Gravity (2013)

[narniadis]

I loved this ranked it like 4th among the best picture candidates but I am soooo in the minority among my family lol. This is a fantastically designed and crafted film.

[ACCA]

I kept true to my word, and never pay any money to watch this in theaters.

 

I recently had the "chance" to watch a Blu Ray copy of this, and it was a struggle. It took A LOT of willpower for me to get through the whole film. Several times throughout the film I just wanted to stop watching it.

 

Overall just as disappointing as I imagined it would be.

 

The visuals while good overall, were not revolutionary or groundbreaking. Half the time it felt like a video game, especially given the fact that Cuaron had very long takes without any cuts. It made it feel like a video game where you can pan the camera around at any time. The first-person scenes to me were atrocious, they completely took me out of the film and were very jarring and unrealistic. At times some of the long panning without any cutting made me feel a bit nauseous.

 

The acting was very mediocre as well. I felt that much of Bullock's acting was forced and exaggerated. I did not feel emotionally connected to the characters or the events in the film. In fact many actions and decisions the characters took were flat out stupid and made me simply annoyed with those characters. In real life in space, such stupid decisions would not be taken. Given how emotionally unbalanced Bullock's character was in the film was a key problem. In real life she would have NEVER been allowed up in space, as she would have flat out failed the psychological and personality assessments required to go into space.

 

I won't get into my further gripes about how unrealistic other parts of the film were, but from the marketing and Cuaron's interviews etc. he made a big deal about how "realistic" he wanted to make the film. Well he failed in my eyes.

 

The score got really annoying and grating fast.

 

Yes the space and Earth imagery looked very cool. However if I wanted to see that I would have watched a space documentary, like an IMAX space documentary.

 

This gets a C- from me. One of the most overrated films of 2013 in my eyes.

Edited May 11, 2014 by ACCA

[Dark Jedi Master 007]

Seriously, ACCA, the film looked like a video game to you? I find Gravity to be overrated as well, but I can't front on the visuals, those are brilliant.As for your other complaints: there is no proof that Bullock's character is so psychotic that she would have failed any mental test. The only proof is that she doesn't believe that she has enough in her to get back to Earth. Her failure to raise a daughter has left her with little will, and the film is her trying to regain the confidence necessary to try to save herself. Also, none of the characters took any stupid decisions. They all seemed reasonable. And even if they didn't make the most logical decisions, this is a situation in which your emotions will get the best of you at times, so I don't see it as a major issue.No offense, but I just feel like you were looking to dislike the movie. Hating on things like the visuals and acting, which were rather good, combined with the fact that you thought this film was going to be overrated makes it seem like you never let your bias get out of the way. 

[Lordmandeep]

Bullocks character is great in her journey as she brings that warm fuzzy out of you in many of her films.

 

That is why she may not be that popular with some film elitists but is well liked by audiences by her portrayal in this film and The Blind Side. 

[Dark Jedi Master 007]

I loved her performance in The Blind Side. Plus, she was insanely hot in that film (which means nothing, but I can't help but bring it up). Here, she was solid, but nothing special. Clooney was awesome though in this film. Maybe it's cause his character is looser and more fun, which gives him more to do as an actor.

[CoolioD1]

I loved her performance in The Blind Side. Plus, she was insanely hot in that film (which means nothing, but I can't help but bring it up). Here, she was solid, but nothing special. Clooney was awesome though in this film. Maybe it's cause his character is looser and more fun, which gives him more to do as an actor.

.....wow.

[Dark Jedi Master 007]

.....wow.

At what part?

[CoolioD1]

At what part?

All of it. I think literally the opposite of everything you just said.

[redfirebird2008]

Finally saw it last night. Pretty good, but I can see why some felt it played so much better on the big screen than at home. 8/10 or B.

[Dark Jedi Master 007]

Finally saw it last night. Pretty good, but I can see why some felt it played so much better on the big screen than at home. 8/10 or B.

BTW, this probably isn't the thread to ask this in, but screw it: Is your list of 10/10s from the 2000's still at only 3? And if not, then which films made it on to the list or which ones dropped out (if it decreased)?

[Rorschach]

A true gem of Hollywood. Shows what visuals in films can allow us to do in the future and provides us with a thrilling ride that is sure to appease anyone, whether they are a tour-de-force kind of person or your average blockbuster crowd. A must-see in 3D. 10/10

[ACCA]

Seriously, ACCA, the film looked like a video game to you? I find Gravity to be overrated as well, but I can't front on the visuals, those are brilliant.As for your other complaints: there is no proof that Bullock's character is so psychotic that she would have failed any mental test. The only proof is that she doesn't believe that she has enough in her to get back to Earth. Her failure to raise a daughter has left her with little will, and the film is her trying to regain the confidence necessary to try to save herself. Also, none of the characters took any stupid decisions. They all seemed reasonable. And even if they didn't make the most logical decisions, this is a situation in which your emotions will get the best of you at times, so I don't see it as a major issue.No offense, but I just feel like you were looking to dislike the movie. Hating on things like the visuals and acting, which were rather good, combined with the fact that you thought this film was going to be overrated makes it seem like you never let your bias get out of the way. 

 

Yes, yes the visuals did look like a video game much of the time to me. I saw it on Blu Ray too on a good quality screen, so that is the second best quality version one could have seen this film in, aside from watching in theaters. I refused to pay money to see it in theaters so therefore I never watched it in theaters.

 

Even at the very beginning of the film, as soon as things start to just go a little bit wrong she is already freaking out. This is well before her singular goal is getting back to Earth. Even when Kowalski is trying to keep her focused and logical, she's still freaking out for a while until she finally calms down. It's also a stretch to me that her character only had 6 months of training before going into space.

 

The point is, in reality, I highly HIGHLY doubt that NASA would have allowed her to go up into space, knowing the traumatic event that occured with her child. A detailed psychological examination (which all prospective astronauts must undertake) would have shown to NASA officials that she was emotionally fragile, and therefore a huge risk to send up into space. Like I said, the problem is Cuaron went to GREAT lengths to proclaim how "realistic" this film was, and that was one of the only expectations I had going into the film, that it would be realistic.

 

Yes I went into this film with low expectations, and it did not exceed my low expectations. Saying I "wanted to hate" the film is too simplistic. From the very beginning, I never liked what I saw from any of the footage or trailers, so the movie from the beginning never really appealed to me. I thought maybe my impressions of the film were wrong, but they turned out to be correct after watching the film.

 

There have been plenty of films over the years that I've gone in with low expectations and a doubtful impression, and came away impressed.

 

Most recently, I had really average expectations for The Winter Soldier going into the film. Coming out of the film, I was blown away because the film greatly exceeded my expectations.

 

So accusing me of hating Gravity as a film because my mind was set on hating it is just incorrect. I had low expectations going into it, and ended up hating the film after watching it. Simple as that.

Edited May 14, 2014 by ACCA

[Jake Gittes]

As soon as things start to just go a little bit wrong she is already freaking out. 

 

You mean when everything suddenly gets destroyed to shit in a matter of seconds? 

 

Of all the complaints I've heard about the movie this one made very little sense to me from the start. While it's true that Stone does her share of freaking out in the film, she only, and I mean only, does that when there is a very immediate threat to her life. Why the hell wouldn't she freak out, as a person who's on their first spacewalk ever? Her six months of training don't even begin to compare to 25 years Kowalski has been an astronaut. It's clear in the film that their situation is extraordinary, and even if they took time to prepare her for it, it's still very easy to lose your shit when you could get killed by space debris, or swallowed by the limitless black void, or be left in a drifting ship that can't go anywhere you want it to, right now, at this very moment. 

 

And that's not to mention the fact that she is perfectly calm and stable during many moments when she might as well be overly emotional. At the very beginning she's doing her job like a professional despite high fever and an urge to throw up. When she tells Kowalski her daughter's story, she's suppressing all her emotions, speaking in very short, scrappy sentences. After she lets him go, she's able to find her way into the shuttle while being incredibly low on oxygen. Despite all the obstacles she encounters, she successfully makes her way back to Earth.

 

Like I said, the problem is Cuaron went to GREAT lengths to proclaim how "realistic" this film was, and that was one of the only expectations I had going into the film, that it would be realistic.

 

If you care so much about directors' claims concerning their films, you must know that Cuaron also intended the film to work as one huge metaphor, and when it comes to those, the point matters much more than whatever realism you'd like them to have. So you could consider everything that Cuaron said about the movie, or better yet, nothing, because at the end of the day, art stands on its own, and the only thing essential about a movie is what you see on screen, not what its director says he wanted to do with it. Or, a third option, you could maybe appreciate that Cuaron went farther to make the film realistic than almost all other filmmakers would, and just because he couldn't make it a documentary doesn't mean he failed. When Chris Nolan says he wanted his Batman films to be realistic, I appreciate the obvious effort he made, even when I know that, ultimately, there are some wildly unrealistic things that found their way in there.

 

The visuals while good overall, were not revolutionary or groundbreaking. 

 

Yes they were. It's not a matter of opinion. They didn't have to awe you personally in order to be revolutionary and groundbreaking.

[Dark Jedi Master 007]

Yes, yes the visuals did look like a video game much of the time to me. I saw it on Blu Ray too on a good quality screen, so that is the second best quality version one could have seen this film in, aside from watching in theaters. I refused to pay money to see it in theaters so therefore I never watched it in theaters.

I have no problem with you watching it at home. I just find it hard to believe that you found anything videogame-like. Maybe if you point to a few scenes that would be helpful,  though I still doubt it.  

Even at the very beginning of the film, as soon as things start to just go a little bit wrong she is already freaking out. This is well before her singular goal is getting back to Earth. Even when Kowalski is trying to keep her focused and logical, she's still freaking out for a while until she finally calms down. It's also a stretch to me that her character only had 6 months of training before going into space.Oh come on, ACCA. When things start to go a bit wrong? From the minute that the debris hits the station, things start to go way wrong. It would be completely normal for any human being to freak out. The reason Kowalski stays clam is because he's had years of experience. But Bullock freaking out is completely fine, imo. As for the training thing, I see your point, but it's a small flaw at best. The point is, in reality, I highly HIGHLY doubt that NASA would have allowed her to go up into space, knowing the traumatic event that occured with her child. A detailed psychological examination (which all prospective astronauts must undertake) would have shown to NASA officials that she was emotionally fragile, and therefore a huge risk to send up into space. Like I said, the problem is Cuaron went to GREAT lengths to proclaim how "realistic" this film was, and that was one of the only expectations I had going into the film, that it would be realistic.Losing a child is traumatic, but people do go through it. It's like when people go to war, that is traumatic. However, not every war soldier develops PTSD. Most will be haunted by their experiences, but not all of those who are haunted will be so haunted that it leads to psychological breakdown. The same is true for Bullock, imo. She is haunted by that experience, but she can still think logically and do her job well. Yes, she freaks out when the debris hits but that situation is something that will put nearly anyone on edge. It isn't proof that she is psychologically ruined. It's proof that she is human. As for Cuaron's statements: are you saying that if he hadn't claimed that the film was ultra realistic, you would have been ok with such development? If so, then I don't find that a valid criticism. I understand that a director's intent is important when creating a film, but you should also judge the film on its own merits and not against what critics, fans, cast members, crew members, or its creator says about it. Also, I am pretty sure that Cuaron was speaking about the visuals being realistic, which, imo, they are.  

 

Yes I went into this film with low expectations, and it did not exceed my low expectations. Saying I "wanted to hate" the film is too simplistic. From the very beginning, I never liked what I saw from any of the footage or trailers, so the movie from the beginning never really appealed to me. I thought maybe my impressions of the film were wrong, but they turned out to be correct after watching the film.I shouldn't have said "you were looking to dislike the film." What I should have said was "I think you had a negative mindset, and while I am sure you tried to free yourself from that mindset and give the film a fair chance, it doesn't look liked it worked because your complaints feel like you're nitpicking the movie as opposed to just giving it a real chance." I mean, even if it were true that Bullock's character was to psychologically fragile to ever land the NASA job, why is that an issue? This is a film, and while it should be realistic, it doesn't have to be totally 100% realistic. Moreover, this type of characterization makes the storyline more compelling (at least for some people, it didn't for me because I feel like Cuaron handled it poorly) and adds an emotional element to the storyline. Plus, such characterization also leads to interesting philosophical questions, such as why is it that we continue to fight for survival when things go wrong (both on a physical level-the debris-and on a mental level-the loss of a child). Again, I'm not arguing that you need to like this film. I liked it, but more on a "I respect this film" and not a "it moved me emotionally." But I just feel like your reasons seem to be unfair.  

[redfirebird2008]

BTW, this probably isn't the thread to ask this in, but screw it: Is your list of 10/10s from the 2000's still at only 3? And if not, then which films made it on to the list or which ones dropped out (if it decreased)?

 

Can't think of any releases lately that were 10's. The only movie that I sort of struggle with is The Prestige. When I first saw it, gave it a 9. Bumped it up to 9.5 after several repeat viewings through the years. It's borderline between 9.5 and 10. Here is my list of 10's, sorted based on chronological order. Bolded are in my Top 5.

 

The Wizard of Oz (1939)Mr. Smith Goes To Washington (1939)Citizen Kane (1941)The Maltese Falcon (1941)It's A Wonderful Life (1946)Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948)Sunset Boulevard (1950)

12 Angry Men (1957)The Seventh Seal (1957)North By Northwest (1959)Psycho (1960)Dr. Strangelove (1964)Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969)A Clockwork Orange (1971)The Godfather (1972)The Godfather Part II (1974)Jaws (1975)Network (1976)Star Wars (1977)Apocalypse Now (1979)Empire Strikes Back (1980)The Shining (1980)Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)Goodfellas (1990)Schindler's List (1993)Forrest Gump (1994)Pulp Fiction (1994)L.A. Confidential (1997)Memento (2000)City of God (2002)The Prestige (2006)

 

To be honest, the thing that most impressed me recently wasn't a film. It was Breaking Bad. Gave that sucker a 10 for sure. Maybe the best TV show I've ever seen. Didn't watch it until after it was already over, but that was a good thing. I didn't have to deal with cliffhangers. Just took my time watching it on Netflix. Great stuff.

Edited May 15, 2014 by redfirebird2008

[BobbyJohn]

Will review when I finally find internal courage to watch it. Seeing how long it usually takes me to get over some of my favourite geeky stuff that didn't go my way, it will probably take about 10 years ehhh. So let's hope the movie ages well

[ACCA]

I'd rather not drag on this argument further guys. I understand some were impressed by it, but it simply didn't appeal to me. I gave the film a chance (reluctantly) but it just didn't do it for me.

 

All I will add is that call me a purist, but I do try and watch films the way directed intended. In my point of view, watching films the way the director intended gets you closes to the "peak" viewing experience for that film. Yes I know sometimes directors are wrong and I know I didn't see this theaters. I've gone into other sci-fi films with a critical point of view, or a perspective that a film will have grounded realism, and have come away impressed. This just didn't do it for me.

[Goffe]

I really want WB to release it again in theaters :l

[ACCA]

I really want WB to release it again in theaters :l

 

Unfortunately that's extremely unlikely to happen. Same as my dream of WB re-releasing The Dark Knight Rises into IMAX theaters; extremely unlikely.

[Water Bottle]

So I just saw Gravity again last night-once again, phenomenal even though it was better on the IMAX screen. Anyways,I realized the Russians fucked everyone (not just Sandra Bullock!) when they destroyed their satellite. We lost just about every satellite and it's not like we can easily replace them since the debris is still revolving around our planet.