| Author |
Message |
Ketchuplover
Member
08-30-2000
| Friday, October 04, 2013 - 2:50 pm 
Wondrous
|
Konamouse
Member
07-15-2001
| Monday, October 07, 2013 - 1:31 pm
LOVED IT!!!! We saw it in 3D.
|
Kookliebird
Member
08-04-2005
| Monday, October 07, 2013 - 1:33 pm
I don't know if I will be able to watch it. Just the commercials alone freak me out!
|
Brenda1966
Member
07-02-2002
| Monday, October 07, 2013 - 1:46 pm
I hope to see this next weekend. Critics are saying this is a rare film where the 3D really adds to the film -- a film that demands to be seen on the big screen and in 3D. I have to decide if I'm going to go Imax 3D or just 3D.
|
Loremma
Member
04-25-2004
| Monday, October 07, 2013 - 2:13 pm
I saw it Saturday in IMAX 3D. It was wonderful in that format, if quite a lot of money - $19.00. I really enjoyed it and has me thinking about it a lot.
|
Happymom
Member
01-20-2003
| Tuesday, October 08, 2013 - 5:59 pm
10/10. I LOVED it! I think it may be the best movie I've ever seen. I saw it in 3D. Wish I'd seen it in IMAX. I'm so glad I paid the extra $3 to see it in 3D and SO glad I saw it on the big screen.
|
Whiplash
Member
03-29-2011
| Tuesday, October 08, 2013 - 9:37 pm
I loved this movie! I have to say, though, I'm glad I did not choose 3D. I had motion sickness within twenty minutes of the film starting. Seriously thought I was going to have to leave! Lol.
|
Jezzedout
Member
09-07-2006
| Friday, October 11, 2013 - 2:42 pm
Have been looking forward to Gravity since I first heard about it. Finally going tomorrow morning!! IMAX 3D baby!!
So glad all of you enjoyed it so much.
Wow, Loremma... $19 is steep!! My neighbor and I are planning to go to an early bird showing for $10.00. I felt like that was a deal (I think I paid $15 to see The Hobbit last year) but seeing you spent $19 I feel even better about it!!
|
Knightpatti
Member
12-05-2001
| Sunday, October 13, 2013 - 7:55 pm
did not care for it
|
Brenda1966
Member
07-02-2002
| Sunday, October 13, 2013 - 8:05 pm
Can you explain what you didn't like about it?
This is the kind of film that really makes you think. It's very visual, lots of symbolism. Makes you cry. That said, it's not the kind of film that I love. It's not the kind of film that really gets me excited. I can appreciate the artistry, the beauty of the film, but it doesn't grab me. It's not that I'll forget it, or what I saw. It was memorable, and gets under your skin a bit, but it didn't wow me like I'd hoped based on the reviews. I did see it in Imax 3D and I think it was worth the extra $ to see it that way.
|
Naja
Member
06-28-2003
| Sunday, October 13, 2013 - 10:16 pm
Oh how I wish I could see this in 3D. I think it's probably the first movie I feel bad about not being able to see in 3D.
(eta: the reason I feel particularly bad about this one is because Sandra Bullock is
my favorite actress, and I would have liked to see this movie how it's meant to be seen)
|
Brenda1966
Member
07-02-2002
| Sunday, October 13, 2013 - 10:25 pm
Naja I would just try to see it on the biggest screen you can so that it fills your visual field.
|
Naja
Member
06-28-2003
| Sunday, October 13, 2013 - 10:43 pm
I'm not sure how much bigger I can see it than my local movie theatre screen? I am blind in one eye, and you need vision in both eyes to see 3D.
|
Brenda1966
Member
07-02-2002
| Sunday, October 13, 2013 - 10:49 pm
I think as long as you go to a nice big theater in the next few weeks, before they stick it back in the tiny theaters you'll be fine.
|
Naja
Member
06-28-2003
| Sunday, October 13, 2013 - 11:02 pm
Thanks, Brenda. yeah, I go to the movies often and bigger does make it a little better (LOL that sounded funny), but having attended some 3D movies in giant theatres with family that can actually see them, it's not the same. But it is funny looking around seeing people ducking and screaming at something I can't see.
|
Brenda1966
Member
07-02-2002
| Monday, October 14, 2013 - 1:17 pm
Naja, an interesting article about 3D...
http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/14/tech/innovation/3d-one-eye/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
|
Ketchuplover
Member
08-30-2000
| Tuesday, October 15, 2013 - 4:28 pm
At least you can still rule over the land of the blind Naja. Perhaps you should try looking through a small hole and see how ye like it.
|
Naja
Member
06-28-2003
| Tuesday, October 15, 2013 - 6:33 pm
LOL Ketch!
That looking through a small hole is actually a trick that I (and many) have used just to see something clearer before I got glasses for my nearsightedness. It does not make something appear 3D, but it does make something in the distance appear clearer. How I did it was make my hand into the shape a pretend horn, and hold it to my eye. I made the hole very tiny, almost dot sized, aimed right at what I wanted to see.
Believe me, it may make something off in the distance a little clearer, but it doesn't make 2D look 3D. The whole definition of 3D is having 2 simultaneous, and 2 different perspectives. Peeking through a little hole with one eye is still just one perspective.
|
Snoopsmom
Member
02-19-2003
| Saturday, October 26, 2013 - 5:29 pm
Going to see it with hubby tomorrow morning in 3D. Would have probably preferred IMAX, but the IMAX theater show times don't work for us.
We have a local dinner theater that has early morning breakfast movies on Saturday and Sunday.
I love going to a movie over breakfast, then doing the grocery shopping nearby and being back home by noon for Sunday chores.
|
Teachmichigan
Member
07-22-2001
| Saturday, October 26, 2013 - 6:16 pm
We saw it in 3-D Thursday night (no Imax closer than 65 miles one way). LOVED it! I'm pretty sure I had muscles tensed the entire time!
|
Holly
Member
07-21-2001
| Saturday, October 26, 2013 - 8:29 pm
Saw it tonight in IMAX 3D. Awesome.
|
Jezzedout
Member
09-07-2006
| Tuesday, October 29, 2013 - 11:26 am
Saw it two weeks ago in IMAX 3D.
Visually gorgeous!
I found the storyline a little formulaic, at least in the broad stokes; but that didn't diminish the entertainment factor.
A really well done film all the way around.
|
Nolanry
Member
09-11-2006
| Friday, November 01, 2013 - 10:58 am
I'm not a fan of 3D films, so I saw it in 2D but I really liked it!
I thought maybe Sandra's legs had been a bit airbrushed though because they looked very firm and young and although I know she is very fit, they shouldn't have looked that smooth.
Also the part when she grabbed the fire extinguisher instantly reminded me of Wall-E and made me smile. 
|
Holly
Member
07-21-2001
| Friday, November 01, 2013 - 2:48 pm
I thought maybe Sandra's legs had been a bit airbrushed though because they looked very firm and young and although I know she is very fit, they shouldn't have looked that smooth.
Huh? Airbrushed in a movie??
Her whole body is ultra firm. Did you not notice her buns and boobs?
|
Rissa
Member
03-19-2006
| Friday, November 01, 2013 - 2:52 pm
Yes, I heard The Answer ••••• discussing it awhile back. Unbelievable as it may seem there are some stars who demand frame by frame airbrushing for movies. As far as changing the entire shape/tip of a nose, removing jowels, flattening stomachs, etc. Nice to know technology is being used for such an elevated purpose. LOL
PS Not to say that Bullock did this, I have no clue, just saying it is not an uncommon practise.
|
