Anyone else not that impressed? Kept thinking "Nice photography but it seems like something I've seen before."

Beautifully filmed. Like you I really expected more.

My wife and I thought the movie was fantastic. It was all about Sandra Bullock and she did a fantastic job. It was quite different than Captain Phillips. The photography was outstanding and as a whole, you had to appreciate the movie for what it's worth.

Nick

My gf and I really enjoyed it. I realized at one point I was clutching my jacket in a clenched fist.

We had dinner with some friends for a birthday a couple nights later .. one of the ladies in the crowd mentioned that she was pissed that Bullock's character could not have been protrayed as a strong woman but had to have an emotional breakdown and the back-story of having lost a child. She compared that to Clooney's character that we know nothing about and take at face value. I didn't really want to argue.. this woman was a very liberal lawyer and a lesbian and I'd just admitted my chosen recreational acivities as being motorcycles and shooting. I was just happy she didn't take a fork to my throat right there in the restaurant. We did chat about bikes later. I would have thought she'd have been happy that Bullock really carried much of the movie.

btw.. i agree.. the photography was very cool and the weightless effects were really well done and seamless ..

I saw it in 3D, and the effects were very good. Photography was excellent. I think the story line was rather thin. To me this smacks of being in the category of an "art film".

__________________
H Richard
SWCA1967 SWHF244

Saw a short article about this movie which cracked me up. There were reporters asking questions about the movie. One man stood up and asked the movie director what problems they had encountered while filming in space. As you would imagine the other reporters just sat there in utter silence but the director calmly replied "We lost one cameraman while shooting but that was about it."

It was a gag question asked by a reporter (?) for some off the wall rag that does fake reporting. I would've loved to been there.

I'm just peeved that 44 years after landing on the moon, we STILL CAN'T shoot movies in outer space!

While I have never seen gravity, I feel it more and more every day...

From the trailers I did not think it would be pulling enough.

The wife and I really liked it. 3-D goggles and the works!

The story was flat at best, but well worth the price of admission to see the show. Spend the extra $$$ to see it in IMAX 3D.

__________________
always trust your cape...

I really enjoyed this movie, and it didn't hurt that I saw it in Imax-3D. This is the type of movie where seeing it on the big screen really is what makes the experience a good one. My guess is that folks who see it later on a TV screen at home will wonder what the fuss was about.

Didn't see it.

__________________
Forum consigliere

Clooney is an anti-gunner and his views are radical, I'm not putting my money in his pocket to reward him for it.

"After poking fun at Heston’s then Alzheimer diagnosis, reporters questioned him about his insensitivity. Clooney: “I don’t care. Charlton Heston is the head of the National Rifle Association. He deserves whatever anyone says about him.”

How people can vote for or financially support people so diametrically opposed to their views they would never have a cup of coffee with them in the real word? It confuses me.

JMO, others differ.

Wife and I saw it in Imax 3D. Local reviews were great but I didn't expect much. I wasn't disappointed. It wasn't much.

Let's be honest here. Two-thirds of the movie was just Sandra Bullock. The scene of her climbing out of that space suit in those skin-tight shorts was worth the price of admission, but beyond that, what are you gonna do with one character? The monologues consisted of only three things. (1) Heavy breathing from her exertions. Not not that kind of exertion. (2) Her reading out of the spacecraft operation manual, and (3) her muttering about what a miserable life she had had.

I would have much preferred an hour and a half of her in the skin-tight shorts. Unfortunately, my wife wouldn't have let me go.

On the recommendation of Phil Plait of badastronomy, we went to see Gravity at the IMAX in 3D. His review has spoilers in it, so if you don't like that sort of thing don't read it.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/10/04/ba_movie_review_gravity.html

My take? Truly great special effects, which is the only reason to go see it (and I almost never feel special effects are a justification for seeing a movie). I just wished they could've been used on a better movie. It's not as bad a movie story-wise as say Avatar (and the effects are much more believable - I never felt like Avatar was anything more than a cartoon). It is probably worthwhile to see it in 3D on the IMAX, but I don't intend to see it again so I have no basis for 2D/3D comparison. It's only 91 minutes which helps - I usually get a headache and irritated eyes during 3D movies.

There's a nifty shot where we get closer and closer to Sandra Bullock in her spacesuit, until we actually pass through her helmet and rotate around and are looking out from her point of view. And you've gotta look pretty good when the closeup of your face is 30 feet high. I was pretty impressed overall with the fidelity of all the floaty zero-G stuff. I think the bulk of it was CGI and I had wondered if they did any of it in a "vomit comet" (an aircraft that flies a parabolic arc to create free fall, about 30 seconds at a time). But I saw Sandra Bullock on Leno and she said that they had talked her into doing scenes in the vomit comet even though she hates to fly, but after she gamely signed up for that they let her know that it'd be hanging from wires and such instead.

However there are the glaring unrealities of things such as George Clooney in the opening scene, swooping around the shuttle/Hubble with a Manned Manvering Unit (MMU) backpack like some kind of drunken sugarplum fairy. Everything I've ever seen done in space is slow and deliberate. And he's not helping get the job done! They aren't going to have an astronaut out there on a Hubble servicing mission doing nothing during EVA except play Rocketeer.

Plus nobody but Clooney had any kind of backpack even though all US EVA suits now have SAFR backpacks, a more basic type of MMU that allows an astronaut to get back to the ship if they accidentally get untethered.

Then there's putt-putting from the Hubble to the ISS with an MMU because look, it's that bright dot right over there! (And not in a completely different orbital altitude and inclination, and not maybe thousands of miles away on the other side of the Earth.) And then in a crippled Soyuz from the ISS to the Chinese space staion because it, too is just right over there. Crowded neighborhood! And all by the seat of the pants, with no instruments or autopilot or calculations or respect to orbital mechanics.

There's a critical plot point involving tension on a tether between Bullock and Clooney's suits (the fuller description of the situation is one of Phil's spoilers in his review), which could be explained if they were swinging around in an arc and there was centripetal force involved. However that's not the way it was represented so they screwed up there.

And, the orbital debris that causes all the problems doesn't spread out and just keeps coming around every 90-minute orbit with closing velocities "like a rifle bullet", but still they can easily see it coming in a visible swarm.

Etc.

But it's a pretty cool movie to look at.

My wife and I saw it in 3D. While some of the cinematography was good, the movie as a whole was unimpressive in my opinion.
Robert Redfords new movie "All is lost" is a better movie.
One actor, and only about 20 words spoken the entire film.

I believe Isaac Newton was one of the first to see it, I hope it wasn't a granny smith.

Saw it with the wife. All I can say is that even at Sandra Bullock's age, gravity doesn't seem to have had any effects on her...

You do realize it is a MOVIE, right? Not a documentary?

I'm sure When John Wayne rammed his submarine into a Jap destroyer (Operation Pacific) some old salt was saying "that movie stunk, that sub would of sunk for sure!"

I've seen similar sentiments many times as justification for taking needless liberties, but you could say that about anything in movies. "Oh, let's have tanks roll through Atlanta in Gone With the Wind - it's just a movie!"

All films rely somewhat on suspension of disbelief, and the less you know the easier it is to do that suspendering. I don't expect anything approaching true physics in any Star Trek movie, but when you try to make a film regarding a shuttle mission in low Earth orbit, I hope for more realism than what Gravity presented.