Film review: Gravity

[Hellbent]

Uninspired casting aside, I thought it was a very good film. I think it would have benefited from no-name actors in the lead roles, carefully selected based on auditions that show they can perform the sort of acting the film required (Sandra Bullock... not so much). George Clooney was good, tho. Special effects/camera work were pretty much top notch. A 3D film where the 3D really improves the experience.

EDIT: here is a better consumer review that articulates my sentiments exactly:

See this in IMAX 3D. Visually, it is easily the best looking movie of the year. There are several scenes where I was left speechless. The pacing is excellent, understanding when to slow down and when to send the senses on a roller coaster. It is a real gem, considering some of the horrible movies this year. (See Paranoia and Getaway). Although there are moments where the movie touches the viewer on an emotional level, it is only short-lived and is very underdeveloped. In conclusion, Gravity is a visually brilliant movie about perseverance even in the gravest situations. However, the human story gets lost in space along with our senses.
Source:rottentomatoes.com

[Zed]

OK, just saw it a couple of hours ago. I agree with the review on rottentomatoes.com, so I'll just add my "ratings":

Visual effects: 9. Not the best I've seen, but still very, very good.
Story: 7. Predictable up to a certain point. A couple of surprises though.
Acting: 7.5. Sandra Bullock does a good job, but is far from perfect.

So, basically, don't expect a breathtaking movie, but it's still entertaining. The end is somehow "unexpected", and there are some cool looking sequences. Would I recommend it? Yes, it's overall a good movie, and you can expect a good time, despite some minor drawbacks. Go watch it and judge for yourselves. Good night.

[geo]

As an outsider who has never seen it.... Is it just like Buried with Ryan Reynolds but in space?

[Zed]

Well, in a sense you may say so: it has that "survival" element, but they are completely different movies. I don't know how to explain it without spoiling too much. I would say that the story is better in Buried, but the visual effects in Gravity are far superior.

[Hellbent]

Zed said:

Visual effects: 9. Not the best I've seen, but still very, very good.

What film has better?

[Zed]

Hellbent said:

What film has better?

Avatar. The plot is shit. The acting is shit. The visual effects are amazing. But I must insist: Gravity still has some incredible effects.

[Hellbent]

Yeah, thought Avatar might be the film you were thinking of. It did have impressive effects. I haven't seen that film in awhile, but I guess since it's fantastical where Gravity isn't, I felt it was harder to tell what was CG in Gravity than Avatar, so that to me is a major criteria for good effects--that I can't tell they're effects.

[fraggle]

I recently saw Man of Steel (new Superman film) while on a plane flight. The first ~40 minutes of it were pretty good, but after that it just descends into an hour and a half of non-stop action: things being smashed up, exploding, people being thrown through buildings, etc. I actually ended up feeling *bored* by the end. After a while it just becomes tedious and repetitive.

About 2/3rds of the way through the movie I realised why: this is a 3D film. There are all these fast-paced action scenes, explosions etc. because that probably "looks good" in 3D. But in terms of the overall film, it just ruins it: whereas the classic Superman films from the '80s are memorable for having interesting plots and character development, any attempt at that in this film (and it's clear they were at least trying) takes second stage to fancy 3D and CGI effects that dominate the film.

I'd recommend watching Man of Steel just to see for yourself what I mean. It's a great example of how gimmicks and special effects can ruin a movie.