.  

 

I thought the movie was good enough, but I'm not sure what all the critical acclaim is about.  It was acted competently, but I don't think it was a super amazing story or anything.  IMO, it was relatively predictable, but fun to look at. 



#15 Destructor!!!

Destructor!!!

    It's not a disease it's a hobby.

  • Members
  • 1,883 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ireland

Posted 08 November 2013 - 08:59 PM

I just saw it.

I frickin' loved it.

You might notice a running trend in my esteem for sci-fi movies: It's based on how well they respect the science. Plot and characters come a close second for me - I won't lie.

Usually I can count on the fingers of one hand what they get right in a sci-fi movie. In this, I can count on the fingers of one hand what they got wrong.

Scientific accuracy with a gripping story, massive budget, broad appeal and incredible cinematography?

 

MOAR PLEZE!

 

 

Ok, so, nitty gritty:

 

Spoiler

 

 

Best film of the year!



#16 Daysleeper

Daysleeper

    I know FHC by name.

  • Members
  • 537 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany
  • Interests:Music, acting, theatre, film, arts in General

    Check out my band: www.facebook.com/eastportslackers

Posted 09 November 2013 - 02:54 AM

Yeah sorry, that's what I meant, of course.

Speaking of scientific accuracy, what exactly was pulling on Kowalski when Stone tried to hold on to him and finally let go? And yes, everything seemed to be just around the corner.

#17 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

  • Members
  • 5,753 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen

Posted 09 November 2013 - 05:02 AM

Destructor, my only issue with the motion mechanics is exactly what daysleeper points out. once Ryan grabs Kowalski their speed and vector are normalized to each other so  he wouldn't have drifted off like that. In fact the slightest nudge by her should have sent him back towards the station.

 

But that aside. I really really liked the movie for exactly the reasons you expressed. They got more of the science right than wrong, and much of what they did wrong they did to forward the plot.



#18 Destructor!!!

Destructor!!!

    It's not a disease it's a hobby.

  • Members
  • 1,883 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ireland

Posted 15 November 2013 - 07:08 PM

Ah yes, that moment did strike me as odd.

 

I'll have to re-watch the film, but in trying to rationalise it afterwards, I came up with ... well, maybe a little wiggle-room, at least.

 

Stone was loosely tangled in the Soyuz' chute cables, which had reached a slackly jumbled resting state prior to Stone and Kawalski's arrival at the ISS. As she and Kawalski moved further from the station, the cable was pulled along with her, and straightened out. With Matt on the other end of her little tether, she was still moving along, killing his momentum relative to the ISS, but in the process, running out of slack on the cable. Matt could see that the cable was either going to go taught, or unwrap from her leg before she could cancel out his velocity entirely.

 

By letting go, he was decreasing the mass on the end of the chute cable, allowing it (Stone) to come to rest with less energy, lessening the likelihood of it untangling or going taught before doing so.

 

That's how it could have made sense - and maybe that's how it did happen in the film, if so, the failing is that it was not made clear to the audience... instead it came across as a sabbatical from the laws of physics for the sake of drama... and the sake of paying Clooney less. :P



#19 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

  • Members
  • 5,753 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen

Posted 15 November 2013 - 07:24 PM

Yeah, even though your in space, as you describe, objects (and people) still have mass, and your moving at speed, so there is a force and moments to be resolved. There are other "nits" I could get into with the motion mechanics, but again, as we've discussed, these were done to advance the plot, so I'm willing to overlook them.



#20 Destructor!!!

Destructor!!!

    It's not a disease it's a hobby.

  • Members
  • 1,883 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ireland

Posted 19 November 2013 - 04:22 PM

So long as there's nothing that directly contradicts my interpretation above upon re-viewing the film, I'll be completely happy with it.

I've done a lot of zero-g simulations in Garry's mod, Space Engine, Space Engineers, etc... watched a lot of ISS videos on YouTube, and done a lot of thinking about zero-g movement, and would therefore hope that if there was anything else amiss, it'd stick out to me.

There were little things that I loved, like how tiny bits of flotsam inside the ISS would bounce off her as she floated past - there has been valid criticism that she didn't bother to protect her eyes from same, but I think it's believable enough that she felt alert enough to react before anything too damaging struck her.

I need to see that film again.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users