Aloha717200 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4478 posts, RR: 15 Posted (10 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1502 times:
Having just seen Gravity for the second time...this time on IMAX...I have to say this is truly the most remarkable space film I have seen in a long time.
Sure, we have a ton of great sci-fi space movies, but it's a bit more rare these days to see a space movie in the vein of Apollo 13 featuring modern-day or near modern day space technology, and doing so with the artistry and compelling cinematic grace that Gravity has shown.
In other words...the movie is spectacular. It is beautiful, but also thrilling. The acting is fantastic...the score is perfect, and despite some forgivable creative license with the physics of moving between orbiting craft in space, a very believable film that pulls you right into its action and drama. I was especially blown away by the beauty of the Tiangong sequence...my god...that whole scene was just spectacular. Remembering that there is no sound in space was also a nice touch.
If you haven't seen it...do it. On the biggest screen you can. If you have seen it, what did you think?
The movie is now in its third week at #1...and I can only hope this inspires studios to green-light more "realistic sci-fi" space movies in the near future.
okie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2999 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (10 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1462 times:
Quoting Aloha717200 (Thread starter): If you haven't seen it...do it. On the biggest screen you can. If you have seen it, what did you think?
I saw it in 3D and thought it was quite good, the actors seem to fit your previous perceptions of their characters.
Quite a few instances of artistic license but it is a movie.
My best description is that one of the few 3D movies that actually had some sort of a script/storyline instead of trying to find a storyline to match the 3D effects.
The tears were a good touch and a good attempt at non gravity fire.
I would agree 3D minimum, Imax if you can.
One of my customers went to see it in Imax and had to duck out of the theater a several times during the movie because of motion sickness. That is somewhat interesting because he is does scaling and climbing for a hobby.
LittleFokker From United States of America, joined Sep 2013, 281 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (10 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1456 times:
I was more impressed with the cinematography than the story. They almost lost me on the scene where Sandra Bullock is so desperate that she uses a fire extinguisher to propel herself. That was borderline hokey. But I'm glad I saw this one in the theater (in 3D though I wish I had seen it in IMAX) - watching it on HBO/online wouldn't do the movie justice (not to mention it's a terribly boring movie after you've seen it once).
"Toughest wind I ever played in....straight down!" - W. C. Fields
cptkrell From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3220 posts, RR: 12
Reply 6, posted (10 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1297 times:
Sorry this is a dumb question (I haven't been to a movie in many years), but at a 3-D movie does one still have to wear those special glasses or has technology advanced so far that personal viewing aids are not needed to get the 3-D effect?
I like space stuff and this sounds interesting enough to bite the bullet and wait in line, but was just curious about the glasses thing, not that the requirement would deter me from going. Thanks...jack
Technically it is sci fi...it's a science based story that is more rooted in real-world space than most sci-fi movies...but it is still a work of fiction. Had the events in the movie actually happened then we could call it a hollywood-adapted docuthriller like Apollo 13 or Captain Phillips.
Quoting cptkrell (Reply 6): does one still have to wear those special glasses
Unfortunately, yes, but the glasses themselves have advanced and are no longer those red and blue paper glasses that used to be required for 3D movies.
darksnowynight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1355 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (10 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1248 times:
Quoting Aloha717200 (Reply 8):
Technically it is sci fi...it's a science based story that is more rooted in real-world space than most sci-fi movies...but it is still a work of fiction.
No more so than Breaking Bad. Or Hunt for Red October for that matter. The only fictitious part was the drama itself. If this is a Sci-Fi, than so is Air Force One. All the movies I mentioned had less technologically plausible events, and required more suspension of belief after all... Not all Space Movies are SciFi, and not all SciFi is in Space.
Much of the film was devoted to her past anyway...
Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
This. The cinematography was brilliant but the story was lacking. I would have preferred the story followed Clooney a little more after he let go. I also would have like to have seen what happened after Bullock landed. For example, how long does it take to track her down? Is there a period where she has to survive on her own before they find her?
Quoting LittleFokker (Reply 4): They almost lost me on the scene where Sandra Bullock is so desperate that she uses a fire extinguisher to propel herself. That was borderline hokey.
It took all my might to not open my mouth about Hubble, ISS, and Tiangong all being within spitting distance of each other.
AR385 From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 6177 posts, RR: 30
Reply 19, posted (10 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1127 times:
I too liked the cinematography much more than the story. I believe the cinematography is pretty creative and original. The movie itself is a good one. I don´t think it´s overhyped. Bullock gets on my nerves and sometimes I wish she would die already but that happens to me with most of her characters. No exception here.
It´s worth seeing it. Maybe not twice, but I think it´s the best of this fall season.
akiss20 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 607 posts, RR: 5
Reply 22, posted (9 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 766 times:
I seem to be the odd man out in my circles in that I thought the movie was basically terrible. Was it very pretty? Yes. Did the shots from the character's perspective and all the floating look nice? Yes
Besides from the pretty-ness factor, the movie itself was basically terrible imo. Filled with plot holes (both technical and non-technical, but as an Aero engineer, the technical ones were gaping), lacking almost any character development, predictable as all hell. The only scene I thought was at all interesting was where she imagines Clooney comes back. The movie could have saved itself if they let her die in re-entry; just something to make it at all a)believable (although earlier bits already destroyed that a million times over) and b)interesting. Instead, shocker, she somehow manages to make it back to Earth and survive.
Ugh, waste of the $18.50 I had to go see it! But it was pretty
Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are
Quoting akiss20 (Reply 22): The movie could have saved itself if they let her die in re-entry
It's only acceptable that she survives re-entry. However, I didn't really like the fact that she landed safely and that's it. I would have loved to see perhaps a sort of epilogue where after 'X' time she has been dating or has a family. If the movie showed her in fetal position and then walking from water to land (evolution), it would have been a great ending if she would have also evolved emotionally speaking.
"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."