[RUMAY408]

  Just to add some counterpoint--I know a lot of people are saying that you 'must' see Gravity in 3D, and while I haven't seen it in 3D, I can say that I still think it's one of the best films of the year, even in its boring, 2D state. I don't really think 3D adds anything necessary to a film--maybe it adds to the gee-whiz factor, sure, but I still think 3D is more of a novelty than it is a legitimate way to enrich a film-going experience. Not to mention I often just find it distracting (wearing two pairs of glasses at the same time sucks) and ugly looking--you'd better believe I'll be watching the next Hobbit film in good old 2D, after enduring the first one in 3D last year. (And don't even get me started on The Hobbit's higher frame rate...)
 
So if you're not much of a 3D fan yourself, save yourself some bucks, get the cheaper tickets, and still enjoy a hell of a show. Just my two cents. ^^

I get that point completely.  This film has really stuck with me, that is always a good thing for me.  At the water cooler a discussion ensued over fluff (Armageddon) vs. more serious films.  There is a level of symbolism that I didn't catch until a day or two after the movie.  The movie's title says it all.  It is easy to get caught up in the action, and miss the bigger picture. 
 

   
At IMAX a 3D effect is not that strong. In small cinema halls 3D makes kind of a tunnel effect which is a bit straining on eyes but at IMAX it is more natural and you can appreciate panoramic view which is essential for such films like Gravity.

I think the massive screen and upgrade in sound makes a film like this come to life.  I would rather watch 3D at home on a more detailed screen and better 3D glasses than deal with a small movie theater, oh and sometimes those sound systems stink.

 

[Johnnyhi]

Anybody using any of the DARBEE products.? 

 

[Focker]

This oddball French-Canadian flick really caught me off guard tonight...I had a lot of fun with it and it had a big heart. 
 
 
"Starbuck" - 8.3/10
 
 

 

[jjinh]

Saw Gravity in 3D yesterday! Pretty good. There were instances when it felt like I was there. 8/10
 
Quote:

  So if you're not much of a 3D fan yourself, save yourself some bucks, get the cheaper tickets, and still enjoy a hell of a show. Just my two cents. ^^

 
Just curious, how much does a movie ticket cost in the US?
 
Over here regular tickets are $19; 3D $23 (where aussie $1 = about US$0.94)

 

[metalsonata]

   
Just curious, how much does a movie ticket cost in the US?
 
Over here regular tickets are $19; 3D $23 (where aussie $1 = about US$0.94)

 
Totally depends on which theatre you go to and which part of the country you live in. Typically, I can get in two people for what you pay for one where I live, it looks like.

 

[warubozu]

  Just to add some counterpoint--I know a lot of people are saying that you 'must' see Gravity in 3D, and while I haven't seen it in 3D, I can say that I still think it's one of the best films of the year, even in its boring, 2D state. I don't really think 3D adds anything necessary to a film--maybe it adds to the gee-whiz factor, sure, but I still think 3D is more of a novelty than it is a legitimate way to enrich a film-going experience. Not to mention I often just find it distracting (wearing two pairs of glasses at the same time sucks) and ugly looking--you'd better believe I'll be watching the next Hobbit film in good old 2D, after enduring the first one in 3D last year. (And don't even get me started on The Hobbit's higher frame rate...)
 
So if you're not much of a 3D fan yourself, save yourself some bucks, get the cheaper tickets, and still enjoy a hell of a show. Just my two cents. ^^

 
Agreed, although I watched it in 3D, I'm sure I would have enjoyed the movie in it's 2d format. I don't normally watch 3D movies mainly because of the cost of a ticket and the uncomfortable feeling of having to wear a set of glasses (I don't wear glasses).

 

[RUMAY408]

   
Just curious, how much does a movie ticket cost in the US?
 
Over here regular tickets are $19; 3D $23 (where aussie $1 = about US$0.94)

 
Here in Tennessee
$17 for 3D IMAX
$12 for 3D RPX
$9 or less for 2D 

 

[jjinh]

^Thanks for the details about ticket prices!
 
I'm planning to see Prisoners next (as I thought Incendies was really, really good so I'm wondering what the director's first English film will be like).

 

[Johnnyhi]

 
Rush 8.5/10 
 
 
Baggage Claim 6.5/10

 

[DLeeWebb]

"Gravity" [IMAX/3D]: [8.4/10] Really enjoyed it. The film was definitely a thrill ride from beginning to end, I was on the edge of my seat cringing several times when I thought that Bullock was not going to find that life-saving hand hold. I thought that the IMAX/3D presentation was impressive. I do have to say that I am noting a trend, which has just recently begun to seriously bother me, toward excessive, almost ridiculously excessive, volume in theaters. Bullock's performance was good and the film had a realism that made me truly feel what it must be like in space. I didn't feel like I was watching CGI. However, the storyline itself was a bit predictable, yet unbelievable. I really liked "Apollo 13," and "The Right Stuff," and as I think I read here in a previous post, it was nice to see a space movie that didn't involve aliens, earth invasion or potential earth destruction. Oh, I paid $16.00 for a ticket. A movie well worth seeing, but I'm not convinced that it deserves the rave reviews I have read.

 

[tdockweiler]

Gravity (3D) - 8.75-9/10
 
Not a non-stop thrill ride for me. Kind of boring the first 45 minutes and then it finally is better than watching paint dry.
I almost never get bored by anything unless my brain is not being used much. I think that was the case here.
And no I'm not one of those that requires non-stop action and entertainment.
 
BTW Sandra Bullock's character has like zero hand/eye coordination. How many attempts does it take you to grab a rope/hose etc.
 
None of what happens is very believable. Too scripted like a video game. I might as well have been watching "2012". I swear that at one point Sandra was going to get angry and hit the controls and it would turn on!
A lot of it reminded me of "Armageddon"!
 
Funny how people complain "Oblivion" has a thin storyline, yet Gravity is perfectly OK yet it's even thinner.
 
As far as space movies go..here's a few that are better:
 
Oblivion
Sunshine (except the slasher/horror nonsense throw in at the end)
Apollo 13
 
I'd say it's comparable to "Moon" but that film made me think a bit more.

 

[proton007]

  Gravity (3D) - 8.75-9/10
 
Not a non-stop thrill ride for me. Kind of boring the first 45 minutes and then it finally is better than watching paint dry.
I almost never get bored by anything unless my brain is not being used much. I think that was the case here.
And no I'm not one of those that requires non-stop action and entertainment.
 
BTW Sandra Bullock's character has like zero hand/eye coordination. How many attempts does it take you to grab a rope/hose etc.
 
None of what happens is very believable. Too scripted like a video game. I might as well have been watching "2012". I swear that at one point Sandra was going to get angry and hit the controls and it would turn on!
A lot of it reminded me of "Armageddon"!
 
Funny how people complain "Oblivion" has a thin storyline, yet Gravity is perfectly OK yet it's even thinner.
 
As far as space movies go..here's a few that are better:
 
Oblivion
Sunshine (except the slasher/horror nonsense throw in at the end)
Apollo 13
 
I'd say it's comparable to "Moon" but that film made me think a bit more.

 
So would you suggest it to someone who's well versed with the Sci-Fi genre and Newton's laws of motion? When I was watching the trailer I couldn't stop thinking, 'yes, this is what would  happen in zero gravity...so what?'
Funnily the movie's called 'Gravity' but its more like 'lack of'.

 

[RUMAY408]

   
So would you suggest it to someone who's well versed with the Sci-Fi genre and Newton's laws of motion? When I was watching the trailer I couldn't stop thinking, 'yes, this is what would  happen in zero gravity...so what?'
Funnily the movie's called 'Gravity' but its more like 'lack of'.

I don't think the film was about the action on the screen, as much as what was happening internally to the people on the screen.  Lack of gravity is the point.  Regaining gravity was the goal of the proponents.

 

[metalsonata]

  I don't think the film was about the action on the screen, as much as what was happening internally to the people on the screen.  Lack of gravity is the point.  Regaining gravity was the goal of the proponents.

 
I thought it was called Gravity because it's gravity that's working against them: if gravity weren't an issue, they wouldn't have had to deal with the debris (and it's constant reappearances) in the first place.

 

[mutabor]

   
I thought it was called Gravity because it's gravity that's working against them: if gravity weren't an issue, they wouldn't have had to deal with the debris (and it's constant reappearances) in the first place.

 
I agree with RUMAY408 when he wrote that "regaining gravity was the goal of the proponents". Regaining the Earth's gravity is the goal of this survival story. That's what I understood from reading reviews and Cuaron's interviews. Though I didn't buy into the story itself. For me the movie is more about visual ( plus sound) experience rather than the plot and it's metaphoric message.