"Gravity" (currently 98% positive ratings on RT)

[RaistlinZ]

Bullock's buttocks are worth the price of admission. :sneaky:

 

[Printer Bandit]

My review:

Crash
.
.
.
Space
Floating
Boring
Space
Boring
Floating
Crash
Space
Floating
Boring
.
.
.
The End

 

[Aikouka]

7/10 is my rating.

That's what I'd give it as well. It's certainly not a bad film, but I don't know... it just didn't grip me very well. I knew about some of the technical shenanigans after reading the ArsTechnica article, so I wasn't worried about any of that. Although, there was one scene for me...

Spoiler

when Clooney's character comes to the Soyuz capsule, opens the door and Bullock's character doesn't die from exposure to null pressure (wouldn't she explode from the body pressure being greater than the outside?).

Of course, it made sense eventually.

Honestly, I still think Rush is the best movie so far this year -- I gave that one an 8/10.

 

[Lil Frier]

I'm not a movie person myself. However, I see this title and think "duh, like that site's going to vote against Sandra Bullock AND George Clooney!"

But really, I'm just not big on movies, nor do I care for the works of these two (can't think of anything I like either did, as I don't latch on to actors or actresses much, if at all). Cool stuff that it's supposedly visually outstanding, but I'm still not sold on the concept of the movie, just from the perspective of what entertains me.

 

[Lil Frier]

Isn't it better when the trailer doesn't entirely give away the story and make the whole thing predictable? I'd rather it be vague and mysterious just enough to entice me to see it.

A little yes, a little no. What if this movie ended up being about how they got stranded in space and fell in love, then ended with their wedding ceremony or something? I'd like to know more than "stranded in space," though I guess that's all this movie was about.

So, I'd normally like more backstory/plot to my trailer, but for what the movie actually IS, I suppose the trailer's informative enough. It's just that you get so little plot that it's a bit disconcerting that a lot COULD be left out.

 

[SheHateMe]

My review:

Crash
.
.
.
Space
Floating
Boring
Space
Boring
Floating
Crash
Space
Floating
Boring
.
.
.
The End

This is accurate. A few more crashes here and there...but overall, it was a beautiful boring movie.

 

[BUTCH1]

I couldn't watch the whole thing. Good lord that was stupid

Yea, there's "over the top" and moronic, that review was moronic, I stopped it at the 2:00 min. mark..

 

[John Connor]

IMDB has a great rating. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1454468/

 

[Dankk]

Bullock's buttocks are worth the price of admission. :sneaky:

Also, dem legs. :biggrin:

 

[clamum]

Cuaron is a fuckin badass. I definitely want to see this; maybe I'll see it in IMAX (never have seen an IMAX movie before).

 

[RaistlinZ]

Cuaron is a fuckin badass. I definitely want to see this; maybe I'll see it in IMAX (never have seen an IMAX movie before).

I saw it in IMAX 3D, which this movie is perfect for. I highly recommend it.

 

[TecHNooB]

saw this yesterday. the 3D was much better than avatar. other than that, snooze fest :|

 

[mistercrabby]

We saw it on Thursday night. We all thought it was very good, though not great.

 

[Paratus]

That's what I'd give it as well. It's certainly not a bad film, but I don't know... it just didn't grip me very well. I knew about some of the technical shenanigans after reading the ArsTechnica article, so I wasn't worried about any of that. Although, there was one scene for me...

Spoiler

when Clooney's character comes to the Soyuz capsule, opens the door and Bullock's character doesn't die from exposure to null pressure (wouldn't she explode from the body pressure being greater than the outside?).

Of course, it made sense eventually.

Honestly, I still think Rush is the best movie so far this year -- I gave that one an 8/10.

Absolutely not. Exposure to vacuum does not cause one to explode. Going from 14.7 psi down to 0 won't do it. Plus the EMUs actually run at 4.3 psi of pure O2.

Why will happen is the O2 will begin coming out of your lungs and you'll have to continually exhale. Small surface blood vessels may rupture and you'll develop a case of the bends. However due to the sharp drop in O2 in the blood you'd pass out in less than 15s and die shortly after from asphyxiation.

Now there has been a case of deep sea divers exploding. Apparently while decompressing from 9 atmospheres a valve failed and dropped them down to 1 instantly. Let's just say nothing left bit chunky salsa.

 

[Tweak155]

That's what I'd give it as well. It's certainly not a bad film, but I don't know... it just didn't grip me very well. I knew about some of the technical shenanigans after reading the ArsTechnica article, so I wasn't worried about any of that. Although, there was one scene for me...

Spoiler

when Clooney's character comes to the Soyuz capsule, opens the door and Bullock's character doesn't die from exposure to null pressure (wouldn't she explode from the body pressure being greater than the outside?).

Of course, it made sense eventually.

Honestly, I still think Rush is the best movie so far this year -- I gave that one an 8/10.

That was also my favorite scene. And yeah, I was about to walk out until they made it make sense :biggrin:

 

[Aikouka]

Now there has been a case of deep sea divers exploding. Apparently while decompressing from 9 atmospheres a valve failed and dropped them down to 1 instantly. Let's just say nothing left bit chunky salsa.

Oh, that's what I was comparing it to in my mind (I saw the Mythbusters episode), but after you mentioned atmospheres and I looked them up, I see the difference now. 9 to 1 is quite the change! :$

EDIT:

There is something that bugged me last night about this movie. How the heck

Spoiler

did Sandra Bullock's character always crash the Soyuz simulator when it's apparently only three buttons (power, undock, detach) and she's capable of doing it without a manual on a Chinese clone? Especially how it sounded like she kept saying she failed at the landing, which appears to be handled by the software.

 

[Paratus]

Oh, that's what I was comparing it to in my mind (I saw the Mythbusters episode), but after you mentioned atmospheres and I looked them up, I see the difference now. 9 to 1 is quite the change! :$

EDIT:

There is something that bugged me last night about this movie. How the heck

Spoiler

did Sandra Bullock's character always crash the Soyuz simulator when it's apparently only three buttons (power, undock, detach) and she's capable of doing it without a manual on a Chinese clone? Especially how it sounded like she kept saying she failed at the landing, which appears to be handled by the software.

Spoiler

Dramtic License. If she came home in a Soyuz she'd have a good chance of breaking her back. Cosmonauts and Astronauts who fly on the Soyuz have to have specially designed seat liners to protect them from landing forces.

 

[Scotteq]

Oh, that's what I was comparing it to in my mind (I saw the Mythbusters episode), but after you mentioned atmospheres and I looked them up, I see the difference now. 9 to 1 is quite the change! :$

EDIT:

There is something that bugged me last night about this movie. How the heck

Spoiler

did Sandra Bullock's character always crash the Soyuz simulator when it's apparently only three buttons (power, undock, detach) and she's capable of doing it without a manual on a Chinese clone? Especially how it sounded like she kept saying she failed at the landing, which appears to be handled by the software.

Just saw it...

I took that as a reference to

Spoiler

completing a successful docking maneuver. Which she did not do.

Also - As above: I saw it in 3D. Happy since the effect wasn't too terribly overdone.

 

[Ns1]

Technical masterpiece 10/10
Pretty good story 8/10

 

[Ichinisan]

It does seem to be getting rave reviews but for the life of me I cannot figure out what this movie is about. The trailers tell you absolutely nothing about the plot.

You gotta be thick.

It's clearly about 2 astronauts trying to survive after a disaster leaves them stranded in space with extremely limited resources and no Earth contact. I concluded that without reading a single thing about it.

 

[Ichinisan]

Nope. The movie is very scientifically accurate in that it does not depict sound travelling through space. As such, there are some very quiet moments.

From Wikipedia:

I still don't mind crashing / destruction sounds. If you had your ear to the structure that was being impacted, or you were inside the pressurized structure...you would probably hear something as it gets ripped apart (and then nothing).

 

[Ichinisan]

I just don't get the appeal of this movie.

The trailer implied no story other than "2 abnormally pretty astronauts in full makeup float around space for 2 hours". I can't imagine that being very good. Maybe 30 minutes of build up before shit hits the fan and 30 minutes of resolution afterwards, but even an hour of them floating sounds bad.

And them, at least both, surviving (as is the way of Hollywood) really turns me off. I don't care how beautiful the imagery is, it can't possibly have a good story.

This post really makes me laugh.

WRONG.

 

[Aikouka]

This post really makes me laugh.

WRONG.

Yeah... the movie is CLEARLY only 90 minutes long -- not two hours!

 

[sportage]

Not worth the hype.
Only 15 people in the theater. Thats not a good sign.
3D wasn't necessary except to add pop out visuals to a fairly ho hum flick.
Matching Bullock and Clooney just didn't work.
More like dad takes his daughter to NASA for the day.
Except dad acted more like a NASA janitor than an NASA astronaut.

I like space movies. Alien, 2001, StarTrek, Starwars, etc.
This wasn't even close.

I think maybe they should do a remake where Bullock and Clooney die right off and the others survive. That might work.
Or drop the actors altogether and just call it "the dangers with space junk 3D". That would work for me.
Could just have space junk flying out of the screen at the audience in 3D.
The audience could dodge and weave.



DAMN.... ALMOST.

 

[5150Joker]

Not worth the hype.
Only 15 people in the theater. Thats not a good sign.
3D wasn't necessary except to add pop out visuals to a fairly ho hum flick.
Matching Bullock and Clooney just didn't work.
More like dad takes his daughter to NASA for the day.
Except dad acted more like a NASA janitor than an NASA astronaut.

I like space movies. Alien, 2001, StarTrek, Starwars, etc.
This wasn't even close.

I think maybe they should do a remake where Bullock and Clooney die right off and the others survive. That might work.
Or drop the actors altogether and just call it "the dangers with space junk 3D". That would work for me.
Could just have space junk flying out of the screen at the audience in 3D.
The audience could dodge and weave.



DAMN.... ALMOST.

Pretty much how I felt. Way too much hype and undeserved praise. It is nearly two hours of bullock being tossed around in space. At one point they try to make her have sex appeal when she takes off her suit and floats around but it did nothing for me.