or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion › Alfonso Cuaron's new film ("Gravity") to feature 17 minute opening long take
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Alfonso Cuaron's new film ("Gravity") to feature 17 minute opening long take - Page 5

post #121 of 738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

I'm suddenly having flashbacks to...


LMAO. Yeah, unfortunately, when the discussion about scientists being miscast came up in this thread, I had flashbacks to Denise as a nuclear physicist too. Now THAT'S miscasting.
post #122 of 738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Will2007 View Post

I look forward to sharing impressions.
Me too.smile.gif

Quote:
I brought up Heath Ledger because I would have thought he was miscast as The Joker until I saw him. In my opinion, his performance defies superlatives and may be one of the greatest acting transformations I've ever seen on screen in any film. It was obvious the first time I saw him, in "10 Things," that he was charming, charismatic, and certainly talented, but I never would have guessed he would show such uncanny and uncommon acting virtuosity some eight or nine years later.
He wasn't chopped liver in Brokeback Mtn. neither.wink.gif

Quote:
One day Professor Einstein was eating lunch alone at a diner in Princeton. He had forgotten his reading glasses, so he turned to the stranger next to him and meekly asked him to read the choices on the menu for him. The stranger put his arm on Einstein's shoulder and softly said, "It's OK, buddy, you don't have to be embarrassed."
LOL.
post #123 of 738
Just saw Thursday eve opening

Stunning, epic, awesome cinematic achievement
Cuaron has just changed the technical side of movies

IMHO the best use of 3d ever (seen in IMAX). It's not used as a gimmic, a toy or tool you twiddle to give some passing dimensionality or visual surprise,

Here it is essential to the world in which the characters reside. The 3d is totally organic and wholly and seamlessly constitutes their environment.

Dramatic and suspenseful. Both clooney and bullock are just fine in their roles (they only contribute and don't detract). The movie is really not about those characters.
There are some flaws in the film, and I'm sure many others will find issues of inconsistency, non-science, and plot contortions of which to pick and fault.

I still need time to take this all in and assess, but this movie brings back the edgy, dangerous place space was that we haven't seen done well since 2001 or alien(s).

Don't wait, go see for yourselves in 3d of course
Edited by mr. wally - 10/4/13 at 1:04pm
post #124 of 738
is this gonna be the actor talking to herself while tumbling about on a mostly black background for 1h30min ? ...dramatic suspense art thing ? and if there's no sound in space what's the use of Atmos ... altho 5$ for 30 min if i dont like it wont be that big a loss
post #125 of 738
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. wally View Post

Just saw Thursday eve opening

Stunning, epic, awesome cinematic achievement
Cuaron has just changed the technical side of movies

IMHO the best use of 3d ever (seen in IMAX). It's not used as a gimmic, a toy or tool you twiddle to give some passing dimensionality or visual surprise,

Here it is essential to the world in which the characters reside. The 3d is totally organic and wholly and seamlessly constitutes their environment.

Dramatic and suspenseful. Both clooney and bullock are just fine in their roles (they only contribute and don't detract). The movie is really not about those characters.
There are some flaws in the film, and I'm sure many others will find issues of inconsistency, non-science, and plot contortions of which to pick and fault.

I still need time to take this all in and asess, but this movie brings back the edgy, dangerous place space was that we haven't seen done well since 2001 or alien(s).

Don't wait, go see for yourselves in 3d of course

Saw it last night and I also loved it. Agree best use of 3d to date. This is a must see on a big screen in 3D.

To me this was a reminder of why I love movies so much. I can't wait to see it again. I will see it in Atmos this time.
post #126 of 738
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulls View Post

is this gonna be the actor talking to herself while tumbling about on a mostly black background for 1h30min ? ...dramatic suspense art thing ? and if there's no sound in space what's the use of Atmos ... altho 5$ for 30 min if i dont like it wont be that big a loss

Your totally off on all your thoughts about the movie.
post #127 of 738
I have no problem with Sandra Bullock in this movie, but I can definitely see where some could. I think whats being missed in the conversation isn't her looks or acting chops, but the fact that she doesn't come off like someone with a 150 plus IQ. Shes just not real astronaut-y.

It has less to do with "looks" and more to do with "the look", which probably doesn't make any sense but that's the way I'd describe it.

The people who survive the vetting process to go into space are ridiculously intelligent, and IMO she cant pull that off like say an Ed Harris can. I'm sure some people cant un-see stuff like "murderdeathkill".

So even though I'm OK with it, I can easily see why others would be cautious. Lets hope she pulls it off.
post #128 of 738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Will2007 View Post

LMAO. Yeah, unfortunately, when the discussion about scientists being miscast came up in this thread, I had flashbacks to Denise as a nuclear physicist too. Now THAT'S miscasting.

For as much grief as the fans give that movie, I've personally never had a problem with that casting. Denise Richards in a tank top and short-shorts is exactly what a nuclear scientist would look like in the James Bond universe. And while she's not much of an actress, she's certainly no worse than many of the Bond girls before her.

I have other issues with that movie, but Richards isn't one of them.
post #129 of 738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tack View Post

I have no problem with Sandra Bullock in this movie, but I can definitely see where some could. I think whats being missed in the conversation isn't her looks or acting chops, but the fact that she doesn't come off like someone with a 150 plus IQ. Shes just not real astronaut-y.

It has less to do with "looks" and more to do with "the look", which probably doesn't make any sense but that's the way I'd describe it.

The people who survive the vetting process to go into space are ridiculously intelligent, and IMO she cant pull that off
Thank you for explaining my POV better than I did.wink.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

For as much grief as the fans give that movie, I've personally never had a problem with that casting. Denise Richards in a tank top and short-shorts is exactly what a nuclear scientist would look like in the James Bond universe. And while she's not much of an actress, she's certainly no worse than many of the Bond girls before her.

I have other issues with that movie, but Richards isn't one of them.
Yeah, that.
post #130 of 738
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulls View Post

is this gonna be the actor talking to herself while tumbling about on a mostly black background for 1h30min ? ...dramatic suspense art thing ? and if there's no sound in space what's the use of Atmos ... altho 5$ for 30 min if i dont like it wont be that big a loss

They violate the "no sound in space" factor almost before the graphic assuring us there would be no sound in space fades from the screen. You hear every pebble and doodad of the debris hitting the craft from that moment forward. It's a little muffled, but nothing happens in void silence in this movie. My problem with Sandra Bullock was that her constant vocalizing of distress came off to me like Kate Capshaw's performance in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom on steroids. And her character seemed to be dangeriously emotionally fragile even before trouble began, so why would she have been authorized to spend all that time in space from the get go. Don't they screen for that?

It was an ok movie. A couple of moments here and there. Nothing about CGI has improved upon Kubrick's visual depiction of heavenly bodies in space in 2001: A Space Odyssey. Earth from space looked more real, more like a real thing that exists in the real universe in that 1968 movie than in this one.
post #131 of 738
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitchfan View Post

They violate the "no sound in space" factor almost before the graphic assuring us there would be no sound in space fades from the screen. You hear every pebble and doodad of the debris hitting the craft from that moment forward. It's a little muffled, but nothing happens in void silence in this movie.

I haven't seen the movie yet (tomorrow, if all goes according to plan), but the previews suggest most of the sounds come from the astronauts themselves - their breathing, voices, & radios. In addition, any vibrations from things they are physically in contact with might manifest themselves in sounds they could hear inside their suits which are filled with air.
post #132 of 738
I saw Gravity with my daughter today and we were both blown away. We saw it in 2D because both of us rather dislike 3D, Fortunately, the 2D showing we saw was in a large theater with a really big screen. There was a remarkably large crowd there for a matinee.

Despite his star billing, George Clooney is really in a supporting role, Gravity is Bullock's film and she made the most of it. As the word of mouth has already established, Alfonso Cuarón's film is a visual feast, which virtually demands to be seen on a big screen in a darkened theater. Every frame is startlingly beautiful. Bullock was incredible as a doctor who is a mission specialist on her first space mission. I sat in the theater with my jaw agape during most of the film's 90 minute runtime. I can't remember a more intense moviegoing experience. I'm glad it didn't run two hours, I don't know whether I could have taken it. smile.gif

Gravity is the best film I have seen since I can't remember when. 10 Stars out of 10. Caveat: You owe it to yourselves to see it in the theater. Trust me, you won't be sorry.
post #133 of 738
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitchfan View Post

And her character seemed to be dangeriously emotionally fragile even before trouble began, so why would she have been authorized to spend all that time in space from the get go. Don't they screen for that?

Lisa Nowak says "Hi."



post #134 of 738
Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post

I haven't seen the movie yet (tomorrow, if all goes according to plan), but the previews suggest most of the sounds come from the astronauts themselves - their breathing, voices, & radios. In addition, any vibrations from things they are physically in contact with might manifest themselves in sounds they could hear inside their suits which are filled with air.
Yeah, maybe that's it. It's pretty much what you hear in the trailer whenever something crashes into something else, you hear it. But I'm not sure why there is any mention of "no sound in space" at all if they're not going to make much use of that factor. Seemed like they wanted to make sure we understood that and then...bang, crash, snap, crackle, pop all over the place. Along with the musical soundtrack accompaniment for it, of course.
post #135 of 738
Aaannnndd I am totally okay with there being an awesome sound mix for this one. wink.gif
post #136 of 738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Lisa Nowak says "Hi."



Obviously, unless the evidence of emotional fragility develops after spending 12 days in space, as was the case with Nowak, rather than before and during those 12 days in space, NASA's psychological screening process sucks. Which explains why the man Bullock's character was working side-by-side with for so long in outer space had no idea where she was from, what her family situation was, or anything about a rather dramatic and disturbing personal event in her fairly recent past until the debris started raining in on them.
post #137 of 738
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwsat View Post

I saw Gravity with my daughter today and we were both blown away. We saw it in 2D because both of us rather dislike 3D, Fortunately, the 2D showing we saw was in a large theater with a really big screen. There was a remarkably large crowd there for a matinee.

Despite his star billing, George Clooney is really in a supporting role, Gravity is Bullock's film and she made the most of it. As the word of mouth has already established, Alfonso Cuarón's film is a visual feast, which virtually demands to be seen on a big screen in a darkened theater. Every frame is startlingly beautiful. Bullock was incredible as a doctor who is a mission specialist on her first space mission. I sat in the theater with my jaw agape during most of the film's 90 minute runtime. I can't remember a more intense moviegoing experience. I'm glad it didn't run two hours, I don't know whether I could have taken it. smile.gif

Gravity is the best film I have seen since I can't remember when. 10 Stars out of 10. Caveat: You owe it to yourselves to see it in the theater. Trust me, you won't be sorry.


with you totally bud,


i don't know what's happening here on the movie forum, but too many people i respect seem to be treating this movie as fluff

too many zombie releases perhaps

if, technically, this isn't avs material i don't know what is.

and yes the sound kicks ass

3d highly recommended
post #138 of 738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Simonian View Post

Aaannnndd I am totally okay with there being an awesome sound mix for this one. wink.gif

and there is.
post #139 of 738
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. wally View Post



3d highly recommended

Even if it's a LIEMAX?
post #140 of 738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aliens View Post

Even if it's a LIEMAX?

Hey, some of us living out here in the wilderness don't have access to a real IMAX like you big metropolitan city slickers. It's LIEMAX or NOMAX out here on the red-state frontier. wink.gif
post #141 of 738
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwsat View Post

I saw Gravity with my daughter today and we were both blown away. We saw it in 2D because both of us rather dislike 3D, Fortunately, the 2D showing we saw was in a large theater with a really big screen. There was a remarkably large crowd there for a matinee.

Despite his star billing, George Clooney is really in a supporting role, Gravity is Bullock's film and she made the most of it. As the word of mouth has already established, Alfonso Cuarón's film is a visual feast, which virtually demands to be seen on a big screen in a darkened theater. Every frame is startlingly beautiful. Bullock was incredible as a doctor who is a mission specialist on her first space mission. I sat in the theater with my jaw agape during most of the film's 90 minute runtime. I can't remember a more intense moviegoing experience. I'm glad it didn't run two hours, I don't know whether I could have taken it. smile.gif

Gravity is the best film I have seen since I can't remember when. 10 Stars out of 10. Caveat: You owe it to yourselves to see it in the theater. Trust me, you won't be sorry.

Thanks for your intriguing review. I want to see it even more now. I'm really looking forward to it.
post #142 of 738
Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post

Hey, some of us living out here in the wilderness don't have access to a real IMAX like you big metropolitan city slickers. It's LIEMAX or NOMAX out here on the red-state frontier. wink.gif


Those Communists are disrespecting Thomas Jefferson. They built a LIEMAX here. mad.gif
post #143 of 738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aliens View Post

Even if it's a LIEMAX?

The film's AR is 2.35:1 anyway...
post #144 of 738
Based on the trailer alone, I feel compelled to see this film if for nothing else, the visual possibilities alone. I am not really a 3D fan but I have felt all along after the release of the trailer that this one is a must see in 3D unless I hear otherwise from credible sources. But it sounds to me that this is more than just eye candy, which I'm very glad to hear and read about because I am a Sandra Bullock fan. If things work out I'll take it in perhaps tomorrow night.
post #145 of 738
Quote:
Originally Posted by ivanpino View Post

and there is.

I really want to come down and see you guys and see this in Atmos!
post #146 of 738
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwsat View Post

I saw Gravity with my daughter today and we were both blown away. We saw it in 2D because both of us rather dislike 3D, Fortunately, the 2D showing we saw was in a large theater with a really big screen. There was a remarkably large crowd there for a matinee.

Despite his star billing, George Clooney is really in a supporting role, Gravity is Bullock's film and she made the most of it. As the word of mouth has already established, Alfonso Cuarón's film is a visual feast, which virtually demands to be seen on a big screen in a darkened theater. Every frame is startlingly beautiful. Bullock was incredible as a doctor who is a mission specialist on her first space mission. I sat in the theater with my jaw agape during most of the film's 90 minute runtime. I can't remember a more intense moviegoing experience. I'm glad it didn't run two hours, I don't know whether I could have taken it. smile.gif

Gravity is the best film I have seen since I can't remember when. 10 Stars out of 10. Caveat: You owe it to yourselves to see it in the theater. Trust me, you won't be sorry.

I saw it this afternoon and completely agree with you gwsat.

This film is a brilliant piece of filmmaking...and acting. A very simple, and yet vertiginous premise (does that make sense in english? ...my french gets in the way sometimes wink.gif) Sandra Bullock owns this film from start to finish. Like you said it must be seen in the theater first (even if the Blu-ray will probably have a perfect presentation). I especially liked how the use of the music filled the void left by the absence, or very limited presence, of sound effects.

I saw it in 3D (not IMAX) and for once, I found it quite effective, although I'm sure the film is equally powerful in 2D.
post #147 of 738
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitchfan View Post

They violate the "no sound in space" factor almost before the graphic assuring us there would be no sound in space fades from the screen. You hear every pebble and doodad of the debris hitting the craft from that moment forward. It's a little muffled, but nothing happens in void silence in this movie.

They didn't violate anything. They have air circulating in their suits, they can hear muffled sounds when they touch something, or when they're in contact with something, which is precisely what happens in the movie. The only liberty the filmmakers took was that they're making the audience hear what the characters are hearing. The rest is silent.
Quote:
My problem with Sandra Bullock was that her constant vocalizing of distress came off to me like Kate Capshaw's performance in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom on steroids. And her character seemed to be dangeriously emotionally fragile even before trouble began, so why would she have been authorized to spend all that time in space from the get go. Don't they screen for that?

You can train all you want (besides she doesn't portray an astronaut) but I'm pretty sure when you're out there for the first time it can be both absolutely beautiful and dangerously scary at the same time.
Quote:
It was an ok movie. A couple of moments here and there. Nothing about CGI has improved upon Kubrick's visual depiction of heavenly bodies in space in 2001: A Space Odyssey. Earth from space looked more real, more like a real thing that exists in the real universe in that 1968 movie than in this one.

To each his own. For me it's one fo the best films I've seen this year and I'll gladly see it again. smile.gif
post #148 of 738
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. wally View Post

3d highly recommended

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aliens View Post

Even if it's a LIEMAX?

Because I wear glasses and 3D has more often taken me out of a movie than put me more deeply into it, over the past year or so I have avoided 3D versions of films even when I had to pass up the largest digital IMAX screen in the country, at the Moore Warren theater in Moore, OK. My daughter doesn't think much more of 3D than I do, which is why we saw Gravity in 2D. Even so, it was overwhelming, even visceral. I haven't been to a film screened on a LIEMAX screen in a mall cineplex in a loooong time.
post #149 of 738
Decision made. Only I'm going to wait for a few weeks to avoid the crowds.
post #150 of 738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aliens View Post

Decision made. Only I'm going to wait for a few weeks to avoid the crowds.

Not so fast there, fella. I see they also have a RealD 3D showing. Hmmm...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion › Alfonso Cuaron's new film ("Gravity") to feature 17 minute opening long take