Mark Kermode reviews Gravity
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 พ.ย. 2013
- Mark Kermode reviews Gravity. Disaster strikes a routine shuttle mission leaving medical engineer Dr. Ryan Stone (Bullock) and veteran astronaut Matt Kowalsky (Clooney) spiralling in outer space. As a result they must work together in order to survive.
Please tell us what you think of the film -- or Mark's review of the film below. We love to include your views on the show every Friday.
www.bbc.co.uk/5live
Fridays at 2pm on BBC 5 live. - ภาพยนตร์และแอนิเมชัน
I need to see this film. Kermode liking 3D is the equivalent of an atheist finding God.
10 years later, I just watched this film on my computer and cried my eyes out. This movie is phenomenal.
"You NEED to see this in 3D!!!" - Kermode quote of the year!
I like how Mark credited the special effects group in this review.
Easily one of the most amazing soundtracks I’ve ever laid ears on
I'm surprised that Mark didn't get the meaning of the title. It's about a woman who hasn't been connected to humanity for quite some time. She's been floating. She's done everything she can to get away from human kind. Eventually she has to make the choice as to whether or not she wants to live or give up. Gravity is about the pull back to human connection.
Nice one.
I thought it was about a woman who just didn't want to suffocate to death.
A late comment here... I found it to be more about her rebirth - restarting life after the traumas she had suffered before the film. There are two scenes that grabbed my attention more than the opening 3d - first was the lengthy shot of her sleeping as an embryo with the (literal and symbolic) umbilical, and being reborn when she crawled out of the water onto the sand.
The first 15 minutes alone are worth the ticketprize. Rest of the movie is brilliant, but the first 15 minutes are the best IMO.
2 films that felt like a panic attack the whole way through:
This
Uncut Gems
For anyone telling Mark to eat his words, count the 3D scoreboard : that's Hugo and Gravity versus *everything else*. Does that make the exceptions worth it? And how many 90 minute disaster movies in space are we gonna see?
I thought Mark said that Gravity was the only film he thought was worth the 3-D.
+The Concise Statement Dredd and Avator were just as good in 3D
love the Kermodester, look how he hardly has to reference his notes, pure off the top of his head, although he has got massive hands.
Couldn't agree more Mark. As a fellow 3D hater I was blown away by this film, instead of seeming like a tacked-on novelty the 3D was totally natural, immersive and complimented the general feeling of disorientation and nausea that pervades throughout. The biggest compliment I can give is that I soon forget it was 3D, it was just right. I think the scene where Bullock is trying to undock from the ISS and the debris field comes back round again will become one of my all-time favourite cinema-going memories.
Cinema was meant to be enjoyed not analysed or scrutinised at every level. Enjoyment comes from opening your heart and mind and not critise everything at every opportunity.
I'll be watching this on friday with my girl. Can't wait especially after reading what everyone is saying here. Great review from The Doctor, and also Mr. Paul Smith .
Seeing it tonight, looking forward to it.
People confuse Sandra Bullock for doing a god job in this movie, acting well - She doesn't, the movie is doing all the legwork for her with the awesome visuals and great use of camera movement, giving you a great feel for the environment and the helplessness of the situation, but if you were to put an actor in her shoes with some serious chops, like Maggie Smith, Alan Rickman, or Judi Dench, they would act so well that they were genuinely terrified for their lives, they would make you feel afraid for them.
an 80 year old female astronaut would be distracting.
Yeah and they made it in england ..produced by heyday films as well
"I'll try to give away as little of the rest of the story"
what story?
PauLtus B The story in the movie. Wasn't that hard was it?
B CH ... haha...
If you actually don't get it: Gravity doesn't have much of a story.
What a dumbfuck
+B CH Whooosh
agreed, there is basically no plot and the script is awful and clichéd.
a great film, with an original idea for once.i was excited all the way through.i could watch it over and over, and ot see it in cinema was great as big screen enhanced it, i htink more films could be made in space, i give it 10/10, bravo
Love kermode and mayo,it's been like this for years.
I'm annoyed about him stating there is no gravity in orbit.
Gravity is THE main force of orbital kinematics and there is no irony whatsoever in this movie being titled so. The force of gravity in orbit is only slightly less than on the surface, because the orbit is only 200km above the surface, which is 6300km from the center of earths mass. Remember, gravity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between bodies (their centers of masses). This makes the gravitational pull in orbit about 93% of the pull on the surface.
The reason for weightlessness in orbit is high velocity. You could compare it to a centripetal force that counteracts gravity or to the bodies in orbit trying to escape earth so fast the gravity can't keep up pulling them fast enough, causing a state of perpetual free fall.
Gravity is what makes things go around. Oh, there is plenty of gravity in space.
Tremendous film. Yes -- a technical achievement of unparalleled stature. But also a wonderful story of rebirth. The arc of Bullock's character -- from small and paralyzed at the onset of the story, to powerful and reborn by the end of the film -- is uplifting and life-affirming. And to see her character transformation take place against the endless backdrop of space and weightlessness is mesmerizing. This is a rare film.
Couldn't agree with you more. This film is being heralded for its magnificent visual effects (and rightly so) but it's also a story of loss, forgiveness and rebirth with some striking visual symbolism. And all this in a running time of 91 min when most films today can't tell a story in 2h30m!
This film was a non-sensical snooze fest
I really love Gravity. Its the best CGI I have ever seen at the times I watched it on IMAX. There is no Movie can make me feel like astronaut. Many people hate this movie, and its their opinion. I wish more movie is created with the technical craft used on this movie
Thank god for this exerpt of your review. I may not have seen this film had it not been for you :)
@The Local Film Network Yeah, I know what you mean. Kermode was the only guy championing this film...
It didn't even get a look-in at the Oscars.
(FFS...)
This will be my first IMAX film, can't wait
Even though I watched it on my computer it still blew me away. I can't remember when I last was so into a movie, that I completely forgot everything around me. I had cold sweats and was hyperventilating all the way through the movie.
Saw this today. Incredible
I took Dr Kermode's advice and I went to see this at the BFI IMAX (in '3D' of course). Having paid the best part of £20 for the ticket I was not going to walk out after the first 5 minutes, but that was my inclination. While I agree that it is technically a tour de force I found its portrayal of low-gravity physics excruciatingly flawed, with a dull predictable story and characters that I had so little emotional commitment to that I did not care about the outcome of any of the perils they encounter. For me this is a classic example of exceptional film resources wasted on a bland unimaginative script with excruciating dialogue.
The only good thing about having seen Gravity is that I fully accept that this is the best that steroscopic cinema has to offer and so it will be the last time I will ever go to see a film using this technology.
3D never works for me, not even after seeing Gravity in IMAX. On the odd occasion things appeared right in front of me there was a low resolution blurry quality, far removed from real life.
I'm sorry, WHAT? The low-gravity physics is actually REALLY good...
Hey kermode love your opinions and tend to agree with you with most flicks. Did you see Gravity in IMAX?
Finally saw it today too. And you are right. You need to see this in 3D. This statement is only ture for this movie and "Avatar".
saw this yesterday in 3D and I agree that the film is visually stunning however I found the plot very repetitive . its basically a character trying to get from one point to another, pressing some buttons, then realizing that they have to get to the next place , push some more buttons, encounter another problem, then try solve that, get to the next place and push some more buttons etc etc... the visuals and decent acting did hold my interest to a point, but to be honest I wasn't invested in the characters and wasn't too concerned whether or not they lived . ok film overall 5 or 6 out of 10 for me.
I tend to agree.
Isn't life like that?
Man, Kermode sounded more excited by Gravity than he did by Interstellar. I know which I prefer. This film was alright, for a 3D film, but Interstellar on IMAX easily blows it out of the water. It's also has a much better story, characters and resolution.
I watched Gravity after Interstellar as a few had made that comparison and for me personally there's no comparison. Gravity is too simple, it is too shallow, i'm not a fan of either Clooney or Bullock and it's immediately forgettable. That said, Kermode is careful in his review to emphasize the importance of 3D and visuals in the films critique. Strip that away, which is what i did watching it on my tiny computer, and it's flat.
Really enjoyed this film and haven't enjoyed 3D this much since Avatar.!. Why did we have to wait so long for this to be released in the UK?.
I generally don't like 3D but I can't wait to see Gravity. This is my favourite review show by the way.
what is that thing Kermode keeps grabbing and flipping on the desk?
Is that his security rag?
I still can't take Bullock seriously.
On my list
Im sold. Best for 3D...BFI IMAX or Odeon?
Saw it at BFI IMAX and loved it. Don't agree that it's a popcorn movie, it would've been fantastic to look at the beauty of Earth from silent space without the munching sound of some prat sat behind me shovelling popcorn in their fat gob
Sorry for being a pedant but there roughly the same gravity in orbit as on earth, freefall is different.
Mark just went "the Irishman" before there was an Irishman
3D never works for me, not even after seeing Gravity in IMAX. On the odd occasion things appeared right in front of my eyes there was a low resolution blurry quality, far removed from real life.
I strongly agree with the shallow plot part... I saw it in 2d and it was a disaster. If u go certainly go for 3d
In some ways this film is peerless. Interesting the parallels are most easily drawn with 2001; a 45 year old movie. But Gravity (surely a reference to the situation, not the force) does have a Kubrickian flavour. Kermode knows his stuff, but I found beauty in the film's quiet moments, a Jaws-style jump or two & agree the 3D is important, conceptually. A modern masterpiece.
@Paul Smith We really don't need to be lectured.
'Kubrickian', 'beauty in the film's quiet moments'...
'A modern masterpiece' - I didn't mind that so much.
I had a good laugh at that bit.
Great film
Enjoyed this movie very much.
There is gravity in orbit around the Earth. If there was no gravity, nothing would orbit the Earth at that distance. Gravity's effects are weaker at that distance from the Earth, but you still weigh about 90% of what you would at the Earth's surface.
The reason people are "floating" is because they are in a constant state of falling. They are falling in such a way that they will always (or for a long time rather) miss the Earth. This is called being in a stable orbit. If one was not in a stable orbit around the Earth, then Earth's gravity would still pull them back down to Earth.
Whereas Children of Men was a strong story, backed by great visuals, Gravity is a stunning visual treat with a more or less basic and somewhat unbelievable story. Check out other Cuaron movies: www.loved.la/movies/Alfonso_Cuaron
This movie was amazing!!!!
Grade A+ technically. Grade C scriptwise. I don't think it ultimately adds up to that much and you'll need to suspend disbelief, but it's a serious demonstration of film making technically.
It's IMAX or bust for this film. IMAX has the best 3D and doesn't have the problems RealD has.
The film Gravity is the definition of style over substance.
+Jim Bo Some people can find a particular rollercoaster ride uninteresting. Without them being idiots.
Can't be looking for substance in a rollercoaster ride without lookin like an idiot though.
Have you ever tought that maybe the style is the substance? Think about how the camera moves and what happens that alone can say alot
agreed
Would not say style..but situation over substance or this is not character driven
I think people missed the ambiguity of the ending. When the door lock is opened by the astronaut it only becomes apparent that it is Kowalsky when he enters the shuttle. The camera is away from Stone when the air lock is opened, and retreats back to her after a few seconds when everything is over. From then on, it is quite possible that the film becomes a metaphor for Kowalski's spiritual journey as she lands in a serene, almost other-worldly setting. The way the air-lock scene is shot is intentionally ambiguous, and many people have missed it in the reviews.
Stunning movie.
This is one of my all time favorite movies, but it could off been so much better had the director and writer played a bit of Kerbal Space Program or just had some basic knowledge of Newton's laws.
Like anything, 3-D only works when the movie works. You have a great director, chances are he's going to use this tool brilliantly.
First! Good review - can't wait to watch it tomorrow!
I'm curious how you judge or even rate a film like this as a critic. Having seen it in 3D it's certainly amazing but I would imagine it would drop marks in 2D and then even more marks once it hits the small screens. Do you judge a film like Gravity only on the initial big screen 3D experience or take into account the other possible formats others reading/listening to your review will probably view it on?
I would judge it on the medium I saw it, that with which it was meant to be viewed (3D).
The ONLY recent film that is worth seeing in 3D...amazing stuff..
I watched Gravity in 2D and it was incredible.
how would you like your shoe cooked sir boiled, grilled or fried
08:34 - 09:30 Well said Mark Kermode. You nailed it perfectly. That was exactly the whole problem of the movie. Unfortunately this whole problem was what the movie was trying to carry along. The movie wanted to tell something about character but failed miserably trying to achieve that. The character development felt rushed and not thought out, probably because it was rushed and not thought out. You don't need a Sci-Fi world to tell the story of Gravity. Putting that story in a Sci-Fi world didn't brought anything more to it. The story could have easily been set on a boat, in a submarine, on an island, in an old house, in a Walmart... it would have told exactly the same thing. If you put your story in space, between Heaven and Earth, (Earth being mankind, the known. Heaven being the universe, the unknown) you better use that Sci-Fi world to carry on something that is intrinsically bound to your original concept. You definitely don't choose space just because space and space debris filling up the frame is "cool". Gravity is nothing more than an ultra high-budget experimental B-Movie. To me that combination just doesn't work.
and there was I thinking that Gravity was a play on the seriousness of the situation, rather than Ironic
Something I've always wondered: Why does Mark sit in his chair with his suit jacket buttoned? I mean it is customary to unbutton one's jacket when sitting down. Also, why is he wearing a suit at all? He's doing a radio show ... I've always pondered this while watching these reviews.
But you're watching him on TH-cam like thousands do weekly.
This film explores the human soul so perfectly and is no way a shallow 3D experience. Possibly the most emotional sci-fi ever made.
I've seen it in both 3D and 2D. It's still a pretty darn great film in 2D!
"feel sorry and empathetic for this woman, not because her character was established in any way, but because her child died and now she's stuck in space"...Beautiful first half visually but true lesson in how to not develop a character
MK gets it right. As emotional and visual movie as it is, it is surprisingly scientifically honest. Sure, the space stations would not be that close together yada yada yada. But really, that is just nitpicking. Overall, this achieves a high degree of meaning and science that I previously thought incompatible.
nice
I think Mark (with respect) is giving the 3D far too much credit. I didn't think it was that immersive at all - I came out of the cinema and immediately looked up whether it was filmed in 3D or retrofitted. .. and guess what? It was a retrofit! I appreciate I'm in a very small camp about this - bit if you spent a small amount of time gazing at www.nasa.gov during the height of the latter space shuttle missions, you would have seen so many mind blowing shots of spacewalks that nothing in this movie came close to.
2001 took my breath away. Gravity did not. It is a great roller coaster, but as a film it is so flawed that I could breath quite comfortably.
Although I don't believe in gravity I found this film entertaining in a fairytale sort of way.
Finally
the intension of the movie at the beginning was just focus to the adventure 3D 0 gravity of course the drama script and dialog was poor , but as I said the intension is to project a story based on the image ..so why the critics making a big deal about it......
It's been quite a few years since I watched this film, so my memories are kinda vague, but I remember being very disappointed in it after hearing so many good reviews.
I think it was the characters that I didn't like. There was the guy who came across as Captain Awesomesauce McPerfect, and the woman came across as miss Incompetent shouldn'tbehere. I found it very hard to care about either of them. Astronauts are some of the best, most capable people humanity has to offer, but they're not perfect, and they're definitely not snivelling incompetents. Watching a buffoon bumbling their way through some situation can be very entertaining in a comedy, in an action sci-fi not so much.
I loved it. One of the best man vs nature films in a long time. Gravity is jaws in space. I get that not everyone's fan, it's certainly flawed. But this is one of the cases where simplicity is what makes it poetic.
A B-movie indeed. Pastiche is no excuse. Let not the facts (physics) obstruct a plot... without the gorgeous visuals it is shallow but at least it is only 90 mins. At times the characters were cretinous and these are supposed to be astronauts?
Nice to see you in the Tubercular Bells anniversary doc the other night.
It won 7 oscars and was nominated for 10
The title is not ironic, at least not the way Marks thinks it is, there is gravity in space. Someone who is in orbit around the earth, isnt free of gravity, they are actually in a free fall.
You could say the title of the film Gravity depicts the situation
The ending kinda ticked me off
(No spoiler intended)
If your going to watch Gravity. Please see it in the cinema in 3D.....and sit near the front!
Kermode has been converted to 3D!
The cinematics were incredible, but the plot was paper thin. It would be pointless to watch on DVD.
'Zero gravity' doesn't exist Kermode
4:05 How is the title ironic? The whole film takes place where there IS GRAVITY, please tell me how a place WITHOUT gravity would look like. As far as I know there is none.
***** Gravitation is one of the four fundamental forces, it is inescapable.
David Woods oops...why does the earth orbit the sun then...
Space magic? ^_^
Oh god, I'm sorry Mark but I have to be the science pedant here: At about 4min you say "The film takes place in an environment where there is no gravity". There absolutely IS gravity in space, especially in low earth orbit (at this altitude it's almost exactly the same as on the surface), but anything in orbit is free falling around the planet (literally falling towards the Earth but always missing because of tangential motion) and so *feels* no gravity, but the gravity is always there. I'm sorry.
Clooney had guts doing this after Solaris.
"call NHS direct" haha.
I think it's quite funny that Dr K still refers to a film as a "popcorn movie" long after establishing his hatred for popcorn. I understand of course that there is certain terminology that must remain in this business but maybe you could (Dr K) come up with a new phrase that has the same meaning - hey if you use it often enough it may become an accepted term.
Mark do you want to go see Clash of the Titans 3....in 3D with us? ;)
I disagree that it doesn't have 'real depth and profundity' at all. In fact as you said (in so many words) it's dialogue is as unpretentious as anything else about the film, and I didn't think for a moment that someone whose job is as an astronaut wouldn't speak or behave like they did. Look back at the real-life dialogue of many an astronaut through time (like in those NASA documentaries, or the film For All Mankind) and you can see what kind of headspace an astronaut might be in to find themselves in an environment that simultaneously feels both claustrophobic and agoraphobic, verbally trivialising things when they get a bit hairy and being quite headstrong. If you were alone in space and facing potential death you would surely start reflecting on your past, right? It did not seem as forced or shoehorned in as the Dr is making out, and it wasn't completely saved by the 3D experience - I definitely still think this will look incredible on a TV at home on 2D Blu-Ray, and that's down to Emmanuel Lubinski for his stunning cinematography.
By the way I feel that Cuaron's penchant for long takes and the opening to this film is magnificent by itself. And for those who've seen the film - apparently there's a short film that ties into the narrative that Cuaron has filmed and will be submitted to the Oscars, and will also hopefully be on the Blu-Ray/DVD extras, which I am quite looking forward to.
The 3D experience that Avatar promised but failed to be.
Let's not forget this movie won 7 oscars, and it was nominated for 10.
Only the technical ones
Director is not necessarily technical
I hope everyone hating on this movie for being unrealistic also hated Xmen Days of Future Past. Theyre all like "this and this is impossible!" But oh its totally reasonable for Magneto to drag Mystique across the floor simply by pulling on the ONE bullet in her leg. And Wolverine almost losing it when they need him the most is okay and not contrived at all.
Do you know how stupid you sound? DOFP is a comic book movie, it didn't aim for realism at all. Where as Gravity did
ellis lamai nah
Saw this last night in 3D. It works so well, because the camera is used as an actor. Making us part of the action and becomes truly immersive because of this. My only gripe. No bruises. Otherwise, perfect.
It really doesn't. Hanging outside the oxygen lock for a long stupid conversation. Sorry, no one who's worked in any high risk field would view that charitably. Visually it's a masterpiece. But my god, the script was infuriating.
@@sd4830I mean dialogue, Hollywood and exposition aside. Still stand by it though, as a blockbuster popcorn thrill ride, perfect.
Alfonso's best film IMO. Such a beautifully directed and photographed masterpiece.
I’ll disagree and say Children of Men.
It should've been a silent movie. If (like me) you hate trite dialogue, my advice is put in your earbuds and listen to the Boards of Canada's 'Music has the Right to Children' and 'Geogaddi' and you'll find that space becomes a blissful abyss...
Watched this in 2D (unfortunately) and there definitely is a problem with the narrative; or to be specific the script and the acting. Perhaps if I had seen it in 3D all the gaping problems with it wouldn't have had such a crippling impact. In the end, it was very average indeed.
Agreed, you're not wring. I found the movie dull and, plot wise anyway, on a par with a TV movie.
Blimey oh riley?
Yes, the 3D panoramas are amazing and yes, I felt sick while watching it as I lost a sense of which way was up, but... I felt like I had walked into the third reel of a movie. Where is the story? there is none and the end just doesn't resolve. Not sure I completely agree with Mark's comment that the title is ironic, my take was that it is called Gravity because that is what saves her. She kisses the beach and says 'thank you' Then wanders off in her underwear. A character that hasn't grown at all.
Disappointing.
'A character that hasn't grown at all?' You can't possibly be serious. How about: a character so crippled by grief she can't find the strength to fight for her own life anymore (the scene in the airlock w/Clooney), and decides the best way to honour her daughter's death is to make the most of her own. Back on Earth and given a second chance she's now going to do that: SHE'S GOING TO LIVE. It's not a movie about tragedy in space. It's a film about grief and accepting death.
I agree, and it could have achieved that but the script was lacking and it was hard to build any sympathy for the character. But hey, what do I know, it's just been nominated for 11 BAFTAs ;-)
People always argue about the story. Now tell me: what more could they have done with what they had? There wasn't much they could do with the setup they had. Personally I think they did the best story they could've.
My main problem with Gravity was how Sandra Bullock's character acted. The first 40 minutes were designed to make me feel she's the dumbest character ever, the action was really silly, it felt like a comedy of errors. It was too much that I couldn't care what happened to her later on, and didn't get much insight out of it. Underdeveloped character. Felt the 3D was pointless too, because it always only stopped at the screen.
I enjoyed Europa Report, another sci-fi space movie from this year, far more which portrayed the loneliness of space over years and the nature of science being curiosity with possibly the best use of the found footage style since Man Bites Dog.
Allow me to share with you my impressions of her character. After the loss of her child she escapes the pain and sorrow by being a perfectionist in her work and likely chooses a career in space as a form of escapism. Having lost her daughter, she tries desperately to save Clooney, but fails. She then tries to survive whilst a deep part of her realizes she may have lost the will to live having suffered another loss and way too many close call situations on her trip in space. She then is reminded of why she should live and how to return home, to the life she hasn't been living. She discovers a new fire in her that both gives her the courage to fight to survive whilst also coming to terms with possible death. Having survived, she emerges a new woman. One that thanks her ordeal for having ended successfully and for showing her the path to a new life. Still think it's underdeveloped??
That's just her backstory and that's something that would be the premise for her ending up in space, the only development I saw was her getting some confidence like any other protagonist in a piece of fiction in the darkest hour of their journey. There was nothing particularly interesting I found about her, and no complexity to her motivations past that backstory.
Her being very ironically inept didn't endear too, like when she was being instructed by Clooney how to survive in a low oxygen environment, when she is the doctor and that's the one job that she should know! haha
A critic like Kermode "liking 3-D" is the equivalent Van Gogh finding his sea legs? So *&%$ing what? When the medium trumps the storytelling we've all lost our way and we might as well hand the whole thing over to Louis Lumiere and ask him where the %$@* he'd like us to start again. Stupefying. Dull-in-a-cheap-fairground-kind-of-way. Bullock and Clooney have the sort of degraded chemistry that would have a lonely, charisma-less molecule of acetic acid reacting with a conceited, personality-free ethanol molecule congratulating themselves on a particularly satisfying bimolecular second-order reaction. (Well that analogy is STILL less boring than this film's story!)
Not sure I understand the comment that it would not be as good in 2D, it was specifically created for 3D. so a moot point maybe. Anyway, wow, what a 90 minutes.