Currently on RottenTomatoes it's at 97%
I'm seeing this tomorrow, as I'm rather excited about it. I'll decide where I'll see it. And then maybe again in imax over the weekend, if I can get myself down to Sydney for it.
Gravity - Review and Discussion Thread
- Thread starter PlainSimpleJoel
- Start date
Currently on RottenTomatoes it's at 97%
I'm seeing this tomorrow, as I'm rather excited about it. I'll decide where I'll see it. And then maybe again in imax over the weekend, if I can get myself down to Sydney for it.
I was spoiled about the ending in today's newspaper review. But I'm still going to see it.
Can someone do me a favor...can someone post a non-spoilery review that can let me know the following:
Should we see it in 3-D and/or IMAX (is the combo the best, or if either one really enhances the movie).
Is it OK for an 8 year old to see? The PG-13 rating says (to me) that it's OK for a teenager to see it by themselves, but a parent should be present for a younger child. As an example -- the Avengers movie i think was a great family film (for us). We can't get babysitting, so just wondering if it's worth taking my child.
Thanks!
Should we see it in 3-D and/or IMAX (is the combo the best, or if either one really enhances the movie).
Is it OK for an 8 year old to see? The PG-13 rating says (to me) that it's OK for a teenager to see it by themselves, but a parent should be present for a younger child. As an example -- the Avengers movie i think was a great family film (for us). We can't get babysitting, so just wondering if it's worth taking my child.
Thanks!
Absolutely. I'm seeing it 3D this afternoon. I could attended another screening this morning, but going for the biggest screen in Newcastle. I wish there was an IMAX here, but thinking of heading to Sydney for that.
I'm going to see it this weekend for sure. I've been looking forward to this film really since I heard Alfonso Cuaron. The great reviews have just been increasing my anticipation. Seriously, if anyone has not seen Children of Men, go fix that right freaking now.
Wow - just wow. I won't go into what happens, but it's amazing. Gonna need to see it again this weekend (hopefully), depends on how I go with tafe stuff. Maybe on Monday, with it being a public holiday here. Easily an A+. Bullock deserves an Oscar nomination for this performance.
Just the nomination?
Just got back from seeing it, and was incredibly impressed.
I don't think this thread belongs in SF/F though, since this movie isn't really SF/F.
I don't think this thread belongs in SF/F though, since this movie isn't really SF/F.
Just the nomination?
She's great, but it's a survival movie. I don't really see it as the kind of performance that's likely to win it for her. Cate Blanchett in Blue Jasmine is much more in the vein of a winning Best Actress performance.
Grade: A
- It wasn't the most tense movie I've ever seen but it was pretty gripping (no pun intended) and above all, it was visually stunning. It was nice to see an entire movie with the characters right there in space and in zero gravity.
- Sandra Bullock was damn sexy. And I'm not just talking about the tank top and spandex shorts. She carried herself well as a consummate scientist and astronaut in extremis and carried the movie itself just as well as an almost one-woman show. And just the wonder of seeing her in space... Floating with no suit on... A human out of their element. You have to see the movie to appreciate what I'm talking about.
- Bad science? I'm not equipped to talk about that, but one thing did get my attention... I don't think that a fire extinguisher is strong enough to serve as thrust for a person flying through space.
- It seemed a little too convenient that the shuttle and the various space stations were close to each other and therefore easy to reach, but I guess that was necessary for the plot.
- I was wondering in which order the actors' names would appear in the billing since Clooney is a big star but Bullock was the main character. Then I saw what compromise they made. I'm seeing what they did more and more these days when the big star isn't really the lead character.
There's more I'd love to talk about but I don't want to spoil too much. Spoilerish tease ahead... All I'll say is that there's a scene where a hatch is opened when Bullock's character doesn't have her helmet on and that was something.
- It wasn't the most tense movie I've ever seen but it was pretty gripping (no pun intended) and above all, it was visually stunning. It was nice to see an entire movie with the characters right there in space and in zero gravity.
- Sandra Bullock was damn sexy. And I'm not just talking about the tank top and spandex shorts. She carried herself well as a consummate scientist and astronaut in extremis and carried the movie itself just as well as an almost one-woman show. And just the wonder of seeing her in space... Floating with no suit on... A human out of their element. You have to see the movie to appreciate what I'm talking about.
- Bad science? I'm not equipped to talk about that, but one thing did get my attention... I don't think that a fire extinguisher is strong enough to serve as thrust for a person flying through space.
- It seemed a little too convenient that the shuttle and the various space stations were close to each other and therefore easy to reach, but I guess that was necessary for the plot.
- I was wondering in which order the actors' names would appear in the billing since Clooney is a big star but Bullock was the main character. Then I saw what compromise they made. I'm seeing what they did more and more these days when the big star isn't really the lead character.
There's more I'd love to talk about but I don't want to spoil too much. Spoilerish tease ahead... All I'll say is that there's a scene where a hatch is opened when Bullock's character doesn't have her helmet on and that was something.
I see your point, but at the same time, it does feel like the very definition of science fiction.I don't think this thread belongs in SF/F though, since this movie isn't really SF/F.
I see your point, but at the same time, it does feel like the very definition of science fiction.I don't think this thread belongs in SF/F though, since this movie isn't really SF/F.
My comment was tongue in cheek, simply because we tend to play fast and loose with what counts as SF/F here. If James Bond counts, then this should too.
However, to be serious about it, I really don't think this counts as science fiction. It's a drama set in space, but does that automatically make it science fiction? Doesn't there have to be a speculative element to the science in order for it to be science fiction? Would a movie about deep sea diving (set in the present day, with real world science) be science fiction? Would Cast Away be classified as science fiction? Would Contagion be classified as science fiction?
Another plot contrivance…
I was reading some of the comments about the ending at the IMDb...
As for the 3D, it wasn't essential but it looked good. Fortunately it didn't have that pop-up book look.
Cast Away: No.
Contagion: I'm leaning towards yes.
With Gravity, it's a fine line. I can go either way. I don't have much to support the scifi argument outside of it feeling scifi-ish because of its "what if" scenario in a still relatively new frontier.
I don't get why Clooney's character had to let go and die in space. Seemed more like something they did just to get him out of the way.
I was reading some of the comments about the ending at the IMDb...
"You missed the part where Sandra Bullock gets attacked by a tiger on the beach and gets eaten."
"The film actually ends with Sandra Bullock collapsing from exhaustion and dying after being left to the elements for seven days. Serbian children find her bloated corpse washed ashore and poke at it with a stick. G R A V I T Y"
"It would have ended better if Matt's flaming body landed on her."
"The film actually ends with Sandra Bullock collapsing from exhaustion and dying after being left to the elements for seven days. Serbian children find her bloated corpse washed ashore and poke at it with a stick. G R A V I T Y"
"It would have ended better if Matt's flaming body landed on her."
As for the 3D, it wasn't essential but it looked good. Fortunately it didn't have that pop-up book look.
Ah yeah, I seem to be taking a lot of these comments too seriously these days.
Deep Sea Diving: I'd say no, unles it dealt with a truly compelling "what if" scenario.
Cast Away: No.
Contagion: I'm leaning towards yes.
With Gravity, it's a fine line. I can go either way. I don't have much to support the scifi argument outside of it feeling scifi-ish because of its "what if" scenario in a still relatively new frontier.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
EVERY action causes that opposite reaction ... I remember reading a Clarke novel, ISLANDS IN THE SKY, where somebody maneuvers inside a huge zero-g space by first throwing his clothes away and later spitting his way across. I imagine a fire extinguisher would provide a lot more than that.
I just wish I wasn't sick as a dog, I've been waiting YEARS to see this movie (I watch CHILDREN OF MEN a couple times per year, it's my fave for this century thus far), it's the only flick I've felt I needed to see in a cinema in a very long while. I felt that way before AND after talking to the director and cinematographer and vfx super about the show (ICG magazine will probably have my making-of article up online pretty soon if they don't already.)
A
Excellent film. Sandra Bullock rocks it as the protagonist (and she looks friggin buff). Visually amazing. Saw it in 2D. Still stunning imagery. There are several gruesome deaths and corpses shown, so I wouldn't take my 8 year old but that's up to you, I guess. Great use of sound and silence, characters were enjoyable and believable. Tech seemed all real world. For the most part the science seemed right to me, except for maybe the last bit of the climax, but whatever. At least people weren't popping like balloons ala Outland. NASA thinks it's got problems now? The movie's NASA is boned. Game over, man. Game over.
Gripping, exciting, survival character piece. My favorite space flick since Moon. And to have the entire film take place in zero-g, I think, may be a first. No flashbacks, no ground control. You're with the astronauts until the end.
Excellent film. Sandra Bullock rocks it as the protagonist (and she looks friggin buff). Visually amazing. Saw it in 2D. Still stunning imagery. There are several gruesome deaths and corpses shown, so I wouldn't take my 8 year old but that's up to you, I guess. Great use of sound and silence, characters were enjoyable and believable. Tech seemed all real world. For the most part the science seemed right to me, except for maybe the last bit of the climax, but whatever. At least people weren't popping like balloons ala Outland. NASA thinks it's got problems now? The movie's NASA is boned. Game over, man. Game over.
Gripping, exciting, survival character piece. My favorite space flick since Moon. And to have the entire film take place in zero-g, I think, may be a first. No flashbacks, no ground control. You're with the astronauts until the end.
Best science fiction film I've seen this year.
I'd describe it as very "hard" SF... I suppose the "science fiction" element in the movie is the depiction of how a Kessler effect and the impact (no pun intended
) on astronauts in orbit could look like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome
Technically, it's also a bit of a disaster film (...IN SPACE).
I'd describe it as very "hard" SF... I suppose the "science fiction" element in the movie is the depiction of how a Kessler effect and the impact (no pun intended
) on astronauts in orbit could look like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndromeTechnically, it's also a bit of a disaster film (...IN SPACE).
Last edited:
Amazing. Up there with Blue Jasmine as the best the year has had to offer so far (2013 has been meager to this point, but we're finally getting the good stuff).
Question: How many people in your theatres thought it really was Matt when he showed up again? I was momentarily thrown off by the sheer audacity of it, before it became clear what it was.
Question: How many people in your theatres thought it really was Matt when he showed up again? I was momentarily thrown off by the sheer audacity of it, before it became clear what it was.
A+ on just the visuals alone, which are "O-M-F-G-areyouseeingthisshit???" - stunning.
I will not comment on the science. I'm not in the mood for that kind of debate anymore.
Kudos to Sandra Bullock for pulling off what is essentially "Cast Away In Space." (Honorable Mention to mister Clooney in the role of "Wil-son!") My only complaint will be about Sandra's fear/impact grunting, which grated after the first hundred times. (Hah!Hah!Hah!Nonononono!Hah!Hah!Haaaah!)
On the 3-D front, see it in 3-D. It will not be money wasted. The visuals demand it.
I will not comment on the science. I'm not in the mood for that kind of debate anymore.
Kudos to Sandra Bullock for pulling off what is essentially "Cast Away In Space." (Honorable Mention to mister Clooney in the role of "Wil-son!") My only complaint will be about Sandra's fear/impact grunting, which grated after the first hundred times. (Hah!Hah!Hah!Nonononono!Hah!Hah!Haaaah!)
On the 3-D front, see it in 3-D. It will not be money wasted. The visuals demand it.
Similar threads
- Poll
