• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

Rate the last movie you saw

Do Not Sell My Personal Information
It certainly was a spectacle. Find the biggest, loudest IMAX in your town and see it in 3D. Its one of those rare movies where 3D is an enhancement and not hindrance. At times I forgot it was even in 3D, and I'm not typically a big fan.... Just wow on the beauty of the film. I imagine this is how people felt (from a cinematography standpoint) watching 2001: for the first time.

Gour - I need an astrophysics legitimacy check on this film. Every now and then I threw out a 'no way!' but it wasn't enough to detract from the experience because I a) don't know enough to make a judgement on the plausibility, and b) was so captivated and on edge that I didn't have time to care.

Good stuff - if you plan to see it, don't disgrace the artistry of the film by waiting for DVD. Cough up the silly money they charge for a state of the art theater.

Plan to see it tonight, very interested given the reviews. I mean, it's getting 9's and 9.5's, and I personally love 2001: A Space Odyssey, so we'll see.
 
Just saw Gravity and came here to rave about it. My heart was racing for much of it, and i kept feeling like my throat was too dry and i couldn't quite breath enough. I would give it a 9.8/10.

With the physics i think they did a really good job with them overall. If you really want to nitpick there were a few things, like when one character is holding onto another, whose foot in entangled. Somehow that character was still exerting a large "pulling" force on the other, when there should have been none since he/she had come to a complete stop. And the space debris would have probably been spread out a lot more, not traveling in a pack of sorts after a couple full orbits. Otherwise it seemed to be pretty spot on IMO. They gave a lot more attention to inertia than any other space movie I've seen which was cool. When Clooney was towing her it was totally realistic with the jerking, it wouldn't be a smooth tow like on earth, though they would be accelerating faster and faster the whole time.
 
Just saw Gravity and came here to rave about it. My heart was racing for much of it, and i kept feeling like my throat was too dry and i couldn't quite breath enough. I would give it a 9.8/10.

Just saw it, I'd give it a solid 8/10, but my girl was incredibly bored and gave it a 6/10. Personally though, I agree it was gripping and quite captivating. It's definitely worth watching. The 3D effects were also among the best I've seen. I'd say only Avatar and Dredd 3D (watch it) had more immersive 3D.

With the physics i think they did a really good job with them overall.

This really depends on what you mean by overall. As far as the plot points go, well, none of it makes sense from a physics point of view. But for certain individual scenes, you can tell they put some thought into them; but at other times, it's obvious that there was little to no care given to realism.

If you really want to nitpick there were a few things, like when one character is holding onto another, whose foot in entangled. Somehow that character was still exerting a large "pulling" force on the other, when there should have been none since he/she had come to a complete stop.

Actually, this part does make sense. Centrifugal force is what's pulling both Dr. Stone and Dr. Kowalski away from the station due to the synchronous rotation of the ISS. What pulls Dr. Stone back is the release of Dr. Kowalski as a working mass.

And the space debris would have probably been spread out a lot more, not traveling in a pack of sorts after a couple full orbits.

I think most of it did, but what we're seeing on the second go around is diffuse debris on a capture trajectory.

Otherwise it seemed to be pretty spot on IMO. They gave a lot more attention to inertia than any other space movie I've seen which was cool. When Clooney was towing her it was totally realistic with the jerking, it wouldn't be a smooth tow like on earth, though they would be accelerating faster and faster the whole time.

They shouldn't have constant acceleration outside of gravity itself. Unless the ISS is on a lower orbital plane, they should actually be moving away from it not toward it (making it impossible to reach).

But ZooCrewDude, your instincts were certainly correct, there was a lot wrong with the physics in this movie (but still, it's a good movie).

1) The MMU that Clooney uses is ridiculously too maneuverable - it's like he borrowed Spock's from Star Trek 1.
2) All shuttle astronauts have MMU-like devices that allow for some degree of travel if they ever become detached.
3) Hoping from the Hubble to the ISS is ridiculously impossible as they aren't remotely close, nor are they on the same orbital plane.
4) Going to the Chinese Space Station is also impossible for the exact same reason.
5) Dr. Stone uses a fire extinguisher to slow her velocity and not the actual Russian modules thrusters. Think about that for a second. She's moving at least 100kph (relative to the Chinese space station which is 100 km away), she throws herself out of the module with explosive decompression (note the angle relative to the station), and then she not only slows herself down, she stabilizes her orientation, and then accelerates toward the station. The entire scene is total bullshit.
6) Dr. Stone's reentry scene is impossible. She was tumbling (dead), and the entry was not controlled, meaning she was likely either too shallow or too steep (dead).

It's late but there were a few other issues. But overall, again, the movie was great - and they certainly paid some attention to realism.
 
My feeling from Gravity was that it wasn't a perfect movie by any means, particularly in the somewhat brief and lacking storyline. What it did completely succeed in was that it brought an appropriate sense of wonder and awe at a topic we all seem to be captivated by in outer space. Incredible visuals and action sequences that captured space in a way few movies ever have.
 
This really depends on what you mean by overall. As far as the plot points go, well, none of it makes sense from a physics point of view. But for certain individual scenes, you can tell they put some thought into them; but at other times, it's obvious that there was little to no care given to realism.
I guess when i say overall, that's "overall" on a hollywood curve. I think it's the among the best Hollywood has done in a fiction story with space.


Actually, this part does make sense. Centrifugal force is what's pulling both Dr. Stone and Dr. Kowalski away from the station due to the synchronous rotation of the ISS. What pulls Dr. Stone back is the release of Dr. Kowalski as a working mass.
I didn't realize it was rotating. That makes way more sense.


I think most of it did, but what we're seeing on the second go around is diffuse debris on a capture trajectory.
K, can buy this too.


They shouldn't have constant acceleration outside of gravity itself. Unless the ISS is on a lower orbital plane, they should actually be moving away from it not toward it (making it impossible to reach).
Agree with this idea, but the acceleration I am talking about would come from Clooney. Everytime he used his thrusters, their overall speed would increase. They sort of made it look like he had to keep thrusting in order to maintain their velocity, which wouldn't be the case. So the only "constant" accelerations in that scene would be gravity, and clooney firing thrusters every 5 seconds, slowly speeding them up over time. I guess i used this idea as a hand-wavey justification for how they could traverse such massive distances. Obviously this wouldn't really work, as even if you got there you would be traveling at thousands of miles per hour, and it would be like saying "hey see that building in Japan? Go there.", but this wasn't immersion-breaking for me.


Anything I didn't quote I agree with, or didn't realize till you pointed them out (like that all suits have basic maneuverability). With stuff like the distances between stations, I guess i gave them a pass because i never expect that to be realistic, but you are definitely right on that. I'm surprised your girl didn't like it, though there were a couple in my group that didn't either. I think if you get sucked in, you start sweating and breathing weird, then its awesome. If none of that happens for you, then its a generic survival film. I was completely riveted and felt like i was trapped out there alone, so it resonated with me.
 
I guess when i say overall, that's "overall" on a hollywood curve. I think it's the among the best Hollywood has done in a fiction story with space.

Oh, I totally agree man.. It was a blast, and they certainly did try to involve as much scientific accuracy as they thought they could.

I didn't realize it was rotating. That makes way more sense.

In order for an object to show the same side of itself towards the surface of the Earth while in orbit, by definition, it must rotate.

Agree with this idea, but the acceleration I am talking about would come from Clooney. Everytime he used his thrusters, their overall speed would increase. They sort of made it look like he had to keep thrusting in order to maintain their velocity, which wouldn't be the case.

Practically speaking this is only true over small distances. When travelling larger distances, Clooney would need to constantly correct for their decaying orbit.

So the only "constant" accelerations in that scene would be gravity, and clooney firing thrusters every 5 seconds, slowly speeding them up over time. I guess i used this idea as a hand-wavey justification for how they could traverse such massive distances. Obviously this wouldn't really work, as even if you got there you would be traveling at thousands of miles per hour, and it would be like saying "hey see that building in Japan? Go there.", but this wasn't immersion-breaking for me.

It seemed really ridiculous to me. I mean, I'm like wtf... But I understand how a person can say, fuck it, it's still cool..

As far as constant acceleration, this is only true if they're traveling to a nearby lower orbit (which would only work if the ISS was literally underneath the Hubble telescope, and it is not).

Anything I didn't quote I agree with, or didn't realize till you pointed them out (like that all suits have basic maneuverability). With stuff like the distances between stations, I guess i gave them a pass because i never expect that to be realistic, but you are definitely right on that. I'm surprised your girl didn't like it, though there were a couple in my group that didn't either. I think if you get sucked in, you start sweating and breathing weird, then its awesome. If none of that happens for you, then its a generic survival film. I was completely riveted and felt like i was trapped out there alone, so it resonated with me.

Me and my old lady have very different tastes in movies.

With the obvious 2001: A Space Odyssey reference when Bullock gets into the ISS and does the Space Baby scene; I thought, alright, I wanna watch 2001 tonight. So we get home, I explain to her that this'll be an experience but just give it a shot.. She's like "Cool!" Maybe 5 minutes after the monkey scene, she's knocked out cold. Totally bored.

So I just said fuck it..
 
Practically speaking this is only true over small distances. When travelling larger distances, Clooney would need to constantly correct for their decaying orbit.

It seemed really ridiculous to me. I mean, I'm like wtf... But I understand how a person can say, fuck it, it's still cool..

As far as constant acceleration, this is only true if they're traveling to a nearby lower orbit (which would only work if the ISS was literally underneath the Hubble telescope, and it is not).
Yeah I didn't mean to say gravity was actually accelerating them towards their goal in that scene. Good point about the decaying orbit that he would have to correct for. If he didn't however, he could just burn for a bit and then they would coast at whatever speed he felt appropriate (good luck telling how fast you are going though, come to think of it, how do satellites know? or space shuttles? do we just tell them from earth?). My issue was that they seemed to imply that if he didn't keep boosting every 5 seconds, they would slow down or something.

One question, how do you deal with obvious inaccuracies in movies? I have a pretty firm grasp on basic newtonian physics, so i notice a lot, but i suspect you notice even more. The worst example for me is Wanted, where they curve the fucking bullets in the air by whipping their arm as they shoot, as if the bullet "remembers" that it is supposed to turn to the left or something. Totally ruined the movie for me, and i was pissed the whole time, while my girlfriend enjoyed the movie for what it was. Obviously you can't care too much though or you can't like any movie where they go into space, shoot an assault rifle, or knock someone out only to have them drearily awake an hour later.
 
Yeah I didn't mean to say gravity was actually accelerating them towards their goal in that scene. Good point about the decaying orbit that he would have to correct for. If he didn't however, he could just burn for a bit and then they would coast at whatever speed he felt appropriate (good luck telling how fast you are going though, come to think of it, how do satellites know? or space shuttles? do we just tell them from earth?). My issue was that they seemed to imply that if he didn't keep boosting every 5 seconds, they would slow down or something.

One question, how do you deal with obvious inaccuracies in movies? I have a pretty firm grasp on basic newtonian physics, so i notice a lot, but i suspect you notice even more. The worst example for me is Wanted, where they curve the fucking bullets in the air by whipping their arm as they shoot, as if the bullet "remembers" that it is supposed to turn to the left or something. Totally ruined the movie for me, and i was pissed the whole time, while my girlfriend enjoyed the movie for what it was. Obviously you can't care too much though or you can't like any movie where they go into space, shoot an assault rifle, or knock someone out only to have them drearily awake an hour later.

Turn down or shut off your brain to the extent a movie asks you. If a movie wants to be an intellectual thriller, go ahead and pick apart its faults. If a movie is Air Force One, cheer when the President says "Get off my plane!"

I imagine a film like this would call for a delicate balance, as it looks like a well made film that is dealing with a setting where writing a script is a difficult skill to master. But if you wanna enjoy it you'll need to have the mindset necessary for the movie.

This is how I've been able to enjoy JJ Abrams Star Trek movies.
 
Tell me this is a joke.

Either that or you're extremely gay. <-- Not that there is anything wrong with it.

I take it you A. Haven't seen it and B. Do not think that Anna Kendrick is amazing.
 
I take it you A. Haven't seen it and B. Do not think that Anna Kendrick is amazing.

A. I have seen this awful movie, and B. I do not think Anna Kendrick is amazing. I hate that cup song and her tacos.
 
Pacific Rim.

Just bad. I can handle dumb action flicks, but you can't have writing that damn terrible. I mean the lines were just......holy mother. So bad.
 
Just watched avengers. Completely unimpressed.

I feel like rcf will suck the dick of any comic movie as everyone said it was the shit.

Thank you for smoking was great
 
Just watched avengers. Completely unimpressed.

I feel like rcf will suck the dick of any comic movie as everyone said it was the shit.

Thank you for smoking was great

Not really. That's more of a general public thing than an RCF specific thing. The r/movies subreddit is usually littered with updates on comic book movies for instance. They are the hot genre because Marvel has been dominating the box office and everyone wants in on what they've been able to accomplish.

If you didn't have fun watching Avengers then I am sorry because it was huge for a ton of people, myself included. It's just a bunch of cool stuff happening for two hours, great shit. Not to say it's some sort of perfect film, but it does exactly what it sets out to do. I would be amazed if you could find more than a couple better popcorn flicks.
 

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-14: "Time for Playoff Vengeance on Mickey"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:14: " Time for Playoff Vengeance on Mickey."
Top