Gravity

[StarFuryG7]

Over at CHUD.com:

Alfonso Cuaron screens terrifying "Gravity" Trailer



www.chud.com/135316/see-the-gorgeous-terrifying-trailer-for-cuarons-gravity/

[TrekBeatTK]

This is the one movie this year that I'm hoping is really good. The trailer looked great, and the 3D for once looks amazing, and I just hope that the film itself is able to sustain the feeling I get from the trailer. Considering all the films that involve space travel and the like, it's rare we get one that really gives you a visceral sense of the dangerous vastness and isolation of space. 2001 did it, Alien did it, to an extent Apollo 13 did it, and hopefully Gravity will as well.

-TK

[Mel]

I hope so too! Looks good!

[StarFuryG7]

These are two separate trailers, and personally I prefer the first one:

Over at Digital Spy:

Gravity: Sandra Bullock, George Clooney in stunning single-take trailer

www.digitalspy.co.uk/movies/news/a500732/gravity-sandra-bullock-george-clooney-in-stunning-single-take-trailer.html

Sandra Bullock drifting in new 'Gravity' clip

blog.zap2it.com/pop2it/2013/07/gravity-sanda-bullock-is-drifting-through-space-in-new-clip.html

[TrekBeatTK]

I soooooooo hope this doesn't end up being the best thing in the movie. If the movie can deliver on the promise of this sequence, then it should be stellar (pun intended).

Depending on what exactly the story is, it could also end up being great PR for NASA. They haven't had a big Hollywood movie to promote them since what, Armageddon?

I love that the space science seems fairly accurate. It's the first movie in I don't know how long that seems to understand space physics; that is, with no atmosphere and no friction, actions just continue and they continue with SPEED. People have this idea that everything moves in slow motion in space, like it's underwater.

And I'll be the trailer looks amazing in 3D. The 3D trailers I've seen so far look really good, and if the trailer's 3D impresses me, that's usually a good sign it'll be worth seeing in that format.

-TK

[Mel]

I haven't seen a 3-D movie in a decade or more, not since any of the newer improvements. If this continues to look like a great movie, I plan to see it in 3-D. I'm excited!

[StarFuryG7]

Over at Blastr:

An early screening of the sci-fi film Gravity just got RAVE reviews
By Matthew JacksonWed
08/28/2013

If you weren't already convinced by the trailers, these reviews might prove that Alfonso Cuaron's Gravity is a film you simply must see.

More: www.blastr.com/2013-8-28/early-screening-sci-fi-film-gravity-just-got-rave-reviews

[TrekBeatTK]

I am so looking forward to this movie!! I was amused by one of the criticisms that it was just a movie with nothing metaphysical or profound to say. I for one am tired of movies like Prometheus trying to be ponderous and meaninful and to me a realistic "stranded in space" movie is a breath of freash slowly-depleting air.

-TK

[Mel]

For Prometheus, I watched every trailer, and read all the comments and news I could find on it. I was very excited about the movie, but began to get wary as it moved away from an Alien prequel. Still, I looked forward to it. When I finally saw it, I was fairly disappointed.

For Gravity, I watched only one trailer, the one at the top of this subject. I avoided all comments, news, and reviews. Also, I hadn't seen a 3D movie since the late 80's, so I was really looking forward to that aspect.

I saw Gravity 3D yesterday. I was underwhelmed. I didn't need explosions, aliens, and such, but I needed more of something. Perhaps more character interaction before Kowalski let go.

I also didn't need, or believe, the subplot of Ryan having lost her daughter. Okay, I believed she lost her daughter. I didn't believe she was allowed to space while still recovering from the loss. Would you choose an astronaut who's been through an emotional turmoil, or choose one without that emotional baggage? I'd choose the latter.

As for the 3D aspects, I was surprised that they looked the same as the 80's. The glasses themselves are much better, but what I saw looked like what I remembered from Jaws 3-D (yes, really) and such. Maybe the Lasik surgery I had keeps my eyes from discerning the better 3D effects. I dunno. But I wasn't wowed.

TK, you never told us what you thought of this movie. What about the rest of you. Have you seen it? What did you think?

Btw, today, I watched Stoker. It was a lot better than I thought it would be. What's really cool, to me, is that the writer, Wentworth Miller (yes, the actor) got the idea from Alfred Hitchcock's A Shadow of a Doubt, about Uncle Charlie coming for a visit.

[TrekBeatTK]

I liked it, though I was somewhat disappointed that the physics were not quite as realistic as I hoped. On the whole they did a good job, but there were times I felt like they treated the space scenes the same as inside the station, which should not be. There's air inside the station, and not outside. Maybe it's accurate, but something feels wrong about tethers waving back and forth as if in water. Constant motion is correct, but sometimes I wasn't sure about it. Also, sometimes characters spinning in space (yay perpetual motion in space!) seemed to slow down somehow.

There isn't much to the story, and I really didn't care all that much about it. But I felt like this isn't the sort of movie you go to for story. This movie felt to me like a visual experience, which just happened to have a story to tie it together. More like a ride than a movie, and I was fine with that. Visually it's stunning. I know Mel you don't have much to compare it to, but it's the best 3D I've seen since Coraline. I think the 3D helped to keep distances in perspective, as everything can just look flat in space. I never saw any 3D films in the '80s so I can't really compare, but I can compare it to the myriad of 3D movies I've seen in the past few years, and it's among the better ones. I still don't think every movie needs to be in 3D, but I did think it enhanced this experience.

The sound design was great too. I think we are looking at the strongest contender for a visual effects Oscar this year. I loved that the first chunk of the movie was all one shot. I've long felt like edits hurt 3D movies. I kind of wished the whole movie had been one long take, or at least that they hadn't gone back to more traditional editing so much later.

A few other points of realism bugged me (she should have been wearing a cooling suit and probably some sort of diaper under her space suit). And the moment when Kowalski let go just made no sense to me as I don't see why she couldn't have pulled him back in; there was no force pulling him away in a frictionless void. Some have argued that all the bits they were tied to were actually in a state of spin, thus explaining his motion, but I still think the movie isn't clear and for one of the most important dramatic moments in the movie, I want the physics to make sense.

Ultimately, I was a little disappointed that the movie's physics were as totally realistic as I had hoped, but it's still an enjoyable ride and one that I don't imagine would work as well on a TV screen. It's like 2001 meets Alien without the oomph of either one. But if you go to movies for a visual experience, I think this is one of the best you can have this year.

-TK

[TrekBeatTK]

Oct 18, 2013 23:38:46 GMT -5 Mel said:

Btw, today, I watched Stoker. It was a lot better than I thought it would be. What's really cool, to me, is that the writer, Wentworth Miller (yes, the actor) got the idea from Alfred Hitchcock's A Shadow of a Doubt, about Uncle Charlie coming for a visit.

I had high hopes for Stoker, and while I liked certain things about it a lot, it was very weird. I hated the way that it ended. I can see the Shadow of a Doubt parallels now, though that's the far superior movie. Stoker was very very odd, and while I commend certain elements, I think I was somewhat let down by how it all turned out. The erotic piano-playing scene was artful though.

-TK

[StarFuryG7]

[This post does contain some notable Spoilers, so be advised if you haven't seen it yet.]

I enjoyed it, but it didn't knock my socks off. I also viewed it as a visual experience because the story was very thin. There were a couple of things which stood out that I liked however, such as Kowalski's return after he's presumed dead and the way we're left to wonder about it. Did she remember something from her training that she was attributing to him in the form of an hallucination once she dropped down the Oxygen levels to almost nothing, or did the ghost of Kowalski actually return to help give her the piece of information she needed to know in order to survive? It's a question that isn't, nor could it have been, definitively answered I suppose.

With respect to the 3-D aspect of the filming, I saw it in IMAX, as it should be seen, but I commented to a few people afterward that there's something about these 3-D films that just don't register with my brain after the first few minutes. Oh, sure --you can see the Countdown Introductory pattern that they throw at you right before the movie starts which is pronounced enough to not be unaware of, but after a few minutes of watching the films themselves the 3-D just doesn't really register with my brain unless I actually think about and focus on it while I'm watching the movie. It's weird, but to me it's almost as though I might as well just be watching a standard 2-D movie.

As for why Ryan couldn't pull Kowalski back, I get your point, TK, but it was the force that propelled them both toward open space that was the problem, and as he told her, she wasn't secure enough to successfully yank him in without inadvertently being let loose herself from the straps that were holding her in place.

If I had to rate the film on a four-star scale I'd give it three stars, probably in large part because the story was so thin. However, I also knew going in to expect that, but it didn't change how I felt about the movie once it was over.

This was the first movie I saw in a theater since "Star Trek Into Darkness", which was a huge disappointment, so I've been very deprived cinematically this year.

[Mel]

With respect to the 3-D aspect of the filming, I saw it in IMAX, as it should be seen, but I commented to a few people afterward that there's something about these 3-D films that just don't register with my brain after the first few minutes. Oh, sure --you can see the Countdown Introductory pattern that they throw at you right before the movie starts which is pronounced enough to not be unaware of, but after a few minutes of watching the films themselves the 3-D just doesn't really register with my brain unless I actually think about and focus on it while I'm watching the movie. It's weird, but to me it's almost as though I might as well just be watching a standard 2-D movie.

That was my experience, too. I kept lifting the glasses to see if the screen looked different without them. I thought maybe the IMAX 3D experience would be better than my local theater. Maybe not!

[Mel]

And the moment when Kowalski let go just made no sense to me as I don't see why she couldn't have pulled him back in; there was no force pulling him away in a frictionless void. Some have argued that all the bits they were tied to were actually in a state of spin, thus explaining his motion, but I still think the movie isn't clear and for one of the most important dramatic moments in the movie, I want the physics to make sense. - TK

I wondered about that too. I thought if she could pull him toward her, it would help propel them both toward the station behind her. I also thought, if the roles were reversed and a woman was barely hanging on, a man would never release her. I wanted to see her help him in the same way.

I expected a lot of great visuals, but I didn't notice them. I was looking for them, but I didn't notice them. Maybe it really it my eyes, my age, all that. The sound was good, thankfully. I had no problem hearing any of it.

[TrekBeatTK]

Oct 21, 2013 10:01:51 GMT -5 Mel said:

I wondered about that too. I thought if she could pull him toward her, it would help propel them both toward the station behind her. I also thought, if the roles were reversed and a woman was barely hanging on, a man would never release her. I wanted to see her help him in the same way.

Some have argued that any force that propelled her back would make her loosen from the straps she was tethered to, which could be disastrous. But I don't know that I buy that. But yes, if she pulled him, they would both go back toward the station.

She didn't let him go though; he untethered himself.

As far as the 3D effect wearing off, it's not just you two. I think generally 3D only feels really dimensional for up to 20 minutes or so (depending on how good the 3D was to begin with of course). It's then up to the moviemakers to do something to shock the system back into acknowledging it. A big 3D effect every now and then helps this. Otherwise, yes it does flatten out or normalize to my eyes too. Which does beg the question if a full-length 3D experience is really worth the upcharge if it gradually becomes undetectable.

Though I think another piece of this is the classic editing language of film. Your eye has to re-adjust perspective between shots. That's why I think long fluid takes are much better for 3D. I think perhaps a lot of cuts can start to make a movie just feel normal. Someone should do a proper study on this effect.

-TK

[Mel]

She didn't let him go though; he untethered himself. - TK

Yes, I remember that now. Still, had the situation been reversed, the man would prevent the woman from detaching. At least, that's how it is in the movies.

As far as the 3D effect wearing off, it's not just you two. I think generally 3D only feels really dimensional for up to 20 minutes or so (depending on how good the 3D was to begin with of course). It's then up to the moviemakers to do something to shock the system back into acknowledging it. A big 3D effect every now and then helps this. Otherwise, yes it does flatten out or normalize to my eyes too. Which does beg the question if a full-length 3D experience is really worth the upcharge if it gradually becomes undetectable.

Ah, so it's not just me and Gary.

[Mel]

Gravity, the story of how George Clooney would rather float away into space and die than spend one more minute with a woman his own age.

A line at the Golden Globe awards. Too funny!!