Gravity (2013)

All non-Nolan related film, tv, and streaming discussions.
User avatar
Posts: 2862
Joined: January 2013
Location: Hogwarts
My theater has dim 3D, it wasn't a generalization of Real D (although passive 3D sucks, you lose resolution).

User avatar
Posts: 1072
Joined: November 2012
It's a cool park ride. Visually its magnificent . Amazing work from amazing craftsmen.

At the end of the day , its not even the best Clooney space movie. Still , a very good film. And far from the best Cuaron has made.

I hope Nolan saw the movie and thought...yeah we will make it at least as good looking. I want space to feel as real and claustrophobic as in this pic.

inb4 people become more and more disappointed with this film over time

User avatar
Posts: 15507
Joined: June 2010
Location: You're pretty good.
i have a feeling its replay value will take a nosedive after 5th-6th viewing pretty much like inception's did

User avatar
Posts: 4377
Joined: June 2011
Location: Romania
I think with a film after 2-3 viewings at the cinema you have to give it some time to breathe after that (till TV, computer, BluRay I mean). Might enjoy it better when you are not burned up with that movie.

User avatar
Posts: 2862
Joined: January 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Yeah, I'll never understand the people who actually see a movie twice the same day at the movie theater, or the day after. I often do multiple viewings (or for indie movies: one time at the movie theater, then BR) but it needs to be at least 4 to 5 days, give it time to settle & breathe.

User avatar
Posts: 6272
Joined: December 2010
Location: Space Truckin'
Jax_Teller wrote:Yeah, I'll never understand the people who actually see a movie twice the same day at the movie theater, or the day after.
I did that for TDK and TDKR - thought it was an amazing experience actually. But yeah, it's not something I'd want to do for every movie.

User avatar
Posts: 2554
Joined: July 2013
Seeing it tomorrow for my second time in Imax 3D. My cousin is coming with me (who majors in Film Studies) and he's pumped.

User avatar
Posts: 26104
Joined: June 2011
mchekhov 2: Chek Harder wrote:inb4 people become more and more disappointed with this film over time
I already think it's overrated. It's a piece of spectacular visual art, but the core story is not as good as I had hoped, so that'll probably affect my replay value of this thing.

Posts: 4705
Joined: May 2013
BlairCo wrote:I don't think this film is gonna be friendly with a mainstream audience. They'll probably watch it because they saw the ad for it once, thought it looked okay, and saw it for the hell of seeing it to pass the time. It may dazzle probably about 2/3rds of the audience, but it will pounded by average movie goer.
BlairCo wrote:300 million is a feasible prediction, but I'd very surprised if it made 500 million.
Computer says no.
Sandy wrote: Now, this is harsh criticism from me, because I usually pick my movies well and consequently love most of the stuff I see. Honestly, though, before I get ripped into, I must make it clear that I thought this movie could have used another hour (half hour, minimum) to add dramatic heft. Perhaps I'm wrong.
Eh, I think the running time was perfect for the movie. it didn't needed more or less.
Dodd wrote:that would have been cool

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1454468/boa ... /220698538
That could have been fuel for the people who is criticizing the script.
m4st4 wrote:Fantastic (spoilerific) fanmade poster:
Image
:clap:
DKnight007 wrote: Way to go Tull/Legendary. Have fun financing bombs at Universal. :clap:
http://movies.yahoo.com/news/gravity-re ... 58379.html
It's not like Tull and co. were the only ones. Universal passed, maybe another studio as well, and Village Roadshow rejected to co-finance the movie with Warner. Count RDJ and Jolie passing on the movie too. Now they must be regretting a lot their decisions.

Post Reply