Gravity (2013)

[Gopher]

Falling asleep is impossible in Gravity. It's the tightest paced film of the year. 

[IndustriousAngel]

Falling asleep is impossible in Gravity. It's the tightest paced film of the year. 

Don't think so, that would be "Now You See Me" from those I've seen. But yes, somebody falling asleep during "Gravity" should consider seeking professional advice, might be something serious.

[luna]

I connected much more with Clooney then Bullock and I like Bullock especially in The Blind Side and other films.

 

 

 The film really hit a rough patch in the middle with the scene were Bullock wants to just die, the audience felt like asleep at that scene... then Clooney comes like Obi Wan in a dream and then the film picks up again.

 

fucken hell, what is it with you and audiences? her acceptance of death was the best part of the film.

[rockNrollaDIM]

I connected much more with Clooney then Bullock and I like Bullock especially in The Blind Side and other films.

 

 

 The film really hit a rough patch in the middle with the scene were Bullock wants to just die, the audience felt like asleep at that scene... then Clooney comes like Obi Wan in a dream and then the film picks up again.

 

 

Seriously? You've gotta be kidding me.

[Sam]

LOL, I don't get it either. That's one of the best scenes, and Sandra was great. She got me all teary-eyed,

[DoctorWho]

I finally saw this. It was amazing, i had chills from the beginning, and I even teared up twice, first when Bullock was drifting away and when the ISS was being hit by debris. The visuals were flawless, the music excellent, acting was top notch. The only thign i did not like about the movie was when Bullock was barking like a dog..i did not understand the point of that. The movies should win best director, SFX and sound at the Oscars. It's a 9/10 from me. I saw it on  a big screen, but not iMAX....I hope i'll have the time and money to see it in IMAX 3D.

[Accursed Arachnid!™]

A nearly perfect experience. And that's what this was; an experience. Superbabies: Baby Geniuses 2 was a film. So merely calling Gravity a "film" does it injustice.

 

I'm not going to give it a long review. I'll merely sing its praises by saying this: My wife and I brought bottled water and candy into the theater with us and they remained untouched for the duration of the experience.

 

 

 

Also, I've been reading attacks on the film by armchair physicists and wannabe rocket scientists and my only reply to them(other than "It's Science Fiction, duh.") is "Cuaron may not be a rocket scientist, but you're not a film director. Science and art are two wholly different things.". Cuaron set up his world beautifully and most of the occurrences in the film are realistic in the world he made.

[baumer]

Nicely said AA.  Why does everything have to be accurate to the letter of the law?  This is film, as you alluded to, this is not NASA.  The experience of the film is more paramount that minute accuracies.

[baumer]

People should also be criticizing:

 

Transformers films because cars don't really turn into robots

All vampire, werewolf movies because people don't really turn into these things

Any movie about JFK that paints Oswald as the lone killer because that is fictional as well

Nerds getting hot chicks in the movies

[Dementeleus]

It's the same tendency that attacks films based on real-life events for not being 100% scrupulously faithful to the facts. They're not documentaries, you idiots! (And most documentaries don't have that type of accuracy either.)

[DeeCee]

I was kind of hoping she would land on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial.

[Michael Gary Scott]

I was hoping she would land in Antarctica

[Accursed Arachnid!™]

Nicely said AA.  Why does everything have to be accurate to the letter of the law?  This is film, as you alluded to, this is not NASA.  The experience of the film is more paramount that minute accuracies.

 

 

The bulk of this is coming from Neil deGrasse Tyson, an astrophysicist. What I find funny is that while he's tearing apart arts and entertainment, he's trying to "connect" to the younger generation by using 90s terms like "chillax" and "get over it" in his seminars.

I'd love to see Cuaron tear apart his lame attempts to entertain. It would only be fair. Or even better, why doesn't Mr. deGrasse Tyson make a film if he thinks that scientific facts are the only aspect that matters? I'd be very interested to see how entertaining a film from Mr. Chillax would be. Personally, I think he needs to let art be art and just chillax and get over it.

[Dementeleus]

The bulk of this is coming from Neil deGrasse Tyson, an astrophysicist. What I find funny is that while he's tearing apart arts and entertainment, he's trying to "connect" to the younger generation by using 90s terms like "chillax" and "get over it" in his seminars.

I'd love to see Cuaron tear apart his lame attempts to entertain. It would only be fair. Or even better, why doesn't Mr. deGrasse Tyson make a film if he thinks that scientific facts are the only aspect that matters? I'd be very interested to see how entertaining a film from Mr. Chillax would be. Personally, I think he needs to let art be art and just chillax and get over it.

 

Well, the funny thing is Tyson still liked the movie. For a counter-example (someone who critiques Tyson's critiques a bit, and who's very positive about the movie), check out David Brin's comments. He's a storyteller (best-selling SF writer) so he knows full-well about how story needs to come first, plus he's got plenty of science cred (multiple degrees in astrophysics and space science).

 

http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2013/10/gravity-high-praise-plus-few-quibbles.html

Edited October 11, 2013 by Telemachos

[Blankments]

I've never felt more transported in a film than I did in this one.  Even a film like Star Wars didn't make me feel as involved as this one did.  

 

Totally agree. When I saw this, I was sitting in the middle of a row that was completely filled on both sides. I was right next to someone I've never seen before in my life. Usually this is such a huge distraction, but I was in space for the full 90 minutes. Never noticed the audience unless they were laughing or reacting.

[Accursed Arachnid!™]

Well, the funny thing is Tyson still liked the movie. For a counter-example (someone who critiques Tyson's critiques a bit, and who's very positive about the movie), check out David Brin's comments. He's a storyteller (best-selling SF writer) so he knows full-well about how story needs to come first, plus he's got plenty of science cred (multiple degrees in astrophysics and space science).

 

http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2013/10/gravity-high-praise-plus-few-quibbles.html

 

 

Well, one thing's certain. It's much easier to write a sci-fi novel that is scientifically accurate than a ninety minute movie. People will stick around through long scientific exposition when they know the book is 300+ pages long. The fast pace of a ninety minute(or even a 2.5 hour) film leaves little room to keep up the suspense while explaining that moving through space in an arc creates G-force. Instead, Cuaron showed this visually and expected his audience to be able to understand. Nolan never explained when in time Inception took place(it seemed to be in the present) or even how the dream machine actually worked, he just expected audiences to believe that it did by showing it did. If Inception had been a novel first, I would think Jonah Nolan would have went deeper into how the blasted thing hooked into brainwaves, etc.

[Kvikk Lunsj]

I was hoping she would land in Antarctica

She lands in North Korea

"Fuck" 

[Dementeleus]

Well, one thing's certain. It's much easier to write a sci-fi novel that is scientifically accurate than a ninety minute movie. People will stick around through long scientific exposition when they know the book is 300+ pages long. The fast pace of a ninety minute(or even a 2.5 hour) film leaves little room to keep up the suspense while explaining that moving through space in an arc creates G-force. Instead, Cuaron showed this visually and expected his audience to be able to understand. Nolan never explained when in time Inception took place(it seemed to be in the present) or even how the dream machine actually worked, he just expected audiences to believe that it did by showing it did. If Inception had been a novel first, I would think Jonah Nolan would have went deeper into how the blasted thing hooked into brainwaves, etc.

 

Oh I generally agree. On the one part that bumped me, I think Brin's suggestion (have the ISS rotating slightly so centripetal force is slinging them away) is actually a really good one, and wouldn't have changed anything. It's more of a visual change than anything else.

Edited October 12, 2013 by Telemachos

[DeeCee]

It is interesting to critique the real world physics of the movie but there's no need overblow it. It manages to be a pretty accurate portrayal of space while at the same time being an enthralling thrill ride.

[Goffe]

I'm already planning to see it again on monday A (95)

Edited October 12, 2013 by Goffe