The bluff of the year
I try to go the movies with a clear mind, even if I heard great or bad reviews of a movie. But I tried to go "clean". With Gravity is almost impossible. But I just try to watch it in the best conditions possible. As an IMAX experience.
Another thing I use to do is avoid myths. Everything about "masterpieces", "classics" and staff like that really common in the world of cinema.
Why do I say that? Because my though after I watched Alfonso Cuarón's new film was: "How amazing could be Kubrick's 2001. A space odyssey in IMAX 3D. Why?
1.- The mexican director use the new technology better than James Cameron in Avatar. I admit Gravity is an amazing 3D show as amazing as dizzy. Cuarón abuse so much of this effect than the audience can feel sick after so many camera movements. They are not fast most of the times, they are just exhausting.
2.- Thinking about the "dizzy experience" I wanna think it's something personal, maybe (even when I'm a pro 3D shooting in Herzog's and Wender's films like Cave of forgotten dreams and Pina). Could be a great step for the movie industry this surrounding experience that other filmmakers can use in the future in a correct way for their movies. But is it enough? I don't wanna talk about the non-ending debate about 3D yes or 3D no, but the technology has to be a tool to say something, another way to tell a story when the story needs it.
And what happens with Gravity? The 3D can be amazing but where's the story? Nowhere. There's not story at all, not even the excuse of Sandra Bullock's past. Nothing happens. It's a plane story of nothing. Well, the story is what everyone's can find in any synopsis of the film. An accident in the space. And? That's it.
It's a pitty that Alfonso Cuarón's last film, Children of men, is almost unknown and with this film everyone talks about its virtues. Which ones? I don't really know. Children of men talks about the future of the world, this one not even talk about the rubbish we are leaving in the Milky way. Just said it's there and it's dangerous, as everyone knows.
3.- And here I arrive to my reference about Kubrick's film. This "classic", "sci-fi masterpiece" and any other great things about everyone says about it becomes bigger thanks to this celebrated film of Cuarón. Maybe we don't understand what the hell is the monolith or what the hell are doing this monkeys at the beginning and some other things of 2001 but at least we know there's a message, a story telling, it says something, and the waltz in the space odyssey would be incredible and breathtaking with 3D technology and not dizzying.
To summarize from the great expectations of Gravity to the bluff of the year. Or to finish with an easy joke between 2001 and Cuarón's film there's a space odyssey. And it's upsetting.
Trailer:
Another thing I use to do is avoid myths. Everything about "masterpieces", "classics" and staff like that really common in the world of cinema.
Why do I say that? Because my though after I watched Alfonso Cuarón's new film was: "How amazing could be Kubrick's 2001. A space odyssey in IMAX 3D. Why?
1.- The mexican director use the new technology better than James Cameron in Avatar. I admit Gravity is an amazing 3D show as amazing as dizzy. Cuarón abuse so much of this effect than the audience can feel sick after so many camera movements. They are not fast most of the times, they are just exhausting.2.- Thinking about the "dizzy experience" I wanna think it's something personal, maybe (even when I'm a pro 3D shooting in Herzog's and Wender's films like Cave of forgotten dreams and Pina). Could be a great step for the movie industry this surrounding experience that other filmmakers can use in the future in a correct way for their movies. But is it enough? I don't wanna talk about the non-ending debate about 3D yes or 3D no, but the technology has to be a tool to say something, another way to tell a story when the story needs it.
And what happens with Gravity? The 3D can be amazing but where's the story? Nowhere. There's not story at all, not even the excuse of Sandra Bullock's past. Nothing happens. It's a plane story of nothing. Well, the story is what everyone's can find in any synopsis of the film. An accident in the space. And? That's it.
It's a pitty that Alfonso Cuarón's last film, Children of men, is almost unknown and with this film everyone talks about its virtues. Which ones? I don't really know. Children of men talks about the future of the world, this one not even talk about the rubbish we are leaving in the Milky way. Just said it's there and it's dangerous, as everyone knows.3.- And here I arrive to my reference about Kubrick's film. This "classic", "sci-fi masterpiece" and any other great things about everyone says about it becomes bigger thanks to this celebrated film of Cuarón. Maybe we don't understand what the hell is the monolith or what the hell are doing this monkeys at the beginning and some other things of 2001 but at least we know there's a message, a story telling, it says something, and the waltz in the space odyssey would be incredible and breathtaking with 3D technology and not dizzying.
To summarize from the great expectations of Gravity to the bluff of the year. Or to finish with an easy joke between 2001 and Cuarón's film there's a space odyssey. And it's upsetting.
Trailer:
Comentarios