Netphoria Message Board


Go Back   Netphoria Message Board > Archives > General Chat Archive
Register Netphoria's Amazon.com Link Members List Photo Album Mark Forums Read

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-23-2013, 05:13 AM   #1
sickbadthing
Out fart the hottie!
 
sickbadthing's Avatar
 
Location: I have super gonorrhoea
Posts: 24,318
Default I like it when IMDB and Gravity HATE combines

This film does not hold up outside of the theater. I watched in at home yesterday on a 42” screen and it is not spectacular. I can see that the cinematography may look great in theaters but on DVD it just seems average.

In my opinion, the film has horrible character development and a really bad script.

George Clooney= way too calm to be floating around in space and if you are really that low on oxygen then you should not be talking
Sandra Bullock= tiniest violin in the world playing for her problems.

If you saw the preview then you know ½ the action that takes place in the film.


Best films of the year:
Dallas Buyers Club
Nebraska
The Spectacular Now
Frances Ha
12 Years a Slave
The Canyons (I know… but Bret Easton Ellis)

Still need to see:
The Wolf of Wall Street
American Hustle

I convinced my husband to go see this movie solely based on the astoundingly high rating on IMDb.com (currently 8.6)--even though it looked absolutely pathetic in previews. I laughed when I read the "spoiler" disclaimer--there is no plot in this movie to spoil!! Seriously, I couldn't tell you what the point of this stupid film was.

What most angers me is that it has this collective 8.6 rating on IMDb.com and we would NEVER have wasted time and money if it weren't for this site, which we trusted prior to this. I don't know who paid and how much they paid, or what favors they called in (maybe they have incriminating evidence against someone high up in the company??) to get this film rated this high. I can't imagine anyone giving this film higher than a 5 (and that would be just because they are fans of Clooney and/or Bullock). SHAME ON IMDb and/or anyone involved in perpetuating these false reviews/ratings.

In comparison, these are the ratings of other space movies that are far and away better than Gravity: 2001 A Space Odyssey 8.3, Apollo 13 7.5, The Right Stuff 7.9, Moon 7.9, Sunshine 7.2, Solaris (1972) 8.0, Alien/Aliens 8.5, Armageddon 6.4 (not arguing the rating, just that it is WAAAAAYYYY better than Gravity) and lastly, Gravity is currently ranking about the same or better than all of the Star Wars/Star Trek movies--SERIOUSLY???!!!!

By the end of the movie I wanted to beat myself for a) not trusting my instincts, b) sitting through one of the all-time worst movies I've ever seen (prior to this that honor was held by "The Amazing Panda Adventure"), c) spending precious dollars--even one! for this crap and d) dragging my good sport of a husband who isn't a fan of space/sci-fi films to this show and wasting precious marriage capital!

Sandra Bullock must be dragging the bottom of the barrel. She already starred in two movies this year so awful, ridiculous and denigrating to anyone with even a shred of talent that I can't believe she went for a third this bad. There was absolutely nothing redeeming about this movie other than a few good special effects (but not even enough of those to warrant a mention).

Did those who've written glowing reviews of Gravity see the same movie I did? Look, I wanted to like this flick, I really did. And I don't want to rag on it, but if you're going to make a dramatic science thriller, you had better get it right or expect to catch it from the smart people. Despite the cosmic setting, the only star I can give Gravity is for the computer generated graphics.That said, this is not a movie for intellectuals and those of a scientific bent will be sorely disappointed. What made Ron Howard's Apollo 13 so gripping was its dramatic realism and superb acting. Unfortunately, none of those adjectives applies to Gravity, with the possible exception of some drama. However, for thinkers, effective drama requires an intellectual investment in the credibility of the story, the characters and the interaction between them. Intelligent humans need to believe that what is being depicted could actually happen. Unfortunately, the events depicted in Gravity are likely to alienate anyone with an above average IQ. Once one has acknowledged the impressive graphics, any anticipation of emotional investment is quickly dashed to smithereens by the unbelievably vapid and inane dialog. It is painfully obvious that someone with a double-digit scientific IQ appears to have awoken one morning and haphazardly decided to write a "space movie". The physics are off, the events highly improbable. The entire story demands a suspension of belief in reality. Worst of all, the dialog and interaction between the characters is so juvenile that anyone with a brain gets the immediate impression that the project is the product of sophomoric show-biz types who think that the way to move the product is to recycle hackneyed clichés, shiny objects and big explosions. Bullock's character, Dr. Ryan Stone, is so unprepared and emotionally disabled by adversity that it is impossible to believe that she would have been selected as a mission specialist. Yet, she manages to flit from one space wreck to another and yet another. She consults operation manuals in Russian and, later, Chinese, yet she is heard muttering "eeny meeny miney mo" while haphazardly pushing control buttons like some clueless chimpanzee. The space vehicle's communication equipment fails to pick up "Houston Control", yet, miraculously, is able to receive a bizarre Chinese comedy and howling dogs, which Bullock's character feels compelled to imitate. Clooney's character, Matt Kowalski, is such a clichéd hero that he is depicted as nonchalantly jesting with the hysterical Dr. Stone while he himself is drifting into a desperately life-ending situation. We are expected to believe that, despite having trained intimately together for this mission, these characters address each other by their formal titles and make clichéd announcements back to a non-responsive mission control. Kowalksi has waited until he's drifting to his death to ask where Dr. Stone is from and if she has any kids. Finally, director Cuaron makes a supremely lame attempt at cinematic iconography depicting Bullock floating in a fetal position, a la Kubrick's Space Odessey. And after having had such a bad day and having plunged to Earth in a flaming meteor-like reentry, Stone emerges, unscathed and barefoot mind you, from the ocean onto an idyllic, uninhabited beach like some primal human emerging from the sea. Now, I feel bad about feeling bad about this movie. And I respect Ms. Bullock and Mr. Clooney as actors. However, it is my humble opinion that actors must assume some responsibility for the roles they accept. This movie was so cringe-worthy that the only reason I sat through it was to see how ridiculous it would get. Alas, other than the black hole into whose abyss was irretrievably sucked away any hope I once had for discovering intelligent life in this movie, "Gravity" lacked gravitas.

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The short version: Gravity is a real stinker ... what's all the hype? Clichéd, BORING,technically lame, not worth 3-D, and beyond Bullock's abilities ... Don't waste your $$.

The longer version: WHY is this movie receiving so much hype? What a LOSER! Not only is it BORING, but dishonors the brave men and women who are REAL astronauts. Sorry, Neil Armstrong ... not even a BABY STEP for mankind in this stinker.

Every possible cliché is at work here: the damsel in distress, the "strip" of the damsel, the depression of the damsel, the refusal of the damsel to obey orders, the damsel repeatedly wailing "what do I do nowwwwww?", etc. How this lame-o "brilliant medical engineer" EVER qualified to be an astronaut is not explained (must be due to all the budget cut-backs).

Similarly, the other "astronaut," George Clooney, a know-it-all wise guy, suicidally releases himself into deep space early on for no good reason ... so we're stuck with Ms. Lame-o and weak special effects for most of the movie ...

Said damsel is the flyweight actress Sandra Bullock -- whining, preceding every other line with a snurfff (Best Boy! get that woman some Benadryl!), and heavy breathing sum up her portrayal. You wouldn't want HER along as a member of the team, well, anywhere ... even Disney World ...

WhyEVER would George Clooney lend his name to such bunkum?

Don't waste your money ... and the 3-D ... laughable -- not EVEN worth it ...
Was the above review useful to you?

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

In Space no one can hear you – "ask for your money back!"

Disclaimer: Spoiler Alert - its horrible.

I just left the movie theatre angry. I cant think of a time that's ever happened to me.

Yes I may know more than the average Joe regarding manned spaceflight, after 30 years of writing about it. That doesn't mean the movie makers have to insult movie goers with the lack of any sense of reality. No wonder people don't think man landed on the moon.

From start to finish there were blatant factual errors in everything from the laws of Physics, Engineering and Orbital Mechanics to the unidentifiable views of the earth. I recognized two views of the earth, one of Florida and Cuba, the other the Nile in Egypt. It seems the producers decided to mess with those as well, good luck recognizing them.

I stopped counting errors after 50, by that point I was considering leaving the theatre, a few others managed to escape.

I know at least one NASA Astronaut bragged about making a contribution to the film as a technical adviser. I wont name her because its embarrassing enough for her to know she did that. I always wonder why movie makers use Astronauts as tech advisors when they have no intention of actually using their contributions.

Im not going to quote any of the script, why waste your time. It's a ranting monologue from an Astronaut with all of six months training at NASA to conduct an EVA at Hubble and who addresses her crew mates by their formal rank and last name only. Oh and magically during her six month training to fly on the Shuttle she managed to get a little Soyuz pilot training under her belt, very fortunate for her.

Finally, the movie is poorly written, almost ad-libbed, poorly researched, with a story line that has no connection to reality. I wouldn't watch this a second time if I was paid to. At the end I was expecting to see a 2,000 year old arm from the Statue of Liberty on a beach, seriously.

For a more representative vision of Spaceflight you may choose to watch the Simpsons episode where Homer and an inanimate carbon rod, save the Space Shuttle.

I highly do not recommend this movie unless you download it for free off Pirate Bay or get someone else to pay for you.

FYI – Im not a movie reviewer and I typed this out in five minutes, because I want my money back.

When I first saw the billboard for Gravity I got really psyched. Then I saw the names "George Clooney and Sandra Bullock" across the board and my excitement wained. It was only after hearing how the effects carry the movie that I decided to take a chance. My first disappointment, the $15 ticket price for the 3D showing (they have only one non-3D showing a day so there really was no other choice). For $15 I expect one heck of a movie, instead I got a dud. One reviewer said, "The 3D wasn't abused like so many other 3D movies just for the sake of being 3D. No feeling of having to duck when objects are flying at you out of the screen." I disagree, this movie had nothing else going for it, so if i found myself having to duck when an object was hurling toward me, then there would have been at least one redeeming quality and this review probably would have three or four stars.

Where do I begin? Let's start with the James Cameron quote: 'Gravity' is the best space film ever made." Gravity IS NOT the best space movie every made. It was simply CGI with a lot of cliché. When the shuttle enters the opening scene, it looks like a poorly drawn cartoon - are these the wonderful effects that are supposed to save this movie? Apparently, so. The problem is that the effects weren't all that good. They didn't come close to the realism of "Apollo-13," or "2001 A Space Odyssey," which was made nearly 50-years ago. That leaves us with a lackluster script with no underlying plot or theme. The drab dialog and storyline could have been saved as a sleeper if they used no-name actors instead of Clooney and Bullock hamming up every line. That being said, the movie was boring from beginning to end with no real emotional connection from the audience. In fact, if you want to see a good stuck in space movie, then you should see "Marooned" from 1969, which puts "Gravity" to shame. It's also amazing how the effects and diverse backdrops couldn't save this movie from Sandra Bullock going solo, when Ryan Renolds was able to pull it off in "Buried," which was a low budget movie with a single actor in a single location. It just goes to show that good writing and acting are necessary and special effects alone do not a good movie make.

Now the fun stuff, let's talk about bad science:

1) Bullock is nauseous during a space walk. This would never happen. It is only during space walks that space sickness can kill, because vomiting in your enclosed suit would cause you to inhale and choke on the vomit. It is for this reason that food is not consumed for hours prior to an EVA (Extra Vehicular Activity) and astronauts are required to abort the walk when there's even a hint of nausea

2) Bullock is untethered,spinning and flailing in space. This is highly unlikely. NASA procedure is to always have an emergency MMU called a SAFER during EVA. The pack is programmed to automatically adjust yaw, roll, and pitch to stop the astronaut from spinning. Routine procedure is then to manually take control of the jetpack and use it to return to the space vehicle

3) The Soyez TMA re-entry module requires an EVA to disengage the chute. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it is my understanding that this model would allow the astronaut to disengage the chute from within the capsule. BTW, if the chute did deploy, it wouldn't have been opened up and spread all over the station. The parachute compartment hatch would have simply been blown off and the parachute would have remained packed away in the module - there is no wind in space

4) The opening line states that there is no sound in space. However, we hear the wrench actuating when used by Sandra Bullock

5) George Clooney has Bullock on a long tether to distance her from the jets on his jetpack. However, he's holding on to her in front of himself, where she is just as clear of them as he is. Also, the propellent is inert gas, so it would not have hurt her. BTW, Clooney later drifts into space when there is no discernible force to push him away from Bullock

6) The re-entry capsules have a hard 60-second count down before undocking. No way. Design of space vehicles offer manual over-rides for nearly everything. If there were a count down, then there would be an over-ride as well

7) One exploding satellite would not cause a chain reaction of debris. It's called space for a reason, there is a lot of it. Debris from one satellite is highly unlikely to cause further debris

8) Every satellite and space station is bombarded by the debris as if they are all in the same orbit. They are not. For that matter, neither is the Hubble and ISS

9) When Bullock takes off her space suit, there is no liquid cooled ventilation unit, catheter, or diaper: which are required attire for EVA

10) Bullock stabilizes and orients the proper re-entry path of the re-entry module from a spin while well beyond the window for a deorbit burn

11) No way someone with the emotional baggage of Bullock's character would ever be chosen for a space mission

12) Bullock went through astronaut training and wasn't taught to brace herself when using a propellent in zero G

13) The hatch on the Soyez reentry module is much higher and would not have flooded so easily. Additionally, the Soyez, while being designed to land on solid ground, is also designed with floatation devices for water landing and does not have explosive bolts on the hatch. So it would not have flooded like Grissom's Liberty Bell 7

 
sickbadthing is offline
Old 12-23-2013, 05:17 AM   #2
sickbadthing
Out fart the hottie!
 
sickbadthing's Avatar
 
Location: I have super gonorrhoea
Posts: 24,318
Default

I like the first douche who said The Canyons was on his top of 2013.

Yes, I will take my advice from you, fucknut.

Also there's a lot of nerd psuedo-astrophysicist rage going on with people. IT'S A FUCKING MOVIE, IT WAS NOT FILMED AS IT WAS ACTUALLY HAPPENING.

Oh my god everyone knows it wasn't as good as that zero gravity cum shot movie but FOR FUCKS SAKE GET OVER IT

And for people who complain about plot, it seemed pretty obvious to me that THE PLOT WAS TO GET BACK TO MOTHERFUCKING EARTH. IT'S PRETTY GODDAMN OBVIOUS

 
sickbadthing is offline
Old 12-23-2013, 07:25 AM   #3
vixnix
Socialphobic
 
vixnix's Avatar
 
Location: pulitzer surprise motherfucker
Posts: 11,613
Default

I just saw this last night and thought it was ok. I was surprised by Bullock and Clooney and thought they did well, for them.

 
vixnix is offline
 


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is On
Google


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:21 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

Smashing Pumpkins, Alternative Music
& General Discussion Message Board and Forums
www.netphoria.org - Copyright © 1998-2014