The Gipper Posted October 21, 2013 Report Share Posted October 21, 2013 Saw this movie over the weekend. The visual effect were astoundingly awesome, the situations that Sandra Bullock and George Clooney were put in were gripping and paralyzing. But not eveything was good. The dialog was sophomoric in my opinion. Partly because they used the old standard "we've lost communications" ploy. I mean, bad thrillers use the old "the phone is out" trick. It was BS. I believe it would have been far more compelling if they actually had kept communications open...like in Apollo 11. They used Ed Harris as the voice of "Houston"...and when they did it worked quite well. Also, Sandra played it a little too "damsel in distress" like. She would have been a well trained astronaut/scientist.....not the ingenue that she sort of came off as at times. (I don't blame her, I blame the director). Nevertheless, it comes off as a solid B...just because the visuals and the circumstances really were that outstanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballpeen Posted October 22, 2013 Report Share Posted October 22, 2013 I liked it. Saw the 3D version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted October 22, 2013 Report Share Posted October 22, 2013 I'll post my review today. Kind of agree with the Gipper pretty cool visuals but it bored the living shit out of me. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted October 22, 2013 Author Report Share Posted October 22, 2013 I liked it. Saw the 3D version. Yes, I did too. I hope I didn't give the impression that I didn't like it. I just thought the dialog was pedestrian, and that Sandra played it a bit to whiny, which to me, again, was a directorial issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Osiris Posted October 27, 2013 Report Share Posted October 27, 2013 They did one thing exceedingly well with the movie, and that was to create a sense of peril and doom for Dr. Stone. Otherwise, my criticisms are the same as others, namely: - dialog was weak. In the SFF fiction writing world, we have a classic writing mistake called the "As You Know, Bob." This is one character tells another character something they already know so that the audience will know it. This comes off as contrived because it is unlikely the characters would actually talk about something they already know. This happens in the movie when Houston tells Dr. Stone the reason for the mission as she is clearly carrying the mission out. -lapses in suspension of disbelief. Two things happen occur without sufficient explanation and therefore come off as something the director wanted to happen and not something that felt organic to the story. First, the idea that the Russians shot down their satellite needed more explanation because I believe standard procedure would be to just to redirect the satellite to burn up in the atmosphere. Second, Clooney's justification for his suicide came off as weak. I was not convinced that both could not survive the situation they were in, as the cords had stopped snapping, and therefore it came off as something that happened because the director wanted it to happen. In the end, I give the movie a 7 out of 10, mostly because they did the peril thing so well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPPT1974 Posted November 5, 2013 Report Share Posted November 5, 2013 Want to see this film. As heard it is awesome. May see it tomorrow! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miktoxic Posted November 10, 2013 Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 hey Osiris, thanks for the heads up on the george clooney character. wanna tell me how it ends? just kidding. watched bill maher's last show and he basically gave the whole story away. got a bootleg of it sitting on my drawing table.....just don't know if i want to spend the time to watch this torturous thing. i mean i love some old giallo B-movie horror flicks from the 70's but i don't get into the torture movies i.e. saw, hostel etc. etc. i end up screaming at the victims for putting themselves in that position, and then not being able to do anything about it. except seeing your leg get dismembered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Osiris Posted November 11, 2013 Report Share Posted November 11, 2013 hey Osiris, thanks for the heads up on the george clooney character. wanna tell me how it ends? just kidding. watched bill maher's last show and he basically gave the whole story away. got a bootleg of it sitting on my drawing table.....just don't know if i want to spend the time to watch this torturous thing. i mean i love some old giallo B-movie horror flicks from the 70's but i don't get into the torture movies i.e. saw, hostel etc. etc. i end up screaming at the victims for putting themselves in that position, and then not being able to do anything about it. except seeing your leg get dismembered. Don't worry, it wasn't much of a spoiler, it happens pretty early in the movie. Anyway, it isn't a horror movie, nothing like saw or hostel at all, and not much anything grotesque in it either. It's worth watching. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted December 23, 2013 Report Share Posted December 23, 2013 Finally saw this. And to put it bluntly, *meh* - there is basically no story, just a standard "you're running out of time, better get back to civilisation quick" theme going on. Spectacular effects, making me want to go in to space more and more, sure, but if that's what I wanted then I'd just go look at astrology websites. Things I knew going in - it's basically just Sandy B on her own for most of the movie; she gets detached and needs to get back to earth; she will, or the movie wouldn't have been made. Things I learned during the course of the film - it's possible to have an actual jetpack and fly around in space. Seriously, you start out with the three of them, you know the other two are going to die - shock horror, the indian guy whose face we don't even see goes first. Then the other star, George Clooney, goes next, bravely giving his life to save hers. So we're left with about an hour of "ooooh, is she going to run out of oxygen/get hit by shrapnel/run out of fuel?" before she basically just gets in to another spacecraft and crash lands, via some extremely helpful hallucination. Sorry for any spoilers, but this movie really pissed me off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larryfine Posted December 23, 2013 Report Share Posted December 23, 2013 Boring Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted December 23, 2013 Report Share Posted December 23, 2013 Finally saw this. And to put it bluntly, *meh* - there is basically no story, just a standard "you're running out of time, better get back to civilisation quick" theme going on. Spectacular effects, making me want to go in to space more and more, sure, but if that's what I wanted then I'd just go look at astrology websites. Things I knew going in - it's basically just Sandy B on her own for most of the movie; she gets detached and needs to get back to earth; she will, or the movie wouldn't have been made. Things I learned during the course of the film - it's possible to have an actual jetpack and fly around in space. Seriously, you start out with the three of them, you know the other two are going to die - shock horror, the indian guy whose face we don't even see goes first. Then the other star, George Clooney, goes next, bravely giving his life to save hers. So we're left with about an hour of "ooooh, is she going to run out of oxygen/get hit by shrapnel/run out of fuel?" before she basically just gets in to another spacecraft and crash lands, via some extremely helpful hallucination. Sorry for any spoilers, but this movie really pissed me off. That was terrible man, you basically ruined the whole movie for me. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted December 24, 2013 Report Share Posted December 24, 2013 That was terrible man, you basically ruined the whole movie for me. Thanks. Don't read reviews and don't discuss movies before you see them if you don't want that to happen. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted December 24, 2013 Report Share Posted December 24, 2013 That was terrible man, you basically ruined the whole movie for me. Thanks. Well, sorry, but... Don't read reviews and don't discuss movies before you see them if you don't want that to happen. WSS ...this. Plus, do you really not know the plot? That was my biggest gripe, that there was no plot or surprises. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nickers Posted December 25, 2013 Report Share Posted December 25, 2013 the movie gets an "ok" from Me...otherwise...nothing earth shattering here...(no pun intended) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted December 26, 2013 Report Share Posted December 26, 2013 Don't read reviews and don't discuss movies before you see them if you don't want that to happen. WSS Yeah ok Steve most reviews are designed to critique the movie in question to let people know whether they ought to see them or not., not to detail how everyone dies and give away the ending. Generally, if you're not a douche, you'd put some sort of spoiler alert at the beginning of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadNewsBrowns Posted December 26, 2013 Report Share Posted December 26, 2013 Cast Away II: Cast Away in Space Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted December 26, 2013 Report Share Posted December 26, 2013 Yeah ok Steve most reviews are designed to critique the movie in question to let people know whether they ought to see them or not., not to detail how everyone dies and give away the ending. Generally, if you're not a douche, you'd put some sort of spoiler alert at the beginning of it. Actually I try never to look at any other critics reviews before I go catch a film. Usually I go within days of its opening just in case. It also pisses me off when the rushes or the previews give you just about every detail of the film. If not every detail at least a pretty good idea of what is to come. Still on top of the previews just about every review gives you some sort of synopsis: about the plot. I'd always prefer to be totally surprised. That's why I wont read a review until after I've given a grade. Oftentimes I am shocked that the big boys loved some piece of crap or that everyone hated something that I really liked. Of course you know the old saying about assholes and opinions... WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted December 26, 2013 Author Report Share Posted December 26, 2013 Of course you know the old saying about assholes and opinions... Sometimes they are one and the same? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoorta Posted March 4, 2014 Report Share Posted March 4, 2014 OK, As a SiyiFY fanatic and rare movie goer- I had to take a look at Gravity post Oscar to see what all the buzz was about. . As a long time Amateur Astronomer- and dabbler in celestial mechanics, I have two things to say: 1) The Special effects were cutting edge- to have you believe you were in zero gravity circling the Earth were astounding, never seen before CGI. BUT. 2) That movie SUCKED, on many levels. How it ever got a nomination for Best Picture is beyond me. Us guys who know a little about orbital mechanics- the whole premise of the movie was total BS. Even if you want to believe the Ruskies (or the US) had satellites in counter rotational orbits in the same altitude as the Hubble or IST (they don't) you're not going to be seeing enough space junk coming @ an effective 36,000 mph in the wrong direction to destroy both destroy a shuttle or the ISS. 3) I love ya as an actress Sandra, but that wasn't Oscar worthy. So you can fly both a Soyuz capsule and a Chinese escape pod without any training? I suppose I could push enough buttons to get 'em to do something too. 4) So count me that knows something about Space Reality- Gravity is as far fetched from real Space Reality as Star Trek. If you can enjoy it on that level- great- I give it a C- and a waste of my $6 PPV money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted March 4, 2014 Report Share Posted March 4, 2014 I gave it a D+ and have no idea why it got so much traction. Mayy Sandra Bullock is popular among the Academy. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted March 4, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 4, 2014 I will note that Gravity got most of its Oscars in the graphics/special effects categories.....except for the Director category. And in that regard I don't think moviegoers are all that concerned about technical accuracy. There were worse flaws than that, which the common layman would know nothing about. Like I said, the whole damsel in distress thing, and the whole "Captain, communications are down" thing were bigger flaws to me. But OK, I will give it that it had great effects. Especially in the 3-D mode. Hoorta: did you see the 3-D version? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted March 4, 2014 Report Share Posted March 4, 2014 I liked it. The effects were outstanding Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoorta Posted March 4, 2014 Report Share Posted March 4, 2014 I will note that Gravity got most of its Oscars in the graphics/special effects categories.....except for the Director category. And in that regard I don't think moviegoers are all that concerned about technical accuracy. There were worse flaws than that, which the common layman would know nothing about. Like I said, the whole damsel in distress thing, and the whole "Captain, communications are down" thing were bigger flaws to me. But OK, I will give it that it had great effects. Especially in the 3-D mode. Hoorta: did you see the 3-D version? No I didn't. I also sometimes read HiDefForum- and there's a thing about 3-D. 3-D really isn't 3-D- it's 2 simultaneous two dimensional images your brain has to process into a 3-D image. Some folks (including me) either can't do it at all, or do it poorly. I much preferred the 2-D version of Avatar to the 3-D version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted March 4, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 4, 2014 No I didn't. I also sometimes read HiDefForum- and there's a thing about 3-D. 3-D really isn't 3-D- it's 2 simultaneous two dimensional images your brain has to process into a 3-D image. Some folks (including me) either can't do it at all, or do it poorly. I much preferred the 2-D version of Avatar to the 3-D version. OK, well, I guess that is like being color blind. I much preferred the 3-D version of those films, which I didn't think I would. I just didn't like having to pay an extra 3.50 for the 3-D though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted March 4, 2014 Report Share Posted March 4, 2014 Avatar in 3d was a treat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted March 4, 2014 Report Share Posted March 4, 2014 Avatar in 3d was a treat But it dragged a little and I was never anxious to see it again. of course I see a lot of movies and special effects only impress me for a few minutes. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted March 4, 2014 Report Share Posted March 4, 2014 The movie wasn't great but the 3d effects were Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoorta Posted March 5, 2014 Report Share Posted March 5, 2014 The movie wasn't great but the 3d effects were And ya see, that's where I have trouble. Like the little gizmo of the Tree of Souls floating an inch away from your nose- against a very 2-D background- at least for us 3-D challenged folks. That's what I usually see watching a 3-D movie, three layers of 2-D images stacked on top of one another. Sucks, but until they come up with virtual holographic projection, I'm not inclined to pay the extra $$ to catch a 3-D flick at the movies. I tried again last summer catching Star Trek Into Darkness 3D, and came away disappointed. I try to stay sort of cutting edge in my Man Cave Home Theater, but I have zero interest in adding a 3-D monitor toy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted March 5, 2014 Report Share Posted March 5, 2014 And ya see, that's where I have trouble. Like the little gizmo of the Tree of Souls floating an inch away from your nose- against a very 2-D background- at least for us 3-D challenged folks. That's what I usually see watching a 3-D movie, three layers of 2-D images stacked on top of one another. Sucks, but until they come up with virtual holographic projection, I'm not inclined to pay the extra $$ to catch a 3-D flick at the movies. I tried again last summer catching Star Trek Into Darkness 3D, and came away disappointed. I try to stay sort of cutting edge in my Man Cave Home Theater, but I have zero interest in adding a 3-D monitor toy. Do you guys have IMAX in the states? We have it here, it works as a sort of 3D experience, without the glasses, on a curved screen. You don't quite get the stuff flying at you like in Avatar (the only film I've seen in 3D so far) but it's pretty good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted March 5, 2014 Report Share Posted March 5, 2014 Do you guys have IMAX in the states? We have it here, it works as a sort of 3D experience, without the glasses, on a curved screen. You don't quite get the stuff flying at you like in Avatar (the only film I've seen in 3D so far) but it's pretty good. We have 3d Imax Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.