Gravity 3D blu ray Triple Play £15.50 (SPOILER ALERT)

[BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW]

Mate, it's a film

I get your point. Still don't rate it though.

 

[BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW]

It's funny as I was reading an article only yesterday that was commenting on all the criticism the latest Robert Redford film (when he's stuck on a boat or something) has received.

I'd like to see that film, anyone seen it?

 

[John Duncan]

I don't hate Gravity, but I can't quite understand why it's so highly rated.

For me, it was because it contained astonishing cinematography, the likes of which I've never seen. I can forgive it a lack of plot because of that.

Moon, was a better movie, far better.

What are the odds of it happening though?

 

[BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW]

I don't hate Gravity, but I can't quite understand why it's so highly rated.

For me, it was because it contained astonishing cinematography, the likes of which I've never seen. I can forgive it a lack of plot because of that.

Moon, was a better movie, far better.

What are the odds of it happening though?

:shhh:

It's set in the future, so who knows, but certainly more likely than landing on earth in the sea, but within yards of land.

 

[hammill]

I watched Despicable Me 2 last night. What are the odds of Gru being able to stand up with legs that thin?

Now that was a good film.

 

[John Duncan]

It's set in the future, so who knows, but certainly more likely than landing on earth in the sea, but within yards of land.

Clicky

(WARNING: contains Moon spoilers)

 

[BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW]

It's set in the future, so who knows, but certainly more likely than landing on earth in the sea, but within yards of land.

Clicky

(WARNING: contains Moon spoilers)

I didn't say it was possible, just more likely than Sandra Bullock going through all that she did, and still landing safely on the earth so close to land unharmed.

Though obviously, I can't back this up with statistics.

 

[Frank Harvey]

Also on a separate note......

I watched 444 films during 2013

I'm not disputing the fact in any way shape or form but I am most curious as to how you can be so accurate as 444 is quite a lot :?

I log them on Letterboxd, so it is quite easy to filter my 'film diary' for a given period of time. I think there might have been a few more though which I may not have posted up for a week or two, so forgot what they were so they're not logged.

 

[BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW]

Letterboxd

Looks a good site, and I've already spotted a few films I's like to see.

 

[John Duncan]

Though obviously, I can't back this up with statistics.

There are about 217,500 miles of coastline in the world, and the surface area of the earth is about 197,000,000 miles. So simplistically, there is a strip of water with an area of 217,500 square miles she would have to land in to be within a mile of land. That's a chance of 0.1%, assuming that her landing point was determined by absolute chance (as opposed to being determined by the landing craft knowing where it's supposed to go, or having an orbit which improved her chances, both of which are possible).

Obviously her odds get better if she lands within 2 miles of land, 3 miles of land etc, and ignores inland waterways. Less than 1%, but she was due a break, I'd say...

EDIT - course, her odds of landing on...er...land are about 29%, would that have been acceptable?

 

[BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW]

but she was due a break, I'd say...

You mean after all the other breaks she got.

I'm stopping now; you like it, and I didn't.

 

[buzz_lightclick]

You like unrealistic hollywood endings then?

I don't really see Gravity as a typical Hollywood movie.

I don't wish to rip it apart, but there was no possible way they would have survived the first debris strike travelling at the speed it was, let alone another one. And landing in the sea so close to the shore, do you know the odds on that? No, I don't either, but it's at best, extremely unlikely

I thought she landed in a lake?

In any case, the director pointed out that it is not a documentary, it is a movie, so things do happen that cannot in reality.

 

[John Duncan]

I thought she landed in a lake?

In which case, the surface area of freshwater lakes on earth is about 330,000 square miles, so her odds are even better. If you add the two together, we're probably looking at odds of about 500 to 1 of landing in water, close to land.

And let's face it, the chances of anything coming from Mars are a million to one, and yet - as anyone who has seen War Of The Worlds will attest - still they come.

 

[BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW]

And let's face it, the chances of anything coming from Mars are a million to one, and yet - as anyone who has seen War Of The Worlds will attest - still they come.

And the chances of Jeff Wayne writing something new, are a million to one.

 

[strapped for cash]

Issues of plausibility aside, I thought Gravity was pretty shallow.

The comparisons with 2001 and "subtext" some reviewers discussed suggested depth the film ultimately lacked.

The protagonist must achieve catharsis to escape peril narrative was screenwriting 101; while the rebirth visual metaphors said nothing insightful about the human condition.

There was also nothing on offer of existential import, save for religious iconography shoehorned in to persuade audiences and critics that the film had something worthwhile to say. In short, there's little one can take away from the film.

All of this is fine, as long as we recognise Gravity for what it is, namely a vehicle for groundbreaking visual effects. The narrative (of sorts) provided countless opportunities for complex scatterings of debris, which not coincidentally look particularly arresting in 3D.

I'm perfectly happy to enjoy the film as an impressive technical achievement, though I disagree with hyperbolic claims that this is one of the greatest films ever made.

None of this matters, however, since the film has been hugely successful at the box office, and will be equally successful on home video.

 

[strapped for cash]

444 films during 2013.

I'm not sure if you're being whimsical here. If not, how have you possibly kept track? I'm imagining flow charts, mapping and cross-referencing the films you've seen.

 

[simonlewis]

Have you read the thread stapped for cash second post down on page three.

 

[Ravey Gravey Davy]

The protagonist must achieve catharsis to escape peril narrative was screenwriting 101; while the rebirth visual metaphors said nothing insightful about the human condition.

There was also nothing on offer of existential import, save for religious iconography shoehorned in to persuade audiences and critics that the film had something worthwhile to say. In short, there's little one can take away from the film.

I was really looking forward to seeing this but if there's no catharsis and lots of shoehorned religious iconography then I'm not bothering.

Silent Witness for me.

 

[strapped for cash]

Have you read the thread stapped for cash second post down on page three.

Ah, must have skipped past that post...

 

[BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW]

444 films during 2013.

I'm not sure if you're being whimsical here. If not, how have you possibly kept track?

Letterboxd

 

[strapped for cash]

if there's no catharsis and lots of shoehorned religious iconography

Oh there's catharsis. There usually is with mainstream cinema. And there's relatively little religious iconography. Hopefully I haven't put you off.

Uninteresting visual cues aside, it's a knuckle-whitening, palpitation-inducing thrill ride! (Apparently.)

It probably sounds like I hated the film. I actually quite enjoyed it, though I object to marketing efforts masquerading as film criticism.

 

[John Duncan]

Issues of plausibility aside, I thought Gravity was pretty shallow.

The comparisons with 2001 and "subtext" some reviewers discussed suggested depth the film ultimately lacked.

The protagonist must achieve catharsis to escape peril narrative was screenwriting 101; while the rebirth visual metaphors said nothing insightful about the human condition.

There was also nothing on offer of existential import, save for religious iconography shoehorned in to persuade audiences and critics that the film had something worthwhile to say. In short, there's little one can take away from the film.

All of this is fine, as long as we recognise Gravity for what it is, namely a vehicle for groundbreaking visual effects. The narrative (of sorts) provided countless opportunities for complex scatterings of debris, which not coincidentally look particularly arresting in 3D.

I'm perfectly happy to enjoy the film as an impressive technical achievement, though I disagree with hyperbolic claims that this is one of the greatest films ever made.

None of this matters, however, since the film has been hugely successful at the box office, and will be equally successful on home video.

I can't disagree with you, but i guess it depends on what one means by 'film' and 'great' - I can be just as moved by visual brio as any other aspect, and I challenge you to find a film which has the best everything - plot, acting, technical prowess - as opposed to one or two of the three. In other words, if a film is an exceptional technical achievement (but not much story) is it any less 'great' than a film which has an extraordinary screenplay, but is filmed on 16mm?

 

[Ravey Gravey Davy]

Oh there's catharsis. There usually is with mainstream cinema. And there's relatively little religious iconography. Hopefully I haven't put you off.

Nah-was going to watch it anyway-just joshing in a bored sort of Friday night way.

 

[mr malarky]

You like unrealistic hollywood endings then?

I don't really see Gravity as a typical Hollywood movie.

I don't wish to rip it apart, but there was no possible way they would have survived the first debris strike travelling at the speed it was, let alone another one. And landing in the sea so close to the shore, do you know the odds on that? No, I don't either, but it's at best, extremely unlikely

Erm, Spoiler Alert???

 

[simonlewis]

I must admit i haven't seen it it yet although i have ordered it from amazon, i can't wait.