Interstellar (2014 film directed by Christopher Nolan)

[KK 3,202]

That is a dark road pilgrim! That path will seek to destroy you.

[Hurmm 85]

In 10 years' time I doubt Gravity will be as well regarded as it is now.

[KK 3,202]

It's not a movie for the ages. But that doesn't mean it's not a good movie.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,765]

I haven't seen Gravity. Any good?

[mrbellamy 5,231]

Gravity is a must-see experience on the big screen. But I grant you that it doesn't have much replay value at home. It is an admirable feat though, one that I personally enjoyed sitting through.

- Proud Idiot

Personally, I saw it in IMAX 3D, standard 2D, and then again at home and I enjoyed it more every time. I think it holds up extremely well on a small screen. I can see where the gripes against it are coming from, but I think its general simplicity and sort of cheesy, on-the-nose treatment of its thematic ideas work almost completely in its favor. I see it as a terribly old-fashioned movie -- the original title was Gravity: A Space Adventure in 3D, after all -- by a director who fancies himself something of a modernist and I think those warring tendencies turned out something rather unique and hugely entertaining. I found it optimistic and moving, breathlessly paced, lasts exactly as long as it should, Sandra Bullock is really wonderful at its center....more than anything, for me it's pretty easily the most thrilling, wholly satisfying, and just-strange-enough piece of razzle-dazzle cinema since Lord of the Rings.

[Koray Savas 2,095]

Gravity is a technical masterpiece. The best special effects in the history of film.

[Not Mr. Big 3,589]

Gravity is a technical masterpiece. The best special effects in the history of film.

Okay, that's pushing it. Sure they're great, but they're not the greatest ever.

[Koray Savas 2,095]

Yeah they are. 99.9% of that film is hand crafted CGI and its breathtaking the amount of work that went into it.

[KK 3,202]

Well said mrbellamy!

[Dixon Hill 4,229]

Yeah but CGI is so boring.

[King Mark 2,924]

At least it was convincing

[mrbellamy 5,231]

Then why are you so excited for this movie?

[KK 3,202]

Yeah but CGI is so boring.

Not in the hands of Cuaron.

Gravity was the first big CG flick in years that truly takes your breath away in its spectacle.

[Dixon Hill 4,229]

Then why are you so excited for this movie?

Me, for Interstellar?

Because it's not merely a vehicle for the CGI (what little there is). Not even close.

[KK 3,202]

Yeah. Nolan's gone out of his way to use as little CGI as possible.

But through Gravity, Cuaron shows how to use CGI properly, and demonstrates that relying on that tool doesn't necessarily have to be a fault (as it is with most blockbuster pics).

[Unlucky Bastard 7,765]

If it's not created in a computer, it's not worth watching!

[King Mark 2,924]

All I've seen is a bleak planet with grey rock and water.

[Dixon Hill 4,229]

That's because they're not shoving any of the serious money shots in your face like the marketing for most films does. Seriously dude, even if you've watched all the trailers and tv spots, you've seen like... 8 minutes of the movie?

[mrbellamy 5,231]

Then why are you so excited for this movie?

Me, for Interstellar?

Because it's not merely a vehicle for the CGI (what little there is). Not even close.

Obviously, though there'll still be plenty of it (yes I realize "only" 600 VFX shots compared to the 1500 in other CGI-laden movies). My point is "CGI is boring" isn't a compelling argument anymore. CGI isn't boring. People who use CGI in boring ways in their boring movies are boring.

[King Mark 2,924]

Maybe that's why superhero films are getting boring

[Dixon Hill 4,229]

Then why are you so excited for this movie?

Me, for Interstellar?

Because it's not merely a vehicle for the CGI (what little there is). Not even close.

Obviously, though there'll still be plenty of it (yes I realize "only" 600 VFX shots compared to the 1500 in other CGI-laden movies). My point is "CGI is boring" isn't a compelling argument anymore. CGI isn't boring. People who use CGI in boring ways in their boring movies are boring.

Semantics.

CGI (when used boringly) is boring.

[Not Mr. Big 3,589]

CGI is only interesting when Christopher Nolan uses it.

[Dixon Hill 4,229]

You fucking fanboy, shut your goddamn mouth.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,251]

Gravity was stylized shit, and anyone who liked it is an idiot.

Piss off!

[Unlucky Bastard 7,765]

Then why are you so excited for this movie?

Me, for Interstellar?

Because it's not merely a vehicle for the CGI (what little there is). Not even close.

Obviously, though there'll still be plenty of it (yes I realize "only" 600 VFX shots compared to the 1500 in other CGI-laden movies). My point is "CGI is boring" isn't a compelling argument anymore. CGI isn't boring. People who use CGI in boring ways in their boring movies are boring.

Like LOTR!

[Dixon Hill 4,229]

Then why are you so excited for this movie?

Me, for Interstellar?

Because it's not merely a vehicle for the CGI (what little there is). Not even close.

Obviously, though there'll still be plenty of it (yes I realize "only" 600 VFX shots compared to the 1500 in other CGI-laden movies). My point is "CGI is boring" isn't a compelling argument anymore. CGI isn't boring. People who use CGI in boring ways in their boring movies are boring.

Like LOTR!

[AC1 3,565]

Gravity is a must-see experience on the big screen. But I grant you that it doesn't have much replay value at home. It is an admirable feat though, one that I personally enjoyed sitting through.

- Proud Idiot

Personally, I've only seen it at home (HD streaming), and I agree, half through the movie I realized, I don't wanna see it again. But then the question arises, if it doesn't have any replay value, how good can it be (even for those who loved it?)

[King Mark 2,924]

well it might, but I rarely watch any movie twice now anyways

[publicist 4,484]

Personally, I've only seen it at home (HD streaming), and I agree, half through the movie I realized, I don't wanna see it again. But then the question arises, if it doesn't have any replay value, how good can it be (even for those who loved it?)

If it entertains, stuns or dazzles me on first viewing, what difference does it make? It's not a deep thesis designed to withstand the centuries.

[crocodile 6,294]

Whether I want to see (or hear, for that matter) something again is sort of crucial to me, pub.

Karol

[publicist 4,484]

Why dwell on it? If it invites you for repeat viewings, great. If it like - say - AVATAR is clear after you've left the cinema that it was a great experience you never need to see again (or feel the initial dazzle) why hold that against the movie?

I saw GRAVITY on Imax, found it immensely engrossing for 60 minutes and tuned out by the inevitable uplifting climax but still, i was happy afterwards and wanted to urge other people to see it. Happens not very often...

[AC1 3,565]

Personally, I've only seen it at home (HD streaming), and I agree, half through the movie I realized, I don't wanna see it again. But then the question arises, if it doesn't have any replay value, how good can it be (even for those who loved it?)

If it entertains, stuns or dazzles me on first viewing, what difference does it make? It's not a deep thesis designed to withstand the centuries.

That's just it, it didn't stun or dazzle me. If it did, I would want to experience it all again. There were too many off-putting moments in it that made me think "This is just a one-time movie". To me a great movie is when I want to see it again.

'Dwelling' has nothing to do with it. 'Dwelling' is not the only reason why people revisit a movie.

[Quintus 5,391]

The struggles of life

[Sharkissimo 1,971]

First clip:

Why is everything white so green?

The digital grading on this film is fucked.

[mrbellamy 5,231]

Gravity is a must-see experience on the big screen. But I grant you that it doesn't have much replay value at home. It is an admirable feat though, one that I personally enjoyed sitting through.

- Proud Idiot

Personally, I've only seen it at home (HD streaming), and I agree, half through the movie I realized, I don't wanna see it again. But then the question arises, if it doesn't have any replay value, how good can it be (even for those who loved it?)

Again, speaking for myself, it's one of the few movies that I knew I wanted to see again right when it was over and the only one I saw twice in a cinema last year. I would argue it's an incredibly easy movie to replay for those of us who enjoyed it...pretty brisk entertainment, great spectacle, only 90 minutes, a solid emotional center, and just fun to watch. It's not particularly stimulating intellectually but so what? I think it's packed with sequences and moments that reward on a purely visceral level multiple times, not far off from something like Die Hard or Raiders of the Lost Ark for me at all. I think it definitely follows in that tradition and does it far more expertly and with greater economy than just about every action film that has tried since then.

[Dixon Hill 4,229]

First clip:

Why is everything white so green?

The digital grading on this film is fucked.

Nobody cares. It's YouTube. The office in that scene has looked different in every trailer and commercial it's been shown in.

[Sharkissimo 1,971]

First clip:

Why is everything white so green?

The digital grading on this film is fucked.

Nobody cares. It's YouTube. The office in that scene has looked different in every trailer and commercial it's been shown in.

Trailers always do. Clips show the film once it's been graded through DI. This is the end product!

[Dixon Hill 4,229]

NO U

[crocodile 6,294]

Interesting two profiles of Christopher Nolan can be found here and here.

Karol

[AC1 3,565]

Gravity is a must-see experience on the big screen. But I grant you that it doesn't have much replay value at home. It is an admirable feat though, one that I personally enjoyed sitting through.

- Proud Idiot

Personally, I've only seen it at home (HD streaming), and I agree, half through the movie I realized, I don't wanna see it again. But then the question arises, if it doesn't have any replay value, how good can it be (even for those who loved it?)

Again, speaking for myself, it's one of the few movies that I knew I wanted to see again right when it was over and the only one I saw twice in a cinema last year. I would argue it's an incredibly easy movie to replay for those of us who enjoyed it...pretty brisk entertainment, great spectacle, only 90 minutes, a solid emotional center, and just fun to watch. It's not particularly stimulating intellectually but so what? I think it's packed with sequences and moments that reward on a purely visceral level multiple times, not far off from something like Die Hard or Raiders of the Lost Ark for me at all. I think it definitely follows in that tradition and does it far more expertly and with greater economy than just about every action film that has tried since then.

It was just a response to those who say that said it was quite an experience but have no need to see it again. I'm sure there's plenty of people who watched it a dozen times already and who have placed it into their personal top 10 best movies ever. BTW, that's an interesting correlation you made there with Die Hard and Raiders.

Alex

[nightscape94 965]

Yikes, the set-up for that clip sounds ridiculous.

[Koray Savas 2,095]

Bought my tickets for a 70mm IMAX showing at the Air And Space Museum this Sunday.

[AC1 3,565]

Talking about IMAX, here's the poster:

[Quintus 5,391]

That shouts CHECK OUT OUR CONTRASTING THEMES.

[Koray Savas 2,095]

That's the best poster yet.

[KK 3,202]

It's a great poster. But I'm pretty sure its fan-made, no?

[Hurmm 85]

That's a bad poster. Like one of the millions of flat minimalistic wallpapers for smart phones you can find on the net.

[Not Mr. Big 3,589]

Agreed. This style of poster was cool when it first appeared but after its 10,000th iteration, the appeal is starting to wear off.

[KK 3,202]

Was supposed to have started 5 min ago, still waiting...

[Koray Savas 2,095]

It's a great poster. But I'm pretty sure its fan-made, no?

Looks like a Mondo.