# Gravity - Alfonso Cuaron film



## Crispy (May 10, 2013)

He hasn't released a film in the 7 years since Children of Men. Gravity is coming out in October. I am very very excited for it. Look at all that yummy space hardware


----------



## Reno (May 10, 2013)

The film I'm looking forward most to this year, simply because Cuaron is one of my favourite directors working and certainly my favourite in big budget mainstream films. Gravity was supposed to come out last year, but has been delayed by the complexity of its effects work.


----------



## editor (Aug 28, 2013)

Some reviews:


> "At once the most realistic and beautifully choreographed film ever set in space, Gravity is a thrillingly realized survival story spiked with interludes of breath-catching tension and startling surprise… Smart but not arty, dramatically straightforward but so dazzlingly told as to make it a benchmark in its field." - Todd McCarthy, THR
> 
> "Offers in abundance the sort of eye-popping, screen-filling spectacle that demands to be viewed in a theater. Not unlike earlier triumphs of 3D and vfx innovation such as “Avatar” and “Life of Pi,” though conceived along less fantastical, more grimly realistic lines…" - Justin Chang, Variety
> 
> ...


 


*salivates


----------



## Lord Camomile (Aug 28, 2013)

Crispy said:


> Children of Men


That's all I needed.

I shall now be avoiding all other details about this film until I see it at the cinema


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 28, 2013)

Lord Camomile said:


> That's all I needed.
> 
> I shall now be avoiding all other details about this film until I see it at the cinema


 
Ditto. Not even gonna watch the extended trailer.


----------



## editor (Aug 28, 2013)

After seeing that trailer, I want to see the film on a fucking ENORMO-SCREEN.


----------



## Crispy (Aug 28, 2013)

I want to see it enormo, but in 3D or not? I don't know :-/


----------



## Lord Camomile (Aug 28, 2013)

Dammit, I Googled it to find out the release date and now I know it's got Clooney and Bullock in it and the Indy thinks it's "flawed" 

4th Ocotber, yes?


----------



## kittyP (Aug 28, 2013)

I was watching the trailer with my hands over my mouth  

But Sandra Fucking Bullock?


----------



## Crispy (Aug 28, 2013)

"by far her best performance in anything she's ever been in" says the review


----------



## kittyP (Aug 28, 2013)

Crispy said:


> "by far her best performance in anything she's ever been in" says the review


 

What even better than Practical Magic?


----------



## 8den (Aug 29, 2013)

They've been editing this film for over 3 years!


----------



## Balbi (Aug 29, 2013)

kittyP said:


> What even better than Practical Magic?


 

Or Miss Congeniality? Or Demolition Man?


----------



## 8den (Aug 29, 2013)

Balbi said:


> Or Miss Congeniality? Or Demolition Man?


 
Miss Congeniality 2 contains both Ms Bullocks, and Sir Michael Caine's finest work.


----------



## Balbi (Aug 29, 2013)

8den said:


> Miss Congeniality 2 contains both Ms Bullocks, and Sir Michael Caine's finest work.


 

It's a pale imitation of the original


----------



## alfajobrob (Aug 29, 2013)

Feck your reviews

I'm booking at iMax Waterloo (not available yet?)....I like bullock and clooney


----------



## Crispy (Sep 4, 2013)

http://variety.com/2013/film/news/a...en-after-seven-years-with-gravity-1200596518/

Some fantastic behind-the-scenes info in this piece. To create the interior zero gravity shots, the actors would be moved around on industrial robots. Incredible


----------



## Tankus (Sep 4, 2013)

Read the book , now wish I hadn't ,  so I could go to it fresh.

Book's so so.... but its given me the spoilers


----------



## vogonity (Sep 5, 2013)

Crispy said:


> I want to see it enormo, but in 3D or not? I don't know :-/



Exactly: just looked at a few moments of this trailer and thought, "must be seen on a big screen," but in 3D? I'm not so sure...


----------



## Sprocket. (Sep 5, 2013)

This looks awesome, well worth an iMax visit. Just getting my breath back.


----------



## Reno (Oct 15, 2013)

vogonity said:


> Exactly: just looked at a few moments of this trailer and thought, "must be seen on a big screen," but in 3D? I'm not so sure...


I saw this last week and absolutely loved it. Yes, it should be seen at IMAX _and_ in 3D, because its one of those film which have to be experienced as much as it has to be watched. It's really a bit like a ride and that's not meant an insult in this case. Cuaron worked hard on making this an immersive experience and I've never seen 3D used to better effect. It's been years since I last enjoyed a blockbuster style big sci-fi flick this much.

Bullock is fine. I don't think she's a bad actress, she's just been in a lot of shit romcoms where she's required to be irritatingly 'perky. She isn't here and sells the being-shit-scared thing well.


----------



## Crispy (Oct 24, 2013)

After what seems like an eternity, this is finally approaching a release in the UK. Two weeks tomorrow. I Can Not Wait. I don't care if it's 18 quid (!) to see it at the IMAX.


----------



## _pH_ (Oct 24, 2013)

Crispy said:


> After what seems like an eternity, this is finally approaching a release in the UK. Two weeks tomorrow. I Can Not Wait. I don't care if it's 18 quid (!) to see it at the IMAX.


Previews start earlier than that I thought? Might be wrong.

Looking forward to seeing this, the trailer was amazing!


----------



## _pH_ (Oct 30, 2013)

Great video about the sound recording techniques used on Gravity:


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Oct 30, 2013)

Been looking forward to this for aaaaages!


----------



## sim667 (Oct 31, 2013)

I saw a trailer for this, and it intrigued me, but also the thought of it sent shivers up my spine.


----------



## Disjecta Membra (Oct 31, 2013)

might watch it later, def high hopes. Alot of recent Sci-Fi has been disappointing.


----------



## mango5 (Nov 1, 2013)

Crispy said:


> After what seems like an eternity, this is finally approaching a release in the UK. Two weeks tomorrow. I Can Not Wait. I don't care if it's 18 quid (!) to see it at the IMAX.


Urban descends on the IMAX? I'll come if I'm in town


----------



## Crispy (Nov 1, 2013)

mango5 said:


> Urban descends on the IMAX? I'll come if I'm in town


I was going to suggest such a thing, but I got the last decent seats on the Monday after it comes out. It's booked solid now :-/


----------



## DexterTCN (Nov 6, 2013)

Well...apparently it's the best thing ever.   Imax 3D for me.

btw Bullock was fucking great in Miss Congeniality.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Nov 7, 2013)

Loved it, fucking AWESOME film! So rare to watch a film that has great action, stunning sound and visuals and actual pathos...might go see it again.


----------



## mhendo (Nov 8, 2013)

Went and saw this last weekend. My wife had already seen it once, and wanted to go again.

I thought it was excellent. it doesn't have that much plot, _per se_, but you're gripping your seat from beginning to end, and the visuals are stunning.

One thing i loved is that it was actually _about_ space. In most modern science fiction, space is that thing you fly through at warp speeds to get to the aliens, or the monsters, or the enemy, or your new settlement, or whatever. This was about the nature of space itself. Very cool.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Nov 8, 2013)

Yeah gonna go see this again...haven't stopped thinking about it since I saw it..!


----------



## moonsi til (Nov 8, 2013)

Not long back from seeing it in 3D and would def loved to have seen it at the IMAX. It is just simply beautiful and had me properly on the verge of tears from midway through.


----------



## Dr. Furface (Nov 8, 2013)

I've just seen this and really enjoyed it - best film I've seen in 3D (not that I see many). Totally implausible but genuinely gripping. However...



Spoiler



...it had me laughing at the end when she gets back to earth and the sea's gushing in the pod - of course you knew she was gonna survive but I thought it would be funny if after all she'd been through in space that she died by drowning! Also when Clooney was in it I couldn't stop thinking about Buzz Lightyear in Toy Story which he did the voice for and even looks a bit like in his spacesuit - when he cuts lose from her I was hoping he'd shout 'to infinity and beyond!'


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Nov 9, 2013)

It's literally the only film I've seen in 3D that's lived up to the hype and indeed potential of what 3D cinema could be. I actually flinched in one scene when some debris flew toward the screen!


----------



## Balbi (Nov 9, 2013)

Dr. Furface said:


> I've just seen this and really enjoyed it - best film I've seen in 3D (not that I see many). Totally implausible but genuinely gripping. However...
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Spoiler



That was Tim Allen


----------



## DexterTCN (Nov 9, 2013)

What an incredible opening shot.  How long, felt like at least ten minutes?   One shot.

A short film, Bullock was excellent.   Edge of the seat all the way.   Excellent use of sound, really excellent.

At the end...


Spoiler



when she's walking like that


...I wondered why and then realised.   So my last thought of the film as it ended was 'oh....gravity'.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 9, 2013)

Friend of mine says:



> *If you have a fear of heights and plan to watch Gravity in 3D on an IMAX screen, I strongly recommend taking along man-size nappies and a defibrillator.*


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Nov 9, 2013)

Rutita1 said:


> Friend of mine says:
> "*If you have a fear of heights and plan to watch Gravity in 3D on an IMAX screen, I strongly recommend taking along man-size nappies and a defibrillator."*


Crispy? What have you got me in for?


----------



## Thimble Queen (Nov 9, 2013)

going to see this tomorrow


----------



## Dr. Furface (Nov 9, 2013)

Balbi said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> That was Tim Allen





Spoiler



Oh really?!  I was sure it was GC - it sounds just like him!


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Nov 9, 2013)

sorry to spoil the party.

Just saw it at Ritzy.  I think my response is partly spoilt by the annoying person nearby eating a loud bag of popcorn and the verbal diarrhoea somewhere else. It has some amazing scenes but given it's title I thought it should get the consequences of 'force' correct. For me this wasn't the case from the initial impact. Other things stretched believability also. Can't say more without spoiling it. Reviewers seem to rave about the 3D but I'd actually like to see it in 2D it would be more precise rather than blurry.


----------



## DexterTCN (Nov 9, 2013)

DJWrongspeed said:


> sorry to spoil the party.
> 
> Just saw it at Ritzy.  I think my response is partly spoilt by the annoying person nearby eating a loud bag of popcorn and the verbal diarrhoea somewhere else. It has some amazing scenes but given it's title I thought it should get the consequences of 'force' correct. For me this wasn't the case from the initial impact. Other things stretched believability also. Can't say more without spoiling it. Reviewers seem to rave about the 3D but I'd actually like to see it in 2D it would be more precise rather than blurry.


Nothing worse than someone distracting you with phones, talking or inappropriate crunching.   Especially in a film like this which uses silence so well.

You can use spoilers for the other bits, I'd like to hear them.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Nov 9, 2013)

DexterTCN said:


> What an incredible opening shot.  How long, felt like at least ten minutes?   One shot.
> 
> A short film, Bullock was excellent.   Edge of the seat all the way.   Excellent use of sound, really excellent.
> 
> ...



Heh yeah had same moment, nicely done.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 10, 2013)

This looked great and was a really immersive experience in 3D. However, it was also pretty corny, which is possible to forgive because of how visually amazing it was, but still enough to make it fall short of a classic for me. I was loving watching it, but as soon as I left the cinema, the film left me.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Nov 10, 2013)

proper cheesy not amazing but not shite either


----------



## gabi (Nov 11, 2013)

10 out of ten. saw it in 3d on the weekend. utterly beautiful. i know the science behind it doesnt add up, but fuck it. i love this kinda shit. see 'moon, 'sunshine' etc.


----------



## girasol (Nov 11, 2013)

Really great visuals - but I was actually disappointed.  This little user review on IMDB I just read summed it up nicely for me:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1454468/reviews?ref_=tt_urv


Spoiler



153 out of 212 people found the following review useful:



*Great Visuals, Weak Script overall*





*Author:* vikascoder from Germany
4 October 2013
**** This review may contain spoilers ****

Visually, Gravity is unlike what we have seen on a cinema screen before and arguably it has one of the best uses of 3D in a movie. The setting is spectacular and the premise is inventive.

On every other front, the movie falters badly. Once you get over the initial wonderment surrounding the beautiful visuals, the chinks start showing up. Overall the script is very weak. Apparently the Russians bomb their own satellite by mistake and the debris is flying around at bullet speed, smashing everything in its way. Now upon hearing an emergency evacuation request, Kowalski (who has been wasting his precious thrusters all this while, floating around, spouting inane dialogs) orders Ryan (Bullock) to disengage from whatever she is repairing. Apparently Ryan has six months of training (only) and fails to be responsive and then the trouble starts.

We come to know that Ryan has some head issues surrounding the death of her daughter as the writer felt a dire need to give Ryan some sort of existential problem in her head to make her character feel more human. Apart from this minor bit, nothing is presented in terms of character development for any other protagonists. Who is Kowalski? Who are the people who died in their space pods? No idea.

Then the whole manufactured sense of suspense. Every time Ryan gets anywhere near the Air Lock (she does it three times), the debris presents itself like on cue every single time. Then a fire in a space station, then running out of Oxygen, then something then something. It's fine that they used some standard tricks but it all seems so manufactured and mechanical by the numbers suspense.

Also at times I couldn't shrug off the feeling that what they are showing on screen is not actually factual. Do the controls on various international space stations have their national languages on them? Really? Maybe they do but seems hard to believe when 20$ phones are built with custom User interfaces with changeable languages, why have your billion dollar space stations with Russian or Chinese characters on your buttons totally beats me. Oh manufactured suspense owing to the whole can't-understand-this-thing machinery.

The the dialogs when they come are nothing to write home about. Ryan has a hallucinatory moment when she talks to herself following some Mandarin Chatter on the radio which is cringe worthy. I wont even mention the in-your-face allegory about rebirth which is there for to make the movie seem deeper than it is.

So what works for the movie? It's a cross between an IMAX documentary with some suspense elements thrown it which makes it look path breaking.

But it's not. Not a bad watch but nothing to rave about either.


----------



## girasol (Nov 11, 2013)

Dr. Furface said:


> I've just seen this and really enjoyed it - best film I've seen in 3D (not that I see many). Totally implausible but genuinely gripping. However...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



SNAP!!!!  I thought that too  


Spoiler



(buzz lightyear and drowning)


----------



## vogonity (Nov 11, 2013)

gabi said:


> 10 out of ten. saw it in 3d on the weekend. utterly beautiful. i know the science behind it doesnt add up, but fuck it...


That's how I felt. The movie was beautiful, thrilling and moving. Yes, there may have been corny elements, but Sandra Bullock and George Clooney's excellent performances made me see past them. 

The 3D also worked wonders for me - and I'm not normally a fan of it.

Well done all, in front and behind the camera.


----------



## trabuquera (Nov 11, 2013)

If you go, book the largest 3D-est IMAXest ticket you can and just let the whole thing wash over you. Visually it is possibly the most amazing thing ever yet committed to cinema. The finest and most logical use yet of 3D and they really have found a way for the 3D to make sense and be integral to what's actually happening.

So keep eyes locked, but do not engage brain, sadly, for beside the gargantuan jawdropping beauty of the pictures, the script / 'drama' just don't do the business. I wanted to be head over heels in love with this film (I think Cuaron's a genius, and words can't express how brilliant I think it is that the lead character in this movie should be female) but I just ended up a bit impatient with it.

If the science doesn't make any sense, then what's the point? The relentless actioniness ended up being just as cartoonish and implausible as other sfx-laden spectacles where our lead characters are the only ones to survive planetshaking mass desctruction. And worse of all, the 'human drama' bits are blatant Christian America-bait ... "what matters is the people who miss you" ... the gratuitous tearjerking of using the distant sounds of babies and dogs (YES REALLY) and most obnoxious of all the pseudo-faith messages pulsing away throughout ...



Spoiler



"I want to pray but I don't know how ... no-one ever taught me ... boo fucken hoo... _just how likely IS it that any genius-level space scientist would EVER EVER say this _- no matter how many airlocks she's hopped through and how stressed she is?]


 
I do think Bullock did a good job in a near-impossible role  and would recommend this film to people enthusiastically - but with reservations. I just find it a bit hard to wrap my head around a film which is so supposedly about space and space-working people and yet neither understands or explains much about either. It doesn't even get into what is - for me a non-sciencey outsider - the most amazing thing of all about this sort of thing, that being the immense amount of people-hours and hard thinking which goes into solving even the simplest problems, and the extraordinary amount of human collaboration and co-operation which makes it possible to get human beans out there into space at all.

but yeah, go and see it.


----------



## Crispy (Nov 11, 2013)

Utterly, utterly spectacular. See this movie on the biggest screen you can find, because the visuals truly are jaw-droppingly good. So much detail and veracity to it all. I didn't see a single shortcut or fudged effect. Breathtaking, honestly.

Well cheesey script. Ignore that. Go see it a foreign language with no subtitles or something, and it'd probably be loads better.

But man oh man, the bits when nobody's talking? Incredible.

a few nits to pick:

The only major science errors were the orbiting spacecraft all being lined up nicely in line of sight. Pretty much everything else was spot on, although I'm pretty sure Soyuz doesn't have a side hatch.

from the IMDB review girasol quoted:



> Do the controls on various international space stations have their national languages on them? Really?


Yep. The Russian and USA parts of the ISS are almost entirely seperate spacecraft, just joined together in the middle, they're otherwise pretty much native. And Chinese spacecraft have labels in Chinese, because the people who fly them are Chinese.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 11, 2013)

Crispy said:


> Well cheesey script. Ignore that. Go see it a foreign language with no subtitles or something, and it'd probably be loads better.
> .


OK, if the actual film is rubbish, why not just watch footage of actual real space stuff? Lots of NASA footage is breathtaking.

Don't get the point of this film at all


----------



## Crispy (Nov 11, 2013)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> OK, if the actual film is rubbish, why not just watch footage of actual real space stuff? Lots of NASA footage is breathtaking.
> 
> Don't get the point of this film at all


Because the NASA footage moves slowly and is very boring. It also takes place on a screen I can wrap my arms around, and speakers I can talk over. What I just saw went WOOSH! BANG! ZOOM! straight into my ears, gut and retinas.

I've seen the Space Station IMAX movie, and that's very pretty, but it's not exciting. This film is very, very exciting. It just has to take a breather every now and then for some corny lines.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 11, 2013)

Hmmmmm. I must be getting old


----------



## DexterTCN (Nov 12, 2013)

Crispy said:


> Utterly, utterly spectacular. See this movie on the biggest screen you can find, because the visuals truly are jaw-droppingly good. So much detail and veracity to it all. I didn't see a single shortcut or fudged effect. Breathtaking, honestly.
> 
> Well cheesey script. Ignore that. Go see it a foreign language with no subtitles or something, and it'd probably be loads better....


Words get in the way of the sound.


----------



## joustmaster (Nov 12, 2013)

Watched it at the imax, in 3d, on sunday.

It was great. and a brilliant example of how to use 3d in a film properly.

The trailer for the hobbit, which was in 3d, looked fucking awful. Things that are close to the viewer, and are moving quickly are just shit. And those are the sorts of things they try to cram in.


----------



## girasol (Nov 12, 2013)

Does the filum follow the laws of physics?



> For the most part, the film does make an effort to follow the laws of physics as realistically as possible, even down to the depiction of no sound in space. However the film is not always scientifically accurate and some liberties were taken in order to sustain the story. These include:
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1454468/faq?ref_=tt_faq_3#.2.1.3
> 
> 1) According to NASA astronaut Mark Kelly, "blowing up stuff in orbit makes a big mess, but it doesn't send a giant field of shrapnel hurtling at high velocity toward a spacecraft that is circulating Earth in an entirely different orbit." So the idea of debris traveling continuously around the world at a speed of 20,000 MPH is implausible. Other sources point out that the magnitude and proximity of the debris fields relative to each other as seen in the movie is not realistic either. Lastly, space debris could easily reach a speed of over 6 miles per second; a person in space would not be able to spot even the largest pieces of shrapnel moving that fast.
> ...


----------



## gabi (Nov 12, 2013)

Of course it's not scientifically sound, but its a brilliant watch. floating between space stations like that is of course the stuff of science fiction, but who gives a shit.


----------



## girasol (Nov 12, 2013)

Obviously I do, I was interested in how close to reality it really was, it's part of what makes me a curious person... 



Also, enough scientists give a shit too, as they took the time to watch and analyse it.


----------



## girasol (Nov 12, 2013)

That doesn't have to ruin the movie in any way, it's actually a good opportunity to learn more, for those of us who do give a shit.


----------



## gabi (Nov 12, 2013)

can anyone confirm or deny whether that was kuthra-poly (sp?) off of the big bang theory at the beginning? i swear it was. which was a massive casting fuck-up if so, as was clooney really.


----------



## N_igma (Nov 13, 2013)

When I seen the trailer I thought immediately it would be an Open Water in space type film which would be utter tripe although has good reviews might check this out although not generally a fan of 3D.


----------



## gabi (Nov 13, 2013)

They actually use the 3d really well. not normally a fan either. a lot of the shots are first person, in total silence. has quite an impact.


----------



## ohmyliver (Nov 13, 2013)

Yeah, another fan of it here.  Saw it at the Waterloo Imax yesterday, and wow. 

My wife worked as part of the 3d team on it (she missed the cast and crew screening because of being on maternity leave though).  I'm not biased or anything, but I thought the implementation of 3d on it was excellent, really unobrusive enhancement, saw the trailer for the new Hobbit film beforehand and in comparison the 3d was jarring and rubbish.


----------



## Crispy (Nov 13, 2013)

I'm willing to bet the 3D for the hobbit works much better in the high frame rate version.


----------



## ohmyliver (Nov 13, 2013)

Probably.  In which case they're fools for not ensuring that the 3d trailer wasn't also high frame rate.


----------



## Crispy (Nov 13, 2013)

ohmyliver said:


> Probably.  In which case they're fools for not ensuring that the 3d trailer wasn't also high frame rate.


There just aren't very many projectors that can handle it.


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Nov 13, 2013)

gabi said:


> can anyone confirm or deny whether that was kuthra-poly (sp?) off of the big bang theory at the beginning? i swear it was. which was a massive casting fuck-up if so, as was clooney really.


 
Clooney is always a bad casting idea.  He plays the same character in everything.


----------



## joustmaster (Nov 13, 2013)

Yuwipi Woman said:


> Clooney is always a bad casting idea.  He plays the same character in everything.


Nespresso man.


----------



## ohmyliver (Nov 13, 2013)

gabi said:


> can anyone confirm or deny whether that was kuthra-poly (sp?) off of the big bang theory at the beginning? .


No, it's Phaldut Sharma (or AJ from Eastenders)


----------



## DexterTCN (Nov 13, 2013)

Yuwipi Woman said:


> Clooney is always a bad casting idea.  He plays the same character in everything.


Oh Brother Where Art Thou?


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Nov 13, 2013)

DexterTCN said:


> Oh Brother Where Art Thou?


 
Haven't seen it.  I can only take him in small doses.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Nov 13, 2013)

the imax in bradford is only showing it in 2d -


----------



## Ranbay (Nov 13, 2013)

was ace, 3D was awesome...

3D boobies etc


----------



## magneze (Nov 13, 2013)

It's brilliant. I now want to see it again on IMAX.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Nov 13, 2013)

gabi said:


> 10 out of ten. saw it in 3d on the weekend. utterly beautiful. i know the science behind it doesnt add up, but fuck it. i love this kinda shit. see 'moon, 'sunshine' etc.



This!


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Nov 13, 2013)

gabi said:


> 10 out of ten. saw it in 3d on the weekend. utterly beautiful. i know the science behind it doesnt add up, but fuck it. i love this kinda shit. see 'moon, 'sunshine' etc.


 
I thought the science was better than the usual SF standards.  At least the spacecraft didn't bank like an airplane, like Battlestar Galactica.


----------



## spacemonkey (Nov 13, 2013)

I fucking loved it. Barely listened to a word of the dialogue, although vaguely remember something about a dead daughter. 

The visuals though - fuck. 

I watched it in a packed IMAX and people were dead quiet all the way through, fair play.


----------



## ohmyliver (Nov 14, 2013)

If anyone's interested here's a break down of one of the shots


(may well be less interesting if you don't work in vfx/post production, or have someone on hand to explain the jargon)


----------



## Stigmata (Nov 14, 2013)

Great film. Does it count as science fiction? Not sure really.


----------



## live_jayeola (Nov 14, 2013)

Loved it. Going to the IMAX this time. Yes, the physics does not all add up but this time I am just happy to be there, in the spell of the camera and screen. I saw it on Sunday. On Saturday, I saw the handing over of the Olympic torch at the ISS. It was a five hour space walk. 

A wank fest for some one like me. That film was bang on. The darkness....


----------



## editor (Nov 14, 2013)

I saw it at the IMAX today too with Eme. It was fantastic. A real immersive  dramatic, engrossing experience. And, yes, I moved my head out of the way several times when the 3D debris came flying out of the screen!


----------



## Mapped (Nov 14, 2013)

I've got decent seats booked at the IMAX on Sunday, after all these positive reviews I'm expecting good things.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Nov 15, 2013)

editor said:


> I saw it at the IMAX today too with Eme. It was fantastic. A real immersive  dramatic, engrossing experience. And, yes, I moved my head out of the way several times when the 3D debris came flying out of the screen!



I did that! First time ever watching a 3D film where I actually felt like I was in the film. Incredible.


----------



## DexterTCN (Nov 16, 2013)

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/...ts-banned-from-watching-gravity-2013111481138


----------



## Mapped (Nov 17, 2013)

My Mrs isn't feeling too well today (Self inflicted) and doesn't want to come. So I have a spare (free) ticket. Anyone fancy coming to the 4:30pm 3D showing at Waterloo IMAX?


----------



## belboid (Nov 17, 2013)

and another one who saw it in iMax3D last night..and another one who is going 'bloody hell that looked magnificent.  Shame about the awful script.'

Stunning


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 17, 2013)

The opening sequence was astonishing, one of the best things I've ever seen on a cinema screen. After that it gets a bit repetitive and suffers from script problems.

Still, my first instinct on leaving the cinema was to immediately cough up another tenner and go see it again. Thinking about it I probably could have just loitered around for a bit and snuck into a different screen for free.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Nov 17, 2013)

Caught it this morning; will probably post more after reading the thread but the basic summary is I enjoyed the first half, thought the second half was a series of concessions to mainstream audiences which set about undermining any potential set up in the first half.


----------



## _pH_ (Nov 17, 2013)

Just seen it in 3D at the IMAX (HUGE thanks to Mapped for the ticket!) - really stunning! Some of the scenes showing Earth from space were jaw-droppingly beautiful. OK, you have to ignore the fact that the plot is somewhat implausible, but it's a film, that's allowed. But the effects were superb and there were plenty of moments that gave me sweaty palms.

Would love to see it again at the IMAX before it finishes.


----------



## Meh O'Naise (Nov 17, 2013)

Be quick then, it seems a lot of IMAX screens are pulling it this thursday to stick on the next Hunger Games movie. FFS.

Saw it today on the biggest screen I could find - 71ftx40ft with 4k projectors in 3D - stunning. Simply amazing visuals. Will fit in a 2D screening also before it comes off, to contrast and compare. If this doesn't win a swathe of Technical oscars, - ie Visual Effects, Sound Editing - I'll be amazed.


----------



## DexterTCN (Nov 18, 2013)

Meh O'Naise said:


> ...If this doesn't win a swathe of Technical oscars, - ie Visual Effects, Sound Editing - I'll be amazed.


Those two, seriously.


----------



## bi0boy (Nov 18, 2013)

No IMAX here and Clooney makes me feel ill so I'm giving this a miss.


----------



## ChrisD (Nov 19, 2013)

I dislike clooney and 3D......but really enjoyed the film. Didn't notice the corny script / plot.   
Def one to see in 3D. I felt quite tense through a lot of it. Not sure that's enjoyable but quite an experience.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Nov 19, 2013)

Meh O'Naise said:


> Be quick then, it seems a lot of IMAX screens are pulling it this thursday to stick on the next Hunger Games movie. FFS.


I haven't had to book at the Waterloo IMAX since they let Odeon take over. Used to be that big releases - Dark Knight/Returns, Avatar, etc - you could book weeks in advance, but Gravity you can only book to next week. Means you can't book well and make sure you get the seats you want, even if you have to wait a while for them.


----------



## Meh O'Naise (Nov 20, 2013)

Lord Camomile said:


> I haven't had to book at the Waterloo IMAX since they let Odeon take over. Used to be that big releases - Dark Knight/Returns, Avatar, etc - you could book weeks in advance, but Gravity you can only book to next week. Means you can't book well and make sure you get the seats you want, even if you have to wait a while for them.



Problem with IMAX, is a lot of IMAX screens aren't as big as you think. Just because it's got IMAX on it, doesn't mean it is. Try to find the largest screen you can, and its' well worth seeing in 3D, imax or not. Its just that Hunger Games will hoover up the IMAX screens shortly, sadly.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Nov 20, 2013)

Meh O'Naise said:


> Problem with IMAX, is a lot of IMAX screens aren't as big as you think. Just because it's got IMAX on it, doesn't mean it is. Try to find the largest screen you can, and its' well worth seeing in 3D, imax or not. Its just that Hunger Games will hoover up the IMAX screens shortly, sadly.


Oh I know, I'm not going to the Enfield 'IMAX' (  ) - the Waterloo IMAX is definitely 'proper' IMAX 

But aye, Hunger Games looks like it's moving in. They'll probably re-run it at some point I would think.


----------



## editor (Nov 20, 2013)

There's a good interview with the director in this month's Wired magazine.  He won't be making another space film


----------



## Mation (Nov 20, 2013)

Going to see it tonight. Excited!


----------



## editor (Nov 20, 2013)

Spoiler












Here's a companion video to the film that wasn't shown in the movie. It contains spoilers so don't watch it if you haven't seen the film!
http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplayl...vity-spin-off-short-aningaaq-in-full-20131120


----------



## Mation (Nov 20, 2013)

Thoroughly enjoyed it, implausible though it was  It looked beautiful and there was a point to the 3D. It made me gasp and ooh and ah and wince - not just at the script. Was the right length. Yeah


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Nov 20, 2013)

Astonishing film. I echo what everyone has said about the stunning visuals and truly immersive 3d. And the cheesy script. Frankly I could have done without the last 3 minutes.

The score was excellent too. Helped build a real feeling of  menace. If I was doing some film studies coursework I would say that the main theme is that of attachment. What to hold on to, what to let go off, and how you use that to end up where you want to be.


----------



## Meh O'Naise (Nov 21, 2013)

King Biscuit Time said:


> Astonishing film. I echo what everyone has said about the stunning visuals and truly immersive 3d. And the cheesy script. Frankly I could have done without the last 3 minutes.



Interesting interview with Cuaron on the Kermode podcast, btw. he talks a lot about the themes, and the themes of the movie can be interpreted a number of ways.  For example, there's a scene about two thirds in which opens up a number of interpretations as to what is real, and what is merely perceived.

The last 3 minutes make a lot of sense, in terms of the opening up of interpretations.



Spoiler



In the Chinese Space station, she decides to vent the oxygen, and choose to die at a time of her own choosing. Then, Buzz Lightyear    George Clooney reappears, opens the hatch, let himself in, and gives her a peptalk. He then disappears.

It is clear it is a hallucination, caused by oxygen deprivation. Then she comes back to earth through the soyuz-style chinese pod re-entry, lands in a lake, and swims to shore.

some people think instead, everything after her hallucination is her journey to the afterlife. She dies, goes through purgatory (ie fire), and then is reborn in heaven (with the landing in the lake being indicative of the River Styx). There is no contact with anyone else ie Houston, other astronauts, anyone - after this point in the film, so there is no evidence to support whether or not she is actually on Earth, or if it figurative.

The lake she lands in is Lake Powell in Arizona, which is where the spacecraft in Planet Of The apes lands. You might consider this a clue. Is it a rebirth or a different, imagined Earth? (Like the bit in Solaris (Clooney) where he talks about being back on Earth but "remembering it wrong")

You can interpret it anyway you like. Not saying I agree with it though...


As for it being implausible - 
i) The mission number is given as STS-157 (actual shuttle missions finished at STS-132)
ii) The space Shuttle is called the Explorer (not a real shuttle name)
iii) One of the space stations seen isn't scheduled to be finished until 2022.
iv)Differing orbits of space stations and space debris mean no, it couldn't happen as it is presented in the film.
v)The JetPac that Clooney uses is no longer in use and doesn't have the same fuel capacity as shown in the film.
vi)Debris would have been travelling at 6miles per second. You would never even see it, it would just rip through you in a nanosecond.



But...It's not a documentary. It needs to work dramatically, and that means bending the truth sometimes. its' like nitpicking a civil war film for putting the buttons on the wrong sides of the tunics. You know, its as close to reality as you could expect within the confines of a fictional narrative. If the film was truly, truly authentic, it would have been very short - ie about 15 minutes long before dying due to lack of oxygen.

I don't know how they filmed it so cheap and all, what with actually having to go up to space to film it. (Yes, its that convincing)


----------



## Cloo (Nov 22, 2013)

Mation said:


> Thoroughly enjoyed it, implausible though it was  It looked beautiful and there was a point to the 3D. It made me gasp and ooh and ah and wince - not just at the script. Was the right length. Yeah


Yeah, it was the first time 3D has ever actually made me flinch! In fact the first time I've seen a 3D film where it has any impact at all.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 22, 2013)

The sound design was some of the best I've ever encountered as well I think.


----------



## bi0boy (Nov 22, 2013)

Meh O'Naise said:


> But...It's not a documentary. It needs to work dramatically, and that means bending the truth sometimes. its' like nitpicking a civil war film for putting the buttons on the wrong sides of the tunics. You know, its as close to reality as you could expect within the confines of a fictional narrative.



It sounds like more than nitpicking to me

This is what Peter F Hamilton had to say about it:

Just been to see Gravity.
Excellently realised space hardware. Great acting. High tension throughout. The feeling of the loneliness and grandeur from being in space was intense. And absolutely no understanding of orbital mechanics whatsoever. I mean less than zilch. A real shame for nerds like me, because that's what I'll always remember. But I still enjoyed it. Sort of.


----------



## Crispy (Nov 22, 2013)

Yeah, orbital mechanics was completely ignored, but conservation of momentum (linear and angular) was faultless, IMO.


----------



## Stigmata (Nov 22, 2013)

As a film about what it would feel like to be an astronaut, it's unsurpassed. I hope it sets a new standard for space films


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 22, 2013)

The more time that has passed since I've seen this film, the more I'm becoming indifferent to it. There are some films that really stick with you, and there are others that actually grow on you. This is not one of them. It would be a shit DVD to own. 



Spoiler



Also, the more I think about how annoying George Clooney's character was, the more glad I am that he died.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Nov 23, 2013)

Stigmata said:


> As a film about what it would feel like to be an astronaut, it's unsurpassed. I hope it sets a new standard for space films



Agreed. Hope we see more science fiction that isn't just shooting stuff like Moon etc as a result of this.


----------



## DrRingDing (Nov 24, 2013)

Clooney was shite.

NASA does not have regulation hot pants.

Russians have vodka on their station.

Chinese grow rice on theirs.

Apart from that and the daft story I enjoyed it.

Best use of 3D I've seen.


----------



## belboid (Nov 24, 2013)

Crispy said:


> Yeah, orbital mechanics was completely ignored, but conservation of momentum (linear and angular) was faultless, IMO.


It wasn't. Bullock slowed down whilst spinning off, which should be impossible. Minor detail tho


----------



## Ich bin ein Mod (Nov 24, 2013)

Saw this last night at the IMAX and was blown away. Yes, there's a lot to be nit-picky about, but do you know what, it's a film. And I am one of those geeks who cares about that kind of stuff, I'm paid to. Fuck it though, visually outstanding and it kept me gripped for the 90 minutes. Kudos for not cutting to flashbacks or mission control and instead making a film about space that's actually about space as someone said earlier in the thread.


----------



## Crispy (Nov 24, 2013)

belboid said:


> It wasn't. Bullock slowed down whilst spinning off, which should be impossible. Minor detail tho


damn. Although she did start out with chaotic multiple axis rotation, which ended up being converted to end over end rotation, which *is* accurate motion.


----------



## TitanSound (Nov 27, 2013)

I finally saw this last night. Mind. Blown.


----------



## Bigfoot (Nov 27, 2013)

I was really excited about it but I thought it was just another special effects movie. Two stars have to survive a brilliant special effect, and they do, and become more famous


----------



## sim667 (Nov 27, 2013)

My students have all told me its boring..... I think they're just uninformed.

Its only available in 3d right?


----------



## TitanSound (Nov 27, 2013)

I wouldn't say it's boring. It's just not a conventional film. It's incredibly effects heavy, but it has to be. I liken it to a director finding a terrible b-movie type script and making a pitch based on only having two actors and therefore a fucking huge effects budget.


----------



## Bigfoot (Nov 27, 2013)

TitanSound said:


> I wouldn't say it's boring. It's just not a conventional film. It's incredibly effects heavy, but it has to be. I liken it to a director finding a terrible b-movie type script and making a pitch based on only having two actors and therefore a fucking huge effects budget.



So basically a rubbish movie with great effects


----------



## Thora (Nov 27, 2013)

I thought it was great.
Lots of edge of your seat stuff
It wasn't too long (very important for me)
The 3D worked really well and wasn't irritating or intrusive
I like Clooney
I thought Bullock was good and it's nice to see an actress in a role that isn't all about her being a woman
I don't care how accurate the science was


----------



## TitanSound (Nov 27, 2013)

Bigfoot said:


> So basically a rubbish movie with great effects



Pretty much 

But as Thora said, it had tension and the 3D actually added to the experience.

Edit: Thinking about it, rather than a film it's like a reconstruction you see on the Discovery channel of some kind of real life disaster. With a huge budget.


----------



## belboid (Nov 27, 2013)

Bigfoot said:


> So basically a rubbish movie with great effects


a rubbish script, albeit wit a good strong plot. Perfectly decent performances. Very good direction, superb cinematography.  AND the most astounding effects you've ever seen.


----------



## Bigfoot (Nov 27, 2013)

TitanSound said:


> Pretty much
> 
> But as Thora said, it had tension and the 3D actually added to the experience.
> 
> Edit: Thinking about it, rather than a film it's like a reconstruction you see on the Discovery channel of some kind of real life disaster. With a huge budget.



That's the thing. I was impressed, but it's like all of the movies with amazing effects, now that someone has worked out how to do that effect it will be in loads of films in a year or two and in 5 years comedy sequels will have a bit using that effect. 
It annoys me because they probably spent years (literally) making sure that the effects were believable and that accurate and then the story is like an addendum, why didn't they just have one or two writers involved in the whole project rather than just bolting a story on


----------



## Bigfoot (Nov 27, 2013)

Imagine if they had used the plot from Moon


----------



## belboid (Nov 27, 2013)

Bigfoot said:


> Imagine if they had used the plot from Moon


then it would be a shit rip off. Why would that be better?


----------



## Bigfoot (Nov 27, 2013)

belboid said:


> then it would be a shit rip off. Why would that be better?



It just was an example of a space film with a great plot.


----------



## Crispy (Nov 27, 2013)

The plot was fine (Astronaut tries to get back to earth while all their spacecraft are being destroyed), it just needed a better script.


----------



## Bigfoot (Nov 27, 2013)

Crispy said:


> The plot was fine (Astronaut tries to get back to earth while all their spacecraft are being destroyed), it just needed a better script.



It was a bit 'disaster movie' for me.


----------



## Crispy (Nov 27, 2013)

Bigfoot said:


> It was a bit 'disaster movie' for me.


Nothing wrong with disaster movies


----------



## belboid (Nov 27, 2013)

Bigfoot said:


> It was a bit 'disaster movie' for me.


whereas Moon was a seventies enviro/corporate horror movie.


----------



## Bigfoot (Nov 27, 2013)

belboid said:


> whereas Moon was a seventies enviro/corporate horror movie.



Ah come on now. I can see why Moon could be called 70s style because it has existentialism in it, but that's not the same as Disaster movies which follow a very specific forumla


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Nov 27, 2013)

I guess with the amount of bucks they needed to make it looks so fantastic required them create a traditional 'Hollywood' storyline into the adventure. That said, I thoroughly enjoyed it and found it a thrilling ride. I like films about space being about space.

It's nowhere near as ace as Silent Running.....but what is?


----------



## Bigfoot (Nov 27, 2013)

Nanker Phelge said:


> I guess with the amount of bucks they needed to make it looks so fantastic required them create a traditional 'Hollywood' storyline into the adventure. That said, I thoroughly enjoyed it and found it a thrilling ride. I like films about space being about space.
> 
> It's nowhere near as ace as Silent Running.....but what is?



Yeah I get that, it was enjoyable. I just want to complain because deep down I'm lonely


----------



## Crispy (Nov 27, 2013)

Nanker Phelge said:


> I guess with the amount of bucks they needed to make it looks so fantastic required them create a traditional 'Hollywood' storyline into the adventure. That said, I thoroughly enjoyed it and found it a thrilling ride. I like films about space being about space.
> 
> It's nowhere near as ace as Silent Running.....but what is?



The plot and script were written by the director and his son. They should have got a pro to do it :-/ Interview with Jonas Cuaron here: http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1713297/sandra-bullock-gravity-script.jhtml


----------



## Remus Harbank (Nov 27, 2013)

Saw it last night.

Cool effects. 3D looked yummy. Could have been excellent with the right actors – bullock was exhausting, clooney looked like he was going to pull a nespresso capsule out of his arse at any moment.

5/10


----------



## Sue (Dec 1, 2013)

Crispy said:


> The plot and script were written by the director and his son. They should have got a pro to do it :-/ Interview with Jonas Cuaron here: http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1713297/sandra-bullock-gravity-script.jhtml


 
I disagree (and normally I moan about scripts being rubbish/them spending all the money on the effects and not on the script). I thought the script was pretty decent.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Dec 1, 2013)

belboid said:


> whereas Moon was a seventies enviro/corporate horror movie.



Moon was great but not a classic.


----------



## Lea (Dec 12, 2013)

Only just got round to seeing this last night at the IMAX. Loved it. Visually stunning. So the storyline is not believable at all and the physics don't add up but who cares. I didn't go to watch a NASA documentary.



Spoiler



Just thought that it would have been a perfect ending if she got gobbled up by an alligator at the end. ;-)


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Dec 12, 2013)

belboid said:


> whereas Moon was a seventies enviro/corporate horror movie.



It did remind me a bit of Silent Running.


----------



## mack (Dec 12, 2013)

I watched it last night with the missus -  a moody screener so I know we didn't get the full effect, anyway we both enjoyed it and it seemed to fire the imagination of the missus who told me this morning that she'd dreamt about being a spacewoman last night! Now she's asking all these questions about the ISS and wotnot


----------



## DexterTCN (Jan 19, 2014)




----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 19, 2014)

I really liked it, but I'm into space stuff anyway.


----------



## Ponyutd (Jan 20, 2014)

After watching The Hustle and  The Secret Life of Walter Mitty.... this was a half decent film. Liked Bullock, Clooney spoilt it though. Why does he always look smug?
6/10.


----------



## joustmaster (Apr 2, 2014)




----------



## sim667 (Apr 3, 2014)

Ponyutd said:


> After watching The Hustle and  The Secret Life of Walter Mitty.... this was a half decent film. Liked Bullock, Clooney spoilt it though. Why does he always look smug?
> 6/10.


 
I quite liked the secret life of walter mitty. It was a proper "nice" film.


----------



## ska invita (Aug 22, 2014)

just watched this, agree with the majority, amazing technicals, cringey dialogue, some ropey acting, amazing sound design....i thought the score was really cheesy, though it perfectly captured the one dimensional emotional level of the film!... and it won an oscar for best original score
....looks like it must've been fun in 3d.

weird how despite all the new technology the best space films are still from the last century


----------



## goldenecitrone (Aug 25, 2014)

ska invita said:


> weird how despite all the new technology the best space films are still from the last century



I watched 2001: A Space Odyssey in high definition at a mate's house recently. He has a huge projector screen on one wall. We'd had a few beers and spliffs. Amazing.


----------



## ska invita (Aug 25, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> I watched 2001: A Space Odyssey in high definition at a mate's house recently. He has a huge projector screen on one wall. We'd had a few beers and spliffs. Amazing.


 
all the while i was watching Gravity i kept think 'what would Kubrick have done?' and 'Kubrick would not be happy about this bit!"- Maybe a bit unfair as Gravity is an action flick really, but still.

saw 2001 (again) at the Imax a few years back...on top of everything else its a beautiful watch...and i think profound  and holds up completely. 
have you ever read the book? its an interesting thing...IIRC it was being written at the same time as the script - almost a parallel project - and Arthur C was in constant communication with Stanley as to how the film would shape up - the film really took the story away from the book into metaphysical territory and I think it was all down to SK that that happened. 2001 is going to take some beating....I think the only other space film in the same mental-space ball park is the original Solaris.

Gravity is pretty slated on the IMDB forums (which are always good for a laugh i find)...one funny thread title I saw was Gravity v Spaceballs, making the case that Spaceballs was the better movie!


----------



## goldenecitrone (Aug 25, 2014)

Never read Arthur C Clarke's book, written in his Sri Lankan hideaway. I did read Chandler's the Big Sleep and then watched the film with Bogey and Bacall and it was funny to see how the screenwriters took Chandler's dialogue word for word as it was so sharp and punchy, but then invented their own lesser, suggestive dialogue to soup up and extend the scenes between Bogey and Bacall. William Faulkner, I am looking at you. Irritating yet funny.


----------



## Tankus (Jan 17, 2015)

Free on google apps in HD at the mo.....going to watch it on chrome cast  tonight on my big TV ....be an interesting test


----------

