criterionforum.org

http://www.filmfreakcentral.net/ffc/201 ... .html#more" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Chaw says it works really well as incredible spectacle (and, to paraphrase, implies that like Avatar pretty much the only way to fully appreciate it is watch it in IMAX 3D, which makes my wallet very upset) but the storytelling is so-so and it certainly isn't one of Cuaron's more artful films. This all sort of backs up my rough impressions of what I've seen, that Gravity is more of an impressive experience than it is a compelling narrative or provocative in terms of concept/theme. And that's fine, I just wonder if it'll suffer a severe loss of impact or involvement when you watch it at home (unless you have an ultra-expensive AV set-up).

Eh, Avatar was superior in RealD on regular screens than it was on IMAX 3D, so I don't know if Chaw's really all that informed when it comes to that implication. Even Cameron preferred the former. I think this is going to come down to personal choice, and this critic is certainly far outside of the consensus at this point with regards to the quality of the film as a whole.

I'm certainly not going in for IMAX 3D. The seats always tend to be too close to the screen (or hovering too high above it if you sit in the back) and my eyes have difficulty focusing on the entirety of the image. It turns out to be more of a headache than anything. 3D, if I must see something in 3D for some reason, always tends to work better from a balanced distance from the screen, where the entire frame can pop without having to crane your neck around to see everything.

Sorry, I think I was off-base on how I worded that part...I think Chaw's just saying this one needs to be seen in big-screen 3D, and then he was comparing the experiential factor to Avatar more in general.

I saw a sneak of this in Philly the other night in 3D. Is it Cuaron's greatest film? Certainly not (Children of Men is IMHO). But it sure packs a visual wallop. And the story, though simple, is pure cinematic economy; there is very little schmaltz here. It is a rare instance when drama seems wholly fresh; this is certainly the first movie to immerse the viewer so wholly in the experience of outer space. And despite the aritfice of its creation it seems wholly realistic. Bullock is phenomenal, the cinematography is spectacular, and the sound design is some of the most inventive in years. Oh, and It must be seen in 3D to get the full impact. It is certainly one of the best of the year.

Bret Easton Ellis is giving negative spoilers to the film on Twitter. Beware.

I think he can be a brilliant author at times but "Beware Bret Easton Ellis' Twitter" is universal advice

But you'd be missing out on some real appropriate, well-thought out gems!



Tell me more!

Someone should start spoiling his books on Twitter.

Why not? Plotting has never been an interesting part of any of his books.

Just came back from watching it (RealD 3D format, btw). I didn't find it as deeply profound and unique as Children Of Men altogether, but visually it tops anything I've seen in quite awhile. Bullock does surprisingly well carrying the film herself, and of course Clooney was born to play an astronaut so no surprise there.

flyonthewall2983 wrote:Just came back from watching it (RealD 3D format, btw). I didn't find it as deeply profound and unique as Children Of Men altogether, but visually it tops anything I've seen in quite awhile. Bullock does surprisingly well carrying the film herself, and of course Clooney was born to play an astronaut so no surprise there.

Just saw it too, What did you think about the amount of noise in the film? I was expecting to go into this and it almost be silent for a majority of the time but I was kinda bummed at how loud it was. Maybe its just because I thought the sound doesn't carry in space was going to be a bigger part of the picture.

I actually didn't find it to be that loud. I still had the memory of Metallica: Through The Never in mind, and ringing in my ears so comparatively it didn't feel like it was pumped up to 11.

Just got back, and this is in competition with Frances Ha for my favorite of the year- it's an action movie in a very specific sense, a movie in which more or less everything that happens in it is based on action and reaction and the laws of physics, and one where nearly everything proceeds logically without necessarily being predictable at any point. I liked the character arc with Sandra Bullock quite a lot, too, though

Spoiler

while I didn't take issue with the character shading angle of her having lost a child, that felt like something that would have worked better had it been kept more as subtext.

It's also maybe the best use of 3d I've ever seen- in a scene where the characters are flying through space shrapnel, I was involuntarily ducking, but it never felt like it had a cheesy IT'S COMIN' RIGHT AT ME quality. It helped to establish relative positions, who was where and how fast they were moving, and made perfect sense in a movie that doesn't really have an up or a down. Clooney came off like he's been playing exactly this role his whole career- effortlessly warm and in control, without feeling patronizing- and Bullock (of whom I'm not normally a huge fan) seemed perfect. It's the kind of thing where having two major movie stars, people who seem familiar without much establishment, seems exactly right.

I liked that this is an action movie with no human villains, and no point in which anyone acts with the intention of harming another human being: the only villains here are inanimate objects and the basic forces of the universe. With few exceptions, the physics of it all seemed like they made perfect sense (and the one major exception is one that seems like it would have an explanation, just not one that made immediate, visual sense:

Spoiler

in the scene where Bullock has to let Clooney go, it's not clear why he's continuing to drag on her after his momentum's been arrested, but it's possible that the chute they're clinging too is spinning and creating centrifugal effect, which would make sense- I'll have to watch it again for that bit.

It's overall the kind of movie that's solid and tight and well made, without necessarily being life changing; if I don't see anything I like better all year I'll be disappointed, but if this doesn't wind up in the top half of my top 10, that will represent a pretty amazing year. It certainly makes me hope that Hollywood and action filmmaking will be more in this mold in the future, and hope that Cuarón gets more work, and quickly.

Pure heart pounding, breath taking, jaw dropping cinema. I really recommend seeing it in 3D (The only time I've ever said that)

Easily the best of the three experiences with the format I've had. The fine detail of outer space, the debris and the view of earth felt so in-depth and real. Someone said it best on Twitter, that this is the movie everybody pretended Avatar was. And it looks like it's going to be this week's winner at the Box Office, too.

I wonder if 3D will work for those of us who wear glasses already for extreme nearsightedness?

Michael Kerpan wrote:I wonder if 3D will work for those of us who wear glasses already for extreme nearsightedness?

I can't speak for the nearsightedness but don't worry about wearing two pairs at the same time, the glasses are big enough to fit around your regular pair. Especially the IMAX ones which are huge.

Not worried about wearing two pair -- just whether the effect works properly for those of us who are hyper-myopic. ;~}

If there were an Oscar for Most Stressful Movie, it would surely go to Gravity. Cuarón and Lubezki have created a cinematic experience unlike any other. From the bravura 13-minute opening shot to the improbable conclusion, Cuarón ratchets up the tension to almost unbearable levels, then provides brief moments of relief, only to repeat the process over and over again. I think I audibly exhaled with relief at least half a dozen times during the 90-minute runtime.

The film's greatest accomplishment is its masterful use of space (and not just the "outer" kind). The choreography of movements of both camera and actors is masterful. The camera swings and arches and zooms, but in a very natural way and makes very natural transitions into extreme closeups, even seeming to go inside the astronauts' helmets. It gives everything a very grounded sense of structure and place. It feels real and dimensional. It is absolutely essential to see this film in 3D, and that's an admonition that I would almost never make. It is a post-conversion, but was designed that way from the start, and it shows. I've never seen the technology used better, and I can't imagine how this will translate to video.

I think that, if anything, the small screen will magnify the film's flaws -- mainly some embarrassingly clunky dialogue and a totally unnecessary backstory for Sandra Bullock's Dr. Ryan Stone. I'm going to care about a human being in constant, realistic, life-threatening peril without giving her a tragic past. Bullock handles it all with aplomb though. This is easily her best performance. It's emotionally demanding and doesn't allow her to rely on mugging and charm (traits which are appropriately saved for Clooney).

Cuarón, Lubezki, and Bullock are all bound to be recognized for their work repeatedly during the awards season. This may not be a masterpiece of a movie (for me, Cuarón's is Children of Men), but it is a masterpiece of technical filmmaking achievement, and it's an experience not to be missed.

Michael Kerpan wrote:Not worried about wearing two pair -- just whether the effect works properly for those of us who are hyper-myopic. ;~}

I'm pretty nearsighted myself, Michael, and the IMAX 3D worked great for me.

I'm nearsighted in one eye and farsighted in the other, and 3D generally works fine for me, other than having to blink really hard once in a while to "reset" my eyes (the 3D starts looking flat and then I just close my eyes for a few moments and it goes back to normal. Probably just me).

Anyone seen Cuarón offer any insight as to whether Bullock's character was originally written as a woman? Her masculine name seems either to be an indication of a different or open intent in casting originally or it could be a direct nod to Ripley in Alien, which is especially interesting considering the feel of Gravity has a lot in common with particularly the last ten or so minutes of that movie.

Sorry, in what way would the name "Ryan Stone" be a direct nod to the name "Ellen Ripley?"

The Ripley character was originally written as a man. They all were (and had one-word names), but the writers told producers that anyone could be changed to women if they felt it heightened the movie's appeal.

You learn something new every day. Thanks!