This might be the most shallow movie I've ever seen. Only redeeming qualities were Clooney's banter, the no-gravity scenes and Bullock's MILF factor (man is she fit for her age).
How is this getting such great reviews? It's garbage depth-wise
Honestly, you're basically watching it for the wrong reasons. I think everyone agrees that you're not going in for a great character study on what Chris Hadfield might have been thinking when he was up in the ISS. You're watching it for the magical filmmaking prowess being put on display.
Honestly, you're basically watching it for the wrong reasons. I think everyone agrees that you're not going in for a great character study on what Chris Hadfield might have been thinking when he was up in the ISS. You're watching it for the magical filmmaking prowess being put on display.
There is no overriding theme and there's no point to the movie till it's almost done. They should have tabled this until they actually had a story to tell. So disappointing.
Forget Inception, I would compare this to Life of Pi. That's how you do this genre IMO
There is no overriding theme and there's no point to the movie till it's almost done. They should have tabled this until they actually had a story to tell. So disappointing.
Forget Inception, I would compare this to Life of Pi. That's how you do this genre IMO
There is no overriding theme and there's no point to the movie till it's almost done. They should have tabled this until they actually had a story to tell. So disappointing.
Forget Inception, I would compare this to Life of Pi. That's how you do this genre IMO
There is no overriding theme and there's no point to the movie till it's almost done. They should have tabled this until they actually had a story to tell. So disappointing.
Forget Inception, I would compare this to Life of Pi. That's how you do this genre IMO
I disagree with you harshly Cloudy. Gravity most definitely had a story to tell, and it told it in spades. Sure it wasn't Inception levels of complexity, but a story doesn't have to be Miller's Crossing in order to be good and effective.
It's okay if you didn't care for it, but man I just can't see how anyone who watched this movie could think your way about it...
I didn't hate it but I went in with super-high expectations and it didn't come anywhere close. It's not even as good as Oblivion or Man of Steel IMO (2 movies that were widely trashed).
I didn't hate it but I went in with super-high expectations and it didn't come anywhere close. It's not even as good as Oblivion or Man of Steel IMO (2 movies that were widely trashed).
I didn't hate it but I went in with super-high expectations and it didn't come anywhere close. It's not even as good as Oblivion or Man of Steel IMO (2 movies that were widely trashed).
I didn't hate it but I went in with super-high expectations and it didn't come anywhere close. It's not even as good as Oblivion or Man of Steel IMO (2 movies that were widely trashed).
I thought it was pretty damn great. I don't know why you guys hate the film's story. It's a simple story about trying to survive in a place humans are not designed to survive in. There are a few nice themes tied in, such as Sandra Bullock learning to let go of past tragedies and find a reason to live in the present and fight to survive. If there was "more" story, it would have bogged things down.
In terms of movies about space, I think this is probably one of the better ones. Totally captured both the majesty of being in space, as well as the hostility.
There is no overriding theme and there's no point to the movie till it's almost done. They should have tabled this until they actually had a story to tell. So disappointing.
Forget Inception, I would compare this to Life of Pi. That's how you do this genre IMO
40 minutes drive back home from the theater and could not stop talking about the film. What a spectacle! The tension my lady and I felt was palpable. Definitely worth the drive to see it in 3D - I never thought I'd find myself wanting to recommend the 3D version over the 2D iteration. I am so happy I read spoiler-free reviews beforehand to see if 3D was worth the extra scratch. Can't wait to purchase when it hits Blu-ray.
Incredible film. I was in awe for the entire thing.
I saw it in 2d, because i didn't want to ruin my first viewing with the issues that plague current 3d for me, but i'll make an exception and watch it in 3d for my second viewing.
Just watched with the GF. I read reviews, knew what to expect (no testosterone/alien bullshit/ thriller...), and we were blown away. I wouldn't call it a 'movie' per se; rather an experience (an innovative new type of genre - Simulated Suspense/Suspense Documentary?). Didn't want to see in 3D but had to bc that was only what was being offered at the time, but that god I did see it in 3D. There is really no other way to watch it, and I now understand why non 3D ticket times were limited.
I didn't hate it but I went in with super-high expectations and it didn't come anywhere close. It's not even as good as Oblivion or Man of Steel IMO (2 movies that were widely trashed).
Incredible film. I was in awe for the entire thing.
I saw it in 2d, because i didn't want to ruin my first viewing with the issues that plague current 3d for me, but i'll make an exception and watch it in 3d for my second viewing.
There is no overriding theme and there's no point to the movie till it's almost done. They should have tabled this until they actually had a story to tell. So disappointing.
Forget Inception, I would compare this to Life of Pi. That's how you do this genre IMO
This is not a sarcastic or rhetorical question. I'm also not trying to 'trick' you into answering a certain way, and there is no real 'right' or 'wrong' answer. I am curious, because I think your comments imply a certain philosophy you hold toward what movies are meant to do, and I don't want to reply to your critiques before knowing how you stand on this.
There is no overriding theme and there's no point to the movie till it's almost done. They should have tabled this until they actually had a story to tell. So disappointing.
Forget Inception, I would compare this to Life of Pi. That's how you do this genre IMO
No theme? You mean you completely missed all the symbolism of Survival and Rebirth?
The bit where she goes onto the station, curls up into the fetal position, and a cord hovers upwards from her belly-button? Where she crawls out of the ocean, and symbolically walks for the first time?
Like, my only complaint with this movie was that they hit you over the head with the symbolism...
Mainly, I think they have to tell an interesting story with memorable characters. Music, cinematography and special effects also count but the story and characters are the main thing for me. Gravity wasn't particularly interesting or compelling and if you took away the special effects, it would be utter crap IMO...
It seems for a lot of folks here, the way the movie is shot counts as much (if not more) than the actual substance of the movie. I am not criticizing any of the technical aspects cos they were amazing. I just feel that the most memorable things from Gravity have nothing to do with the actual plot or acting..
PS: What's the music in the trailer? I really liked that
I think I tend to agree with these a bit. I also liked Inception, but I know saying one likes certain movies may tend to make other people completely discard your opinion on anything as "Oh, well they liked Inception, pshhhh".
I got back from seeing it a bit ago, in 3D. I like seeing movies with neat special effects, or art style, or what-have-you. For example:
* I liked the visual style of a movie, I think it was called 9 or something, associated with Tim Burton, with the little sackboy robot things. It may have been a terrible movie, but the visual style was awesome.
* I liked TRON Legacy for the awesome visual style, and the soundtrack, even if the movie itself might have not been as good as the original. I don't know -- I didn't see that one.
* I liked Oblivion for the special effects that were noteworthy, to me, by NOT looking like they were special effects. Things just looked normal, or were really beautiful. The moon effect looked neat though it probably did look more special-effecty than the rest.
Now all that said, Gravity (spoiler parts MAY BE SIGNIFICANT SPOILERS):
* The trailer annoyed me with Sandra Bullock's lines, and the movie was much the same. There is a great deal of "AH AH AH AH AH AH AH AH AH AH AH" with her panicking. Now this is perhaps realistic for someone who has only been trained
6 months
, but still, it came across as a bit irritating.
* The movie annoyed me with (relatively early spoiler):
There was what felt like 15 minutes of chattering when Sandar Bullock just said she had like 1% of oxygen left and she needs to conserve it. Or, she just said she has NO oxygen and her suit is running out. Okay yes you need to stay calm, but if you are trying to survive, quit talking about your life or something and focus on getting to an airlock!
* The movie had some nice near-earth space scenery. Some of the stuff like scenes
inside one of the space stations
made me think CGI pretty heavily, but it was a nice-looking movie. I liked the scenery
back near, and on, earth
.
* ENDING SPOILER ENDING SPOILER:
I was hoping they would at least show a helicopter or something. The way the movie ended was basically like "Well with no GPS, they could actually never locate Sandra Bullock, and she tragically starved to death, hahaha." I know they were probably trying to indicate with the radio spam at the end that a rescue mission was being sent...so maybe she was lucky and landed near somewhere with ground-based radar? It still looked remote, like a lake in China or something, but what do I know.
Overall, there were some nice visual aspects, and if you like space station or near-earth stuff it could be kind of cool, but the dialogue marred it a bit in my opinion.
Mainly, I think they have to tell an interesting story with memorable characters. Music, cinematography and special effects also count but the story and characters are the main thing for me. Gravity wasn't particularly interesting or compelling. If you took away the special effects, it would be utter crap IMO...
It seems for a lot of folks here, the way the movie is shot counts as much (if not more) than the actual substance of the movie. I am not criticizing any of the technical aspects cos they were amazing. I just feel that the most memorable things from Gravity have nothing to do with the actual plot or acting..
I would say as to your analysis as to what the movies strengths are, you're not off the mark. The technical skill on display in the directing and special effects is truly astonishing. On these grounds, we can say that if one is a fan of things like cinematography and directing and special effects, you and I would probably both agree the movie is phenomenal, right?
In this regard, if someone held these things as supremely important, just as important as the things you mentioned, that they would find it exactly as great as the hype around this film had suggested. The problem I think is how you're defining 'substance.' There is more to study in a single shot of this movie than most movies. Is it not 'substance' to understand the incredible skill and complexity a shot requires, and to be able to analyze precisely how the director, animators and visual effects artists pulled off a scene? This is substance, it's merely substance of a different sort.
More significantly, however, is the troubling way in which it seems you define 'substance' as it relates to plot and characters. How precisely would you have expanded the plot or characters in a way that made sense for the story Cuaron was trying to tell? If you cannot think of a way, does that mean you see no place for films that are about as 'simple' as two characters surviving?
Reduce this thought even further. What about a movie in which the only thing that happens is two people having a conversation? The only thing that happens in the movie is let's say a discussion of their relationship.
Would you say that this movie is possible to have 'substance'? What complexity might we add to improve this? How would we change this to make this movie favorable for your point of view?
I don't think the details of Gravity's plot or characters are very deep. Yet, I do not think this is equal to having no substance. So, it is now important to discuss what it is exactly substance means. How would you define it?
On these grounds, we can say that if one is a fan of things like cinematography and directing and special effects, you and I would probably both agree the movie is phenomenal, right?
I would agree that the cinematography, directing and special effects were phenomenal. I wouldn't say the movie was though...
It just feels like the story was added as an afterthought or secondary to the concept of what they wanted to do.
IMO good movies have the special effects and technical stuff take a backseat to the story and the characters.
Gravity felt like the characters and plot were tacked on and the spectacle of the movie was the main event. That might work for many people but not for me
How precisely would you have expanded the plot or characters in a way that made sense for the story Cuaron was trying to tell? If you cannot think of a way, does that mean you see no place for films that are about as 'simple' as two characters surviving?
Okay I'll bite. I'd have shown how things happened in Ryan's life to give them more impact to the viewer. This is because I feel a movie fails if you don't care about the characters (this can be a positive or negative caring).
I didn't care about Ryan because I wasn't made to and thus was indifferent to her fate. This is what I mean by a lack of substance...
What about a movie in which the only thing that happens is two people having a conversation? The only thing that happens in the movie is let's say a discussion of their relationship.
Gravity felt like the characters and plot were tacked on and the spectacle of the movie was the main event. That might work for many people but not for me
There are narrative driven movies and thematic driven movies. Both can be good, but one type is not better than the other. Gravity is a thematic movie allowing the audience to experience a specific event along with a character. Having more "plot" would defeat the entire purpose of the movie. I think there are acceptable criticisms about how the movie is rather melodramatic for the purpose of heightening tension, but saying that the movie needs more "depth" is probably the most shallow observation I have read so far. Lol.
There are narrative driven movies and thematic driven movies. Both can be good, but one type is not better than the other. Gravity is a thematic movie allowing the audience to experience a specific event along with a character. Having more "plot" would defeat the entire purpose of the movie. I think there are acceptable criticisms about how the movie is rather melodramatic for the purpose of heightening tension, but saying that the movie needs more "depth" is probably the most shallow observation I have read so far. Lol.
Okay I'll bite. I'd have shown how things happened in Ryan's life to give them more impact to the viewer. This is because I feel a movie fails if you don't care about the characters (this can be a positive or negative caring).
I didn't care about Ryan because I wasn't made to and thus was indifferent to her fate. This is what I mean by a lack of substance...
So it is the level of detail that we receive about an individual's life that describes the depth of a movie? What about a short film like The Red Balloon, which is about a boy's day with a balloon? It has almost no dialogue and we learn almost no personal or background history about its protagonist. Is this fundamentally of less merit therefore?
What about a film like Jan Svankmajer Alice, which is a surrealist movie classic, a odyssey that literally bathes in its sheer visual absurdity, and in which exists no sequential timeline of events for which viewers can anchor their experience. It's a sheerly visceral experience, from start to finish. It also utilizes very little dialogue. We also learn very little about our characters. And yet, in many ways it is just as challenging a film from an intellectual perspective as The Godfather.
The point I'm making is that a goal may be to analyze something at the broad scale or the micro scale, or to focus on something other than what is traditional. For example, for a certain movie it may be completely unimportant to the film's goals if the audience knows even a single detail about the character's life. In fact for some films such knowledge might distract from its intent, in some way bias the audience toward expecting this or that out of the plot or believing the answers are more definitive than they really are.
There are entire masterpieces of film out there that contain no dialogue and no details about most or any of the characters. Do you merely think critics and movie viewers are being pretentious when they praise these sorts of movies?
So from this, the implication is you do believe those films have no merit, is that correct? Or at least, not enough merit to be considered 'good films'?
