Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2018 22:31:15 GMT
I remember being absolutely blown away by it (when I saw it in theaters in 3D) . Some real edge of your seat moments in this with some jaw dropping sequences through out too. 9/10 Need to probably give it another viewing again since I loved it so much but I doubt it'll have the same impact .
|
|
|
Post by mslo79 on Feb 11, 2018 6:40:01 GMT
That goes to...
1)Speed (1994) - 7/10 2)The Heat (2013) - 6-6.5/10 (borderline 6.5-7/10)
Gravity (2013) on the other hand is barely a Thumbs Up for me currently (I have seen it twice so far) with a 5.5-6/10. I won't be surprised if it shifts to Thumbs Down status when I get around to seeing it again. basically when Clooney is on screen it's decent but once he's not on screen it gets a bit shaky.
I am sure Gravity is overpraised because of the 3D angle. remove that and see it like normal (i.e. 2D) and it's nothing special.
|
|
|
Post by kingkoopa on Feb 11, 2018 6:53:26 GMT
It was a tremendous theatrical experience. I'm a big NASA fan and am really into the science. While the science and story weren't all the way there, the visual experience was awesome. They captured the scope of modern space travel and really got that "whoa, I'm a long way from home" element that great space-set thrillers have had before it.
Sandra Bullock was a strange choice for this character I thought. She wasn't bad, but she didn't ever have the cool-headedness I'd expect from someone who'd end up in a rocket ship. She was alright, but I think someone more soft spoken (Tilda Swinton maybe?) could have lent more to the overall atmosphere of the movie. Something like "2001" really nails the slow actions/movements of the people, the silence, and the coldness of space.
I really liked this movie overall. I saw it in IMAX and was blown away. Probably one of the coolest movies I've seen on a big screen.
|
|
|
Post by mslo79 on Feb 11, 2018 8:09:15 GMT
kingkoopaon a side note... apparently NASA named Gattaca (1997) the most plausible Sci-Fi movie according to this article I read online from Jan 2011 here... www.slashfilm.com/nasa-2012-absurd-scifi-movie-gattaca-plausible/I just thought I would post this. but maybe your already aware of it(?). That article above has these for the Top 7 most plausible... 1)Gattaca (1997) 2)Contact (1997) 3)Metropolis (1927) 4)The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951) 5)Woman in the Moon (1929) 6)The Thing from Another World (1951) 7)Jurassic Park (1993) but since that article is now 7 years old it makes me wonder if there have been any more recent movies that NASA would consider for the list.
|
|
|
Post by kingkoopa on Feb 11, 2018 8:37:26 GMT
mslo79"Gattaca" (criminally underrated) and "Contact" sound about right to me for the top two. One I'm surprised didn't make the list was "Apollo 13" (though the story was romanticized a bit). That'd be for nothing much else than the technical challenge of the cast and crew spending so much time in the vommit comet. "Life" was a pretty good effort (though sort of derivative of "The Thing") at portraying constant weightlessness and the isolation of living on a space station. Thanks for the article, hadn't read it. I grew up surfing in Cocoa Beach, Florida (setting of "I Dream of Jeannie" and her astronaut husband) watching the rockets go up every time I got the chance. The astronauts and pilots were the rock stars of the town. Been fascinated with them since seeing my first launch.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Feb 11, 2018 9:52:36 GMT
only should be seen in the theater in 3d 3D is overrated to me. I think it looked amazing on Blu-Ray I think it worked better on smaller screens and not in 3D because of the intent of the thing. It is more "personal" that way.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Feb 11, 2018 9:58:20 GMT
I wasn't a fan, it's not bad, but it feels thin all around. What Cuarón did with such a small cast was great, bringing out good performances from Bullock and Clooney, but they're normally solid actors regardless. But my main issue is the script, does everything have to go wrong for her? First the satellite which starts the story (fine) then she drifts into space, then low oxygen, then Clooney (SPOILERS: dies), then a fire inside the new station, and it just repeats, it just felt lazy. I thought the script was the best thing about the finished product. Having everything go wrong, one thing after another was not lazy, it was the whole point or theme underlying the storytelling. Would the story of Job in the Bible be less lazy if things alternately go well for him?
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Feb 11, 2018 12:28:15 GMT
Gravity suck! But the movie was quite good, solid roller coaster ride. 6.5/10
|
|
|
Post by someguy on Feb 13, 2018 3:42:27 GMT
I'm no Sandra Bullock fan, and Gravity did nothing to make me one.
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Feb 13, 2018 4:30:09 GMT
Not sure why this gets a lot of hate. Its a great short survival sci fi, better than the drawn out "The Martian". But Matt Damon said funny things!!1 Yeah, love Gravity. Technical and visual marvel with a terrifying concept. As for Bullock, it's the most I've liked her since Speed.
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Feb 13, 2018 8:08:28 GMT
I think I’d agree Gravity was better than The Martian. I liked Martian but Gravity was seriously edge of my seat the entire time. I thought Bullock did great.
Gravity came out around the same time as Edge of Tomorrow too and I thought that was another fantastic sci-fi flick.
|
|
|
Post by anthonyrocks on Feb 13, 2018 8:14:50 GMT
I think I’d agree Gravity was better than The Martian. I liked Martian but Gravity was seriously edge of my seat the entire time. I thought Bullock did great. Gravity came out around the same time as Edge of Tomorrow too and I thought that was another fantastic sci-fi flick. Agreed!
|
|
|
Post by geode on Feb 13, 2018 12:03:14 GMT
Not sure why this gets a lot of hate. Its a great short survival sci fi, better than the drawn out "The Martian". You bring a very important point here. It seems that any movie that wishes to be considered "Oscar worthy" these days is two hours or more in length. One if the great strengths about "Gravity" is its running time. There is no padding or wasted moments.
|
|
|
Post by DSDSquared on Feb 13, 2018 13:01:22 GMT
I saw Gravity in IMAX 3D and it was incredible. I feel that if I saw it on the small screen I might not have liked it as much.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 13, 2018 13:11:50 GMT
Not sure why this gets a lot of hate. Its a great short survival sci fi, better than the drawn out "The Martian". You bring a very important point here. It seems that any movie that wishes to be considered "Oscar worthy" these days is two hours or more in length. One if the great strengths about "Gravity" is its running time. There is no padding or wasted moments. I know a lot of people were upset about stuff like where satellites were and such, including DeGrasse Tyson, but I didn't know where anything was in the first place, so that didn't matter to me. plus the story was still science fiction, meaning they could place stuff any way they wish in the alternate universes of sci-fi.
|
|
|
Post by charzhino on Feb 13, 2018 13:16:55 GMT
Glad to see others agree that Gravity is better than The Martian. I can see why general audiences find The Martian more appealing though which is still a good film. But as for the best SciFi movies of the decade, I still think Arrival & Interstellar both excel over Gravity and The Martian.
|
|
|
Post by anthonyrocks on Feb 15, 2018 18:24:43 GMT
What does everybody else here think ?
|
|