Escape to the Movies: Gravity

[Vigormortis]

Escapist users refuse to see it because of trailer soundtrack or potentially bent physics

You know how much of the internet dislikes this forum? This is why. This is also why we've made a "restore the fun to the Escapist Forums" group.

OT: I'm really hyped. This'll be the first time I've been to the movies since Pacific Rim.

So I'm not alone in thinking this forum has become incredibly pretentious and contrarian?

Oh good. And here I thought maybe I was just imagining the downturn. Also, I was unaware of this "restore the fun" group. I may have to join. (assuming it's not invite only, which would be odd)

Anyway, I'm with you. I've been hyped about this film since I first heard about it well over a year ago. I may be biased, but just hearing that it was Alfonso Cuaron doing another sci-fi thriller was enough to excite me.

Haven't had a chance to get to a theater yet. Most likely will this weekend. But, based on what I've been hearing from critics and audiences alike, I'm really anxious to see this. If only for the incredible eye candy being promised.

[sub]Even James Cameron gushed over how amazing the effects were.[/sub]

 

[TheYellowCellPhone]

I just got back from seeing it.

Without a doubt, that is the best movie I've ever seen. The movie was made for me. Such close attention to realism, incredibly beautiful visions, good sound design, untouchable cinematography, fucking fantastic characters and dialogue. (And there was no romance either.)

I was so apprehensive to see Clooney and Bullock as the leads of this movie, and I only saw this movie because of the premise of being stuck in space. But goddamn it if Bullock didn't nail the role as Stone. That one scene where she is listening to the Chinese conversation is ten straight, uncut minutes of her going from panicked to denial to anger to fascination to sad to melancholy. Half the reason the movie sat so right with me was Cuaron's love of one-shot takes, but Bullock going on a long emotional and eventually uplifting soliloquy to the audio of a blurred AM frequency of a Chinese man mocking her was the most tragic, emotional thing I've ever seen. It just seemed so natural.

I agree with Bob though, about that sense of realism that the movie probably could've done without.

Spoiler

When Clooney returns to the escape pod with Bullock but happens to be a hallucination of her oxygen-starved sleep

But it didn't ruin the movie, not by a long shot. I thought it was well-done of a sort of showstopper and I certainly went "Oh..." after it happened, but I think they should've done something more with that five minute gap they used up.

Also,

Spoiler

The death of the four people in the movie was so unexpected and really hit me more than any deaths before in movies. Both the people stuck on Discovery I didn't care for, but the astronaut with his visor and most of his skull smashed clean through and Clooney detethering himself to save Bullock were so unexpectedly morbid. I didn't think they would have killed Clooney that fast, but they did, the movie did great from it, and it wasn't after Stone lost sight of him that I thought "Shit, they actually killed him!"

I can't imagine a movie that is ever going to be better on a personal level than Gravity is.

 

[impocalyptic]

The charge that the critics would be less open to the same film coming from Bay, Snyder, or Neveldine/Taylor is puzzling. Considering how critics gush over any film that dares to be different in any significant manner, I'd posit that they would be surprised at the quality of the film, but wouldn't give it a failing grade based on the director's status. However, the film would look substantially different if it came from anyone other than Cuaron. Cuaron has proven himself as a director. That's not to say he's never made a less than stellar film (Potter 3 was ok, but I don't revisit it), but it does mean that there's a damn good reason to look forward to his work much in the same way people don't look forward to the work of Shyamalan.

 

[Tormuse]

I saw the movie last night and loved it! Speaking as someone who's afraid of heights, the whole thing gave me the heebie jeebies and was filled with gut-wrenching suspense.

For a good accurate ripping for how inaccurate this rubbish is, see here.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/10/poking-holes-in-the-gravity-trailer-with-nasas-help/

That article makes for an interesting and educational read, but I don't see how they could have included all of those points in the movie and still maintained the intense emotional connection with the audience. For what it's worth, Cuaron has said that he wanted to make the physics of the movie as accurate as possible, but had to make some tough choices to simplify things in order to keep the movie going and not turn half of the movie into dialogue explaining the physics. Personally, I believe he made good choices that didn't significantly take away from my ability to enjoy it and it isn't fair to call the movie "rubbish" because of it. (For that matter, the author of the article doesn't think the movie is rubbish, nor does the NASA official he corresponded with) The whole concept of retrograde burns to drop into faster orbits is fascinating, but the general public knows nothing about that, so it would kill the pacing of the movie if the characters stop to explain everything they're doing.

Nevertheless, just for fun, here's my best impression of how the movie would have turned out, taking everything from the article into account:

It would be impossible to get to the ISS from Hubble because they're in different orbits, so after the debris struck the shuttle, George Clooney and Sandra Bullock would remain adrift until they died. Clooney's fancy jetpack is impractical and unfeasible, so he isn't able to rescue Bullock from tumbling away, so the whole movie is 90 minutes of Bullock tumbling in space, unable to reach anything and for the last 30 minutes of it, she's dead from asphyxiation.

Even better version:

They never go out on the spacewalk in the first place because Houston warned them of incoming debris. They're inside the shuttle, not wearing their spacesuits when the shuttle is hit, so everyone dies of explosive decompression at the beginning of the movie and the rest of the 90 minutes is scenes of floating, lifeless debris.

Sounds like a blockbuster.

 

[RedDeadFred]

Finally saw this yesterday. IMO it deserves every bit of praise it has gotten. It was a white knuckle thrill ride while also being a satisfyingly emotional experience. Easily my favourite movie of the year so far and probably one of the best I've seen in a long time.

 

[scnj]

I've seen Gravity now, but I forgot to keep an eye out for the 'magical realism' bit. Anyone have any idea what that referred to?

 

[karamazovnew]

Managed to find a 3d Cinema that still had this movie on show. I'm lost for words... by far the best movie I've seen all year, and one of the most thrilling I've watched in years. My only regret is that I've missed the IMAX version.

Which also brings me to this...

I've seen Gravity now, but I forgot to keep an eye out for the 'magical realism' bit. Anyone have any idea what that referred to?

I've done my fair share of Maya and 3dsMAX and I own an expensive enough camera to allow me to say the occasional "how the F did they do that?!" when I see a movie like Rango (not that I liked that crap movie) or Children of Men. I can appreciate special effects and cinematography done right. But it's been a long long long time of me saying "they don't make movies like they used to", crying over the perfection of special effects in Das Boot and 2001, weeping on the costumes of The Duelists and the candle lights of Barry Lyndon. Movies of our era just look fake. It's gotten to a point where I prefer to see full animated movies rather than your normal action blockbuster. Heck, I even started to watch asian movies to get my "realism" kick. Even movies I like share this problem. Heck, even trying to put a full story in 2 hours is bound to have issues, right? Name any of your pre-2000 favorite movie and I will put a check on my "fake movie" list. And then there's Trainspotting, or Snatch, or Fight Club, or Goodfellas, you know, the good stuff. It's like Hollywood doesn't know how to make movies anymore, right? It's all shallow and fake, for the masses, just add a "2" at the end.

Enter "Gravity"... f_ck, where do I begin? 2 hours of watching something you'll never ever ever see yourself, based on reality, best 3D ever, special effects so real you forget they're made with a keyboard and mouse? Plus, you will never ever watch an ISS news (they just fixed some pump today btw) like you did before, because you'll realize that even with the entire NASA behind it, in the end they're just a bunch of people out there alone and if shit goes wrong THAT's what it actually is like! Read about the Soyuz 5 landing. Try a wikipedia search. You'll see text, you'll read it, you'll cringe about the "broken teeth" part, but you'll not actually understand much. But after you've seen Gravity, suddenly you have more respect, you've seen what it's actually like. That's the whole thrill of Gravity, that's why the tension is so real. Ok, the Apollo 13 movie also did a good job in some regards, but just looking at worried faces doesn't compare to seeing the ISS being turned into a million pieces.