Gravity Imax 3D- Page 2

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 10/6/13 at 2:21pm

Wonk it, you are describing the experience exactly. Don't see it in IMAX.

[AC126748]

Posted: 10/6/13 at 3:23pm

I'm generally not a fan of 3D, so I saw it in 2D on Friday. I immediately wished I had taken the 3D route. I'm going to try to catch it in 3D later today.

I found the film itself haunting and visually stunning.

[MikeInTheDistrict]

Posted: 10/6/13 at 6:47pm

I've been looking at listings in the D.C. area, and I'm confused. Is this playing on any actual IMAX screens, or just the retrofitted digital "IMAX Experience" theatres (at a regular multiplex)? None of the genuine IMAX theatres (with the 70x100 foot screens) here seem to be showing it. (Of course, I think the ones at the Smithsonian are actually closed due to the government shutdown, but the next closest at the Maryland Science Center in Baltimore is also not screening this.)

Is it worth seeing this in "lieMAX", or would it be okay to save on the surcharge and go to a regular theatre with an unusually big screen? (I'm thinking of going to the Uptown Theatre in D.C., which as a 70x40 ft screen.)

Updated On: 10/6/13 at 06:47 PM

[BroadwayNYC2]

Posted: 10/6/13 at 8:57pm

@Mike

I saw it at the Uptown yesterday and It was a fantastic experience. I sat in the center, about 10th row in the lower level and I had a great view. Well worth the $15.50. I must say I even prefer this theatre over Imax. I think i'll have to go check it out again this week.

[MikeInTheDistrict]

Posted: 10/6/13 at 9:54pm

Thanks so much BroadwayNYC! The Uptown it is. I am really excited about this. I'll probably go on a weeknight this week. :)

[rosscoe(au)]

Posted: 10/7/13 at 1:01am

Just so guys know in Australian dollars I payed $28.60 to see this in Imax

[tazber]

Posted: 10/7/13 at 6:10am

Good lord! Is that the normal cost of a 3D ticket where you are roscoe(au)?

[rosscoe(au)]

Posted: 10/7/13 at 7:55am

Tazber, normal 3D tickets at the majors ( village, hoyts ) are around 24.oo dollars. Australia is a very over priced place.

[ucjrdude902]

Posted: 10/7/13 at 1:10pm

Saw it. Loved it. Bullock just got herself an Oscar nomination.

[strummergirl]

Posted: 10/7/13 at 5:15pm

People asked me in Toronto why I would buy a ticket to Gravity when it was guaranteed to play everywhere within weeks. My answer: Princess of Wales Theater probably was going to be the best screen I would see it in. Plus my single-day ticket ended up being the same price as what I'd be charged for IMAX which in my area is most definitely not a real IMAX screen.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 10/7/13 at 5:25pm

6 1/2 more days until I can see it!!!!!!!!!

[best12bars]

Posted: 10/9/13 at 5:54pm

You do NOT need to see it in the big, dome shaped true IMAX. It's like being assaulted. It takes what I sensed must be a good little movie and blows it up into the first piece of fascist pop art I can think of since Freddie Mercury died. Don't do it to yourself. See it in a regular theater.

Namo, I'm with you on this. I saw it today at a "regular" theatre, in 3D, with a large (but regular, not even fake IMAX) screen.

The movie is very good, thought provoking, and almost a two- and even one-character film, which was the real marvel for me.

But it did not blow my mind, or even overwhelm me, other than Bullock's performance. I did appreciate the excellent special FX, but this really is a small movie, as far as the story goes. It is told masterfully. Great director, great actors, great effects.

This is definitely a case where I think the SIZE OF THE THEATRE brings out the best of the film, but also serves as "overwhelming content," when the content of this film really isn't overwhelming. It's compelling, it's captivating, it's entertaining, it's emotional, but A BIG SCREEN is what puts it over the top.

As you said, Namo, It's a very good, little movie.

It also reminded me in many ways of "Silent Running," where the last half of the film is a one-character journey (Bruce Dern) inside the spacecraft with the drones.

EDIT: Or even The Towering Inferno or The Poseidon Adventure, where a single catastrophic event plays itself out with hurdles and surprises. But that's the whole plot.

Updated On: 10/9/13 at 05:54 PM

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 10/9/13 at 7:51pm

Seeing this on Friday night. I honestly did not have any interest in seeing it, but after all the hype and hearing so many different opinions, I need to see it. I like Sandra Bullock and George Clooney. I have NEVER been entertained by any type of outer space movies, so I'm curious to see if this one breaks the mold.

[MikeInTheDistrict]

Posted: 10/9/13 at 11:49pm

I just saw it a few hours ago in 3D on a non-IMAX (but large) screen. I have to admit, I was slightly underwhelmed and I regret not seeing it in IMAX.

The story is a very simple piece of existential drama: life or death, with the latter being punctuated by the utter sense of isolation, darkness, and alienness of the outer space setting. But Cuaron has always been a director who is meticulous about creating a visual experience, even going back to A Little Princess (which is, to this day, one of the most visually stunning children's movies I have ever seen). I felt like I was missing out on the detail and clarity that IMAX equipment allows for and, as a result, getting about 80% of the film's impact.

I feel like the film NEEDS to be overwhelming. It's really the only way the visceral gravity (pardon the pun) of the situation could be communicated to a viewer, whose relationship to any film will be passive. For the last several decades, we have been sending handfuls of human beings into space. Some have died. I think the film's brilliance is in its immersive quality: under the right circumstances, it probably does a very good job of conveying something of what astronauts might experience: the remoteness, the groundlessness, the face of a universe which is seemingly indifferent to our survival and our earthly attachments.

That said, I don't think you NEED to see it in IMAX. The film needs to be harrowing, but not overwhelming to the point of losing your wits. Which format you choose to watch it in probably depends on your propensity for sensory overwhelm. Calibrate your viewing experience accordingly. What astronauts do is physically and emotionally exhausting and they go through intensive training to be able to handle it. I wanted to experience some inkling of what they go through, but I'm a bit of an adrenaline junkie who loves rollercoasters and has been bungee-jumping several times. Seeing it on a regular screen didn't quite pull me in as much as I expected it to. I think somewhat more desensitized folks of my type would benefit from seeing this on as big a screen as possible with the best projection equipment they can find.

Updated On: 10/9/13 at 11:49 PM

[best12bars]

Posted: 10/10/13 at 7:02am

The more I think about this film, the less it stays with me. The visual impact of it is what remains. But the story could be summed up in one sentence. And I'll bet the treatment for the screenplay was five pages long, max.

Personally, I need more story in my stories. This was big and loud and impressively big and impressively loud, with some great acting and some solid sentiments made occasionally in the film.

That's about it. I'm not sure it would play well for me at all in repeat viewings. I think I would be too restless, waiting for something else to happen.

And one big difference between this movie and other "disaster" movies I mentioned earlier, with a cast so small like this one, you really aren't wondering who is going to live and who is going to die, because if Sandy Bullock dies (no spoilers here), the movie is over. I kept thinking that while I was watching it for the first time, having read no spoilers. "I already know she has to make it at least as far as the end of the movie, because if she doesn't, the credits roll and we're done." That alone took a lot of the tension out of it for me. It's not like Poseidon Adventure or Towering Inferno with an ensemble principal cast, where you don't know until the end who will live or who will die. If Sandy goes, we're done. The end.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 10/10/13 at 8:36am

"The more I think about this film, the less it stays with me."

Me too. And the more time goes by the more eye-rolling the over-enthusiasm seems to me.

Mike, I'm curious as to why you imagine bigger, louder and more abrasive would have made you like the movie more?

Updated On: 10/10/13 at 08:36 AM

[Luscious]

Posted: 10/10/13 at 9:29am

Well stated, Mike. I agree with you 100%.

If this were another type of film, I might be more in agreement with Namo and Best12. I've seen a number of movies over the years in IMAX 3D that didn't warrant such a presentation and overwhelmed the senses to the point of distraction, actually, taking away from the enjoyment of the movie, at least for me. But, IMO, this is the kind of movie that IMAX 3D was made for. I didn't want to just SEE this movie. I wanted to FEEL it. And feel it, I did. Had I seen it on a regular screen in 2D, I would have felt cheated and underwhelmed. To be sure, if you want plot and intricate storytelling, this isn't the movie. But if you want to have an exciting, viscerally immersive experience, see it in IMAX 3D on the biggest and best screen you can find.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 10/10/13 at 9:39am

But there are so many more examples of movies that don't need any of those trappings that make you FEEL it, right?

[best12bars]

Posted: 10/10/13 at 9:40am

But let me ask you this ...

How good is a film if it only really works and "wows" you if you see it one way?

I was talking about The Wizard of Oz on the IMAX 3D thread, and it did make a huge difference seeing that movie in 3D on a large screen ... but that movie has worked for 50 years now on tiny TV sets that (in the beginning) didn't even switch to color when Dorothy got to Oz. It works because the story is good, and everything holds up, whether you see it in 2D, 3D, on a 13" TV or a 100-foot screen. It's still a good story. And it works with repeat viewings as well.

I wonder, and this is only speculation at this point, how well Gravity would work on a small TV set in 2D. And after you've already seen it once.

My guess is that it would be rather boring, with the one glimmer of interest being Bullock's performance.

Updated On: 10/10/13 at 09:40 AM

[Luscious]

Posted: 10/10/13 at 10:10am

"But there are so many more examples of movies that don't need any of those trappings that make you FEEL it, right?"

"How good is a film if it only really works and "wows" you if you see it one way?"

I guess it depends on what your definitions of "feel" and "good" are.

By "feel" I don't mean move me emotionally. I literally mean, feel. As in, at times, my chair was vibrating. As in, when debris was hurtling towards the screen, I ducked and my hands, instinctively, went up to cover my face. I mean "feel" on a completely visceral, not emotional, level. Although, at times, I was emotionally moved, as well. But that wasn't why I saw in in IMAX 3D.

As for "good". I think the movie accomplishes exactly what the filmmaker intended it to - creating an immersive, heart-thumping thrill-ride. I wouldn't categorize it as a classic, like The Wizard of Oz, and I have no idea how it will hold up over the years. But I do think it's a groundbreaking piece of film work. Seeing it in 2D on a small screen would, no doubt, significantly diminish my enjoyment of it. But, for me, that doesn't mean it isn't a good, or even great, film. There are a lot of movies that I enjoy seeing much more on a big screen, and would just as soon pass on watching on a small one.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 10/10/13 at 10:19am

You were looking for a Sensurround revival.

[best12bars]

Posted: 10/10/13 at 10:50am

So basically this movie is a theme park ride.

[Luscious]

Posted: 10/10/13 at 12:34pm

Sounds to me like you both have a somewhat narrow view of what a movie should or needs to be. And to that I say, to each his own. Whatever blows your skirt up. I'm not trying to sell you on the movie. I see different movies for different reasons. Some for their plot and character development. Some for their cast and performances. Some for their message. And some just for the fun of it. Some fair well with repeat viewings, and some don't. Some work just as well (or even better) on a small screen, and some don't. I saw GRAVITY mostly for its amazing imagery, ground-breaking technical achievements and intense immersive nature. I was looking to have a thrilling, primal and physical experience. I got everything I wanted, hoped for and expected, and then some. Sorry you didn't.

Updated On: 10/10/13 at 12:34 PM

[MikeInTheDistrict]

Posted: 10/10/13 at 1:08pm

I agree completely, Luscious.

Yes, I was expecting something akin to a theme park ride, as I think much of the audience for this film is expecting. I make no apologies for that. I think the intended immersive quality (and requisite technological presentation) of this film is a deliberate part of the storytelling. I saw an interview with Cuaron in which he basically said that this is a film that is intended to make you feel as much as possible like you're in space -- thus, why he chose to release it in IMAX (it wasn't filmed in IMAX) and in 3D. I don't think it's aiming at an assault on the senses, but rather an enveloping of the senses of sight, sound, and the camerawork I think is even meant to engage your sense of balance and kinaesthetic awareness. I doubt I would find it "abrasive" in IMAX. Rather, more visually and aurally engrossing -- which is the majority of what drew me to see this film.

And I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Visual spectacle is one of the unique advantages of the film medium over, say, literature or poetry; this is even more so with 3D and IMAX. To use examples of stage-to-screen, it's why I was somewhat frustrated with Tom Hooper's Les Miz, and loved Emile Ardolino's film of Balanchine's The Nutcracker: I don't think Hooper took enough advantage of the film medium, while Ardolino created a completely different experience of Balanchine's choreography through his camerawork. Of the two, Les Miserables has a far more complex and interesting plot, but Ardolino manages to create a wonderful film out of 90 minutes of virtually plotless dancing.

I think creating a sensory experience is a laudable goal for a film in its own right and worth the price of a ticket. I was one of the seeming few who wasn't really captivated by the trailer when I first saw it. I went into this film expecting it to basically be Sandra Bullock floating around in space for 90 minutes (which, for the most part, it was). But I was willing to give it a go based on Cuaron's directorial cachet. I expected him to be able to fashion something worthwhile out of a very thin story.

For the most part, I think he was successful. Yes, in terms of dialogue, the script is thin; not much happens and I found the revelation about Ryan's past a somewhat emotionally manipulative and cheap attempt at infusing a barebones storyline with some complexity. But, taking the technological aspects as part of the storytelling and as a necessary and intrinsic part of the whole experience of this film, I think it provides a pretty good return in your investment of an hour and a half and $15-20.



Updated On: 10/10/13 at 01:08 PM

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 10/10/13 at 2:02pm

So basically this movie is a theme park ride.

I'm totally okay with that. It's why I never tire of watching Jurassic Park or Twister. Hoping to catch it on IMAX this weekend. I need a good old-fashioned theme park spectacle film. I really hated the last one, Avatar.