Movie review: ‘Gravity’ is completely overrated and lacking in script and originality

Posted by Katherine Marrone on Tuesday, Oct. 8 at 10:15 am.

Once upon a time, there was a father and a son who decided to make a movie about space. So they spent six years doing so, paying acute attention to perfecting the visuals, while hiring two insanely famous, yet mediocre actors who would bring in the big bucks: Sandra Bullock and George Clooney. Only problem? They completely forgot about plot, dialogue and character.

Welcome to “Gravity.”

I don’t even know what I disliked most about this movie: the overdone, over sentimentality of the plot, or the fact that every line that came out of George Clooney’s mouth — or any mouth for that matter — made me want to jump out of my seat and throw popcorn at the 3D version of their faces.

The plot is unoriginal at best, sensational and desperate at worst. The movie is about Ryan (Bullock) and Matt (Clooney), two astronauts who get stranded in space after the debris from a destroyed satellite ruined their space shuttles and threatened to kill them. Matt has to sacrifice himself so that Ryan will live, and of course, she does. Anything unpredictable about that story line? Because if so, I totally missed it.

Maybe — and this is a generous maybe — the story wouldn’t have been so bad had it not focused on the same predictable theme countless other movies do: A strong will to survive, even after terrible circumstances, is enough to allow you to survive under these terrible circumstances — even when you’re trapped in space, you run out of oxygen in your tank, your shuttle gets caught on fire because, apparently, these shuttles are made of Birchwood, your capsule runs out of fuel, you don’t know how to use a rescue capsule, yet your random pushing of buttons is actually correct and you land on the cushion of water. This girl just can’t seem to catch a break, but she makes it out okay in the end.

But the worst part about the movie wasn’t even the plot, it was the inconsistencies, awkwardness and outright terrible dialogue that made me want to stand up in my seat and boycott. It was full of dialogue that’s evidence only to the cheesiness Hollywood is drenched in. The kind of movie where the witty lines just keep coming, no matter what happens.

Case in point: Even after almost being killed by debris, even after their fellow astronaut friend is killed, Matt says, calmly to Ryan (who is hyperventilating, mind you), “I know I’m devastatingly good-looking, but you got to stop staring at me.” Evidently, even after a traumatic event, Clooney’s charm can’t wither, not even after debris nearly ripped his body in to shreds.

But, it gets better. There are times in the movie when I can’t even believe that they’re astronauts at all. When Ryan is running out of oxygen in her tank, (this is after their space shuttle was destroyed by debris), Matt tells her to save her oxygen. You know, breathe slowly and sparingly. But then he keeps asking her questions about her life, and she keeps talking and talking, obviously not conserving the only thing that is keeping her alive: oxygen.

And don’t even get me started about the scene in which Bullock starts barking to a Chinese man from inside her isolated space vessel. Yes, actually barking. As in, like a dog. Alone and afraid, she found him on her space talk radio. At first, she tries to get a hold of someone who could, you know, help her, but ends up getting in contact with a man in China instead, who doesn’t seem to speak a word of English and just enjoys talking to people in space in his spare time. So he has a dog, the dog barks and Bullock barks with it. Then a baby’s cry comes in to the mix (we didn’t see that coming) and she starts to tear up — well, as much as Bullock can muster. And then she asks this man if he would pray for her because she doesn’t think anyone is going to mourn her death. And that’s when the religious pandering begins: “No one taught me how to pray,” she whispers to no one in particular. It’s cheesy, overly sentimental and just too damn much.

If it weren’t for the script and story, maybe this could have been a good movie. The visuals are beautiful. Earth is amazing to look at from space. But the plot and dialogue are so painful, so cheesy, so unrealistic, it makes me queasy. So if you must, do watch this movie. Just put it on mute.

 



  • ZC
  • David W Chidakel

    As I say in my own comments about the movie (http://scienceaintsobad.com/2013/10/07/gravity-review-upside-down-on-plot-but-youll-like-it/), I looked at a very large number of reviews and found absolutely none that weren’t over-the-top. It’s refreshing to see that you weren’t so bowled over by the visuals that you forgot to think critically. Were you a little too hard on the movie? I think maybe. But you have an awful lot of uncritical raves to counterbalance.

    Thanks for giving us some perspective.

    MISTER ScienceAintSoBad

    • NOTPRETTY

      The first review and everyone here all need to take a films class. This movie had nothing to do with space. It is about Sandra Bullocks struggle to get back on her feet after her world explodes around her. Jesse James people….duh. Blue eyes…Jesse James has insane blue eyes. There are just two characters in the movie…her and a man. He leaves and it hurts her but also gives her strength. The final seen when she sheds her past/suit and struggles to the surface only to be hit by gravity and then struggles to her feet soiled the sand of her Jesse James past. Are you all that dumb? It was not a great movie. It was just bullock putting her past in the past. It was transparent, with many loose ends and just okay at best. But good for Sandra.

      • Tookie Clothespin

        I think that’s the problem. People wanted an action packed space adventure movie. Not some sentimental crap about an astronaut putting her past behind her.

      • Sarah

        So we’re so dumb? You enjoy anti-hero mysoginism? Because this movie is all about the poor girl couldn’t get herself out a bad situation without a man. Even after he died, it was the near-death vision of him that brought her out of her problem. If there was symbolism in this movie, it taught me to believe that even if I obtain a doctorate, the world will still view me as a helpless female.

        • Sarah Goodwich

          Well apparently she could get PREGNANT without a man, so why not? Because she mentioned she had a daughter, but no mention of a husband, or even a failed romance; she must have either done a Virgin Mary.. or an Octomom!

          • Joe

            Because she had to have a husband to get pregnant… what are you on? She couldn’t have had a one night stand?

      • Suzanne

        A films class?

        C’mon. I think you may infusing a bit too much of Ms. Bullock’s personal life into a ficitional movie. This character was written without Sandra Bullock in mind. There were several women approached for this role before Ms. Bullock. I don’t think the ”blue eyes” and ”struggles to get back on her feet” have ANY relevance here.

        If this were literary criticism, you may have had a Historicist paper on your hands, but, I’m afraid it doesn’t apply in this review. And, any film class will tell you that.

        However….if having this perspective gave you extra enjoyment of this film, well…cool. Welcome to the power of the movies!

        (Still wasn’t for me. But to each their own).

  • BGZZ

    If you want to read a nicely thought out piece that doesn’t spoil the film, but primes you to view it for yourself you should check this out: http://badassdigest.com/2013/10/07/a-short-note-on-the-simplicity-of-gravity/

    Film is not a checklist!

    “And often the very things a film might be lacking, aren’t there on purpose, and that is meant to help the things it does quite well. ‘Gravity’ is a film that is trying to put you in a 100% environmental and visceral experience. We come into a story at a certain point. We leave it at a certain point. It is a continual non-stop
    experience in between. It can never let up from that. And the purpose of this experience is for you to experience space, in all its infinite terror and wonder. And boy does this film bring the terror.”

    • Don

      If I only want a “100% environmental and visceral experience”, I’ll go on an amusement park ride.

      • Sarah Goodwich

        That’s pretty much what this movie felt like: in fact in think they have one at EPCOT with astronauts hanging on wires.

  • Valentine Xavier

    I didn’t particularly love the movie either. I thought it was decent – certainly not “the best space film ever made” as James Cameron put it. But your review is a worse review than Gravity is a movie. Talk about cheesy, unoriginal and desperate…

  • fdoarzola .

    agree, horrible movie!!!!!!!!!!

  • bobthebutler

    great review. this is so accurate, and the film doesn’t bring anything new. nothing. I wonder how can someone make such a bad movie about such a challenging theme that is space…

  • Kyle Denny

    Ironic — in trying to make a review about Gravity calling it “overrated, lacking” you made a review that is exactly that. I don’t think I’ve ever been more bored and confused by your use of tortured logic in reading this review. The shuttle didn’t get caught on fire. What the heck are you talking about? Are you honestly that stupid to get the ISS confused with the shuttle? Please stop trying to make it seem you have any idea how physics and the tech behind the ISS/STS programs work, it’s rather pitiful.

    • sergeantdong

      You’re rather pitiful. I’m glad you’re so wrapped up in physics that shit movies still entertain you.

      • Guest

        You know, I’d love to agree with you, but I really can’t seem to get my head that far up my ass.

    • knotting

      The shuttle as in the one that Ryan used to land on Earth? During the descend, the cockpit was sparking and was filled with smoke. Is that not considered a fire? If I recall correctly, the only vehicle that wasn’t on fire was the Explorer. And don’t get me started on physics. Opening a pressurized cabin in a vacuum and surviving it? Super heated landing craft hitting the water without so much of a sizzle? And whatever transmitter “Houston” is using is actually less capable than what a civilian uses? Not to mention that sending tons of debris flying towards Earth is apparently a good idea.

      • Le Palm D’Orbit

        hey idiot, not only is surviving possible when briefly exposed to no oxygen but it wasn’t even real. it was a hallucination or were you tripping balls the whole movie?

        the landing craft did sizzle actually, you could see and hear it. it would also have cooled quite a bit when the parachute was deployed. Did you know that light (radio waves) travel in a vector? that means light doesn’t turn. so for Huston to be able to talk to space they would need satellites that in the movie they were destroyed. All of this was explained in the bloody movie. The civilian was on the corresponding frequency used by the Chinese vessel and China was directly below the vessel.

        The explorer would have been on fire had it still had pure oxygen in it, the other things were on fire for various reasons. Reason 1, Oxygen is flammable and the damaged ISS had lots of exposed wires and oxygen. Reason 2 friction causes heat. All spacecraft turn into fireballs on reentry, the problem in the Chinese craft was that for a good part of the descent the heat shields were not taking the hit but rather the whole craft. That is why the electronics and fuses started to burn.

        Look buddy that last comment of yours is rather dumb, countless satellites do that every day, there is so much space junk out there that is man made or not that falls to earth. The vast majority of the stuff vaporizes and what doesn’t makes less damage than a baseball hitting a car.

        • Sarah

          Your comments would hold so much more weight if you didn’t start them with ‘hey idiot’.

          • Sarah Goodwich

            He’s talking to himself, since he has NO CLUE what he’s blabbering about.

          • Sarah

            sarah’s sticking together, I love it!

        • Sarah Goodwich

          Hey MORON: “Did you know that light (radio waves) travel in a vector? that means light doesn’t turn. so for Huston to be able to talk to space they would need satellites that in the movie they were destroyed.”

          Yeah right, EVERY satellite was destroyed, even geobirds that are 22,000 miles out in space– from one little missile 300 miles orbit, causing a “chain reaction” among all satellites in orbit, wiping them all out ROTLFMAO

          GET A FRICKING CLUE, STUPID!

          You are COMPLETELY RETARDED!

  • lolaking

    Thank you for confirming every thought I had while watching this piece of shit. I honestley feel like hollywood is spitting in my face every time I see a movie.

    • Sarah Goodwich

      That’s HOOEY-wood.

  • Cakiporna

    This movie should have been silent. Please prepare a review for how bad that robert dinero hang over rape is going to be.

    • Sarah Goodwich

      It should have been silent and in fast motion with Benny Hill music playing.

  • Fram

    I’ve found this review surfing the web and the title made me really curious
    after a big cry and a terrible reading i’ve to say that this is one of the worst review ever made since the invention of writing
    you didn’t catch anything of the movie, you have just made a mega spoiler and this is the proof that you have totally missed the big message
    bye from italy
    francesco! :D

  • Gigi Beck

    Spoilers:
    Thanks for writing such an honest review! I think these critics feel like they have to kiss everyone’s a** in hollywood and gush about the newest film being touted as an award winner. Don’t listen to the comments that are insulting your review! I don’t know why fans of a movie have to get so defensive.
    I agree the dialogue was terrible. And the point of the movie? Well, there is a plot conflict. First they created the storyline of this terrified astronaut who was torn from her shuttle and her other team members, alone, spinning in darkness, suffering by herself as a little speck inside the infinite cosmos. She just had to return to earth asap! It was actually a great premise for a psychological horror theme. Then they changed it to the astronaut feeling so SAFE inside her little shuttle, immune from all external stimuli, society, sadness of her past, etc…. that she didn’t want to return to earth and feel the “gravity” of living!
    WTF

  • Ryan Ato

    I didn’t like the movie either, it was horrible and hard to swallow. Astronauts train for a long period of time and go through evaluations for mental breakdown. Screened and tested for stress in a difficult situation. They would never have let Ryan go on this mission with her insecurities. I also agree about the oxygen situation she has; talking and heavy breathing through out the ordeal..come on really. Pausing to be sad because Matt is floating away and you want to save him, but instead you wait some more so the space between you widens. This movie is horrible and people like this. Movies have downgraded in quality and what people think is good now is disturbing.

    • Sarah Goodwich

      Exactly; in “2001,” Dave goes to save Frank Poole, without stopping to think that HAL has turned against them. But when Ryan gets in the ship, she just lets Matt float away– which is especially bad since he knows what to do, creating a handy way for her to be a damsel in distress by killing off the White Knight.

    • callisto

      “Pausing to be sad because Matt is floating away and you want to save him, but instead you wait some more so the space between you widens.”

      Well, it’s not like she could do anything about it, and she knew that. And the audience should know that as well, if you have a clue. But since most people are Hollywood idiots, many of you assumed she could jump in her little rocket ship and come to the rescue. Please. This movie makes some mistakes and is not entirely accurate as far as the physics go, but everything you see is within a reasonable range of possibility. Rescuing Clooney would not have been possible.

      • Jon

        she knew that, yet she kept insisting she was going to save him, and immediately got inside and tried to get him on the comms so she could find out where he was to go save him??

        keep rationalizing this POS movie all you want, its still terrible and you have no taste.

    • SandyTodd

      I’ve read that astronauts say Matt wouldn’t have floated away – because you know – gravity. The entire scientific premise is wrong. So without that, and without characters, plot or writing – why the accolades? Nice to have a film with a solitary female role, that’s about it.

  • Suzanne

    I, too, thought this movie was horribly overrated. I don’t see how Bullock’s character would have been allowed to go into space. In fact, most times, I found her terribly annoying and it made me cringe for thinking so. Yes, Earth from space looks gorgeous and the idea of being in an element where you simply cannot survive is terrifying….but, this movie dropped the ball in a huge way. Thank you so much for speaking the truth.

    • Sarah Goodwich

      To be fair, we send teachers into space.
      But there would be no NEED to send a medical engineer into space– mainly because engineers design things, while technicians install and repair them; and so you’d want to to send an experienced technician, while the engineers could analyze it from the ground.
      But they wanted to make her look “smart,” and so they came up with the fancy title.

      And of course, they threw in the final insult: RADIO SILENCE, despite that every government radio on earth would be trying to contact her, all she can get is a chinese guy?
      At only 300 miles up?
      EVERYONE would be listening to her, aware of her situation, and watching– just like during Apollo 13.
      But here: NOBODY!

      Just the manufactured “isolation” against all credibility.

      • zaxome

        Completely agree with every word. Piece of crap movie, thanks to the story and the actors.

      • Dennis

        You must not have even the basic knowledge of how a radio works do you? During the fated Apollo 13 mission, mission control had a clear, constant frequency at which the could contact the astronauts. In the movie, it is clear that the debris had been on a rampaging spree around Earth destroying sattelites which by the way relays the radio signals to the astronauts. Without satellites, if mission control was on the other side of the globe radio signals can’t be transmitted to them. Furthermore, in case you didn’t realize Dr. Stone wasn’t even on the original shuttle but instead on a Chinese shuttle to which there are no established radio frequency to contact. It was a miracle that an Inuit (NOT A CHINESE YOU IGNORANT PERSON!) fisherman had his radio transmitted exactly at where Dr.Stone was at. The only reason mission control got a hold of the shuttle AFTER REENTRY was because radars detected it! SAY NO TO FAUX SCIENCE!!

        • moviecritik

          most of what you said is your interpretation of the movie. Your last statement made me reply because you are actually justifying the Faux Science. The movie was terrible

        • voorhesian

          To be clear, the communications blackout postulated by the movie is impossible (as is everything else). Communications satellites travel in geosynchronous orbits. To achieve such an orbit a satellite must be over 22,000 miles in space. The shuttle’s maximum orbit was a mere 300 to 400 miles up. Any debris traveling in an orbit that could effect a shuttle, could not possibly impact a communications satellite. Of course, you could not simply travel from the Hubble (which travels in a circular orbit near the equator) to the ISS which travels in a 51 degree orbit over 100 miles lower than the Hubble; nor could a reentering vehicle simply right itself after entering the atmosphere; etc, etc,

      • Denise B

        Didn’t we only just send the one teacher? It didn’t end well for her, either.

    • AnotherBadApple

      A very beautiful, but very bad movie. Watch it on Mute .. like “Avatar”.

      • Drj

        yeah avatar was pretty dumb but at least watchable. I started fast forwarding gravity from the dog barking scene because I couldn’t take the awful script anymore

      • VD65

        I loved Avatar and have watched it many times but this movie is not entertaining. If it’s science fiction, you see the last word, I don’t expect it to be accurate, just entertaining and this movie was not. They miscast the whole thing but you are suppose to suspend your realism for what the character is going through. They needed better technical advisers. If you are going to impress the eggheads you have to get the technical stuff correct or they won’t be satisfied. As for me, I want suspense and not someone like Clooney adding comedy relief. I know why he was saying certain things to her to help her get her mind off her fear. The thing is the movie was boring, not cliche because that word is used far too often and cheesy too. Certain aspects of the movie didn’t make sense to me and the ending was not emotionally fulfilling from a movie that can only give some sort of pay off by the ending but it didn’t. It was a good attempt I guess but I was disappointed when I just saw it. It was a dud, sorry George and Sandra.

    • Al Bhat

      this fucking movie gave me herpes and now I m gonna die (Not in peace) because it won 7 oscars.

  • Peter Marcus

    Horrendously unrealistic when there was action. Boring when there was no action.

    Cliched “guy that is immediately willing to die to save someone” guy.

    Cliched “guy that is way too calm and playful in a stressful situation” guy.

    Cliched “unnecessary backstory on a character just so there is some backstory on a character” dialog.

    Take away the truly excellent CGI and there is barely any movie.

    It stunk.

    • Sarah Goodwich

      That’s what made it formulaic, i.e. they rely on special effects and celebrity stars in order to avoid hiring a decent writer. Essentially this was “TITANIC” in space.

      • Subodh

        Come on..Titanic was an epic movie, this was just a regular Hollywood disaster movie with a different background.

        • Sarah Goodwich

          Epic FAIL is more like it… of TITANIC proportions.
          Come on, they’re on a ship, a disaster happens, they both bail, and he dies while she lives, an an overblown big-buget film… the only difference is that Titanic was based on the real thing, while this is more like “Apollo 13 meets Alien.”

          • Subodh

            Gravity was like the second half of Titanic. But titanic has lot more going on than just the disaster. Many of its scenes are iconic and are still remembered. Gravity is one-time watch movie..there’s nothing in it for a repeat viewing. Even its fans wouldn’t watch it more than once or twice, while the fans of titanic watched the movie dozens of times.

          • Sarah Goodwich

            Maybe if you edited out all the crap; otherwise, “Gravity” was the James Cameron version of Apollo 13.

          • VD65

            I don’t think either of them are alike at all other than the stories are in space…that’s it.

      • VD65

        Now someone is bashing Titanic??? I love that movie and so do a lot of other people. People need to realize not everyone thinks alike or cares about technicalities of science in a movie that is not a documentary. I watch to be entertained and this one I didn’t find entertaining but Titanic…I have watched it numerous times…I think many presume that because they don’t like a movie the crowd will just follow along. I don’t know how well Gravity did in the box office but I have to say I was expecting more unfortunately.

    • VD65

      Cliche? I don’t think so. The story was anything but that but it just wasn’t entertaining. As I said before, I loved Avatar. It was a science fiction fantasy movie. It’s all a matter of taste and people will like movies that others call cliche because I guess they like that word. I would have rather had some alien aspect brought in instead of what happened which you knew when you heard about it would affect them tragically. That seems to be what it is about. A slightly trained person sent up for a reason I couldn’t figure out with someone who was about to retire and how they cope in space after a major incident. All stories have to have something to strive for and theirs was to get back to Earth when they knew there wasn’t going to be any sort of rescue. You can take a story, any storyline and do it a zillion different ways. That doesn’t make it cliche. It’s how it is presented, the dialogue and who they cast in the parts. In this case all of the three were lacking. Never judge a movie by others because to me that is very inane. Judge it on its own merits alone. There are a lot of space movies, some fantasy and others more realistic a lot of people love, like 2001 and I thought it was awful. I don’t like anything Star Wars and that is one for me I would add the word cheesy, but there are many, many who love these movies so you can’t really speak for everyone else about a movie. I love Battleship and many didn’t go to see it or simply didn’t like it but I did and have watched it numerous times. I don’t pay attention to critics, I decide for myself. Some people are never satisfied by anything.

  • Khloe

    Just viewed this film tonight and I (along with the audience) pretty much sat there dumbfounded at the end…glancing at the screen, as if to say, “you’ve got to be kidding!” While I rate this movie an A for special effects, it pretty much stops there. Horribly written script! This film did not allow the audience to truly develop an emotional attachment to any of the characters. In fact, at the start of the film I felt as though I had missed the first 45 min to an hour. Sometimes it’s great to just launch into a film with minimal background info, but this was ridiculous. It simply did not work. And where was George Clooney? 20-30 minutes into the movie and he’s gone? And who rescues Sandra at the end? Big thumbs DOWN from me. Why is this rated 97% on Rotten Tomatoes?!

    • callisto

      I guess it would have been better if you see a rescue at the end, and they throw a big party for her, and she has babies and they show the entire family walking in the park at the end. Please. How Hollywood of you to think this way. The movie ended precisely the way it should… she reaches solid ground. What more do you need to see? I think it is probably safe to assume she is rescued and things turn out well. No need to see that. Pathetic.

      • tkytry

        ‘How hollywood of you’, proceeds to praise a piece of shit film as if it was even half decent.

        i fell asleep watching this.

      • Springs

        From way up in space with no control whatsoever, she miraculously lands in a lake and then, after suffering fire and near drowning, emerges with not a scratch on her to swim just a couple of strokes to reach shore. Now that’s Hollywood. And equally pathetic.

  • Jabriel Shakoor

    Worse effing movie ever!!! Where the hell is “Ripley” when you need her!! I felt like even though bullock’s character was intelligent and accomplished she reverts into a whinny white woman in line at Starbucks who can’t decide if she wants soy or non-fat!! Shes a DR. and an astronaut, but completely panics, and keeps whing even as Cloony is towing her through space. She never stopped whinng and complaining. Effing dumb dialouge, “houston, i’ either gong to make down in one piece, or im gonna burn up in 10 mins, either way, no harm no foul”!! WOW!! really!! then the ending was a giant tampon comerical!!

    • Sarah

      YES!!!!

    • zaxome

      aahahah

    • Sarah Goodwich

      Intelligent and accomplished– and competely out of her field. Can someone settle a bet for me: what qualifications do medical engineers have for fixing space-telescopes? “It’s DEAD Jim!”

  • Sandy

    Sooooo bad, I swear, I literally, took a nap!!!

    • callisto

      NO wonder you didn’t like it.

  • dave riley

    I feel like im in the twilight zone. Why do they like this movie?

    • Sarah Goodwich

      They’ve never seen a circus-act or a globe.

  • Ebonee Green

    OMG. I thought we were the only ones who hated it. I kinda want to see it again Rocky Horror Style. In Chicago the entire theater was pissed. Who is the agent for this POS. I need them to make me a movie star

  • Sarah

    Sandra Bullock’s character was just as much an insult to educated woman as Martha Jones on Doctor Who (before torchwood). She couldn’t control herself, think for herself…in fact they couldn’t even let her save herself. A vision of a man did. A vision. I couldn’t stand this movie, the dialogue, the acting. The special effects were great but the rest took away from it. I’m not surprised others found it ‘mesmerizing’ however. People will be perfectly content to sit and stare at a blank screen for 2 hours in about 10 years and call it a masterpiece.

    • tim

      Is this a real comment?

      • sushified

        are you a real person?

        • Captain Sarcasm

          A vision of a real person. A vision.

  • NOTPRETTY NOTPRETTY

    This movie is about Jesse James and Sandra Bullock’s explosive break up that happened as sudden as the debris field and left her completely out of control of her life tumbling in space. She struggles to survive and dumps her suit/past as she struggles to the surface only to be hit by gravity to then struggle to her feet soiled by the sands of her past. A bit cliche…yes. Good movie…well not great, but good for Sandra!! It’s nothing more than her exercising demons or in this case a space cowboy with insane blue eyes…sound like Jesse?

  • NOTPRETTY NOTPRETTY

    Sarah…this is not about femminism or empowered women. It’s about surviving life’s difficult moments and being vounerable in those moments…and despite that over coming them. Jesse James ring a bell?

  • NOTPRETTY NOTPRETTY

    And she was not saved by Clooney’s character but rather herself…it was a dream/oxygen deprived moment that allowed her to save herself. He was never really there…had he been her blood would have boiled when he opened the hatch with her helmet off.

    • Ash

      That’s false. You can remain conscious in a vacuum for a few seconds. http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970603.html

      • Sarah Goodwich

        Yes, three seconds, then you lose consciousness as your brain runs out of oxygen; that’s how a sleeper-hold works so fast in the UFC, i.e. they cut off the oxygen and the person passes right out.
        There was an actual incident where a Russian space-capsule sprang an air-leak; one of the cosmonauts jumped up to fix it, but he hit his head on the wall and knocked himself unconscious; meanwhile the other two were strapped in, and passed out before they could get unbuckled. All three died, because it happens THAT FAST.
        This also happens in water, i.e. a person can fall overboard and go under, and will exhale from the shock; then they fall unconscious in seconds since they can’t inhale underwater.
        That’s why it’s important to wear lifejackets!

        • Joe

          No they don’t cut off oxygen – they cut off blood supply to the brain you idiot. Sleeper hold =/= choke hold. It constricts the major artery and your brain starves of oxygen because BLOOD cannot get to it.

          If you remove the atmosphere then you blood still pumps around your body, you just can’t breathe. If you hold your breath do you pass out in 3 seconds? No, because there is residual oxygen in your blood. You can last a few minutes.

          You think you go unconscious in 3 seconds if you go underwater? Are you crazy? Breath out, totally out. Now – are you unconscious yet? No? Oh… If you inhale water you’re gonna have a bad time because it’s filling up your lungs when you eventually need to take a breath. It’s important to wear a life-jacket in case you get hit on the head because it self-rights and keeps your face above the water so you don’t drown when unconscious yes, but that doesn’t mean you GO unconscious when your head goes underwater geez.

  • bozotheclown

    For the same plot summary with way better dialogue read the short story kaleidoscope by ray bradbury. That was what I was anticipating for the movie. Gravity doesnt even seem like a science fiction movie because of how cliche it is.

  • adfsdfasdf

    How did this get a 97% on rotten tomatoes?
    that site is complete bullcrap ill never go there ever again

    • callisto

      It got 97% because it is well made and one hell of a ride. It’s not perfect in every way, but I enjoyed it immensely… and I’m picky as hell when it comes to movies.

      • Jon

        So picky that you join 97% of everyone else and ignore all the giant plotholes in this film and gush at how great it is.

  • whatthehay

    I am so very glad I was not the only one offended by “oh dear me, no one ever taught me how to pray” i.e. “If only I were lucky enough to have been born into a religious family” blah blah blah. Almost as bad as the ending to “Contact”.

    • js29

      Why is that offensive? The old saying, “there are no atheists in foxholes” comes to mind. For as atheistic and non-religious as many can be when life is going fine, it’s very common for those very same people to turn to a greater being in times of absolute desperation when their life is on the line.

      It actually made total sense to me when I saw it onscreen.

      • turrboenvy

        It’s an old saying, but that doesn’t make it true.

        I found the line incredibly jarring. It only “makes sense” to someone who assumes everyone needs religion like he or she does.

        For literal atheists in foxholes, see militaryatheistsDOTorg/atheists-in-foxholes.

        • js29

          I’ve known and been close to for veterans of previous wars, including WWII. And, the stories and experiences they can share about those frightening moments made it clear to me that the old saying was very true in their cases, and the cases of those around them.

          Also, with metaphors, similes and illustrative sayings, they don’t only apply to the literal item being discussed. They’re ideas that can apply to a multitude of situations/conditions.

          An example of this, would be when people find themselves in dire straits of any sort (i.e., financial, health, family problems), and they say, “God, if you’ll help me, I promise to turn around” – even if this person didn’t care a fig about God the moment before.

          The dire straits are that person’s figurative ‘foxhole’, and in that moment of desperation, they call out to God to pull them out of it.

          So, in the case of Sandra Bullock’s character, being trapped to die in space was a figurative ‘foxhole’ for her, and she was looking to God/religion as means to escape/cope.

          • turrboenvy

            I’m sure it happens, that not-particularly-religious people turn to religion in times of stress. But that’s not the same thing as “no atheists in foxholes.”

            Anyway, there are people, even not-particularly-religious people, who would’ve turned to a god in that situation. So she could’ve been one of them.

            My problem, not clearly stated in my previous post, is that it was very much a “message with a sledgehammer.”

          • whatthehay2

            The problem with your perception of what happened with your acquaintances is that you are using what may-or-may-not have happened to them to generalize about all other atheists who found themselves in foxholes. In my personal experience, I was close to death from a medical problem, and it was my conviction that there was no fairy tale land to go to that gave me strength and made me determined to live through the treatment no matter what. Here I am, more atheist than ever, so the statement isn’t exactly true in all cases is it?

      • whatthehay2

        I’m afraid that the aphorism, which is unsupported by credible data, sounds good to you because it supports your existing belief structure. Now, it would be fine if Sandra Bullock had been a believer from the beginning and said something religious, but if she had been a believer than she wouldn’t need to be taught would she? The phrase suggests that atheism is a weak-kneed philosophy that comes from inadequate sunday schooling. It is insulting. Btw, there are a great number of military atheists who remain atheists even in difficult situations. type your aphorism into wikipedia if you want more info on that.

      • Devin

        Let me put this as simply as I can, and yes I’m gonna be a d bag about it. Since you can’t comprehend having religion being thrown into your face offensive I’ll give you an example, had bullocks character had been religious and then something wild happened causing her to say “I wish sometime told me there was no god” or “I wish I had been lucky enough to grow up in a non religious family” there would be a public outcry, people all over the world would lose their mind and religious people everywhere would feel like they have been insulted. Well those lines did exactly that for me and I’m assuming plenty of other non religious people. So just a little insight for what seems to be a person who can’t even imagine their beliefs to bug people, and then proceeds to get annoyed by every opposing belief.

    • Sarah Goodwich

      “Contact?” It was just the aliens using a holographic avatar to communicate; she realized that they downloaded her memory, and said so. Maybe they dumbed it down too much from the book.

      • whatthehay2

        The ending to Contact was awful for a lot of reasons. She spends the entire film building the character of a true scientist, and then senselessly relies on people who say “we believe you sarah”. So it turns out that people have to ‘believe’ in something. I’m not disagreeing with the notion that people are motivated by illogical belief, but in “Contact” the way the protagonist betrays everything she stands for by asking everyone to just “believe” her with a “leap of faith” just makes me want to barf. “no one ever taught me how to pray” reminds me of that kind of betrayal.

        • Sarah Goodwich

          Well that’s just it- they didn’t; her recorder had timed 18 hours of static, which couldn’t happen by itelf.

          But perhaps it was a fail in the film, since in the book there were FIVE scientists in the machine, but they were inside a closed copper gizmo out of contact with the control-room for 20 minutes.
          The video-cam got erased by the machine’s magnetic field, however their watches did show that it was 18 hours later, they had sand from the beach etc.
          So Kitz accused them of a conspiracy with Hadden as a political ploy, but he also said they may have hallucinated.

  • whatthehay

    Not a very logical plot. So George Clooney is brave enough to chase after her with his jetpack when she’s spinning into space with no radio contact, but she takes a snooze rather than going to rescue him the moment she gets back? Very suspicious authorial presence.

  • Southaven00

    I agree 100% with this review. I couldn’t have said it better. This is almost the exact conversation my husband and I had after seeing the film last night…verbatim. The only thing I would add is how cheesy it was when Bullock was floating in the space station in the fetal position with the life line cord floating around her like an umbilical cord…typical Hollywood drama and symbolism…like English lit 101 your Freshman year in college. Very disappointing movie.

    • Sarah Goodwich

      The end of 2001 was better LOL.
      And WHO THE HELL puts a full-thrust fire-extinguisher in a ZERO GRAVITY SPACE STATION with NO ventilation?

      Oh right– the designers of the Axiom escape-pods in WALL-E… because HE used one for a thruster too.

  • adrian

    Thank you so much for this review!! I was dumbfounded sitting in the theatre watching the credits roll. You have hit the proverbial nail on the head so many times here Katherine but for me Bullock’s character topped it. When Clooney has just sacraficed himself for her annoying whiny ass and she was desperately low on oxygen she almost kills herself by indulging in a painfully long session of sentimental ‘reaching’ for his dwindling body. GET IN THE FU#$ING SPACE STATION YOU DUMB CLOWN! YOU’RE DYING!!!!

  • Tim

    “I want to be a movie critic, it can’t be THAT hard right?!” This writer MUST study films for a living. Just look at her prolific review of “Pumpkin, cinnamon and apple: Mixed drinks for the fall”. This is unfortunately what happens when someone who fails to recognize when a film makes a historic leap in filmmaking tries to write something that will confirm everyone else’s preconceived notions. I’m sorry you did not understand why this film is a giant leap for film makers and connoisseurs alike.

    • Sarah

      A leap from film to trash?

  • Sarah Goodwich

    The most amazing thing is how anyone can believe she can be “out of radio-contact” in this day and age, when a cell-phone would have worked, and she certainly would have a satellite-phone. In terms of “the cheesiness Hollywood is drenched in,” this film is a fondue-pot, i.e. relying on formulaic special-effects, celebrity-stars and one-liners.
    If the formula was intended to be fast buck, mission accomplished; and not surprisingly, the “critic” love-fest is all over it. But it’s more like Hollywood market-research calculated an opportunity-window to make a space-movie, and stuffed this right into it.
    So check your brain at the door, if you’re impressed by the sight of astronauts spinning in space.

    • Joe

      Seriously, are you retarded? How can she use a satellite-phone WITHOUT SATELLITES? That was the entire reason why they were getting torn to shreds… because objects, including satellites, collided with each other and sent a rush of debris around the earth. WHICH COULD HAPPEN! I’ve been laughing, reading all these comments as most of them are based on complete ignorance. I doubt half of the commentators seen the movie at all.

      • Tookie Clothespin

        I don’t like the premise of the movie but I have to agree with you, it would be easy to be out of radio communication. If the close satellites had been damaged you couldn’t get a good signal and who’s to say it would be even possible to get to a satellite phone…

        • Sarah Goodwich

          No, it would not. The earth has so many radio-communciations systems that it would be utterly IMPOSSIBLE– particularly since the shuttle itself has bluetooth-relay systems. Oh right– it’s like Gilligan’s Island, where the slightest jar knocks it out completely.
          SKIPPER!

          • Tookie Clothespin

            Well isn’t the premise of the movie “everything possible must go wrong”? You would think they would have hands free communication in their suits, but that would make sense.

      • ActionJ

        Dunning–Kruger effect much? Did you actually know what the Kessler syndrome was before this movie? Do you really think that it would knock out all communication satellites if four minutes of screen time? Tell me, after you watched Jaws were you afraid of going in the water?

        • Sarah Goodwich

          It’s amazing how anyone can think that ANYTHING in this film could really happen, they clearly have no clue of the physics or spacial relationships involved, and the sheer scale of orbital satellites, thinking that somehow one errant object can cause a massive chain-reaction which would take out everything.. i’m only surprised the MOON was still up there when it was over.

      • Sarah Goodwich

        Oh yeah, every satellite just magically blew up in a chain-reaction LOL
        You’re so brain-dead, that being called retarded by you is like being called ugly by James Carville ROTLFMAO
        It CANNOT happen, moron! Space is BIG! HUGE!
        And your brain is LITTLE! TINY!

  • Rob

    Why are you the only reviewer who sees this movie as the POS it is? I was tricked by fawning reviews to go see it. I sat and suffered through that terrible script, only mildly distracted from my suffering by watching scenes of space demolition derby. How can they spend all that money and end up with such crap?

    • Sarah Goodwich

      Most reviewers are paid shills, the others are morons who don’t have a whole brain among them. I could tell from the scanty details that this made no sense, right down to the “small world” model where the whole earth is basically able to fit in one room, satellites are domino-bombs, astronauts are able to jet-pack from the Hubble Telescope to the ISS anytime, the Space Shuttle is able to be destroyed by something which leaves astronauts unscathed, Russians spontaneously blow up everything in orbit, etc.
      The whole film was just too dumb for words.

  • Dirk

    Worst movie ever!!
    I mean EVER !!

    • callisto

      You have no taste.

      • Jack Stubbington

        Callisto, you must be the directer of Gravity incognito. Get a hold of some gravity, you really need to come back to earth.

  • Pat

    Can’t believe we saw the same film. The script was minimalist, as the story is organic. A woman is reborn. If you don’t understand why she was barking at the Chinese, then you haven’t read much Greek mythology about other world journeys and the rite of passage. Sorry you didn’t understand the Chinese dialogue. You would have understood something relevant. And you needn’t take a course in Mandarin to understand what was being said. Maybe it’s a generational thing. I’m 62 and found the script intentionally low-keyed to present a rational process and outcome, without cheesy affects of crying, screaming and zombies and man coming to the rescue of an hysterical woman. After all the lousy stuff people are watching on television, i.e., Dexter, Breaking Bad, and The Walking Dead, it is no wonder to me that audiences have grown accustomed to being shaken by outrageous behavior, and don’t know what to do with thee beauty of silence.

    • Sarah Goodwich

      You wanna see someone reborn in space, watch 2001.
      I didn’t even know that the Chinese HAD space-capsules, I guess you learn something new every day.

  • Todd

    When Ryan decides to give up the ghost and shuts down her oxygen in the
    Russian capsule I thought good since I was rooting for the space debris
    by this time anyway. This movie was worse than the Taliban.

  • Research Junkie

    SPOILERS!

    Thank you. I haaaaaaaaaaated this movie. I read the reviews and expected to be blown away. It was terrible. The special effects were spectacular. No question. But it all reminded me of the end of Titanic where everyone is pretty much dead and the boats come out to look for survivors. Rose is half frozen on the raft and despondent over Jack’s death and then the f—ing whistle and barest croaky whisper. “c o m e b a c k.” fewwwww (the whistle) “c o o o o m e b a c k.” At a certain point, it was like, “Oh for the LOVE OF GOD BLOW THE F—ING WHISTLE ALREADY.” And while we’re at it, Frodo! Get on the damn boat! Sandra had 19 lives in this movie. Eenie, meenie, miney moe? Seriously? Plus, what was with the cheesy, booty short butt shots? Who wears booty shorts and a tank top under a spacesuit? I didn’t need to see the wedgie on this physician who qualified to be a NASA astronaut. YECH. Yes, we get it. Life was not living before and you have to fight to survive no matter what. And then she opens the door and almost drowns? I was laughing so hard by the end I couldn’t hide it. Ridiculous. Smarmy. Overdone imagery.

  • ron

    Exactly right. One of the worst movies I’ve ever seen: no script, entirely lacking in credibility, and predictable, shallow acting.

  • Tookie Clothespin

    Honestly this movie just sounds like 90 minutes of my worst nightmare, hopelessly drifting in space, where you’re screwed and there is no chance of rescue. EXCEPT WAIT!!!! Somehow someone miraculously makes it home alive after scooting around space in a jet pack…. How is this movie number one?

    • Sarah Goodwich

      Not even a jetpack– a FIRE EXTINGUISHER!
      As in WALL-E!

  • Sarah Goodwich

    As a proud geek, I have to say that the whole idea of the film is beyond ridiculous. Even if a satellite were to “self-destruct,” the chances of it hitting anything even remotely in its orbit would be ZERO, unless it were the satellite they were actually working on. Space is BIG– as in HUGE– and the dispersal of components would be like a July 4 skyrocket killing every person watching it just from the normal explosion which goes off every time. In short, if they had time to be warned, there’d be no need.
    And the notion of it hitting them AGAIN when it orbits, is beyond insane; once something accelerates like that, it’s far out of the same orbital path.
    And the scene with the fire-extinguisher as a thruster? Pure WALL-E!
    I was waiting for Honey Boo-boo to zoom by on her scooter.

    • Le Palm D’Orbit

      Hey idiot, the Russians shot a missile at a satellite to demolish it. The debris knocked other satellites out of orbit. Since most of the Com sats. and observation sats are in low orbit and surprise surprise so is the ISS it makes sense that the debris would disperse and damage anything it encounters.

      The only thing implausible about this is that the Russians would risk this especially when their own cosmonauts and ISS property could be destroyed.

      • Sarah Goodwich

        You are SUCH AN FRICKING MORON! Satellites are not MINES that can be set off on the slightest impact, they are SOLID OBJECTS!
        Likewise, they are VERY far apart, and debris scatters in a pattern such that the chances of it even IMPACTING another satellite are slim and none, and Slim’s outta town!

        This CANNOT HAPPEN!

        • dude

          he didn’t say the debris were mines or would explode, only that debris, if hitting something, would damage the thing it hit. google “space junk damage” to see the impact junk can have in space as the speed of even the smallest debris is so high that it can have a huge impact on material. there is a lot of junk floating around that we can’t necessarily be in control of at all times.

          According to a study by NASA, “…debris hitting different parts of the orbiter accounts for 11 of the 20
          problems most likely to cause the loss of another shuttle and crew.”

          So regardless of whether or not the chances might be low of space debris hitting a shuttle/station, yes, it can happen.

          As for the movie, haven’t seen it yet, but considering sandra bullock is in it, im not looking forward to it…

          • Dennis

            Um Sarah please I beg you to not speak of things you CLEARLY do not have any clue of whatever you are talking about.
            First, DO YOU EVEN KNOW HOW FAST SPACE DEBRIS MOVE??!!
            28000KM PER FRICKIN HOUR!! OR 8KM PER SECOND!!!
            Hey kids do you know how fast a bullet moves???
            “Aww gee no mr.sir!”
            Haha kids cause it’s 500M PER SECOND

            OH WOW THAT MEANS SPACE DEBRIS ARE MOVING AT 16 TIMES THE SPEED OF A FRICKING BULLET!!

            See Sarah even kids understand that!!
            Second, and I don’t blame you for not knowing this OH WAIT I DOOO!!
            BECAUSE YOU FRICKING TRIED TO ACT LIKE A FRICKIN TOP WORLD CLASS ASTROPHYSICIST THAT KNOWS EVERYTHING ABOUT SPACE!!
            EVER HEARD OF THE KESSLER SYNDROME??
            IN CASE YOU DIDN’T
            It is a scenario in which the density of objects in low Earth orbit (LEO) is high enough that collisions between objects could cause a cascade—each collision generating space debris which increases the likelihood of further collisions.
            QUOTED FROM WIKIPEDIA.
            The debris settle out and form a ring around the Earth in it’s own orbit which HOLY MOTHER OF GOD —— GIVES IT THE CHANCE TO COME INTO CONTACT WITH OTHER IN ORBIT SATELLITE!! WHO WOULD HAVE THOUGHT OF THAT??!!
            “BUT BUT THE WORLD CLASS ASTROPHYSICIST SARAH GOODWICH SAID SO DAD!!”
            Well kids that is why we do not listen to MORONS like her!
            Of all the reviews I saw on this site this angered me the most because you pretended like you knew better than the countless scientific consultants to which this beautiful movie knew!!

          • Ampoliros

            This is Hilarious. You should take this down before you embarass yourself further.

  • GOB Bluth

    Dang! This is great, I feel like we saw completely different films. I can totally see all of your (Katherine) as well as the Peanut Galleries’ points, it’s just I was highly impressed by this film. Both during the viewing as well as during my digestion of the film.

    I’ll try to throw out some of my reasons why I thought “Gravity” was seriously one of the best films of the year, if not decade.

    - The motherfucking cinematography! Holy macro. It was a gorgeous film to watch. I knew that the story/dialogue/ character development was going to be fairly one dimensional (and it was though I’d argue it wasn’t enough to take away from the view) so I was prepared to be subdued by the visual spectacle, and I most definitely was.
    - The notion that in Space, due to the lack of “gravity,” both launching and landing are synonymous. Up is the same as down and visa-versa. I thought this was a fascinating idea and it was visually represented with those beautiful views of Earth, from Space, upside down. Almost as if the astronauts were standing on the stars looking up at the Earth. For me, that visual was a total brain flip.
    - Yes! The dialogue was very shabby and the plot could have been predicted before the actors even read the script, but what were ya expecting? I think the fault lies in misinformed anticipation for the film. I knew that this was going to be a visual beauty rather an internal one. Kind of like a pretty girl/guy who lacks originality. But still, it was all about the outside rather the inside.
    -Director Cuaron is a visual mastermind and an cinematic genius. I mean, that’s just like my opinion man, but check out “Y Tu Mama Tambien” and fuckin “Children of Men!” I still conjure up goosbumps for that incredible long shot scene in “Children of Men” when the protagonists are ambushed on the road. If you saw the film too, you know exactly what I mean!

    Overall, this is what I love about art, and specifically film. We all saw this 90-minute film, beauty, turd or however you feel and we all have different perspectives!

    Cheers Internet!

    Silas

    • Sarah Goodwich

      Oh yeah, George Clooney: “Look, we’re FLYING! I’M THE KING OF THE WORLD!”
      State-of-the-art SFX don’t make up for a crappy script, unless you’re really easily impressed.

  • Bernard Low

    Sandra Bullock behaves and speaks like a irritating housewife being sent to space
    George Clooney acts like a suave playboy and outer space motivational guru rather than shuttle pilot
    Their irritating dialogues & sheer incompetence in this movie is an insult to those fine people at NASA and Houston who must be laughing their hearts and balls out when they see a hollywood housewife & playboy messing it up big time in space. Yes both of them screwed with one being killed and the other almost canned.
    2 reasons why this movie is so highly overated
    - The production people love this kind of movies as it involves so much of technological 3D mumbo jumbo that a lay person will not understand.
    - US is getting progressively weaker in churning out great movies like Apollo 13, Sum Of All Fears etc.
    so when a technological marvel like this comes up, they herald it like the return of a prodigal child.

  • Matt

    I dont think the plot of this movie is meant to be taken literally. If this were the kind of movie you are critical of it not being the final scene would her being rescued via helicopter or something along those lines- or Bruce Willis would be in it alive and well at the end.
    This moving is about the rebirth and healing of the main character. Her character begins the movie emotionally dead, stuck, in arrested development from the loss of her daughter- the reason she is in “space”. The movie is her journey back to life- her rentery back to earth. It is fantastical and unrealistic and unlikely she makes it back. But this is her journey.
    The Chinese character is not literal or real for that matter. That is her remembering how to feel- foreign at first and then clearer when she hears the dog and then personal and familiar when she hears the baby (her lost daughter)- This whole scene is a delusion- a catharsis. The imagery of the tethering is her anxiety of feeling connected and loss.
    She ultimately chooses life and is reborn onto the beach-alone, with the ability to function and move beyond her loss. Space was the medium for this personal movie not the plot.

    • Sarah Goodwich

      So it was all metaphorical– her baby didn’t have a father, because the only man in her life was represented by Clooney, and he “left” her so she could “live without him.”
      And she barks at the Chinese guy, because this film is a dog that leaves you feeling empty in an hour.

  • Le Palm D’Orbit

    You don’t really know much as is evident by your dumb review. I’d say the movie was rather accurate. Your comment about her not catching a break is completely absurd since she actually catches every break since she lives. The radio isn’t some Chinese guy talking to people in space, it’s some Chinese guy with a HAM radio that happened to be on the same frequency. Learn about electromagnetic radiation sometime kid. The asking questions part was for the guy to know that the mass he was towing was actually still alive and to keep her calm instead of hyperventilating.

    • Sarah Goodwich

      Yeah you would say that it’s accurate, because your comments prove that you’re a brain-dead moron when it comes to anything related to aerospace.

  • zaxome

    “Just put it on mute.” Well said.

  • emeraldneedsbetterwriters

    Even if this movie wasn’t appealing to all (I for one loved it), this is a very underwhelming review. We get it, you didn’t like it. If you wanted to leave the theater multiple times why didn’t you? It would have saved us all from reading your overly biased, repetitive review and would have given the opportunity to someone more qualified and interesting to write it.

    What inconsistencies are you referencing? If you have a complaint don’t just state it, back it up! Frankly it sounds like you took this film purely on face value, did you even think about it after watching it? Or did you just immediately run off to your next sorority function without giving the movie a second thought.

    “And that’s when the religious pandering begins: “No one taught me how to pray,” she whispers to no one in particular. It’s cheesy, overly sentimental and just too damn much.”

    No one in particular eh? Who the hell is she supposed to talk to? No one, that’s the beauty of this film. We only ever see two people on screen, and we hear a few voices over the radio. That’s it.

    You complain that the dialogue is cheesy and unoriginal. I think you are confused. we shouldn’t be expecting a groundbreaking script. Look at any other film about a character who is stranded and trying to survive. They sure as hell aren’t spouting Shakespearean monologues and soliloquies. The dialogue is natural and human which reflects the films’ themes very well.

    I could rip this review apart all day, but I won’t. I understand the desire to complain about a film that you don’t like, that’s fine. I’m complaining about a review I don’t like. But if you want to be so damn critical maybe you should back it up with well rounded, thoughtful ideas. Instead you just state your dislikes, give mediocre explanations/examples then you move on to the next complaint (or you repeat a previous one).

    Either take some classes on film theory/critique or leave the reviews to those who know how to write them.

  • Scott

    Cool…she was the same movie I did.

  • Jake Ripper

    I never saw this movie, but my mom said it sucked.

  • David Inglehorn

    I agree with this review, but think you should also have mentioned how unrealistic it is that we would put such an inept person into space. That feature of the story seems to stem from the very male-centric view of the world, where the man knows what to do, does it calmly and without fear with a smile on his face, and even comes back in a dream to tell the girl how to do stuff, because god forbid she couldn’t have been capable to know how to operate the equipment she was trained to extensively on, or for that matter couldn’t muster the presence of mind to know to conserve her oxygen without a man there to (metaphorically) rub her back and tell her to. Overall, I was disappointed and think it was overrated just you like your article title says, but still watchable.

  • Sarah Goodwich

    The problems with this movie:

    1. A medical engineer sent to work on the Hubble Telescope. When did telescopes have medical parts? That’s like having Dr. McCoy do Scotty’s job.

    2. In the film, Russians decide to send a missile to blow up one of their own satellites– without reason or warning to anyone. This causes a domino-effect which sets off every single satellite in Earth-orbit, leaving our astronauts in the path of space-debris, while causing a complete radio-silence worldwide.

    Houston, we have a mental problem. NONE OF THIS COULD HAPPEN! I’ve seen episodes of Fireball XL-5 which were more realistic!

    3. The debris-cloud hits the Hubble and space-shuttle, killing everyone but the two stars (surprise, surprise). Somehow the space-shuttle is capable of surviving re-entry into Earth-orbit at 10,000 degrees, but it’s able to be punctured weaker than a space-suit.

    4. The two survivors rocket their way to the international space-station (ISS) using a THRUSTER-PACK. Somehow it’s close enough to the Hubble Telescope to get there within reach of their minimal oxygen-supply.. WAITER? REALITY-CHECK! The Hubble orbits at 353 miles, which indicates an orbital velocity of 4.7 miles/second; meanwhile the ISS maintains an distance between 205 and 270 miles, which means it’s not going to be anywhere near the Hubble telescope, and they’d have to accelerate the both of them to 156mph just to match the speed-difference; and then get there in a reasonable amount of time.

    5. Once they get there, they do a “man on the flying trapeze” act with Sandra Bullock hanging by her heels from the ISS, holding onto George Looney with a tether; he’s being somehow pulled away from it by some mysterious unseen force, so he has to heroically sacrifice himself just so Bullock can pull an “Officer Ripley” by being the “sole survivor.”. Yeah, Newton called, you’re breaking his laws of motion; if 2 astronauts are moving at the same speed, then they’re going to REMAIN moving at the same speed, there’s nothing pulling him in the other direction! If he lets go, he’s going to KEEP MOVING the same way!

    6. She gets inside the ISS, and for some reason strips off her space-suit rather than just looking for another air-bottle.. presumably so you can see her sagging butt-folds hanging out of her shorts. WAIT– don’t astronauts wear diapers, so they don’t end up choking on their own bodily-waste if they have an accident in their suit? This movie just doesn’t have THE RIGHT STUFF.

    7. Once she gets on the ISS, she sends THE SAME MESSAGE RIPLEY DID AT THE END OF “ALIEN–” but then POOF! The whole thing catches fire! Yep, this is an engineer who floats right past a glowing wire and does nothing, as well as a space-station that’s a fire-hazard. “Only YOU can prevent space-fires!” So she grabs a fire-extinquisher which apparently nobody ever thought would USE in a space-station, because rather than just spraying a little liquid, it turns out to be a full-powered EARTH fire-extinguisher which creates a huge spray-cloud and has about 50 lbs of return-thrust.. which is fine if you’re ON EARTH, but not on a space-station. But that’s ok, because it’s just a thrill-ride in the House of horrors that is this movie.

    I stopped watching at this point, but suffice it to say that a bunch of other impossible stuff happens… if you watch this movie, just check your brain at the door.
    6.

    • waaatog

      i’ve stopped watching at the fifth point. that would be an unnecessary sacrifice, if the laws of physics were actually there.
      sad, that i’ve seen in reviews, that its the most realistic movie experience ever :-[

  • Eric

    I agree that this movie was terrible.

    The visuals did not impress me and I was bored almost the entire movie. If you saw the trailer you saw this movie. I was not excited once. The cinematography was nothing special. I have seen pictures of Earth from space before. This is nothing new or groundbreaking. It was yawn inducing and I wanted to fall asleep several times.

    The metaphors were over done. The part where she goes into the fetal position made me roll my eyes. The part where she barks like a dog was unbearable and cringe worthy. The ghost/vision where he comes back was hilariously bad. The part where she gets out of the ocean and stands up like some kind of evolved species was terrible and left me with a bad taste in my mouth.

    George Clooney was actually an annoying character. He was a stereotypical southerner. Sandra Bullock was a weak whiny cry baby. The dialog was cheesy and uninspired.

    This deserves a 5/10 rather than the 10/10 is has been getting from other reviewers. It was NOT worth the price of admission and what they were charging for a 3D IMAX ticket. It did not feel like I was even watching a movie.

  • George Clooney

    what happened in the movie, Sandra Bullock screaming panting, goerge clooney comes every now and then, jokes then dies, she goes to a chinese space ship, and pushes the right buttons but doesn’t know chinese, then barks, clooney shows up, give a joke, disappear go back to earth land on water she lives, the person with the least experience lives, YAAAAY HAPPY ENDING !

  • André Bernardo

    Katherine Marrone,

    The film starts in a beautiful way, and by “beautiful” I mean paradoxically: “Life in space is impossible” – since the first second of the film, the director shows you people in space. He shows you people living, dying and even talking and being helped by the dead. All that happening in space.
    After all that struggle, one of them penetrates the Earth’s atmosphere and lands in a ‘body of water’, a ‘bag of waters’. The being crawls out of the water to the earth and stands up as if it where the first time. To me it suggests evolution, rebirth, the end of a cycle and the beginning of another. It’s an old, old, old story told in a slightly different way.
    There’s a subtext which, in this case, is far more important than Ryan’s oxygen dropping off while she keeps talking.

  • Dee H

    AGREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEED! Graphics were beautiful, well should be considering the amount spent on it, however, story line wise & general movie experience? I couldn’t believe that was all when it finished. It was rather predictable. Simplistic is fine but overrated, contrived and easy to estimate? Yawn. Very overrated.

  • Virginia Brodsky

    Oh people really get over yourself. It’s a freaking movie. Stop evaluating and dissecting . It’s Hollywood not Nasa. You people have to enjoy the moment. The cinematography is awesome. The suspense is awestruck..
    Movie, yes I said movie making at its best. It’s not real life. So sit back and enjoy. Or don’t .. Just stop bitching. Life is too short .. Believe me I know.

    • JNet

      But not too short for you bitch at people for bitching? Yes, it’s a movie, but different people get different enjoyment from movies. Some like the stories, some the visuals, some the realism, others the escapism. If you don’t want to be judged for liking a movie, you can’t judge others for hating it.

      All in all, every single comment here should be respected, if not agreed with.

      Personally, I thought this movie was garbage, but some comments made me appreciate new things about it. I still won’t watch it again, but the bad taste is a bit better. :)

  • Apeshit

    If you remember the initial sequence of 2001 A Space Odyssey there were these apes smashing bones and well basically being apes. If I am not mistaken one of them slowly but surely evolved into a screenwriter . His prior film experience prompting him to write the screenplay for the movie “Gravity”. Amazing what Hollywood can produce if you just give a “simean” a chance.

  • joshua

    watching this movie was a waste of time. Poor dialogue – hands down. The worst characters. I wasted my koney going to the cinema for this movie. no story to follow. It is an abuse to astronaunts who are trained to man these air ships, and then these guys put a stupid female, emotionally weak, unstable to man the space ship. Dudes, this is the worst movie of 2013.

  • ahalfelven

    This movie was to “actually entertaining Hollywood movies that we’ve known and loved” as Obama is to true American patriotism.

  • jeffny01

    Katherine…please stop reviewing movies. you’re a joke. This was the most painfully idiotic review I’ve ever had the misfortune of reading.

    • guest

      Katherine wrote a honest review of the film as she saw it and i agree with every thing she said, your upset because she did not like it, i watched it to and wished i had not bothered wasting 90 minutes of my time on it in the end, you might have liked it so good so for you, but not every one liked it including me , Katherine and others here.

  • Ooops

    You forgot two horrible things:
    * The dead 4 year-old daughter that falls completely out of the blue: another gratuitous attenmpt at jerking tears.
    * The script is basically: crisis in space, navigating the inside of a space station, then a soyuz. After which the script writers thought “damn, we need another 30 minutes. LET’S REPEAT the space station and Soyuz bits A SECOND TIME!”

    My eyes are dizzy from so much rolling!

  • Yo Gurt

    This is gonna feel good. SHIT MOVIE

  • Suffrage

    Who cares about the story. Clearly this movie was made for people to learn a thing or to about the dangers of space. Physics and stuff not the story

    • paul

      Expecting to “learn” anything about *real* physics from this film would be beyond hopeless.

  • BADBOYBROM

    outright terrible review that made me want to stop reading and boycott this critic, only I have no intention of visiting this site ever again anyway.

    • a honest review

      Are you upset because she was honest about the film in her review, you will not be missed here.. bye bye

  • hannes

    thank you! thank you! thank you! every word you say about gravity is true. this movie is obviously (terribly!) overrated. dont understand the hype! greetings from vienna, austria, europe

  • Joe

    I thought it was a brilliant film. The script could have been better though. Other than that I had few criticisms. It was refreshing after what Hollywood has been churning out for the last 20 years…

  • space traveler

    With a background in science and interest in space exploration since I was a child, sure, one can see the scientific errors. Yes, there are aspects which are typically Hollywood. That said, to date, there has never been a film that created the realism and visual impact of what it is like to actually be out in space. For that alone, the film is worth seeing. There are many, many aspects relating to the physics of space travel and exploration that were handled well.

    • paul

      “There are many, many aspects relating to the physics of space travel and exploration that were handled well.”
      Oh? Name one or two, then.

  • Champ

    I jj

  • Si Thu Kyaw

    Love the final scene where the director depicted the evolution of life. Living things come from space, then in water then half water half land, then 4 legged mammals then finally human

  • Petrik Nándor

    That was horrible. I completely agree with every word in the critic.

    I have a screwdriver set costs around €5 and its every bit are magnetised, so when I screw off a screw, it stays on the end of the screwdriver in spite of gravity.
    If Sandra Bullock needs it to not lose the important screws in the space I’ll gladly lend her it… ;)

    • paul

      Maybe her screws were made of titanium.

  • Joe

    And of course this overrated crap will get nominated for all sorts of awards. To be honest the only awards it deserves are original score, editing, and of course visuals. That’s it.

  • Debbie Niemeyer

    Anything with Clooney, or Blooney for that matter, is a great reason not to waste 14 bucks. Thanks for the review. Glad I didn’t see it.

  • Euphoric_Skies

    Finally someone pointed out my problem with George Clooney’s character! He wasn’t human. He was barely phased by anything (not in a professional calm way, but in a “I’m a charming fearless hero” way). I disconnected. Even *HUGE SPOILERS* when he’s sacrificing himself, he doesn’t seem the least bit worried, the least bit sad. Don’t get me wrong, this movie is visually GORGEOUS and really tense at times. But I can’t see this as a masterpiece when they wrote in utterly unrealistic characters like his. In other movies it might have worked (larger than life characters can be great), but not in this one. His characterization stuck out like a sore thumb.

  • johnster hymer

    dude where the hell was everyone on the ISS and if they did escape how come both chinese and russian “soyuz” were there?.. SHE GETS OUT OF THE RUSSIAN SPACE CRAFT WITH A FIRE EXTINGUISHER!!!! wtf

    • guest

      The crew in the ISS evacuated it because there was 2 soyuz modules at the space station 1 was undamaged so they used that one to get back to earth and that left the damaged one on the ISS , the Chinese module on the Chinese space station it was a probably a back up module or they had a small crew that fitted in to a single module leaving the other one on the CSS.

  • E-Dizzle

    I actually thought Bullock’s performance was and the however many hundreds of millions the scenery and effects cost was the only thing stopping this from being a lifetime movie

  • Asturias_Knytt

    It would have helped if Bullock gave a half decent performance
    instead of the typically overdone garbage which she’s known for. She won an Oscar for this? Really?

    Clooney
    just couldn’t help but stroke himself with those cheesy lines over and
    over again. I don’t know what they thinking by casting him.

    Half an hour in and I was praying for an asteroid to
    squarely hit my house. I didn’t mind the pacing, I was actually surprised by that in fact, but the over-sentimentality, the pandering and the pretentious music?

    Gravity is like a chick flick for nerds, only it isn’t intelligent and it isn’t entertaining so that just makes it a terrible movie.

    • Asturias_Knytt

      Hahaha! I guess I didn’t like the movie, huh?

      I didn’t comment on the Robocop remake. That would have been an expletive ridden rant so it’s probably for the best.

  • Keir

    I’m glad I’m not the only one who thought it was overrated. I’m fine with unoriginality, but I just thought the story was absurd. Disaster after disaster after disaster. Even when she makes it back to Earth she fucking drowns.
    The acting was bearable but the writing was atrocious. It really was one-liners. It’s a joke of a movie.

    The week after seeing this, I watched a slightly lesser-known space film, Moon. That was phenomenal, and made a much better film of the environment of space.

    • guest

      Moon is a better film then Gravity by miles, it had a well written script and better acting, which is some thing that Gravity lacked, i would watch moon again any time , unlike Gravity.

  • nambi

    Gravity interesting story, beautiful shots TERRIBLE TERRIBLE dialogue. unbelievably bad, so bad it ruins the movie. Dumbing down vocabulary and adding comedy into an utter disaster completely loses realism.

  • Juan Macker

    Late in this discussion. I have a film degree. I guess I am in the minority of professional film guys who didn’t like this movie. Mission to Mars, The Right Stuff, Apollo 13, and even Aliens was far superior than this movie.
    The Special effects and the view of Earth was spectacular! But the verbiage of the Dialogue script, premise, and the laws of physics in space was absolutely filmed incorrectly. No character development. The whole premise of space debris destroying everything but the stars not once but twice. An Astronaut sent out in space who seemingly doesn’t know anything about piloting a space craft. No visual back story, only brief spoken thoughts by the stars. The purpose of any movie is to make the audience emote. I had no emotion watching this film. I didn’t care about the characters. The move was edited too short. No special effects about a fireball re-entry into the Earth’s atmosphere? I think this movie would have been much better if more scenes were filmed making it a 2 hour movie. Why not see a picture of Sandra Bullock’s dead daughter? We don’t care about her or her daughter. The film was poorly done in my opinion.

  • Sky Mind

    I went to watch this at the Warner Bros private viewing room, so I was lucky enough to get the perfect sound and immaculate visuals. I said lucky enough, because I was surprised when I knew that this movie came out in 2D as well. That doesn’t make any sense. Since there is absolutely no plot nor proper dialogues, why would one want to watch this in 2D? Also, I’m utterly perplexed about the fact that it received 11 Bafta nominations, including original screenplay, and myriad people out there say it’s a great movie.

  • guest

    Well done Katherine for writing a honest review of Gravity , finally some one who saw the film for what is was, i was it expecting a sci fi, thriller, drama but ended up with a lame plot because it was basically just drama set in space, the script was so cheesy that i was glad it was only 90 minutes long, the film only really works in 3D purely for the special effects.

  • callisto

    Not sure why so many of you are taking shots at Gravity. It is a masterpiece, and I feel for those of you who do not see that. Perhaps it is the lack of knowledge about technology, or simply bad taste in movies? I mean, the author of this article thinks she was in a shuttle when the fire took place, and thinks the Soyuz spacecraft ran out of fuel. This film requires an educated audience, or at least one that is willing to learn.

    Perhaps it is because I have always been interested in the space programs, and space exploration, and have acquired knowledge on the topic. Maybe it was the attention to detail and realism of the sets. Or maybe my engineering background, and interests in astronomy played a large role in my appreciation of the film. Or the acute understanding of the technical and artistic challenges in making a movie look believable in micro gravity. But it was more than this…. Gravity hit me in the most unexpected place, my heart… it is a story about human survival and the will to live. A science fiction movie without lasers, robots, or the ability to fly through space at warp speed in complete control. Gravity is different, it is humble, unpretentious, and reminds us that humans are fragile beings at the mercy of the vast universe. It is a truly epic and beautiful film.

    • Shane Warne

      I don’t understand what you mean by lack understanding of technology? This movie defied and broke the laws of physics? If you truly respect technology and electronics, then that is a big no no. It If anything it means this movie itself doesn’t respect technology, that’s how I see it lol

  • CashMcCall

    You were generous; this disaster didn’t even qualify as a film. Clooney’s performance was insulting.

  • Renzo

    Yes, Clooney and his corny lines about his looks was one of the things that ruined this movie, And the ending with the corny over-dramatic music was another

  • Mike Bracewell

    I couldn’t agree more with this review – if anything it doesn’t go far enough; what about the Wall-E fire-extinguisher jet-pack bit (was that meant to be a joke?) or the pointless “foetaI position” Bullock adopts when she first enters the airlock? A crude 2001 reference perhaps? You betcha – this film is about as subtle as a sledge-hammer. It’s basically a very expensive B feature, and one of the most overrated movies I ever seen.

  • Josh

    This is a movie, a VISUAL story. Thats what movies have & always will be. Its not about the “plot”. The filmmakers & cast have even admitted this movie is just a simple plot of a woman being trapped in space. When film 1st starting making a name for itself in the early 1900′s it wasnt about the script or “the depth” or “originality”. Its was filmmakers discovering a new way of telling a story. Speilberg said(Im paraphrasing, btw), “That if you can watch a movie while the volume is turned all the way down & still understand & follow it then you the filmmakers have done a good job”. Yes, over the time movies have gotten more complex a layers due to sound & other tools that have come along, but that comes with ANY aspect in life, especially the arts. It comes down to how you utilize them. And Cauron & Co. use them expertly to tell this story about life & death set in outer space. To quote a line from the movie, ironically, “sit back, enjoy the ride”

    • screendummie

      Even with visual stories you need a plot. I can paint a turd gold but it is still a turd. Is the turd really better now that it has a shiny coat of gold? No, it is still a turd.

  • cleft_asunder

    Thanks for the review! I gave this movie a 4 out of 10. Not even the action/surival scenes made me very tense, probably because the dialogue and lack of interesting characters made me apathetic. And that’s how I felt through most of the movie; apathetic.

    A big problem with the movie is Bullock herself. She was far too reserved and she couldn’t break out of her shell the whole time. You may say, “that’s the way her character is because she lost her daughter,” but the results are the same: An uninteresting character or actor who is essentially a shadow of her true potential. During the barking scene, I thought to myself, “gosh, she is finally fighting to break her shell… here it comes, she’s gonna do it!” Nope, she’s still in her shell.

    I’m a huge fan of sci-fi and space movies but they are scarce unfortunately. If you want a couple really good ones, check out Moon and Europa Report, because they both contain not only real character developement, but depth, emotion and attention to detail.

  • Meri

    I agree with you fully. This movie was terrible.

  • Joshua Labron

    I’m just gonna say this one thing calmly, you guys are all wrong, and looking too closely for faults! It’s a great movie, and you guys just want to be seen as different by trashing a film that is getting such great reviews!

    • screendummie

      It’s because you like to watch pretty actors and pretty scenery but don’t give a damn about plot, acting, dialogue and ect.

      • Joshua Labron

        That’s it ya got me! Actually, you know nothing about me! You’d just rather doscount my by saying I know nothing, than listen to it. No, it’s plot and script aren’t it’s strongest attributes, but it is gorgeous, it packs an emotional punch, and Sandra Bullock delivers one hell of a performance!

        • screendummie

          You don’t know me either. So what is your point?
          Again you just like looking at pretty actors but not good acting. Sandra Bullock blows in this and many other movies she has been in. I never said you didn’t know anything. I said you don’t give a damn about plot, acting, dialogue and ect. Happy now?

          If you didn’t understand my original reply then you probably didn’t understand how much this movie blows. You need more than just pretty cinematography and actors.

          • Joshua Labron

            And I will say again, you’re just being rude, and making personal comments about me, inside of counting my opinion. I’m sorry, but you’re not the be-all-and-end-all when it comes to ratings movies. Don’t tell me I liked the movie just because it’s pretty, I’ll tell you why I like it.

            And stop implying that I’m stupid, I along with a lot of people, thought it was a good movie; for the reasons than it’s pretty. Stop being so condescending!

  • Richard Harp

    BRAVO! BRAVO! BRAVO! My thoughts exactly! To each and every word, and then some. Will George Clooney ever stop trying to be Cary Grant whatever the situation? Or, as Bullock might have said to herself while hanging against a green screen by cables when shooting the film, “After all, they both have the same initials, only in reverse!” So is their appeal, and Clooney should try a little stretching.

  • Rob

    This movie gets nominated for best picture? and she gets nominated for best lead actress? Who the F did she suck to get nominated?

  • http://www.robots-and-androids.com Robot Betty9

    Script from Gravity:

    “WhaddoIdo?” “WhaddoIdo?””WhaddoIdo?””WhaddoIdo?””WhaddoIdo?””WhaddoIdo?””WhaddoIdo?””WhaddoIdo?””WhaddoIdo?”

    “Ahahahahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!”

    WhaddoIdo?” “WhaddoIdo?””WhaddoIdo?””WhaddoIdo?””WhaddoIdo?””WhaddoIdo?””WhaddoIdo?””WhaddoIdo?””WhaddoIdo?””Ahahahahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!”

    WhaddoIdo?” “WhaddoIdo?””WhaddoIdo?””WhaddoIdo?””WhaddoIdo?””WhaddoIdo?””WhaddoIdo?””WhaddoIdo?””WhaddoIdo?””Ahahahahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!”

    (Repeat for 90 minutes!)

  • Coovargo

    This was the most horrible things I have ever laid eyes on in my life. It was realistic where it didn’t count as much. For example, the ghostly silence as everything was destroyed in the debris scene. However overall, this movie is completely filled with terrible physics, poor character development, and poor story.If you decide to watch this movie, I recommend you do decide watching this movie for the hype of the reviews on IMDB.com Or RottenTomates.com.

    One, in space, there was NOTHING to pull them apart from each-other that caused Matt to drift to his death. Basically when their combined momentum was nullified, they could have pulled themselves back to the space station with the force of a finger. It was as if a black hole was sucking him away.

    Two, They don’t use screw guns that let the screws fly off in space. They’re all magnetic.

    Three, Why was there a vise grip device floating on the ISS? Consider that in space nothing requires that type of holding strength. If you had to glue something together, they could literally just float next to each-other and that would be enough. No additional force would truly be required. That’s just one instance of the use of a vise grip here on earth, but the many thousands of more would be canceled out by the fact that there’s NO gravity, and no force, except for rotational, which there should only be a negligible amount of as well on a properly functioning space station. The bottom of the ISS ALWAYS faces the earth.

    Four, Space is a vast, vast place. In the debris scene, there was so much debris flying from a satellite it was obnoxious. A single explosion in space will send debris in a 180 degree cone from the point of explosion. After 1 mile or so, the debris would be approximately 1 piece per 170 yards, assuming the object broke into 5,000 pieces (Maybe if you hit it with 50 kilograms of explosive…). The odds of ANY of that even hitting you is ASTRONOMICAL. Basically it looked like someone stuffed a satellite in a giant shotgun and fired it straight at them. You’re miles, if not hundreds of miles, from anything in space at any given time.

    Five, You’re hund- Sigh. Already said this, but it’s different. They pointed to the ISS and the chinese space station which are not in similar orbits. Don’t get me wrong, they all cross at some point but. They magically caught up with them in ten minutes. They were at the Hubble, which is not within the same orbit.You’d never catch them without a lot of fuel to burn.

    Six. The closest the ISS and Hubble EVER get is 9.9 MILES away from one another. EVER. And that’s a LOT of orbits. I’m talking one in thirty thousand. Not only that but they’re in varying orbits by approximately thirty degrees when they cross axises. Meaning that any object that wants to change course has to change by about 2 miles per second in one direction. I’m afraid I’m not pulling this information out of my. Well. You know. In the movie they’re supposedly 60 miles away but at that range I’d assume it would be VERY difficult to make a proper visual, considering you’d only be in viewing distance for long. I’m afraid that booster pack isn’t going to get you 2 additional miles per second.

    Seven – The space suits. OH NO WE’RE RUNNING OUT OF AIR would NEVER happen that soon. I don’t care what stage of panic you’re in. Not only that but the astronauts are TRAINED to NOT panic. The space suits are designed with a PLSS system, a Primary Life support system, and a secondary life support system. http://science.howstuffworks.com/space-suit5.htm

    Eight – Oh god that parachute didn’t rip after all that bucking? The chute is not designed for that. It is designed to support and decelerate a load falling under gravity. Given the NON-SMOOTH surface of the space station, and some point a seam would have ripped and the entire chute should have torn in half at any stress points. Not only that, the anchor points would have had to fail too. On either the capsule or the ISS. Also, flying away from the ISS at approximately 50MPH caused WAY too little violence for such a big sudden stop. Look. I’m not a professional. But you don’t floor it when you leave the ISS. You drift clear of it, then go about your way. Space is not a place to take your mistakes.

    Nine – The proper way to do the scene, and most fuel efficient, would have been to sit Ryan on Clooney’s lap and have her drive. That way there is no tether interference, and no body behind the operator to block and divert approximately 5% of the thrust. Seriously. Who’s bright idea was it to tether them together? You’re in space. You need to have the same rotation and same momentum to keep things safe. Common sense to any astronaut.

    Ten – The professionalism of all actors is appalling. HOPE THEY HAVE A GOOD INSURANCE PLAN. GOOD ONE HIGH FIVE.

    Eleven – Radio Silence? Yes. Radio stops working IMMEDIATELY when a satellite near you explodes.

    Twelve – When Ryan is on the rotating arm she had enough time to analyze her situation. If she were to have crouched down first before detaching, she would have transferred more of her rotational energy into the arm before releasing herself. At which point she could have just thrown her arms out and been rotating at a much slower pace. In the movie it seemed more like she was mindlessly flailing every which way. There’s nothing to catch in space.

    Thirteen – Ryan wasn’t lost enough, given that she was about to pass out from oxygen deprivation.

    Fourteen – Who the hell names their female child Ryan?

    Fifteen – No space diaper.

    I’m going to quit while I’m ahead.

  • Aristocles

    Stupid movie! I want my money back. “All is Lost” is the one people should see. I didn’t feel anything for Bullock “suddenly deciding” to live. Go see Redford’s movie it’s a nail biter with NO unnecessary dialog. It feels real. And by now I am so sick of stupid smug Clooney that I cheered when he fell away.

  • Panor

    I honestly expected expected a shark to attacker at the end. The movie was way too cheesy, predictable and technically inaccurate. It may have looked great on the big screen in 3-D, but it sucks on your home TV.

  • alex olivari

    gravity is the most boring movie ive ever seen. and on top of that i had to pay more to watch it on 3D.

    i cant believe this piece of s**t can win an oscar.

  • Johnny Dangerously

    If you believe Buzz Lightyear could be a NASA commander then Gravity is for you..

  • Marie

    I do not think that you guys understood the movie. The movie was not about space flight or the shuttle, it was about survival. The real story was…Sandra and George were married and their daughter was killed at school. The movie is a journey of grief. The shuttle exploding was when ‘Houston’ (little girl) dies. Their world explodes and spins out of control. They tether themselves together and head to the Space Station (a new life). There she yells I’m detached over and over. She is EMOTIONALLY detached. George is so lost and spent, that he kills himself from the grief. She trys to save him by is unable to do so and the Space Station explodes…her life with her husband is over and she is all alone. She dabbles in religion and makes it to the Chinese station (Buddha). There she listens to someone speaking to a little girl and a dog, (her VHS or DVD of her daughter and husband) and decides to kill herself. She has a spiritual experience and is visited by her dead husband. He tells he to survive and LIVE. So she fights to live on. She makes it to Earth, landing in a shallow lake. Symbolically reborn. Shaky standing on her own 2 feet to continue to live. PS…Her hyperventilating was panic attacks and deep sadness. I thought that this movie was Brilliant and Oscar Worthy. Watch it again everyone!!! With that in mind…see what you think then. Enjoy.

    • powdereddonuts

      It would have been better and perhaps more believable if the movie didn’t involve space. Your version seems more compelling.

    • GravitySucks

      That may all be well and good. @Marie, but if the acting and dialogue suck, who cares?

    • screendummie

      Doesn’t make sense for NASA to send a married couple into space. I honestly don’t think NASA has ever done that before.

  • Uninspired

    I just finished watching the 3D blu-ray movie 1/2 hr. ago.
    The special effects, including both visuals and sound effects/surround, was great. Really shows off your system.

    The acting was…well, not enough?
    I felt it wasn’t really a character story, but more a visual effects movie.
    It will likely win awards for special effect – but I’d be ticked if it won much more than that.

    There was no…stellar acting at all. Perhaps there wasn’t supposed to be.
    And come on, poking around space with a fire extinguisher to get to the other space station pod? Good luck with that.

  • Oso737

    Just watched the movie this morning, and found your review while looking for a translation of what the Chinese guy was actually saying – go figure, I’m curious. I also found this review by an actual NASA astronaut who has done 3 spacewalks. You might want to check it out for some balance. http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2013/10/17/what-does-a-real-astronaut-think-of-gravity/

  • Amherst93

    Worst movie ever. Bought it on demand and sorry I spent $5. I can’t believe it’s getting accolades.

    • powdereddonuts

      That honor should go to “Avatar”. Your mistake was watching this on normal TV. It was an entirely different experience in IMAX3D.

  • bill

    could not agree more. so corny.

  • scottml43

    Other than some beautiful space scenes, this was a stupid movie. I thought it would have been crafted a lot better in terms of plot, but listening to Sandra Bullock driple on for 90 minutes was nauseating. This was a rip off.

  • dennis

    To the author,
    I do not know if you are an American. But if you are, you certainly are perpetuating the stereotype that American are stuck-up ignorant bigot.
    First, the radio signal intercepted by Dr.Stone was of an Inuit fisherman which HAS A HUGE MASSIVE DIFFERENCE from the Chinese language. A little research was all that was needed to confirm the identity of the language. Yet you chose to be an ignorant hipster and chose to assume it was of Chinese origin.
    Second, about Lieutenant Mat Kowalski’s rather humorous attempts at getting Dr.Stone to calm down my applauding his own ravishing good looks. Well, I thought that this suited his character very well. Think about it, you’re a lieutenant or you were a lieutenant in the United States Armed Forces. Obviously, you have handled and confronted death before. Now in the face of disaster… what would you do, FREAK OUT AND GO ALL NUTS or try to lighten the mood up of civilian engineer who has ONLY had 6 months worth of training?? This even justifies Mat’s attempt at getting Dr.Stone to talk because you would need to calm down and not FREAK THE FRICK OUT and use even more oxygen!!!
    Jesus then there’s the one where you lament about the dying scene….
    CONSIDER THIS. YOU HAVE NO FUEL. IT’S FREEZING. NO APPARENT WAY TO ESCAPE YOUR IMPENDING FATE. YOU GET A RADIO TRANSMISSION WHICH HAPPEN TO BE POINTED AT YOUR EXACT LOCATION WHICH IS VERY HARD TO GET A HOLD OF USING MANUAL TRANSMITTER??
    And then you realize, this is your very last chance to listen to a human voice before your seemingly inevitable death…. I don’t know because I haven’t been in such a situation. But I though Sandra Bullock put up a pretty impressive performance!!
    About sattelites being made of Birchwood. I would like to see you in space being pummelled by space debris moving in orbit at 16 times then speed of bullet or 8km per sec and see how you turn out.
    Please get off your smartphone and actually watch the movie and stop being a pretentious hipster trying to hate the movie because liking it is TOO MAINSTREAM.

    • screendummie

      I thought much of the material such as the underside of the space shuttle is made of heat resistant material. Why would you send a highly flammable object into space?

  • Paul Butler

    Its a Bgrade Popcorn flick?? Astroid hits spaceship….gotta get to the pod, running outa time….gotta get to the spacestation….running outa time…running outa outa outa time, ad nauseam…..B grade popcorn filler…with great visuals – soon to be superceaded in a heartbeat…..a “bus” movie in scriptwriting terms, I just can’t see what the fuss is about.

  • Zumm

    Well i did not watched it all , skipped some parts.. imo this is not rly bad movie but it is alos NOT good! Most that i dont like about it is that its so owerrated, insted of 7 oscars they should at least give it 8 , last one for being most owerrated!

  • Spanky Lee

    All I can add is that I soiled my adult undergarments as a result of attempting to endure this vile excuse for a film.

  • Jason

    Great article. This movie was terrible and a total waste of 1.5hrs. No plot and terrible acting. The directors must have paid someone off at rottentomatoes to get the high reviews they got. I still haven’t got over the fact that I cannot get those 1.5hrs of my life back.

    • powdereddonuts

      Did you see it in IMAX3D? I thought it was worth it just for the immersive qualities alone. Best use of 3D in any film I’ve seen to date. Probably as close as I will ever come to experiencing zero gravity in space.

      That has to be worth something. Right?

  • Ketchumqueen

    Thank you. I can’t for the life of me understand why this movie was so highly reviewed. It was average at best, beautiful to look at, but so is playstation. I’m so glad George C. got to crack jokes as per usua-even while in space,l and that “Sandy’s” make up was looking so fresh. Geez. So dumb. Thank goodness it didn’t win best picture.

  • Johnny

    Agreed it was awful, I saved around an hour of my life by uttering it off safer 45 mins. Utterly reliant on 3D, the general public are mugs mind so you can see their thinking earn making the movie.

  • Johnny

    *turning it off after 45 mins* was what I meant to say haha

  • Ghandi123

    It was ironic that the Russian missile was the villain in the story and I feel the Chinese man barking was unnecessary. Probably just digs at the east from Hollywood. Also I would have hoped for a deeper story line. It got quite dull watching the one man escape mission featuring Bullock.

  • Nick Atanasio

    Alright. My problems with this review are numerous, and encompass just about every part of it.

    They bankrolled Bullock and Clooney because they’re good actors. Do you detest Philomena, Blue Jasmine, Dallas Buyers Club, American Hustle, or the Wolf of Wall Street for using popular actors? They’re not bad actors. People love them for a reason.

    Yes, the plot is that one person sacrifices themselves so that the other can survive. That is a plot that is so incredibly common that to say it is overused . . . well, that’s not a misnomer, I’ll admit. It’s how it’s done that defines whether you’re looking at crap or genius. And this movie did it perfectly.

    Please, tell me, why is a strong will to survive a bad theme? Once again, movies everywhere, from Pulp Fiction to Zombieland share in this theme heavily because it appeals to the human soul more than most others. It is the question we all ask ourselves every day of every year: “Why are we doing this? What’s the point?”. Whether your inspiration is religious or just personal, we’ve all thought it. And this movie took that as its point, and portrayed it flawlessly.

    Note, the shuttle did not catch fire. The ISS was what caught fire, which (although fire was indeed portrayed incorrectly) is not at all impossible. Please also note the fireball from when it burst open, which correctly blossomed for but a moment before going out. They took their time to make this one of the most scientifically accurate space movies to date.

    When Matt told Ryan he knew how devastatingly good looking he is, that was to calm her down. He was a seasoned Astronaut come off from countless missions, and knew that she looked to him for guidance. If he was panicking, she would do no better, and would calm down less. Thus the dialogue coming from him that was like that in the face of danger. Rest assured, his heart was beating no slower than hers.

    They were talking on their way over to the ISS for the exact same reason as listed above. The human mind is not a nice place when left to its own designs in a situation like that. He knew from years of missions how fast her O2 would go down, and gauged that he could talk to her. If you notice, they ceased talking when her O2 alarm went off on the way to the ISS.

    The barking is only foolish because you think it to be. For me, it was one of the most touching moments I’ve ever seen in film. Left alone, drifting in space, finally in contact with somebody else, she’s broken beyond belief. Nobody else can see or hear her, so she barks because she wants to communicate with somebody.

    For the record, Aningaaq was an Icelandic fisherman, not Chinese. Just because the language sounds vaguely Eastern does not make it Chinese.

    Praying is not limited to religion. You can pray for whatever the hell you want, even if you’re not praying to anybody or anything in particular. Make it a way to voice your personal frustration. Get to know yourself better. Whatever.

    Add all of this: the simplistic plot which was executed perfectly, beautiful performance of Sandra Bullock, and fantastic CG which was the best I’ve ever seen together and you have a masterpiece capable of standing on par with 2001: A Space Odyssey.

    - Nicholas Atanasio -

  • Pierre Montreaux

    You guys suck.
    I bet Finding Nemo is a rubbish film too ‘cos fish can’t talk in real life!

    Come on man you guys are splitting hairs and are all far too literal. Movies don’t need to be fact. Who cares if shes an engineer or a technician. Who cares if she wouldn’t really be allowed in the Space Program. Who cares that the chances of landing in that shallow a body of water are incredibly slim. No one cares that superman can fly or spiderman shoots web from his wrists, though they should.

    I agree there is some terrible dialogue but to actively dissect a sci-fi movies factual integrity is so vastly petty and unimaginative you should probably stop watching movies altogether.

  • joe smith

    Gravity was a chick-flick. In this movie, a girl alone, feeling her feelings, yet rising above them to carry on.

  • leo

    its over rated

  • angie-la

    the biggest thing that got me was that Matt did not have to die. It’s space. He would not be putting any weight on that line. In fact the parachute and tether would be hanging in space. They had both stopped. He could have easily pulled himself up the tether. Easily. So the film lost me completely at that point. It just reminded me of the Titanic part where Jack could so easily have climbed on that raft with Rose, nope there was just room for her and her big dress, the boyfriend was destined to be a popsicle.

    You’ve just got to think, could you set this story somewhere else? the characters, the dialogue? well no, you couldn’t because there’s precious little story and very little believable communication and interaction between the characters. Visually stunning is all that it is. Which is a shame. How did it get such high ratings? how did it get so many Oscars? I feel a bit duped, next time I wont be buying a dvd just because it won big.

    It’s made me cross and I dont really know why, except I feel a bit cheated.

  • Moviesaremorethanastory

    You are all just so blind. The movie is a metaphor for birth. The astronauts are sperms, each time one dies and only ONE survives at the end. There are so many clues that it is a metaphor. Even the movie’s score plays underwater (wound) sounds.
    Every scene in the movie relates to this except the character’s past, which also adds a sort of reincarnation theme. At the end she is born from the Water!! Water broke. When she is talking over the radio, it’s to a foreign language, her father singing a lullaby. Duh. All the obstacles she faces are identical to the fetus obstacles. It’s sad you people couldn’t figure any of this out.

    Also at the end there is an evolution theme as well because she is in the water and a toad swims by. These clues are not coincidence since soon after she crawls from the water and learns to walk, like in evolution.

    • screendummie

      Dude, what are you smoking cos I want some of that too!

      • pismire123

        The only shame here is they failed to blow up the escape pod (abortion clinic) and the movie was born.

  • Your Boss

    If a crocodile had eaten her as she swam away from the capsule. That would have made this a satisfying movie.

  • Sylvia Jordan

    Thank You!!!! OMG I thought this was the most over rated hype of a movie! Everything you said in this review is what I was thinking. I got a free movie from Time Warner cable and decided I would use it on this movie. Thank God I did not pay to see this. This movie made me question women in space, thT is how bad it was for me!

  • Luke

    I literally went to sleep in this film…..I woke up when George came back from the dead and drank some vodka. I promptly went back to sleep and woke to Sandra almost drowning. What a croc of shit. What’s worse is all the awards it won…….Really!!! What a sham.

  • PropaneC3H8

    Wow, if this movie was overrated 6 months ago, it’s even more overrated now after the Oscars. I just watched it on the cheap thanks to Red Box. I agree with the author. The movie is so predictable in a bad way. And here’s a little secret. Put new-age space music on anything and you get something magical. Try it next time you go out for a run or wash the dishes.

  • Essus Félix

    Terrible movie and a forced bad story… Some little changes and might it work throw. Bad and stupid solutions, foolish chatting waste of oxygen. Hard to believe this crap won an Oscar… Oh, wait, it´s some kind of retribution to recent changes on energy politics in México. As Lupita Jones and TLC or FCT. thats explains the issue, it is not overrated, it´s an exchange.

  • Essus Félix

    Terrible movie and a forced bad story… Some little changes and might it work throw. Bad and stupid solutions, foolish chatting waste of oxygen. Hard to believe this crap won an Oscar… Oh, wait, it´s some kind of retribution to recent changes on energy politics in México. As Lupita Jones and TLC or FCT. thats explains the issue, it is not overrated, it´s an exchange.

  • Essus Félix

    Terrible movie and a forced bad story… Some little changes and might it work throw. Bad and stupid solutions, foolish chatting waste of oxygen. Hard to believe this crap won an Oscar… Oh, wait, it´s some kind of retribution to recent changes on energy politics in México. As Lupita Jones and TLC or FCT. thats explains the issue, it is not overrated, it´s an exchange.

  • ELBSeattle

    I felt the exact same way. Man, but say this out loud to some people and they go berserk. I think people have a hard time distinguishing between a movie based on a good script and a movie based on a bad script that relies entirely on special effects to get through the movie. I despise the 2nd kind of movie. I need a good story, believable characters and honest dialogue. Without that not even the most spectacular CGI in the world can save a movie for me.

  • ELBSeattle

    Titanic suffered the same fate as Gravity. Execrable script. Ham-fisted direction. Decent special effects, but that does not make a movie.

  • pamela

    My
    partner and I have been trying for a baby for over two years now, We were going
    to a fertility clinic for about 5 months before somebody told us to contact
    this spell caster who is so powerful, We contacted him at this email,spell_temple@yahoo.com, for him to help us, then we told him
    our problem, he told us that she we either conceive in January 2013 or February
    2013,but after two years of trying we were at a point where we were willing to
    try anything. And I’m glad we came to Dr.BABA Because he predictions put us at
    ease, and I honestly believe him and his gods really helped us as well, I am
    thankful for all he has done. contact him via email: spell_temple@yahoo.com
    if you are trying to get a baby or want your lover back. he has powers to do
    it, he has done mine.

  • magic3400

    My god, 7 Oscars? You have to be kidding, this movie sucked.

  • pamela

    I want to share my experience on how I got my baby, despite the
    doctor said I couldn’t have any, because
    of my health, I was depress since the year 2008 I could not give birth, until
    one of my family friend introduce a
    GREAT SPELL CASTER to me, I never knew he could even solve my problems, when I
    contacted him despite the situation on
    ground he told me that he is going to help me, and he gave to me some herbs to
    help me and casted some spell on me, all
    thanks to GOD that sent him to me, just after three months I became pregnant
    for my husband, now I am a mother of
    three children, I want to thank the great spell caster for his good work, if
    you are out there passing through this same
    problem, you can also contact him via spell_temple@yahoo.com and I pray
    to GOD that same way he helped me, he
    shall help you also, thanks for part of my testimony.

    • paul

      But … did you enjoy Gravity?

  • HF74

    1 dimensional characters + not a shred of scientific accuracy = very overrated movie.

  • Lee Huxler

    Thank you. We hated it. The first half was okay. Then we started wishing an alien or two would show up.

  • Lee Huxler

    Also note that she could never have held on to the door handles with those space gloves on and the force of the trashing about she did when she opened them…dumb. Makes people think they could actually survive something like this.

  • thespicymeatball

    Hollywood crap. Wake up.

  • pismire123

    I feel exactly the same. I saw all the hype, all the nominations, all the hoopla, and decided I must see it. So rented it from Red Box despite my assumption that there was no way Clooney and Bullock in space could ever be a success. I was right. It was so bad. Half of Clooney’s lines seemed delivered via dub in the studio, as a dummy or his stunt double floated off too small to identify. What a lame role for him to accept. The tongue-in-cheek between the astronauts and mission control was so bad, that similar conversations between pilots and control in subtitled toho Godzilla movies are actually more believable. This movie couldn’t even be saved by the gratuitous boy-shorts shots of bullock who was in amazing shape for this film. It was ACTUALLY WORSE than open water.

  • Chumscrubber

    This movie was a colossal disappointment, and a preposterous POS. The reasons for my assessment have already been quite competently articulated by the author of this article and previous commenters, so no need to elaborate.