Sergio Leone Web Board
Other/Miscellaneous => Off-Topic Discussion => Topic started by: noodles_leone on July 26, 2013, 03:33:19 AM
-
I'm a big fan of Cuaron since
his Harry Potter Children Of Men and its incredible extended shots (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfBSncUspBk). His next movie, Gravity, starring George 'Espresso' Clooney and Sandra 'Miss Detective' Bullock is very likely to be THE film of the year. So it deserves a real thread and a proper introduction.
(http://images.moviefanatic.com/iu/t_large/v1368126061/gravity-poster.jpg)
Here are a few facts:
- it's a space survival, but it's not science fiction. The story is hapening in 2013, with 2013 technology and Mulder and Scully have not been approched.
- everything is CGI exept the actors' faces
- the opening shot will be a single 17-minute take (note: I'm now earing 38 minutes from Warner France's head of marketing, but I think he's wrong)
- the film will be around two hours and will only contain 156 shots (i.e. average shot: 45 seconds, with many shots that will last 6, 8 and 10 minutes long)
- cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki (The Tree of Life) is on board
Source:
http://thefilmstage.com/news/average-shot-length-in-alfonso-cuarons-2-hour-gravity-revealed-17-minute-opening-take-confirmed/
I know you just thought "Full CGI extended shots? That sounds terrible!", so it's time for you to see how much wrong you are, you old conservative prick with no faith in humanity. Here are the 3 trailers:
Detached: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4pcg7bXgmU
Drifting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZV-UEca2W9U
Official Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vk-UQ5kJWQ
-
Looks interesting but pretty CGI to me. Could look better in 3D, though. But then again, it's converted to 3D, not native.
-
Looks interesting but pretty CGI to me. Could look better in 3D, though. But then again, it's converted to 3D, not native.
It's full CGI so it's native 3D at its best... Only the faces are converted, and I'm pretty sure they'll turn out at least ok.
-
Your facts excited me but the trailers did not. Definitely worth a shot when it comes out though.
-
Your facts excited me but the trailers did not.
Weirdooooooooooo
I absolutely love trailers 1 & 2. Cannot wait to see how they work in a whole movie shot like that.
My main fear is that we might end up watching 2 hours of 2 guys falling in real time, and from time to time, they cross the road of a satellite or something.
-
- cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki (The Tree of Life) is on board
Uh, if it's all CGI (except for the faces), why is Lubezki necessary? Are his faces gonna be so much better than anyone else's?
I saw one of the trailers in the cinema, and I wasn't all that excited. I've already seen 2001 and Apollo 13--space peril films have had their day.
-
Uh, if it's all CGI (except for the faces), why is Lubezki necessary? Are his faces gonna be so much better than anyone else's?
Great live-action DP are often called to light CGI scenes and even full CGI movies. Roger Deakins worked on Rango and Wall-E, hence the gorgeous lightening and colors.
(http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/sites/default/files/2012/02/rango_a.jpg)
-
First Glowing Reviews of Alfonso Cuarón’s ‘Gravity’ Arrive From Venice & Telluride:
http://thefilmstage.com/news/first-glowing-reviews-of-alfonso-cuarons-gravity-arrive-from-venice/
DJ apparently loved it:
David Jenkins at Little White Lies:
On a superficial level, this is your regular, down-home disaster movie in which we join a trio of plucky, bantering astronauts during a routine space walk which goes very south very quickly. Their trio swiftly becomes a twosome and the remainder of the film comprises a catalogue of micro-second clutches and grabs for a lifeline of any sort. Yet – and some may find this side of the film a mite on-the-nose – Gravity operates as a bold (possibly even eccentric) and majestically rendered parable on the wonders of creation, with a very specific focus on the details of reproduction. Imagery of umbilical chords, foetal positions, wombs and characters triumphantly surfacing from the amniotic river sit surprisingly comfortably against a visual backdrop of decaying space stations and an infinite shroud of nothingness.
http://thefilmstage.com/news/first-glowing-reviews-of-alfonso-cuarons-gravity-arrive-from-venice/
-
Did it meet your expectations? I saw it. I liked it.
-
Not released yet in France. Still a week or so to wait. I missed an avant-premiere with Cuaron the other day in Paris, which sucks, but I wasn't around.
I'll let you know as soon as I saw it! So far I'm happy with what I have, which means the box-office:
http://collider.com/weekend-box-office-gravity-hits-new-october-opening-record-with-55-5-million/
-
The sound and mix in Gravity (VIDEO):
http://nofilmschool.com/2013/10/alfonso-cuaron-discusses-approach-to-sound-in-gravity/?utm_campaign=twitter&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitter
-
I finally saw it!
It was released yesterday in France. Until 4 days ago, it wasn't supposed to be shown in IMAX: we only have 5 IMAX theaters in France and thy were all booked by Jean-Pierre Jeunet's latest film (released last week) for 2 weeks, then they'll be for Thor. It all changed during the weekend when it became evident that Jeunet was suffering a hge box office flop (he's one of the most liked filmmakers of the country but they did absolutely 0 promotion for his movie so no one even knows he was working on something). So after all we have one week of Gravity in IMAX, which is the greatest news ever.
Anyway.
It was exactly what I expected: a roller coaster for grown ups.
It's minimalist. You can tell everything that happens in the movie in under 10 sentences.
It's incredbly immersive. I can now say I've spent 90minutes in space fighting for my life.
It's one of the most controled experience you've ever seen on a theater, on par with OUATITW, the triello from GBU, the ending of 3 colors: blue, the lobby scene from The Matrix and the pirates flash-back sequences from Tintin. I'm not saying it's as good as OUATITW (and I'm especially not saying that Tintin is as good as OUATITW), I'm saying that every single pixel on the screen and every audio wave is doing exactly the job Cuaron asked it to do in order to tell exactly the story Cuaron wanted to tell exactly the way he wanted to tell it. 2 minutes of such an experience is enough for me to spend an evening and 10 bucks. 90 minutes of it is an amazing landmark in the history of cinema.
It's for grown ups. It's not Star Tour. There are real characters. They are moving (most of the time). You feel something. Of course it's not the strong point of the film. It just works and does the job.
There are a couple flaws. The ending isn't the most satisfying scene. The script tends to use the "JUST IN TIME!!!!!!" gimmick (for good and bad things) a bit too much: with such a thin story you can ask for a little creativity here. Nobody said it was a masterpiece. People who compare it with 2001 didn't get the project. It's trying to be the future of entertainment for adults, not The Tree Of Life with Miss Detective.
I give it 9/10. It won't change the way I thought about cinema like a couple other films did during the last decade (There Will Be Blood, The Social Network and The Tree Of Life), but my next projects will be technically improved by what I saw. Also, I don't remember being in this "WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAOWWWW" state ever in a movie theater. There has been lots of talk about an "immersive" movie experience, and for the first time, here it is. Now, it may not age well, but it paves the way for future movies, and is probably creating many vocations (astronautes and filmmakers) all around the world. It's more or less universally respected by all the directors and wanabe directors I know, so it's already making history by having a direct impact on thousands of features and short movies.
On a separate note, this film is another point hinting toward what Spielberg and Lucas professed (future of theaters = 50/ to 100 bucks a ticket for an amusement park experience // VOD for the rest of the movies).
-
Gravity:
Pretty good, but it was way too gimmicky for my taste - I don't even know whether to classify it as a film. It's more like a made-for-imax experience, which was enjoyable but it's not going to age well. it's sort of a "time and place" experience, you had to watch it in 2013 to feel its full effect. By the last act, it begins to wear out its welcome and becomes way too sentimental and inspirational, which doesn't fit the tone of the movie. The deus ex machina Clooney dream scene sucked too, as did all the unnecessary conflicts after the ship heads back towards earth.
Overall, I enjoyed it for what it was, good, but not 20 bucks good. 7.5/10, the first half was really entertaining.
-
SPOILERS FROM NOW ON
The deus ex machina Clooney scene sucked too, as did all the unnecessary conflicts after the ship heads back towards earth.
The Clooney scene is one of the most effective scenes I've ever seen. I've never been that happy to see a character enter a scene. And I've rarely been that sad to see him leave it. However, I'm completely with you about the drowing part. It's more than unnecessary: it drives you out of the movie. You spend 90 minutes with her trying to get back on earth, and then when she finally arrives here, she escapes death like 3 times in 3 minutes. Having to fear for her life at this point was too "humour noir", which means you step back from the character. Which means you're not "experiencing Gravity" anymore.
Not so sure about the "not aging well" part since the effects are far from flashy. Furthermore, it's a landmark. Landmarks always age better than the average movie, because when we'll watch it in 50 years, it will still be "the best we could do in 2013".
-
I liked the Clooney character and all, but I never find scenes where a dead character returns to be effective - especially when the point of it is to give the character information. It's amateur writing in my opinion.
-
I usually dislike these scenes too, but this one had exactly the intended effect on me. I see what you mean about the information giving point. Well, IMO, it works here since Clooney in this scene is nothing but his own legacy in herself. Not sure I'm clear, but he brought that "smart even under fire" to her before. He's a father figure; now he's dead but he helped her grow up.
-
I liked the Clooney character and all, but I never find scenes where a dead character returns to be effective - especially when the point of it is to give the character information. It's amateur writing in my opinion.
I didn't see it as Clowny giving her info she didn't already have; it was already there, and merely manifested itself through the imagined conversation. That is, it was "re-called" by the operation of the dream state.
-
Well I think TH got that but still thought it was cliché and lazy, kind of like a cheesy voice over ("But our hero knew that some reactors were used during a regular landing") or a cheesy flash-back (blur, flash-back music, old chinese instructor (with a vignette around him): "These are for landing only. But you'll always find a way."). Then again, GRAVITY relies a lot on academic structure and old-school twists, so if you're turned off by this scene, you're probably turned off by most of what happens in the movie.
I'v read someone defending the script saying that "it is not simple, it is pure, just like Tetris is pure."
It may be a bit rhetorical but I like the point.
-
Story and characters in Gravity have the classic simplicity of films like Rio Bravo, and are not the main point why one watches Gravity. The directing is pretty impressive with lots of complex shots which are a pleasure to watch. It is one of those films which show you things, and let you be part of them, which you never before experienced in that way. I'm sure in the future film scholars will find a lot of content and meaning regarding birth, re-birth, religion and other meta-physical stuff in it (just think of the way Bullock rises in the last scene and the primeval soup she was diving through before) , which won't make the film much better, but will change the way the film will be discussed.
I'm just now not ready to give the film a 10/10, but as I feel a great impulse to re-watch it immediately, and as it is still growing on me since I watched it, and as it floats through my mind too often, it can't be less than a 9/10.
-
I saw it twice in 5 days. The second viewing in such a short time is a far less immersive experience. I was still very sad when the radio/suicide/dream/rebirth extended shot (yes it's a single shot) came since I knew the ride was over. I'd have been ok to rewatch it the day after.
-
"Aningaaq", a short movie shot by Cuaron and showing the other side of Sandra Bullock's distress call is now available for free online:
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/gravity-spinoff-watch-side-sandra-657919
I thought I was going to have to wait for the BD to see this. Some marketing guy probably thought it could give a last boost to Gravity's box office... Good for us!
-
Way cool! O0 This reminded me of one of those Breugel paintings--you know, like "The Fall of Icarus"?--where something monumental is going on in the background, meanwhile in the foreground the work-a-day world continues to impose its demands on the rest of us.
When the dude started doing his dog howl routine on the radio I was cracking up. ;D
-
Haven't seen the film yet, but I found this American Cinematographer article very interesting: http://www.theasc.com/ac_magazine/November2013/Gravity/page1.php
-
Great read, thanks!
I saw this the other day: the second scene from the latest Call Of Duty game, which is basically Gravity with less IMAX, more interaction. And guns. Lots of guns. You can watch it full screen, it's like a short movie in POV.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tNAt18L3b4
-
So I finally saw it. I'll call it a 7+/10.
Let me start with what didn't impress me. First of all: Clooney's "resurrection" scene sucks ass like a motherfucker. Laziest, stupidest and most cliched writing I've seen in years. I don't think I have to go into details about that. Also I found Bullock's monologues lazy more often than not. Mostly their purpose is to make sure I (the audience) get what she's doing and why, and unfortunately they also feel like aimed at me. The filmmakers could have had a little more trust in their audience. Now I felt I was treated like a kid. Which leads us to the score: Who isn't scared shitless when you throw an orchestraful of dissonance at them? I call that cheap thrills. They could have trusted their images more and use less of that standard Hollywood excuse for music.
Then - lets get to the good stuff. The images: gorgeous and very much in service of the story. There is a sense of texture in the CGI I have never seen before. The use of light, focal length, focus and of course the choreography of the "camera" and actors are something to marvel at. And the use of 3D is among the best achievements in that territory. And although it's mostly just a fun ride, there are some images and moments that provide something more than just entertainment. For example: Bullock floating like a fetus; her screaming in the capsule, shot from the outside; the ISS collapsing like a whole galaxy. Also the scene with the chinese guy in the other end of the radio stirred some real emotion in me.
So: amazing technical achievement, a good deal of great details, some totally awesome moments. But I didn't really like the script or the lack of trust in the audience. I guess "too Hollywood for my taste" would be the best expression here, but then of course somebody would ask me: "Well, what did you expect?" Maybe something more like All Is Lost in space, I guess.
EDIT: I must add that although the film convinced me that "this is definitely what it would look like up there", I could only momentarily shake off the thought: "Yeah, but you know it's not the real deal, right?"
-
For me Clooney's comeback scene was a great idea. I really liked it. And I don't see any cheap thrills in the score. Actually I don't think that Gravity is very Hollywood-a-like.
If many of Bullock's monologues are redundant, if the film could have been done without most of the dialogues, that's an interesting question. I maybe check it next time.
-
First of all: Clooney's "resurrection" scene sucks ass like a motherfucker. Laziest, stupidest and most cliched writing I've seen in years.
No. It made me happy like a kid and then sad like a kid. I get what you mean, but I'm glad they did exactly what they did the way they did it. I like the idea and the execution is over perfection. But I get that many people will not like the idea.
Also I found Bullock's monologues lazy more often than not. Mostly their purpose is to make sure I (the audience) get what she's doing and why, and unfortunately they also feel like aimed at me. The filmmakers could have had a little more trust in their audience. Now I felt I was treated like a kid.
Yes and no. The point is most people called the film "simplistic" even with the explainations, so may be they aren't enough explainations after all. Because while not being 2001, it's still far from simplistic.
Which leads us to the score: Who isn't scared shitless when you throw an orchestraful of dissonance at them? I call that cheap thrills. They could have trusted their images more and use less of that standard Hollywood excuse for music.
Yes and no. Sometimes. And sometimes it's perfect. I actually kind of liked the thrills parts of the soundtrack, I didn't like most of the emotion parts (like the last 15 minutes). The trailers made me expect far more in this area.
Then - lets get to the good stuff. The images: gorgeous and very much in service of the story. There is a sense of texture in the CGI I have never seen before. The use of light, focal length, focus and of course the choreography of the "camera" and actors are something to marvel at. And the use of 3D is among the best achievements in that territory. And although it's mostly just a fun ride, there are some images and moments that provide something more than just entertainment. For example: Bullock floating like a fetus; her screaming in the capsule, shot from the outside; the ISS collapsing like a whole galaxy. Also the scene with the chinese guy in the other end of the radio stirred some real emotion in me.
Yes :)
I guess "too Hollywood for my taste" would be the best expression here, but then of course somebody would ask me: "Well, what did you expect?" Maybe something more like All Is Lost in space, I guess.
To me it looks like something Hollywoodish but I'm with Stanton: it actually isn't (appart from the dead child part). For a start, it's sincere, so it cannot be that hollywoodish. The second point is it's a revolutonary way of approaching a blockbuster script. Minimalism is quite the opposite of hollywoodish to me.
EDIT: I must add that although the film convinced me that "this is definitely what it would look like up there", I could only momentarily shake off the thought: "Yeah, but you know it's not the real deal, right?"
Man, it's the real stuff. They even have the reflexion of the camera operator and the sound guy in Clooney's helmet at the very begining (not kidding: if you pause the film the first time Clooney gets close to the camera you'll see 2 astronauts with a cam and a mic).
http://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/1yxwro/gravity_easter_egg_space_suited_camera_crew/
-
Gravity:
Pretty good, but it was way too gimmicky for my taste - I don't even know whether to classify it as a film. It's more like a made-for-imax experience, which was enjoyable but it's not going to age well. it's sort of a "time and place" experience, you had to watch it in 2013 to feel its full effect. By the last act, it begins to wear out its welcome and becomes way too sentimental and inspirational, which doesn't fit the tone of the movie. The deus ex machina Clooney dream scene sucked too, as did all the unnecessary conflicts after the ship heads back towards earth.
Overall, I enjoyed it for what it was, good, but not 20 bucks good. 7.5/10, the first half was really entertaining.
I was listening to Bill Simmons' podcast where they did the 5 year oscars (2013 movies) and they were talking about Gravity. I feel vindicated by my initial take. Even though the first 45 mins are very entertaining, I don't think this has held up in the way that the famous D-Day scene from Saving Private Ryan has. I really don't think CGI/artificial camera movements are aging gracefully and I hope it's a fad that fades.
I also think that the portrayal of Sandra Bullock as a naive, incompetent soccer mom has really hurt the movie. She's an awful character and the script deteriorates into a "little engine that could" story when astronauts should always be portrayed as competent, intelligent people. I also really dislike that Clooney dream sequence.
-
I really don't think CGI/artificial camera movements are aging gracefully
I think this kind of general assertions are rarely true in art history. Early CGI/artificial camera movements haven't aged gracefully because filmmakers were (are still) trying to figure out how to use them.
The ones in Gravity are used for actual storytelling and not for showing off. They're the result of years of trials and errors by Alfonso Cuaron who did a lot of similar (but real) camera movements in Children of Men. He's now brought back to earth the same kind of movement (mostly not CGI) with Roma. The fact that some are CGI and some are true camera movements doesn't change anything when they're well done: he's been working on switching POV midshot, going from an objective point of view to a subjective one back and forth for more than a decade now and if you ask me he's the ultimate master in that respect.
-
I think this kind of general assertions are rarely true in art history. Early CGI/artificial camera movements haven't aged gracefully because filmmakers were (are still) trying to figure out how to use them.
The ones in Gravity are used for actual storytelling and not for showing off. They're the result of years of trials and errors by Alfonso Cuaron who did a lot of similar (but real) camera movements in Children of Men. He's now brought back to earth the same kind of movement (mostly not CGI) with Roma. The fact that some are CGI and some are true camera movements doesn't change anything when they're well done: he's been working on switching POV midshot, going from an objective point of view to a subjective one back and forth for more than a decade now and if you ask me he's the ultimate master in that respect.
I respectfully disagree, "show off" is the first word or phrase I would use to describe Cuaron. His style purposely calls attention to itself and is part of the hype machine behind his movies.
As for Gravity, agree to disagree. The opening sequence looks like a videogame cutscene.
-
I respectfully disagree, "show off" is the first word or phrase I would use to describe Cuaron. His style purposely calls attention to itself and is part of the hype machine behind his movies.
As for Gravity, agree to disagree. The opening sequence looks like a videogame cutscene.
;D
Poor Alfonso. His style calls attention to itself, that's a fact. Well if he's a show off to you maybe the CGI quality of the movements isn't the issue here, the movements themselves are... Anyway, I suspect you're also disturbed by the way his camera often adopts an objective point of view, which is why the movements become "in your face" in my opinion.
-
;D
Poor Alfonso. His style calls attention to itself, that's a fact. Well if he's a show off to you maybe the CGI quality of the movements isn't the issue here, the movements themselves are... Anyway, I suspect you're also disturbed by the way his camera often adopts an objective point of view, which is why the movements become "in your face" in my opinion.
Haha
They're separate issues, and you're right for making that distinction. For example, I love Fincher and think he's the best technically sound filmmaker that has emerged in the last 30 years, but I don't like when he does that style of camera movement either ie the pan through the house in Panic Room.
-
For example, I love Fincher and think he's the best technically sound filmmaker that has emerged in the last 30 years, but I don't like when he does that style of camera movement either ie the pan through the house in Panic Room.
Now that's a sentence I can unequivocally get behind.
And yeah, it's a good example of CGI camera movements that rose some debates at the time, were still highly influential and replicated in many movies and commercials... and aged terribly.
-
Wow, now we finally get the ending this film should have had all along! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gw79smKZB9E
-
Surprised there?s no discussion on this thread of the amazing approach to audio that was used for this. The one link early on doesn?t do it justice. It was seriously novel and highly effective.
-
Surprised there?s no discussion on this thread of the amazing approach to audio that was used for this. The one link early on doesn?t do it justice. It was seriously novel and highly effective.
Yeah that's the best crafted "immersive cinema" experience to date. The sound is responsible for 50% of that experience, although the heavy OST kinda hurts the film and its sound in the long run.
-
Yeah that's the best crafted "immersive cinema" experience to date.
It's the best theme park experience you can have at the cinema, certainly. But I go to the movies for stories.
-
By sheer coincidence i posted this several days ago!
https://m.facebook.com/groups/95015405220/permalink/10167651048690221/
-
It's the best theme park experience you can have at the cinema, certainly. But I go to the movies for stories.
I go to the movies for movies.
-
I don't even know whether to classify it as a film. It's more like a made-for-imax experience, which was enjoyable but it's not going to age well. it's sort of a "time and place" experience, you had to watch it in 2013 to feel its full effect.
Yep.
-
I go to the movies for movies.
Then you are easily satisfied. The rest of us, however, have standards.
-
Stories isn?t a standard. There are good and bad ones. More importantly, stories have also greatly damaged cinema in the last 3 decades.
That doesn?t mean that there aren?t great masterpieces mostly based on story. But ? story ? has become the dominant element of modern filmmaking and this is partly why many talk about the death of movies.
-
Stories isn?t a standard. There are good and bad ones. More importantly, stories have also greatly damaged cinema in the last 3 decades.
That doesn?t mean that there aren?t great masterpieces mostly based on story. But ? story ? has become the dominant element of modern filmmaking and this is partly why many talk about the death of movies.
Agree I can watch some of the cheesiest sexploitation films for the Visual "high" you get from location images captured on film, some are like archival footage of places that are long gone. The Sex Killer (Times Square and subways) and The The Girls on F Street (South Main old downtown LA, Angels Flight, Bunker Hill). lol 8)
-
Agree I can watch some of the cheesiest sexploitation films for the Visual "high" you get from location images captured on film, some are like archival footage of places that are long gone. The Sex Killer (Times Square and subways) and The The Girls on F Street (South Main old downtown LA, Angels Flight, Bunker Hill). lol 8)
Exactly. If a movie is only about "and then? and then? and then?" like story centric movies (or 99% of the tv shows), actually watching the movie brings no value, I'd better have a good friend telling me the same story.
Once again, you can create a masterpiece of a movie with a great story. But as a general rule, the consensus nowadays being "STORY! STORY! STORY!" and the result being forgetable content for 99% of the production, I'd strongly advise: let's calm down on this story thing. If a movie actually captures something on screen and on its soundtrack, it's already a better start.
-
Agree I can watch some of the cheesiest sexploitation films for the Visual "high" you get from location images captured on film, some are like archival footage of places that are long gone. The Sex Killer (Times Square and subways) and The The Girls on F Street (South Main old downtown LA, Angels Flight, Bunker Hill). lol 8)
I think there's a big difference between the time capsule appeal to film and a dated, CGI, made for IMAX movie that is stuck in 2013.
And how much better are those experiences when the story is great: ie Kiss Me Deadly and Cry Danger for Bunker Hill.
-
I think there's a big difference between the time capsule appeal to film and a dated, CGI, made for IMAX movie that is stuck in 2013.
And how much better are those experiences when the story is great: ie Kiss Me Deadly and Cry Danger for Bunker Hill.
There is a big difference but of course Gravity was also trying to capture something with visuals and sound, they weren't just trying to be immersive. They used CGI and stuff, but they did capture something about space (independantly of the movie feeling dated or not).
And yes some movies require a great story, some don't. Gravity could have had a better story and it would have made the movie better, but I'd better watch the simple, streamlined story they have than a much better story that would add complexity. What Gravity needed storywise was simplicity. If they couldn't manage to improve the story without adding complexity, I'm glad they kept it the way it is.
-
And how much better are those experiences when the story is great: ie Kiss Me Deadly and Cry Danger for Bunker Hill.
But I'm not thinking Kiss Me Deadly or Cry Danger, I'm thinking pretty much most of the rest of the Mike Hammer films that either didn't film in NYC or were visually bland in comparison. Even Blast Of Silence and Killers Kiss captured that real NYC feel much better.
-
There is a big difference but of course Gravity was also trying to capture something with visuals and sound, they weren't just trying to be immersive. They used CGI and stuff, but they did capture something about space (independantly of the movie feeling dated or not).
And yes some movies require a great story, some don't. Gravity could have had a better story and it would have made the movie better, but I'd better watch the simple, streamlined story they have than a much better story that would add complexity. What Gravity needed storywise was simplicity. If they couldn't manage to improve the story without adding complexity, I'm glad they kept it the way it is.
Agreed, if you want a really good story?go read a book.