Gravity (2013) (1 Viewer)

[Walter Kittel]

Agreed whole heartedly. Accuracy and great film making can be mutually exclusive. I consider Inglorious Basterds great, entertaining film making, but I'm pretty sure that Hitler and his goons weren't assasinated by Aldo Raine and company.

[color=rgb(40,40,40);font-family:'Merriweather Sans', sans-serif;background-color:rgb(242,242,242);]I agree as well. I'm not looking for accuracy in films that clearly are not based in reality. That isn't the point of contention for me. When a film establishes via content, tone, or genre that it is grounded in reality then my expectation is one of accuracy within the confines of telling a story cinematically. To be clear, I was not addressing the film Gravity but the idea that accuracy in film should always be optional. Watch any action film and you will see all kinds of stuff that just wouldn't happen in the real world. Generally due to the genre and tone this does not bother me. Watching a serious drama that purports to be realistic and my standards are different.[/color]

I think I'm done with this subject. We all have our opinions and no one is going to be changing their minds.

- Walter.

 

[Mike Frezon]

I know I'm not breaking any new ground here...but it became very clear to me today that people want to pick apart the scientific part of this film because while it is science fiction, it references real-life science fact as touchstones for the plot of the film. So, for whatever reason, critics feel a compulsion to say, "oh, but THAT could never happen. Or, THAT wouldn't happen that way."

On the other hand, no one would be dissecting the science fact parts of a Star Trek or Star Wars film.

I think the fact that the film was so close to reality is quite an accomplishment for the filmmakers.

 

[cafink]

Agreed whole heartedly. Accuracy and great film making can be mutually exclusive. I consider Inglorious Basterds great, entertaining film making, but I'm pretty sure that Hitler and his goons weren't assasinated by Aldo Raine and company.

Taking those kinds of liberties with history was part of the conceit of Inglourious Basterds. Tarantino expected his audience to know that Hitler wasn't assassinated in a movie theater, and established an over-the-top story that doesn't rely on precise historical fidelity.

Gravity has no such conceit. It presents itself as a serious movie taking place in the real world. Fantastical physics aren't problematic in a movie that establishes itself as taking place in a fantastical world, which is why movies like Star Wars and Harry Potter work so well. But Gravity isn't such a movie, and doesn't do what is required to get away with such sloppy science.

 

[TonyD]

I feel like the only people who get bent up about inaccuracies in a movie like this one are people who are basically Sheldon On Big Bang Theory.Its a friggen movie "based" on real world "possibilities".It's not real.

 

[schan1269]

I feel like the only people who get bent up about inaccuracies in a movie like this one are people who are basically Sheldon On Big Bang Theory.Its a friggen movie "based" on real world "possibilities".It's not real.

Good thing they didn't go after the "Based on possible events"...a la Cpt. Phillips...

 

[Michael Elliott]

I'll go back and re-read this thread but I watched this film on Wednesday and thought it was a masterpiece. I think there's way too much hype out there these days but the special effects here were just so incredible that I really don't think any words could do them justice. I think this film, on a big screen and in 3D, is the closest most humans will ever get to experiencing outer space.

This entire film would have fallen part had there been a single second where you didn't feel as if you were lost in space with these two characters are facing a deadly fate. I thought the film was flawless on the visual level but I also thought the story was simple and great. And thank God someone realizes that great movies don't need to run 140+ minutes. I guess this thing was only around 83ish minutes without the end credits? The story itself was rather simple but it was so good and so intense. When

Spoiler

Clooney showed up at the end I thought, oh shit, they're going to ruin this movie but the way it played out was just so emotionally perfect.

I've always been hit and miss on Bullock but she was wonderful here because she really just had her eyes to work with and everything she was feeling (fear, anger, pain) had to come from her eyes. Clooney was also terrific because that coolness of his went so well with the panic Bullock was feeling early on.

This is certainly a film to see on the big screen and in 3D.

 

[Walter Kittel]

I think this film, on a big screen and in 3D, is the closest most humans will ever get to experiencing outer space.

I certainly agree. The experience was incredibly immersive. It felt like you were up there space walking during the opening moments of the film in the repair sequence. In addition to the 3D, I thought the fluid camera motion contributed to the sense of being a weightless viewer / participant.

- Walter.

 

[Mike Frezon]

Taking those kinds of liberties with history was part of the conceit of Inglourious Basterds. Tarantino expected his audience to know that Hitler wasn't assassinated in a movie theater, and established an over-the-top story that doesn't rely on precise historical fidelity.

Gravity has no such conceit. It presents itself as a serious movie taking place in the real world. Fantastical physics aren't problematic in a movie that establishes itself as taking place in a fantastical world, which is why movies like Star Wars and Harry Potter work so well. But Gravity isn't such a movie, and doesn't do what is required to get away with such sloppy science.

Carl: I'm not sure what you mean about Gravity being a "serious" movie. But it is just a fiction. And if we want to look at it as a film that takes place in the "real world," it is no different from any of the other action-adventure dramas that take great liberties with things such as cars, car crashes, explosions, guns, bullet wounds, helicopters, airplanes, etc. And yet most people are willing to suspend their belief when they see things on the silver screen they realize probably couldn't/wouldn't happen if they took place in their neighborhood.

As I said in my own critique of Gravity, I was more bothered by the continual bombardment of "close calls" than I was by the "sloppy science." It just took me out of the film that our heroine was constantly "just" out of harm's way. But that's me.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Taking those kinds of liberties with history was part of the conceit of Inglourious Basterds. Tarantino expected his audience to know that Hitler wasn't assassinated in a movie theater, and established an over-the-top story that doesn't rely on precise historical fidelity.

Gravity has no such conceit. It presents itself as a serious movie taking place in the real world. Fantastical physics aren't problematic in a movie that establishes itself as taking place in a fantastical world, which is why movies like Star Wars and Harry Potter work so well. But Gravity isn't such a movie, and doesn't do what is required to get away with such sloppy science.

Every film has its critics including this one which in time will probably be known as a great film. Hopefully, it will motivate other filmmakers to continue their efforts in reaching greatness with their filmmaking projects.

 

[Michael Elliott]

I finally went back through this entire thread. It's pretty amazing that most people here seemed to love it. A lot of times these "hyped" films eventually get attacked after a week or two but to me this film is pretty bulletproof even if you want to nitpick the science. I agree with Robert that the director's job is to keep the viewer entertained/thrilled.

Some mild spoilers but when Bullock had that body pop out at her I couldn't help but think this was a nod to JAWS.

As Walter said, the cinematographer certainly made you feel weightless and I remember when Bullock was running out of oxygen I was sitting there holding my breath when my brain finally kicked in and said I wasn't running out of oxygen so breathe!

As for the ending, I think you can see it both ways. I'm siding with she survived the ordeal because I think a "death" would have had her daughter on the shore waiting for her.

 

[DaveF]

I feel like the only people who get bent up about inaccuracies in a movie like this one are people who are basically Sheldon On Big Bang Theory.Its a friggen movie "based" on real world "possibilities".It's not real.

I posit that, for some science geeks, such a movie can fall into a physics uncanny valley. It is so realistic, the minor errors become very apparent. I rewatched Children of Men last night at the local theater. Cuaron's movies hit me in deep emotional place. Both of these movies basically unraveled me the first time I saw them.

 

[questrider]

I saw Gravity in IMAX 3D last evening and... wow. I can't even put into words how emotionally intense and suspenseful the film is. Just a little under 24 hours later and I still can't seem to express what I saw. It truly is one of those pop culture film experiences. I usually think the whole 3D thing is a novelty and a gimmick but this film really is made for 3D on a big screen. It's the closest you'll ever get to feeling like you're in space orbiting the planet. And the film really takes you for a ride into feeling like your alone in the void of space during a disaster. I also usually don't like Sandra Bullock so much as an actress but she really shines in this film and carries it all the way to the end using mostly her eyes to convey the fear of the situation. And at first I thought, "Yeah, right, George Clooney as an astronaut? C'mon!" but he's perfectly cast as the cool and experienced counterpoint to Bullock's inexperienced character in a situation that is unbelievable to conceive being in the middle of but that could actually really happen because of the scenario of the Kessler syndrome. I know it's been criticized a bit because it isn't exactly faithful to orbital mechanics or astrodynamics but it is just a movie after all. The story, the acting, the sound design, the music, the special effects, the 3D—everything contributes to the spectacle of this film. It's definitely one that needs to be seen in the theater in 3D on the biggest screen possible because it isn't going to translate at all to home media. This movie is what film is all about. ★★★★

I must see it again in the theater. Next time will be in RealD-3D with Atmos sound for comparison purposes.

 

[Tino]

Every film has its critics including this one which in time will probably be known as a great film. Hopefully, it will motivate other filmmakers to continue their efforts in reaching greatness with their filmmaking projects.

I think it's viewed as a great film by most NOW and in time will be viewed as a masterpiece of filmmaking. This is the next level of filmmaking and the bar has now been set for all filmmakers to step up their game.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I think it's viewed as a great film by most NOW and in time will be viewed as a masterpiece of filmmaking. This is the next level of filmmaking and the bar has now been set for all filmmakers to step up their game.

It's viewed as a great film by me, but in my opinion, a film still playing in theater needs a little time to move that greatness rating into a masterpiece film. I thought Apollo 13 was a great film and should be considered a masterpiece film, but it's not by many critics. 2001 is considered both by many, but it's not to me. That film never connected to me not like Apollo 13 or even Gravity. Anyhow, goes back to my earlier comment that every film has its critics.

 

[schan1269]

It's viewed as a great film by me, but in my opinion, a film still playing in theater needs a little time to move that greatness rating into a masterpiece film. I thought Apollo 13 was a great film and should be considered a masterpiece film, but it's not by many critics. 2001 is considered both by many, but it's not to me. That film never connected to me not like Apollo 13 or even Gravity. Anyhow, goes back to my earlier comment that every film has its critics.

You not likey 2001? Blasphemy...

Just goes to show that a film of technical merit need not actually be liked. How many of us actually like Barry Lyndon?

 

[TonyD]

I agree with Robert on both movies. 2001 n2ver did anything for me, the short story Sentinel and the novelization was better and actually made sense.

 

[schan1269]

2001 was supposed to make overt sense?

Just like Gravity is full of plausibility.

 

[bujaki]

I agree that a movie needs the passage of time, perspective, distance, life experience...whatever...before it can be revisited and called a masterpiece. An "instant classic" is an oxymoron that should be expunged from all critical thinking. Come back to a work of art in 10 or 20 years. You'll be amazed at how only a few stand the test of time. And yet, others will be recognized as masterpieces long after we're gone.
schan1269 asks how many of us actually liked Barry Lyndon? When I saw it once, first run at the Ziegfeld in NY, and never since, I was left begging for more. My wife, on the other hand, wanted to cut it by half. We're still married in spite of that disagreement.

 

[RobertR]

Now that I've seen the movie, I can read the discussion with interest. The criticisms of the physics are accurate, but it's pretty much a given that with few exceptions, Hollywood gets the physics wrong. The non-physics criticisms are more telling--Clooney telling a medical doctor about oxygen deprivation? I don't think the film is science fiction. It's a survival drama that happens to be set in space. Overall, I enjoyed it, but I don't consider it the earth shattering masterpiece some are making it out to be.

 

[schan1269]

Why would an astronaut not have to tell a "space first-timer" to check their oxygen? I'm a pretty good weekend warrior race car driver ( Miata and an AH Sprite). I wouldn't be offended if I sat in a new Jaguar and the owner said "keep your eyes on the RPMs".