Alfonso Cuarón's "Gravity"
 

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/xgGPTa7-vlE?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

(Yes, I realize this was discussed in a thread from yesterday, but knowing this board, that one will eventually get buried...)

Looks cool. I heard its done in "real time" with looong continuous shots? Or something like that.......

I believe I heard the same thing, although it was many moons ago.

Terrifying.

Going to see this either tonight or tomorrow.

It's currently tracking 96% on metacritic, 98% on RT (121 reviews, 100% among Top Critics). I have a friend who saw it Tuesday and he says it's freaking amazing, really groundbreaking (which is also what all the reviews are saying...)

I'd love to see this in IMAX

Was looking for this thread earlier this week. Saw it in digital 3d on Monday. It. Is. Amazing.

Bullock is amazing. Space Danny Ocean was amazing. The movie basically runs a train on your nerves. "Oh you thought that shit was intense? Have some of this!" The 3d works and I don't even like 3d. It isn't lame, but immersive. Best ninety minutes you'll spend in a theater.

90 minutes? Thats it?

Was discussing this movie w/ my friend after only seeing a teaser trailer and we thought how funny it would be if the movie was about someone finding God while floating through space. I hope that's not what it ends up being. I hope to see it soon.

It's some hardcore ninety minutes. No filler, all thriller.

I'll probably wait for it to go to our 2 buck theater in a few months then. I hate paying full price for 90 minute movies.

I'm always disappointed when movies are less than 2 hours worth of entertainment.

This one is worth the extra dough, especially to see it in IMAX 3D.

Hahaha......I'd rather watch a killer 90 minute flick than a 2 hour bad one.

Especially if it's 3D. I was still a little jarred the next day, that's how good it is. Avatar was like two and half hours of 3d craziness.

That is why I am very picky about what movies I spend my money on.

I truly hate 3D. I'd honestly rather watch this in 2D

I don't think you will have a lesser experience in 2D, but I believe the majority opinion is that this is 3D done right. It's not used obnoxiously, if that makes any sense. I don't wanna get too into the movie, but I imagine it would be enjoyable either way.

This will be one I'll have to be forced into.

It just doesn't interest me...

And you're picky based on the length of the movie?

I don't think I've ever once considered whether or not to see a movie based on it's length.

The friend that saw it said he thought the 3d was very environmental, rather than a gimmick. It enhanced the movie but wasn't in your face, similar to Avatar. Gave everything more depth, more of a feeling that you're part of the action.

That's spot on.

First and foremost, am I interested in the movie at all. Then I look at the length. I have to be EXTREMELY interested to pay full movie theater prices for a 90 minute movie. I'm interested in this movie but not enough to be throwing 14 bucks per person at it.

I have no doubt this will be in the 2 buck theater here in about a month anyway. I can wait.

90 minutes......but you will also get 20 minutes of preview trailers!

Well there is that. LMAO

This movie is destroying with critics.

Might be a classic.

http://www.reelviews.net/php_review_...dentifier=2670

This is from James Berardinelli, a guy that's as stingy with 4-star reviews as anybody.

I'm going Sunday morning. Can't wait.

Just saw it. It is good, very intense. The 3d is not bad except for alot of little matte lines, and the fact that it is fake. It is nicely used, for what it is, but it is still fake. I loved the camera work outside of the 3d. The DP is one of my favorites for a reason.

It was an interesting experience, though I was a bit queasy when walking out of the theater, and the relentlessness of it grows a bit tiresome. I hit the limit just a moment before the thing was over.

The movie is ninety minutes for a reason. 5 minutes more and I would have shifted from enjoying it to hating it!

Scariest movie I've ever seen, maybe. See it in IMAX if you can. Holy shit, that was an intense experience. It is so impressive on a technical level too; I can't even wrap my head around how Cuaron filmed this.

thats it im seeing it

Your mileage may vary with my "scary" assessment. Space is much more terrifying to me than being pursued by a lunatic killer, say.

So excited to see this on a real IMAX screen at Navy Pier. Best theater I've ever seen for doing a movie like this justice.

I don't know if they use the same 3d tech because I think there are various implementations of it? For example, I saw Avatar at the NP true IMAX and it blew my mind as it had such multiple levels of depth. A couple weeks later while back in KC, I took my parents to it at the Olathe AMC, on their fake IMAX screen, and it was night and day in how the movie was presented.

Where my original viewing literally felt like there were dozens of levels of fields of depth, the fake IMAX digital 3D or whatever they used to project it basically had like 3 fields of depth- close up, foreground, and background.

Like after 15 minutes I was so annoyed and disappointed in the difference between the projected experience I would have walked out if I hadn't taken my parents and that being the reason for going in the first place.

Avatar as a movie is mediocre at best, just in my own personal opinion. It's a reworked but cliche story that you can essentially see 1000x. I don't think I've watched it more than maybe 1 other time after it was released on BR. There are serious scenes that drag on and the flow is stagnant.

Point being, I'm no champion of this movie or some sentimental lull for it. But, I will say my first and only proper viewing of the use and vastness of the 3D will be one of those vivid cinematic experiences I will remember for the rest of my life.
Probably like when people 1st saw their 1st movie or tv program in color, because it took the visceral experience to a new level. Not, in a campy way like previous 3D was and still is used to most jump out at you- just like people have a real dislike for when they used technicolor on the classic b&w movies. Everyone was this odd peach color, and all the men looked like they were wearing makeup with dark red lips?

Cameron's use was to envelope the audience in an immersive environment and draw you in as part of the environment, and it was like stepping inside just past the 4th wall.

Sorry, for the diatribe, and I am super excited to see this movie, as it's also from one of my favorite directors! !!

I have to agree here.

I watch a shit ton of movies, and love finding great independent flicks, but I'm way more judicious in what I decide to see in the theater- basically reserved for your popcorn flicks where the large screen presentation and eye candy are part of the allure of the movie, or to support highly acclaimed work, both small and bigger budgeted.

My rationale being as studios make less and less films each year, then voting for the continued making or out of the box and truly poignant filmmaking is best done with my dollars.

I got a 80 inch lcd and it's fabulous for watching stuff on, but Gravity, and works like it's brilliant director makes time and time again, are perfect examples of the ideal movie that I'll fork over the premium Imax 3D ticket price for.

Read a feature on the making of this and all the new techniques used to shoot it and give it that floating feeling and what not.

Alphonso has wanted to make this movie for 6+ years, and was persuaded by David Fincher to table making it, saying at the time he would have to wait 5 years in order for the technology and mechanical feasibility to properly shoot this would be available and even affordable at a big budget film price.

Initially, Robert Downey Jr was cast in Clooney's role, but as his salary per film soared they didn't want to tie up so much of the budget and wanted to use that money on the technical aspects of shooting it right.
I don't know what Clooney got for it, but everyone took a lower fee, and I bet he did it for comparable peanuts, as he seems to have a real thing for the whole epic space film- a La in the 2001 lineage. I just think he's always wanted to be in a space film that is considered a classic.

So far, the buzz is this is the best space genred movie since probably 2001- others may point back to the original Alien, but you're in rarefied air either way if that's your list of contemporary equals.

Damn 98℅ on rotten tomatoes

Just got back from Imax 3D. I wasn't really interested after the trailer because it was hard to tell what story was there with them floating in space. Reviews were great so I gave it a shot.

Definitely worth going to see! Very tense throughout. Great performances and clearly it's visually amazing and has some really well done shots. I'd say it's emotionally draining. When we stood up I was surprised it hadn't even been 2 hours since we sat down.

I have the samw thoughts after seeing the trailer. I felt like I had saw the whole movie. A movie about them floating around in space for 2 hrs? But then I saw the reviews

I saw this movie last night. I absolutely loved it, it was very intense, and I give it my full unqualified recommendation.

You should probably see it in the theater, I'm not sure if it'll be the same at home.

This. If there was anything that bumped me or took me out of the movie, it was sheer amazement, thinking "Holy crap, this isn't all special effects. How in the hell did the director do this?"

The wife and I saw Gravity this morning. Really very good. While it was sufficiently intense, by the comments here I was expecting it to be pretty much a nail biter nonstop, and that wasn't the case. I disagree with underEJ; I felt Cuaron did a great job of giving the audience some breathing room to chill before upping the intensity even more. And I gotta disagree with Reaper16, too. I didn't find it particularly "scary" at all; thrilling, definitely.

And I'm not a Sandra Bullock fan at all. She's generic and better than average on her good days. I've always been very touchy about the fact she has an Oscar for The Blind Side - a role in which she was perfectly fine, but not extraordinary (also worth noting the same year she got a Razzie, the first person to win both Oscar and Razzie in the same year). She was extraordinary in Gravity.

look at me im not scared of dying alone in a vacuum im so tough

Look at me, I don't know what's fictional and what's real.

Yes, the idea is terrifying. However, the movie is not a horror movie. It's supposed to be intense, thrilling, suspenseful... any of those I'd accept. Scariest movie ever, no.

I agree. Saw Gravity Friday night in IMAX 3D and it is the definition of thriller. The director did a fantastic job of ratcheting up the intensity and then giving the audience some space (pun intended) and let everyone get back to neutral. This is the best movie I've seen in years.

look at me i apparently don't experience emotions when watching movies because experiencing anything means that i don't know it is fictional therefore film is purely an intellectual exercise

look at me i didn't read post #31 in this thread

Look at me, I can run a metaphor into the ground.

I saw it when you originally posted it, but forgot about it. Apologies.

And if you don't think I get emotionally vested in movies, you haven't paid any attention to my posts in movie threads. I get very invested emotionally, it's about the only thing I want in a movie - to make me feel something. I'm especially fond of movies that make me sad or particularly angry. In fact, I think you and I have been on the same side of some of those discussions with others.

I didn't find Gravity scary. I did find it intense, thrilling, suspenseful, and at times sad.

I don't actually think for one second that you think film is purely an intellectual exercise. I just wanted to destroy your comeback with logic. :D

The following actresses all were offered and declined the lead role in Gravity before Bullock accepted:

Angelina Jolie (twice), Natalie Portman, Jennifer Lopez, Rachel Weisz, Marion Cotillard, Carey Mulligan, Blake Lively, Scarlett Johansson, and Olivia Wilde.

Oops. They are all probably kicking themselves now.

Jennifer lopez lol

gonna see this tomorrow. Im pumped.

Epic! I don't even have the energy to respond on it all right now and I'm just basking in the experience.

Where'd you see this?

Not saying it's not true, just shocked so many wouldn't jump at chance to work with AC.

But, I'm glad as hell they didn't go with the above list. It's weird bc I'm not a Bullock fan, but her age, demeanor or whatever just seems to fit more in line with a doctor selected for a special mission simply based on her professional expertise being an asset to NASA.

I know what you mean, I quit having sex because I jizzed before an hour had passed.

Scary depends on what you are scared OF.

I read a little blurb that got into the technical aspects of how he used a new way to do it, and still don't understand in the least. Something about a bubble.

Genius.

They had a great plotline where her booty served as a heatshield, saving the entire crew on re-entry.

Ah. Sorry. I was intentionally vague to avoid giving away details, but I guess that left my comment unclear. I liked the intensity, the part that drove me nuts was...

I didnt like it at all. There was no plot. There was almost no script. There were numerous suspension of disbelief, eyerolling moments.

It was like they took the last 20 minutes of a film and stretched it out to feature length.

It looked to me like some suit said, "We can charge more for 3D movies, make me a 3D movie", so someone did it, pasting in some floating doodads in post production

I actually was thinking halfway through that the film was rather boring. It was just visuals and nothing else.

I'll repost what I posted to my Facebook account:

Just saw "Gravity 3D" in IMAX. Some impressive visuals in space. From the camera's perspective up there, so round and perfect and tantalizingly close... And in addition to Sandra Bullock's butt in Spandex shorts, the view of Earth was cool, too!

LMAO

Dang, some profuse compliments going on about this, i'm sold.

I also hear we get a real nice shot of Sandra in some tights, so there always that.

How much more out of touch can someone be than this? Sheesh.

Almost everything you wrote here is wrong. It is probably the most realistic space movie ever made, widely praise by astronauts for crying out loud. "suspension of disbelief"? Even the nit-picky neckbearded nerds who pointed out the couple things that the director reluctantly had to do to make the story work, prefaced it with "don't get me wrong, its a great movie, but..."

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.

:shrug: I could hear people around me saying that it was boring as well.

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:

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.

So, you find it unrealistic based upon the previous Space Missions you've manned before?
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.

In a way, it makes sense. If you want this to be a visceral experience then don't tell us anything, just drop us into the situation without a word of explanation.

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.

Nerd celebrity e-hug for Cochise

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.

Read my post, specific to Bullock. I'm not a fan at all. I basically haven't liked her since Speed.

Yeah I saw that so it definitely gave me hope that I won't notice my dislike for her.

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.

Count me as not in her fan group, but did this and did it well.

How in Gods name could anyone not like Sandra?

Beautiful, talented and easily one of the most down to earth women in Hollywood, she has that "highly approachable" vibe.

I don't really find her to be very attractive for one and find that aspect of her to be very overrated. But beyond that, I don't see her as being very funny in her comedic roles or very believable as the characters she plays in her other roles.

I think she's cute and all, but mostly I find her waaaaay overrated in both the looks department and the talent department. She's adequate in most roles, but that's about it. There are 1,000 other actresses that could perform most of her roles equally or better.

Bullock is not only attractive but, according to Jesse James, a freak in the sack. What more can a guy ask for?