GRAVITY - Alfonso Cuaron, 2013

[noodles_leone]

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.

[dave jenkins]

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.

[noodles_leone]

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.

[stanton]

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.

[noodles_leone]

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.

[noodles_leone]

"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!

[dave jenkins]

Way cool!  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. 

[moviesceleton]

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

[noodles_leone]

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

[moviesceleton]

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?"

[stanton]

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.

[noodles_leone]

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/

[T.H.]

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.

[noodles_leone]

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.

[T.H.]

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.