Gravity

[karppool]

Saw it yesterday - VERY disappointed. I like Clooney and Bullock, but this movie (until the last 10-15 minutes) was boring. Like watching water boil - in CGI and with voices obviously dubbed. I just don't get the critics. The photography was beautiful & interesting - but what do the critics see that I am missing???

[foxie]

Wow I haven't heard anyone say anything bad at all did u watch it in 3d?

[karppool]

Yes 3D. The visuals were beautiful - but all I could think of was that it'a all CGI, and The Fountain's visuals were also stunning - and mostly NOT CGI. I can see noms for photography and/or special effects, but that's it.

Four of us went to see the movie - and all felt the same way. Sandra Bullock did a lot of 'free floating' inside the capsule, which was interesting.

[foxie]

Hug hie on Actors studio again loveHIM!

[birchie]

BIG BONE TO PICK!
Seriously I don't understand how this movie can win or even be nominated for best picture??? It's ALL CGI! It has basically one person in it and another one for about 10 minutes plus a couple of hallucinations. AND apparently it's now British?? It just won outstanding British film at the BAFTAs.

I can see Sandra Bullock winning awards since she is acting her pants off to NOTHING almost the whole movie and makes her plight quite believable. I also think it would definitely deserve all the special effects awards etc but best picture??? It was good but certainly not the best.
Sue

[njr]

Feb 16, 2014 14:26:40 GMT -5 birchie said:

BIG BONE TO PICK!
Seriously I don't understand how this movie can win or even be nominated for best picture??? It's ALL CGI! It has basically one person in it and another one for about 10 minutes plus a couple of hallucinations. AND apparently it's now British?? It just won outstanding British film at the BAFTAs.

I can see Sandra Bullock winning awards since she is acting her pants off to NOTHING almost the whole movie and makes her plight quite believable. I also think it would definitely deserve all the special effects awards etc but best picture??? It was good but certainly not the best.
Sue

I haven't even seen the movie, but I know enough about it to feel your pain! How the heck it won a BAFTA is beyond me! <wtf> And now it's up for an Oscar for best picture?

Nancy

[luzie]

Feb 16, 2014 14:26:40 GMT -5 birchie said:

AND apparently it's now British?? It just won outstanding British film at the BAFTAs.

It makes sense, it's a British/American film!

Deadline:

"It was produced by Britain’s David Heyman, shot at Pinewood and Shepperton Studios with a crew of local technicians, visual effects were handled by the UK’s Framestore and director Alfonso Cuaron is a British resident. That was enough for it to pass the requirement for significant British creative involvement qualifying it as British under guidelines set out by the BFI and the Department of Culture, Media and Sport."

[mamaleh]

For me, GRAVITY amounted to stunning visuals and 90+ minutes of Sandra Bullock hyperventilating. I don't get the fuss.

Ellen

[suefb]

Feb 17, 2014 7:43:28 GMT -5 mamaleh said:

For me, GRAVITY amounted to stunning visuals and 90+ minutes of Sandra Bullock hyperventilating. I don't get the fuss.

Ellen

I think it was because it depicted both the significance and insignificance of humanity in a very simple story, in a situation that we imagine COULD happen with today's technology (as opposed to most futuristic and wildly fantastical sci-fi movies).

Now I preferred Robert Redford's ALL IS LOST, which covered a lot of the same ground, ie striving for survival while at the same time accepting the inevitability of death. But GRAVITY was a modern spectacle and a rare "adult" movie that I was able to see with both my teenagers and not worry that they'd be bored (they weren't).

I see 12 YEARS A SLAVE won the BAFTA award, but it seems to me GRAVITY could still possibly win the Oscar because of the gradient voting method which tends to reward "nice" or "non-polarizing" films (LES MIS never really had a chance because of that ).

[birchie]

Feb 17, 2014 10:02:31 GMT -5 suefb said:

Feb 17, 2014 7:43:28 GMT -5 mamaleh said:

For me, GRAVITY amounted to stunning visuals and 90+ minutes of Sandra Bullock hyperventilating. I don't get the fuss.

Ellen

I think it was because it depicted both the significance and insignificance of humanity in a very simple story, in a situation that we imagine COULD happen with today's technology (as opposed to most futuristic and wildly fantastical sci-fi movies).

Now I preferred Robert Redford's ALL IS LOST, which covered a lot of the same ground, ie striving for survival while at the same time accepting the inevitability of death. But GRAVITY was a modern spectacle and a rare "adult" movie that I was able to see with both my teenagers and not worry that they'd be bored (they weren't).

I see 12 YEARS A SLAVE won the BAFTA award, but it seems to me GRAVITY could still possibly win the Oscar because of the gradient voting method which tends to reward "nice" or "non-polarizing" films (LES MIS never really had a chance because of that ).

Like I said it should win all the special effects awards but as a movie I don't think it merits best picture at all. It was beautiful...but that's because of the special effects. One of the issues I had was I never actually believed that she did what she did. The thing about those other sci-fi films is that the whole world is fantasy so you can lose yourself in the story that way. I watch a lot of real science & space stuff as well as sci-fi but this movie never got me to suspend disbelief. There were moments when I got caught up in the "will she or won't she" suspense but never thought it was believable. You're right about it being a rare adult movie that younger people would also like. It's certainly nice to be able to enjoy a movie with family members of different ages. I think I would like All Is Lost too but I haven't seen it yet.

I don't think anyone here has discussed 12 Years A Slave. I've seen the new one and the 1984 American Playhouse tv movie sub titled Solomon Northrup's Oddyssey, which I own & I also have the book.

Guess we'll see what happens at Oscar time. These awards are so subjective that it's just a crap shoot anyway.
Sue

[jo]

I see 12 YEARS A SLAVE won the BAFTA award, but it seems to me GRAVITY could still possibly win the Oscar because of the gradient voting method which tends to reward "nice" or "non-polarizing" films (LES MIS never really had a chance because of that ).

What I found rather intriguing was the reaction to the initial screening of Les Miserables. This happened in NYC where there would have been an expected backlash from musical theatre purists. Yet, the response from that audience was rapturous to say the least, which led to initial conclusions that Les Miserables would sweep the Oscars...Also, subsequent screenings seemed to indicate that the movie was loved judging from the way the Q&A's went and the applause after the screenings.

But the Oscars is part artistic merit and part political campaigning. Last year had one of the most obvious ploys to push certain movies/performances ( the TIME Cover and the White House screening for Lincoln, with Spielberg heavily in the forefront of the push...the Weinstein push for Silver Linings Playbook, which included rationalizing another White House screening because it was a movie which dealt with mental health)...and at some point, there seemed to have been a concerted effort to push Les Miserables out of contention. On a side note, ARGO won as a backlash for the non-nomination of the directorial efforts of Affleck.

Les Miserables had many opponents from the other camp --

*People who "hated" Tom Hooper because he won for THE KING'S SPEECH over SOCIAL NETWORK. People who did not like his style of filmmaking ( esp with his cinematographic choices).

*Film critics who are less prone to like stage-based material, especially if they are musicals. I find it a little odd that some had criticized the actual story from Victor Hugo. Can the screenwriters ( which of course included not just Nicholson but the lyricists and composers) really change what and how it happened in the classic novel? Although maybe some of the objections came because of the truncated storytelling ( in the film, but even more so on stage), if compared to Hugo's actual novel.

*Hardcore fans of the stage musicals who only wanted a clone of what they had seen on stage. Live singing was a NO-NO as far as they were concerned.

*People who saw the movie and came out saying they simply don't like musicals, especially if that was through- sung. Some criticism that Hugh had too much vibrato ( esp when he sings " 24601!") - er...I thought that was part of musical theatre singing?

So, in a sense it was polarizing ( although I find it rather incomprehensible that a musical can be called polarizing -- it used to be that people would say musicals are not cool and boring, I guess until Moulin Rouge came along ( that was polarizing, because of the style). I don't know -- I loved the Rodgers/Hammerstein, Lerner/Lowe movie musicals and even Man of La Mancha, but there was a fair amount of criticism about the film versions.


Of course, it is all water under the bridge -- but the real loser is not the film adaptation but those who did NOT fully appreciate that here is a movie ( with a strong cinematic vision, faithful to the Hugo novel, using the drama and poignancy of the musical score to reflect the sentiments and emotions, resonant of current populist trends, a great attempt at realism in film, and the bonus of excellent performances) -- I do consider myself a winner because I enjoy watching it over and over again!

I had once bought the DVD of GONE WITH THE WIND -- to find out why it was considered to be one of the all-time greats...and I was planning to see Trevor Nunn's musical interpretation in London at that time. It was a very good movie because of the storytelling but I found it a little less compelling than what I expected ( the characters were not larger than life .)...They were both epic and told of a people's struggle, but Les Miserables had wrung much stronger emotional reactions from me!

Is it the music? I had seen the London musical production of GWTW - it was alright and I thought Trevor Nunn did a remarkable way of staging the show, but it never made it to Broadway ( which would have been logical, as this is based on the great American movie).

As for GRAVITY -- sorry, I have no wish to see a movie where technology takes the forefront in the storytelling.


Jo

[suefb]

Feb 17, 2014 20:18:13 GMT -5 jo said:

I see 12 YEARS A SLAVE won the BAFTA award, but it seems to me GRAVITY could still possibly win the Oscar because of the gradient voting method which tends to reward "nice" or "non-polarizing" films (LES MIS never really had a chance because of that ).

What I found rather intriguing was the reaction to the initial screening of Les Miserables. This happened in NYC where there would have been an expected backlash from musical theatre purists. Yet, the response from that audience was rapturous to say the least, which led to initial conclusions that Les Miserables would sweep the Oscars...Also, subsequent screenings seemed to indicate that the movie was loved judging from the way the Q&A's went and the applause after the screening.

But the Oscars is part artistic merit and part political campaigning. Last year had one of the most obvious ploys to push certain movies/performances ( the TIME Cover and the White House screening for Lincoln, with Spielberg heavily in the forefront of the push...the Weinstein push for Silver Linings Playbook, which included rationalizing another White House screening because it was a movie which dealt with mental health)...and at some point, there seems to have been a concerted effort to push Les Miserables out of contention. On a side note, ARGO won as a backlash for the non-nomination of the directorial efforts of Affleck.

Les Miserables had many opponents from the other camp --

*People who "hated" Tom Hooper because he won for THE KING'S SPEECH over SOCIAL NETWORK. People who did not like his style of filmmaking ( esp with his cinematographic choices).

*Film critics who are less prone to like stage-based material, especially if they are musicals. I find it a little odd that some had criticized the actual story from Victor Hugo. Can the screenwriters ( which of course included not just Nicholson but the lyricists and composers) really change what and how it happened in the classic novel?

*Hardcore fans of the stage musicals who only wanted a clone of what they had seen on stage. Live singing was a NO-NO as far as they are concerned.

*People who saw the movie and came out saying they simply don't like musicals, especially if that was through sung. A lot of criticism that Hugh had too much vibrato ( esp when he sings " 24601!") - er...I thought that was part of musical theatre singing?

So, in a sense it is polarizing ( although I find that rather incomprehensible that a musical can be called polarizing -- it used to be that people would say musicals are not cool and boring, I guess until Moulin Rouge came along ( that was polarizing, because of the style).


Of course, it is all water under the bridge -- but the real loser is not the film adaptation but those who did NOT fully appreciate that here is a movie ( with a strong cinematic vision, faithful to the Hugo novel, using the drama and poignancy of the musical score to reflect the sentiments and emotions, resonant of current populist trends, a great attempt at realism in film, and the bonus of excellent performances) -- I do consider myself a winner because I enjoy watching it ( incl the EXTRAs) over and over again!

I had once bought the DVD of GONE WITH THE WIND -- to find out why it is considered to be one of the all-time greats...and I was planning to see Trevor Nunn's musical interpretation in London at that time. It was a very good movie because of the storytelling but I found it a little less compelling than what I expected ( the characters were not larger than life .)...They were both epic and told of a people's struggle, but Les Miserables had wrung much stronger emotional reactions from me!

Is it the music? I had seen the London musical production - it was alright and I thought Trevor Nunn did a remarkable way of staging the show, but it never made it to Broadway ( which would have been logical, as this is based on the great American movie).

As for GRAVITY -- sorry, I have no wish to see a movie where technology takes the forefront in the storytelling.


Jo

Pretty much was with you up until that last comment. Les Mis was definitely a polarizing movie in that almost everybody had a strong opinion about it, one way or the other. It seemed there were very few people who thought it was "pretty good" or "okay". They either loved it a LOT (that's me) or couldn't stand it (annoying people! ).

I sort of understand what you mean by the technology remark in that CGI should never be an excuse to forget that you need a good story (a part of me worries about this with respect to "Pan", but it is supposedly a good script, with a proven director, and of course an amazing actor as the villain , so we'll see).

But I suppose because I'm an engineer, I have to point out that the movie industry is dependent upon constantly improving technology, from the invention of film to sound to color, on down the line to today's computer effects. Yes, sometimes, when a new-fangled technological advance comes along, it can be overused and abused. But mostly, technical advances mean more tools and options for film-makers, and that's not a bad thing. I'm not saying that films made with old(er)-fashioned techniques, like ALL IS LOST or NEBRASKA (which I also liked a lot) cannot be brilliant. In the end, we all know it's the people behind the movie that determine whether it's a success or not. So I suppose that's what you meant.

As for GRAVITY, I didn't think the technology overshadowed the story. And I guess I was in the right mood for it because even though it did seem far-fetched and even unbelievable in many ways, I was able to just relax and go with it.

[jo]

Don't worry about PAN -- with some good luck and a bit of fairy dust, I was able to take a peek at the full first-draft script. Of course the audience is primarily the family but the script (which made it to the Black List) seemed very promising. But if it indeed uses technology, that would not be the forefront of this retelling of the story from Neverland ( the story does take place in Neverland). It is fantasy, magic, villainy, camaraderie, even a bit of "Oliver" in it...and all the stuff that hopefully will be perfect material for Joe Wright to work with. It is not a true adult fairytale ( that would have disappointed me) but a whimsical retelling of the story of Peter, when he was young and also-young ( not yet Captain) Hook was his comrade in arms...and Blackbeard was villain extraordinaire

I think you got it right with what I meant when I said I do not want a movie where the wonders of what technology is capable of doing pushes the storytelling element to a secondary role. When we see the huge 19th century stricken battleship at the beginning of the film adaptation of LesMiserables, we know it is CGI. But other than the budgetary constraints of building a real ship, it is the image that it connotes -- that of the state ( big and powerful), albeit in a less strong position ( the ship is stricken and needed major repairs) -- underlying the story's forthcoming historical and epic heft! To me, the use of technology was actually needed to get this powerful opening scene, underscored by those memorable and thundering notes from the music of Schonberg, as the calling card to what was to follow!

Jo

[suefb]

That muffled drumbeat and the camera "looking" up through the water, emerging to a stormy scene and those first two majestic notes. Yes. I was hooked from that moment on. It grabbed onto me right then and there and hasn't let go yet.

[birchie]

I love technology and the advancements in what can be done on screen always intrigues & sometimes amazes me. The problem with Gravity is that it's all CGI and there was no point while watching it that took me away from that fact. Even watching Sandra's performance, I kept thinking...that's pretty good considering she's acting to NOTHING! When movie technology is done well AND coupled with good writing, directing, acting and especially a good story it enhances the movie experience, at least for me. In the Les Miserables example, yes the boat was fake & some of the scenery was enhanced with CGI but it never took me away from the wonderful story. And actually like other Sue said, that ship coupled with those opening notes just sucks you in and doesn't let go!

Another thing about Gravity that has made me ponder is George Clooney being in it. I think if anyone else had been cast in that very small role the movie would never have received the buzz it got. I was actually surprised at how small that part was when I saw the movie. And, frankly, he was just cute, charming George! I never saw the character at all. Every preview included him as though his character was almost as important as Sandra's character. I think selling it that way made more people want to see the movie. If they had some little known actor in that role and marketed the movie to showcase that it was basically all Sandra I don't think it would have developed the mass appeal that it did.

For award contention, there were many movies I saw last year that were way better in every way and that certainly includes Prisoners!! But don't get me started... <rant>

As for Pan, the jury is still way, way, way out for me on whether it might turn out to be a good movie. Time will tell.
Sue