- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Is Gravity the highest rated movie on IMDB that nobody will watch again?
Posted on 10/14/13 at 9:29 am to Ace Midnight
Posted on 10/14/13 at 9:29 am to Ace Midnight
i give more rewatchable movies the edge in tight races
1
Posted on 10/14/13 at 9:36 am to Carson123987
quote:
i give more rewatchable movies the edge in tight races
A re-watchable movie typically has more to offer than nausea-inducing special effects and explosions.
Sometimes, the intensity of a film and/or the subject matter can make it both a great film, but difficult to re-watch (Schindler's List, Blackhawk Down).
Posted on 10/14/13 at 10:13 am to DURANTULA
quote:
Transformers: Dark of the Moon and Fast Five each have As on CinemaScore.
You just made my point for me, dumb arse. The OP was talking about re-watchability among the general audience. Fast Five and Transformers: Dark of the Moon both made a crap ton of money at the box office because people went back to see it a second or a third time with their friends. Both movies also performed well with DVD and Blu-Ray sales. That's what the CinemaScore is supposed to measure.
With this weekend's box office numbers, which are huge for Gravity, we are seeing that people are going back to re-watch it. It's already well over $100 million in the U.S. box office as well as over $200 million worldwide.
This post was edited on 10/14/13 at 10:17 am
Posted on 10/14/13 at 10:14 am to Rex
I agree with the OP 100%
Went see it Saturday in 3d. When it was done, my first thoughts were "ok?"
Went see it Saturday in 3d. When it was done, my first thoughts were "ok?"
Posted on 10/14/13 at 10:25 am to Rex
I saw it non-3D. I plan to watch it again but on IMAX. I liked it. The one thing that bugged me was her wanting someone to say a prayer for her despite her never praying for her daughter.
Posted on 10/14/13 at 10:30 am to Baloo
quote:
I never want to see Requiem for a Dream ever again, and I consider it one of the greatest films ever. It just gutted me and I don't think I can do it again
But there's a valid reason you don't want to watch it again. The content is so heavy and resonated with you so much that you don't want to go through the experience again.
That's not the case with Gravity. Gravity has no rewatchability because the plot and acting are awful. To a man, everyone has said the best thing about this film is the visual effects.
Posted on 10/14/13 at 10:34 am to Rex
Sorry, but there are plenty of fantastic films that you don't want to see more than once. One of my favorite films of all time "Schindler's List", I have little desire to revisit that masterpiece. Some other great films that come to mind that I have little to no desire to see again:
Grave of the Fireflies
Requiem for a Dream
Oldboy
AntiChrist
The Passion of the Christ
United 93
Amour
And I've seen Gravity in theater twice actually, and I do think they'll periodically rerelease this film in IMAX. Yes it's not going to age as well on DVD, because it is a film whose goal is to completely immerse you in a situation, and the comfort and familiarity of your living room and a much smaller screen is going to ruin that.
Grave of the Fireflies
Requiem for a Dream
Oldboy
AntiChrist
The Passion of the Christ
United 93
Amour
And I've seen Gravity in theater twice actually, and I do think they'll periodically rerelease this film in IMAX. Yes it's not going to age as well on DVD, because it is a film whose goal is to completely immerse you in a situation, and the comfort and familiarity of your living room and a much smaller screen is going to ruin that.
Posted on 10/14/13 at 10:37 am to WG_Dawg
quote:
That's not the case with Gravity. Gravity has no rewatchability because the plot and acting are awful. To a man, everyone has said the best thing about this film is the visual effects.
I really think the people who thought the acting was terrible just went in wanting to hate Bullock. She certainly won't win it, but I do think Bullock will get a best acting nomination.
Posted on 10/14/13 at 10:39 am to OMLandshark
quote:
Grave of the Fireflies
Requiem for a Dream
Oldboy
AntiChrist
The Passion of the Christ
United 93
Amour
As mentioned though, most of those have little rewatchability because the subject matter is so dark/heavy/disturbing/emotional/whatever. Gravity has little rewatchability for entirely different reasons.
I mentioned it on the first page, if a movie is going to be some all time great, it shouldn't matter if you're watching it on your couch or IMAX 3D, the content should speak for itself.
Posted on 10/14/13 at 10:41 am to OMLandshark
quote:
I really think the people who thought the acting was terrible just went in wanting to hate Bullock. She certainly won't win it, but I do think Bullock will get a best acting nomination.
I'm not one of those people who holds grudges with actors or is persuaded by political beliefs or agendas or whatever. I don't care about any of that. But what about her acting was "best actor" worthy? What range was there? She is already hamstrung by essentially being in one setting the whole movie. The dialogue is mostly forgettable. The absolutey cringe-worthy barking scene. I mean it's not the worst acting I've ever seen, but it is completely bland and boring. I don't see how anyone could walk out of the theater saying "wow, that will be one of the best acting performances of the year".
Posted on 10/14/13 at 10:52 am to WG_Dawg
quote:
As mentioned though, most of those have little rewatchability because the subject matter is so dark/heavy/disturbing/emotional/whatever. Gravity has little rewatchability for entirely different reasons.
I mentioned it on the first page, if a movie is going to be some all time great, it shouldn't matter if you're watching it on your couch or IMAX 3D, the content should speak for itself.
The point is none of these films are as rewatchable because the filmmaker wants to give you a feeling that you're not likely to get again. Cuaron's goal was to make it feel like you personally were stranded out in space. He succeeded. The film does exactly what it set out to do.
Posted on 10/14/13 at 11:22 am to DURANTULA
quote:
Transformers: Dark of the Moon and Fast Five each have As on CinemaScore.
Deservedly so.
I haven't seen Gravity, but to the "does a movie have to be rewatchable to be great?
After thinking on it for a good 30-45 seconds, I'd say yes.
I looked at my 200mwads list and every movie I have on there I'm fine watching again every so often.
Some movies I'd probably never watch again are Blue Velvet and Requiem. Maybe Mulholland Drive, though Naomi Watts would probably allow me to watch it again. But I don't consider either of those great. Good, but not great. All the ,lives that I can think of that I consider great, I can rewatch. Of all the movies I like that I will probably will never watch again, I don't consider them great.
Posted on 10/14/13 at 11:28 am to OMLandshark
quote:
Cuaron's goal was to make it feel like you personally were stranded out in space. He succeeded. The film does exactly what it set out to do.
Nah
Posted on 10/14/13 at 11:30 am to iwyLSUiwy
quote:
Blue Velvet and Requiem. Maybe Mulholland Drive, though Naomi Watts would probably allow me to watch it again. But I don't consider either of those great. Good, but not great.
Posted on 10/14/13 at 11:32 am to iwyLSUiwy
I personally believe a movie doesn't have to be rewatchable in order to be great. Sometimes a filmmaker makes a great film that he intends only to be seen once. Schindler's List is one of those movies. Gone With the Wind is also a great movie but how many people are willing to sit through a 4-hour movie more than once? The same goes for Lawrence of Arabia.
Other more contemporary films I would put into that category are United 93, Requiem for a Dream, and any Lars von Trier film.
Other more contemporary films I would put into that category are United 93, Requiem for a Dream, and any Lars von Trier film.
Posted on 10/14/13 at 11:32 am to Rex
quote:
That would be a good topic for discussion.
So why? What reasoning is there that great="multiple viewings?" I'm just curious.
Posted on 10/14/13 at 11:33 am to Baloo
quote:
Absolutely not. I never want to see Requiem for a Dream ever again, and I consider it one of the greatest films ever. It just gutted me and I don't think I can do it again. Maybe when Mowgli grows up and wants to watch it.
Exactly. And as much as I love literature, I don't re-read every great book all over again. Maybe like 10% of books do I read twice. And that's probably a high estimate.
Posted on 10/14/13 at 11:37 am to NewIberiaHaircut
quote:
Yes. Would you rate any other art GOAT if you could only view it/hear it once with enjoyment?
It's not about viewing or hearing it once with enjoyment, that's taking it a bit to far.
It's not like Usual Suspects has nearly the same impact seeing it twice. The second viewing is also very very different from the first viewing. So the "experience," is significantly altered, and not necessarily for the better. So is that not a great film?
And if we're talking about "art," then we specifically aren't talking about enjoyment only either. We're talking about the experience of ideas, not just "having a good time."
This post was edited on 10/14/13 at 11:38 am
Posted on 10/14/13 at 11:43 am to Carson123987
I mean they are good, I don't know how many movies I put In the great category. For I movie to be great I need to walk away from it thinking that it was one of the best movies I've seen In a good while. There's not many movies every year I consider great. Saying its good is smh worthy?
Posted on 10/14/13 at 11:47 am to RollTide1987
quote:
Schindler's List is one of those movies. Gone With the Wind is also a great movie but how many people are willing to sit through a 4-hour movie more than once?
Two awesome movies. I've watched both of them more than once. Gone With the Wind 3-4 times. Once as a kid though.
Though I can %100 understand if somebody only wanted to watch Schindlers List one time, I don't know if I agree that Speilberg only wanted you to watch it once.
Page 2 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News