I think it looks amazing, i've been waiting for this film to come out for well over a year now (it's release got delayed for almost a year due to the post-production). I think it's going to be a bit like a smaller scale Avatar, as in the plot or cast isn't that good but the visuals will be stunning.
I heard it has a 17 minute shot :eek: They have released one trailer where its all one shot and it's breath taking.
I'm a fan of Sandy's so I think she'll be fine but I can understand other's having reservations about her. I think it would have been interesting to see Natalie Portman or Marion Cotillard instead as they are very capable actors, I can imagine Portman in the role so it's a shame she couldn't do this film. However, i'm glad they didn't go with Angelina Jolie (she asked for $20m for it) or Scarlett Johansson and Blake Lively as I think they couldn't carry the film
as Clooney's role dies early on, so it's all Sandy basically
I think Sandy was the best choice out of the last 4 i've mentioned.
RDJ was attached to film but had to drop out so that would have been interesting, I love him as an actor but not sure if he suited the role in this.
But, similar to Cuaron's Children of Men, I'm wondering if this is an exceptional piece of film-making, but not quite an exceptional film (if you see what I mean).
Anyhow, I'm very much looking forward to seeing Clooney doing his eyebrows thing in a space helmet in IMAX 3D.
Its opened very well in the US, looks to be a smash. A shame we have to wait another month for it as its opening in a lot of big global markets this weekend.
I too was astounded at the reviews. Just a few from a message board I frequent:
One of the most riveting and beautiful films I have seen in years. The cinematography was a feast for the eyes. It was so intense at times, a real edge-of-your-seat thriller, and completely different than any space movie I have ever seen. I'm so glad I saw it at a theater that shows it in 3-D, which I highly recommend, as it really brings you into space. Even tears rolling off Sandra Bullocks face I felt I could reach out and touch. Don't miss "Gravity" if you want something truly mesmerizing to watch and experience. Surely one of the best film spectacles of the year.
I saw it last night; such a visceral experience and it really moved me. Sandra's performance was so authentic and it showed the depth she could display. My heart literally pounded throughout the entire duration of the film!
Of course there were a few that joked about Sandra Bullock WITHOUT having seen the film yet, but it truly sounds like this IS the film to see!
Well this is interesting. The trailer I saw made it look like Open Water - utterly avoidable. Not really getting the hate for Bullock to be honest. I thought it would be rubbish because it was a dull premise not because Bullock was in it.
I'll just get annoyed with it. The ISS, the Hubble and the tiny Chinese station are in totally different orbits and it is physically impossible to do what she dies in the film.
Also it takes hours to put on and take off a spacesuit not just a few minutes.
No doubt dumb media hacks will prattle on about howrealistic it is.
I'll just get annoyed with it. The ISS, the Hubble and the tiny Chinese station are in totally different orbits and it is physically impossible to do what she dies in the film.
Also it takes hours to put on and take off a spacesuit not just a few minutes.
No doubt dumb media hacks will prattle on about howrealistic it is.
Did you see Neil deGrasse Tyson's Tweets about it?
. tbf, I call her that as well (but I'm not a mate).
Was a bit meh about this, but intrigued now by stonking reviews and Cameron's plug. Sounds like one for cinema (rarely go now due to chompers and phone ********s, so might try an early matinee) or blu-ray.
Well this is interesting. The trailer I saw made it look like Open Water - utterly avoidable. Not really getting the hate for Bullock to be honest. I thought it would be rubbish because it was a dull premise not because Bullock was in it.
Me neither. She's no Meryl Streep but I've not seen a film where I didn't like her performance.
Had Sandra not won Best Leading Actress for The Blind Side, I would have backed her to win it for Gravity. Absolutely stellar performance. Now I just cannot accept her being better (in terms of BLA count) than the other one-BLA winners (eg. Kate Winslet, Maggie Smith, just to name a few) because her acting is really limited.
Okay. The film. What a breath-taking journey and the conclusion was epic. There was a message behind the whole film and it was well elucidated. I can see this film get 8-10 noms next year.
Cheers as I suspect I'll just get annoyed with it. I could put up with the factual errors in Apollo 13 as they were done to either compres events or just to help story telling, but I won't be able to stand thick media hacks ignoring serious technical flaws.
No doubt people will say oh it's just a film, but the same people then don't understand when NASA say that space rescue is almost impossible.
Imagine the outcry from luvvies if a film about Shakespeare showed him writing using a typewriter
Imagine the outcry from luvvies if a film about Shakespeare showed him writing using a typewriter
That would rest on the whole context of such a premise.
Question is, how much does scientific accuracy matter in the context of Gravity? Are they really, honestly selling it that way?
It was never one of Hollywood's strongest points, and as you say, discrepancies are there to move along the drama. They're pretty much a given and many viewers won't be aware of the liberties taken anyway (Gravity is obviously made for a wide, general audience - you'd have to be pretty churlish to blame them, btw). Surely it's better to judge these things on their own terms rather than by a rigid set of expectations stemming from your own advanced knowledge, no?
That would rest on the whole context of such a premise.
Question is, how much does scientific accuracy matter in the context of Gravity? Are they really, honestly selling it that way?
It was never one of Hollywood's strongest points, and as you say, discrepancies are there to move along the drama. They're pretty much a given and many viewers won't be aware of the liberties taken anyway (Gravity is obviously made for a wide, general audience - you'd have to be pretty churlish to blame them, btw). Surely it's better to judge these things on their own terms rather than by a rigid set of expectations stemming from your own advanced knowledge, no?
Actually it's from the media who are calling it a "serious science fiction" film. Those sorts of films obey the knows laws of Physics and technology.
I don't mind Gravity being seen as a load of sci fi nonsense like Independence Day or Mission to Mars, but it shouldn't be seen as a serious film.
I'm not doubting it will be visually stunning or even enjoyable, but critics should not call it a serious sci fi film.
Actually it's from the media who are calling it a "serious science fiction" film.
Are they really? A lot of reviews centre on the survival in space aspect rather than any deviation into hard-edged scientific speculation, and the comparisons to 2001 seem purely visually based. Maybe there's a twist at the end?
I suppose the whole isolation/dependency on technology angle will be mined for social/thematic relevancy. Bearing in mind the old adage that science fiction is about the future but actually about now, perhaps Gravity is more SF than you think.
Comments
e.g. http://www.aintitcool.com/node/64457
Wasn't that interested, but am now!
Sandy?
Really looking forward to this next month.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/gravity_2013/
But, similar to Cuaron's Children of Men, I'm wondering if this is an exceptional piece of film-making, but not quite an exceptional film (if you see what I mean).
Anyhow, I'm very much looking forward to seeing Clooney doing his eyebrows thing in a space helmet in IMAX 3D.
Of course there were a few that joked about Sandra Bullock WITHOUT having seen the film yet, but it truly sounds like this IS the film to see!
Also it takes hours to put on and take off a spacesuit not just a few minutes.
No doubt dumb media hacks will prattle on about howrealistic it is.
Did you see Neil deGrasse Tyson's Tweets about it?
http://www.theverge.com/2013/10/7/4811336/neil-degrasse-tyson-isnt-falling-for-gravity
Was a bit meh about this, but intrigued now by stonking reviews and Cameron's plug. Sounds like one for cinema (rarely go now due to chompers and phone ********s, so might try an early matinee) or blu-ray.
Me neither. She's no Meryl Streep but I've not seen a film where I didn't like her performance.
It's a shame we have to wait so long for it here.
So out of everything I wrote and all the other posts on here, that's what you comment on? :rolleyes:
No, i'm not her mate, but most people know that's a nickname for her and if you see, I also shorten down other names too.
She's the main star.
Okay. The film. What a breath-taking journey and the conclusion was epic. There was a message behind the whole film and it was well elucidated. I can see this film get 8-10 noms next year.
Cheers as I suspect I'll just get annoyed with it. I could put up with the factual errors in Apollo 13 as they were done to either compres events or just to help story telling, but I won't be able to stand thick media hacks ignoring serious technical flaws.
No doubt people will say oh it's just a film, but the same people then don't understand when NASA say that space rescue is almost impossible.
Imagine the outcry from luvvies if a film about Shakespeare showed him writing using a typewriter
Question is, how much does scientific accuracy matter in the context of Gravity? Are they really, honestly selling it that way?
It was never one of Hollywood's strongest points, and as you say, discrepancies are there to move along the drama. They're pretty much a given and many viewers won't be aware of the liberties taken anyway (Gravity is obviously made for a wide, general audience - you'd have to be pretty churlish to blame them, btw). Surely it's better to judge these things on their own terms rather than by a rigid set of expectations stemming from your own advanced knowledge, no?
Actually it's from the media who are calling it a "serious science fiction" film. Those sorts of films obey the knows laws of Physics and technology.
I don't mind Gravity being seen as a load of sci fi nonsense like Independence Day or Mission to Mars, but it shouldn't be seen as a serious film.
I'm not doubting it will be visually stunning or even enjoyable, but critics should not call it a serious sci fi film.
I suppose the whole isolation/dependency on technology angle will be mined for social/thematic relevancy. Bearing in mind the old adage that science fiction is about the future but actually about now, perhaps Gravity is more SF than you think.