Gravity

The visuals for this movie are impressive. The story line is enjoyable, and it leaves you appreciating your place on Earth. The characters also provide some good laughs.

It was one of the better 'space' movies. However, as a geek (I know, I know it's a movie) the orbits are all wrong for some of the events to even remotely take place. So if you know anything about space travel, as usual suspend disbelief for the moment. It at least stayed largely true to the no sounds in space thing, and provides some good lessons about linear and angular momentum. The fact I even get to bring this up, means I give the film makers some serious props... I wouldn't go so far as some of the reviews where they says the movie is creating a whole "new genre". The reviewers and movie makers just never realized, until now, what us geeks knew all along... space is much more awesome and frightening if you portray it more realistically.

Hopefully the movie also provides a good reminder about how special this little rock is, and how unforgivable the rest of the universe is. Let's try and keep our planet that way! At least I was reminded of this when I left the theater.

Visually stunning. A real first in the technical department and presumably that was the extent of its intent. None of the great themes of Kubrick's 1968 masterpiece "2001: A Space Odyssey", are present here. This is a superlative, 90 odd minutes of remarkable beauty but the 90 odd minutes become really long because, just like the heroine we have so little to cling on to, story wise. It seems petty to criticize a film of this kind for whatever it doesn't accomplish because what it means to accomplish, it does in spectacular fashion. I just felt that I was served a glorious appetizer without a main course. Two huge stars in space Sandra Bullock and George Clooney. Why? If the idea was to dazzled us with something we had never seen before, great unknown actors would have added an extra something. Kubrick used Keir Dullea in "2001: A Space Odyssey", yes, Keir Dullea, or as Noel Coward put it, Keir Dullea, gone tomorrow. We know that if Sandra Bullock was in charge she, one way or another, will land safely. She's terrific, don't get me wrong, but I wasn't as worried about her as I should have been. The last problem was the score. Why? A standard horror/action flick musical score with cheap shots here and there. I think the purity of the work needed to be extended on every department. Now, putting all that aside, director Alfonso Cuaron must be applauded and I strongly recommend you to run and see it in the biggest screen you can find and in 3D.

This movie is probably one of the hardest i have to "review". Normally i review movies on my enjoyement of them, and i don't care to give a 6 or a 7 if the movie entertained me, even if its legitely a "bad movie" per normal standards.

When it comes to this one, i would give it a 4 if i would rate on my enjoyement alone. I was ...kinda bored to be honest. I looked at the time left 3 times and this is just a 90 minutes movie. That said, gotta give credit on the visuals and special effects as a whole.

The movie is beautiful, and i can only imagine how impressive it must had been in 2013 on a cinema screen. Apparently this was also in 3D, wich i usually don't like, but i could totally see why this particular movie would be enhanced by it. Now myself i watched it on a regular 1080p TV on bluray, and it was still impressive.

The issue is the story is not that compelling. And its even worst once you look at all the "goofs" on IMDB and realize a lot of what happen could simply not happen. Its not that actors act bad or that their characters have any major problems, its just that the concept of very few characters in a movie, at least to me, often result in a lack of developement. Its a survival story, thats it.

Now, i personally wouldn't rewatch the movie, unless maybe on an IMAX screen or something by curiosity, but my bluray has a ton of extras and to be fair i am actually curious to watch them for once. Like how they did the zero gravity stuff and such.

So in a nutshell is it worth a watch? Yeah kinda... for the visuals. And i must aknowledge that aspect, but at the same time i can't say i was really "entertained". So i am gonna give the movie a 6 wich i feel is a compromise between my 4 for entertainement and 8 for technical aspect.

The script has issues so knock a few points there, no matter what. If you reading this on Letterboxd, i can't give this the yellow heart. But that does not mean its not a well made movie and that you won't enjoy it.

You've been floating round the Earth outside the bubble, making repairs to telescope whose name is Hubble, and then proverbial hits the fan, deviating from the plan, before you know it, you're cast adrift, in lots of trouble. Matt Kowalski reaches out to gather in, you make your way with him to station that's within, but it's battered and quite bruised, you're frustrated and bemused, and the air you breathe is getting rather thin. But the cards that you've been dealt may just play out, although there's not insignificant, amounts of doubt, in fact the chances are quite low, that you will find a place to go, though a trajectory has been set, somewhere about.

Truly epic in scale! Whilst 'Gravity' falls short against films like '2001: A Space Odyssey', it is a tense and visually stunning thriller from Alfonso Cuarón. Cuarón is one of my all-time favourite directors, and this CGI-heavy project just boasts skill and ingenuity from the director, DOP and VFX artist. The critics stated that you would be gripping to the edge of your seats, this is true in every aspect, the film is full of intense and thriller situations with amazing performances from Sandra Bullock and George Clooney. Just shy from winning Best Picture over '12 Years a Slave', 'Gravity' left the Oscars with 7 Academy Awards to its name, and it deserved each and every one of them. A masterpiece that allows the viewer to become immersed within the scene to often thrilling effect.