Gravity

Believe the hype. Go see it in 3-D (and IMAX if possible). The visuals are absolutely astonishing, and the human story works well, too. Terrific, affecting performance by Sandra Bullock.

It always irks me when sci-fi movies get the science wrong...near as I can tell, this one got everything right. There's one small, slightly improbable conceit that's necessary for the story to unfold, but I can imagine a reasonable explanation for it.

Actually, they did get some of the science wrong. Its kind of spoilery and the spoiler tags weren't working last I heard, so I'll not post it here. But if you google "gravity plothole" you'll find articles talking about what they goofed. According to the NASA astronauts who've seen the film, they did get lots of the science right, however, and my understanding is that screw up is minor.

I googled and, yep, that's the one (there's actually two problems of this kind in the film) I was referring to. But casual filmgoers won't notice it, only real space geeks. And it didn't hurt my appreciation of the film at all.

I'm hearing this same thing from several sources over the last few days. Really looking forward to this now.

Fantastic film, and an incredible visual experience. This is the best space-based movie ever made, even beating out 2001. I also agree with the one plot hole, but it's not a deal-breaker. In fact, it saved the movie from being a long, dull "float-in-space-until-our-oxygen-runs-out" film, which is kind of what I thought it would be. But the second and third acts really do make the movie much more exciting and suspenseful. And if you don't applaud at the end of the film, you have no soul.

Nothing beats out 2001, nothing.

Yeah, the "plot holes" are not a physical impossibility, it's just a couple of "conveniences" without which there could be no story. Again, I doubt most viewers will even be aware of them.

2001 was boring as whale shit with good practical SFX. but it was slow and ponderous, and the entire third act was only good if you dropped lots and lots of acid.

If you have such a mixed opinion of 2001, then it isn't really high praise when you say that Gravity is better than it, is it?
Personally, I think that if it's anywhere near the same league, it will be one of the best films for years.

Neil deGrasse Tyson weighs in.

http://www.darkhorizons.com/news/29012/neil-degrasse-tyson-gravity-facts-are-wrong

Tyson catches many more "errors" than I did (his third tweet is the one that really stood out to me), but, again, none of these keep it from being a terrific film.

And I'll take issue with his 2001 comment: though 2001 is a classic (and deservedly so), Gravity's depiction of people in space is far more astonishing.

On the contrary, Gravity is better than 2001 in practically every way. However, most film critics and buffs alike have been making the inevitable comparison of the two films, so I thought I'd toss in my two cents. There is still much about 2001 to be impressed with. As far as realistically portraying working in a zero-G vacuum, I give Gravity a higher rating for believability.

Does Gravity tell another story purely using its visuals? Does it leave anything open to interpretation? Does it make heavy use of symbolism? I haven't seen it yet, but it looks to me like Gravity is a pretty straightforward movie with a standard plot and method of storytelling. 2001 isn't - that's part of why it's a classic. It's Kubrick being Kubrick. It's not perfect by any means, but its definitely different, and it was well ahead of its time in many ways.

:roll: Naturally, for the Transformers generation, anything that goes longer than a few seconds without and explosion or shakey-cam bores them. Let alone something that asks for you to use some brain power.

Captain X doesn't like nu2001.

You are implying that those points alone are what makes 2001 a superior film, and I'd argue that in a lot of ways they are what hurt the film from a dramatic standpoint.

While told in a more linear fashion, Gravity is not your standard film. Cuaron has created a fantastic experimental film with a huge budget with minimal dialogue. While the story progresses from points A to B to C, there are moments that are a clearly left open for interpretation (no spoilers, but those of you who saw it know what I'm talking about). The opening shot of the film is over 13 minutes long with no cuts and told mostly from a visual perspective. It's hard to do shakey-cam in space, and most of the action is quite fluid as it would be in space.

As with all art, it's open to interpretation from each person who experiences it, and everyone will come away with a slightly different perspective. But overall Gravity is still a masterpiece of film making that I highly recommend.

Drama isn't the point of 2001, at least not in the standard sense.

2001: A Space Odyssey is a great, classic movie. I don't think Gravity is likely to be regarded as great in the same way--for one reason, its storyline is not apt to generate the endless discussion and speculation that 2001's did--but it is (1) terrifically entertaining and (2) an absolute masterpiece of visual storytelling.

Putting influence, significance, cultural importance, etc. aside, I think most modern audiences would enjoy Gravity much, much more than 2001. Not to say Gravity is the better film, but it is much more accessible and much more of a thrill ride.

Like I said, Transformers generation.

Oh... for god sakes, is there anything Captain X won't bitch about (other than crappy anime)?

Speaking of symbolism...the fetal Sandra Bullock was about as subtle as being beaten over the head with a crowbar

I enjoyed it and it is very visually impressive, but honestly I don't see what the massive hubbub is about.

I bitch about that, too.

Wow. I'm officially impressed. Didn't get a chance to see it on a 3D IMAX screen but boy did this work even on a large normal sized movie screen. The technology behind this movie is leaps and bounds beyond anything we have seen until today, and Cuaróns very long trademark shots make the best of it. I have never, ever wanted to see a very long, very detailed Making of... so badly. I think this will have a huge impact on how (space) movies are made from now on. Made the trailer for HOBBIT before it look tame and frumpy in comparison.

The 'human story' didn't really work for me. Too many standard tearjerker ingredients there. Great performance by Bullock, though. Clooney is Clooney and he fits the role perfectly. What I don't get are all the comparisons to 2001. Huh? I don't see it. Maybe in the FX department.

Absolutely astonishing and I doubt this will work on TVs at all. Go watch it in an IMAX theater (save the food for after the 20-minute-mark, there's a scene where it might come back up ) with Dolby Atmos if available.

9/10 'because my head is still spinning 12 hours later'

He didn't catch that one, did he. It's a throwaway line about her developing some scanner they wanted on the Hubble. His third tweet, yea, that stood out like a sore thumb but it was necessary for the story to work. Minor issue IMHO.

In hindsight, it most definitely does, especially in the third act.


SPOILERS AHEAD...
.



.




.




.




.


.



While we've already discussed the scene where George Clooney's Kowalski comes back and gives her a pep talk, there's one aspect to the scene that didn't hit me until further reflection. Most people think it was a dream brought on by oxygen starvation, but I've heard other theories that, in reality, Bullock's character actually died. So everything from Kowalski's pep talk to the end credits didn't really happen, at least in our physical reality. It's possible that she died, and everything else that happens afterwards is symbolic of her struggle to make it "home" (i.e. heaven). The impossible fact that she survived re-entry only to have her capsule sink so close to shore is pressing the limits of believability. But then even when she escapes the capsule it takes her an impossibly long time to get out of her space suit and make it to the surface. But if viewed from the metaphysical perspective, it's symbolic of her struggle to break free from her life and cross over to begin a new journey on a distant shore.

Not quite on the level of what the monolith represented, if the movie was edited in the wrong order on purpose, was the whole business with the monolith actually faked and the like. Not bad, but more Nolan or Verhoven than Kubrick.

WARNING: SPOILERS









I suppose Stone (Bullock) dying is one interpretation of the last few minutes of the film, but, without something firmer to suggest that's the case, I have to go with the straightforward interpretation. Clearly, the character has given up hope and is surrendering to death before the "visit" from Kowalski. But I don't think she dies because she remains in the same situation. The difference is that after her dream she has found the will to live and, subconsciously (via "Kowalski") has figured out how to save herself. When she lands on Earth, she hasn't crossed over into heaven, but she has been "reborn" into life (which fits with her "fetal" moment earlier). Much of the joy of life has clearly gone out of Stone since her daughter's death, and this experience has restored her determination to live.

I said to someone that the film made me think of that great line from The Shawshank Redemption: "Get busy living, or get busy dying."

I'm going to have to watch this movie at some point. Grad school.

i like the death interpretation. simple because stone kinda changes into a hollywoodian superhero afterwards, doing things that defy the realistic approach of the rest of the film. i mean come on, entering a crashing space station, getting to the capsule, stabilize it on the way down and land it right in the US of A, only to crawl on land after spending like three minutes under water?