Funny how the reality of the science in this movie doesn't seem to apply when it comes to the survival of your protagonist. Because in reality she'd have probably died half a dozen times. And what does a medical engineer have to do with repairing the Hubble anyway ? Is it ill ?
Watched it for the second time to see if there is more to it then what I saw the first time. And it's actually worse.
The movie pretty much starts with the desaster happening and since up to this point you know about nothing about the characters there is zero emotional investment. Maybe make the movie a bit longer at the beginning so we can know those guys. The SFX and the grandious score makes this appear larger than it actually is. Reduced to the story alone it is a simple survival tale with a predictable end, where our protagonist has to jump through some hoops only to come out unscathed at the end.
Looking at the Oscars they are all technical and I can get behind that. Bullock itself was nominated but didn't win and , again, I am on board with the decision. I've seen much better performances over the years.
Judging by the rating I'm rather the minority with my opinion, But that's how it is.
NOTE FOR MYSELF SO I REMEMBER SOMEDAY, ONLY REPRESENTS MY OPINION/THOUGHTS FOR MYSELF NOT A “REAL REVIEW“, SO YOU PROBABLY WONT AGREE WITH IT
(also its not my 1st language)
6.0-6.5
the ending made me angry so a rant first, did they seriously end it there??
Acting like shes home and safe and she made it?? She landed in the middle of nowhere with no communication (or anything, just in shorts and a shirt) and in a bad physical state, with probably days march from civilization, and they acted like she arrived home.
Since the moment it was clear where she would land I was thinking about how far away from civilization she is and how she’ll make it in her condition, and was excepting and hoping for an explanation or that’ll see how or if she’s making it home and then it ended -.- sure its better than being in space but being stranded in the middle of nowhere in her condition is still hard to survive and for a movie thats all about survival, letting it end with us questioning it if she survives it or not is just disappointing. (Well at least for me its an open ending)
but for the rest of the movie, I was surprised that it did grab me, bc I was suspecting to be bored and firstly I was but then I got sucked in the suspense and enjoyed it.
all in all pretty good but not THAT special or anything but worth a watch
So I just watched "Gravity," and it was kind of stupid. I wouldn't really recommend it. I mean, I get that I'm supposed to just accept this as a visual feast and not pay attention to anything else. And the visual aspect was pretty impressive. But even in that sense, its highest point was at the beginning of the movie.
I kind of expected to see some impressive one-ers considering this is the same director as, "Children of Men." And I got that, but it was very short-lived. It started out strong, and I liked how the audio slowly faded in and added to the atmosphere of outer space. And some of the camera work was pretty impressive. A behind-the-scenes video for this movie would definitely be really interesting. And although I feel as if this movie is just Alfonso's way of showing off he knows the technical side of film-making, I feel as though this movie would have worked better cut down and as a part of a larger movie, and he still would have been able to do that.
Obviously, the movie was made by a very talented person. The lighting and angles on their faces matched up extremely well with the computer animation accompanying them. But you can only do the same thing for so long before it becomes extremely dull. Does it really make sense for the debris to come all the way back around the world, and then hit them again in an exact amount of time, that he just happens to know off-hand? And didn't they travel quite a long way from where they were first? So, if the debris is to go all the way around the world and then back to its original location, wouldn't it only make sense for it to hit the second location if it was only already intersecting with its original path? And therefore, shouldn't the second location have already been hit before they got there, and not after? Like, I get that the other crew already evacuated, but it doesn't really look like the debris hit them until it comes around the second time. It's just a malfunctioning parachute that opened and that's it. Everything else is perfectly fine. But when it hits after Sandra Bullock shows up, everything gets destroyed.
Honestly, I don't think that Sandra Bullock is that great of an actor. She wasn't the film's first choice, and it kinda shows. I didn't really have any issues with George Clooney, except for the fact that he wasn't really in the movie. That's a bit of an exaggeration, but far too much of the movie weighed on Sandra Bullock by herself. Are you really going to put that dramatic music over top of Sandra Bullock pretending to be a dog? Yes. She actually pretends to be a dog in this movie. And the entire Chinese station is going to have all their buttons in Chinese characters, but use English numbers for the countdown timer? This movie never bored me, but it is more like an amusement park ride than an actual film.
Review by xelraBlockedParent2014-02-12T21:07:47Z— updated 2017-07-10T19:39:10Z
Before I started watching this movie, I had high expectations. Reviews and friends told me to expect a real science fiction movie. I've been longing for a real sci-fi flick since "Close Encounters of the Third Kind", "Contact" and "Sunshine". I know people nowadays are calling fiction and fantasy movies sci-fi, but I rather tend to draw a dinstinctive line and emphasize on the word "science".
That being said, the plot is simple, but at the same time realistic. The movie tells the story of humans trying to survive in an utterly inhabitable place - space. It's a movie that will remind kids (and adults alike), spoiled by the strange education they receive through contemporary media, that not everything can be achieved by wishful thinking. Humans are not made for living in space. Every step off earth is a step defying nature. Is that bad or good? That's a decision everyone has to make for himself.
The visuals are stunning. I watched it in 2D and I plan on watching it again in 3D. The spectator has the feeling to actually be there.
At least as important though is the sound. Many filmmakers make the mistake of having sound in space. Of course that's totally ridiculous. The only sound there is, is the sound that's created inside of your space-suit or space-station by the shockwaves that hit it. Throughout the movie I had the feeling they got it right. And actually it didn't make the movie "empty", but quite the opposite, more tense. It intensified the feeling of "this is not a place where I belong".
There was one scene though, I thought wasn't right. When Bullock holds on to Clooney, Clooney should already have the same trajectory as Bullock or the station or he should bounce back. I just don't get what's still pulling him. I think it is a mistake in the movie and a serious one at that.
Anyway, I can overlook that, since the rest of the movie is very good. On IMDB it has a rating of 8.2 right now. I'd give it more like a 7.8. Maybe even less. I guess the rating is a bit high, because for young viewers it is a new experience to see something realistic on the screen.
Should you watch it? Yes, definitely. Should you rewatch it? Maybe, for the CGI and if you haven't seen it in 3D. Certainly not for the story.