Quote:
|
Quote:
The five poor schmucks who quickly jotted out negative reviews before the 98% avalanche on rottentomatoes are now figuratively in hiding, praying no one notices. |
Quote:
I didn't find it compelling at all. It was a special effects movie. The cinematography was nice. There was no substance at all. There was very little information given about the only 2 people who appear in the film. No backstory of any substance, no reason for us to know who they are or care what happens to them. Not to mention all the "yeah right" moments. JMO. I found it massively disappointing and not even all that suspenseful. :harumph: |
Quote:
Spoiler!
|
Buddy saw this and said it was intense and nothing like he's seen. Also wondered how they shot this. I'm def stoked
|
Complaining about the lack of plot is missing the point, Cochise. In fact, I think the movie would have been improved with even less backstory. I'm on board with our protagonist simply because of the situation she finds herself in.
I say it is missing the point because Bullock's character is meant to be an avatar for us, the audience, as much as she can be. This film is about giving audiences an intense experience. By keeping the story as simple as possible -- just enough to get most everyone on board -- it allows audiences to stay focused on the experience of it all. |
Quote:
Very little criticism if not awe has been reported for how well it was shot to look as if really in a weightless environment. You can love it or hate it, some people like to go against the grain simply for the sake of it. Taking issue with almost any of it from a realistic critical eye is fool hardy unless you have some actual relevant insight into space missions and/or personal experiences is floating around and orbiting the near outer atmosphere of the globe? If that is the case, I'd love to hear some stories and any photos- which reminds me, did I ever tell you about Mardi Gras 1987? But, I am interested in hearing what parts of the movie and or scenes that are just so technically off base and the supporting documentation or testimonials that point to such absurd gaffs in the movie. |
Quote:
Spoiler!
|
Quote:
There was just such a never-ending chain of "yeah right" that it was hard for me to be engaged with the film. I mean, you can tell a sci fi story one way to where people won't apply the believability test. Nobody worries about Star Wars being believable because it's set in a fantasy setting. But they chose to tell this one in our time and in the way we know space. With spacecraft and stations and tech that we know, like this could be happening right now (if the shuttle program were still active and all) If you tell a story that proposes to happen in our world now, then it has to be believable. I just didn't buy that any of it could actually happen. Really, the break with reality is in the first few minutes that's fine... it just didn't work for me. I get that I'm the only one that didn't like it. Just how I felt. :shrug: |
Seriously, one of the best movies I have seen in years...really liked it.
|
Quote:
http://www.theverge.com/2013/10/7/48...ng-for-gravity |
I am not a Sandra Bullock fan and this movie didn't look all that appealling but after all this praise I think we will have to go see this.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Seems like Open Water in space. Cooney is a douchebag, Robert Downey Jr would've been way better. Never ever ever seen a 3d effect that made me want to wear stupid dirty glasses for 2 hours err 90 minutes. IMAX is the biggest joke. Want an IMAX experience on the cheap? Sit closer to the screen. That way you have to pan and scan the screen just like IMAX. Apollo 13 is what I think of when I think of great space films. Based on the glowing reviews here, I think I will definitely have to get it when it comes to the Redbox.
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:21 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.