iPlayer Radio What's New?

Gravity

Tuesday 12 November 2013, 14:40

Mark Kermode Mark Kermode

I admitted last week that Gravity is a film actually worth seeing in 3D. Have you seen it yet and if so what did you think?

 

In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash Installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content

Related Content

An Announcement

 

Comments

Jump to comments pagination
 
  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 1.

    i am pro 3d and always will be pro advanced technology

    ever since the 3d terminator 2 ride at universal i saw as a kid in the 90s

    i saw gravity twice in amsterdam october 4/5th on imax 3d

    it was just like being back at universal

    and even if you are unsure of early 3d tech - lets all support it not being a marvel sequel

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 2.

    Yes I went to see it - yes I saw it in 3D and YES I think this may be the only film to use 3D properly.

    I still think that Avatar warranted the 3D experience as the environments hat were painstakingly created were begging to be seen in 3D - the film is not great on a story level though.

    With Gravity I think there is a great story idea that I think DOES have plenty of depth. Looking at the world with a God's eye view and appreciating the silence that space gives you from your life on the planet were interesting thematic ideas. I never thought the cinematic bravado and technology got in the way.

    Just like Jurassic Park we are given SFX that become part of the story - will stand the test of time and simply do not ever look like effects (despite the fact that we know it's not really happening).

    Time after time we are given SFX that do not allow the viewer to suspend their disbelief and enter into a world of imagination.

    Too often are we given tripe like Wrath of the titans and The Hobbitt movies that just feel like worlds within a Playstation game console.

    I want more of this and I want filmmakers to experiment with 3D so that the technology improves and requires NO GLASSES!

    I think only then will the argument for converting past films like Jurassic Park to 3D be justified

    I am not a 3D supporter though - I detest the Elton John glasses but I respect the technology as being fledgeling and destined to improve rapidly (just like Digital photography has).

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 3.

    I saw Gravity in 3D although not on an imax screen. Just seeing the above clips of the film in standard 2D, admittedly on a small computer screen, made me realise how essential the 3D is to this film. I loved seeing it in 3D and am really worried that when I see it on DVD in standard 2D it will lose all it's impact. The 3D really felt immersive, almost as if I was in space with them. I have a feeling that in 2D it might just prove to be another standard by the numbers action flick. I hope not because the film really did give me 90 minutes of pure cinematic hedonism....

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 4.

    Where-as Avatar is just pants, 3D or no 3D.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 5.

    It's definitely going to win a lot of technical oscars, and be nominated for a lot more, but I worry that if I saw it again in 2d, it wouldn't seem half as good. The acting was superb and the FX incredible, but the plot left a lot to be desired, and the spectacle wouldn't be there. Definitely the best 3D film yet, and needs to be seen on a big screen, but I think it might not be quite the same flat.

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 6.

    Okay, the FX ARE groundbreaking. No doubt about it. Some parts work better than others but my jaw did hit the ground a couple of times and the first 20 minutes or so had me gripped.
    However, it soon became quite tedious and obvious that there was no script or anything bar movie cliches to engage with. I pretty much lost interest after half an hour.
    Clooney looked exactly like a very smug Buzz Lightyear (so much so that I burst out laughing when he first appeared) while Bullock got on my nerves and I never really believed in her performance. She's far from 'amazing' which is what you read in every review about a half-decent performance from a Hollywood star nowadays (also, what has she done to her face? she has spent alot of money trying to defy gravity by the looks of it!)
    Gravity let me down on this occassion........

  • rate this
    +2

    Comment number 7.

    I saw "Gravity" in 3D at my local Vue cinema in Inverness on Friday, before your show was on, and thought it was an exceptional film both technically & dramatically and is my favourite film of the year. It deserves all the praise it is getting and deserves Oscar nods come January/February. I do believe the 3D enhanced the film in terms of tension and making you feel you are in space more but I would probably think the 2D version would be just as good. What I found interesting after watching the movie, I thought it would make a great double-bill along with Duncan Jones' "Moon" from 2009. Both are slightly Pulpy space films, featuring knock out performances by a limited cast and are around the same length. I'd pay to see that. Maybe "Best Double-bills" like your blog about "A Hijacking" and "Captain Phillips" could be a possible blog topic in the future.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 8.

    Gravity is now part of a cinematic holy trinity that also includes Hugo and Life of Pi. These three films demand to be seen in 3D. For the rest, I can take or leave the 3D (and in the case of some poor conversion jobs, I actively dislike it).

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 9.

    I went to see Gravity in 3D the day it came out and I was quite disappointed that the Cinema had given it the smallest screen in the house.
    None the less, I saw it and found it a fantastic flick, Alfonso will finally get the recognition he deserves.
    It is definitely better seen in 3D as it is an experience movie alike 2001, where the visual style works with the universe Cuaron as opposed to just being plonked in there.

  • rate this
    -2

    Comment number 10.

    Gravity really was a big up-yours to the "all the interesting work is being done in TV these days" brigade. Yes HBO and its ilk have produced some excellent series, but a film like Gravity really underscores why I fell in love with cinema in the first place. Bottom line: Cinema is the true faith. Television is the antiChrist.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 11.

    I saw Gravity first in IMAX 3D, then in 2D at a Dolby Atmos screening. I enjoyed both, but would recommend for the sheer breathtaking thrill ride that this movie is, to see it on as big a screen as possible and IMAX fitted the bill perfectly. Would an IMAX 2D presentation be as good? Possibly. However my defence of 3D for this particular movie would be that for the first time when watching a movie with the large IMAX 3D glasses, I didn't feel uncomfortable wearing them, or rather I was so engrossed, I didn't notice if they were uncomfortable or not. Another reason for this was perhaps the sensible running time of 90 minutes, and not the bloated two hours plus of almost all movies these days

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 12.

    Best cinematic experience I've had since Senna. Gravity absolutely blew me away. It's now my film of the year. For the first time, 3D has done itself justice for the entirety of a picture.

    Like the noble doctor, I've never been a fan of 3D. In fact, when there's been a choice, I've always gone for 2D. I've found the glasses-upon glasses uncomfortable; the images muddy and murky; half an hour in it's given me a headache; I've deeply resented having to pay more for something I've considered to be overrated tosh.

    Avatar was my first IMAX experience. First half an hour I was thinking 'wow'! For the rest of the 106 hours I was thinking, 'get me out of here!'.

    I'm in a minority because I enjoyed Prometheus. Deeply flawed yes, but I thought that it was one film where the 3D worked in numerous places. I guess this is due to the fact that Ridley Scott has such a great eye for visual quality.

    Because of all the hype, I decided that it would be best to see Gravity in 3D. Now I wish I'd seen it at the IMAX for the first time. All the aforementioned groans I've made about 3D were completely obliterated watching this amazing spectacle. It was WOW from beginning to end. It looked absoluetly great, didn't give me a headache and I felt that it was well worth the ticket price.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 13.

    I saw Graivty in 3D but while the visuals were great, it was the situations that the film set
    up that Bullock's character has to navigate that were the real thrill. The 3D was an important
    aid in that, but after awhile I stopped looking for it and found the story more immersive. Unlike
    the good doctor I think there are themes and ideas woven through the movie very subtly - the death of the daughter, isolation, gravity itself, the dangers of space. I think Cuaron has very cleverly found a middle way between Kubrick/Tarkovsky's hard sci fi epics, and something like Ron Howard's 'Apollo 13'. For that reason I think its slightly unfair to just label it as a popcorn flick.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 14.

    Gravity is Great in 3D.

    But thats why its a film I can never love in 3D.

    Instead of being immersed in the film, focused, hypnotised, mesmerised, committed to the film, I spent most of my time thinking, "Wow, that's amazing 3D".

    I watched it first in 2D engaged. Then seeing it 3D, rather than adding to the experience, it kept dragging me out of it.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 15.

    I made a point of seeing Gravity on biggest screen i could, which was the Curzon Mayfair. For me it was the first 3D film in which the 3D was genuinely immersive, whereas in the past the 3D has either been utterly redundant or just draws attention to itself. I saw The Hobbit in 3D last year and whenever there was any rapid movement like running or fighting, i always had to take the glasses off, as it was very hard to focus on the action. That's not a problem with Gravity as everything in space is slow and floaty, perfectly suited to the format. It's also worth mentioning that myself and several other people in the screening sat right to the very end of the credits, which i take as a sign of respect for a good job well done. I came out thinking that if i'd seen it on a vast Imax screen it would've been even better.

    As for the movie itself, i would have liked more emotional depth as the story looked like it was shaping up to be Touching the Void in space, i accept that Alfonso Cuaron didn't want to go that way and wanted keep the story tight and economical, i would give Gravity a respectable 4 out 5 stars.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 16.

    I saw it friday and it in IMAX 3D. It was excellent but I think I'm in the minority where after a while I didn't notice the 3D which brings round the debate of; if you don't notice it, what's the point? I didn't feel any more immersed in the action than I did in the last hour of Captain Phillips and feeling trapped in that little lifeboat.
    My only other grip with Gravity is the CGI space suit Sandra Bullock's head stuck on. Her arms trying to unfasten that hook looked like Buzz Lightyear arms. Nitpicking? Yes I am. Still a superb film though and I am hoping I get the chance to see it again but this time in normal cinema settings, although the distinct lack of standard screenings is making that tough.

  • rate this
    +2

    Comment number 17.

    I saw it in 3D. I admit that, by and large, I didn't mind the 3D look of the film. Some moments certainly looked really good however... I did struggle to keep my focus on the right place. I noticed quite a few times (particularly in moments of lens flare) that it become really difficult to see objects correctly - they looked fuzzy and unfocused. I thought it was me (I have poor eyesight and historically 3D doesn't work with me) so I asked the GF who said that yes she did have to blink and refocus her eyes a lot.

    Despite that, I loved the film. I was tense throughout, GF actually ducked during some of the shrapnel shots. I thought there was enough story and character that I was invested in the film (despite being doubtful of Bullock's role) and I was surprised at how old fashioned the story felt. It looked gorgeous and despite the constant carping I hear from the nasal nerds I would recommend anyone see it.

    Next time I go back to the cinema to see it - and I will - I will see it in 2D.

    ps. I am a sucker for space-flight stuff so I am really familiar with old NASA and Soviet footage. Cuaron captured the look of space exactly as I expected and the zero G work was superlative.

    pps. Check out The Europa Report. I think you'll find it an interesting counterpoint. It certainly carries similar themes and features a space accident. It's a pity this other space film never got a cinema screening as I think it would have made an excellent double bill.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 18.

    Saw it at Waterloo IMAX - 3D. I saw it in 2D yesterday.

    It's better in 3D, here's why: 3D works when there are...

    1) Very few planes of depth - usually 3, 5 maximum.
    2) These planes are very far apart.

    This is why Life of Pi worked every now and then in 3D. You'd have a foreground (actor), a mid (boat) and a distant plane of depth (sea/sky/horizon).

    Gravity works nearly all the time because you have the actor, the mid floaty objects and then the depths of space (the epitome of a deep background!).

    ***SPOILERS***
    And sure enough, when she landed back on Earth, the 3D was completely redundant. Like it is in every other 3D movie.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 19.

    couldn't wait to go and see this movie, and booked up for the first showing on Saturday morning. Was totally blown away by the movie. Was only available in 3D but after seeing the trailer didn't have any issue with it (although I very rarely see 3D movies).

    I think this is probably the first film to use 3D well, and for it to be the first movie that the director has made in 3D means he is probably some kind of sorcerer as it was near perfect as a cinema experience.

    I do think that 2D would lesson the experience, as well as seeing it on a smaller screen. But this is a film made for cinema. A brilliant 90 minutes (the only downer was the film being preceded by 33 minutes of adverts and trailers)

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 20.

    ....and the score was out of this world. (see what I did there?)

 

Page 1 of 7

Share this page

More Posts

Previous
Pilgrim's Progress

Friday 8 November 2013, 10:27

Next
And the nominations are...

Friday 15 November 2013, 14:19

About this Blog

Outspoken, opinionated and never lost for words, Mark is the UK's leading film critic.

This twice-weekly video blog is the place where he airs his personal views on the things that most fire him up about cinema - and invites you to give your own opinions.

Blog Updates

Stay updated with the latest posts from the blog.

Subscribe using:

What are feeds?