Badmovies.org Forum

Movies => Good Movies => Topic started by: The Burgomaster on October 05, 2013, 08:09:30 PM



Title: GRAVITY (2013)
Post by: The Burgomaster on October 05, 2013, 08:09:30 PM
Overall, this is a decent movie so I'm writing about it here rather than in the "bad" section.  Unfortunately, the best parts occur within the first 30 minutes.  After that, I kept thinking, "This is okay, but hasn't this been done so many times before?"  Some of the 3-D visuals are stunning and the movie manages to generate some suspense, but I think I'd rather watch 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY (1968), MAROONED (1969) or APOLLO 13 (1995).  Sandra Bullock in space?  Maybe.  But I think MACHETE KILLS IN SPACE will be more suitable for repeat viewings.



Title: Re: GRAVITY (2013)
Post by: Archivist on October 06, 2013, 02:01:50 AM
Interesting that you should say this.  Gravity has been very strongly anticipated, and some are calling it the best space movie since 2001.  But honestly, 2001 does not really do much for me, and the trailers for Gravity aren't showing much beyond Sandra Bullock screaming into her spacesuit as the satellite goes up in flames.

If there is a twist to Gravity, or the trailer is holding back a very significant plot development or aspect, then I would be more interested.  As far as realistic space movies go, I far prefer Moon (2009) to 2001.


Title: Re: GRAVITY (2013)
Post by: The Burgomaster on October 06, 2013, 06:38:59 AM
Interesting that you should say this.  Gravity has been very strongly anticipated, and some are calling it the best space movie since 2001.  But honestly, 2001 does not really do much for me, and the trailers for Gravity aren't showing much beyond Sandra Bullock screaming into her spacesuit as the satellite goes up in flames.

If there is a twist to Gravity, or the trailer is holding back a very significant plot development or aspect, then I would be more interested.  As far as realistic space movies go, I far prefer Moon (2009) to 2001.

One reason I went to see GRAVITY was its high rating of 98% on rottentomatoes.com.  I just don't see it.  I could justify a rating around 75% or slightly higher, but that would be about the limit.  Without the 3-D, I would probably rate this lower.  There are no major twists or surprises.  Overall, this is a routine "trapped in space" movie.  Again, it's decent, but nothing that will blow you away.



Title: Re: GRAVITY (2013)
Post by: ChaosTheory on October 07, 2013, 10:54:20 AM
Interesting.  I really liked the director's last movie (Children of Men) but I just can't get excited about this one.  It might just be the combination of Sandra Bullock and George Clooney turning me off, but the trailer did nothing for me....


Title: Re: GRAVITY (2013)
Post by: zelmo73 on October 07, 2013, 06:51:46 PM
I never let science get in the way of my fiction when it comes to sci-fi movies, but I still found this article in today's Yahoo News hilarious:


'Gravity' slammed by astrophysicist for inaccuracies

"Gravity," Alfonso Cuarσn's 3-D space epic starring Sandra Bullock and George Clooney, soared to the top of the North American box office on its opening weekend, earning $55.8 million — the biggest October opening of all time, according to the Hollywood Reporter — and raves from critics.

But according to world-renowned astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, the film is littered with inaccuracies in its depiction of space.

For example, Tyson wrote on Twitter, why was Bullock's hair, "in otherwise convincing" zero-gravity scenes, not floating "freely on her head"?

Tyson, who saw the movie on Sunday, continued the rant/review in a series of tweets to his 1.4 million followers.

The film #Gravity should be renamed "Zero Gravity"

— Neil deGrasse Tyson (@neiltyson) October 6, 2013
Mysteries of #Gravity:  Why Bullock, a medical Doctor, is servicing the Hubble Space Telescope.

— Neil deGrasse Tyson (@neiltyson) October 6, 2013
Mysteries of #Gravity: How Hubble (350mi up) ISS (230mi up) & a Chinese Space Station are all in sight lines of one another.

— Neil deGrasse Tyson (@neiltyson) October 6, 2013

Mysteries of #Gravity: When Clooney releases Bullock's tether, he drifts away. In zero-G a single tug brings them together.

— Neil deGrasse Tyson (@neiltyson) October 6, 2013

Mysteries of #Gravity: Why Bullock's hair, in otherwise convincing zero-G scenes, did not float freely on her head.

— Neil deGrasse Tyson (@neiltyson) October 6, 2013
Mysteries of #Gravity: Nearly all satellites orbit Earth west to east yet all satellite debris portrayed orbited east to west

— Neil deGrasse Tyson (@neiltyson) October 6, 2013
Mysteries of #Gravity: Satellite communications were disrupted at 230 mi up, but communications satellites orbit 100x higher.

— Neil deGrasse Tyson (@neiltyson) October 6, 2013
Mysteries of #Gravity: Why we enjoy a SciFi film set in make-believe space more than we enjoy actual people set in real space

— Neil deGrasse Tyson (@neiltyson) October 6, 2013

FYI: Angular Momentum -- The tendency, once set rotating, to keep rotating, unless another force acts to slow or stop it.

— Neil deGrasse Tyson (@neiltyson) October 7, 2013

Mysteries of #Gravity: Astronaut Clooney informs medical doctor Bullock what happens medically during oxygen deprivation.

— Neil deGrasse Tyson (@neiltyson) October 7, 2013


Tyson was not alone in his criticism. "Gravity" was picked apart by several members of the scientific community.

"The way I am seeing it, the shuttle was wings level, payload bay up (Z), right wing into the orbital velocity vector (X direction of travel), nose in Y," Michael Interbartolo III, a NASA Mission Control veteran, wrote on Blastr.com. "The Micrometeoroid and Orbital Debris [MMOD] (though most were not really micro Meteoroid) impact puts it into a roll about Y with it still traveling in the velocity vector X, and why are the Forward and Aft reaction control jets not firing to damp the ramp since they were intact in the trailer? When the Remote Manipulator System (RMS, the Shuttle robotic arm) breaks, it was rolling and moving forward with the shuttle, but then with the camera and the Earth in the background the arm goes into a radial direction (Z) away from the earth (thus the opening rate between the shuttle and RMS making it seem like the shuttle is plunging down) with a tumble about the radial axis (now a roll about X).

"I am all for an entertaining movie, but when I go into a Michael Bay 'Armageddon' movie I know to turn the brain off," Interbartolo added. "This one tries to pass itself off as something more than that, but to me, it is the same flash and sizzle with a pretty lax understanding of orbital mechanics and spaceflight operations."

Others, though, were more forgiving.

"I love sci-fi movies but hate it when the science is needlessly trampled by the fiction," Tony Rice, a NASA volunteer, wrote in a blog post. "There are no such problems in Alfonso Cuarσn’s immersive science-fiction action thriller 'Gravity.' The film gets so much right, so little wrong and only gets the sci wrong when the fi demands it."

Cuarσn, for his part, said that he expected the criticism.

"This is not a documentary," the director told collectSPACE.com. "It is a piece of fiction."

And even Tyson conceded he enjoyed the film despite its flaws.

My Tweets hardly ever convey opinion. Mostly perspectives on the world. But if you must know, I enjoyed #Gravity very much.

— Neil deGrasse Tyson (@neiltyson) October 7, 2013


http://news.yahoo.com/gravity-inaccuracies-161723027.html (http://news.yahoo.com/gravity-inaccuracies-161723027.html)


Title: Re: GRAVITY (2013)
Post by: Archivist on October 08, 2013, 01:47:55 AM
@zelmo73 - thanks for that!  There is definitely a difference between a Michael Bay movie, in which all critical judgement is suspended, and a movie like Gravity that seems to take the subject matter more seriously.  I don't think I'll see it in the cinema; the DVD will be out sooner or later.


Title: Re: GRAVITY (2013)
Post by: zombie no.one on October 10, 2013, 12:00:52 PM

The film #Gravity should be renamed "Zero Gravity"

— Neil deGrasse Tyson (@neiltyson) October 6, 2013
Mysteries of #Gravity:  Why Bullock, a medical Doctor, is servicing the Hubble Space Telescope.

— Neil deGrasse Tyson (@neiltyson) October 6, 2013
Mysteries of #Gravity: How Hubble (350mi up) ISS (230mi up) & a Chinese Space Station are all in sight lines of one another.

— Neil deGrasse Tyson (@neiltyson) October 6, 2013

Mysteries of #Gravity: When Clooney releases Bullock's tether, he drifts away. In zero-G a single tug brings them together.

— Neil deGrasse Tyson (@neiltyson) October 6, 2013

Mysteries of #Gravity: Why Bullock's hair, in otherwise convincing zero-G scenes, did not float freely on her head.

— Neil deGrasse Tyson (@neiltyson) October 6, 2013
Mysteries of #Gravity: Nearly all satellites orbit Earth west to east yet all satellite debris portrayed orbited east to west

— Neil deGrasse Tyson (@neiltyson) October 6, 2013
Mysteries of #Gravity: Satellite communications were disrupted at 230 mi up, but communications satellites orbit 100x higher.

— Neil deGrasse Tyson (@neiltyson) October 6, 2013
Mysteries of #Gravity: Why we enjoy a SciFi film set in make-believe space more than we enjoy actual people set in real space

— Neil deGrasse Tyson (@neiltyson) October 6, 2013

FYI: Angular Momentum -- The tendency, once set rotating, to keep rotating, unless another force acts to slow or stop it.

— Neil deGrasse Tyson (@neiltyson) October 7, 2013

Mysteries of #Gravity: Astronaut Clooney informs medical doctor Bullock what happens medically during oxygen deprivation.

— Neil deGrasse Tyson (@neiltyson) October 7, 2013



Neil deWyre Wizardson


Title: Re: GRAVITY (2013)
Post by: Rev. Powell on October 16, 2013, 09:54:07 AM
Overall, this is a decent movie so I'm writing about it here rather than in the "bad" section.  Unfortunately, the best parts occur within the first 30 minutes.  After that, I kept thinking, "This is okay, but hasn't this been done so many times before?"  Some of the 3-D visuals are stunning and the movie manages to generate some suspense, but I think I'd rather watch 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY (1968), MAROONED (1969) or APOLLO 13 (1995). 


Amazing how different people can look at the same facts and come to opposite conclusions. My thought while watching this was, "Wow, I haven't ever seen a movie quite like this before. I mean, there were bits and parts of it in 2001, MAROONED and APOLLO 13, but this is almost a totally new genre!" What makes this one different is that it's almost entirely an action/survival movie, done in almost real time. It's like the section of 2001 where Hal cuts off the astronauts air, only extended through the entire movie. There isn't a lot of backstory or drama, everything takes place in Zero-G (until the final escape). I give it 4.5/5.


Title: Re: GRAVITY (2013)
Post by: Pacman000 on October 17, 2013, 10:00:58 AM
Also, this movie focused entirely on the astronauts in space.  It asks "What will these people do to get home?"  Marooned, Apollo 13, and others focus on the ground crew.  They ask "What will the ground crew do to bring the astronauts home?"


Title: Re: GRAVITY (2013)
Post by: The Burgomaster on October 17, 2013, 03:54:24 PM
And last weekend I went to see CAPTAIN PHILLIPS, which blows GRAVITY away by at least 100 miles.



Title: Re: GRAVITY (2013)
Post by: Trevor on October 19, 2013, 02:02:37 AM
Inspired by this, perhaps?  :wink:

(https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/7856115456/hD77FD239/)

 :teddyr:


Title: Re: GRAVITY (2013)
Post by: messedup on December 15, 2013, 08:59:58 PM
Not a great movie, but oh my god was it beautiful. Just can't see this having much impact on BluRay etc, but it was amazing on the Big Screen and in 3D.


Title: Re: GRAVITY (2013)
Post by: A_Dubya on December 23, 2013, 07:52:16 PM
It was cool, and if you are a fan of Sandra Bullock in panties for a while, and barking like a dog, there's something for your inner fetishist. I thought it was good not great, but I was kind of bored for the 2nd half of the flick if I'm being honest.


Title: Re: GRAVITY (2013)
Post by: zelmo73 on December 24, 2013, 01:42:16 AM
It was cool, and if you are a fan of Sandra Bullock in panties for a while, and barking like a dog

Okay, now we're getting somewhere with this movie. I've been closing my ears to all the hype around this film so far, but now it's starting to sound interesting...  :cheers:


Title: Re: GRAVITY (2013)
Post by: Hammock Rider on December 27, 2013, 08:51:55 AM
While I think it was mostly supposed to be a lofty story about a woman regaining her Will to Live, I think the entire film was just a delivery system for Sandy's pantie wearing and barking. explains why they paid so little attention to the sciencey parts.


Title: Re: GRAVITY (2013)
Post by: Rev. Powell on December 27, 2013, 09:22:09 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LE69qAwo_50

I'm still surprised at the ho-hum reactions you guys are giving this movie.


Title: Re: GRAVITY (2013)
Post by: fulci420 on December 27, 2013, 09:45:48 PM
Fantastic movie truly takes special effects to a new level while working on a basic emotional level. One of my favorite movies of the year for sure.


Title: Re: GRAVITY (2013)
Post by: Josso on January 06, 2014, 08:48:30 PM
I just saw it thought it was awesome, there were a lot of mediocre sci-fi movies in 2013 it's nice to finally see a crazy visual one. Quite liked last day on mars and europa report though which are lower budget things.


Title: Re: GRAVITY (2013)
Post by: indianasmith on March 01, 2014, 08:03:35 AM
I finally saw this last night and really enjoyed it!


Title: Re: GRAVITY (2013)
Post by: The Burgomaster on March 02, 2014, 09:40:45 AM
I seem to be in the minority here.  Other than the special effects (particularly in 3-D), I thought this movie was just another movie about someone stranded (in space, on an island, on a mountain, whatever).  If this wins a bunch of Oscars, I will be disappointed.



Title: Re: GRAVITY (2013)
Post by: BoyScoutKevin on March 04, 2014, 03:39:37 PM
I seem to be in the minority here.  Other than the special effects (particularly in 3-D), I thought this movie was just another movie about someone stranded (in space, on an island, on a mountain, whatever).  If this wins a bunch of Oscars, I will be disappointed.



You might be disappointed.

Academy Awards
10 nominations
07 wins

British Academy Film Awards
11 nominations
06 wins

Most of the wins and nominations in the technical categories.

And I for one like to hear from a "minority," as I think too many people like a film just because everybody else likes it, and they are expected to like it too.


Title: Re: GRAVITY (2013)
Post by: The Burgomaster on March 04, 2014, 04:43:49 PM
I seem to be in the minority here.  Other than the special effects (particularly in 3-D), I thought this movie was just another movie about someone stranded (in space, on an island, on a mountain, whatever).  If this wins a bunch of Oscars, I will be disappointed.



You might be disappointed.

Academy Awards
10 nominations
07 wins

British Academy Film Awards
11 nominations
06 wins

Most of the wins and nominations in the technical categories.

And I for one like to hear from a "minority," as I think too many people like a film just because everybody else likes it, and they are expected to like it too.

I don't mind the wins in technical categories.  It deserved most of those.  I'm glad it didn't get Best Picture and I'm glad Bullock didn't win.  The movie didn't deserve those awards.  It didn't deserve Best Director, either, but I guess I can't have everything.