Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Fri Jul 25, 2014 2:58 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 82 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Gravity (2013) 
Author Message
Online
Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:44 pm
Posts: 1592
Post Re: Gravity (2013)
ilovemovies wrote:
If a movie really, truly is unlike anything you have ever seen before, then there is nothing wrong with stating, regardless if it's a quote from some film critic.

I guess that means the movie, or any movie, for that matter, can be described as thrilling, exhilarating, awesome, breathtaking, etc.

What positive (or negative) words are left to use then?


Here's a novel idea: crazy I know, but instead of reducing a movie to individual words....how bout actually writing a sentence, a paragraph, or maybe even :o several paragraphs analyzing the movie and describing in more in-depth terms why you liked it????? I thought everyone learned to evolve into that process at age 4 or 5.

And I know posters on here aren't beyond that (see the very interesting, extensive, and thoughtful post about Man of Steel in the "recent reviews" section, or any number of extensive posts in the "Last Movie Watched" section) so why not just do it?


Last edited by MGamesCook on Wed Oct 02, 2013 4:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Wed Oct 02, 2013 4:17 pm
Profile
Producer

Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 11:04 am
Posts: 2101
Post Re: Gravity (2013)
Not everyone is a critic. They just want to state their opinion in a nutshell. Now maybe it'll start a conversation, but just wanting to briefly state your opinion, nothing wrong with that.


Wed Oct 02, 2013 4:20 pm
Profile
Director

Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 7:44 pm
Posts: 1440
Post Re: Gravity (2013)
Quote:
I'm not exaggerating about the price. A 2D Los Angeles movie ticket at multiplex theaters is $15, IMAX 3D is $21


have you seen the new IMAX at the Chinese? yeah, its a chunk of change to go there, but its quite impressive.


Wed Oct 02, 2013 4:31 pm
Profile
Second Unit Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 12:07 pm
Posts: 377
Post Re: Gravity (2013)
MGamesCook wrote:
Quote:
Nope. It's how I feel. Once again (see also our discussion about Christopher Nolan's Batman saga), you mad bro?


It's how you feel? You're just regurgitating what's been said by 70 critics already. Copying and pasting their exact words, almost. And you know what, I DON'T have to see the movie before I start posting stuff about it. We've all seen the trailer, and that's more than enough. So unless you want to mail me $25 (the cost of IMAX 3D in LA, plus parking), I'll continue to post about my impression just from the trailers and pay to see the movie if I personally feel like it.


Seeing the trailer is not enough. I thought Green Lantern was going to be awesome from the trailers, but it's one of the worst super hero movies I've ever seen. I was not excited at all after I saw a trailer for Silver Linings Playbook, but it turned out to be one of my favorite movies of 2012.

Oh, everybody look. A movie is about to come out that everyone is raving about, so immediately cook starts talking shit without ever having seen it. He's already getting himself in a bad mood so he can go see it, just so he can say how awful it is.

There is even a joke dedicated to Cook in This Is The End. Craig Robinson is talking to Emma Watson and they ask Jay Baruchel if he is a hipster: "You know, someone who hates everything else that people like?..."

Craig: "Well do you like Forrest Gump?"
Jay: "No, I think it's a tremendous piece of shit."


Wed Oct 02, 2013 4:35 pm
Profile
Assistant Director
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 2:37 am
Posts: 985
Location: Laurel, MD
Post Re: Gravity (2013)
I started a movie review blog back in March of this year and I've reviewed thirty-something movies, including Gravity, which I posted today. And not once did I use the specific words I used here. I was under the impression that, since this is a forum, people prefer shorter, more succient thoughts over longer, wordier pieces. Not that the latter aren't welcome; they're just not as common.

Thank you, ilovemovies and roastbeef, for sticking up for me on this. And MGames, seriously, I don't understand your hostility over something so innocuous. Clearly you're just a guy itching for a fight. And I'm done here.

_________________
https://www.facebook.com/ken.rossman.5


Wed Oct 02, 2013 4:38 pm
Profile
Online
Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:44 pm
Posts: 1592
Post Re: Gravity (2013)
Quote:
have you seen the new IMAX at the Chinese? yeah, its a chunk of change to go there, but its quite impressive.


I've been in that main auditorium for the TCM fest the past few years, not for any new releases though. It's a lot of money, but for some of those classics it was really worth it. Student discount made it doable.

But more specifically on Gravity: Kubrick illicited a similarly ecstatic reaction 45 years ago. And he did it without 3D. I love a good space movie; being immersed in the cosmos. But 2D is more than enough to immerse me. 3D just takes me out of it and takes the emphasis away from space itself. I love the look of space. It's beautiful. But I can't imagine what would feel like to actually be an astronaut in space. I don't believe it's in the power of a movie to convey that. It's in the power of a movie, however, to tell a story set in space. It's a storytelling medium.

As I say, I love the look and feel of space, which is why I'm partial to such essentially forgotten movies as Space Truckers, Event Horizon, Supernova, and Mission to Mars, and was delighted to find that
[Reveal] Spoiler:
Dark City is set in space!
and that its fans were always kind enough to keep that a secret. But I think what I love about those movies is the fact that they're so obscure. They're bottom-shelf junk, and that's what's awesome. Nobody promotes them. They don't even promote themselves. The only way to find them is to seek them out. For me, that's always been a rewarding way to discover movies.

In the case of Gravity and its over the top promotion, I think we need an addendum to the expression: Some are born great, some have greatness thrust upon them, and some simply try to thrust their greatness upon you.


Wed Oct 02, 2013 4:46 pm
Profile
Online
Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:44 pm
Posts: 1592
Post Re: Gravity (2013)
Quote:
There is even a joke dedicated to Cook in This Is The End. Craig Robinson is talking to Emma Watson and they ask Jay Baruchel if he is a hipster: "You know, someone who hates everything else that people like?..."

Craig: "Well do you like Forrest Gump?"
Jay: "No, I think it's a tremendous piece of shit."


So you're saying I'm a hipster? I'm actually flattered.

Quote:
I don't understand your hostility over something so innocuous.


Because it's not innocuous.


Wed Oct 02, 2013 4:48 pm
Profile
Director

Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 7:44 pm
Posts: 1440
Post Re: Gravity (2013)
Quote:
I've been in that main auditorium for the TCM fest the past few years, not for any new releases though


They just renovated it into the largest IMAX theatre in the world. Wizard of Oz last week was the first film for its reopening(paid $19 for a matinee)

Gravity opens there on Friday.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guAhfPe9aPo


Wed Oct 02, 2013 5:09 pm
Profile
Online
Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:44 pm
Posts: 1592
Post Re: Gravity (2013)
calvero wrote:
Quote:
I've been in that main auditorium for the TCM fest the past few years, not for any new releases though


They just renovated it into the largest IMAX theatre in the world. Wizard of Oz last week was the first film for its reopening(paid $19 for a matinee)

Gravity opens there on Friday.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guAhfPe9aPo


Jesus. If its truly the largest theater in the world, simple curiosity precludes me from missing it. This movie, if the promotion takes hold, will bring about the latest case of FOMO: fear of missing out.


Wed Oct 02, 2013 5:23 pm
Profile
Second Unit Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 12:07 pm
Posts: 377
Post Re: Gravity (2013)
calvero wrote:
Quote:
I've been in that main auditorium for the TCM fest the past few years, not for any new releases though


They just renovated it into the largest IMAX theatre in the world. Wizard of Oz last week was the first film for its reopening(paid $19 for a matinee)

Gravity opens there on Friday.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guAhfPe9aPo


Largest seating capacity in the world. 3rd largest screen in U.S. I think. But even still, I would love to catch a movie there. It will also be the first testing ground for the new IMAX laser projection system, which is supposed to be as good as actual 70mm film projection.


Wed Oct 02, 2013 5:32 pm
Profile
Online
Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:44 pm
Posts: 1592
Post Re: Gravity (2013)
If ever they decide to put el cid, Lawrence, or roman empire on that screen I'm there in a second. That I would pay for multiple times. Or Nashville; that would be unbelievable


Wed Oct 02, 2013 5:42 pm
Profile
Second Unit Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 12:07 pm
Posts: 377
Post Re: Gravity (2013)
MGamesCook wrote:
Quote:
have you seen the new IMAX at the Chinese? yeah, its a chunk of change to go there, but its quite impressive.


I've been in that main auditorium for the TCM fest the past few years, not for any new releases though. It's a lot of money, but for some of those classics it was really worth it. Student discount made it doable.

But more specifically on Gravity: Kubrick illicited a similarly ecstatic reaction 45 years ago. And he did it without 3D. I love a good space movie; being immersed in the cosmos. But 2D is more than enough to immerse me. 3D just takes me out of it and takes the emphasis away from space itself. I love the look of space. It's beautiful. But I can't imagine what would feel like to actually be an astronaut in space. I don't believe it's in the power of a movie to convey that. It's in the power of a movie, however, to tell a story set in space. It's a storytelling medium.

As I say, I love the look and feel of space, which is why I'm partial to such essentially forgotten movies as Space Truckers, Event Horizon, Supernova, and Mission to Mars, and was delighted to find that
[Reveal] Spoiler:
Dark City is set in space!
and that its fans were always kind enough to keep that a secret. But I think what I love about those movies is the fact that they're so obscure. They're bottom-shelf junk, and that's what's awesome. Nobody promotes them. They don't even promote themselves. The only way to find them is to seek them out. For me, that's always been a rewarding way to discover movies.

"Gravity and its over the top promotion, I think we need an addendum to the expression: Some are born great, some have greatness thrust upon them, and some simply try to thrust their greatness upon you.


"They're bottom-shelf junk, and that's what's awesome." Oh, ok, glad we cleared that up. You can be considered junk and awesome as long you have to be searched out, but when you are heavily promoted and people have been saying you are the best movie of the year since march, you are probably actually garbage.

Right now in fact, both 2001 and Gravity are sitting at 97%, with almost the same number of yes's to no's.

Why don't you start picking NFL games agains't the spread, I will take the opposite of what you say, and make a fortune.


Wed Oct 02, 2013 5:47 pm
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:26 pm
Posts: 2157
Post Re: Gravity (2013)
A word on pure technicality: a starfield in 2D is going to look indistinguishable from a starfield in 3D.

While I don't doubt that there's plenty of other, more human scale stuff in Gravity that makes use of the 3D effect, space itself will not gain anything from it unless they seriously screw up the scale of the distances.

And another small quibble: the reaction Kubrick initially got from 2001 was decidedly less than ecstatic.

EDIT:

Another, less small quibble: I'm not going to take James Cameron's word on anything. At this point, I expect he's more impressed by state-of-the-art tools than he is with storytelling.

_________________
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.


Wed Oct 02, 2013 5:53 pm
Profile
Online
Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:44 pm
Posts: 1592
Post Re: Gravity (2013)
I'm sorry, did you just equate movie opinions with football game outcomes? The apocalypse may be coming after all. Thank you ken for an intelligent, insightful post which illuminates the way rottentomatoes distorts everything. 2001 was indeed divisive in 1968, but you won't discover that on RT.

And roast, you know what, I've made my perspective clear and I stand by it. And some of the most intelligent and acclaimed critics of all time, Kael, Sontag, farber, Sarris have written 1000s of words corroborating that perspective. I don't care if you agree with me, I just want you to understand where I'm coming from. And since my attempts to clarify my points are met with hostility and presumption time and time again, I don't really see how you can blame me for being angry. I think I would have to be insane to NOT be angry.


Wed Oct 02, 2013 6:21 pm
Profile
Director
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 10:42 pm
Posts: 1333
Location: Bangkok
Post Re: Gravity (2013)
Quote:
But I think what I love about those movies is the fact that they're so obscure. They're bottom-shelf junk, and that's what's awesome. Nobody promotes them. They don't even promote themselves. The only way to find them is to seek them out. For me, that's always been a rewarding way to discover movies.


This logics is really puzzling. So if Gravity remained exactly the same movie and just had zero promotion/advertisement or advance reviews, you will be more inclined toward it in a positive light? How is that a level-headed way to approach a movie? Because since not all people lived in the same country of the movie's origin, they get different advertisement and level of buzz, especially my country, where very strong buzz for a movie is usually generated for not more than a dozen of movies per year, mostly only blockbuster types (a lot, lot less movie lovers here). So it's always puzzling me when you make angry, sweeping, general statements about movies' advance words or advertisement or people's word-of-mouth, since it isn't like that for me or some people most of the time.

Man, if Gravity is the really the one that gets **** (somehow I'm still inclined towards Captain Phillips), I hope at the very least mgames doesn't call JB names like he did when Looper got one.


Wed Oct 02, 2013 9:10 pm
Profile
Second Unit Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 12:07 pm
Posts: 377
Post Re: Gravity (2013)
I don't know if he is a troll, or is really like this in real life, but what he writes on this board make him seem like the following:

He is a straight hipster. If a movie is being heavily promoted, and adored by critics and non-critics a like, it is like all of those people have ruined the movie for him. He can't like the movie because we all did, so he must hate it. I feel sorry for him honestly.


Wed Oct 02, 2013 11:10 pm
Profile
Producer

Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 11:04 am
Posts: 2101
Post Re: Gravity (2013)
I think Gravity is the 4 star movie and Captain Phillips is the 3.5 star movie.


Wed Oct 02, 2013 11:39 pm
Profile
Online
Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:44 pm
Posts: 1592
Post Re: Gravity (2013)
Hipster and Contrarian are not synonymous with one another. Hipster refers to a very specific group: people who dress a certain way and like Noah Baumbach, and possibly Wes Anderson and Spike Jonze, etc. None of those are my favorite directors, though I do admire some of their work. Just Contrarian is the word you're looking for. Even so, that term is problematic, because...

15 years ago, "contrarian" meant something completely different. The internet has completely exaggerated its meaning. But when using that term, people lose track of the causality of it. And it also tends to form around a specific type of movie, not just movies in general. I think in the last 10 years, we've had movies which were critically and commercially successful because they were designed to be critically and commercially successful. I mean let's be honest, that Cameron made the two most successful movies of all time is not a coincidence. They were both designed using the same strategies to maximize broad appeal. And now, if Gravity is gaining the reputation that it is, it's because it was designed to do so.

Would anyone really argue that Cuaron said to himself, "well, i'll see what I can do...hopefully critics will like it, but I can't be sure." Maybe if it was a 2D release, I could buy that. But the 3D, to me, just confirms it as yet another attempt to promote the technology.

And here's the ultimate reason for my bottom-shelf mentality: the real, somewhat sad, truth is that filmmakers (and artists in general) do their best work when they think no one is watching, so to speak. For obvious reasons, filmmakers often seem to be at their most introspective and open-minded when they assume their movie is destined for Walmart's bargain bin. And part of the reason why, I think, is because it reduces them down to the mentality they should really just have to begin with: that they are extremely lucky to be able to make movies at all which will be seen by anyone other than their mom. I know it's weird to think of a Hollywood professional that way, but you know, it's true. They are damn lucky, and they should never let themselves forget it. And the bottom shelf stuff is what most often reflects that sense of humility, and I think the reasons for that are obvious enough.

It also encourages potentially challenging subject matter. Of course, a lot of directors move beyond the bottom shelf and make it to the very top, like Spielberg, Sam Raimi, etc. But the good ones never forget their humble origins. I think directors go bad when they get too much praise too early. What hope is there for studied improvement in craft on their part if some of the biggest praise they ever get is with their first movie? I know there are exceptions, but when you get right down to it, film is just like any other profession. You have to climb the ladder, and the good directors start out as persons of flawed potential who have to keep on improving. And when praising any movie, you have to leave room for future potential. You just have to. Otherwise, the film's genre suffers and so does its director.

How many sword/sandal epics have their been since Lord of the Rings? Not many, because Lotr crushed the potential of its genre with simply too much acclaim. How much praise has Peter Jackson received since? Much less than one would think, because people spoiled him too much, too early. Whenever acclaim for a movie gets really out of hand...yeah, it's thrilling while it lasts. But I think it jades viewers out in the long run, and there are dozens and dozens of examples which support that theory. "Too good to be true" is a one-way road that leads to disappointment. It'll be interesting to see what happens with Avengers 2. I'd bet a lung the praise will be less unanimous.

The thing you notice about critics and viewers: they're very predictable. You don't have to be a genius to be good at predicting them, and some of these studio execs are very very good at it. And the internet has given them the tools they need to be good at it. Some might argue that there's nothing wrong with that, but I would argue that there is. I have a problem with Gravity being conceived in order to get the reaction it's currently getting. I have a real problem with that. I can't help it. I get some hardcore Truman Show vibes from that crap. Giving people what they want to see, or telling them what they want to hear is literally, I mean literally, the dictionary definition of con artist. I'm not comfortable with that.

My definition of a good movie: giving viewers something they did not want to see, something maybe they thought would be bad, and surprising them. In other words, every great success is a sleeper to some degree. I don't always disagree with the consensus. I loved Skyfall. And the difference between Skyfall and overrated blockbusters is very simple: nobody claimed Skyfall to "break new ground" or "revolutionize cinema" or "change the face of its genre forever." It was just, you know, GOOD. That's all I really ask from a movie. And that's all I really ask from critics, forum posters, or anyone else. Just keep things in perspective. Is that really asking so much?

Wahlberg's final monologue in Pain and Gain rings true: "I just wanted to be like everyone else. You can't ask for more than that. But maybe I did start wanting more. I no longer wanted to be equal to. I wanted to be better than."


Thu Oct 03, 2013 1:11 am
Profile
Second Unit Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 12:07 pm
Posts: 377
Post Re: Gravity (2013)
MGamesCook wrote:
I mean let's be honest, that Cameron made the two most successful movies of all time is not a coincidence. They were both designed using the same strategies to maximize broad appeal. And now, if Gravity is gaining the reputation that it is, it's because it was designed to do so.


The fact also remains Cameron waited to do Avatar for 10 years until after he could INVENT the technology to film it like he wanted. Cuaron had to invent new ways to film his actors to simulate micro-gravity. That tells me these directors wouldn't bother giving up so much time of there lives inventing things soley for these projects, unless THEY were the ones who wanted them.

MGamesCook wrote:
I have a problem with Gravity being conceived in order to get the reaction it's currently getting. I have a real problem with that.


So, you have a problem with horror movies such as the Conjuring, filmed simply to scare the audience? Do you have a problem with This Is The End being filmed to make the audience laugh? Those movies were conceived for very specific reactions. Jaws was created to thrill the audience. Jurassic Park was created to make the audience's jaw drop, to thrill them, to make them have fun. Yet they were also created because those were the stories the directors and writers wanted to tell.

Why can't Gravity thrill the audience and make them feel the vastness of space, while delivering the message that Cuaron wants to deliver? If you hated movies about space, or didn't like any of Cuaron's previous efforts, or didn't like George Clooney or Sandra Bullock and the trailer just didn't interest you, and that's why you are complaining about it...that is fine. But to complain about a movie for no other reason than everyone else loves it, is pathetic.

and...There is nothing wrong with an artist evoking a certain reaction from the audience; that is why art is created, to evoke a feeling from the audience.


Thu Oct 03, 2013 2:37 am
Profile
Online
Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:44 pm
Posts: 1592
Post Re: Gravity (2013)
Quote:
and...There is nothing wrong with an artist evoking a certain reaction from the audience; that is why art is created, to evoke a feeling from the audience.


Wrong. Art is meant to make the audience think. The audience should think and contemplate about the feelings a movie creates.

Quote:
So, you have a problem with horror movies such as the Conjuring, filmed simply to scare the audience? Do you have a problem with This Is The End being filmed to make the audience laugh? Those movies were conceived for very specific reactions. Jaws was created to thrill the audience.


Wrong again.. Yes, I have a problem with the first two. Simply to scare the audience? That's the most unsophisticated form of filmmaking. Goading a viewer like a 5-year old. This is the End is a retarded, unfunny movie, more concerned with special effects and high octane montages than with laughs. If you actually want to have an argument, pick a better movie to defend. You're also wrong about Jaws. Spielberg goes out of his way to call your attention to the techniques being used. He wants you to THINK about the way the film is being made. Kubrick wanted audiences to THINK about 2001. His movie didn't need 3D and instead of Sandra Bullock breathing for 90 minutes, there were periods of silence and contemplation. Imagine that. If he were alive today (and often I wish he were), and saw this theme park ride being promoted, he would have seen his entire life's work met with tragic failure.

And yes, THINKING is a necessary part of any art. It's not just about your sensory enjoyment. Give me a break man. You say I'm a contrarian, but you're going against 100 years of trying to make films more than superficial diversions. That's the only thing pathetic here.

And it's not just because of peoples' reactions. It's because I know the movie is a piece of shit. How do I know? Because the people who love it are promoting it as such! Find me the critic who has called it a cerebral, complex work full of ideas about human existence. That critic does not exist! Instead, they say it's groundbreaking cinema BECAUSE it's a theme park ride. The phrase "Holy Crap. What a ride" is apparently the full extent of quality people can see in movies now. That's insulting.

No movie, and I mean NO MOVIE, has the right to be that shallow. No good movie at least.


Thu Oct 03, 2013 3:30 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 82 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot] and 2 guests


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