Gravity

[CaledonianGonzo]

Agree with Shoulders.  This booted my ass from here to kingdom come.  During the

Spoiler alert

first debris strike

[close]

I genuinely thought I was about to have a panic attack.

The human story at the middle of the film is adequate, fit for purpose and competently enough written and performed - but holy shamoly that's all it really needs to be given the AWESOME GIGANTIC SPACE KABLOOIE that happens during the other 99.9% of the film's running time.

I have never known the like.

KABLOOIE!

[Artemis]

((SPOILERS BELOW))


Just back from this, in 3D. I had the added bonus of a bunch of fucking FOREIGNERS talking loudly all the way through which means I'll be watching it again because the use of silence in this is so absolutely crucial.

I thought it was fantastic, but not phenomenal. As other have said, the initial act of jeopardy is basically repeated twice but we don't know the characters in any way that deepens our commitment to them on each occasion. Space itself felt more formed as a character than either Clooney or Bullock. The latter performed very well, I thought. It's great to reminded that Bullock is actually a very competent actress. Clooney  however basically farted around space on his little thrusters being George Clooney, never once remotely panicked about anything at all. I know that was designed to counter Bullock's panic, but I thought we might at least see him break a sweat when he detached himself for the final time. But no. He just drifted off into space being George Clooney.

Visually, it was incredible. Given none of this was shot at zero-gravity, it makes this movie a benchmark in effects, like Jurassic Park, The Matrix or Avatar was. Movies that have to create the technology needed to be made deserve huge credit, and they pulled it off brilliantly with this. I was frequently in awe of what I was watching and felt fully immersed.

Like I said, I'll watch it again. I loved it, but was frustrated that the dialogue didn't match the visuals. As they drifted together above the Earth looking gorgeous, there was scope for some real existential pondering but instead we got a clunky bit of characterisation ("I HAD A LITTLE GIRL BUT NOW SHE'S DEAD") which doesn't even come up again until right at the end in a awkwardly scripted monologue. I didn't care enough about Bullock or her dead daughter to be bothered about that emotionally.

On a side note, who on earth talks at full volume through a film like this? They were asked to keep quiet but didn't. The staff didn't seem to care. Urgh.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

It isn't about that. Its asking questions and exploring what it means to be alive. The characters don't need anymore than perfunctory back stories and it is explicitly flimsy. Theyre ciphers to an extent- Bullock was really good but the point is it couldve been anyone. The film was more interested in what drives humans and the context.

Theres always a danger when you make something trading on its effects that people may overlook the fact its trying to actually say something too.

You didn't feel it but nay matter I guess.

[Noodle Lizard]

It was saying the same thing as literally any other "survival" film, though.  More or less every film is "saying something".  What's really saying something is if people think 'Gravity' actually had interesting themes.

Will anyone watch this the whole way through at home?

[Sam]

Praise be for gravi-tee

No you're WRONG the CHARACTERS weren't good enough and THE STORY was too thin and all that shit you liked was just TECHNICAL stuff and ISN'T ENOUGH and it's just STYLE OVER SUBSTANCE and  THE CHARACTERS WEREN'T LIKEABLE and THE STORY was too PREDICTABLE.

It doesn't matter that Cuaron is a great director or that Chivo is the best cinematographer in the world or that it's treating cinema as spectacle or that it's an original screenplay or that it's different to everything else out now or that the visual element is pushed to the forefront. No that doesn't matter because it's not a good FILM because it's not enough like a BOOK or the THEATRE and story story resolution story three acts story style over substance story story other films I've seen and story cinematography not enough and story story jackanory...

[Artemis]

Yeah yeah, but Clooney was shite.

[Noodle Lizard]

When "it's an original screenplay" is one of the major things going for it, that says quite a lot about the state of films today.

If you read my initial review, I said that I'd actually prefer it if they'd foregone any attempts at "story" and gone for an entirely visceral experience. It's a shame to me that they had to tarnish that with tedious action movie clichés and weak sentimentality, I think I could have sat more comfortably with a more or less dialogue-free version of the same thing[nb]perhaps get rid of the 20-30 minute repeated sequence too[/nb]. 

But if you're going to try and inject story and characterisation in there, you should do it well, and they didn't.  That's my point - it is a traditional, formulaic, three-act story, just done badly.  As such, I can't say it's a great film because it fails at everything except for impressive visuals.

[scarecrow]

The bit where she

Spoiler alert

swims into all the plant life

[close]

is hilarious. Have audiences besides mine been laughing at that?

[CaledonianGonzo]

Tipping that frog for best supporting actor at next year's Oscars.

[Mr Eggs]

Bullock was really good but the point is it couldve been anyone.

My main pisser with the film. No need for Bullock/Clooney but without them the cash would have gone west. How nailed on for an Oscar would Bullock be if

Spoiler alert

she'd have drowned at the end?

[close]

Damn good use of 3D. I had to use my mind to overcome a duck reflex

[Sam]

If you read my initial review...

My silly splurge was not directed at you or anyone on this thread in particular. I've made my thoughts clear about the visual element of films before and so I'm just riding in on my hobby horse. I haven't even seen the film!

I can't say it's a great film because it fails at everything except for impressive visuals.

That kind of view does bemuse me, but I think I'm in the minority.

[George Oscar Bluth II]

I'm glad some people who actually liked it showed up, cos I was proper bemused reading Noodle Lizard's posts on this. I mean, yeah Bullock's backstory is sort of perfunctory and not really needed but...who gives a shit? There's all kinds of incredible space shit happening, it looks amazing, it's the tensest film I've seen since...well since Captain Phillips actually but that's not my point. It's REALLY TENSE. The effects are amazing. And it looks INCREDIBLE beyond anything I've probably ever seen?

I do think it'll be proper disappointing to see on a TV, mind.

I also appreciated the way Clooney's pissing around on the space chair thing ultimately killed him in the end. Ha.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

Fails at everything except visuals? Ridiculous appraisal

-Tense? Yes
-Exciting? Yes
-Respecting intelligence of the audience? Yes
-Ace frog? Yes
-Unorthodox kickass ending? Fuck yes
-Bringing in elements of independent film making to hollywood? Yes
-Asking philosophical questions and that? Yes
-Inventive use of angles and experimentation with the form? Yes
-Convincing central performance? Yes
-Elements of horror and shock? Yes

I think you're thinking of Prometheus.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

I'll now tell you for balance what I didn't like.

The cut to the dead person's family photo was so bad, so emotionally manipulative and hackneyed it was like a turd being dropped onto a luxurious banquet.

The level and scale of events at points overwhelms things. Seeing the ISS ruined makes you wonder why we're still giving a shit about one person. The pinnacle of human endeavour fucked to bits over a small fire and some satellite debris. Meh. That really was Prometheus level of retrograde bullshit justification. However, by the end you see the directors intent. Rhe scale of the ambition surpasses her character, she is a sleeper/cipher type, alpha/omega, she is just the Human. It makes far more sense to think of the film that way.

And yeah, thick things happening in space sucks.

That's about all I can think of.

[George Oscar Bluth II]

Well all the people got off the ISS, so it didn't matter THAT much.

What I did like was how short it was. It was a 90 minute story, it lasted 90 minutes. I'm sure they could have lengthened it by showing what was going on at Houston, or having an epilogue, or lengthening the pre-disaster bit and showing us some more of everyday life on the shuttle...but they didn't because they didn't need to. A really refreshing attitude in a movie world where directors (and studios) appear to believe that unless a film breaks at least two hours it's lightweight shit.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

The destruction of the greatest present construction in human history doesnt matter that much?

It's a good job this wasnt a Roland Emmerich film or whatever that cunts called. The director here does ultimately indicate the film is not about that, but a tribute to survival and rebirth. It was annoying its destruction is not placed in any context but I suppose we are invited to entertain the rather nihilistic thought that it's a load of bullshit anyway. It might take me a while to get my head around that part.

You're damn right about the perfect running time. So lean, and even the end which usually wouldve had a long emotional family scene was a hugely unexpected, powerful kickass statement about being alive. Seeing Bullock standing there with a huge smirk before it signed off, awesome specimen that she is, just made me want to leap off the seat and punch the air.

[Artemis]

-Respecting intelligence of the audience? Yes

Why do you believe this to be true? I saw nothing you had to be intelligent to understand.

-Ace frog? Yes

Why do you believe this to be true? That frog was a cunt.

-Unorthodox kickass ending? Fuck yes

I don't understand. She made it to Earth. I expected that to happen the moment her difficult past was introduced.

-Asking philosophical questions and that? Yes

Not really. Or yes, asking a very basic question or two but positing no answer whatsoever and moving us forward not a jot.

I don't think it's a bad film - I loved it in fact and can't wait to see it again, but it's certainly not Saying Things like Tree Of Life, for example. It's just an incredibly well made, visually awesome, pseudo-art house-y movie which reaches for lofty heights but can't quite manage to grasp them fully.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

So you dont think ending a hollywood movie starring George Clooney and Sandra Bullock in space with a fully explicit allegory about life emerging from the water and then learning to live on land was remotely unorthodox, or unexpected, or brave? That the film regarded the moment she picked herself up, stood and surveyed her surroundings, in the wild, rather than a moist-eyed  human interest style recnciliation as different at all from usual hollywood fare?

If all you took from it was 'woman successfully survives and returns from mission', what exactly is going in in your brain, or your soul?

[Artemis]

So you dont think ending a hollywood movie starring George Clooney and Sandra Bullock in space with a fully explicit allegory about life emerging from the water and then learning to live on land was remotely unorthodox, or unexpected, or brave?

I thought it was cute. I also thought it was badly predicated and not nearly as brave as the 'origins of life' sequence from the Hollywood movie starring Brad Pitt.

[babyshambler]

The bit where she

Spoiler alert

swims into all the plant life

[close]

is hilarious. Have audiences besides mine been laughing at that?

It made me expel a sound that translates to "why is she doing that?" but then you see it was to

Spoiler alert

avoid the sinking parachute

[close]

and it's all good again.

I loved this! I'm no fan of 3D and avoid it where possible but a friend invited me and going into it knowing nothing at all about the film probably helped. I found myself tensing up throughout. I was knackered afterwards.

[kidsick5000]

The bit where she

Spoiler alert

swims into all the plant life

[close]

is hilarious. Have audiences besides mine been laughing at that?

I was still expecting

Spoiler alert

Cuaron to wrong end us by having some last minute twist of fate take her down. He's a dark bugger at the best of times. I can't believe you took your foot off the tension pedal before the credits rolled.

[close]

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

Seems odd to say, but apart from certain clearly old-fashioned 3D wow moments (eg. single tear seemingly floating through the screen past the audience) it wasn't obtrusive with the obvious exception of the first ten minutes where you adjust to looking at the screen through your silly glasses.

In my opinion they should run stuff in 3D in the ads and trailers to allow adjustment time, because it spoils the openings of every single 3D film.

But yeah, very well done, and used to enhance rather than as a gimmick. It was the direction itself that had a more 3-dimensional looseness. It felt like watching in a centrifuge sometimes with all the POV shots.

[CaledonianGonzo]

In my opinion they should run stuff in 3D in the ads and trailers to allow adjustment time, because it spoils the openings of every single 3D film.

Happened at the screening I went to (and has done, IIRC, at every other 3D screenings I've attended).  3-D Hobbits in the House.

[George Oscar Bluth II]

Re: Sandra Bullock's Tiny Shorts: in real life she'd have been wearing a space nappy under the spacesuit.

Bet there's some oddball fetishists out there disappointed about that lack of realism.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

They also left out the shit and vomit

[onthebeach]

Just watched this. Wonderfully made, very immersive film. I thought the look and feel of it was remarkable, a brilliant job of portraying zero gravity. Thought there was some great imagery and it was pretty tense. Only let down by some hackneyed dialogue and characterision but my overall impression was really good. Sound was great too.

Incidentally, the pre film advert for the Guardian called 'Edith' should have ended in a terrible house fire. Fuck off.

[CaledonianGonzo]

Sound was great too.

One of several technical Oscars that this will be sauntering off with next year.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

The complaining in the usual quarters about Sandra Bullock being in a vest top and shorts for a small portion of the film after nearly choking to death in a spacesuit is really pissing me off. Is that all it takes now for the bandwagon jumping twitter offense-mercenaries to get going?

No doubt there will be a special chart proving that because x things happened its a sexist film. Fuck Off. It's an amazing inclusive humanist film that explicitly androgynises the central character- and Sandra Bullock's body is pretty sexually attractive as it happens, I pity the people who are scared of that or suspicious of the motivations behind it. (also, overweight people dont go to space).

Pick on a deserving target, there are many of them.

[BritishHobo]

Incidentally, the pre film advert for the Guardian called 'Edith' should have ended in a terrible house fire. Fuck off.

Yeah, fuck that thing. What a bland and pointless short film.

You know, no offence to them married folks in it. If they're really real.

[onthebeach]

I assume they are actors, otherwise I take back the house fire. It was so awful, whatever it was, and went on so long I briefly thought that was what I'd paid £4.50 to see.