GRAVITY - Alfonso Cuaron, 2013

[noodles_leone]

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.

 

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.

[T.H.]

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.

[noodles_leone]

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.

[dave jenkins]

Wow, now we finally get the ending this film should have had all along! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gw79smKZB9E

[Novecento]

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.

[noodles_leone]

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.

[dave jenkins]

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.

[uncknown]

By sheer coincidence i posted this several days ago!
https://m.facebook.com/groups/95015405220/permalink/10167651048690221/

[noodles_leone]

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.

[T.H.]

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.

[dave jenkins]

I go to the movies for movies.

Then you are easily satisfied. The rest of us, however, have standards.

[noodles_leone]

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.

[cigar joe]

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 

[noodles_leone]

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 

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.

[T.H.]

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 

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.