Gravity

Yeah probably. He deserves it.

Finally came out in the UK yesterday. Brilliant tense Space thriller, not just a visual masterpiece.

9.5/10

This looks promising.Looking forward to watching it.

I was going to give it a miss. But, I think you guys may have changed my mind. Now to prepare my wallet for the theater...

Saw this movie last night in East Europe. Had to pay a hefty sum and then an extra for 3d glasses. The movie's visual effects were excellent. The computer generated images and anamation was surely state of the art. The blue screen acting by both actors was OK. I do think, however, that Mr. Clooney was miss-casted in this role. His acting demeanour is so predictable and he simply did not convince me. S. Bullock was ok, but only in the movies could such super human stunts could have ever been done. Space suits are custom made and the Russian suit she used had not the correct leeway for her breast. And just to think she jumps out with no air pack on, just a space suit. Good yarn and a feminist ego trip.

Weirdest. Review. Ever

__________________
Here, if you have a milkshake, and I have a milkshake, and I have a straw. There it is, that's a straw, you see? You watching?. And my straw reaches acroooooooss the room, and starts to drink your milkshake... I... drink... your... milkshake!
-Daniel, There Will Be Blood

What are you talking about?

Oh...

__________________
Mubi

You know...when I was watching the film the one and only thing that I came away with was that she needed more leeway for her boobs in that Russian space suit.

Great minds....

This is revisiting the film too (because it's been so long since it was first released?), I'd love to see the original review

__________________

11.11.13 Rory Doherty

It’s been a long time coming for Mexican director Alfonso Cuarón’s space thriller, Gravity. Speculation and anticipation has been building for the good part of two years, and to rub it in we [in the UK] seem to be getting the film a month after everyone else. The film puts first time astronaut Dr Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock) up against the forces of space as a shower of speeding debris sends her spinning from her craft into the depths nothingness, with only smooth-talking space-veteran Matthew Kowalski (George Clooney) as help in the vast, empty blackness of the cosmos.

It’s best to get the obvious out of the way: the visuals. The movie looks absolutely stunning. From the opening shots of the huge planet Earth casually dwarfing our protagonists to the close ups of them clinging to space stations for dear life, you never feel like you’re anywhere else but with the characters. The effects are perfect, engaging and beautiful, so much so that it takes a while before you can properly admire the huge spectacle of the movie. It’s not only the best looking movie this year, but it has the best visuals of any film I’ve seen so far. The cinematography is also fantastic. Huge sweeping long takes, including a stunning 17 minute long unbroken opening shot, create a feeling of helplessness in the great cavernous space. Point of view shots are used to great effect, providing with the sensation of fear as we watch as our protagonist fumble around trying to cling on to life. To contrast, the use of the close up is brilliant, with moments showing the actual proper terror of Bullock’s character. It may be used sparingly, but it’s definitely used well.

For all of the motion-capture, the green-screen, the computer generated imagery it’s amazing that we can get such strong performances. Sandra Bullock gives undoubtedly the best performance of her career, which to be fair isn’t exactly saying much, although it’s still brilliant to see her being so fantastic. She manages to capture this raw fear of being – well, spun around alone in space. It’s probably one of the best motion capture performances we’ve had, bar Andy Serkis’ gleefully amazing Gollum from The Lord of the Rings. George Clooney manages to play George Clooney again, a dashing quick witted man in any situation. That said, George Clooney playing George Clooney is great, so I’m all for it.

There are a couple of problems, though. Once or twice you realise that it’s a tad too much surface and not enough substance. Although this may seem a bit hypocritical from someone who’s favourite movie of the year so far is Pacific Rim and, on top of that, the surface we get is still absolutely incredible. The thing is they have obviously made a conscious effort to add some character elements, to add some intricate plot strands. There’s even a religious subtext that works quite nicely. In that respect, you realise that they could have paid maybe a little more attention to the complexity of these characters and not make them basic Hollywood clichés. Not that clichés are bad all the time of course (ie Pacific Rim). And, as I said, this was only noticeable a couple of times and even then for a mere few seconds before the beautiful visuals swallow you up again.

Gravity is a survival movie. It’s not overblown or drawn out (talking of which, The Hobbit Part 2 comes out next month) and clocks in at a very brisk 90 minutes. It’s a perfect length and they don’t waste a minute; the first debris impact comes in within 15 minutes. So, as a movie about this one experience and trying to resolve it, the plot may not be the most important factor, it’s how the events affect the viewer, which they certainly do: the tension is palpable in nearly every scene. As a short visual popcorn treat, it works (and works brilliantly). It’s not hard to fall in love with what Gravity does, the look is perfect and it grabs you by the throat. By the time the growingly emotional soundtrack plays towards the climax, you might as well just give in and get swept up by it. Gravity may have some sour parts, but overall it’s one hell of a great big fun-ride.

__________________
This review was written for Young Perspective, the newspaper entirely written for and run by young people. To read more of our arts/reviews, sport and news visit youngperspective.net

Brilliant!^^^^^^^^^^

Bearing in mind those aren't real boobs but CGI effect makes it less enjoyable.

__________________
Grudge Match movie
Devil's Due movie

Just watched this and you have to ask 'how the f*ck did they manage to make this?', seriously incredible stuff from a film making perspective.

Edit: There was the whole debate when Life of Pi won an Oscar for cinematography and I guess there will be the same questions asked when this film inevitably does because of the amount of effects used.

The question that arises from Cuaron's recent work I think is: Are we impressed that he's able to digitally create long takes out of shorter ones, or does it make them less impressive than actual ones?

This is a good question actually that I had never really considered before, because a lot of what makes long takes great is the skill to get everything right in one single shot, but with CGI like you say you can merge bits together. I still think they are just as impressive though, at least some of them, or maybe impressive in a different way in how he weaves them together and manages to create something that feels like we're actually there, in real time.

Now that you have mentioned it I wonder how many different bits they actually filmed and such, filming long takes with all non of what's on the screen actually being there must be weird, I have no idea how it all would of been done, but it goes to show the power of film nowadays, I think it should be embraced rather than looked down upon, much like film versus digital itself.

Right, I think this question comes right back to the larger discussion of film vs. digital. The use of simulated long takes isn't new of course, Hitchcock did it (albeit much less fluidly ) with Rope and Kiarostami did it much more recently with Five Long Takes Dedicated to Ozu (an incredibly deceptive title, I think), and depending on your view of the whole DV vs. film debate, it could either be something that ruins the pure craft of film, or just as interesting a technique (or more if you're a radical) than the long take itself. Either way, it's a stylistic decision that's much against the mold of Hollywood continuity editing, so in that sense, it's refreshing regardless.

I created this thread I didn't!

__________________
"Anything less than immortality is a complete waste of time."

Brilliant film as long as you temper your hype for it. It pushes the technical boundaries of cinema more than narrative and most of its issues start when it slows down and takes a second to have dialogue, some of which is so clumsy and hackneyed its tough to take it seriously.

That said when it fires...boy does it fire. Rousing beautifully made stuff, just needed a polish on the script.

Most of the dialogue is in the first 10 minutes.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page