Change Your Image
sheance114
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014)
It's Spider-man 3 once again, but this time more terrible
EXTREME SPOILER ALERT! I've warned you.
Remember the time when Spider-man was cool and awesome? Remember the time when the story was so strong, it made you cringe? Remember the time when Spidey was effortlessly funny? Remember the time when the love story of Spidey and a girl was really getting into your feels? And remember the time when a line in a Spider-man movie was so memorable?
To sum it all up, all of those hypothetical questions above were seemingly not present in The Amazing Spider-man 2.
I am a huge fan of Spider-man, and ever since this reboot of Sony; I've never been impressed. The first film failed horribly, and to be honest, it's going downhill.
What is obvious in the movie was that the story was not strong, after the movie; my partner and I concluded that there was no story AT ALL. It was all over the place! It was all falling apart
It did bore me 2 hours running (Except for part where Spidey and Electro faced off in time square between the boring two hours) and the last 30 minutes of it was the only interesting time/s.
I was wondering if the entire build-up time was only for the (EXTREME SPOILER ALERT) death of Gwen Stacey? Peter Parker's father was not even the highlight of it all, when in fact it should be his. Not even the entre of the movie gave justice to Peter's father.
But on the positive note, the action scenes were cool; there were some fun moments and comic reliefs. The visual effects were really stunning; it really looked good on IMAX 3D. And also, the exceptional acting of Dane DeHaan who played Harry Osborn. But that's all.
I also had an issue with the ending of it.
Gwen Stacey died because of a broken spine caused by Peter himself
Peter mourned for seasons, but revealed it was only 5 months, and then he's back being Spidey
just like that.
What I mean to say is that, it was so insensitive for the filmmakers to revive Spider-man very quick when in fact there's loss and it's the loss in which you are not capable of coming back to your own self in just a short amount of time. He's Spider-man, everyone knows he's got responsibility, but c'mon, he's human after all. The entire boring 2 hours was an emotional build-up (even dark), and why would they stray away that emotional tone by the end?
I'm really sure about this, but it was a bad, bad movie. It was so disappointing that even the news that there's a preview of X-MEN: Days of Future Past in the mid-credits WAS NOT EVEN PRESENT.
This was like Spider-man 3 all over again, so many villains, so packed action scenes, but the story is non-sense. Minus the fun and comedy.
Compared to Captain America: The Winter Soldier, there was only one main villain and that's the Winter Soldier himself. All of the other hydra people were back-ups, but there was an uncertainty in every character, whether they'll make it or not, the tension was in the midst of the movie which were lacking in The Amazing Spider-man. CapAm was all pumped up while Spidey 2 was not.
This just goes to show that a Spider-man story can never work with a dark tone. Or is it just Andrew Garfield that missed being a true Spider-man that's why it's lacking? Or was it the directing over-all? Trust me; nothing beats the Spiderman series where the (AWESOME) Tobey Maguire starred.
The Amazing Spiderman 2 is directed by Marc Webb and stars Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Dane DeHaan, Jamie Foxx and Paul Giamatti. The film was released April 30, 2014 in the Philippines and distributed by Columbia Pictures.
(This review is also seen in my blog www.onesettingatatime.com)
Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014)
An ambush of engaging sequences that leaves you satisfied
Once upon a time there was Iron Man 3 where the hype is on the top of every Marvel movie that I thought wouldn't be surpassed by any other sequels/spin-offs or interconnected movie. The level of Iron Man 3 (not from a fan-boy perspective) was above the top. From the storyline to its action sequences to its comedy was above all commendable (although fan- boys would not agree with me, of course).
Then, there was Captain America.
Although the first movie was a little bit dragging from the beginning up to the end, the storyline was strong and was complementary to the Marvel Cinematic Universe. The tone was sepia-ish due to the timeline of 1940's.
But little did I know that the entire first movie of CapAm was vital for sequel: The Winter Soldier.
It revolves around Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) and the events after the cataclysmic Avengers in New York. In his trial to blend with the modern time and facing another familiar enemy which would destroy the entire empire of S.H.I.E.L.D., also a past that is sinister in the present, naming himself "The Winter Soldier", that will rock Rogers' world. Betrayal and Loyalty are his ultimate struggle on who's who he will give his trust, to win over the first ultimate test in the modern world he and the S.H.I.E.L.D. will ever know.
There's a lot going in the film, but is not distracting, and the pace is just perfect for the two and fifteen minutes run of it. The character build-up was enough for each, especially on Falcon (Anthony Mackie), the ex-military/side kick of Captain America. With Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson), his character was focused from start to finish because he's the focal point of the movie on which the main characters should act upon after his unforeseen demise. But one superstar, aside from Captain America himself, who garnered an applause and bravo credit in the film, was Natasha Romanoff (Scarlett Johansson). Her finesse, sinister moves, unprecedented jokes and sensual aura made it work for the entire movie. She is that one person in a film that would give a cool effect, plus she's a woman, so, it all works. I think its Marvel's way to introduce her because of the rumoured Black Widow movie
and I'm up for the line.
The only character that was little most exposure was Sharon Carter (Emily VanCamp), well, I am biased to this because I just so love her. But I guess it's just a build-up to what's to come for her and Steve Rogers in the future.
The story of The Winter Soldier was really compelling. The ambush to the main characters was believable in the sense of real life situations. The betrayal of some will pose a question on whether a main character will die. And that's exciting and dreading at the same time, not knowing if your favourite character will make it or not.
All the action in the movie was up-beat and so good. Although, I just hoped the camera movements weren't that much moving a lot, but still it works.
What I about Captain America: The Winter Soldier was that from start to end, because of the compelling storyline; it will engage you to focus and love every scene. It's a must watch. I'm kind of in battle to what's better, Iron Man 3 or Captain America: The Winter Soldier, and the latter is a bit revamped on the storyline.
(This review is also seen in my blog onesettingatatime.com)
Carrie (2013)
Bloody, interesting yet lacking.
MAJOR SPOILERS
"Bloody, interesting yet lacking."
Carrie is an American supernatural horror film about a girl who discovers she has telekinesis; a power of the mind to control things, and her struggle through high school where she experienced a modern kind of bullying especially about her first bloody period. Carrie does not only struggle at school but also directly at home with her mother who's got some 'mental illness' due to being too much enticed religiously, pathetically thinking that wearing a sleeveless is a mortal sin. The film was released on October 18, 2013, after postponing the March 15, 2013 release.
Carrie stars Chloe Moretz (Kick-Ass) as the notoriously famous Carrie White and the Oscar Nominee and Emmy Award best actress Julianne Moore (Game Change) as Margaret White, Carrie's mother.
Carrie is classic redux of the 1976 film and an adaptation of Stephen King's classic in the same name.
Yet, the popularity of the first adaptation (1976) in other countries did not reach to where I live, therefore, I haven't seen, heard of read anything about Carrie. It's a relatively good perspective so that no comparison will be made out from this review, which I appreciate in doing, and I appreciate in reading. Not to disrespect Stephen King or the creators of the first adaptation; but it would be fair for me to review a film as it is.
I noticed how deep the storyline of the story was. From Margaret White's ignorance of pregnancy, which she thought was cancer; to Carrie's dreadful first period which she thought was some kind of disease. It also imparts the new age of bullying in the United States that includes technological ways (Cyber Bullying), which demonstrates the range of the modern matter that causes new wave adversary in youngsters.
The build-up of the story was somehow a bore, but thankful for the length of the movie that was only an hour and a half which defer viewers from total boredom.
Then the intensity came where (as everyone expected) the prom began, and Carrie, herself, started to rebel from her mother's irrational, impractical and nonsensical guard. The part where the pig's blood splattered on Carrie's head that had been repeated three times in the movie was interesting and useful that gives the awe moment. Then from there, the climax of the redux extricates from the deepening build-up.
The climax did appease me, somehow, and how Chloe Moretz portrayed a possessed-like girl that murdered numerous of people in one setting and that she lost to her senses due to the circumstances. The plenty of action engrossed me in my seat, making me bend forward to wait for that climatic 'umpf' moment. There were loads of bloody sparklers and I enjoyed every bit of vengeance Carrie made from her intimidators.
How grueling the mass murder happened in the movie, gives excitement. Up to the portion where she gets the revenge to the biggest bully of all in the film. But, oh, it was just a normal way to die and it was one of the part where I find lack; I wished there was more of a triumphant feel having the ultimate vengeance from you enemy. (I waited for a part where Carrie tells her enemy, "BITCH!" before she died.)
But no, it was just a simple death. I preferred a death in front of number of people or something else. And they have the choice to redirect the movie away from the past recreation/adaptation of the book. (Yet still Carrie fan boys and girls will be frustrated with my idea for sure).
And another lack I felt was the lack of depth from Carrie's bullying story. Carrie being thrown tampons and napkins was too much, but that was just the start of it all. The online video leak (Cyber Bullying) did not even take part of a strong portrayal of modern bullying which causes even suicides to some (sorry). But it was just a useless instrument that did not give a strong voice which should be the most important fact of all, since, let's face it, Cyber Bullying nowadays is the trend on how to crush someone's dignity and entire persona. That should've been emphasized.
The acting was not believable either which roots the blame to the directing. Except for Julianne Moor who gave a chilling performance, applauded her in the movie.
The movie ended with me still hanging on my seat still waiting for that climatic 'umpf' moment. But it did not come.
The entire movie was interesting, (from a perspective of non-comparison review) yet not satisfying and gives you a feel of 'okay, that was it'. I am much disappointed with how the movie went since it stars one of my new favorite actresses, Chloe Moretz. And also the fact of the in-time issue which is Bullying and how awful it is and lastly, I fancy revenge stories. All of those enticed me to watch the movie. But it failed me somehow.
I wonder how fans of the original movie react to the remake.
Thor: The Dark World (2013)
In the tone of disappointment, it's like nothing happened
Thor: The Dark World is a sequel of the Thor movie in 2011, also a follow-up to the cross-over film: The Avengers, and an eight installment in Marvel's Cinematic Universe. Starring Chris Hemsworth (Rush) as Thor, Natalie Portman (Black Swan) as Thor's love interest, Jane Foster, Tom Hiddleston (Midnight in Paris) as the vengeful Loki, Anthony Hopkins as Thor's father, Odin, Christopher Ecclesston as Malekith and Rene Russo as Thor and Loki's mother Frigga. The film was set to release November 8, 2013, yet ahead in the Philippines which was on October 30th.
I truly am a GAGA fan of the cinematic universe. How I begged for something like this; films that are interconnected with each other and one day will cross-over in one epic movie and proceed. Marvel Cinematic Universe is the answer to this plea.
They have created oneness and interrelated concepts in comic characters like Iron Man (which truly was the best of all franchises), Captain America, Hulk and Thor. They also even managed to expand the world in television and created a spin-off story about the Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. which disappoints fans a bit, but not me.
I remembered not liking the first Thor movie due to its long precedence of build-up and little non-satisfying action scenes. And it doesn't differ in Thor: The Dark World.
The movie started off with an explanation of Malekith's treason to the Universe with Anthony Hopkins lame voice over. I wasn't INTO IT because there was no intensity in the actor's voice; he was just like a bored story teller and it should've been created with impact since it's the opener of the movie, and it's just infuriating hearing Hopkins lazy on that build-up.
And the build-up continues on and on in about an hour out of 112 minutes of the film which bored me to death, not even Frigga's death created much impact.
There was a part where Malekith and his gang had already infiltrated Asgard which I also didn't feel the threat due to the fact that there was no build-up on how Malekith would intensify his revenge.
The interesting part only exaggerated when (SPOILER, MAJOR SPOILER) Loki died and he battle between Thor and Malekith who acquired the Aether (A dark force in liquid form to extinguish the 9 realms and create darkness) from Jane who had possessed the said element.
Yet still the action scenes feel heavy.
Although, there were truly funny moments in the film that delights me, since everyone should know that any Marvel Cinematic Universe film would not be possible with no touch of comedy in it. I remember laughing my ass out loud when Loki transformed himself to Captain America that made Chris Evans' uncredited cameo. The comedy lasted throughout the climatic ending, which wasn't even present in the build-up part that lames it all up; not even the amazingly funny Kat Dennings' made an strong laughable moments in the build-up parts (but not in the climax where she and her intern was really funny).
So everything sums up to the climax part and the rest of the film was a blah.
Thor gave me the impression that there are ups and downs in any cinematic world, and Thor was a down. The action scenes were 'bad' heavy; the build-up was too much that gives a bore; the climatic part wasn't that satisfying; there were no 'HELL YEAH, THAT'S THOR' moment; and there was really nothing to say about the film but disappointment and nothing happened.
Thor: The Dark World is directed by Alan Taylor.
The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (2013)
I died watching the book's magnificence re-engineered masterfully on the silver screen.
I've been a Hunger Games fan ever since before the movies came out. I've read the entire series with no halls barred from day one to day four neglecting my duties as an online teacher that day, and I've no regrets, just pure fascination on the entire series.
The Hunger Games movie came out with a blast, injecting a political and showbiz paradigm of a new America called Panem with an awesome movie that garnered 83% fresh in rottentomatoes.com and was followed up by The Hunger Games: Catching Fire movie this year.
Catching Fire is a follow up movie telling the aftermath series of events right after the first film and how Katniss Everdeen tries to outrun the trauma she's gotten into and tries to be neutral on the recent spark of revolution she's given to the citizens of Panem and the desperation of the government to kill off that uprising including Katniss herself.
Why was The Hunger Games book and movie a trend lately? Because of the unique story of a new dystopian tyrant world ruled by one central successful district called Capitol and the rest are slaves or workers for them. And it cannot linger away from most political transgressions in most countries nowadays; only less showbiz killing and showoffs on cam. Also the addition of the effervescent Jennifer Lawrence who's stunning and down-to-earth celebrity who tries to concisely diminish the usual celebrity ladder to fame which is to look like a skinned doll and try to be delusion in front of the camera: no, JenLaw is not that type, and I can say she is a role model for us human beings who doesn't need to look perfect in order to please everyone.
Months ago I've seen and been impressed by the trailers of the movie and how I was not afraid that it would fail me as a fan and how will it be true to the book. And then I've read fantastic reviews from critics all around the world telling how good the movie was
until today.
Here's what I can say to the movie.
THE MIRAGE
What I love about reading books that'll be turned into movies is for the reason that I want my imagination to be brought to life; when you read something, you promote yourself to an illusionary world where you are the director and the camera man. When I precisely have a vision on a revolutionary epic story and will be translated to the silver screen; it makes me excited.
But due to the fact that, let's be honest, an adaptation of a film from a book doesn't need to be exactly what the book says since the true meaning of adaptation is not a Xerox copy; instead, the entire plot is taken into precautionary re-telling of the tale with small modifications but intends not to destroy the said plot.
But this one, The Hunger Games: Catching Fire movie is a true manifestation that you could adapt and Xerox at the same time! The movie did not go far away from the book, and still has the essence and contents in it.
The mirage of the events of the story inside my mind happens to look SOMEWHAT exactly in the movie! I have to applaud the director, Francis Lawrence, for doing such an amazing job to stay true to the book. Not all scenes happen to look exactly what I imagined, but close to that of the movie, especially the arena.
THE ACTING
Jennifer Lawrence won a best actress. JenLaw is pleasing to me seeing her acting in all the hurtful emotions displaying a traumatized girl was a bravo.
And the rest of the cast were amazing in delivering their characters. I applaud Phillip Seymour Hoffman who played the role of the illusionary antagonist, Plutarch, who, I thought was scary and if I hadn't read the book, I wouldn't know that he's part of the rebellion especially when he speaks with Donald Sutherland who played President Snow creating a nonchalant tension in the way he looks and speaks that displayed arrogance and evil-ish look.
THE DIRECTION AND MUSICAL SCORE
Thankfully, they've also changed into a perfect director, Francis Lawrence, who gave out the essence of the book beautifully. It's one of those action packed books that they didn't ruin at all. Instead, they magnify every scene that still captures your attention with strong musical score.
OVERALL
In totality, I was beyond amazed by the film and how it was taken from book to the screen with amazement! Not all my favorite books that were brought to the silver screen were this epic. I die watching the book's magnificence re-engineered masterfully on the silver screen.
(This review is also seen on my blog, One Setting at a Time)
Frozen (2013)
More than the cliché 'Happy Ever After'
"The movie is beyond a repertoire of the classic girl meets prince, prince marries girl and they lived happy ever after."
Frozen is a 2013 animated musical film from Walt Disney Pictures which is directed by Chris Buck and Jennifer Lee and initially released November 10, 2013 in the entire US, and November 27, 2013 here in the Philippines. Frozen is starred by Idina Menzel as Elsa, the Snow Queen, Kristen Belle as Anna, sister of Elsa, Jonathan Groff as Kristoff, Santino Fontana as Hans, a prince in another kingdom and Josh Gad as Olaf, the snowman.
The story of Frozen is an adaptation from an epic fairy tale of Hans Christian Andersen entitled The Snow Queen. Frozen follows the story of a young princess who is destined to resurrect the kingdom from an eternal winter caused by her sister with the help of a dreamy stranger with his loyal reindeer and a naively funny snowman.
The movie is beyond a repertoire of the classic girl meets prince, prince marries girl and they lived happy ever after. And to be straightforward; I loved every bit of it.
STORY
Every princess needs a prince, and the princess needed to marry him a day after they've met. Thank God they have magnified that monotonic fairytale cliché into a comic scene in the movie and never made it as the centermost crunch. Instead, they focused more on the dilemma of siblings and how truer it is than finding a guy who sparkles in the middle of the woods. (Hi Twitards)
The story revolves when young Elsa accidentally freezes (more like a curse) her younger sister Anna which the troll healed by making her forget about Elsa's powers for her to keep away from the uncontrolled danger Elsa's going to put her sister in to. And that's where the depth of the story gets in when both sisters are kept away from each other.
The content of the story was enough to create a depth to feel the weariness and longing of a person for love; but not just any kind of love, but a sisterly love and how you'll do anything for family.
But well, of course, there is a romantic tone in the movie; it wouldn't be a Walt Disney fairytale film if not for that, only, it's more of a supporting story rather than the main plot. And I am so proud of Disney bringing up the thought to children that fairy tales don't compensate the morale of a boy-girl relationship only, no; it also includes friends especially family.
OST
Frozen is a musical animated film, and so there are a lot of singing that's happening in the film, and it's so delightful to hear a pop feel to the songs in the movie. Tangled has already started the trend of it before, which was a bit of musical feel rather than a pure pop-song, but still successful.
But the movie Frozen has a lot of good songs to offer. I am so much enticed by Do You Want to Build a Snowman who tunes about Anna waiting from childhood to teenage years for her sister to open the door for them to play again, after the unfortunate incident when they were young and how longing the feel of the song was. Also the song Let It Go which was covered by Demi Lovato as an official song for the movie, which was about letting go of all the halls barred on Elsa's way; about not hiding her powers anymore from anyone and how free she is to build a castle on the top of the highest mountain in their kingdom.
There are a lot of good songs in the movie which are fancy to hear; especially Kristen Bell and Idina Menzel's duet, For the First Time in Forever and Josh Gad's (Olaf) In Summer which tells a tale about the snowman who wants to experience summer that totally cracked me up on my seat.
HUMOR
Humor was not off or heavy, it was just exact for every scene. And the superstar comic character in the movie was Olaf, the snowman. Olaf's naïve attitude made a perfect fun dialogue for the entire time he's on screen.
OVERALL
In totality, the movie was pure awesome. It's now top 2 of the best opening for an animated Walt Disney movie since Lion King. The latter was a classic, and now, Frozen is another epic. I have so much fun watching it in the entire time I was there. Never a dull moment, indeed, and the story was necessary.
(This review is also seen on my blog, One Setting at a Time)
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013)
The Desolation of the Hobbit Series
Whatever happened to The Hobbit?
Although, we know that The Hobbit is not really the perfected 9,000+ words book we are seeing on the big screen since it has been chunked into three parts with a detailed story that is hugely modified; we are expecting a revamped re-imagination of it.
And although I'm not a huge fan of Lord of the Rings series (including The Hobbit), I'm sad to say that I have my own standards when it comes to adaptations; and The Desolation of Smaug (Or the two Hobbit series) did not impress me.
Not even the 45 frame rate nor the visually entertaining VFX did not live up to the expectation. The usual Peter Jackson three/four adventures in a movie, which I noticed ever since LotR and Percy Jackson, is present in both The Hobbit and Desolation.
I have to admit the action sequences in Desolation is quite impressive and is upbeat which gives the movie a joyous moment, and I have to admit also that Legolas is the star no matter what; outshining every character present in the movie which, Legolas, was not really present in the source material in The Hobbit book. Good thing for Peter Jackson to put the coolness back, but I'm pretty sure, fans of the Tolkien epic is not happy.
The depth of the story is somewhat garbled and confusing, but I know it will be summed up in the third film. And I don't like how hanging Desolation was. Unlike the LotR series, it has satisfactory hanging by the end of the first and second book; but in Desolation, it was crunch anguish I felt, and when the screen faded, I then asked my partner if how did he feel; he said it was 'okay' and I know it's not the best. And Desolation has reached one step to the climax but then cuts, so it made me feel angry.
And one more thing, I don't quite understand why it's titled 'Desolation of Smaug' when I know Desolation means something empty or destruction. Enlighten me, people.
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug is directed by Peter Jackson.
300: Rise of an Empire (2014)
300: Rise of an Empire is again visually stunning, wickedly entertaining.
The bar is set high for sequel films especially onto the successful ones because everyone is expecting more from it. And in times like these; sequels or franchises are a trend. One can be seen from Marvel which gave the success on not only creating sequels but creating an entire universe as a whole.
Sequels or prequels tend to give excitement to people especially upon hearing from its public announcement, and when Warner Bros. decided to impart that information last year, I was excited.
The first film, 300, was visually entertaining, taking a whole new level of filmmaking. Although, the movie Sin City has the same kind of visual approach about filming in green screen and emphasis on the blood splatting; Zack Snyder took it up the notch. The whole film felt like a High Dynamic Range (HDR) shot that Digital Camera's give, and the slow- motion capture says it all.
The storyline tells the 2nd war between the Greeks and Persians, and how did that came to be by iterating the account of the 1st Greco-Persian War by Lionidas' wife, Queen Gorgo (Lena Headey), making the movie a prequel-sequel alike.
It narrates how the God-King Xerxes wanted his vengeance from the Greeks because of Themistocles' (Sullivan Stapleton) honest mistake upon demising his father and having the gut that Xerxes would one day be a threat, but ignoring that intuition of his.
Also, the Persian Naval commander Artemisia's (Eva Green) story of her original Grecian roots showed how ruthless Greeks were to her and her family that made her lustful for revenge.
The Story
The movie is based on an unpublished novel by Frank Miller, who also did the original 300, that depicts the epic war story of the 1st and 2nd Greco-Persian war. The story of the 2nd movie is interrelated to the original 300 and a proceeding account reaching to an end.
300: Rise of an Empire's story is much crispier than the original. There are more battles than the first, and it was interesting, seeing rivals strategize to win.
The depth of the emotion was already set from the first movie (thanks to it), and now a threat is far more revealing and invigorating.
I love the fact that my eyes and ears were totally onto the movie, making me keen to every details there are, and having the feeling that you don't want to miss something, most especially the mot juste which is a 300 trademark, (e.g. 'THIS IS SPARTA!') that creates more tension in the film, and this time it's 'SEIZE YOUR GLORY'.
Screenplay
The best thing about 300 movies is that the graphics are very well defined and the scenes are captivating. The slow-motion takes place and it's a numerous positive things to it. Although I sense that I guess if you'll add all the slow-motion scenes, it kind of adds to the time frame of the movie which makes it reasonably long. But, it's proprietary and needed for the justification of the film though.
Besides the long slow-motion scenes are the muscles and abs which are the proprietary of all.
Just kidding.
OVERALL
300: Rise of an Empire is the sequel that is properly well executed. The sequel, 300: Rise of an Empire is again visually stunning, wickedly entertaining.
300: Rise of an Empire is an American film, sequel to 300, directed by Noam Murro, produced by Zack Snyder (Man of Steel, 300) and starred by Sullivan Stapleton, Eva Green, and Lena Headey. The film was released on March 7, 2014.
(This review can be seen on my blog, One Setting at a Time)
Gravity (2013)
Gravity (2013) Movie Review
A stunning portrayal of a tragic space voyage with astounding cinematography play.
Few months ago, I discovered the trailer of the movie Gravity that made me curious enough to watch it. Then the cinematic trailer came with a bang, and it did give me chills. A space tragedy it is.
I've got the chance to watch the film on IMAX 3D which expressed the film two times excitement and 3 times realistic feel. Alfonso Cuarón's stellar movie about a tragic event happened in space, which stars two Academy Awards hall of famers; Sandra Bullock (Miss Congeniality) and George Clooney (The Descendants) in the attempts to escape the cosmic wilderness caused by an unforeseen chain of satellite misfortunes.
I was blown away by how difficult it was to create because of the accurate/perfected movement from things to the actors themselves. How detailed it was in the creative process. The depth of the movie was out of bounds affecting; which will give you the empathy of what it's like in space plus a tragedy.
I loved Bullock's performance! Her magnificent charm to channel fear and hopelessness in the movie was transparent. I root for her in the Academy next year for her stunning performance.
I love how fear and breathlessness came about, and due to that fact: for me, the infinite intergalactic scenery made me feel claustrophobic with limited bodily actions that make it feel heavy yet perfectly portrayed.
I also noticed the amazing cinematography Cuarón did. The angular modifications in perfect rotations especially on the scene where Dr. Ryan (Bullock) entered the shuttle and took off her suit then slept floating with the sun glimmering behind the transparent glass with the CGI tubes making her look like a big fetus. BRAVO to that!
The whole film was a mixture of struggle and art (story and cinematography play). I enjoyed watching every bit of the film, although the film was just a simple here and there; a struggle to survive, but the difficulty, style and portrayal were the winner of it all.
Review is seen on One Setting at a Time http://onesettingatatime.com/2013/10/11/gravity-2013-movie-review/