| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| randall |
Posted - 10/13/2013 : 18:19:08
GRAVITY is every bit as good as you�ve heard. It�s not just a nail-biting thriller, not just far and away the best cinematic depiction of what it�s like to be in space, not just the finest performance ever from Sandra Bullock. Even more important, it introduces new concepts to the language of film: swirling, swooping, gyroscopic shots that observe no earthbound rules, that can take you inside a space helmet and out again without cuts or dissolves; the opening shot alone must last ten minutes. They�ll have to invent a new term to describe this constantly malleable point of view. But the story doesn�t stop long enough to let you ponder �how�d they do that?� For all I know, they built some rockets and shot two game movie stars into Earth orbit. You�ve never seen anything like this. Nobody has.
It�s a howling, crowd-pleasing, eye-popping triumph for director/co-writer Alphonso Cuaron. His resume is already impressive: besides directing the best Harry Potter film (PRISONER OF AZKABAN), there�s also CHILDREN OF MEN (he tops the opening shot here) and the delightful Y TU MAMA TAMBIEN. His friend Guillermo del Toro, also a fan of the fantastique, must be bursting with pride. But Cuaron leads an army of technical wizards so state-of-the-art that I didn�t recognize several of the jobs listed in the end credits.
The story, by the director and his son Jonas, is simplicity itself. Two astronauts are on a space walk as the film begins. Something bad happens, and now it�s all about survival. Playing opposite Bullock is George Clooney, who knows more about this mission than her medical officer does, and delivers perfectly timed moments of lightness (he listens to Hank Williams in space and tells �Houston� � the unseen Ed Harris � �it�s not rocket science�). That�s your entire on-camera cast.
The space effects are beyond belief, and so is the sound design. You never hear �sync� sound unless it would be physically possible, and space is by and large silent, emphasized by an opening fanfare under the title card that gets louder and louder and louder�until we cut to space and utter silence for the beginning of that first magnificent, marathon, multigravitational, POV-shifting, �single shot.� But there�s a top-notch music score by Steven Price which ratchets up the tension almost unbearably.
GRAVITY set an October-opening box-office record here in the States, and continued its financial rampage in the second weekend, which is when I saw it, earlier today. I attended a regular-screen 3-D performance, and though the 3-D effects were leagues better than those in the trailer for THE HOBBIT 2 which preceded it, GRAVITY is probably just as enjoyable flat. But real thrill-seekers will go me one better and screen it in IMAX.
Do not miss this one. See it in a theater if you can. �Amazing� isn�t strong enough. Maybe the word we want is �GRAVITY-like.�
|
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Sean |
Posted - 03/06/2014 : 22:58:16
quote:
Originally posted by randall
quote:
Originally posted by Sean
I was pleased it didn't get Best Picture; while I haven't seen any of the others yet (I'll see them all) I can easily imagine many of them being better than this one.
Not to stir anything up, but isn't that the classic definition of prejudice?
I'd call it an expectation (or a hope, actually). If Gravity was the best there is then it was not a good year for movies. Fortunately the Academy thought there was at least one better movie in 2013, and I'm hoping quite a few. |
| randall |
Posted - 03/06/2014 : 22:28:39
quote:
Originally posted by Sean
I was pleased it didn't get Best Picture; while I haven't seen any of the others yet (I'll see them all) I can easily imagine many of them being better than this one.
Not to stir anything up, but isn't that the classic definition of prejudice? |
| Sean |
Posted - 03/06/2014 : 21:19:11
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
I'm sure the film might have been set underwater, or down a mine shaft, or inside a volcano - and the story would still work. So, let's say it was set down a mine ... would you still be paying attention to the gauge of cables on the elevator, or the gradation of colors in the seam?
If it was underwater and she sank after dropping her weight belt, or fell into lava and suffered minor burns, or got colder down a mine as she went from 1000m to 2000m then I'd still have ripped out my feathers!  |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 03/06/2014 : 12:02:48
quote:
Originally posted by Sean
I'll be interested to hear what those who loved this movie think of it on a second viewing.
Well, I've now watched it three times, concentrating on various categories for the voting. None of the viewings in my case was ruined by any tekkie-space anomalies. As Cuaron keeps repeating, this is a film about Ryan's recovery from emotional danger. The space thing is a metaphor. It really doesn't have to be accurate because it's not a training manual for astronaut associates. I didn't even read her being helped by a man as offensive, because he's an embodiment of her memories of instruction - she knows the answer is already in her brain. She needs to get to a space/place where she can access it - via the "cool, collected" part of her brain. She's not stupid, she's scared. Why the hell shouldn't she be? And, though she's also scared in the metaphorical space story - what she's most scared about is her ability to carry on with the rest of her life after such a trauma, her resilience. I'm sure the film might have been set underwater, or down a mine shaft, or inside a volcano - and the story would still work. So, let's say it was set down a mine ... would you still be paying attention to the gauge of cables on the elevator, or the gradation of colors in the seam? In a year of truly excellent films, Gravity may not have been the runaway Best, but it's certainly right up there. And Cuaron's several Best Director awards allude to his story-telling ability.
|
| Sean |
Posted - 03/06/2014 : 06:09:49
I was quite happy with the Oscars it won (technical stuff, mainly). I was a little surprised about Best Director, but then I imagined the director green-screening actors hanging from wires while he keeps in mind what it'll look like once the rest is added, resulting in a large chunk of the movie looking like it actually was in zero gravity, then I understood.
I was pleased it didn't get Best Picture; while I haven't seen any of the others yet (I'll see them all) I can easily imagine many of them being better than this one.
BTW I watched this again last week on a whim (to see what I thought of it knowing its flaws) and the bits that were wrong irked me even more than on first view, particularly the Clooney Gravitron (that's the supernatural force that pulled Clooney away from the ISS while not working on any other matter, i.e., Bullock and the rest of the ISS). And I can confirm that there was no rotation whatsoever of the ISS upon arrival (it was not rotating/spinning relative to the earth).
Other parts looked a bit clich�ed, in particular the last scene where she almost drowned after surviving against all odds (it reminded me of the 'last scare' in a horror movie, or the 'you think its over but it isn't quite, not just yet' standard for an action thriller). Another one was the 'panicking woman saved by cool, calm and collected man' clich�, I thought we should have grown out of that by the second decade of the 21st century, but I guess not.
Having said that, when someone else makes a space/orbit movie and wants it to look realistic, this is the one they'll copy. Hopefully next time they won't periodically abandon the laws of nature to suit the plot.
I'll be interested to hear what those who loved this movie think of it on a second viewing.
|
| randall |
Posted - 03/05/2014 : 22:48:28
Which won seven Oscars last Sunday night. The DVD contains that short about the other side of Bullock's frustrating radio conversation in the last reel. |
| randall |
Posted - 11/22/2013 : 23:31:34
Pardon me for protrudin', as they say back home, but Sean and I didn't quit yakking about Kubrick and CLOCKWORK ORANGE and 2001 and lots of other good stuff. I just decided to port the rest of the conversation -- which I recommend -- to another thread, this one Kubrick-centric. It's here if you want it.
We now return you to GRAVITY. |
| Sean |
Posted - 11/22/2013 : 21:15:09
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
For anyone who's curious what the story was on the other side of that radio communication, Alfonso's son has directed this interesting little short...
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/gravity-spinoff-watch-side-sandra-657919
Nice!  At least this one stuck to the laws of physics. First I thought "Why wasn't the whisky frozen?", then realised that given it freezes at about -25C, the daylight implied it wasn't winter so the temperature would likely have been above -25C, so no problem there.  
Anyway, I hope it gets a shorts nomination.
|
| benj clews |
Posted - 11/22/2013 : 18:09:27
For anyone who's curious what the story was on the other side of that radio communication, Alfonso's son has directed this interesting little short...
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/gravity-spinoff-watch-side-sandra-657919 |
| Sean |
Posted - 11/20/2013 : 21:28:59
I think we're all agreed on Kubrick's greatness. He has two in my Top 100 and three more in my next 100, so they're all what I call 'great'. The other six (from THE KILLING up to EYES WIDE SHUT) I've scored 8/10 (which I call 'pretty damn good', not quite 'great').
quote:
Originally posted by randa14
And you "never had a problem" with Patrick Magee in A CLOCKWORK ORANGE and BARRY LYNDON?
Patrick Magee was OTT in CLOCKWORK ORANGE (I see no problem there, most characters in that movie were OTT, they were 'characters' rather than 'people'). It was such a long time ago I saw BARRY LYNDON (probably 30 years) that I don't recall him in that at all.
|
| randall |
Posted - 11/20/2013 : 10:48:35
quote:
Originally posted by Sean
quote:
Originally posted by 14Babe
I think his [Kubrick's] genius as a filmmaker is his ability to, as randall experienced, and so did I in 2001 - his ability to envelop you into the film itself.
I guess this is achieved in no small part by not giving you a protagonist to follow. Kubrick's characters are there to do a job, not to take the viewer through the movie from a character's POV. They're often 'detached': astronauts, soldiers, future psychopaths, pedophiles, or somehow 'larger than life'. Kubrick doesn't do conventional dramas. I've never had a problem with any of his characters or actors. I even liked Eyes Wide Shut with the exception of the boring/irritating first half hour.
I bow to no one in my admiration for Stanley Kubrick, who is to me what Kurosawa is to you. Three of his pictures are on my favorite 100, and all the rest, beginning with PATHS OF GLORY and including EYES WIDE SHUT [and its languid/dreamlike first half hour], would be in a second hundred. He above all other filmmakers still rewards me after multiple viewings, and his work seems resistant to dating, existing out-of-time in its own space. My favorite of all is 2001, but just because I adore it doesn't make it perfect. As I've already said, I have one minor problem with it. Thank God that problem only manifests itself for about half an hour in total.
And you "never had a problem" with Patrick Magee in A CLOCKWORK ORANGE and BARRY LYNDON? |
| Sean |
Posted - 11/20/2013 : 03:12:20
quote:
Originally posted by 14Babe
I think his [Kubrick's] genius as a filmmaker is his ability to, as randall experienced, and so did I in 2001 - his ability to envelop you into the film itself.
I guess this is achieved in no small part by not giving you a protagonist to follow. Kubrick's characters are there to do a job, not to take the viewer through the movie from a character's POV. They're often 'detached': astronauts, soldiers, future psychopaths, pedophiles, or somehow 'larger than life'. Kubrick doesn't do conventional dramas. I've never had a problem with any of his characters or actors. I even liked Eyes Wide Shut with the exception of the boring/irritating first half hour.
quote:
All of which is to say I believe it doesn't quite lead anywhere to compare Kubrick's space with Cuaron's.
I made the comparison as one space is realistic and one isn't. But sure, the two are aiming at different targets. |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 11/20/2013 : 02:01:43
When, gentlemen, when has Kubrick - whom I consider one of Anerican's finest directors - when did he ever manage to get dimensional performances from anyone? Never, that's when. randall's probably right that Dullea was a face more than a character. But I've never seen him be anything but bland. Most of the actors he chooses either can't act or are OTT. I think he deliberately repressed any genuine character portrayal by Kidman and Cruise. The Shining's best performance was from the hotel - everyone else was a kind of cartoon-of-horror. I think his genius as a filmmaker is his ability to, as randall experienced, and so did I in 2001 - his ability to envelop you into the film itself.
All of which is to say I believe it doesn't quite lead anywhere to compare Kubrick's space with Cuaron's. And which is why I'm convinced that Gravity is a character film before it's anything else.
|
| Sean |
Posted - 11/20/2013 : 01:45:34
Ah well, next time I watch it I'll try and fault the dialogue. I hadn't managed every other time I watched it (although I never tried). It's always been one of my 'perfect' movies and there's probably always a part of that blown-away kid left in me when I hit the play button. |
| randall |
Posted - 11/20/2013 : 01:32:56
quote:
Originally posted by Sean
quote:
Originally posted by randa14
quote:
Originally posted by Sean
quote:
Finally, re 2001, I agree with both of you. It is slow and languid, benj, and that has put some people off since 1968. But it's also magnificent, Sean, and the middle section -- particularly the shuttle penetrating the whirling space station -- is to me comforting and soothing. If I have to find any fault, it's in the cold, unnatural dialogue, which sounds in general as if it was written by a machine.
I think that cold dialogue was probably deliberate, it was set 33 years in the future; the use of contemporary or 'familiar' dialogue would not have helped here. It could be harder to feel like you're in the future if the personalities feel too familiar.
I must not have explained myself very well. To me, the dialogue feels obligatory, unadorned, as if earnestly written by a bright lower-school child. [Sir Arthur Clarke was probably no help in this single regard.] Was Kubrick trying to paint a future bereft of emotion? Well, he uses his own adorable daughter when daddy perfunctorily phones home, so if that's the idea, he fails. 2001 is largely wordless, thank God, and falls short only in those rare moments when words are unavoidable.
I believe I understood you. The dialogue was obligatory and unadorned for a reason. I believe Kubrick wasn't exactly aiming at a future 'bereft' of emotion, but certainly diminished or suppressed. It's common enough in futuristic movies (in particular dystopias) to show people who are either emotionally stunted or the society requires them to keep their emotions bottled up; they only speak when necessary and keep it cold, simple and clinical. If that was Kubrick's purpose then I believe he achieved it. The phone-daughter conversation was a nice thread that shows that even though these guys are dedicated professionals they are still human; the 1968 viewers would have appreciated something they can relate to (but the video hookup kept it sufficiently detached c.f. cut-to-earth). [Remember how much we loved Commander Chris Hadfield's cover of Space Oddity, astronauts must be professionals but it's even better if they're human professionals.] Without that daughter scene the detachment (between viewer and characters) would have been too severe.
In particular, the two on the Jupiter mission were utterly single-minded, their focus was on the mission and nothing else. They're men of few words who speak when necessary. I took it that these guys were the cr�me de la cr�me of those who'd passed through the Right Stuff programme with flying colours, they were prepared to leave their probably-limited emotions on the earth and devote their entire waking hours to the mission and nothing but the mission for the entire duration of the mission. The only crack I saw appear in their emotionless professionalism was when Bowman was locked out of the ship and became aware of the dire peril that he (and the mission) was in. Even that was only for a brief moment (after all, it was simply a computer malfunction, wasn't it?) before the clinical professional reappeared. Dave Bowman is just the kind of guy you'd want and expect on such a mission, there's no room for a hyperventilating panicker like Bullock in GRAVITY.
It still feels phony, written, to me, and that includes Floyd's non-candid "executive conference," the impromptu meeting with the Soviets, and even unwrapping the sandwiches on the way to the anomaly, the way obsequiousness manifests itself in tiny syllables. You hear it as clinical behavior, I hear it as something that drags us down, gets in the way: an inability to convincingly express human interaction through verbiage. You see a gemlike facet; I see a flaw. |
|
|
