# Gravity



## Guy Rowland (Nov 25, 2013)

Why is there no thread for this? Finally seen Gravity, in 3D glory.

It has at least partially restored my faith in Hollywood blockbusters. Do you think they'll let other talented filmmakers make big films not about robots / superheroes hitting each other now this has taken $500m?


----------



## Dan Mott (Nov 25, 2013)

This movie was the best movie I have ever seen in the Cinemas since The Matrix Trilogy. It was so well done. I don't care how unrealistic it was, but it sure sent me on the edge of my seat. Definitely a re-watch for sure.


----------



## choc0thrax (Nov 25, 2013)

Best movie I've seen in years. Best score of the year. Destroys all competition.

Saw it twice in IMAX 3D and liked it just as much the second time.


----------



## studioj (Nov 25, 2013)

Amen to that! Also completely loved this movie and the score. Appreciated the score even more the second time around. And I hate seeing movies twice. Voices at the end were a little over the top for me but over all A+ on the music. 

I think Cuaron is of a rare breed that can pretty much do whatever he wants... without taking [email protected]#$ from the studios. Hooray that it has been successful!


----------



## paulmatthew (Nov 25, 2013)

The score actually made the movie better . It was meant to be seen on Imax 3d , and would not have been as good viewed otherwise. Steven Price nailed the music for the film. I liked the songs with the ambient pianos , and Shenzou was amazing , leaving you with that feeling of John Murphy's Sunshine (Adagio in D Minor). Just brilliant!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 25, 2013)

I'm a naysayer in this thread (about the film, not the score).


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 25, 2013)

But John Williams' score to "The Book Thief" is fab.

Good movie too.


----------



## Dan Mott (Nov 25, 2013)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Nov 26 said:


> I'm a naysayer in this thread (about the film, not the score).



I hate you if you didn't like it :mrgreen:


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 25, 2013)

Sorry!

To me it was the most forgettable film that I haven't already forgotten.

Great fx - actually effect (singular) - but that's not a whole film.


----------



## Lex (Nov 25, 2013)

Was great, looking forward to go see it again.

alex


----------



## antoniopandrade (Nov 25, 2013)

Was my pick for movie of the year before I saw 12 Years a Slave. As much as Gravity is incredible, the latter is one of (if not the) best movies I've ever watched, ever. Steve McQueen is an absolute genius, and Hans' score complements the movie amazingly well.

But yeah, Gravity is absolutely awesome, and the first sequence is probably going to be remembered for a long time. Long time since I watched a movie that technically blew my mind like that.


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 25, 2013)

...and I thought it was decent entertainment and nothing more. I didn't feel cheated, but I'm not savoring the experience either. Good CGI. Okay, sweet.

For me, most movies with actors like Sandra Bullock or Tom Hanks (or usually George Clooney with the exception of Syriana) feel like they've had their edges sanded off, and you just know things will be okay in the end because they're just so gosh darn nice. Even if they die in a scourging fire from hell, the ultimate feeling you're left with is peacefully redemptive, and you know you've learned a valuable and positive lesson.


----------



## TGV (Nov 25, 2013)

Bad movie. No plot. Just disaster, escape, disaster, escape, until the end, with a semi-religious lesson about the will to survive thrown in for no reason at all. The score was forgettable too: one very loud, unnecessary shock effect, and drawn-out chords for the emotional stuff.

The cinematography and effects, if they can be separated, were very good, though.


----------



## Daryl (Nov 26, 2013)

I enjoyed the movie, but not so much that I'd want to see it again (although Sandra Bullock is "hot"). The score was just about OK. but there was too much of it for my taste. A few winceable moments though.

D


----------



## Dan Mott (Nov 26, 2013)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Nov 26 said:


> Sorry!
> 
> To me it was the most forgettable film that I haven't already forgotten.
> 
> Great fx - actually effect (singular) - but that's not a whole film.




>8o :cry:


----------



## Simon Ravn (Nov 26, 2013)

Amazing film (it HAS to be watched in 3D and with a good, loud sound system - I doubt it'll work very well at home), and very original and fitting score. This guy came out of nowhere to me, but I am sure he'll be very busy from now on!


----------



## Guy Rowland (Nov 26, 2013)

I don't think some folks are appreciating just what a remarkable thing the existence of this movie is, and why it is such spectacularly good news. Some said similar game-changing things about Inception - that it proved there was a market for an intelligent blockbuster - but I think the case is made even stronger for Gravity. Of course, it may be true that Gravity might not have happened if it weren't for Inception.

Have you heard the story about Hollywood execs who complain that the film they end up with is not the same as the one they read in the script? Turns out some of them skip all that boring descriptive stuff and just jump straight to the dialogue. Imagine the screenplay for Gravity. Imagine how few words there are (and how difficult it would be to describe in words what the hell is going on anyway). Then many of the most dialogue-heavy scenes are fairly out there anyway, especially in the 2nd half.

But far more than that, look at what an uncertain bet it was. Sure Alfonso Cuarón has made a Harry Potter film, but franchises don't count in these things... the rest? Y Tu Mamá También didn't pack out the multiplexes. Children of Men had a few decent reviews but went largely unnoticed (hopefully folks will discover it now - it's remarkable). And you put him in charge of such an impossible script? He wants a total of 150 shots in the entire film? That's what Michael Bay gets through every minute! And what - only two actors? No sound in space? In a blockbuster? Are you kidding me? Of course, the chances of the film being made at all without Clooney and Bullock were absolutely zero - the studios need some reason to believe people will show up on opening night - fortunately they're both excellent in their roles.

This was way way out in left field, and it's taken over half a billion dollars. This is spectacular news. I've no doubt Hollywood will find a way to learn all the wrong lessons - it usually does - but its hugely gratifying that a filmmaker can take such extraordinary risks on a $100m movie (which, incidentally, seems phenomenally cheap for what they got, next to other blockbusters).

It seems to me absolutely bizarre to criticise this film as being in some way formulaic. Will a $100m action film wind up as an existential meditation on the futility of life? Will it be the next Seventh Seal? Well, unlikely - but no-one goes to these films for that, its like critisiing a car for not running well on train tracks. It was a film that brought to mind Dark Star, 2001 or the first half and hour of Alien before the films diverge in their aesthetic - only of course rooted not in sci-fi but sci-fact (of course I realise the implausibilities, but we're really comparing this movie to Man Of Steel). Ulitmately - and the reason the film has been a success - is that it is a white-knuckle-rollercoaster ride, not a meditation or a worthy drama, it is at its heart a blockbuster, but with an arthouse aesthetic. And what a ride. As Mark Kermode says - if the visuals of this film stir no reaction in you, its probably time to stop going to the cinema altogether. I left in awe of the talent of those who somehow made this, in all of its elegant, daring and spectacular glory.

I overall really liked the score - I agree it slightly overplayed its hand towards the end, but its a trivial criticism in the grand scheme of things. The sound design Oscar is surely sealed, quite magnificent, and the score blended brilliantly with it.

I hope against hope that the right lessons will be learned - to entrust brilliant filmmakers with money when they come with a brilliant if expensive idea. For me, this was a reason to keep beliving in what Hollywood can achieve, even when run by soulless multinationals who view films as assets not stories. If Gravity creates a hunger in mainstream filmgoers for more than robots and superheroes hitting each other, it could turn out to be the most important movie of the last 20 years.


----------



## Simon Ravn (Nov 26, 2013)

Guy Rowland:

+1 - hands down the most innovative (in creative terms) film I have seem for a loooooong time. And pretty much the only film where I think 3D was usefull. It's amazingly thin on paper, and the background story of Sandra Bullock's character is wrong for what she makes it through... But as a cinematic experience, it is groundbreaking in many ways. 

Oh, and funny that it took a Mexican director to re-invent the Hollywood blockbuster 

And for gods sake it is nice that this movie isn't drawn out to last 2+ hours like pretty much ALL modern films - not only in Holllywood, this is happening here too. So many movies today feel too long, but this felt just right. Compare this to something like an incredibly stretched out Hobbit trilogy (I re-watched the first one at home in 3D, 3 hours long yesterday - my god that movie could need a huge trim down to 1,5-2 hours tops).

Will be interesting to see what Cuaron will come up with next - the expectations are certainly high.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Nov 26, 2013)

Simon Ravn @ Tue Nov 26 said:


> Guy Rowland:
> 
> +1 - hands down the most innovative (in creative terms) film I have seem for a loooooong time. And pretty much the only film where I think 3D was usefull. It's amazingly thin on paper, and the background story of Sandra Bullock's character is wrong for what she makes it through... But as a cinematic experience, it is groundbreaking in many ways.
> 
> ...



I agree with every word, Mr Ravn. Best 3D I've seen and for the first time actually added to the experience - I understand that the big difference was a lot more time, everything pre-vizzed, getting every bit of maths right from conceptual stage onwards. And the running time was glorious. I can't bear the thought of another Hobbit film, Jackson's gone right up his own arse with that. That whole "trilogy" should be 90 minutes long and be a kid-friendly fun old romp, it's hopelessly misguided - except that financially he'll make more money this way probably.


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 26, 2013)

Guy Rowland @ Tue Nov 26 said:


> I don't think some folks are appreciating just what a remarkable thing the existence of this movie is, and why it is such spectacularly good news. Some said similar game-changing things about Inception - that it proved there was a market for an intelligent blockbuster - but I think the case is made even stronger for Gravity. Of course, it may be true that Gravity might not have happened if it weren't for Inception.
> 
> .



You make a strong case, Guy, sadly, I utterly disagree  

Inception was a MUCH better film despite the constant, unrelenting furrowing of the DiCaprio brow. It had interesting depth and complexity of thought, Hans really helped it with power and gravitas, it felt much more like science fiction the way I used to like it, Philip K. Dick etc. Gravity, comparatively, felt like Lost In Space.

The politics of why I should like a film I didn't particularly like because it's good for the artistic community and elevates us all will forever be lost on me.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Nov 26, 2013)

NYC Composer @ Tue Nov 26 said:


> You make a strong case, Guy, sadly, I utterly disagree
> 
> Inception was a MUCH better film despite the constant, unrelenting furrowing of the DiCaprio brow. It had interesting depth and complexity of thought, Hans really helped it with power and gravitas, it felt much more like science fiction the way I used to like it, Philip K. Dick etc. Gravity, comparatively, felt like Lost In Space.
> 
> The politics of why I should like a film I didn't particularly like because it's good for the artistic community and elevates us all will forever be lost on me.



I really like Inception too. Very smart and gripping. Of course, as films the only things that Inception and Gravity they have in common is a large budget and are unusual for such high budget films.

I know some have critised Gravity for being simplistic and it is, but that bothers me not one iota. Some of the greatest films of all time are very simple and all the more effective for it. Gravity is the age old story of coming home, actually much like Apollo 13 - nice nod to have Ed Harris as the voice of mission control! I'm a huge fan of simplicity done well, it so frequently isn't, and I've never bought the notion that the more complex something is, the better it must be. Simplicity is a lot harder than it looks. I'm the lone voice who's always felt Star Wars IV is far superior to Empire Strikes Back, despite the alleged "depth" of the latter, its structurally all over the place and has no ending - they just kind of run out of film. The former is a classic simple story with a beginning, middle and end - gets my vote every time.


----------



## Daryl (Nov 26, 2013)

Guy, appreciating what this movie is, and thinking it's any good, or even liking it are different things. For example, I appreciate what Symphonie Fantastique is, but don't actually like it, or even think it's that good. :wink: 

FWIW, in my book there is also no such thing as "good in 3D", so that will pass me by, I'm afraid.

D


----------



## Guy Rowland (Nov 26, 2013)

Just heard a great interview with Alfonso Cuarón, who was saying how much longer and more complex the script was originally. One of their inspirations was Duel, it just becomes about one thing and one thing only. Smart way to go imo - I can well imagine a version of Gravity at double the length and a quarter of the audience. Keep 'em lean and mean!


----------



## KEnK (Nov 26, 2013)

I enjoyed Gravity more than I thought I would.
For me it was fun mindless entertainment and it felt shorter than it was- always a good thing.

But Great Cinema? A Game Changer?
No.
Yes, it was inventive and better (read more adult) than most of the teen crap that Hollywood churns out, 
but it's not "Film History".

"12 Years a Slave" on the other hand is a truly Great Film.
There were a couple of quite scenes that were remarkably intense.
Because of the acting, the characters, the story.
No special fx will ever hit me w/ that level of emotional depth.

"12 Years" is a history lesson w/ wide ranging social implications.
It will cause people to think differently 
and I spent hours in thought and conversation because of it.
It has made think I need to do some research to grasp the things it taught me.

One funny thing about it though-
Didn't know anything about the score before seeing it.
At one point the score did take me out of the film and I found myself thinking,
"Why is this guy imitating Hans Zimmer?"
Really thought that. :wink: 

Compared to that Gravity, is just one more action flick.
It just doesn't have the level of depth to be considered Great Cinema.
Yes, more "grown up" than a "guy with cape" movie, 
and if Hollywood learns it can still make movies for adults, that's great.
But it's not Game Changing Cinema.

My 2¢

k


----------



## Guy Rowland (Nov 26, 2013)

You misunderstand my point, KenK. I'm purely discussing BLOCKBUSTERS in terms of Gravity's influence (if you will). I'm not comparing with greatest films ever, simply making the point that it might (hopefully) help readdress the dire state that the big budget blockbuster has got itself into.


----------



## KEnK (Nov 26, 2013)

Well Guy-

In that case hopefully you're right.
But by nature a "blockbuster" has to adhere to a fairly low common denominator.
Most things that sell huge quantities are crap. Consumer goods, food, etc.

There's something going on at Pixar now that doesn't bode well for their future creativity.
Disney now has complete control of the marketing and finance end of the "product".

Their target market is officially Asia now.
So the story lines must be devoid of cultural or historical references 
that won't be immediately grasped by a 10 year old raised in Beijing or Mumbai.

Don't look for quirky inventiveness from Pixar any more.
A good friend of mine has worked there for years and I hear the real dirt now and then.

k


----------



## Guy Rowland (Nov 26, 2013)

What has happened to Pixar is terribly sad. I fear we've left a real golden era.


----------



## synthetic (Nov 26, 2013)

I agree that it's the first 3D I've seen and loved. See it in Dolby Atmos if you can, the sound and dialogue panning are incredible.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 26, 2013)

> And pretty much the only film where I think 3D was useful.



Yes, 15 minutes of it would have been a good demo for 3D. They could have saved their money on the rest.


----------



## gsilbers (Nov 26, 2013)

Guy Rowland @ Mon Nov 25 said:


> Why is there no thread for this? Finally seen Gravity, in 3D glory.
> 
> It has at least partially restored my faith in Hollywood blockbusters. Do you think they'll let other talented filmmakers make big films not about robots / superheroes hitting each other now this has taken $500m?



there is a big shift going on here in hollywood. 

the big blockbuster titles are being done by the big name studios like old school days but more and more "smaller" movies are getting bigger and bigger budgets by indipendent financers which in turn give it to the big studios for distribution and they keep a lot of the back end... which in the movie world, accounts for most of the revenue. us box office pales in comparison to international sales. 
this used to be the case for small indies but now those "indies" have george clooney and sandra bullock which is where the shift lies.

so yes, now small indies with big name actors are bypassing the big studios making more riskier movies. these produciton companies also fiannce a lot of other random things not involved in the entertianment biz. there was a wall street journal article about it.


----------



## Ed (Nov 26, 2013)

Talking about best 3D, I hated 3D up until this film. I now see its purpose! It actually worked! While the Hobbit trailer I saw before it had the typical shit 3D I had seen before, that lack of clarity and flickering like a poor frame rate if too much stuff is flying around, the actual films 3D was just on another level.

Personally I think the people that dont like this film or didnt think much of it either didnt see it in the right context (like maybe 2D, shit small cinema) or were expecting something more (based on hype). 

I didnt see it in a particularly fantastic cinema . Screen 1 at my local, so the biggest they had, and probably kind of standard surround. Its the first film I really thought is just perfect for the IMAX, like they should just have this available to watch all year round, screw those special made for imax documentaries. I went to see it twice, but would love to see it again in the IMAX

For me it was a genuine cinematic experience and made me feel a way I haven't felt watching a film, especially in the cinema, for a long time, including things I havent felt. I think this started for me in the advertising, where the trailers only essentially showed you a scene that is basically right at the start. After that I was like... its only been a few minutes WTF are they going to do now??! I had no frame of reference because no trailers told me what to expect. In other films I'm always waiting for that thing to happen that I saw in the trailer. I dont think it will, but it would be nice if this kind of marketing caught on and we had this as a standard way of doing trailers.While it may make for some real exciting trailers, it usually makes my experience when I see the film less enjoyable. I remember seeing The Matrix in the cinema when I saw 16 in 2000 and I was blown away. I think I would have been impressed anyway because it felt so totally "deep" at the time, but aside from all that I knew absolutely nothing about it before I walked in except the name and that it was sci-fi, so I had no idea what was going to happen. Nowadays if I watch a film like Man of Steel Im watching it knowing all these scenes from the trailer are still coming up, so you can much more easily predict what is going to happen which for me = less tense. Its basically the reason why so many people hate spoilers, trailers are basically tiny little spoilers.

But aside from that it just made me feel like never before what space is really like. Turns out space seems scary as fuck and now I think I know vaguely how much I'd be shitting myself if I had to do anything like that. I actually felt like they were really high above the earths surface which is not a feeling about space I've got before, and I hate heights. That coupled with the insane physics really didnt make me want to go to space anymore. As I can remember the physics of space have never played such an integral part of the plot before, the "sound of space" has never played such a big part of the experience of a movie before. It was very effective that they did the sound that way, I think first because we're not used to it, second because when all this shit is being destroyed and they cut away from it you dont have any sound effects to know how bad things are getting. It is unsettling to not have any feedback from your body. Since quietness is associated with calmness, this reverses that assumption. I guess deaf people are like "_yeh whatevs, welcome to my life_"

I enjoyed the simple plot. I had thought they could have done some initial exposition where for maybe 30 mins or so we have some kind of build up to them fixing Hubble and we can get to know a few more characters. But I also think while it could have helped in some ways, I think keeping it very simple for me made me wonder where it was going. It was refreshing to see a film that was not overly complex. I think they could have gone the other way, had a more complex plot, but Im not sure it would have necessarily made it a better experience.

I dunno I just think it was done very very well done. One of the coolest cinematic experiences I've seen in years. I am sure that this will not translate that well to the small screen in terms of getting that same experience across which is a shame but what it does do right it does it very well. As someone else said it is pretty exciting that a movie like this was made and has done so well. Im glad that hollywood can allow itself to try new things occasionally.

(Ps: The music was very effective as well, and had a lot to do considering there was a huge absence of sound effects to fall back on)

PPS: I also think that if this were to actually happen in the real world, the real life her would have been dead immediately. So even this hollywood version of space is too scary to me.


----------



## KingIdiot (Nov 26, 2013)

cinema, like music has different styles and aesthetics these days, that don't all have to have each other's quantifications and qualifications.

Just lik there can be great stupid popcorn action flicks like The Rock, or The avengers, a movie doesn't have to have the incredible acting or plot and wrenching narrative that 12 years has to have to be good or even great.

We all have our own tastes and preferences.

But, not calling this movie innovative, is kind of like calling TRON the same. Innovative whether you think its a good movie or not.

Personally I loved it. The score, the immersing nature of the sound design as a whole was remarkable to see in a feature.

We can all agree that Avatar isn't subtle, but it's an experience. I think that for theater going, we need experiences like this now that we can have similar to film going experiences in the privacy of our homes.

I loved it. The acting wasn't juggernaut, but I thought Sandra did great carrying the movie mostly by herself. I loved the overt rebirth themes, but most importantly I loved the plotting of the cinematography. Doesn't matter if it's padded via CGI. Doesn't mean anyone can use these tools to the same effect.


----------



## Jordan Gagne (Nov 26, 2013)

I really enjoyed the movie as well as the score. Despite this I DO have to concede TGV's point that there wasn't really a plot, or characters, in the traditional sense. It is pretty much "disaster, escape, disaster, escape" for 2 hours but it's so visually spectacular and logistically such an achievement that I didn't really care. I do wish there was a bit of a reprieve during the second and third acts of the movie as the constant danger/action was a bit exhausting.

Went in not expecting much from the score but was pleasantly surprised. The talk around LA was kind of snobbish in regards to the score, you know, composers snubbing their noses at Steven without having heard anything simply because "he's actually just a music editor" and "he's never scored a real movie before". I think there was a bit of ego and jealously that someone came out of nowhere and got this incredible gig, so there was a lot of unwarranted snobbery going on. 

I think he nailed it though, and created something pretty artistic and unique. Anxious to see what he does next. I'm a fan.


----------



## Ryan Scully (Nov 26, 2013)

Loved the Movie - Must see it in 3D - Loved the score.




my 3 cents



Ryan :D


----------



## AC986 (Nov 26, 2013)

It's a B movie but sometimes they can be fun.


----------



## Ed (Nov 26, 2013)

adriancook @ Tue Nov 26 said:


> It's a B movie but sometimes they can be fun.



What makes it a B movie? It cost a $100 million!


----------



## pinki (Nov 26, 2013)

Blew me away. Hated 3D generally before and also saw the trailer for The Hobbit in 3D .....which made me dread the main film....but wow, it was amazing, truly immersive. It wasn't 3D! 

I wanted to go back to the _immersion_ feeling it created the following day. A genuine glorious cinematic high.

(The only time I will ever agree with anything Ed posts....)


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 26, 2013)

Definitely not a B movie. This is a solid D, and I'm amazed that I'm the only one who thinks it was a totally empty movie with great effects.

But I should shut up and stop raining on everyone's parade.


----------



## Ed (Nov 26, 2013)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Nov 26 said:


> Definitely not a B movie. This is a solid D, and I'm amazed that I'm the only one who thinks it was a totally empty movie with great effects.
> 
> But I should shut up and stop raining on everyone's parade.



I understand where you are coming from Nick, and I'd agree with you about the plot. The plot is so simple it didnt even need to be set in space its just space makes it more interesting. Its pretty obvious why its a much shorter film than what is typical these days.

But, if you remove plot from the equation, its not just the effects and the CGI. Its everything else in terms of film making, the cinematography, the sound, including the implementation of music. I just found it all just so effective, more effective than I've felt before, or at least for a long time. Just a great coming together of all these different aspects. Anyway each to his own I know its virtually impossible to get someone to change their mind about something like their opinion of a film or tv show or something 



pinki @ Tue Nov 26 said:


> I wanted to go back to the _immersion_ feeling it created the following day. A genuine glorious cinematic high.
> 
> (The only time I will ever agree with anything Ed posts....)



So you don't like Hans Zimmer Percussion? :wink:


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Nov 26, 2013)

People look for different things in movies. For me, #1 is if I care about any of the characters. No matter how well done if I don't care what happens to anyone in the picture, its other qualities will not make up for that.

So or those who have seen the picture, how well or poorly does it succeed in that?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 26, 2013)

My point exactly.

All the other stuff Ed mentions is important in a film, but not if you don't care about the characters. I didn't in this film, which is why I found it totally forgettable. A great plot doesn't make you care about the characters either, by the way - there are lots of great movies without much of a plot.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 26, 2013)

Go see "Saving Mr. Banks," "The Book Thief," "Inside Llewelyn Davis" was pretty good, "Nebraska"...none of those is a film for the ages, but they're all films I saw just this month that are worth seeing and are way better than Gravity.


----------



## Dan Mott (Nov 26, 2013)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Nov 27 said:


> My point exactly.
> 
> All the other stuff Ed mentions is important in a film, but not if you don't care about the characters. I didn't in this film, which is why I found it totally forgettable. A great plot doesn't make you care about the characters either, by the way - there are lots of great movies without much of a plot.



I cared about Sandra. I was worried for her. Not so much George.

Man, if this movie didn't get you on edge..... well that sucks I guess hehe.

I am curious though. What is the last movie you remember seeing in the cinemas that really got you into the movie?

Most important thing in a movie for me is Character development. Pathos. Interesting plot that makes you care about what's going on. Generally a plot can ruin a movie completely for me, for example.... The Avengers. The Dark Knight Rises.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Nov 26, 2013)

Much of the audience values style as much or even more than substance, which I do not.


----------



## Ed (Nov 26, 2013)

I think Sandra was a great character and I cared about her, but it IS a simple plot.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 26, 2013)

> I am curious though. What is the last movie you remember seeing in the cinemas that really got you into the movie?



We see about 12 movies a month, so I admit to being pretty jaded.

I haven't seen "12 Years a Slave," which everyone says is great, but this year hasn't been as good as last year so far other than that.

Last year there were five that I loved: "Not Fade Away," "Rust and Bones," "Quartet," and two others that were so great I've forgotten them this second.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Nov 26, 2013)

"12 Years a Slave," is great but absolutely emotionally devastating. it is one of those films, like "Schindler's List", that everyone needs to see once ,but that no one should have to see twice.

I cried several times during it and I almost never cry during a ilm.


----------



## dcoscina (Nov 26, 2013)

EastWest Lurker @ Tue Nov 26 said:


> "12 Years a Slave," is great but absolutely emotionally devastating. it is one of those films, like "Schindler's List", that everyone needs to see once ,but that no one should have to see twice.
> 
> I cried several times during it and I almost never cry during a ilm.



I originally didn't have much interest in this film (Django Unchained was hard enough to sit through to be perfectly honest even if it's a fictional account) but based on your comments, I will try to make it to theatres to see. 

How's Hans' score? Not much on the CD release to get a good idea from...


----------



## Dan Mott (Nov 26, 2013)

EastWest Lurker @ Wed Nov 27 said:


> "12 Years a Slave," is great but absolutely emotionally devastating. it is one of those films, like "Schindler's List", that everyone needs to see once ,but that no one should have to see twice.
> 
> I cried several times during it and I almost never cry during a ilm.



Interesting. I don't know if I handle those type of movies well haha.

I may give it a go though.


----------



## Jdiggity1 (Nov 26, 2013)

Ed @ Wed 27 Nov said:


> Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Nov 26 said:
> 
> 
> > Definitely not a B movie. This is a solid D...
> ...



Don't forget the Choreography! For me the film was one long masterfully choreographed piece. I was immensely impressed with the length of some of the shots without need of a cut or an edit. Superb film-making.
Of course the plot was simple. It was realistic. There was no fantasy, no mysterious inexplicable dream-machines, no super-heroes or magic. Those qualities distance you from the film, as they are un-relatable experiences and characters.
Gravity was intimate, and made no attempt to try and fool anybody of supernatural or unrealistic powers or possessions. Anyone can write a script if there's magic or super powers involved.
I definitely felt connected to the characters.
Oh, I liked the score too.


----------



## Daryl (Nov 27, 2013)

EastWest Lurker @ Wed Nov 27 said:


> People look for different things in movies. For me, #1 is if I care about any of the characters. No matter how well done if I don't care what happens to anyone in the picture, its other qualities will not make up for that.
> 
> So or those who have seen the picture, how well or poorly does it succeed in that?


I didn't really care about any of the characters at any point in the movie. Which is why it is only worth watching once for me.

D


----------



## Daryl (Nov 27, 2013)

Jdiggity1 @ Wed Nov 27 said:


> Anyone can write a script if there's magic or super powers involved.


One would think so, but history proves you wrong. :wink: 

D


----------



## Jdiggity1 (Nov 27, 2013)

Daryl @ Wed 27 Nov said:


> Jdiggity1 @ Wed Nov 27 said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone can write a script if there's magic or super powers involved.
> ...



I didn't say a _good_ script. :wink:


----------



## AC986 (Nov 27, 2013)

Ed @ Tue Nov 26 said:


> adriancook @ Tue Nov 26 said:
> 
> 
> > It's a B movie but sometimes they can be fun.
> ...



What makes it a B movie? How long have you got?

The stylistic attitude of a film matters not on how much it cost. It's a stylistic thing. Like that sci-fi film a few years back called Independence Day. That was a B movie that was fun. Generally fun films can also be silly films. You sit there and after some time has passed you turn to your wife or visa versa and say 'this is silly'. Doesn't mean anything.

I wouldn't go as far as Nick and head down the alphabet to a D, but fairly close. 

Sandra Bullock is quite good at comedy, as when she played a cop and then became a model. But not much else I can remember. Popcorn stuff with not a lot of substance.

Lets remember though, that Duel was a B movie. Most film noirs were B movies.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Nov 27, 2013)

Is it a B movie in essence? Yes. Like Alien. Nothing wrong with a B movie - is it done well or not? This is done par excellence.

Characters - I absolutely rooted for Sandra Bullock's character. If, for whatever reason you don't, you'll be bored, cos nothing else can make up for that. Its a very individual thing, but I've heard the greatest films of all time written off at a stroke cos someone, somewhere will say "I just didn't care about the characters". Back to that in a minute.

A film like Gravity is a thrill ride - that's what it is. An immensely spectacular and skilful one. It should be compared with Duel, not with Schindler's list... I'm not sure how we got on to 12 Years A Slave, but you may as well compare Gravity with a washing machine. They're totally different things. For what its worth, the former has 97% critics rating at Rotten Tomatoes, the latter 96%. Hey, it's almost like crtics are able to take completely different films on their own merits - how about that? 

There is no film in history that everybody likes. I started a thread once another site to see if I could find one - nope. Some will rubbish the Godfather, Citizen Kane, Shawshank - you name it, there's someone out there to tell us all how boring it is, and how deluded the rest of us are. By any measurable yardstick - box office, critical review, public review - Gravity has been a huge success. This says to me that the the script worked for most people - you can't fool 97% of critics and 86% of the public and it be a meritless piece of work. Of course, there's the 3% of critics and 14% of the public for whom it didn't work. There are revered films I don't care for. C'est la vie.


----------



## Daryl (Nov 27, 2013)

Sorry Guy, but to me Alien is in a totally different league. There are genuine moments of tension and suspense in that movie, whereas in Gravity it was all very predictable. I had a nice evening watching it, but there was noting about it that would make me want to watch it again.

D


----------



## Guy Rowland (Nov 27, 2013)

Daryl @ Wed Nov 27 said:


> Sorry Guy, but to me Alien is in a totally different league. There are genuine moments of tension and suspense in that movie, whereas in Gravity it was all very predictable. I had a nice evening watching it, but there was noting about it that would make me want to watch it again.
> 
> D



They're both (very different) B movies. One is just a monster picking people off one by one, the other is someone stranded after an accident. Both B movies - you just prefer one over the other. Fair enough, but again I refer you to the 97% critic rating - you may not have had any feelings of tension in Gravity, but plenty of others did, including me.


----------



## KEnK (Nov 27, 2013)

Alien is in a different league than Gravity.
It changed the way Sci Fi looked.

The look of Sci Fi can be measured before and after Alien.

There was nothing that looked like that before it came out.
Afterwards, everything looked liked that.

Alien is a Sci Fi classic .
Gravity won't rise to that level over time.

Someone mentioned 12 Years early in the thread.
I followed through w/ why I think that's an example of "Great Cinema".

People use the word "Great" to easily.
I use that term to describe Art that is far above and beyond the norm.
A rare thing that is unique and stands above it's peers. 

Gravity was a fun mindless romp, nothing more.
Even the people in this thread who like it are dissing the plot as well as the characters.

It all about the fx.
A truly Great movie needs to be about more than just that.

As to box office receipts being a measure of quality-
I don't think so.
Harry Potter is not Great Cinema.

k


----------



## Ed (Nov 27, 2013)

I dont think Adrian's definition of a B-Movie makes any sense..... Its certainly not a definition of a B-Movie I've ever heard before, and basically makes the term meaningless as far as I can see. There's plenty of examples of movies being made today that would qualify as "B-Movie's", but just having a simple plot doesn't make one a B-Movie.

Personally I liked the simple nature of it, no conspiracies, no aliens, no supernatural stuff. Because of that it was actually quite realistic. It felt more realistic than something like Apollo 13 even though that was a real thing that actually happened! There's one part in the middle somewhere where I thought it was going to go full on stupid hollywood. When that scene happens I didnt even question it, because thats the kind of thing Hollywood does, but it turned out it wasnt what I expected. Gotcha! That was nice. Aside from her being unbelievably lucky (hey its hollywood) I felt coming out like it was one of the most realistic movies I've seen, especially considering the setting. I've seen so many films where they make things so complicated it strains credulity, or where they try too hard, this was a nice change for me. 

Im not too sure about how people in the future will feel about it, becuase much of the reason I like it is due to how I feel about films, how I felt about the advertising and not knowing what was going to happen, and that it did so many "new" things as far as I have experienced. So I can certainly see why some people might not feel the same, and also hype and expectation is always going to affect how people feel about it. But regardless, even if its a product of its time, it certainly is one of my favourite cinema experiences ever.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Nov 27, 2013)

There is a historical context to the term "B" movie. B movies were movies created to be the opening film in a two film pairing, which was the standard movie going experience for many many years. They were budgeted lower and had second tier stars.

It did NOT mean they were designed to be lousy, it only meant they were to be done more quickly, cheaply, and with lesser stars.

So since we no longer have 2 movie pairings, there is no longer any such thing as a B movie in the literal sense.


----------



## Ed (Nov 27, 2013)

EastWest Lurker @ Wed Nov 27 said:


> There is a historical context to the term "B" movie. B movies were movies created to be the opening film in a two film pairing, which was the standard movie going experience for many many years. They were budgeted lower and had second tier stars.
> 
> It did NOT mean they were designed to be lousy, it only meant they were to be done more quickly, cheaply, and with lesser stars.
> 
> So since we no longer have 2 movie pairings, there is no longer any such thing as a B movie in the literal sense.



Quite right Jay! "B-Movie's" literally don't exist anymore. I think there can be a case that we can still use the term B-Movie to describe certain kinds of films, but that definition does have to make some kind of sense, you know?
I think it could be an interesting discussion of what constitutes a valid definition of a "B-Movie" if that term is still relevant.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Nov 27, 2013)

Whatever "Gravity" is, or is not, it is not a "B Movie" in any reasonable use of the term.

Hey, Ed, I knew that sooner or later we would agree on SOMETHING


----------



## Ed (Nov 27, 2013)

EastWest Lurker @ Wed Nov 27 said:


> Whatever "Gravity" is, or is not, it is not a "B Movie" in any reasonable use of the term.
> 
> Hey, Ed, I knew that sooner or later we would agree on SOMETHING



Im sure we would agree on a lot of things, Jay.... Frankly I think if we were actually talking about the things we appear to disagree about we would probably end up agreeing... obviously that would mean that you would agree with me, because the only reason you dont agree is that you dont understand what Im saying for some reason. So its not that we don't agree, its that you dont know we already agree.......but thats okay, I'll be gracious and blame that failing on myself, because Im really humble like that....... :lol:


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Nov 27, 2013)

Ed @ Wed Nov 27 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Wed Nov 27 said:
> 
> 
> > Whatever "Gravity" is, or is not, it is not a "B Movie" in any reasonable use of the term.
> ...



Do you realize that you could say what you just said far more clearly with about 1/3 of the words? :


----------



## AC986 (Nov 27, 2013)

Ed B movie is hard to define. 

Alien for instance is a remake of a B Movie, but then becomes very much an A movie because of certain criteria, such as Jay alluded to.

All the Basil Rathbone/Nigel Bruce Sherlock Holmes films were B movies, but were not necessarily lousy. Laurel & Hardy were warm up movies a lot of the time. And so was Tom & Jerry. Most British Black & White films were B Movies. :lol: 

A B Movie can and should be entertaining, but slightly more fluffy bunny than the main feature. I think that explains it perfectly! :lol:


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Nov 27, 2013)

adriancook @ Wed Nov 27 said:


> A B Movie can and should be entertaining, but slightly more fluffy bunny than the main feature. I think that explains it perfectly! :lol:



But historically that was not always the case. The B movie was often a drama or detective story while the main feature was a comedy or musical comedy.


----------



## AC986 (Nov 27, 2013)

Like I said earlier, you and I are probably old enough to remember when film noir were mostly B movies. There's always the exceptions like The Maltese Falcon ect.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Nov 27, 2013)

KEnK @ Wed Nov 27 said:


> Alien is in a different league than Gravity.
> It changed the way Sci Fi looked.
> 
> The look of Sci Fi can be measured before and after Alien.
> ...



I'm not at all sure about any of that. I'm sure not dissing the plot - it's great. It's simple but as I've said many many times, simplicity that works well is hard. Is Duel a crappy plot? No - its lean and mean. Again, people seem to confuse complexity (or even more "darkness") with greatness. Not so.

James Cameron has already crowned Gravity the "greatest ever space movie". I've heard a lot of discussion - not in this curmudgeonly thread admittedly - that this will redifine space movies, that this is a new bar that has been set. Maybe so, maybe not, but there's a strong case for it.

Folks - people's minds are being blown away by this film out there. The correspondence on the BBC film show I hear last week featured comic Peter Serafenowicz declaring Gravity not just the best movie of all time, but the best thing that has ever been created in any medium (he may have been exaggerating a tad). He's not alone in such OTT praise from general correspondence, its a genuine experience for many people (and, to balance, yes one or two have said they were bored). I find the blase dismissing seen a lot here fairly perplexing to be honest... though I am developing a theory. Because Gravity's aesthetic is so unusual and perhaps references quieter, more arthouse fare, I wonder if some folks are looking for loads of symoblism, depth, subtext and hidden meaning that just isn't there, hence they feel let down. There's no over-arching mythology here, no real science fiction or fantasy concepts - I guess some folks miss that. Not me, that's not what the film was. Happily, most people just go "wow" and take it for the thrill ride that it is... kind of feel sorry for those who missed all the fun. Horse... water....

It's way too soon to know just how influential the film will be, but its broken a whole heap of rules and technical boundaries, so it's a near-certainty that it will be seen as significant in the realm of effects at least, just like Jurassic Park, Terminator 2 or The Matrix (to name three). But more than effects, the portayal of space itself is I think where we'll see the biggest influence. Oh, and I still harbour that hope that it may inspire a few more blockbusters not about superheros and robots - gsilbers, forgot to say yours was a really interesting post on p1.


----------



## Ed (Nov 27, 2013)

EastWest Lurker @ Wed Nov 27 said:


> Do you realize that you could say what you just said far more clearly with about 1/3 of the words? :



I think if I were to talk to you in person, you'd realise that you're wrong about that :wink: 

Also, I hope you are not telling me you didn't understand what I just wrote!


----------



## Ed (Nov 27, 2013)

Guy Rowland @ Wed Nov 27 said:


> James Cameron has already crowned Gravity the "greatest ever space movie". I've heard a lot of discussion - not in this curmudgeonly thread admittedly - that this will redifine space movies, that this is a new bar that has been set. Maybe so, maybe not, but there's a strong case for it.



Man, when I heard that quote... I was like... "_pffftttt, shuddup Cameron, come on it cant possibly be that good, go back to your blue smurfs and keep making Dances with Wolves In Space 2 _".... but after I'd seen it I came out of the cinema thinking... "_ok.... fair play Jim, I see why you'd say that._"



> Folks - people's minds are being blown away by this film out there. The correspondence on the BBC film show I hear last week featured comic Peter Serafenowicz declaring Gravity not just the best movie of all time, but the best thing that has ever been created in any medium (he may have been exaggerating a tad).



Ok well I wouldnt go that far.... lol... There are different kinds of films and they are good for different reasons. The problem where people start saying such and such a thing is "the best thing ever created evaaaarr!!" is that it kind of ignores that fact. Some films are brilliant because of the character development and story, even if its just filmed on some normal camera with a small budget. To me great "cinema/film" is a lot of different things. Just like music can be great in different ways for different reasons. I have a few friends that are into making dub step and other kinds of electronic music (not the OTT American Bro-step though), anyway... I like it, but when I go to see them play these tracks at a club with a really great sound system its totally different. You end up really "feeling" the music. Like if its really well produced and its a great sound system I end up "feeling" the sound waves vibrate my body. Its impossible to get that experience with headphones or at home unless you have your own crazy sound system. I've even enjoyed normal pop dance music in a club before for the same reason.

(Sorry Jay that was a lot of words. Im sure I could have written that in only 1 sentence. :wink: )

But anyway... this OTT praise obviously make people who see the film go in with massive expectations, and that usually always leads to disappointment. But anyway I think the best thing people can do is to not take any of those comments literally and only take it as an expression of how this person is feeling and trying to come up with words to express it (_even if those words are actually bollocks_).

I talked about it on my first post which I then added to so people who read it probably didnt see, but I think the advertising really helped with how I perceived this film. When she first started spinning off into space I was like WTF are they going to do now????. Because that was everything I'd seen in the trailers! I had no idea what to expect from the film! I genuinely said to myself I hope this isnt the whole movie because all this spinning is making me feel sick. In other films I see Im always waiting for that scene or shot I saw in the trailer. It makes for really exciting trailers like Man of Steel... but makes for a much worse viewing experience for me when I actually see the film. Trailers are basically lots of little spoilers, and people tend to hate spoilers for a reason. It would be great if trailers started to take a similar approach and really try and give away as little as possible. I am skeptical that they will because their aim is to get people excited and get people into the cinema and its much easier to do that if they can make a trailer thats super mega exciting by teasing you with all the exciting bits. So I think the only way we could ever get there generally changing the landscape of motion picture advertising is for some creative and daring studios and agencies to come up with ways to do it but still make it at least as exciting, effective and successful as the current way of doing trailers. If they see the results that show they can get more bums in seats, thats whats going to make things change.


----------



## AC986 (Nov 27, 2013)

There's nothing wrong with enjoying popcorn. 

And James Cameron ( I don't know him well enough to call him Jim) makes B Movies.


----------



## Ed (Nov 27, 2013)

LOL Adriancook.... Im sure your idea of a B-Movie makes sense in your head, but I reaaallyy don't see how it actually makes sense 

It just seems pretty arbitrary to me what constitutes a B-Movie by what you've said.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Nov 27, 2013)

adriancook @ Wed Nov 27 said:


> There's nothing wrong with enjoying popcorn.
> 
> And James Cameron ( I don't know him well enough to call him Jim) makes B Movies.



No, he does not. By definition a B movie is a low budget film with second tier stars. 

If you want however to redefine the term to better suit your argument, well, I guess you are free to do so


----------



## AC986 (Nov 27, 2013)

What big stars were in Terminator when it came out?


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Nov 27, 2013)

adriancook @ Wed Nov 27 said:


> What big stars were in Terminator when it came out?



That was along time ago. Cameron's success has changed all that.


----------



## AC986 (Nov 27, 2013)

What big stars were in The Abyss and what was its estimated budget?


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Nov 27, 2013)

adriancook @ Wed Nov 27 said:


> What big stars were in The Abyss and what was its estimated budget?



Google is your friend.
http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Cash-Cameron-James-s-Budget-Busters-From-The-Abyss-To-Avatar-16187.html (http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Cash-Cam ... 16187.html)


----------



## Ed (Nov 27, 2013)

It might be fun to see Adrian try and give a detailed definition of B-Movie so we can use that to apply to any movie we choose, so we can know if it is a B-Movie or not. 
If the definition makes no sense, that's where it will all obviously break down. 
So far from what I've read... the budget, the actors, the revenue generated and the producers or directors have nothing to do with whether something is a B-Movie. 
So it would be interesting to know what does make a movie a B-Movie.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Nov 27, 2013)

B Movies - for the modern day usage, I think Wikipedia does it well - "The term is also now used loosely to refer to some higher-budgeted, mainstream films with exploitation-style content, usually in genres traditionally associated with the B movie".

Ed, I'm with you lack of knowledge and how trailers can wreck a film-going experience. I avoided EVERYTHING with Gravity, saw not a frame and skipped all the reviews. It was great.


----------



## AC986 (Nov 27, 2013)

Who were the big stars in Citizen Kane and did they use members of The Mercury Theatre to keep the budget down so they could hire people like Greg Toland?


See if you can google that.


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 28, 2013)

It's obvious that I'm widely disagreed with, but how anyone could have enjoyed the acting in this film is just beyond me. I find Bullock and Clooney quite charming, but again, there wasn't a moment of acting that didn't have all the edges sanded off. Did anyone REALLY doubt, through the whole film, that somehow Sandra would make it and that there would be an uplifting teachable moment?? I saw it coming from...well...beyond the gravitational pull  how can there be tension if it's gonna be alright?? Sandra is TOO NICE TO DIE ALONE IN SPACE!!

My idea of a great space movie was Alien. It had edgy acting from Weaver, it was unbearably claustrophobic and tense, and it had the most badass Alien of all time eating its way out of a stomach and into our hearts.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Nov 28, 2013)

adriancook @ Wed Nov 27 said:


> Who were the big stars in Citizen Kane and did they use members of The Mercury Theatre to keep the budget down so they could hire people like Greg Toland?
> 
> 
> See if you can google that.



There are exceptions to every rule. Not every A movie had a big budget and big name cast and not every B movie was on the cheap.

But the _standard_ practice was:

1 Two movies to be shown together.

2. An A movie with known stars who were proven draws at the box office with a decent budget.

3. A B movie with lesser stars and lesser budget.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Nov 29, 2013)

NYC Composer @ Fri Nov 29 said:


> It's obvious that I'm widely disagreed with, but how anyone could have enjoyed the acting in this film is just beyond me. I find Bullock and Clooney quite charming, but again, there wasn't a moment of acting that didn't have all the edges sanded off. Did anyone REALLY doubt, through the whole film, that somehow Sandra would make it and that there would be an uplifting teachable moment?? I saw it coming from...well...beyond the gravitational pull  how can there be tension if it's gonna be alright?? Sandra is TOO NICE TO DIE ALONE IN SPACE!!
> 
> My idea of a great space movie was Alien. It had edgy acting from Weaver, it was unbearably claustrophobic and tense, and it had the most badass Alien of all time eating its way out of a stomach and into our hearts.



Well, actually you're not that widely disagreed with here, Larry! Lots of fellow detractors.

SPOILERS AHEAD

I saw the film knowing essentially nothing other than it was set in space, it had two lead actors, that it was a huge critical and commercial hit. To me it wasn't obvious where it was going initially - remember I didn't even know what the nature of the disaster was (I mean, I figured there would be some kind of problem... but that's all). It wasn't at all obvious to me for some time that a) there were ONLY two actors that would feature or that b) that both would necessarily make it. Fleetingly I entertained c) that it would be neither, but that was relatively early on before it became clear exactly what sort of a film it was - if I'd engaged my brain, I'd have realised that no film that commercially successful could have had a truly bleak ending. But I was caught up in the movie, so I wasn't thinking about box office at that point.

People seem to be glossing over the rather important point that out of our cast of two, one dies. 50% of the cast wiped out. OK, he may have died without us appreciating the full gruesomeness and horror of it (and the film of course plays a sly trick on you), but its still a long way from everything's-happy-ever-after.

OK, having said all that I still think that dissing the film based on the predictability of an at least partially happy ending is a bizarre criticism. Are James Bond films boring because gee shucks we kinda know that Bond's gonna make it? In fact, have you EVER seen a blockbuster where the hero doesn't save the day? To say it yet again - this is a blockbuster, straight and true. I think its the unusual aesthetic that most people really warm to, but for a few seems to be a bizarre trip up - maybe folks figure they're watching Dark Star not a $100m Warner Bros picture?

As for Sandra Bullock's performance - like all performances, one can really only be subjective. I could point out that she's widely tip for an Oscar nom, and also that her performance is particularly remarkable given the incredibly inflexible and tortuous nature of the filming, but if it doesn't work for someone it doesn't work I guess. I thought she was terrific. George was Buzz Lightyear, but I enjoyed that too, put some fun into what could have been a fairly gruelling movie I thought.


----------



## Daryl (Nov 29, 2013)

NYC Composer @ Fri Nov 29 said:


> My idea of a great space movie was Alien. It had edgy acting from Weaver, it was unbearably claustrophobic and tense, and it had the most badass Alien of all time eating its way out of a stomach and into our hearts.


Agreed. For me, the only thing that Gravity did better was the special effects. In all other respects Alien was far superior.

D


----------



## AC986 (Nov 29, 2013)

Did Jacques Tournier make B movies? And was The Man Who Shot Liberty Vallance an A movie at the time it came out?


----------



## dedersen (Nov 29, 2013)

Just saw this, and it was the first time I enjoyed 3D, and felt that it actually contributed to the immersion in the film. I'm with Guy re the simplicity of the plot; this is a ride, it's a fantastically well-coreographed and highly tense, visually stunning thrill ride. One of those movies that is probably much less of an experience in the home cinema.

I felt it went a bit over the top with the dialogue near the end, but otherwise was really good. I wish Clooney would do more roles where he's not the slightly-odd charmer that he seems to always fall back on, but overall I found the acting quite good.

It's all about what you look for in a movie, I guess. I always get a bit annoyed with the "style vs substance" comments, they smell a bit too much of some sort of smug elitism to me, but perhaps I read too much into it. Style is very much the substance, I feel, in the case of Gravity.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Nov 29, 2013)

adriancook @ Fri Nov 29 said:


> Did Jacques Tournier make B movies? And was The Man Who Shot Liberty Vallance an A movie at the time it came out?



I do not know who Jacques Tournier was/is. But "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance" was definitely an A movie at the time it was released, and by the '60's the "two movie" pairings had pretty much gone away.

It had a budget of over 3 million, which was hefty in the early 60's,; an A-list director in John Ford; two of the biggest stars in the business in Wayne and Stewart.


----------



## AC986 (Nov 29, 2013)

George Clooney doesn't do block busters. Name a film that Cloonet did that remotely fulfilled block buster criteria. He does charmy, slightly anal parts. And. He's good at it.


----------



## AC986 (Nov 29, 2013)

EastWest Lurker @ Fri Nov 29 said:


> adriancook @ Fri Nov 29 said:
> 
> 
> > Did Jacques Tournier make B movies?And was The Man Who Shot Liberty Vallance an A movie at the time it came out?
> ...




Oh Jesus H Christ! Tell me you're joking!


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Nov 29, 2013)

adriancook @ Fri Nov 29 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Fri Nov 29 said:
> 
> 
> > adriancook @ Fri Nov 29 said:
> ...



Nope. I just visited IMDB however and I may possibly have seen a couple of those films, but none that have stayed with me.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Nov 29, 2013)

adriancook @ Fri Nov 29 said:


> George Clooney doesn't do block busters. Name a film that Cloonet did that remotely fulfilled block buster criteria. He does charmy, slightly anal parts. And. He's good at it.



Blockbuster does not equal what A movies used to mean. And since there are no longer double-bills there really are no more A and B movies.

Clooney can and does work in a lot of indie films that are modestly budgeted and expected only to reach a modest audience, because he is an actor, a producer, a writer, and a director, not just a movie star. Back in the days when the studio ran things, actors were under contracts that did not give them the freedom to make the kind of choices he makes. Orson Welles tried to do that, but could not sustain balancing artistic and commercial success the way Clooney has.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Nov 29, 2013)

adriancook @ Fri Nov 29 said:


> George Clooney doesn't do block busters. Name a film that Cloonet did that remotely fulfilled block buster criteria.



The Ocean's series
The Perfect Storm (oops, this one did break my blockbuster rule... and it didn't make it a better movie and yes I know it was based on a true story)
The Peacemaker
Batman and Robin

Not all particularly successful, but they do all remotely fulfil the blockbuster criteria.

Not sure what the point is anyway. He's pretty diverse - The Descendants, Three Kings (terrific film), Up In The Air (terrific film), Burn After Reading, Syriana, Solaris, Oh Brother Where Art Thou... etc.... etc...


----------



## AC986 (Nov 29, 2013)

uhhhhh.

No. 

That said. I watched Up in the Air the other day and that is what I'm talking about re GC. Has an indie film quality. It has character development. It's a small, but well made film. Pretty good.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Nov 29, 2013)

adriancook @ Fri Nov 29 said:


> uhhhhh.
> 
> No.
> 
> That said. I watched Up in the Air the other day and that is what I'm talking about re GC. Has an indie film quality. It has character development. It's a small, but well made film. Pretty good.



I quote four films that meet the criteria of blockbusters, and you say - "no". That's a great debating technique - "the sky is blue" / "no it isn't" / "yes it is, look at it" / "no it isn't" / pause / "oooooh kay then".


----------



## Ed (Nov 29, 2013)

Guy Rowland @ Fri Nov 29 said:


> I quote four films that meet the criteria of blockbusters, and you say - "no". That's a great debating technique - "the sky is blue" / "no it isn't" / "yes it is, look at it" / "no it isn't" / pause / "oooooh kay then".



Looks its obvious whats going on, Adrian IS the dictionary. You ask him and he tells you, dont ask questions, shut up. :D


----------



## AC986 (Nov 29, 2013)

You three bozos wouldn't know a what represents a good film if it bit your collective bollocks off. Let's face it boys. :lol:


----------



## Guy Rowland (Nov 29, 2013)

adriancook @ Fri Nov 29 said:


> You three bozos wouldn't know a what represents a good film if it bit your collective bollocks off. Let's face it boys. :lol:



Mustn't feed the troll... mustn't feed the troll......


----------



## gsilbers (Nov 29, 2013)

gsilbers @ Tue Nov 26 said:


> Guy Rowland @ Mon Nov 25 said:
> 
> 
> > Why is there no thread for this? Finally seen Gravity, in 3D glory.
> ...



let me repost this cause i dont think folks appreciate how big a change this is for hollywood and specialy for up and coming composers who do not have to deal with red tape from the major who only want HZ and other big name talent to make "safe" to their franchise. and also the soooo many oportunities now that the finance is being done by 3rd parties who until recently was small finance. now these guy fork up enough money for George clooney and bullock. 

who is this guy who composed gravity? well, not once from Remote control right? 

just sayin' since so many doomsday scenarios about composers not getting paid well and tough competition etc. etc in forums. now this can change because more and more how content is being produced. also, not to mention the tv side. have you checked the price tag of "almost human"?!! TV is starting to be more recognized and mdium to high budget movies are being done by 3rd party productions, great time for new oportunities. 0oD


----------



## Guy Rowland (Nov 29, 2013)

gsilbers - I eventually snuck in a thank you for that first post, cos it was very interesting and I completely forgot to respond the first time - sorry about that. And this post is of course interesting too. Is it a new phenomenon though? How about Carolco? Weren't they using the same model back in the 80s? They seemed to score hit after hit, and yet collapsed eventually.

I do hope you're right though, it's exactly what the industry needs, to break the stranglehold of that bland corporate decision-making. The good news is that actors crave good projects and parts - if the opportunities present themselves, they'll be drawn to good scripts / directors. And I definitely agree re TV.

And again agree - it's hopeful news for composers amid all the doom and gloom. Wasn't keen on Steven Price's score for The World's End myself (although I know Wright / Pegg really love it), but I do very much like Gravity's score.


----------



## gsilbers (Nov 29, 2013)

yes, i do think smaller production companies have been around. but recently those production companies are upping the price. which means there is more other with lower budgets and everything in between. at the point is not relying so much in the majors. 

another difference from the 80's imo is the distribution through internet. right now the big studios are RAKING in huge profits from the EST/VOD markets. just think that it is not only netflix, it is direct tv offering vod content, it is the cable channel in canada that boradcasts and also wants to offer VOD form their site. also hulu , google, netflix and xbox is penetrating inside every major country. this , imo, would make movie bets a bit less risky. what in theatres sucked, maybe amazon will sell /rent dvd. or if not a big studio distribution would offer it part of a packge with othe rmovies for other VOD clients who then sell it and so on. 

here is more about it

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 ... 1681999588

maybe this would be bettwe in its own thread. 

gravity was good and all. with only 2 characters. well mostly sandra. =) 
kept me on the edge of my seat the whole time.


----------



## jleckie (Nov 29, 2013)

Man- theses are dower times for film composers (young and wannabes) You cant seem to organize successfully, everyones giving everything away and no one wants to pay for it anyways. I honestly feel sorry for you blokes.

I talked to a director last night who was completely knocked out of the water over how much royalty free stuff is out there. (he was searching for 2 songs) He said it would take a lifetime to go through all the free stuff. I told him then instead of spending his lifetime doing that to hire someone for an original score. Eh- I think he is still looking for 2 songs for a hundred bucks each.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Nov 30, 2013)

To briefly return to the subject of Gravity for a moment, I read Empire magazine's review yesterday by Ian Nathan. Highly literate and well argued piece by a fine film writer on why Gravity is the outstanding 5* film that it is - http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/reviewcomplete.asp?FID=136957 (http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/rev ... FID=136957)


----------



## Daryl (Nov 30, 2013)

Guy Rowland @ Sat Nov 30 said:


> To briefly return to the subject of Gravity for a moment, I read Empire magazine's review yesterday by Ian Nathan. Highly literate and well argued piece by a fine film writer on why Gravity is the outstanding 5* film that it is - http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/reviewcomplete.asp?FID=136957 (http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/rev ... FID=136957)


And yet I still think it was pretty mediocre as a film. As is Kubrick's 2001, which the author seems to like as well. :wink: 

D


----------



## AC986 (Nov 30, 2013)

Guy Rowland @ Fri Nov 29 said:


> adriancook @ Fri Nov 29 said:
> 
> 
> > You three bozos wouldn't know a what represents a good film if it bit your collective bollocks off. Let's face it boys. :lol:
> ...



Oh do stut up for 5 minutes.


----------



## AC986 (Nov 30, 2013)

Daryl @ Sat Nov 30 said:


> Guy Rowland @ Sat Nov 30 said:
> 
> 
> > To briefly return to the subject of Gravity for a moment, I read Empire magazine's review yesterday by Ian Nathan. Highly literate and well argued piece by a fine film writer on why Gravity is the outstanding 5* film that it is - http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/reviewcomplete.asp?FID=136957 (http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/rev ... FID=136957)
> ...



It is. Because as you pointed out earlier with Alien as an example, there is no character going on in Gravity. It's all visual. Good visual is not enough. It's token stuff. 2001 is interesting in that it worked well with great visuals but it's more than that that. They made the film and then Clarke wrote the book, or wrote it as it went along, which is unusual. On character development in 2001, Kubrick broke the rules in that there really isn't any apart from the HAL (IBM) computer. 
It's also slightly distressing to note that Alien came fairly early in Scotts career as a film director as opposed to doing stuff for the BBC and he has never really got back to being as good as that.

You will always go for the lowest common audience denominator when using just say, visuals or violent action in a film. It's the same reason an outside news reporter seemingly asks someone at the scene what appears to be a stupid question.
It's not necessarily that the reporter is stupid, although of course that's possible; it's because they have to do that for the majority of the audience vis a vi lowest common denominator stuff. Same in films.


----------



## choc0thrax (Nov 30, 2013)

I feel bad for anyone who got nothing out of Gravity but also realize that everyone has different tastes. A lot of people like 2001 but I find it boring as hell and keep a BluRay of it in my medicine cabinet in case my Ambien has run out. Not the biggest Kubrick fan but Dr. Strangelove is a favourite.

And now the long wait until June 2014 for the next great film and score: HTTYD 2.


----------



## AC986 (Nov 30, 2013)

Geoffrey Unsworth did an incredible job on 2001 and at the time nothing had been seen like it before. The film does not have any graphic violence or token female hair actresses. It is definitely not for the hard of thinking. It does not have a filmscore but a soundtrack that has been a boon to people like James Horner.
Theatres became meeting places for dope smokers around the globe wherever it played. This was the fallout from the visual efx. Yellow Submarine had a similar effect on people at the time. 

Everything changed 2 years later with Dirty Harry.

Those were the days. :roll:


----------



## AC986 (Nov 30, 2013)

And there are over 460 people listed on Visual Effects for Gravity alone. That's interesting and I would like to know how long that took to go through the credits.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Nov 30, 2013)

adriancook @ Sat Nov 30 said:


> Geoffrey Unsworth did an incredible job on 2001 and at the time nothing had been seen like it before. The film does not have any graphic violence or token female hair actresses. It is definitely not for the hard of thinking. It does not have a filmscore but a soundtrack that has been a boon to people like James Horner.
> Theatres became meeting places for dope smokers around the globe wherever it played. This was the fallout from the visual efx. Yellow Submarine had a similar effect on people at the time.
> 
> Everything changed 2 years later with Dirty Harry.
> ...



There is a reason they call it dope :twisted:


----------



## germancomponist (Nov 30, 2013)

EastWest Lurker @ Sat Nov 30 said:


> There isa reason they call it dope :twisted:



:-D


----------



## choc0thrax (Nov 30, 2013)

Awkward segue to O.T. but I wonder what's going to happen to the Fast and Furious franchise now that Paul Walker has died... in a car crash.


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 30, 2013)

I'm really glad Daryl brought Alien into the discussion. Heh.


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 30, 2013)

choc0thrax @ Sat Nov 30 said:


> Awkward segue to O.T. but I wonder what's going to happen to the Fast and Furious franchise now that Paul Walker has died... in a car crash.



Irony is generally lost in the midst of successful sequels.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Dec 1, 2013)

choc0thrax @ Sun Dec 01 said:


> Awkward segue to O.T. but I wonder what's going to happen to the Fast and Furious franchise now that Paul Walker has died... in a car crash.



And not the first such horribly ironic crash, after Joe Ranft.


----------



## SyMTiK (Dec 4, 2013)

im going to have to agree with the other people saying that it was great in terms of all the effects, cgi, sound design, 3D, etc. but it really lacked in plot. the plot was very dry and forgettable, the characters had little depth, and all in all its just not something i would see again.

i really enjoyed the work done on the surround sound (i couldve sworn i was losing it and hearing stuff and some points, but nope it was just the movie haha) and the visual effects coupled with the audio was really something, but i just think that to be a good movie in my book, it needs to be well rounded. this wasnt a well rounded film. actiony and fun yes, but not the type of thing i would want to see twice.


----------



## AR (Dec 4, 2013)

Finally saw Gravity. Had a last chance to watch it in a theather nearby. Pure awesomeness!!! That movie is simple and yet you have every 15-20min an "ouuuuuh shit" moment. The visuals are beyond everything else. What stuck in my head was the crying scene. Also, the score: anybody realized the huge and interesting dynamics? Well done.


----------



## Diffusor (Dec 10, 2013)

Havent' seen it yet but the movie seems to be the same general theme/plot device as Open Water except that was the ocean/sharks instead of space, and of course then add millions of dollars of special fx and Hollywood A-list actors.


----------



## mark812 (Dec 10, 2013)

It was a solid film (the first one in which Sandra Bullock didn't suck, I think), but comparisons with 2001 are just silly.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 10, 2013)

She was good in The Blind Side.

And yes, I've seen Kubrick and this is no Kubrick.


----------



## AC986 (Dec 10, 2013)

ghagahahgaha


----------



## snowleopard (Dec 11, 2013)

Sandra was pretty good in Crash. Though I'm not a fan of her's really. 

Thought Gravity started great. Middle was okay. And the last act sort of ran out of steam. But overall, it was an experience, that's for sure. The first twenty minutes were worth the price of admission alone. 

Really liked the score in the first half. Didn't notice in the second half. Final cue too much. But that's my ears. I like things subtle, and different.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Dec 11, 2013)

I agree with you on that last cue, Snow.

I think the 2001 comparison is a blunt instrument. They're totally different genres, though there's a certain aesthetic that you could say is a link between them. 2001-meets-Duel is a quite a good and suitably jarring shorthand. Open Water borrowed the same template as Duel really - and I've no doubt that Duel owed a debt to other films before it too. I guess the differences are that in Duel the enemy is a machine, in Open Water it is creatures and in Gravity it is the laws of phyiscs. Which personally I think is pretty cool.


----------



## AC986 (Dec 12, 2013)

Gravity is one of the listed Golden Globe nominees fro best picture apparently. Another one is Philomena with Judy Dench.

Special and visual effects is about 595 against 18. Gravity wins it for me hands down.  

Mind you, Judy Dench is a marginally better actor that Sandra Bullock.


----------



## Ed (Dec 12, 2013)

Gravity should win for visual effect/cinematography./ 

I think it would also deserve to win for best sound as well. Of course the music played such a big role in the soundscape in this film as well.

And I was pleasantly surprised by Bullock. I think a lot of actors are well known for certain roles and dont get to show off what else they can do so often. The shame thing for me about Clooney is that he is basically playing typical Clooney in Gravity. But I know he can do other things, like in O' Brother Where Art Thou., which is one of my favourite films. Like Brad Pitt when given the role's where he is not playing Brad Pitt (lol) he shows how great he is an actor, like in Fight Club. I would love to see Hollywood take more actors that are not know for serious drama and let them really get into the role. Remember Robin Williams in Photo Booth? Oh sure we saw him do some serious stuff in some of his comedies like Mrs Doubtfire, but al whole movie where he is playing a dressed nutter? Fantastic.


----------



## choc0thrax (Dec 12, 2013)

Ed @ Thu Dec 12 said:


> Gravity should win for visual effect/cinematography./
> 
> I think it would also deserve to win for best sound as well. Of course the music played such a big role in the soundscape in this film as well.
> 
> And I was pleasantly surprised by Bullock. I think a lot of actors are well known for certain roles and dont get to show off what else they can do so often. The shame thing for me about Clooney is that he is basically playing typical Clooney in Gravity. But I know he can do other things, like in O' Brother Where Art Thou., which is one of my favourite films. Like Brad Pitt when given the role's where he is not playing Brad Pitt (lol) he shows how great he is an actor, like in Fight Club. I would love to see Hollywood take more actors that are not know for serious drama and let them really get into the role. Remember Robin Williams in Photo Booth? Oh sure we saw him do some serious stuff in some of his comedies like Mrs Doubtfire, but al whole movie where he is playing a dressed nutter? Fantastic.



I wasn't that surprised by Bullock since I know she's got some chops. I think you're wrong about Clooney - he isn't being typical Clooney - it's just that film astronauts are all just Clooney clones. Hmmm I'd go see a move called Clooney Clones. It would be like Multiplicity but with every new Clooney created, instead of getting dumber, he'd just get handsomer and more charming. Picturing the final Clooney iteration as just a giant penis shaped cigar with soulful eyes.

I don't know if I've ever seen Pitt be great. He's one of the few big actors who's done that many films and still doesn't have that one breakout role. He was outstaged by his scarf in World War Z. That's not quite a diss on Pitt - I've heard that scarf has a theater background.

You liked Photo Booth? I really didn't care for it but always liked this cute little cue: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4y4sPC1KIxU


----------



## Daryl (Dec 12, 2013)

choc0thrax @ Thu Dec 12 said:


> I don't know if I've ever seen Pitt be great. He's one of the few big actors who's done that many films and still doesn't have that one breakout role.


I thought that he was good in Twelve Monkeys. And that film had a score worthy of the title "original score".

D


----------



## blougui (Dec 12, 2013)

> I think you're wrong about Clooney - he isn't being typical Clooney - it's just that film astronauts are all just Clooney clones. Hmmm I'd go see a move called Clooney Clones. It would be like Multiplicity but with every new Clooney created, instead of getting dumber, he'd just get handsomer and more charming. Picturing the final Clooney iteration as just a giant penis shaped cigar with soulful eyes.



Ah ah ! Love that !



> I don't know if I've ever seen Pitt be great. He's one of the few big actors who's done that many films and still doesn't have that one breakout role. He was outstaged by his scarf in World War Z. That's not quite a diss on Pitt - I've heard that scarf has a theater background.



He was HUGE in Terry Gilliam's *Twelve Monkeys.*


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Dec 12, 2013)

I saw it and liked the first half. The 2nd half ruined the film for me in a way. Still, it was a nice trip! Makes me want to finally see Solaris (Tarkovsky's version) though.


----------



## ed buller (Dec 12, 2013)

Now THAT is a FILM 

e


----------



## AC986 (Dec 12, 2013)

Daryl @ Thu Dec 12 said:


> choc0thrax @ Thu Dec 12 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know if I've ever seen Pitt be great. He's one of the few big actors who's done that many films and still doesn't have that one breakout role.
> ...



The one and only time he should have been nominated.


----------



## choc0thrax (Dec 12, 2013)

adriancook @ Thu Dec 12 said:


> Daryl @ Thu Dec 12 said:
> 
> 
> > choc0thrax @ Thu Dec 12 said:
> ...



It's actually been over a decade since I saw that film so maybe it's time for a rewatch. I was looking for an alternative to Desolation of Smaug tomorrow anyways - which is one of those "well it does exist... maybe we should see it" kind of movies.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 12, 2013)

> Another one is Philomena with Judy Dench.



F-ing AWESOME. We saw it last night.

I was thinking this wasn't a very good year for films, but all of a sudden there's a bunch of really good ones.

August: Osage County is pretty amazing.

And The Wolf of Wall St. is really good. Saving Mr. Banks is pretty good. Nebraska is just great. I liked American Hustle too.

All of them stick with you after you leave, unlike that POS Gra...shut up, Batzdorf.

Oh, and Six By Sondheim is just brilliant. Amazingly well done documentary, totally inspiring, and of course Sondheim himself is great (and otherwise I basically don't care for musical theater).


----------



## choc0thrax (Dec 12, 2013)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Dec 12 said:


> And The Wolf of Wall St. is really good. Saving Mr. Banks is pretty good. Nebraska is just great. I liked American Hustle too.



I don't want to but I can already see the huge orgasm you're gonna have while watching Jaoquin Phoenix run around laughing with a lit sparkler in 'Her'.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 12, 2013)

We're seeing that in a few days. Missed the first screening last week.


----------



## choc0thrax (Dec 12, 2013)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Dec 12 said:


> We're seeing that in a few days. Missed the first screening last week.



Let us know what you think. Meanwhile my friend and I just watched half of Inside Llewyn Davis and had to turn it off. The main character was actually doing less than I was and I was just sitting there and watching the movie... albeit fidgeting and sighing a lot. Watch it if you want to experience the opposite of Gravity.


----------



## NYC Composer (Dec 12, 2013)

adriancook @ Thu Dec 12 said:


> Daryl @ Thu Dec 12 said:
> 
> 
> > choc0thrax @ Thu Dec 12 said:
> ...



Snatch, for the weird Gypsy-ish dialect. Thelma and Louise for energizing the film in a similar way to what Nicholson did in Easy Rider (an awful film). True Romance for perfect stoner cameo (I loved everything about that film). Fight Club for...ummm...wait. Without Edward Norton....I dunno. Never mind. Loved that film regardless.


----------



## choc0thrax (Dec 12, 2013)

NYC Composer @ Fri Dec 13 said:


> adriancook @ Thu Dec 12 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl @ Thu Dec 12 said:
> ...



You are being very kind to Pitt. True Romance is in my top 3 favourite films of all time but Pitt added nothing to it. He couldn't hold a candle to the 90 seconds of Val Kilmer as Elvis. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EYvQMDLZZk Great score by Zims.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 12, 2013)

Inside Llewyn Davis wasn't bad. I wouldn't particularly tell anyone to go see it, and it's certainly nowhere near the best Coen Brothers movie - in fact maybe it's the worst? - but I'd rather see it than Gravity.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Dec 12, 2013)

Twelve Monkeys is probably in my all time top 10. True Romance bottom 10, so what do I know?

Sandra was great in Gravity, and she scores treble points for the tortuous way it was filmed. Still, tough field with Cate Blanchett and Emma Thompson this year.


----------



## NYC Composer (Dec 12, 2013)

The trailers for Inside look dreadful, but I'm a big Coen Bros fan so I'll see it eventually.
Their worst film is better than 90% of films made.

Still, they can be some self indulgent mofos. For example, they forgot to edit Barton Fink. Dunno what was up with that Billy Bob monstrosity- I'm sure it was a cinematic tribute to something I'm unaware of. When they hit home runs though, man- Fargo, Miller's Crossing, Hudsucker Proxy, Lebowski, No Country. Those would be enough for most fellas right there.


----------



## NYC Composer (Dec 12, 2013)

Guy Rowland @ Fri Dec 13 said:


> Twelve Monkeys is probably in my all time top 10. True Romance bottom 10, so what do I know?
> 
> Sandra was great in Gravity, and she scores treble points for the tortuous way it was filmed. Still, tough field with Cate Blanchett and Emma Thompson this year.



You know what you like and what you don't, same as us other folk...but if you didn't like the scene with Walken and Hopper and recognize it as a great moment in cinema, your pass to watch American movies is hereby revoked :wink:


----------



## choc0thrax (Dec 12, 2013)

NYC Composer @ Fri Dec 13 said:


> Guy Rowland @ Fri Dec 13 said:
> 
> 
> > Twelve Monkeys is probably in my all time top 10. True Romance bottom 10, so what do I know?
> ...



True Romance is filled with great scenes. The fight between Arquette and Gandolfini is amazing. The billboard scene with Slater and Arquette... As for the Hopper/Walken scene - it's partly so great because nobody can touch Tarantino when it comes to interrogations. I was blown away the first time I read the opening 17 or so pages of Inglorious Basterds. It's his specialty.


----------



## NYC Composer (Dec 13, 2013)

choc0thrax @ Fri Dec 13 said:


> NYC Composer @ Fri Dec 13 said:
> 
> 
> > Guy Rowland @ Fri Dec 13 said:
> ...



Even being an apostate and a totally irreligious Jew, I was queasily offended by Inglorious Basterds. I felt similarly about Django- completely ridiculous revenge scenarios that illustrate something odd about him, some sort of tin ear as to certain racial sensibilities. I know I'm widely disagreed with on this point, but it's a strong feeling of mine.

All that said, you're spot on about his interrogation writing and the scene, so brilliantly written and acted. Waltz playing the fey, insinuating demon with Tarantino's brilliance- shiver stuff.


----------



## AC986 (Dec 13, 2013)

NYC Composer @ Fri Dec 13 said:


> Even being an apostate and a totally irreligious Jew, I was queasily offended by Inglorious Basterds.




No I didn't like it. I thought it was slightly crazy. I didn't get the point of it.

Yes Philomena. Very good.

When you put up these films against each other like Gravity v Philomena I just don't get any of it. >8o


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 13, 2013)

> Their [Coens'] worst film is better than 90% of films made



Exactly!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 19, 2013)

Choc wrote:



> I don't want to but I can already see the huge orgasm you're gonna have while watching Jaoquin Phoenix run around laughing with a lit sparkler in 'Her'.



You can uncover your eyes.

We saw it last night. No orgasm, I'm afraid - total shrivel.

It made me appreciate how great "Twilight Zone" was.


----------



## AC986 (Dec 19, 2013)

Watched Ping Pong on tv last night. Film documentary.

Best thing I've seen so far this year.


----------



## NYC Composer (Dec 19, 2013)

Saw American Hustle last night. It was a fun-ish romp, but my general takeway was "Wannabe Scorcese-lite".

Oh, and I love Christian Bale, but I know Jews from the Bronx, and he, sirs, is no Jew from the Bronx.


----------



## AC986 (Dec 20, 2013)

No. He's from Haverfordwest. :lol: :lol:


----------



## Guy Rowland (Dec 20, 2013)

Gravity polled Film Of The Year among Guardian readers, an eclectic bunch if ever there were - a "clear winner".  

http://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblo ... ers-choice


----------



## choc0thrax (Dec 20, 2013)

Guy Rowland @ Fri Dec 20 said:


> Gravity polled Film Of The Year among Guardian readers, an eclectic bunch if ever there were - a "clear winner".
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblo ... ers-choice



While it's great to see Gravity at #1, the list is rendered completely meaningless by the inclusion of Only God Forgives.


----------



## Daryl (Dec 20, 2013)

adriancook @ Thu Dec 19 said:


> Watched Ping Pong on tv last night. Film documentary.
> 
> Best thing I've seen so far this year.


I'm about half way through. It's interesting for me to see how low the standard is in the women's competition compared with the men. It is like that in the over 70s as well, but once you get to the over 60s things are drastically better. It just shows how things have changed for women in sport over the years.

I'm not sure that I'll still be playing when I get to 80, even if I make it that far. :wink: 

D


----------



## NYC Composer (Dec 20, 2013)

There's no validation likelerr group validation :wink: 

What's up with that #2 choice- never heard of it?


----------



## Guy Rowland (Dec 20, 2013)

choc0thrax @ Fri Dec 20 said:


> Guy Rowland @ Fri Dec 20 said:
> 
> 
> > Gravity polled Film Of The Year among Guardian readers, an eclectic bunch if ever there were - a "clear winner".
> ...



Actually that's a fair point, not that I've seen it.

Larry - I think they alluded to some heavy online campaigning for that curious placing. As for group validation - well, I draw your attention once again to the 97% critical approval. VI-C members seem bizarrely unrepresentative of the public at large and the general critical consensus. The Guardian thing is interesting cos its the only film in there that has been anything approaching a major commercial hit.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 20, 2013)

This is called an Argument to Popularity.

It's a logical fallacy.

Larry, I actually liked American Hustle. Not a film for the ages, but certainly one that sticks with you more than...never mind.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Dec 20, 2013)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Dec 20 said:


> This is called an Argument to Popularity.
> 
> It's a logical fallacy.



Maybe, but if you negate all three of box office, critical reception and audience appreciation, there aren't many yardsticks left. Of course they may all be "wrong" in someone's eyes, and fair enough. Nevertheless, some of the casual dismissal here against all that is a tad unconvincing.


----------



## NYC Composer (Dec 20, 2013)

Guy Rowland @ Fri Dec 20 said:


> choc0thrax @ Fri Dec 20 said:
> 
> 
> > Guy Rowland @ Fri Dec 20 said:
> ...



Eh, I've always been an outlier, Guy, and I'm enjoying our passionate yet friendly disagreement, so don't spoil it by taking it personally when I tweak you a little :wink: 

Regarding the obscure and somewhat bizarre sounding second place winner, it seems to me that if heavy online campaigning can win the day, it brings the whole critical polling thing into question. I say we vote only with our own opinions in mind rather than the seductive sway of the hoi polloi. 

I try to read all reviews after I've seen something, and I'm often startled to learn that the reviewer saw a different film.


----------



## NYC Composer (Dec 20, 2013)

Btw, am I the only one looking forward to "Mitt Romney Agoniste"?

(Ok, not the real title)


----------



## Daryl (Dec 20, 2013)

Guy Rowland @ Fri Dec 20 said:


> Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Dec 20 said:
> 
> 
> > This is called an Argument to Popularity.
> ...


Being unafraid to be different and to disagree with the perceived majority is a prerequisite for greatness. :lol: 

To be fair, I can tell you exactly why I thought that Gravity was enjoyable, but unexceptional. It is not an unconsidered or emotional opinion. However, your continual attempt to class anyone with an opinion contrary to yours as wrong and misguided makes me wonder whether or not you invested your life savings into this movie. :wink: 

D


----------



## AC986 (Dec 20, 2013)

Daryl, Ping Pong has nothing to do with table tennis.

Choco, more people read The Financial Times than The Guardian.


----------



## Daryl (Dec 20, 2013)

adriancook @ Fri Dec 20 said:


> Daryl, Ping Pong has nothing to do with table tennis.


I guess it depends on what language one speaks.

D


----------



## AC986 (Dec 20, 2013)

That's deep. :mrgreen:


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 20, 2013)

But ponging has a lot to do with Gravity.

He's here all week, folks.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Dec 20, 2013)

Daryl @ Fri Dec 20 said:


> To be fair, I can tell you exactly why I thought that Gravity was enjoyable, but unexceptional. It is not an unconsidered or emotional opinion. However, your continual attempt to class anyone with an opinion contrary to yours as wrong and misguided makes me wonder whether or not you invested your life savings into this movie. :wink:



Ha! Here's my thinking. Saw the movie, thought - wow, exceptional execution, bringing something new to cinema, great tense exciting lean narrative. Then saw the reviews all agreed. Excited that an unusual, skillful thrillride blockbuster connected with its audience and made a crate of money. After a gazillion utterly tedious joyless superhero movies, it was something of a new hope for blockbusters.

People like to call folks spoiled here at VI-C, complaining bitterly of a culture of entitlement. That's how some of the responses feel here after this 4 year endeavour by a gifted filmmaker - yawn, boring, next. If that was the pervasive view out there, I'd shrug. Bit its not - it seems to be a peculiarly cynical VI-C thing. It baffles me that it seems so pervasive. And its a bit sad... it was a helluva ride, but folks seemed to miss it.

And if I overreact (and of course I do) its because of the implication that those of us who went "wow that was something" are shallow and don't know what a really good movie is. It's been a fairly impoverished debate, in the main - I'd like to see someone attempt a reposte to that extremely literate and well argued Empire review for example.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 20, 2013)

On a less serious note: Guy, whether something is any good and whether it's popular are two overlapping circles.

That applies to everything from the arts to sexual activities.

And don't take it personally - anyone whose tastes aren't exactly the same as mine is shallow by definition. You're in a category larger than the Guardian's readership.


----------



## NYC Composer (Dec 20, 2013)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Dec 20 said:


> On a less serious note: Guy, whether something is any good and whether it's popular are two overlapping circles.
> 
> That applies to everything from the arts to sexual activities.



So true-I'm particularly sheepish about my sexual desires. Oh well. Bah.


----------



## AC986 (Dec 21, 2013)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Dec 20 said:


> You're in a category larger than the Guardian's readership.



That wouldn't be difficult.


----------



## Darthmorphling (Dec 21, 2013)

Guy Rowland @ Fri Dec 20 said:


> Daryl @ Fri Dec 20 said:
> 
> 
> > To be fair, I can tell you exactly why I thought that Gravity was enjoyable, but unexceptional. It is not an unconsidered or emotional opinion. However, your continual attempt to class anyone with an opinion contrary to yours as wrong and misguided makes me wonder whether or not you invested your life savings into this movie. :wink:
> ...



It's not just a VI-C thing. Anywhere you have people who are "educated" in a particular area, their opinions are just more meaningful than others. 

I have a good friend, and teacher colleague, and we are almost the same person when it comes to most views, from religion, politics, to the good looking moms who hang out at our school. 

His undergrad degree focused on art history whereas mine was liberal studies. We were discussing Metallica's "Through the Never" yesterday and I basically said it failed as a concert film, and the overall plot was just lame. He went on to say that the imagery was spectacular and the meaning behind the visuals was outstanding. I agreed that the visuals were fantastic, but great visuals don't make the overall package great. Kim Kardashian is terrific to look at, but anything she does beyond just looking great is nowhere near enough to make me think she is a great person, or talented.

I asked him to explain what the meaning was and he stated the same thing I hear from a few VI-Cers, it's one of those things that if I have to explain it you won't get it.

Art is a very subjective thing and some people will never agree on every aspect of it. I actually enjoyed Gravity immensely. The visuals were phenomenal, and the story was fast paced, and exciting. Then again I also thought The Desolation of Smaug was fantastic as well.

Don


----------



## Daryl (Dec 21, 2013)

Guy Rowland @ Sat Dec 21 said:


> And if I overreact (and of course I do) its because of the implication that those of us who went "wow that was something" are shallow and don't know what a really good movie is. It's been a fairly impoverished debate, in the main - I'd like to see someone attempt a reposte to that extremely literate and well argued Empire review for example.


Guy, I think it's the opposite. You think it's fantastic and somehow think that those of us who don't agree didn't understand how or why it was fantastic. For myself I don't care about the why or how long it took, or how difficult it was to make. I can only judge the end result, and I have give my opinion. Enjoyable, but nothing special as a film.

D


----------



## NYC Composer (Dec 25, 2013)

What is it exactly that makes a debate 'impoverished?" Why is an opinion from one intelligent person more worthy than the opinion of another? Do you really believe, Guy, that general agreement with a peer group equals "correct?" There are so many repugnant examples of groupthink throughout human history. 

I vehemently disagree with both the substance and the tenor of your argument, and I know this sounds critical, but I bring it to your attention anyway- your reaction to your failure to convince people of the obvious rectitude of your opinion comes off as petulant and strange. Passionate argument is great until it sets out to belittle the intelligence of those who don't share your view. "They must be incorrect because they haven't thought it through"?? That indicates an oddly overweening need for agreement on a completely subjective matter!

I'd understand this better if you were a film maker or a professional film critic, but as far as i know , you're just one of the Guys. :wink:


----------



## germancomponist (Dec 25, 2013)

NYC Composer @ Wed Dec 25 said:


> What is it exactly that makes a debate 'impoverished?" Why is an opinion from one intelligent person more worthy than the opinion of another? Do you really believe, Guy, that general agreement with a peer group equals "correct?" There are so many repugnant examples of groupthink throughout human history.



I haven't read the whole thread but this last post and must say, I 100% agree!


----------



## Guy Rowland (Dec 25, 2013)

NYC Composer @ Wed Dec 25 said:


> What is it exactly that makes a debate 'impoverished?" Why is an opinion from one intelligent person more worthy than the opinion of another? Do you really believe, Guy, that general agreement with a peer group equals "correct?" There are so many repugnant examples of groupthink throughout human history.
> 
> I vehemently disagree with both the substance and the tenor of your argument, and I know this sounds critical, but I bring it to your attention anyway- your reaction to your failure to convince people of the obvious rectitude of your opinion comes off as petulant and strange. Passionate argument is great until it sets out to belittle the intelligence of those who don't share your view. "They must be incorrect because they haven't thought it through"?? That indicates an oddly overweening need for agreement on a completely subjective matter!
> 
> I'd understand this better if you were a film maker or a professional film critic, but as far as i know , you're just one of the Guys. :wink:



Morning Larry and Happy Christmas!

My basic point is that this has received near universal critical acclaim, and I've posted links with well argued articulate reviews. Of course all views will differ and quite right too - and to be fair there have been some more substantial responses here beyond hand-waving dismissal. There just seemed a huge disconnect between the general public and critical praise for - at the very least- a highly unusual blockbuster, and the overt or covert response form some here that if you even liked Gravity you don't know what a good movie is.

That's all, merry Christmas to all. We're relieved here - my studio at the back of the house came within feet of a major flood, so I think I'm done with this increasingly circular debate for now


----------



## Lex (Dec 25, 2013)

choc0thrax @ Fri Dec 20 said:


> Guy Rowland @ Fri Dec 20 said:
> 
> 
> > Gravity polled Film Of The Year among Guardian readers, an eclectic bunch if ever there were - a "clear winner".
> ...



I love that movie, and I'm surprised to see it on the list. I thought vast majority of the world hated it, like you do. 

alex


----------



## choc0thrax (Dec 25, 2013)

Lex @ Wed Dec 25 said:


> choc0thrax @ Fri Dec 20 said:
> 
> 
> > Guy Rowland @ Fri Dec 20 said:
> ...



And aren't you the guy who says Alien3 is the best of the series? You have an uh interesting taste in films. 8)


----------



## TGV (Dec 25, 2013)

Guy Rowland @ Sat Dec 21 said:


> Ha! Here's my thinking. Saw the movie, thought - wow, exceptional execution, bringing something new to cinema, great tense exciting lean narrative. Then saw the reviews all agreed. Excited that an unusual, skillful thrillride blockbuster connected with its audience and made a crate of money. After a gazillion utterly tedious joyless superhero movies, it was something of a new hope for blockbusters.


Yes, Gravity surely is one of the better blockbusters. But that doesn't make it a good movie in comparison to (20 random selections from my 4.5 or 5 star movie list now in alphabetical order):

Amadeus
Casablanca
Lives of Others, The (Das leben der Anderen)
Lost in Translation
Matrix, The
Memento
Monty Python's Life of Brian
Open Your Eyes (Abre los ojos)
Pleasantville
Shine
South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut
State and Main
Talk to Her (Hable con Ella)
Team America: World Police
Thin Man, The
Torrente, el brazo tonto de la ley
Twelve Monkeys
Volver

Some of these were blockbusters, and they are much better than Gravity, IMO. There's no snobbery or cultural entitlement involved. It has been very good for Cuáron, but --as I said before-- the problem with Gravity is precisely that its narrative is "lean", as you beneficially call it. I want more in a movie in order to label it "good". That requires some form of intellectual or emotional argument. A movie can compensate some of that by having good action, cinematography, acting, or just working as a movie. Gravity only succeeds in the cinematography part; it loses points for the cheesy will-to-live act. You seem to favor action and unexpected visuals. Fine. But don't call anyone who thinks story telling can be better than that intellectually impoverished.

Anyway, good to hear your studio escaped from a flood. Try to put up some kind of defense for the next flood (because it will surely come)!


----------



## NYC Composer (Dec 25, 2013)

I'm relieved to hear you and your studio escaped the flood, Guy! Cheers and Merry Christmas.


----------



## AC986 (Dec 25, 2013)

Saw a great one today hadn't seen for years. 

The Spiral Staircase. Great score from Roy Webb too. Early indications of film noir to come.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Feb 17, 2014)

Congrats to Steven Price on the BAFTA for Gravity's score last night, 1 of 6 awards for the movie. Still don't get why Gravity (Warner Bros) qualifies as a British film while 12 Years A Slave (Film 4) doesn't though...


----------



## AC986 (Feb 17, 2014)

6 BAFTAs for Gravity figures when you think about it.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Mar 3, 2014)

And congrats again Steven Price. Great also too see the sound mixing and effects going to Gravity, along with the expected vfx.

The problem with the Oscars though it seems to me is that people have got much better at predicting them, so the night itself - when it unfolds exactly as expected - seems like a letdown. Didn't see it (behind a paywall), but Ellen had some good gags though.


----------



## NYC Composer (Mar 3, 2014)

I thought Sandra looked a little stunned, but I always assumed they knew in advance?

Once Cuaron got the best Director nod, I figured surely Gravity would follow with a win.


----------



## AC986 (Mar 4, 2014)

I always thought Sandra looked stunned under normal circumstances.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 4, 2014)

haha


----------



## AC986 (Mar 5, 2014)

I just had a look at all my Oscar picks. Didn't get one right. That's almost impossible when you think about it. Haha! I went down the bookies and did my bollocks once again.
One day all the long shots will come in.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Apr 9, 2014)

Finally saw this fillm,. Can't imagine why so many dissed it, terrific film. Score was unremarkable musically but worked great with the film, Sandy Bullock was terrific.

Not the best film of the year, the right one won that, but a fine effort ll around IMHO.

Of course, it was no Man Of Steel


----------



## Jerome Vonhogen (Apr 9, 2014)

EastWest Lurker @ Thu Apr 10 said:


> Sandy Bullock was terrific



Really? I thought this was just another one of her movies where, for some reason, she ends up behind the wheel of a fast moving vehicle that is totally out of control, and where she miraculously survives the ordeal while other innocent people die.

Despite her valiant attempts to save the day, and look innocent and naïve at the same time, i can't help but feeling that somehow this is all her fault.  

Here's a couple of things that bothered me in this movie: I didn't like the lack of a substantial story, I didn't like the absence of interesting characters, there was no emotion in the acting due to the annoying habitual mannerisms of the actors, I thought the dialogues and monologues were poorly written, and I didn't like the sound/music either. I thought this movie was a missed opportunity of astronomical proportions. :( 

Just my 2 cents.

- Jerome Vonhögen


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Apr 9, 2014)

Jerome Vonhogen @ Wed Apr 09 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Thu Apr 10 said:
> 
> 
> > Sandy Bullock was terrific
> ...



I thought the story was acceptable for what it is after all an action film. I found Sandra's characters back story with her daughter somewhat revealing, although not deep, and Sandy made me care about her. Clooney was, as he always is, funny and charming. What you call "annoying mannerisms" I think are perhaps the very traits that lead to them both being popular actors with audiences.

Anyway, good popcorn movie in my view and a relief from the tiresome superhero stuff.


----------



## reddognoyz (Apr 10, 2014)

best popcorn movie of the year, and treat the preposterous story as an allegory. If a bear ate her at the very end, it would've been perfect : )

most effective scenes I've seen in a long while.

sick of giant fuzzy cgi monsters throwing cars, reminds me of when samplers first came out and composers whnt overboard with the possibilities. guilty as charged btw


----------



## Guy Rowland (Apr 10, 2014)

I saw the first ep of Believe last week from the same team as Gravity pretty much - Cuaron directing, Stephen Price composer. Sad to report it was terribly derivative, despite a trademark claustraophobic long take opening shot, there was little really to commend it (wasn't there a Keifer Sutherland series recently with an almost identical premise which itself felt very derivative?). And the score.... pains me to say it, but very generic. My search for the next replacement for Breaking Bad goes on... yes I know True Detective is probably the one, but still unable to watch it here in the UK a) legally b) with decent sound and picture and c) not on Murdoch's Sky empire. Will probably wait for DVD.

Made me appreciate the artistic risks taken in Gravity all the more. I keep thinking about how a typical action score alone would alone have pretty much sunk the film.


----------



## NYC Composer (Apr 11, 2014)

I think the implausible re- entry and triumphant survival said it all.

I don't want Sandy eaten by a bear- she seems far too nice for all that gore. Burning up into a Sandy-crisp on re-entry, however, and then having a ghostly reunion with Clooney- now THAT would have made me shiver with pleasure :wink: 

Couldn't she have at least lost a limb or something?


----------



## jaeroe (Apr 11, 2014)

Cuaron discussed in some interviews the idea of the having debris land on her after she sets foot on land. that would have been something!


----------



## Jerome Vonhogen (Apr 11, 2014)

Or, instead of a 'ghostly reunion' with Clooney, she would land on top of Clooney, the actor-in-real-life. Now that would be something!

- Jerome


----------



## Hannes_F (Apr 11, 2014)

I did not read the whole thread and maybe it was mentioned already but I thought this was pretty good:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gw79smKZB9E


----------



## Jerome Vonhogen (Apr 11, 2014)

Hannes_F @ Fri Apr 11 said:


> I did not read the whole thread and maybe it was mentioned already but I thought this was pretty good:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gw79smKZB9E




Brilliant! :D


----------



## Resoded (Apr 11, 2014)

Hannes_F @ 11th April 2014 said:


> I did not read the whole thread and maybe it was mentioned already but I thought this was pretty good:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gw79smKZB9E



Haha, thanks for posting that. Brilliant.


----------



## NYC Composer (Apr 11, 2014)

That's SUPER- brilliant! :D


----------



## Guy Rowland (Apr 11, 2014)

NYC Composer @ Fri Apr 11 said:


> That's SUPER- brilliant! :D



SPOILER ALERT FOR THE YOUTUBE CLIP

Anyone else notice that they used the Williams superman theme and Christopher Reeve for the gag, despite two franchise reboots?


----------



## Jerome Vonhogen (Apr 11, 2014)

Guy Rowland @ Fri Apr 11 said:


> NYC Composer @ Fri Apr 11 said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone else notice that they used the (......) theme and C. R. for the gag, despite two franchise reboots?


Yes, but that's because http://vimeo.com/25920756 (Bicycle Repairman) was unavailable. As you may have heard, he is getting ready for his first solo tour this autumn. :mrgreen: 

- Jerome Vonhögen


----------

