Gravity - Part 1

[jmc]

I must be the only one who thought the 3D was okay at best.

I didn't find it to be anything special, then again I get headaches watching 3D so it's not that special when you have to take the glasses off every 15 mins.

 

[redhawk23]

everything that was cgi had accurate 3d. the face was post converted. i think in the whole movie only 2 scenes were filmed on a real set inside the station.

maybe you didnt like the 3d settings that they used. the amount of 3D.

i think less is more always works the best with 3D movies. and i am happy that the 3D was inside the screen and not outside of it. its easier to belive that you are watching through a window.

I've never really had the effect with 3d ever. In fact the only time I've ever experienced anything at all fitting the whole "through a window" description was during the opening The Dark Knight Rises in IMAX.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

^Other than a few movies like Avatar, Dredd and STID, I think 3D is a waste of time, and now i prefer to see many movies in 2D, but Gravity is the 1st film I honestly cant imagine watching in 2D

Though I think the movie itself would be strong enough that it will still be very good in 2D.

 

[redhawk23]

The Avengers in 3d definitely had its moments, particularly with a lot of the Iron Man flight scenes. A lot of this had to do with Whedon purposefully including a lot of shot in tunnels or tight space in between buildings. Decent 3d has a lot less to do with being filmed with 3d cameras and a lot more to do with thinking things through.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

^I saw The Avengers 3 times at the cinema, one of which was a 3D showing, and it was the showing I enjoyed the least, the 3D for that didnt impress me at all.

 

[redhawk23]

It was the only Marvel movie for which the 3d was even okay I'd say. The other 3d releases they've had have all been awful.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

^Well I found them all to be awful, but thats been the case with many movies the last few years, not just Marvel. The only 3D movies that have impressed me were Avatar, Dredd, Transformers 3, Star Trek Into Darkness and Gravity.

 

[Destructus86]

^Other than a few movies like Avatar, Dredd and STID, I think 3D is a waste of time, and now i prefer to see many movies in 2D, but Gravity is the 1st film I honestly cant imagine watching in 2D

Though I think the movie itself would be strong enough that it will still be very good in 2D.

Agreed...when I buy 3D blu-rays it has to be pretty special for me to pay the extra money. Avatar being one of them as well as Into Darkness looked pretty amazing in 3D. Gravity is one I wouldn't even try to watch in 2D.

 

[Tequilla]

I saw both versions (just because of Cuaron !!!) and although Gravity is right next to Scorsese Hugo , the best motion picture using stereoscopic photography , 2d version is still way better. Compositions are cleaner. The movements are smoother. Those popups after a while get really repetitive , in a movie that already has a structure that might generate some fatigue. And the earth images are too color crushed . Goddamn they looked nice in 2d.

As for the film , its the culmination of the great work that mr. Lubezki and mr Cuaron have been doing. It's an opulent exercise of film technique and visual stimulation . Does that alone make it a great film ? No. It's a very interesting experience , and a fantastic achievement. Where it falls short is that after the first setpiece , comes a 2nd , and a 3rd , and a 4th. What connects them is a little flimsy . It's like a roller coaster that keeps going and going , and after a while the majestic feeling we get starts to evaporate.

But i totally respect his decision. He wanted the audience to go to Space with him , and that's exactly what we got. And because of that , and the realistic depiction he aims , i think the music is a little too much after a while. It tries to guide us in the danger , but the images and the silence of the loneliness are much more menacing. Not that the actual ost isnt good , but it clashes a little bit with how everything else is done in the movie.

Kudos to WB. They made a risky film. They promoted it well. They had faith in their director. They showed the audience something new. Something different. And they were rewarded by it. A great example of how studios can push technology , technique , film structure , storytelling and at the same time have complete faith in their directors and the audience. A success well earned.

 

[dark_b]

f... yeah. i saw it again. 10/10 from me

 

[jacobed]

I saw both versions (just because of Cuaron !!!) and although Gravity is right next to Scorsese Hugo , the best motion picture using stereoscopic photography , 2d version is still way better. Compositions are cleaner. The movements are smoother. Those popups after a while get really repetitive , in a movie that already has a structure that might generate some fatigue. And the earth images are too color crushed . Goddamn they looked nice in 2d.

As for the film , its the culmination of the great work that mr. Lubezki and mr Cuaron have been doing. It's an opulent exercise of film technique and visual stimulation . Does that alone make it a great film ? No. It's a very interesting experience , and a fantastic achievement. Where it falls short is that after the first setpiece , comes a 2nd , and a 3rd , and a 4th. What connects them is a little flimsy . It's like a roller coaster that keeps going and going , and after a while the majestic feeling we get starts to evaporate.

But i totally respect his decision. He wanted the audience to go to Space with him , and that's exactly what we got. And because of that , and the realistic depiction he aims , i think the music is a little too much after a while. It tries to guide us in the danger , but the images and the silence of the loneliness are much more menacing. Not that the actual ost isnt good , but it clashes a little bit with how everything else is done in the movie.

Kudos to WB. They made a risky film. They promoted it well. They had faith in their director. They showed the audience something new. Something different. And they were rewarded by it. A great example of how studios can push technology , technique , film structure , storytelling and at the same time have complete faith in their directors and the audience. A success well earned.

i agree about the music especially in the first action.scene

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Agreed...when I buy 3D blu-rays it has to be pretty special for me to pay the extra money. Avatar being one of them as well as Into Darkness looked pretty amazing in 3D. Gravity is one I wouldn't even try to watch in 2D.

Yep, same here, I will probably watch Gravity in 2D at some point, but it wont be by choice.

I saw both versions (just because of Cuaron !!!) and although Gravity is right next to Scorsese Hugo , the best motion picture using stereoscopic photography , 2d version is still way better. Compositions are cleaner. The movements are smoother. Those popups after a while get really repetitive , in a movie that already has a structure that might generate some fatigue. And the earth images are too color crushed . Goddamn they looked nice in 2d.

As for the film , its the culmination of the great work that mr. Lubezki and mr Cuaron have been doing. It's an opulent exercise of film technique and visual stimulation . Does that alone make it a great film ? No. It's a very interesting experience , and a fantastic achievement. Where it falls short is that after the first setpiece , comes a 2nd , and a 3rd , and a 4th. What connects them is a little flimsy . It's like a roller coaster that keeps going and going , and after a while the majestic feeling we get starts to evaporate.

But i totally respect his decision. He wanted the audience to go to Space with him , and that's exactly what we got. And because of that , and the realistic depiction he aims , i think the music is a little too much after a while. It tries to guide us in the danger , but the images and the silence of the loneliness are much more menacing. Not that the actual ost isnt good , but it clashes a little bit with how everything else is done in the movie.

Kudos to WB. They made a risky film. They promoted it well. They had faith in their director. They showed the audience something new. Something different. And they were rewarded by it. A great example of how studios can push technology , technique , film structure , storytelling and at the same time have complete faith in their directors and the audience. A success well earned.

Its nice to know the movie is still amazing in 2D, I thought it would be, but I truly loved the 3D on this one.

 

[AnneFan]

So I saw Gravity. Glad I did.

It feels refreshingly old school with a real emphasis on the characters, with genuine tension and atmosphere. They really nailed the dead silence that is the void of space.

It's a tight plot and uses its time effectively. Bullock was good and Clooney was ace. Warm and calm.

Overall, I walked out thinking there should be more movies like this. It lived up to the praise.

 

[Tequilla]

Watching Gravity reminded me how much i would have loved to see Fincher do the 20.000 film. Good budget , his eyes , and the vastitude of water.....

 

[dark_b]

disney would never give him the freedom. to bad

 

[Teelie]

I came back from seeing it not too long ago. It's definitely a good movie. They really sold the story and zero gravity feel to it. Felt very realistic.

 

[AnneFan]

They really sold the story and zero gravity feel to it. Felt very realistic.

There were people on the edges of their seats when I saw it, commenting how good it was afterwards. If you don't grab onto something up there, you're gone. Forever.

When Clooney's character seemingly came back what were other people thinking at the time?

 

[lime]

When Clooney's character seemingly came back what were other people thinking at the time?

In my IMAX theater people started to cheer when he ''came back.'' Then when Dr. Stone turned and he was gone there was an uproar and a loud ''Noooo''

It was great. Haven't seen this kind of a reaction since the final totem scene in Inception.

 

[Liam_H]

Confused at first but once he opened the hatch without giving her time to put the helmet back on I knew he wasn't real.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

There were people on the edges of their seats when I saw it, commenting how good it was afterwards. If you don't grab onto something up there, you're gone. Forever.

When Clooney's character seemingly came back what were other people thinking at the time?

I was confused at 1st but something tipped me off to it not being real, it may have been him opening the hatch and Bullock not having reaction despite having no helmet on. I am glad he was just a dream though.

 

[Teelie]

That was the only scene I got spoiled on because some inconsiderate reviewer threw it out there in the review title about how it was "bad" or that people didn't like it or something.

 

[Raiden]

In my IMAX theater people started to cheer when he ''came back.'' Then when Dr. Stone turned and he was gone there was an uproar and a loud ''Noooo''

It was great. Haven't seen this kind of a reaction since the final totem scene in Inception.

My wife's only complain about the movie is that Clooney did not come back for real. Clooney's effortless charm in this movie really worked and made every scene he's in a joy to watch.

 

[dark_b]

 

[antsman41]

This was by far the most I've ever like Sandra, and the hottest she's ever been.

 

[Teelie]

Interesting considering she wanted to be as androgynous as possible and avoid being too feminine for the role.