GRAVITY - Apparently One Of The Best Films Ever Made!
Discussion
Well the reviews are in and some of them are mind boggling in there gushing praise!
http://www.wired.com/underwire/2013/10/gravity-mov...
“During a particularly eye-popping scene in the astonishing new space thriller Gravity, I thought I saw my boyfriend, who was sitting next to me in the theater, yawn. For that fraction of a second, I questioned everything I knew about him, our relationship, and most damningly, his taste in movies. When I turned to look, however, I realized that his jaw was simply hanging open.
It’s a far more appropriate response to one of the most astonishing cinematic spectacles ever created.
“How in the hell did they do that?” we wondered, walking out of the theater later. This is the sort of movie that inspires those kinds of conversations, that kind of awe. And if you’re the sort of movie viewer who would rather walk into an extremely memorable movie experience completely cold, then do yourself a favor: Stop reading now, buy a ticket to see the movie this weekend in 3-D (IMAX preferred), and get ready to have your mind blown.”
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2013/10/04/gr...
“The simplest way to sum up director Alfonso Cuarón’s “Gravity” is to say it’s a true, new experience.”
“It remains to be seen if “Gravity” will have a long shelf-life once every new science fiction movie hereafter copies everything from its realism to its naturalistic effects to Steven Price’s hypnotic and vertigo-inducing score. “Gravity” is definitely an experience – an event – and whether or not that lasts, as of right now, there’s just nothing else like it. And that is a rare treat at the movies.”
http://tdn.com/lifestyles/film-review-gravity-a-to...
Breathtaking. When that’s the adjective used to describe a film set in space, you can’t help but note the irony. It’s hard to care about the irony, though, when said film leaves you dazzled, awestruck, starry-eyed and, yes, breathless. “Gravity” reaches for the stars in ways both simple and complex, and its reverence of both terra firma and the universe around us will leave you surrounded by your floating tears.
“Gravity,” directed by Alfonso Cuarón and starring Sandra Bullock and George Clooney, merges the visceral emotion of being stranded in space with awe-inspiring animation and computer-generated effects. It’s a fluid, brilliant design we don’t see much of anymore.
But it’s not like the effect-laden bonanzas we’ve been seeing lately. Cuarón and cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki submerge us in a world (or vast, empty space, if you will) where the drama is tangible, the danger tactile. It’s a world you want to see (if only from a distance).
A remarkable review here: http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/10/06/Movi...
"Gravity" is an entire theater full of people forgetting how to breathe in unison. You've never seen anything like this before, and even in an era of CGI special effects that make the impossible seem routine, you will occasionally have trouble believing what you're seeing. I wasn't sure I'd ever find myself thinking "how did they do that?" in a movie theater again. Thank you for that, Mr. Cuaron.
Well...I'm sold...and I'll be in the theatre, googles on, on opening night
An oscar for Bullock?
http://www.wired.com/underwire/2013/10/gravity-mov...
“During a particularly eye-popping scene in the astonishing new space thriller Gravity, I thought I saw my boyfriend, who was sitting next to me in the theater, yawn. For that fraction of a second, I questioned everything I knew about him, our relationship, and most damningly, his taste in movies. When I turned to look, however, I realized that his jaw was simply hanging open.
It’s a far more appropriate response to one of the most astonishing cinematic spectacles ever created.
“How in the hell did they do that?” we wondered, walking out of the theater later. This is the sort of movie that inspires those kinds of conversations, that kind of awe. And if you’re the sort of movie viewer who would rather walk into an extremely memorable movie experience completely cold, then do yourself a favor: Stop reading now, buy a ticket to see the movie this weekend in 3-D (IMAX preferred), and get ready to have your mind blown.”
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2013/10/04/gr...
“The simplest way to sum up director Alfonso Cuarón’s “Gravity” is to say it’s a true, new experience.”
“It remains to be seen if “Gravity” will have a long shelf-life once every new science fiction movie hereafter copies everything from its realism to its naturalistic effects to Steven Price’s hypnotic and vertigo-inducing score. “Gravity” is definitely an experience – an event – and whether or not that lasts, as of right now, there’s just nothing else like it. And that is a rare treat at the movies.”
http://tdn.com/lifestyles/film-review-gravity-a-to...
Breathtaking. When that’s the adjective used to describe a film set in space, you can’t help but note the irony. It’s hard to care about the irony, though, when said film leaves you dazzled, awestruck, starry-eyed and, yes, breathless. “Gravity” reaches for the stars in ways both simple and complex, and its reverence of both terra firma and the universe around us will leave you surrounded by your floating tears.
“Gravity,” directed by Alfonso Cuarón and starring Sandra Bullock and George Clooney, merges the visceral emotion of being stranded in space with awe-inspiring animation and computer-generated effects. It’s a fluid, brilliant design we don’t see much of anymore.
But it’s not like the effect-laden bonanzas we’ve been seeing lately. Cuarón and cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki submerge us in a world (or vast, empty space, if you will) where the drama is tangible, the danger tactile. It’s a world you want to see (if only from a distance).
A remarkable review here: http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/10/06/Movi...
"Gravity" is an entire theater full of people forgetting how to breathe in unison. You've never seen anything like this before, and even in an era of CGI special effects that make the impossible seem routine, you will occasionally have trouble believing what you're seeing. I wasn't sure I'd ever find myself thinking "how did they do that?" in a movie theater again. Thank you for that, Mr. Cuaron.
Well...I'm sold...and I'll be in the theatre, googles on, on opening night
An oscar for Bullock?
If you type "Gravity review" into Google it's frightening how many 5 star reviews its getting.
I do that frequently on a Monday morning when a film has been released stateside but not over here and I've never seen this amount of entirely positive reviews before!
In fact, not just 'positive' but 'high-praise'.
I do that frequently on a Monday morning when a film has been released stateside but not over here and I've never seen this amount of entirely positive reviews before!
In fact, not just 'positive' but 'high-praise'.
More reviews:
The Wall Street Journal:
In one form or another, motion pictures have been with us since the middle of the 19th century, but there's never been one like "Gravity."
The Huffington Post:
I'd go so far as to say that Gravity may be the best movie set in space since Stanley Kubrick's 1968 science fiction masterpiece 2001. I know that's a strong claim, but if you don't believe me, go see Gravity.
Roger Ebert:
If "Gravity" were half as good as I think it is, I'd still consider it one of the great moviegoing experiences of my life, thanks to the precision and beauty of its filmmaking.
A more restrained review from The Telegraph:
A thriller starring Sandra Bullock and George Clooney as astronauts adrift in space will take your breath away, says Robbie Collin.
The Wall Street Journal:
In one form or another, motion pictures have been with us since the middle of the 19th century, but there's never been one like "Gravity."
The Huffington Post:
I'd go so far as to say that Gravity may be the best movie set in space since Stanley Kubrick's 1968 science fiction masterpiece 2001. I know that's a strong claim, but if you don't believe me, go see Gravity.
Roger Ebert:
If "Gravity" were half as good as I think it is, I'd still consider it one of the great moviegoing experiences of my life, thanks to the precision and beauty of its filmmaking.
A more restrained review from The Telegraph:
A thriller starring Sandra Bullock and George Clooney as astronauts adrift in space will take your breath away, says Robbie Collin.
B17NNS said:
I bet it's sad at the end when they all die.
...actually, and I know your comment is in jest - but that reminds me...
Can We Spoiler Tag Any Hints Or Insider Info etc Until After The Films Been Released Over Here Please!
Nobody wants to know the films resolution before its even hit the UK.
Ta muchly people.
Gravity opened in top spot at the US box office at the weekend with $55.6m (34.6m) and in the process broke the all-time record for an October debut!
Over 80% of the seat sales are for the 3-D version.
This is another mind-bending review: http://unrealitymag.com/index.php/2013/10/07/unrea...
...which ends with:
Every aspect of the film is phenomenal. Gravity allows its audience to float in space along with its cast, while a haunting and thrilling score accompanies the vistas. Bullock in particular gives an amazing performance, and its hard to believe so many other actresses dropped out of this film before she took on the role. Like the voyage in the film, the movie seemed doomed as it kept losing potential cast members, but Cuarons final product is far and away the best movie of the year so far.
Its hard to praise Gravity enough. Its a movie that isnt just good for what it is, its given us a reason to love movie theaters again. Its more than a film, its an experience. Few movies can say that, and ones that do tend to rely on visuals alone. Gravity is the total package between its beauty, intelligence and emotion, and its a film I have to recommend to anyone and everyone.
The rest of the un-spoilery review is good too.
Variety:
Some have hailed Gravity as a religious experience; others simply as an altar piece in the church of Cinema. And who can argue with either conclusion? For here is that rare movie that each of us must complete in our own way, in our own time.
Over 80% of the seat sales are for the 3-D version.
This is another mind-bending review: http://unrealitymag.com/index.php/2013/10/07/unrea...
...which ends with:
Every aspect of the film is phenomenal. Gravity allows its audience to float in space along with its cast, while a haunting and thrilling score accompanies the vistas. Bullock in particular gives an amazing performance, and its hard to believe so many other actresses dropped out of this film before she took on the role. Like the voyage in the film, the movie seemed doomed as it kept losing potential cast members, but Cuarons final product is far and away the best movie of the year so far.
Its hard to praise Gravity enough. Its a movie that isnt just good for what it is, its given us a reason to love movie theaters again. Its more than a film, its an experience. Few movies can say that, and ones that do tend to rely on visuals alone. Gravity is the total package between its beauty, intelligence and emotion, and its a film I have to recommend to anyone and everyone.
The rest of the un-spoilery review is good too.
Variety:
Some have hailed Gravity as a religious experience; others simply as an altar piece in the church of Cinema. And who can argue with either conclusion? For here is that rare movie that each of us must complete in our own way, in our own time.
irocfan said:
Daniel1 said:
This doesn't appeal to me for some reason - Im pretty sure I saw the teaser trailer when I saw Star Trek (yes that long ago) and thought that it was no doubt beautiful but likely full of errors that would grate and generally be a depressing film.
I can't really describe it, but it's the same reason I have no interest in watching 127 hours, if that makes sense?
makes perfect sense to meI can't really describe it, but it's the same reason I have no interest in watching 127 hours, if that makes sense?
Yes, the film may be a let down, I can clearly see that and indeed we have had many examples of films being over-hyped this year...Prometheus, Man Of Steel, Pacific Rim, Cabin In The Woods to name just 4...but I can't see a comparison to 127 hours at all.
All IMHO.
Current average score of 8.7/10 from 34,731 users on IMDB.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1454468/ratings?ref_=t...
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1454468/ratings?ref_=t...
sparks_E39 said:
Must admit whilst the cgi looks pretty, the trailer didn't blow me away.
Like you I was less than bowled over but with hindsight I believe that for once thats actually a good thing.Just about every f
king trailer nowadays gives you the whole plot and includes (although you don't know it at the time) the final scene - usually of something being destroyed.This trailer seems to give you nothing save part of the disaster that sets the scene for what is to follow. Although, to be fair, I've only seen 3 trailers. If, as has been said by many reviews, this film is action-packed and full of tension then not much of that has been transmitted in the trailers.
3rd week in row at the top of the US box office...due in the main to "phenomenal word of mouth" per a Warner Bros exec.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-24606...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-24606...
Daughter went to see it last night and it's her film of the year. She's an 'unlimited' card holder so goes to the cinema quite a lot so I usually take note of any reviews she gives me as she is a quite a scathing critic if the film disappoints.
It also refreshed her love for IMAX.
The papers today are all gushing in their praise:
http://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/nov/07/gravit...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/filmreview...
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/fi...
http://www.express.co.uk/entertainment/films/44152...
It also refreshed her love for IMAX.
The papers today are all gushing in their praise:
http://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/nov/07/gravit...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/filmreview...
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/fi...
http://www.express.co.uk/entertainment/films/44152...
Piersman2 said:
I read the storyline on wikipedia about a month ago and just thought: 'Meh - another formulaic Hollywood action movie.'
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/reviews/gravity-review-sandra-bullock-space-epic-makes-other-blockbusters-look-leaden-8927020.html"Gravity is a rarity, a big-budget studio movie that feels utterly personal."
MrMagoo said:
Really looking forward to this. Is IMAX just a bigger screen?
Yes and No.The screen size is obviously very important (hence 'EyeMax') but it is also about the source material and how it was shot.
I've stolen this as it kinda explains it without me typing it all out...
Some background on the different types of IMAX theaters and the various types of films that are capable of being shown in these venues:
1. The highest quality IMAX experience is that of footage shot on IMAX cameras using IMAX film (69.6 mm by 48.5 mm) being run through a special IMAX projector onto the large, tall IMAX screen. For example, The Dark Knight has multiple scenes shot and projected in what I like to call "true IMAX,", as will Revenge of the Fallen. As for "true IMAX 3D", some IMAX 3D documentaries are filmed and projected this way, but as of yet no major hollywood film has been completely shot and projected in true 70mm IMAX 3D.
2. The second highest quality IMAX experience is that of footage - either 35mm or digital 2k/1080p -being "blown up" using a proprietary process that IMAX refers to as DMR (Digital Remastering), which employs digital methods to reduce film grain/pixelization, and then prints the result onto IMAX film stock. This was the way I saw Transformers tonight. Watching a 2k/1080p or 35mm film "blown up" to IMAX stock in this way is definitely more impressive than watching it in a regular 35mm or digital projection theater, but it is still quite a bit below the level of detail and clarity of watching something like those specially shot scenes from The Dark Knight, the super high resolution of which (along with my close proximity to the giant screen) made me believe I was looking through a crystal clear window into another world.
3. Here is what you absolutely have to avoid: IMAX digital. This process is simply two stacked 2k projectors. I saw Watchmen in an IMAX digital theater, and the image quality was dreadful: incredibly pixelated and with a ton of digital artifacts. The main reason for this low quality? The fact that IMAX digital is essentially a 1080p image digitally projected onto a huge screen which you will be sitting relatively close to. Try sitting less than one image height away from your 1080p TV, and you will see the pixels. IMAX digital looks even worse than that.
Point 3 is a subjective opinion...so here's another which, whilst not desperately in love with IMAX digital, isn't quite so scathing:
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think IMAX Digital is evil. The IMAX digital image and sound presentation is better than your traditional multiplex screen. I would see movies in IMAX Digital over a standard 2k digital movie screen if I were presented with those two choices. Especially with 3D movies, you will get a brighter, more immersive 3D experience.
Unfortunately most of us will be watching in this (IMAX digital) format as cinemas are converted from standard screen to IMAX up and down the country...its the cheaper option and doesn't require the re-modelling of the entire cinema to accomodate the type of screen they have at Waterloo in London...which is the height of 5 double decker buses (20m x 26m
)Digger said:
IMAX 3D. Where do we reckon the best place to sit is?
Hazard a guess that it's as close to the front, so as much of your field of view is taken up, but not so close you get neck ache.
Is the front row way too close?
That's gonna be subjective. It'll depend on the size of the screen and your personal comfort preferences really. Each time you go to the same IMAX screen try a different seat until you know where you prefer the most.Hazard a guess that it's as close to the front, so as much of your field of view is taken up, but not so close you get neck ache.
Is the front row way too close?
Personally I'd sit at least 10-12 rows back to start with.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff