Main Menu

Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 28, 2024, 08:02:11 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Gravity

Started by Noodle Lizard, October 08, 2013, 10:03:51 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Noodle Lizard

Didn't see a thread for it, surprisingly (come on, guys).

I just saw it tonight (IMAX 3D).  I won't go into much detail now, but I place myself firmly in the "Looks amazing but actually kind of sucks" camp.  It's a shame because I've really liked everything Mr. Cuaron has done ('Harry Potter' aside) and had high hopes for something as ambitious as this.  Watching 'Y Tu Mama Tambien' all those years ago, I'd have never imagined that I'd one day criticise him for style over substance, but ...

I think if you are going to see it, do so in the cinema; preferably IMAX and 3D is probably worthwhile too.  For all my problems with it, it's probably the most technically-impressive film I've seen in a long time. 

Olarrio

In which country do you live to have seen it?

Sam

I think he mentioned living in Canada at one point.

El Unicornio, mang

It's been getting fantastic reviews. 8.7 on imdb, also, putting it at 43 on the top 250.

Blumf

Nobody is sure where Noodle Lizard resides, he doesn't like to talk about it, which leaves many to conclude it's somewhere dire, like Angola or Lincoln.

This film then; is it just the tale of two astronauts caught outside when shit happens and then... what? They must die right? But it's touching and reaffirming or some shit? Can't say anything I've noticed that has made me want to watch it.

Noodle Lizard

Quote from: El Unicornio, mang on October 09, 2013, 10:41:27 PM
It's been getting fantastic reviews. 8.7 on imdb, also, putting it at 43 on the top 250.

For reference, 'The Dark Knight Rises' had around 9.1 when it opened which put it at #1 (i.e. best film of all time) in the IMDb top 250.  Their system is hugely flawed.

The reviews are mostly good, but if you read them they tend to praise the visuals and technological innovation (which do deserve praise) but almost every one I've read has at least hinted that the story is lacklustre and the dialogue is almost entirely complete shit (complete with a headache-inducing amount of "space one-liners").

I didn't know when I started the thread that it still hasn't been released in most of Europe, so I won't go into too much detail until more people have seen it.  Not that there's a whole lot to spoil, mind, you can see what's coming if you've seen any survival film ever.

Olarrio

I only became aware of it this morning. Looks well worth a look, although apparently a respected astrophysicist has denigrated some of the science behind it. But then, so what? I say. I have my foibles with Avatar so

Sam

Saw the trailer in the cinema and it looked stunning.

It should be noted that the cinematography is by Emmanuel Lubezki, who's shot the last three Malick films. It's interesting to see how he's bobbed back and forward between the two directors, starting with Cuaron. Lubezki was an amazing cinematographer before Malick, but since then he's gone to stratospheric[nb]pun intended[/nb] heights.

When Lubezki started working on The New World he called John Toll[nb]DP on The Thin Red Line[/nb] in a panic, cos Malick was being a maverick motherfucker, shooting everything in natural light without watching dailies. Toll said to trust in Terry, that the results would work. After that Lubezki shot Children of Men in natural light.

Another influence is the 360 movement, the move away from theatrical style sets so that the camera operator can go in any direction, with the use of wide angle lenses to allow the viewer to focus on any element of the frame. The car chase scene in CoM is marked by extremes of camera movement and in Gravity similar effects seem to be used to give the it a 'non-filmic' scope.

Anyway, my point is that Lubezki is at the top of his game at the moment and all his work on Malick films cannot fail to have brought something fresh to this. It will be worth seeing for the technical elements. Plus, it's a piece of spectacle that's not a sequel or fucking comic book.

Noodle Lizard

Yeah, as I said, it looks great and the technology is probably more impressive than 'Avatar' just because it's set in the real world (well, space anyway) and looks 100% convincing[nb]moreso than the actual moon landing footage anyway, EH GUYS?[/nb], and it's got plenty of the trademark long, complex sequences with no obvious cuts.  It's also worth mentioning that, regardless of what you think of her as an actress, Sandra Bullock had an extremely hard, endurance-testing job making this work.

The problem is that the story is completely mundane, the dialogue is poor even by traditional action movie standards and one lengthy sequence in particular is more or less repeated twice in a row.  And some bits are just plain stupid.  The fact that James Cameron says it's the best movie about space that he's ever seen says a lot about his attitudes towards what makes a great movie now (i.e. predictable, uninteresting plots and bad dialogue are fine so long as the film's pretty enough).

So eh ... once again, see it in the cinema, it's better treated as a VFX reel of sorts than an actual movie.

CaledonianGonzo

I am motivated to see this. When does it migrate to these shores? Still a few months away?

Noodle Lizard

Quote from: CaledonianGonzo on October 10, 2013, 05:39:53 AM
I am motivated to see this. When does it migrate to these shores? Still a few months away?

November 8th for the UK, I believe.  Weirdly, it's already out in most of Europe and the rest of the world, not sure what the logic is there.  Staggering release dates hasn't been a good idea for a long time.

vrailaine

Hardly will matter much with this one though, definitely feels like something to see in the cinema.

The Rotten Tomatoes stats are ridiculously high (think it's at 9.1/10 and 9.3/10 for top critics, which means almost everyone is giving it five stars) considering most of the reviews I've read have said that the story and all that is kinda crappy. It must look amazing, I haven't seen a single video of it though.

Noodle Lizard

I think it was the same with 'Avatar' when that came out - everyone was giving it 5 stars despite very clearly saying the story was far too derivative and the dialogue was painful.

Saw this today. It was alright. I didn't read any of the reviews but now I'm seeing the hugely positive ones, I'm a bit surprised. It's looks pretty nice but still very blockbuster-y. Generally I'm not wowed by blockbuster action sequences but this had two ones that I found breathtaking. In that I was literally holding my breath. Doesn't happen much for me, but overall, it was a slightly above average formulaic blockbuster.

That said, Sandra Bullock's tiny shorts make up for all the clunky dialogue. I give it 10/10.

It was released here the same time as wherever it is that Noodle Lizard lives I believe. Seattle. San Diego.
I just haven't had a chance to go out and see it till today. No idea why it's not out in the UK yet. Maybe they're going to concentrate a big press campaign in the meantime. Get Clooney and Sandra down to England for junkets and build hype.

Noodle Lizard

Just to clarify for those wondering, I live in Guam.

You know, this film was the first time I've actually liked Sandra Bullock. I think she does really well, given the script she has.
The script isn't bad in terms of the plotting and stuff. All of what happens is good stuff, although not particuarly brave or groundbreaking.
Just the characters and dialogue are arse.

Yet Sandra came out on top for me. Clooney's always likable but he feels like he's just, I don't know, just being who he always is. Sandra seemed to be giving it a red hot go.
Plus, as I've already mentioned, she wore very tiny shorts. The kind that cosmonauts wear.

 

Noodle Lizard

Quote from: Bored of Canada on October 14, 2013, 01:03:01 AM
You know, this film was the first time I've actually liked Sandra Bullock. I think she does really well, given the script she has.
The script isn't bad in terms of the plotting and stuff. All of what happens is good stuff, although not particuarly brave or groundbreaking.
Just the characters and dialogue are arse.

And the plotting.  Or at least the "what happens".  Did you not get a little tired of the same thing essentially happening twice in a row?

QuoteClooney's always likable but he feels like he's just, I don't know, just being who he always is. Sandra seemed to be giving it a red hot go.

I actually felt he was being who Robert Downey Jr. always is.  I then later discovered that the role had been written for RDJ, who dropped out and was replaced by Clooney.  Evidently they didn't change the script at all.

#17
Quote from: Noodle Lizard on October 14, 2013, 04:13:04 AM
And the plotting.  Or at least the "what happens".  Did you not get a little tired of the same thing essentially happening twice in a row?

Eh. Nah. I think it presented a reasonable enough logic for me to believe that, albeit in a blockbuster kind of way.
Didn't effect my experience at all.

Space is pretty empty. In fact, it's VERY empty by definition.
Despite the beauty and tension of it, there's not much around and not much you can do with it without resorting to fantasy or sci fi elements, so it made sense to me about all that.

It was just the three-act structure of setting up the obstacle in the first act, then repeatedly throwing more and more obstacles that hinders their ultimate goal that they try and solve, until the end of the second act where they've no path to go-one and the character hits rock bottom.

I think in the internal logic of the film. They set up the reason for the problem in that first act pretty clearly. Which in this case, is a Hollywood style thing that's going to cause lots of exciting explosions and stuff, but I still buy it because matches up with everything I'd been presented with.

Quote from: Noodle Lizard on October 14, 2013, 04:13:04 AM
I actually felt he was being who Robert Downey Jr. always is.  I then later discovered that the role had been written for RDJ, who dropped out and was replaced by Clooney.  Evidently they didn't change the script at all.

Well, he's not much different from his role in the Oceans films. That's where I know him best from, personally. They have that similar wry, dry, charming handsome fella thing going for them. I can totally get that it was for Robert Downey Jr but I think I prefer Clooney in this one. Clooney was starting to grate on me with how aloof and comic-reliefy he was. Felt like he belonged in a different movie and it would have been a bit more tense if he felt a bit more real and fallible. RDJ would have brought it even further and probably would have gotten on my tits a lot more.
Then again, he does feel slightly more fallible and can bring a bit of pathos to roles when he wants. But again, that's a problem with the script and direction more than the actors.


What'd you think of the soundtrack? I normally don't pay attention to the soundtrack but it was really annoying me this time. I've never been so aware of the music in a film before. It was just really intrusive. It just felt off a lot of the times. I mean,
Spoiler alert
I should have been terrified at that point where the base is initially blowing up but the soundtrack is all wrong and it just...doesn't really feel like it gives it any weight.
[close]
I was engaged with visuals but I just couldn't stop hearing the soundtrack.

I think it was because the scenes that are almost entirely silent are so much more compelling. I'd really like to see a cut that's all diagetic sound.
I mean, it seems like a long shot but they probably thought about it. Maybe there's an alternate commentary track when they release it or something.
Doubt it, but that'd be really cool. I would have been more ill at ease and tense if it was constantly just silent, with muffled thumps and the tinny radio chatter. It'd feel so oppressive and constantly be reminding you that space is fucking scary and will kill you instantly.



EDIT: Is it literally just you and me who didn't love this movie, Noodle Lizard? I've just been talking with all my film loving friends who think it's the greatest thing ever.
That soundtrack criticism I posted above is really about my own taste and opinion but everything else we both said I find to be relatively accurate. I feel like I'm completely alone on this. Am I actually an idiot?

Noodle Lizard

You seem to like it more than I do, because I really have nothing good to say about it except for technology and visuals (and even as far as visuals go, they basically just did a good job of making it look like they were really in space, it's nothing on something like 'Kwaidan' or even '2001'). 

I agree that if they'd cut virtually all of the dialogue (especially Sandra cracking little John McClane Die Hardisms to herself at any opportunity) and ignored that fucking dead child therapy shit it would have been a more compelling experience.  It could have been improved by being so much less conventional than it was in almost every way actually - I don't know what I was expecting, but I kept waiting for something to come along and subvert any expectations I could have from a space disaster movie, and yet somehow we get something that's about as bland as 'Armageddon'.

We're not the only ones who don't love it.  In my personal experience, the friend I saw it with (who was incredibly enthusiastic) was nonplussed, his dad hated it, my very easily-pleased mother had pretty much the same reaction as me, and a few other people could only really talk about how good it looked.  I guarantee you that once it's out of the cinemas nobody will give a shit until Oscar season, and after that it'll just go away.  Maybe that's why they decided to stagger the release dates among the major moviegoing countries, just to prolong the hype while it's still relevant.

Quote from: Noodle Lizard on October 14, 2013, 07:12:24 AM
You seem to like it more than I do, because I really have nothing good to say about it except for technology and visuals (and even as far as visuals go, they basically just did a good job of making it look like they were really in space, it's nothing on something like 'Kwaidan' or even '2001'). 

I agree that if they'd cut virtually all of the dialogue (especially Sandra cracking little John McClane Die Hardisms to herself at any opportunity) and ignored that fucking dead child therapy shit it would have been a more compelling experience.  It could have been improved by being so much less conventional than it was in almost every way actually - I don't know what I was expecting, but I kept waiting for something to come along and subvert any expectations I could have from a space disaster movie, and yet somehow we get something that's about as bland as 'Armageddon'.

We're not the only ones who don't love it.  In my personal experience, the friend I saw it with (who was incredibly enthusiastic) was nonplussed, his dad hated it, my very easily-pleased mother had pretty much the same reaction as me, and a few other people could only really talk about how good it looked.  I guarantee you that once it's out of the cinemas nobody will give a shit until Oscar season, and after that it'll just go away.  Maybe that's why they decided to stagger the release dates among the major moviegoing countries, just to prolong the hype while it's still relevant.

Yeah, I mean, I found it average and inoffensive, with a few glimmers of good. I'll never think about the film again, I don't think.
But it's just all my friends are raving about it, and quite a lot of the reviews seem to be the same. I was just asking them about and it and they just had a completely different experience to me. Generally our opinions align but I feel like I'm going crazy with this one. It's a safe average blockbuster. There's absolutely no reason for it to be held up so high by these people. I really liked Children of Men, but this isn't anything like Children of Men. It has long takes, but they're not particuarly as impressive due to the fact that it's all CGI. It just felt like a video game to me. I play a lot of video games and my friends who are raving about it don't. Perhaps that's why it wasn't a particuarly unique visual experience for me as it was for them.

Noodle Lizard

Well, the long takes in Children of Men were aided by CGI too.  I mean, just from what little we know about how this was all done, it really is impressive (and conjures up the brilliant of Sandra Bullock being flung into this big spinning robot for 8 hours a day), but as I've already said (and will no doubt say again):  JUST MAKE A VFX REEL. 

Or better yet, make a really good film with a really good story and characters and dialogue and enhance it with super great technological effects.

prwc

I worked at the second UK screening of it so have got to see it a bit earlier than most here. Thoroughly unimpressive. I didn't expect it to live up the hype it has been getting by any means, but aspects of it were outright bad. 2 parts,
Spoiler alert
The shot of the photo of the family of the first astronaut who died
[close]
and the
Spoiler alert
return of George Clooney
[close]
, made me actually think "Oh fuck off". So many shots were blatantly designed to milk the 3D rather than seamlessly integrate it too, so I can imagine it being even worse at home. If you're really into special fx it's worth a look, though at that budget it's not much of an achievement to have strong fx. Nothing else about it rises above average, a lot of it I even found below average.

Quote from: prwc on November 06, 2013, 11:59:19 PM
I worked at the second UK screening of it so have got to see it a bit earlier than most here. Thoroughly unimpressive. I didn't expect it to live up the hype it has been getting by any means, but aspects of it were outright bad. 2 parts,
Spoiler alert
The shot of the photo of the family of the first astronaut who died
[close]
and the
Spoiler alert
return of George Clooney
[close]
, made me actually think "Oh fuck off". So many shots were blatantly designed to milk the 3D rather than seamlessly integrate it too, so I can imagine it being even worse at home. If you're really into special fx it's worth a look, though at that budget it's not much of an achievement to have strong fx. Nothing else about it rises above average, a lot of it I even found below average.

Yeah, I think it's good for a generic blockbuster film, and it looks nice enough. But I'd never say it was great. I'd say it was merely alright. A bit above average.
But a lot of reviewers, and my flippin' friends won't stop raving to me about it, I'm getting progressively more and more bitter towards it and am desperately trying to retain my initial impression which was, "Yeah, that was good enough, I guess".

It did actively make me cringe and I don't do that in films a lot.
Spoiler alert
The photo of family
[close]
definitely agreed.
Spoiler alert
Clooney's return I immediately pegged as a hallucination. If it wasn't, I would have fucking told it to fuck off though.
[close]

Clooney in general actually fucked me right off constantly. Completely infallible, never stopped wise-cracking. Felt like he belonged in a different movie.

I feel I've spoken enough about it, but the characters are terrible.
Spoiler alert
Sandra's character has that one moment where she tells the emotional story that's supposed ti be her one chance to give that character some depth, but it's all told, not shown. I preferred that they keep it all up in space, but it's not effective to just offer hacky heart-string tugging exposition. It was executed hugely poorly. Give her something else to make us understand what's driving her, or not driving her.
[close]

Felt like the script needed at least another two drafts, working on the dialogue and the characters. These are things I genuinely believe and they're also things I don't criticise about films much. This film genuinely felt inexplicably underdeveloped for a mainstream Hollywood blockbuster.

Shoulders?-Stomach!

Quote from: El Unicornio, mang on October 09, 2013, 10:41:27 PM
It's been getting fantastic reviews. 8.7 on imdb, also, putting it at 43 on the top 250.

Welcome to the most overrated form of appraisal in modern culture.

Santa's Boyfriend

Kermode says it's worth seeing in 3D.

In other news, Pope says Islam is the best religion.

ZoyzaSorris

Come on you fucking chin-stroking film studies fannies, you'd have to be a real sourpuss not to get a visceral buzz out of this. Yes the sentimental elements were unnecessary and added nothing, but it looked fucking amazing and sounded great too. A real rollercoaster style experience. Possibly the most impressive looking film Ive ever seen Id say, and despite the tacked on emotional baggage, quite a nice brave format too in its minimalism.

Quote from: ZoyzaSorris on November 09, 2013, 08:20:14 AM
Come on you fucking chin-stroking film studies fannies, you'd have to be a real sourpuss not to get a visceral buzz out of this. Yes the sentimental elements were unnecessary and added nothing, but it looked fucking amazing and sounded great too. A real rollercoaster style experience. Possibly the most impressive looking film Ive ever seen Id say, and despite the tacked on emotional baggage, quite a nice brave format too in its minimalism.

YOU COULD SAY THE SAME ABOUT AVATAR.[nb]Not the minimalism one, mind, but everything else.[/nb] Visuals do not immediately make a film great.
If the script is sub-par, then we're allowed to be critical. I think it's a good film, far from a great one though.

Anyway, a weird thing I've been wondering about since I've seen it: I play lots of video games.
But a lot of people who've been blown away that I know don't play video games.

This film felt hugely inspired by video games in all of its biggest moments, and a lot of the visuals and bombast that does happen didn't seem quite as impressive to me as it did others. I'm wondering if that's a weird by-product of that other medium for me? Or is this just completely unrelated? I'd say either may be correct. I keep thinking about that but I just don't know if they're related.   

ZoyzaSorris

Was a bit like dead space at times.

Shoulders?-Stomach!

Heart stopping
Unsurpassed

The human story was designed to be fairly mundane and routine, even hackneyed. It makes no apology for that and it's done in the most perfunctory way to guide you into thinking This is not what the film is really about. The mechanics of the plot are staid, even laughable for such a linear storyline. It doesn't matter. Its a simple trigger point to greater things. The director invites you to think about existence itself.

The end scene as an allegory to man evolving from the water was primordial triumphant, just the biggest rush! When does hollywood give you such adventurous, moving Art? The latin temperament really shines through. It's romantic, sentimental and down on your haunches filthy, stinking with sweat and toil fucking ace- and then the actual end G R A V I T Y was awesome, how about that folks F U C K  Y O U!

The film gives so much. I can't quite get over it. It's not perfect but the intent and the bravura of the execution is as I mentioned, unsurpassed.

As it's copped criticism on here just let me recommend the hell out of it.

Sandra Bullock is very androgynous, even purposefully unlikeable to an extent. It's all about giving you the most obscene peril and spectacle and juxtaposing it with the most simple human instincts.

I left the film shaken physically, I felt almost there. I was moved emotionally, it made me think about things. And it made me feel uplifted, insanely so. It made me think cinema is fucking amazing! I am not sure what highs you guys are on but this was enough for me.

Quote from: Shoulders?-Stomach! on November 10, 2013, 10:35:58 AM
Heart stopping
Unsurpassed

The human story was designed to be fairly mundane and routine, even hackneyed. It makes no apology for that and it's done in the most perfunctory way to guide you into thinking This is not what the film is really about. The mechanics of the plot are staid, even laughable for such a linear storyline. It doesn't matter. Its a simple trigger point to greater things. The director invites you to think about existence itself.

The end scene as an allegory to man evolving from the water was primordial triumphant, just the biggest rush! When does hollywood give you such adventurous, moving Art? The latin temperament really shines through. It's romantic, sentimental and down on your haunches filthy, stinking with sweat and toil fucking ace- and then the actual end G R A V I T Y was awesome, how about that folks F U C K  Y O U!

The film gives so much. I can't quite get over it. It's not perfect but the intent and the bravura of the execution is as I mentioned, unsurpassed.

As it's copped criticism on here just let me recommend the hell out of it.

Sandra Bullock is very androgynous, even purposefully unlikeable to an extent. It's all about giving you the most obscene peril and spectacle and juxtaposing it with the most simple human instincts.

I left the film shaken physically, I felt almost there. I was moved emotionally, it made me think about things. And it made me feel uplifted, insanely so. It made me think cinema is fucking amazing! I am not sure what highs you guys are on but this was enough for me.

You nicked that word for word from my retrospective analysis on Herbie Goes Bananas, you thieving pringle.