Lounge of Tomorrow - View Single Post

innerSpaceman · 10-08-2013, 10:16 AM

I enjoyed it despite that lack of physical truth. On that particular note, more troubling to most people seems to be that Sandra Bullock's hair stays flatly in place in zero gravity environments when they took so much trouble to establish zero gravity with other effects.

I think movies can establish their own laws, even physical ones. So having her body be in Zero-G, but not her hair seems indeed a mistake. But the orbiting debris and chain-reaction failure of most com satellites is a movie McGuffin which I was happy to accept.

My problem with the film was how shallow it was - though it serves well its own purpose as a space disaster thriller told practically in real time. It was indeed thrilling, and absolutely stunningly beautiful. But it was empty of anything but the battle for survival against the elements and constantly upping ante.

So I enjoyed it, but it's not super memorable or impressive. Even the beauty results from it being practically an animated film. I think there are a few actual live-action shots in the third act, but the movie is basically a cartoon - and somehow I give less points to a gorgeous cartoon than I do to a gorgeous live-action film.

Alas then, I also have to give less points to the fantastical 17-minute shot that opens the movie. It's fantastically choreographed, but how hard is that in an animated film? Ironically, the director, Alfonso Cuaron, achieved some truly spectacular, exceedingly lengthy live-action shots in his last movie, Children of Men.

This all being said, I'm planning on paying to see Gravity again at the Chinese IMAX next weekend - and I can't even think of when I last paid to see a movie twice. But this film simply will not be a 10th the film it is once it's reduced to home video size.

So go see Gravity, see it Big, be entertained, and then be prepared to forget it.

10-08-2013, 10:16 AM	#4
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	I enjoyed it despite that lack of physical truth. On that particular note, more troubling to most people seems to be that Sandra Bullock's hair stays flatly in place in zero gravity environments when they took so much trouble to establish zero gravity with other effects. I think movies can establish their own laws, even physical ones. So having her body be in Zero-G, but not her hair seems indeed a mistake. But the orbiting debris and chain-reaction failure of most com satellites is a movie McGuffin which I was happy to accept. My problem with the film was how shallow it was - though it serves well its own purpose as a space disaster thriller told practically in real time. It was indeed thrilling, and absolutely stunningly beautiful. But it was empty of anything but the battle for survival against the elements and constantly upping ante. So I enjoyed it, but it's not super memorable or impressive. Even the beauty results from it being practically an animated film. I think there are a few actual live-action shots in the third act, but the movie is basically a cartoon - and somehow I give less points to a gorgeous cartoon than I do to a gorgeous live-action film. Alas then, I also have to give less points to the fantastical 17-minute shot that opens the movie. It's fantastically choreographed, but how hard is that in an animated film? Ironically, the director, Alfonso Cuaron, achieved some truly spectacular, exceedingly lengthy live-action shots in his last movie, Children of Men. This all being said, I'm planning on paying to see Gravity again at the Chinese IMAX next weekend - and I can't even think of when I last paid to see a movie twice. But this film simply will not be a 10th the film it is once it's reduced to home video size. So go see Gravity, see it Big, be entertained, and then be prepared to forget it.
	Submit to Quotes