Nah, it’s my opinion, I don’t have to change it. I could just as easily have said “the hayseed ol timey radio singer and the Football Mom ex wife of Jesse James.”
But it loses something then.
I generally agree that movies like this are more powerful when unknowns are cast into roles like this. I’m kind of against the idea of a movie star in general. Now I’m fine with it if Arnold Scwharzenegger is throwing people around, because those movies don’t require me to immerse myself into the characters and think it’s real, I can watch it for the spectacle. But if you want me to sympathize and lose myself in the movie and think these two people are really stranded in space, it would be a whole lot easier if it were a bunch of unknowns than making me think “Oh, hey, George Clooney and Sandra Bullock are stuck in space. Oh right, this is a movie”
Apparently not many people agree, hence the dominance of the concept of the movie star.
Some actors can really disappear into a role. I don’t think Bullock and Clooney are like that.
I believe she says ‘Anybody, please copy.’
See Gary Oldman.
Wait, Gary Oldman was in that? Who was he?
And now that this movie is getting reviews, is it possible to get a premise for it?
No, Gary Oldman is an actor that can completely disappear into a role.
Whoosh.
Solar Panel #17 (uncredited)
I’ve seen the trailer twice in Imax, and it looks even more amazing. You will probably suffer from vertigo more than motion sickness
Now at 97 on Metacritic after 42 reviews. That’s just crazy high scoring.
Yeah, I’ve seen very good reviews for it, but none of them really seem to say anything about it. Even if a movie’s great, I generally like to have at least some idea what I’m going to see beforehand. Can anybody give me at least a vague premise of this without spoiling it?
Well, I like Sandra Bullock and I’m not usually one for thriller movies, but after hearing them talk about it on the radio this morning, I think I might just see if I can get to it this weekend.
The movie, in setup at least, can fairly be compared to
Open Water.
I’ve gathered from reviews that it’s the visuals that are impressive and that for those it’s actually worth seeing in 3-D.
I read the fully spoiled plot on Wikipedia because I do that for movies I think I won’t be seeing. I have questions about how accurately Gravity deals with orbital dynamics and am looking forward to reading something authoritative on that (from the summary it seemed like the difficulty in getting from object A to object B in orbit wasn’t taken into account but it was just a summary).
I’ve seen a couple of TV ads for this, that seemed to imply that this movie would have the element of 2001 that makes it one of my favourite films: total silence, in space.
The trailer in the OP is at odds with this, so that sort of diminishes my interest.
I like the apparent premise of an astronaut doing EVA becoming stranded, however.
So technically, not really science fiction, just fiction like Apollo 13.
When my wife and I first saw the trailer to this we essentially looked at each other and said “aw hell no.”
Maybe on Blu Ray when it comes out. I assume both characters survive, I read Richard Roeper’s review of it and he mentions that Sandra Bullock has a scene where she’s in a t-shirt and short shorts and I can’t imagine her dressed like that in space.
Here you go:Poking holes in Gravity
A review from a real rocket scientist. Massive spoilers!
Saw it this afternoon, in IMAX 3D.
I really had high hope for this movie since Children of Men is one of my favorites.
It… just didn’t do it for me.
The story was very very simple which is not bad in all cases but here it was simplified to the point of being cliche’. A very basic survival story and the moments they tried to make the characters deeper they just ened up using stereotypes we’ve seen before.
They did capture the feel of being around the outside and inside of space stations quite well and the disorientation of being weightless and panic of being in an uncontrolled spin. The physics of all that felt spot on and bravo for such an achievement.
However, things like long tracking shots that Curon is know for felt less impressive knowing they were done with CGI. A long tracking shot from Children of Men? ‘Wow!’ A long tracking shot in Wreck-It-Ralph? Yeah, so what, it’s computer generated.
I think they also missed at conveying how really, really big outer space is. In fact the movie made it feel really, really small. Any looming threat seemed to be ‘headed this way’ and any chance for rescue seemed to be ‘right over there behind you’. Space didn’t feel ginormous, it felt like they were running around in a forest.
I’d comment more but it would be somewhat spoilerish.
Worth seeing, mmmm sort of. Do I want to rush out and see it again? Not really. Will I buy it on Blu-Ray 3D to show off the 3D plasma set? No, there are better 3D movies than this.
I’m looking forward to it. I’m willing to grant licence to playing unfarly with delta-V, in return for getting what looks like very accurate special effects for objects in free fall (local versions), plus the visceral experience. I’m also going to not mention (other than here) that when you’re in space you don’t hear the stuff impacting, unless you’re hearing it being transmitted from a radio mic somewhere. Regarding delta-V, I’d already read or heard enough of a plot synopsis to say “oh, well no way on that, but whatever. It’s a movie.”
Hopefully any explosions won’t have mushroom clouds.
I’ll enjoy reading the “poking holes” article after enjoying the ride. Thanks for posting that!