mavity (2013)

Just got back from seeing this. I enjoyed it and the effects and acting were good, but wouldn't say it's a 10/10, probably a 7/10 from me. Maybe I have poor taste when it comes to movies but I just wasn't as impressed as some seemingly are by it.

I wasn't overly impressed with the 3D either, yes it's used well in this film but I don't think it necessarily adds to it. I'd be just as happy watching it in 2D but maybe that's because I'm a 3D skeptic :o
 
Saw this last night in Imax as our local had put it back on, granted the 11pm showing it was late even for me.

Really enjoyed it the effects looked awesome and the film in general was different from how I thought it'd be. Pleasant surprise. Actually glad they did some scenes in silence how it should be in space rather then adding explosions to it.
 
I’m always going to show bias for any flick that touches the Sci-Fi genre but I have to say I found the film utterly brilliant. Yes there were some mechanics whether physical or character based which felt contrived for the sake of the plot, but I’ve certainly not watched a movie which pretty much had me on the edge of my seat almost persistently throughout the entire last 80 minutes.
It was almost unremitting in its show of calamity after calamity.

A friend stated quite simply “that was really stressful” and I somewhat agreed.

Well done!
 
dasyad said:
Just got back from seeing this. I enjoyed it and the effects and acting were good, but wouldn't say it's a 10/10, probably a 7/10 from me. Maybe I have poor taste when it comes to movies but I just wasn't as impressed as some seemingly are by it.

I wasn't overly impressed with the 3D either, yes it's used well in this film but I don't think it necessarily adds to it. I'd be just as happy watching it in 2D but maybe that's because I'm a 3D skeptic :o
Click to expand...

Double woot, the 3D in this film is quality man :confused:
 
Excellent film. Saw it 3D last night and is the only 3D film which I have thoroughly enjoyed.

I'd love to see the political aftermath. The whole world turning around to Russia asking, what the **** have you just done?!?! Destroying the hubble space telescope and 2 space stations
 
Of course the scenario suggested, although done to excess, is absolutely plausible and a very real risk! If the problem starts happening it could snowball and create a no go area in orbit that could severally hamper space travel for tens, if not a hundred or more years.
 
The momentum thing wasn't an issue I thought. as explained below its the spinning which causes george to still have momentum
NeilFawcett said:
I've watched the film twice now, and this scene proved a weak spot both times for me.

When Bullock gets caught up on the cables on the ISS, you can clearly see she picks up some centrifugal force. ie: She's spinning around the ISS slowly on the end of the cable. You can also see this force is risking pulling her leg free of the cable.

Now when Clooney joins in on the end of this cable, he adds yet more mass/force pulling on the end of it, and further risks Bullock's leg coming free. A couple of shots at this point don't seem to suggest there's centrifugal forces anymore, but we'll assume they're still slowing spinning around the ISS on the end of the cable. So this explains the force we see "pulling" at them.

Now none of this is problem.

What IS a problem is Clooney letting go would NOT return Bullock to the ISS, as it shows happening! It makes no sense and is completely impossible.


As I've said before my preferred scene would have been Clooney pulling himself up their tether so the two of them are face to face, and then he gives his sacrifice speech, undoes the tether and then PUSHES Bullock as hard as he can back towards the ISS. This would have changed her direction of travel back towards the ISS, and propelled Clooney away.

Fixed!
Click to expand...

Also:
Sandra was nearly able to apply enough force to pull clooney back in, so she was obviously applying more than enough force to keep herself in check. So when clooney unclips, the force she was already applying is now enough to start to pull her back in.

No problems :)


In fact the Physics was one of the things I enjoyed most about this film. Normally when I watch scifi I get annoyed at the major errors, but apart from the making space seem a lot easier than it is, and ignoring the real life locations & gear of the satellites, I couldn't find fault.

Excellent visual adventure. I'd give it 9/10, with just the dialouge letting it down.


On the other hand, the GF fell asleep in the cinema, so its obviously subjective.
 
Judgeneo said:
Sandra was nearly able to apply enough force to pull clooney back in, so she was obviously applying more than enough force to keep herself in check. So when clooney unclips, the force she was already applying is now enough to start to pull her back in.

No problems :)
Click to expand...


I'm afraid that make absolutely no sense at all to me...

There is no force pulling her back towards the ISS. She is on the end of a cable/line spinning (slowly) around the ISS thus resulting in a small centrifugal force to her and Clooney thus pulling at the line in question.

When Clooney let go, the centrifugal force sent him off, but it would make no different to Bullock, other than reduce the pull on her. She would NOT return to the ISS.


Again, the only way I could have seen this scene working would have been for Clooney to have pulled on their tether till they were face to face, for him to give his sacrifice speech, and then to undo the tether and to push Bullock as hard as he could back towards the ISS.

That would result exactly in what we then saw happening in the film.
 
NeilFawcett said:
I'm afraid that make absolutely no sense at all to me...

There is no force pulling her back towards the ISS. She is on the end of a cable/line spinning (slowly) around the ISS thus resulting in a small centrifugal force to her and Clooney thus pulling at the line in question.

When Clooney let go, the centrifugal force sent him off, but it would make no different to Bullock, other than reduce the pull on her. She would NOT return to the ISS.


Again, the only way I could have seen this scene working would have been for Clooney to have pulled on their tether till they were face to face, for him to give his sacrifice speech, and then to undo the tether and to push Bullock as hard as he could back towards the ISS.

That would result exactly in what we then saw happening in the film.
Click to expand...

If she was not exerting a force on the wires, then she would have flown of with Clooney. So yes, there is a force pulling her back.

anywho, we're getting a little of topic, I won't argue any more :p
 
Judgeneo said:
If she was not exerting a force on the wires, then she would have flown of with Clooney. So yes, there is a force pulling her back.

anywho, we're getting a little of topic, I won't argue any more :p
Click to expand...

The only way your suggestion would work is if the parachute cables were elastic so there was potential energy in there from Clooney's additional mass. I very much doubt a cable designed to withstand several tonnes of stress would deform under Bullock's couple of kilograms of mass induced from centrifugal force.

It just makes no sense (Clooney letting go would not return Bullock to the ISS)... Which is a shame given it's a pivotal moment in the film and could have easily have been made to make sense.

But none-the-less a good flick :)
 
My girlfriend and I saw in on Wednesday, we were both pretty disappointed… I think it has just been overhyped.

Don't get me wrong, it looked fantastic and it's the first film where I thought 3D actually worked (it was better than Avatar in that respect). However, the plot and dialogue left a lot to be desired.

I thought Sandra Bullock and George Clooney played it well but were given a shocking script.

I'm glad I saw it in 3D in the cinema because the special effects mask what is effectively a very average film; something that a 2D 37" TV would only highlight.

It was a grand example of style over substance.
 
The film was visually very impressive and it had a good deal of suspense but the dialogue was appalling and Sandra Bullock (replace the 'u' with an 'o'...) cannot act to save her life. I wanted her character to die so she would shut up.
 
I don't have anything against Bullock or Clooney, but I don't think they 'made' the film so to speak, it could have been any pair of actors in the film, and the effect would have been the same.

That is not to say that it wasn't an amazing cinematic experience, and I am sure that it will do well at next years oscar's, especially in the visual arts sections. But I don't think it will be winning any of the 'big' awards. Nominations yes, but awards, sadly not.
 
i think clooney played his part well as did bullock. the imagary was great did have a few moments where i thought tom hanks might pop out :p and a couple of unbelievable bits but overall a good film to watch.
 
In the end I decided to give this a miss, just seemed to much of an imax requirement and there isn't one for near 2 hours travel
 
I saw this on saturday in 3D at the imax. Rather pant wettingly expensive at £15 a ticket but it was for someones birthday.

I really enjoyed it. Especially the near 15 minute single shot opening scene. Great cinematography and music and great to see a story get under way so quickly too. Five minutes in and the story was all go and it was action and suspense all the way to the end.
 
al4x said:
In the end I decided to give this a miss, just seemed to much of an imax requirement and there isn't one for near 2 hours travel
Click to expand...

I've seen it Imax 3D and regular 3D. And while the Imax was crisper, the difference wasn't enough to convince me to ever spend the extra time/money again.

See it regular 3D :)
 
Worst movie of the year contender and that's being generous.

If you want to see a whiny, crying, heavy breathing woman in space for 90 minutes this is for you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom