Gravity

[AntiDumbFrogQuestion]

Obvious reference to birth:  Bullock getting rid of that spacesuit and floating around like she was in a womb

So then when she gets reborn coming out of that watery womb at the end of the flick and ends up wobbling on land, like any person would do who just came down from a week in space, she is learning to walk again. We just got an experiential movie about survival death and rebirth disguised as an FX spectacle handed to us people.

[Drenk]

Obvious reference to birth:  Bullock getting rid of that spacesuit and floating around like she was in a womb

So then when she gets reborn coming out of that watery womb at the end of the flick and ends up wobbling on land, like any person would do who just came down from a week in space, she is learning to walk again. We just got an experiential movie about survival death and rebirth disguised as an FX spectacle handed to us people.

Yes. It was obvious -2001 baby. We all need Clooney to save our souls.

I like the movie, I can't wait to see it again, and the womb space shot was amazing, but it always seems simple to me...But she changes her mind so fast...

Children of Men is far more impressive for me because the filmaking embodies a genuine emotional story.

[tpfkabi]

SPOILERS


Alternate title:
Everything That Can Go Wrong Will Go Wrong
starring Kris Jenner

I finally got a movie that I figured would be good to see in a BigD theatre and in 3D.
Nice use of space/size, sound and CGI.
Read through the thread. Interesting that the press was saying she wanted to get back to her daughter. I wonder if that was what the script originally had or was put out as a red herring.

After a while it just seemed too much kept going wrong, really again, no, dead daughter, no, parachute stuck right when debris just happens to cycle around, no no no.

To get something straight - when she turns the oxygen knobs, was it her deciding to commit suicide? Then we have the Clooney dream, which she wakes out of and turns the knobs back. It looked like the oxygen almost was completely full again. I must not have been paying attention to the meters. Maybe it was showing that some was out - or maybe she simply turned it off, which means no air would be lost.

Didn't quite understand why Clooney would have to be let go. In zero gravity I would think a slight tug from Bullock would bring him back.

All in all, I enjoyed it. I usually really hate CGI, and this had a ton and it didn't take me out of it too much. The debris 'hitting the screen' in 3D made me flinch.

[AntiDumbFrogQuestion]

I'm just a fan of when a movie is seen by people who are in it for the 'oohs' and 'aaahs' of everything, thinking very little about subtext, and yet they love it. There are a lot of dumb people out there who will see this and never think about that stuff.

"Children of Men" remains my favorite.  The story and look were enhanced by long takes and effects that were often used subtly (outside of CGI baby)

[samsong]

an aspect of creative writing that gets beaten into the heads of anyone to undertakes the task -- and for good reason -- is the idea of showing versus telling.  what i find most underwhelming and egregious about gravity is that it essentially does the cinematic equivalent of telling instead of showing, most obviously in the dialogue but also the imagery (in a vacuum, the fetus shot is gorgeous but in the context of the movie, it's a sore thumb attempt at profundity).  survival, death, and rebirth are all present but the idea that any of it is "disguised", i find misguided; it's pretty damn blatant what it's "about", and yet it goes about it in such a way that it might as well not be about anything.

SPOILERS sort of
enjoyed the ed harris cameo.  it's like cuaron knew...

[Gold Trumpet]

an impressive feat of technical bravura, sure, but there's next to nothing else here.  it's as tepid and cliched a story of human perseverance as, say, apollo 13.  that this is being lauded as unique or "like nothing you've ever seen before" is beyond me.  almost as confounding as cuaron citing bresson as an influence.  i enjoyed it more than children of men.  i do think it's worth seeing purely for the spectacle of it.  it's intermittently breathtaking.

Completely disagree about the idea this is another Apollo 13. If it was, Bullock's traumatic situation would also be connected to a family and crew at home worrying about her situation to amplify the degree of emotional drama to her situation. Howard's film did it because the Apollo 13 story is famous for its effect on American culture so it was trying to represent how people felt when it happened almost live on television at the time. Howard probably also did it because he realized the lack of ability to communicate an investing drama if he just kept it to a crew only story. Gravity has more effects on hand, but it impressively isolates the human story to a few characters. Yes, Bullock is going to be capsized by emotions and reflect on feelings when she feels she is doomed to die, but I'm not sure the film could have avoided that.

I don't see how it being more minimal makes it any less hackneyed, except maybe that there's literally less schlock present.  it's a convenient comparison, admittedly reductive, but I genuinely think that, technical advances aside, they're of equal uselessness.  everything in Gravity that isn't visual is bad, to the point that I found indulging purely in the audiovisual experience impossible.

I really don't think I read much there besides a continued belief it comes off as simple and forced dramatics. I definitely disagree with that but since the conversation isn't going to go very far, agree to disagree.

[ElPandaRoyal]

SPOILS!!

My 2 cents about it. The first half of the movie is clearly one of the best visual experiences around. Space looks fascinating, dangerous, depressing and beautiful all at once, and when the action kicks in, sometimes I felt like I couldn't breathe. I liked all the interaction between Clooney and Bullock, how they didn't really know each other that well even though they were working together but had to rely on each other to survive.

Then, when the movie leaves Bullock alone, that's when I started to roll my eyes at various points. Seemed like Cuaron didn't trust his material, his characters and mostly his audience and had to have Ryan narrate everything that she was doing. We could say she kept talking in case people on earth could listen. We can say it was her way of keeping her shit together. I say it's lazy filmmaking and for a movie that keeps emphasizing the silence and solitude of space, there was a lot of intrusive sound and dialogue. Visually, the movie starts to lose it as well. What seemed like the most realistic representation of space ever turned out to be very flashy-look at this-type of filmmaking. As soon as she got inside the space station, fake-like CGI objects were floating around unnecessarily (not that they would't realistically be floating around, but there are shots where its presence is totally distracting, being there just so they can pass by us in 3D) and when we got to the point of having CGI bubbles of liquid clash with the camera lens, or a tear so obviously in focus, I really started to lose my interest in the character. Why? Because it seemed obvious to me that Cuaron didn't have that much more to say, and kept using shit like that to distract the viewer. Finally, all the obvious symbolism, the close ups of christian or buddhist figures, the death-rebirth, Clooney as a guardian angel-like presence was handled as unsubtle as possible.

It's a very interesting ride and I would recommend anyone to take it. I could even see it again one more time to enjoy those first 40 minutes or so. But in the long run, I don't think I'll be coming back to it much more.

[Alexandro]

After reading some of these comments, I was expecting a cheesy cringe worthy sentimental distracting mess in between visual awesomeness. I felt the dialogue was fine. It wasn't forced. It's a woman lost in space in a hopeless situation, she talks at herself.

The "visual realism". I think we're getting lost in expectations here. This is basically Jaws, Alien, and all the other haunted house movies ever made. The fact that the situation is portrayed with such attention to detail and closeness to reality doesn't change that. However, I don't see where the point of the film is to be realistic as in "this is how astronauts deal with a situation". It's a show. Cuarón is putting on a show. The characters act accordingly. I  guess I understand some comments like: "if he had cast someone who looks like an astronaut, it would be more realistic", "if only she didn't start saying monologues, it wouldn't be so hollywood", "if we didn't know anything about anyone here, it would be a masterpiece", but this isn't that kind of movie. I heard early comparisons to 2001 and knew it wasn't possible. That's a film with a philosophical statement, and Cuarón is smart to keep things simple here. This is an experience to be enjoyed on that very basic level. Many, really many films try this and fail. Simplicity is a tricky thing.

Films like Gravity may not be anything new in terms of narrative or content, but sometimes the form is the content. To see something like this and say is no big deal just seems wrong to me.

[Drenk]

Yes, it's modest. Cuaron said : "It's just a space movie." Weird statement, but, yes, it's an experience in space. A great one. You need the bigger screen you can find. But it's not a big thing in the sense that I don't have an Imax at home. I won't buy the Blu-Ray. I will stop thinking about it. I don't know...That's why I think, sometimes, that Gravity is more a roller coaster than a movie, but Cuaron is a great director and what he does with Gravity is insane. But when the roller coaster is over, it's over. And I wouldn't care if it wasn't Cuaron, because roller coasters movies aren't as fantastic as Gravity. But I love Children of Men so much...Yes, it's just a space movie, Cuaron. Do you really care?

Anyway, that's why I don't get the "MASTERPIECE!" "BEST MOVIE I'VE SEEN SINCE I'M A CRITIC", because, really, if you just want a spectacle...Lawrence of Arabia isn't only epic shots. I find myself underwhelmed by a overwhelming experience. But maybe I'm spoiled.

I love the scene where she talks to herself and barks, i find it emotional. I hate that she needs George Clooney to realize that she wants to live. So faaast. Ok, it's not George Clooney, it's her...She is Georges Clooney's ghost. But : "Tell her in heaven that I love her."  I understand what it's saying, that, through adversity, you can find the will to live. But it's so artificial that I don't care...

Once again, I loved watching it, but I'm not watching it now, I don't feel the chills and, yes, they were just chills....I can't be haunted by chills. The story isn't just simple, it doesn't work. The chills aren't incarnated. But it's all about yourself, you in space, scared to let go...the same way you're scared in a roller coaster.

I feel weird about Gravity because the directing is amazing but, when it's over, I feel cold...

[samsong]

i really, really don't get this insistence that gravity is offering something new or revelatory in the way of form.  in what way is the form the content in this movie?  (what movie can you really say that about since, like, last year at marienbad?!)  cuaron's already flaunted his bravura for tech-savvy long takes in children of men.  i think the original imax documentary on the hubble telescope is more memorable/valuable than gravity.  it really didn't look at that much better than a cut scene in a video game, and i personally found the adventures of tintin or the hobbit to be just as visually stimulating.  speaking of which, this seemed like a great movie to use 48 fps for. 

also there's a pretty overt sexism at play that i don't normally care about as i think it's something people are normally too sensitive about, but it's so glaringly present in this movie that it's hard not to be bothered by it.  the movie makes no qualms about making use of archetypes to set up conflict -- the experienced astronaut is SO experienced that he's on his last mission, and the newby is SO green she's NEVER been to space before -- so why make bullock's character a woman at all?  and since she is a woman why did she need to be so clueless/useless to begin with?  i don't think the movie's any less thrilling if they're astronauts of the same skill level, or if the inexperienced astronaut were a male.  how can you NOT read it as a movie about a woman's need for a man's guidance?  literally every step she takes towards positive change is a result of clooney's talk radio verbal coaching.  and for fuck's sake a woman having lost a child should never be allowed as a ploy for sympathy ever again.  for whatever technical advances this movie supposedly makes, it's negated by how awful the writing is.  it's all so clearly contrived to crank stakes up to 11 that it's entirely disingenuous and in this case, misguided and pretty bluntly chauvinistic.

[Ravi]

It's not a masterpiece, just an entertaining and efficient film. It's an impressive sensory experience, I totally got caught up in the moment-to-moment thrills. The symbolism is obvious and doesn't ultimately mean that much to the story, which doesn't go beyond the inherent suspense of trying to get back to Earth from outer space. But does it really need to? While I'm curious to see what this film would have been like if the idea of Bullock not really having anything on Earth to live for was more developed as a theme, I was fine with it simply being about the suspense of her mission.

[Alexandro]

SOME SPOILERS!!
samsong: for me the writing works. as I said before, I never felt it forced. The risky moments, the monologues, were pulled off and I never rolled my eyes. Sorry. I was more interested in the story and how the character would deal wit her situation than wether the dialogue was contrived or not, because I was into it. You were not, fine.

The film is called 'Gravity', it is about the idea of floating in endless space with no apparent control of your movements and destiny, of course it's a metaphor for everyday life, and of course the only way to break that cycle is by taking control of your destiny and therefore "gravity" becomes another force to reckon with. I know it's a very "in your face concept", but that's what the movie is. The form of the film, the way it is presented to us, it's a constant illustration of this principle. The camera moves as if randomly, floating according to gravity until the character does something that changes it's trajectory. So, the film is about the way it is shot. And the way is shot it's on a class unto itself. I'm not saying the film is doing anything new in the way of form. I'm just saying that's the way it is.

about the sexism: I wasn't thinking about that while seeing it and I don't really think the film is concerned at all with any of that...too bad you read something like that into it...

Drenka (and Samsong to some extent): This is a roller coaster movie, and it's a great one. So can we enjoy it for what it is? I can.

Who cares what anyone else thinks? I don't get this concern. It seems as if critics weren't saying this film is a masterpiece, you would be able to enjoy it more.
And the use of the children as a dramatic device. Wasn't this also used in Children of Men, not only universally but specifically in the main characters? Cuarón seems obsessed with this subject, and to be honest I understand him. I don't know if you have kids, but for me as a father, the way Bullock tells the story of her daughter and her lost shoe and how she misses her, rang true. This is the shit you remember after some years. So, it's valid to me, as a dramatic resource.

This doesn't change anything on my view that the film is basically Jaws in space. that one is pretty obvious too in every dramatic motivation and arch being completed, and has never bothered me one bit there also.

[jenkins]

'Gravity' Spinoff: Watch the Other Side of Sandra Bullock's Distress Call

During a pivotal scene in Gravity, Sandra Bullock's character Ryan Stone, trapped inside a Russian space capsule with little hope of survival, makes contact with a male voice speaking via radio in a foreign language. What unfolds on the other end of that fractured conversation, complete with a barking dog and a crying baby, is the subject of a short film by Jonas Cuaron, son of director Alfonso Cuaron, who co-wrote the screenplay for Warner Bros.' $500 million-grossing awards contender with his father. That seven-minute companion piece, titled Aningaaq, was financed by Warner Home Video, which initially envisioned it as a unique extra feature for Gravity's Blu-ray edition. But the stark, contemplative Aningaaq has developed a life of its own via festival screenings at Venice and Telluride. Now Warners has submitted it for Oscar consideration in the live-action short category; should it snag a nomination alongside its sure-bet blockbuster companion, they are poised to make Academy Awards history as the first feature and spinoff short drawn from the same material to be nominated together in the same year.

The idea for Aningaaq, which follows an Inuit fisherman stationed on a remote fjord in Greenland, occurred to the Cuarons as they were working out the beats for the Gravity screenplay. "It's this moment where the audience and the character get this hope that Ryan is finally going to be OK," Jonas, 31, tells THR. "Then you realize that everything gets lost in translation." Both Cuarons spent time in the glacial region (Alfonso once toyed with setting a movie there) and fell in love with the barren vastness of its frozen wilderness. During one of those visits, Alfonso met a drunken native who would become the basis for the title character, played by Greenland's Orto Ignatiussen. But it wasn't until Jonas, on a two-week trek gathering elements for his film, was inspired by the local inhabitants' profound attachment to their sled dogs that he decided to incorporate that element into the plot.

The short was filmed "guerrilla style" on location on a budget of about $100,000 -- most of which went toward the 10-person crew's travel costs -- and Cuaron completed it in time to meld the dialogue into Gravity's final sound mix. The result is a seamless conversation between Aningaaq and Ryan, stranded 200 miles above him, the twin stories of isolated human survival providing thematic cohesion. Still, Jonas says he was careful "to make it a piece that could stand on its own." Should both get Oscar noms, an interesting dynamic would emerge: Two films potentially could win for representing different sides of one conversation, to say nothing of having come from father and son.

One Academy member who likely will vote for Aningaaq if it scores a nomination is Bullock: At a Los Angeles press conference, the star called the short an "absolutely beautiful piece of loneliness. ... I get goose bumps thinking about it."

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/gravity-spinoff-watch-side-sandra-657919

[Cloudy]

Jonas Cuaron (Alfonso's son) Made a Short Companion Film For Gravity:

http://www.salon.com/2013/11/20/watch_aningaaq_the_short_companion_film_for_gravity/

Probably one of the best short's I've seen.

[jenkins]

Jonas Cuaron (Alfonso's son) Made a Short Companion Film For Gravity:

http://www.salon.com/2013/11/20/watch_aningaaq_the_short_companion_film_for_gravity/

Probably one of the best short's I've seen.

well. i agree that that's the best way to share news. there's a parallel here