Gravity

[Man in the Suit]

Well, even if you were to completely ignore the abundance of revolutionary ideas, story telling, and unprecedented film production that define the brilliance of 2001 (which you clearly have decided to do), any perceived flaws that you conjure about the movie do nothing to defend the lackluster of film making that is Gravity.

Yeah, Cuaron and Lubezki sure are bums.

 

[kedrell]

Gravity has characters that go throughout it's runtime and it tells a story with them. A simple survival story to be sure, but simple =/= bad. 2001 has NO characters except for maybe Hal and that doesn't show up until over an hour into the film. 2001 tells no story outside of the Hal vs. astronauts bit which is a small part of the overall film. The rest is just dead air story and character-wise. Yes, 2001 was a TECHNICAL achievement but I don't show up to see a SFX demo reel, I show up to watch a movie and that means story and characters that can make me care about what is going on onscreen. 2001 miserably fails at that. All the technical whoopla in the world means didley squat if you have no story to tell with it. It's obscurantism(which I hate in all forms) at it's worst and most self indulgent. They basically throw a bunch of crap onscreen and say "You interpret it". NO! I'm not writing the movie for them. That's THEIR job.

 

[Asr]

She can apparently read various languages (why wouldn't the ISS have an English translation?)

Sanda Bullock's character was clearly using logic & her intuition to figure out the controls, not trying to read other languages. She was using a computerized system, which one would expect to have some sort of consistency across foreign-made space shuttles.

No clue how you got the idea that she had an ability to read the foreign languages. It's like using Microsoft Windows in another language (or any other localized software) - all of the buttons/controls are the same, it's just the text everywhere that's different.

 

[Octoberist]

@Motown

I've joke around with you a few months ago stating that anytime I see you post something, you're complaining about something or disliking a movie. You've said it's just bad timing on my part but in this case, this is too much of a coincidence! And I'm not saying this out of malice or anything but just, now when I see you post, it's almost expect complaints!

 

[slumcat]

Gravity has characters that go throughout it's runtime and it tells a story with them. A simple survival story to be sure, but simple =/= bad. 2001 has NO characters except for maybe Hal and that doesn't show up until over an hour into the film. 2001 tells no story outside of the Hal vs. astronauts bit which is a small part of the overall film. The rest is just dead air story and character-wise. Yes, 2001 was a TECHNICAL achievement but I don't show up to see a SFX demo reel, I show up to watch a movie and that means story and characters that can make me care about what is going on onscreen. 2001 miserably fails at that. All the technical whoopla in the world means didley squat if you have no story to tell with it. It's obscurantism(which I hate in all forms) at it's worst and most self indulgent. They basically throw a bunch of crap onscreen and say "You interpret it". NO! I'm not writing the movie for them. That's THEIR job.

Whoa dude! 2001 is actually telling a very very large story, spanning millions of years but its just that the story is told very loosely and very obliquely.

I for one think its story is really monumental and epic.

 

[jmc]

Sanda Bullock's character was clearly using logic & her intuition to figure out the controls, not trying to read other languages. She was using a computerized system, which one would expect to have some sort of consistency across foreign-made space shuttles.

No clue how you got the idea that she had an ability to read the foreign languages. It's like using Microsoft Windows in another language (or any other localized software) - all of the buttons/controls are the same, it's just the text everywhere that's different.

Clooney specifically said the Chinese capsule was essentially the same as the Soyuz one. It was an educated guess on her part.

 

[kedrell]

Whoa dude! 2001 is actually telling a very very large story, spanning millions of years but its just that the story is told very loosely and very obliquely.

I for one think its story is really monumental and epic.

I'm glad for you that you were able to take away that from 2001. All I got from it was crap floating in space.

 

[nightwing06]

Gravity is an adventure that takes place 372 miles above earth and Director Alfonso Cuarón and an incredibly
talented SFX team go to great lengths to make the audience feel like they are part of the adventure.
The SFX and 3D in the film is seamless.This is immersive and involving 3D.Unlike gimmicky 3D in which you see
about 3 or 4 overhead shots of characters falling off a building,or a creature or ship rushes towards you.
Cuarón enwraps the audience with long views of the vastness of space and the beauty of Mother Earth.
Visuals are coupled with a soul stirring score,and we are immediately attached to the characters.

George Clooney as veteran astronaut Matt Kowalski is his usual charming,commanding,back to charming self,
but this is Sandra Bullock as Dr. Ryan Stone show all the way.She grounds the film with the characters personal
story of loss and steady persistence to try to reach point A to B to hopefully make it back to Earth.

I applaud writer Jonás Cuarón for providing surprises in a screenplay that could have been one note,the fact that he
includes so many symbolic moments that include,fatih,death,life, and evolution into a 90 minute time frame is worth high
praise alone.

Gravity is also a life affirming film,which includes making peace with the past but never forgetting it.
I hope someone is considering making this one of those 4D experiences at Madame Tussauds,well at least a
10 minute version of it.

Gravity is one of the best experiences i have had at the theatre ,and its also one of the best movies of the year.

Scale of 1-10 a 10

 

[Kane52630]

The thought of even considering to compare Gravity to 2001: A Space Odyssey is borderline offensive.

Exactly, Gravity was so much better in every way.

 

[kane9321]

This movie was incredible...Visually stunning. This is a must see in 3-d imax..just wow

 

[redhawk23]

Gravity has characters that go throughout it's runtime and it tells a story with them. A simple survival story to be sure, but simple =/= bad. 2001 has NO characters except for maybe Hal and that doesn't show up until over an hour into the film. 2001 tells no story outside of the Hal vs. astronauts bit which is a small part of the overall film. The rest is just dead air story and character-wise. Yes, 2001 was a TECHNICAL achievement but I don't show up to see a SFX demo reel, I show up to watch a movie and that means story and characters that can make me care about what is going on onscreen. 2001 miserably fails at that. All the technical whoopla in the world means didley squat if you have no story to tell with it. It's obscurantism(which I hate in all forms) at it's worst and most self indulgent. They basically throw a bunch of crap onscreen and say "You interpret it". NO! I'm not writing the movie for them. That's THEIR job.

There is an overall arc throughout 2001, but it is for the entire species. That may be too abstracted to carry dramatic weight for you but to claim the film doesn't have a story completely misses the point which, frankly, is your problem, not the film's.

 

[kedrell]

There is an overall arc throughout 2001, but it is for the entire species. That may be too abstracted to carry dramatic weight for you but to claim the film doesn't have a story completely misses the point which, frankly, is your problem, not the film's.

I don't think you can tell a story without characters. Maybe a documentary but that's not what 2001 presented itself as.

 

[Heretic]

There's nothing I like more about movies than when I spend hours or days after seeing it thinking about it, working the details out in my mind, figuring out what the movie means or at least what it means to me.

I guess some people like to have all the dots connected for them, and then have it explained before the credits roll.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

lol 2001. It's probably been 20 years since I saw that turd and I still want my time and money back. Possibly the most over-rated movie of all time. Kubrick's head was ALL THE WAY up his own ass, and it shows. I'm not surprised Gravity is superior.

 

[slumcat]

I don't think you can tell a story without characters. Maybe a documentary but that's not what 2001 presented itself as.

I think you might have a limited view of story-telling then.

I think a part of the audacity of 2001 as a narrative is that it tells a story very unlike anything every seen before.

 

[Marvin]

There is an overall arc throughout 2001, but it is for the entire species. That may be too abstracted to carry dramatic weight for you but to claim the film doesn't have a story completely misses the point which, frankly, is your problem, not the film's.

Often times films go over people's head. It's typical forum procedure to belittle the films in this scenario.

That being said, 2001 had very minimal plot. Something many critics will shout at the top of the mountains is important...

 

[Whiskey Tango]

I guess some people like to have all the dots connected for them, and then have it explained before the credits roll.

Often times films go over people's head.

This thread definitely needs more of these little passive-aggressive cheap shots at peoples intelligence. Seriously kids, not everyone is going to like the same things as you. If you can't handle that simple fact you need to think about growing up.

 

[Heretic]

Mine wasn't a cheap shot. It is very, very clear that I am in the minority of movie-goers. I watched Upstream Color with a group of people and I loved it while everyone else hated it. They said that they didn't get it and flat out said that they expect a movie to tell them a clear story that they can follow and then have an understandable conclusion that does not require further thought.

 

[redhawk23]

This thread definitely needs more of these little passive-aggressive cheap shots at peoples intelligence. Seriously kids, not everyone is going to like the same things as you. If you can't handle that simple fact you need to think about growing up.

Not everyone has to like 2001, or anything else that I like, but lets be honest about the content of the film and discuss that rather than just writing it off. Opinions can't really be right or wrong but they can be poorly informed or articulated.

But whatever, this is the Gravity thread.

 

[redhawk23]

lol 2001. It's probably been 20 years since I saw that turd and I still want my time and money back. Possibly the most over-rated movie of all time. Kubrick's head was ALL THE WAY up his own ass, and it shows. I'm not surprised Gravity is superior.

Not really, particularly since it was written in conjunction with Arthur C Clarke and was expanding off ideas previously examined in some of Clarke's earlier writing. The film is pretty simple. You just failed to engage with it. Now there are a number of reasons why you may not have been able to level with the film (your tastes may simply lean towards more dramatized or character based narratives) but that doesn't mean the film itself is hallow or "up its own ass."

 

[Marvin]

This thread definitely needs more of these little passive-aggressive cheap shots at peoples intelligence. Seriously kids, not everyone is going to like the same things as you. If you can't handle that simple fact you need to think about growing up.

I hate 2001, mostly for the reasons described in this thread.
I also think often times films go over people heads(if you don't think that ever happens you'd be wrong). What ever is happening between you and that film aside, that doesn't change the validity of that observation. It happens.

What's interesting is how the reception of that film changed between the time of it's release and much later.

I however, was mostly elaborating on the post I was responding to and how that pertains to the way shh usually operates.

 

[roach]

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/gravity-review-by-astronaut-buzz-639883

Buzz Aldrin liked the movie and called it realistic. He's been in space. He would know.

 

[QBComics]

I find both Gravity and 2001 to be incredible pieces of film! Weird idea nowadays, I know.

Seriously, they're two very different movies when you look past the fact they both take place in space.

 

[kedrell]

I think you might have a limited view of story-telling then.

I think a part of the audacity of 2001 as a narrative is that it tells a story very unlike anything every seen before.

I know Kubrick has been quoted as saying he was looking for a way to change the very nature of how stories are told and as a goal that's a laudable one. Innovation needs to be there. The problem as I see it is that he changed the form so much that the movie stopped being a movie and more of a moving painting that you'd hang in a museum. And while that may be art, it isn't a movie. A movie requires story, characters, etc. At least that's what's expected from virtually every movie that's ever been made. Somehow, 2001 gets an exception from this and I don't get it at all. Now, to be clear I think Kubrick is one of the best directors of all time but I don't think he was a very good writer.

 

[ThreadPool]

Saw it. Yes, the story was pretty straightforward and clichéd. The performances were solid. What makes this film what it is, too me, is the technical achievement.
"...lackluster film making..."
I get not really liking the movie, but that is some amazing hyperbole.
I've gotta go with a strong 8, leaning towards 8.5.