Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Fri Aug 29, 2014 4:54 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 104 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
GRAVITY 
Author Message
Gaffer

Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 8:56 am
Posts: 17
Post Re: GRAVITY
Vexer wrote:
I wasn't "passing judgement" on her :roll: I like Bullock as an actress, but the idea of a MEDICAL doctor going into space sounds all kinds of ridiculous. Besides I was refering to you totally dismissing ANYONE who dared criticize the film, like it's somehow forbidden to dislike it, are you going to say McGamesCook is "bitching and moaning"


I wasnt being dismissing to anyone that criticized it. just people like YOU that dismiss her performance as "sitting in front of a green screen" without having even seen the film. :roll:


Thu Oct 10, 2013 1:54 pm
Profile
Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2012 10:26 am
Posts: 235
Post Re: GRAVITY
Vexer wrote:
the idea of a MEDICAL doctor going into space sounds all kinds of ridiculous.


Really? That's a suspension of disbelief you can't achieve with a movie?

_________________
______________________________
Specializing in rodent behavior modification.
-Watch me pull a habit out of rat.


Thu Oct 10, 2013 2:00 pm
Profile
Auteur
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 3518
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: GRAVITY
jaminator wrote:
Vexer wrote:
I wasn't "passing judgement" on her :roll: I like Bullock as an actress, but the idea of a MEDICAL doctor going into space sounds all kinds of ridiculous. Besides I was refering to you totally dismissing ANYONE who dared criticize the film, like it's somehow forbidden to dislike it, are you going to say McGamesCook is "bitching and moaning"


I wasnt being dismissing to anyone that criticized it. just people like YOU that dismiss her performance as "sitting in front of a green screen" without having even seen the film. :roll:

Well your comment certainly didn't suggest that, so I had little reason to believe you were refering to only me.


Thu Oct 10, 2013 2:24 pm
Profile
Second Unit Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 12:07 pm
Posts: 377
Post Re: GRAVITY
Vexer wrote:
I wasn't "passing judgement" on her I like Bullock as an actress, but the idea of a MEDICAL doctor going into space sounds all kinds of ridiculous.


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Another instance when Vex has no idea what he is talking about. Space (moreover working in close to zero gravity) lends itself to very valuable medical research. And the first medical doctor went into space back in 1973.

I don't care if you liked the movie or not, but at least appreciate the very real science.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/magazine/issues/fall07/articles/fall07pg4-7.html

http://www.nsbri.org/newsflash/indivArticle.asp?id=454&articleID=141


Thu Oct 10, 2013 3:56 pm
Profile
Auteur
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 3518
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: GRAVITY
roastbeef_ajus wrote:
Vexer wrote:
I wasn't "passing judgement" on her I like Bullock as an actress, but the idea of a MEDICAL doctor going into space sounds all kinds of ridiculous.


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Another instance when Vex has no idea what he is talking about. Space (moreover working in close to zero gravity) lends itself to very valuable medical research. And the first medical doctor went into space back in 1973.

I don't care if you liked the movie or not, but at least appreciate the very real science.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/magazine/issues/fall07/articles/fall07pg4-7.html

http://www.nsbri.org/newsflash/indivArticle.asp?id=454&articleID=141

I'm well aware of all that thank you very much :roll: I meant it was ludicrous just in the context of this film, not altogether. According to scientist Neil deGrasse Tyson, the film has numerous scientific errors https://twitter.com/neiltyson and i'd wager he knows a tiny bit more about this then you do :lol:


Thu Oct 10, 2013 5:21 pm
Profile
Director
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 10:42 pm
Posts: 1405
Location: Bangkok
Post Re: GRAVITY
Well you're entitled to what feels ridiculous (although how it really comes off believable on screen should be in the movie's context when you've seen it, not from word-of-mouth), but your "the idea of a MEDICAL doctor going into space sounds all kinds of ridiculous" means that you are making a general statement, so people will contradict that as it isn't true.


Thu Oct 10, 2013 9:01 pm
Profile
Auteur
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 3518
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: GRAVITY
peng wrote:
Well you're entitled to what feels ridiculous (although how it really comes off believable on screen should be in the movie's context when you've seen it, not from word-of-mouth), but your "the idea of a MEDICAL doctor going into space sounds all kinds of ridiculous" means that you are making a general statement, so people will contradict that as it isn't true.

Yeah I shoudl've worded that post better, so my bad on that.


Thu Oct 10, 2013 9:07 pm
Profile
Assistant Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 9:12 pm
Posts: 82
Post Re: GRAVITY
:? :? :?

...Well I liked it. Though the first 40 minutes are the best. I do agree with Doug Walker though that at some point it starts feeling more like a movie than an experience at some point around there. I guessing it's because the director starts using more edits later on in the film. And I did care a lot about the predicament of the characters as well to the point where I could tell I really wanted the characters to succeed.

I watched this on a non-Imax in 3D and enjoyed it as well to the point where it made me want to see other movies in 3D, even though I stopped watching 3D movies. Not sure the film is going to work as well on the small screen though.


Fri Oct 11, 2013 4:30 am
Profile
Second Unit Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 12:07 pm
Posts: 377
Post Re: GRAVITY
Why are people complaining about a simple plot? Why does every movie have to have a complex narrative? Gravity's plot may be simple, but it is no less powerful. It asks: how far can a human being push oneself? It's about a woman's will not to quit no matter how insurmountable the odds against her are. This theme has been tackled in movies throughout the history of film, but nothing like this before. No character in any movie has ever faced anything as remotely overwhelming as what Dr. Ryan Stone went through. I was completely drained when she stood up to end the film.

Gravity was damn powerful to me, and I'm not just talking about the visuals.


Fri Oct 11, 2013 2:08 pm
Profile
Assistant Second Unit Director

Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2013 11:39 am
Posts: 160
Location: NJ
Post Re: GRAVITY
Vexer wrote:
roastbeef_ajus wrote:
Vexer wrote:
I wasn't "passing judgement" on her I like Bullock as an actress, but the idea of a MEDICAL doctor going into space sounds all kinds of ridiculous.


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Another instance when Vex has no idea what he is talking about. Space (moreover working in close to zero gravity) lends itself to very valuable medical research. And the first medical doctor went into space back in 1973.

I don't care if you liked the movie or not, but at least appreciate the very real science.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/magazine/issues/fall07/articles/fall07pg4-7.html

http://www.nsbri.org/newsflash/indivArticle.asp?id=454&articleID=141

I'm well aware of all that thank you very much :roll: I meant it was ludicrous just in the context of this film, not altogether. According to scientist Neil deGrasse Tyson, the film has numerous scientific errors https://twitter.com/neiltyson and i'd wager he knows a tiny bit more about this then you do :lol:


I don't know what your definition of "numerous" is, but only 6 for a major studio sci-fi movie is pretty good. It has been confirmed by multiple other scientists that the movie is far more accurate that most space films (Even Neil Tyson himself: http://on.fb.me/15ZucRP). I'd suggest watching the film. You've certainly talked about it enough to suggest you're interested :lol:.

_________________
Founder, Editor, Webmaster, and Writer: http://www.filmreviews12.com


Fri Oct 11, 2013 3:57 pm
Profile WWW
Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:44 pm
Posts: 1683
Post Re: GRAVITY
roastbeef_ajus wrote:
Why are people complaining about a simple plot? Why does every movie have to have a complex narrative? Gravity's plot may be simple, but it is no less powerful. It asks: how far can a human being push oneself? It's about a woman's will not to quit no matter how insurmountable the odds against her are. This theme has been tackled in movies throughout the history of film, but nothing like this before. No character in any movie has ever faced anything as remotely overwhelming as what Dr. Ryan Stone went through. I was completely drained when she stood up to end the film.

Gravity was damn powerful to me, and I'm not just talking about the visuals.



Not every story needs to be The Godfather. But Gravity is simple to a fault. It's simple enough to be a minor attraction at Epcot. The theme to which you refer has been done before, and done better. Deliverance, Apocalypse Now, even stuff like Touching the Void, Jaws...even Man of Steel had a more powerful portrayal of that IMO, seeing how far Superman has to push himself throughout. Like JayBob, I enjoyed the first 40 minutes of Gravity immensely. But problems start to arise which I think would only get worse on subsequent viewings. And there's just not enough of a payoff.

I actually kinda LIKED it in spite of the problems. I love the idea of a space movie and really hope the genre is more heavily explored in the years to come.


Fri Oct 11, 2013 4:51 pm
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:26 pm
Posts: 2157
Post Re: GRAVITY
Well, that was pretty damned stunning. And more than a little terrifying.

And, god damn it, the 3D was actually implemented in a way that enhanced the movie. I realize that every time a prestige picture comes out with a 3D presentation, somebody is going to say that... but this time it's actually true. It wasn't true for Hugo. It's very true for Gravity, in which the parallax effect of the Earth looming overhead is given such an incredible sense of size by the addition of stereoscopy.

In its heart of hearts, this is one of those Castaway survival-against-all-odds stories, and I didn't mind that the narrow escapes from death were pretty implausible. The prospect of coming untethered in space is so scary--not alien scary, not ghost scary, but really, viscerally, humanly scary--that it held the whole thing together for me. I don't mind admitting that this movie made me sweat, more than any horror movie.

Bravo.

_________________
The temptation is to like what you should like--not what you do like... another temptation is to come up with an interesting reason for liking it that may not actually be the reason you like it.


Fri Oct 11, 2013 7:31 pm
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:26 pm
Posts: 2157
Post Re: GRAVITY
patrick wrote:
But, let's face facts here. This is a mere thrill ride, a very well-made thrill ride but it is not the future of anything. In a couple months when the 3-D wears off and when it's revealed that it was all smoke and mirrors, and it will, the backlash is going to be swift and severe like Avatar was. But one big difference between Gravity and Avatar was that Avatar knew it was silly. Gravity has horrible delusions of grandeur.

And for the record, I saw this in 2D. I doubt I'm missing anything and I think that "See it in 3D or you're missing out" is a load of shit.

You mean Gravity wasn't actually filmed in space and that much of what we're seeing is the contrivance of special effects? Surely you jest.

Gravity is superior to Avatar, vastly so, for one very important reason: the experience of being in low orbit over our planet is inextricable from this movie, and it creates that experience extraordinarily well. I suppose how much you care about Gravity depends on how interesting you find that experience, which I find it very much so.

Shade2 wrote:
I'm staggered by the notion that this film is the "complete package." It's the polar opposite of that to me. It's visually neat and that's it. There's no character, no thematic ideas, no development of plot or people... I respect the technical merits very much, and I'll be appalled if it doesn't earn a cinematography nomination. But that's the only great thing about it.

I would be appalled if it did earn a cinematography nom. I don't know how much of this movie was actually shot with a camera, but I suspect it was very little.

peng wrote:
Bullock did a great job, but an unknown might have some more cinematic balance behind it (a relative space newcomer and a veteran). I love Clooney in the role though. He did have baggage with him, but it's the right kind of baggage that helped with the characterization within a limited amount of time.

This is an interesting comment. Why do you think Bullock's baggage works against her, where as Clooney's works in his favor?

KelsoH wrote:
A movie like Gravity is just begging for thematic ideas. Instead the filmmakers wow us with beautiful shots of Earth... then just have characters like Clooney remark about how great "the view" is, and we're supposed to act like they've made a thematically meaningful film.

There are so many thematic ideas and emotional strings to pull from, and the film mostly ignores them in favour of cliched dialogue and one liners. I left the theatre feeling like I watched a technically impressive movie showing what being in space is like. They missed a huge opportunity to use the awe-inspiring setting to provoke thought or further curiosity about a number of possible subjects.

This I disagree with--not that Gravity was thematically basic, which I'll suss out as the movie marinates in my mind, but that the dialogue was somehow wrong for not being fraught with thematic weightiness.

One of the worst things about so many movies, especially these days, is that they wear their themes on their sleeves. The characters don't talk like people talk, so much as recite subtext to each other. Why wouldn't astronauts who barely know each other speak largely in small talk and wisecracks? Why would they talk about the profundity of the human condition? They wouldn't.

We know what's going on with these characters and how their every decision has increasing import over the rest of their lives without them having to chatter about it to each other. Perhaps they could have been saddled with a more elaborate set of problems than their own survival, but that would be a different movie.

Shade2 wrote:
I think it's pretty clear that I'm not asking them to talk like Billy Shakes. I don't think it's at all well done. Real people sometimes do talk in cliches, so the cliches are not the entire problem, but it's all too on-the-nose for me.

I don't remember any particularly on-the-nose dialogue. If anything, the dialogue is pretty off-the-nose.

Let us imagine an on-the-nose conversation in this movie:

Clooney. "You have to go on, or you'll render my sacrifice meaningless."
Bullock. "I can't go on. Losing my daughter leaves me with nothing to fight for."
Clooney. "But letting yourself die won't bring her back."
Bullock. "I see. You have given me new hope for the future." *presses buttons; doesn't die*

Vexer wrote:
I wasn't "passing judgement" on her :roll: I like Bullock as an actress, but the idea of a MEDICAL doctor going into space sounds all kinds of ridiculous. Besides I was refering to you totally dismissing ANYONE who dared criticize the film, like it's somehow forbidden to dislike it, are you going to say McGamesCook is "bitching and moaning"

Why? We've had several astronauts whose primary area of study is outside aerospace, engineering, astrophysics, etc.

Vexer wrote:
According to scientist Neil deGrasse Tyson, the film has numerous scientific errors https://twitter.com/neiltyson and i'd wager he knows a tiny bit more about this then you do :lol:

Ah, yes, the string of tweets badly misunderstood 'round the world.

The entire reason Tyson posted them in the first place--and this is borne out by a subsequent message from him posted on Facebook--is that the movie strove for plausibility; therefore it was bound to make a few errors. If this were Star Wars, which plainly gives no fucks about even the slightest amount of plausibility, nobody would have given any fucks about its errors.

The way the physics of orbit are presented in this film are, to my amateur space enthusiast's eyes, pretty damned realistic. Sir Isaac Newton's unseen presence hovered over the whole production.

At the very least, people have to admit that Gravity's handling of this issue is better than the majority of movies set in space.

_________________
The temptation is to like what you should like--not what you do like... another temptation is to come up with an interesting reason for liking it that may not actually be the reason you like it.


Fri Oct 11, 2013 7:59 pm
Profile
Second Unit Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 12:07 pm
Posts: 377
Post Re: GRAVITY
MGamesCook wrote:
roastbeef_ajus wrote:
Why are people complaining about a simple plot? Why does every movie have to have a complex narrative? Gravity's plot may be simple, but it is no less powerful. It asks: how far can a human being push oneself? It's about a woman's will not to quit no matter how insurmountable the odds against her are. This theme has been tackled in movies throughout the history of film, but nothing like this before. No character in any movie has ever faced anything as remotely overwhelming as what Dr. Ryan Stone went through. I was completely drained when she stood up to end the film.

Gravity was damn powerful to me, and I'm not just talking about the visuals.



Not every story needs to be The Godfather. But Gravity is simple to a fault. It's simple enough to be a minor attraction at Epcot. The theme to which you refer has been done before, and done better. Deliverance, Apocalypse Now, even stuff like Touching the Void, Jaws...even Man of Steel had a more powerful portrayal of that IMO, seeing how far Superman has to push himself throughout. Like JayBob, I enjoyed the first 40 minutes of Gravity immensely. But problems start to arise which I think would only get worse on subsequent viewings. And there's just not enough of a payoff.

I actually kinda LIKED it in spite of the problems. I love the idea of a space movie and really hope the genre is more heavily explored in the years to come.


Done better with the movies you listed?

Deliverance: Some bros against some hillbilly faggots? Please pit me against those inbred fucks.

Apocalypse Now: This movie is a whole lot more than survival against the odds. This movie asks what is war? When do you lose humanity?....not relevant

Touching the Void: I will give you this one, as it is a true story and also had a real person facing and surpassing insurmountable odds...I only saw this on my home TV though, so it didn't have the visceral scope as Gravity.

Man of Steel: How in the fuck is a normal human supposed to relate to Superman? Superman does not exist, but every year astronauts pit themselves against the harshest environment known to us: The never ending vacuum of space.


Fri Oct 11, 2013 8:03 pm
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:26 pm
Posts: 2157
Post Re: GRAVITY
Superman is a normal human in every sense except his physicality.

Take a normal guy and give him the ability to walk his dog on the moon. That's Superman. The stories that mind this tend to turn out well. The stories that forget this and treat him as if his physicality is all that matters tend not to turn out so well.

_________________
The temptation is to like what you should like--not what you do like... another temptation is to come up with an interesting reason for liking it that may not actually be the reason you like it.


Fri Oct 11, 2013 8:12 pm
Profile
Director
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 10:42 pm
Posts: 1405
Location: Bangkok
Post Re: GRAVITY
Quote:
This is an interesting comment. Why do you think Bullock's baggage works against her, where as Clooney's works in his favor?


Well I also think both of their baggage help the movie. Both characters have to develop themselves and draw audience's sympathy. In a short time and without being on the nose, as you said, our familiarity with them (or the types they've played, maybe) and their innate likeability help established this (at least for me), working in favor of the film. It's just that the story has one veteran astronaut and a nervous newcomer. JB mentioned stuff like this in his Notting Hill review, where he said it would serve that film better if Hugh Grant's character is played by an unknown, because that is the story of a normal guy and a famous movie star. So, although I now can't imagine anyone in the role other than Bullock (it will also be hard to cast for this role without someone well-known), I just wonder out loud how fitting that would feel.


Fri Oct 11, 2013 9:28 pm
Profile
Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:44 pm
Posts: 1683
Post Re: GRAVITY
I'm pretty sure getting stuck in a river is more likely for any of us than getting lost in space. Unless one of you here is an astronaut, perchance?


Some of the dialogue was excruciating:

[Reveal] Spoiler:
Don't I have pretty blue eyes?...half of north America just lost Facebook...the dogs...the stupid, out of place dream(?) scene...the cheesy, forced fetal position.


It wasn't on the nose, just dumb. Apocalypse now and deliverance are many things, only one of which is a survival story. They're complex and multi-layered,, as good movies should be.


Fri Oct 11, 2013 10:53 pm
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 1:35 am
Posts: 2056
Post Re: GRAVITY
MGamesCook wrote:
[Reveal] Spoiler:
...the cheesy, forced fetal position.



You're upset because she acted like a normal human being?

_________________
Evil does not wear a bonnet!--Mr. Tinkles


Fri Oct 11, 2013 11:10 pm
Profile
Second Unit Director

Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 4:52 pm
Posts: 273
Location: North Carolina
Post Re: GRAVITY
There's no question there are numerous technical flaws in this movie. Anyone with a passing knowledge of physics, orbital mechanics, and space in general could list at least a dozen. But that's not the point of this film. Cuaron was not filming a documentary; he was trying to make it FEEL realistic. And it definitely succeeds in doing that. I agree with Neil Degrasse Tyson, who admitted he liked the movie despite the technical flaws.


Sat Oct 12, 2013 12:33 pm
Profile
Second Unit Director

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 10:11 pm
Posts: 404
Post Re: GRAVITY
Ken wrote:
Superman is a normal human in every sense except his physicality.

Take a normal guy and give him the ability to walk his dog on the moon. That's Superman. The stories that mind this tend to turn out well. The stories that forget this and treat him as if his physicality is all that matters tend not to turn out so well.


I always thought he was from an super advanced alien species who was adopted by backward homo sapien primates. A variation of Tarzan and the apes. He is one of the hardest superheroes to relate to as he is an invulnerable,gravity defying,laser sighted alien who can punch someone into the sun. One reason many people tell me they find him boring. He is probably the main reason for the Marvel revolution with Stan Lee and his more naturalistic characters with more relateable problems.


Sat Oct 12, 2013 4:05 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 104 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forum/DivisionCore.
Translated by Xaphos © 2007, 2008, 2009 phpBB.fr