Gravity

Year: 
2013
Director: 
Alfonso Cuaron
Review: 
I haven't looked forward to a film this much since I was a kid, and so I may have set myself up for disappointment. So I'll say first of all, it is visually, technically stunning. The 3D, CGI, attention to detail and camerawork are so seamless that I accepted every shot, without wondering how it was done. The plot is spare, but deliberately so, to focus on the unique predicament the astronauts are in. And for the first half, it is relentless (Bullock's character even exclaims "Oh, what now?!" at one point). To say the main reason it disappointed me would give away spoilers; so I'll give the second reason, which was the lack of a real connection between the characters. Because of that, I didn't really care about them. That said, I recommend it as a great popcorn film, and as Dr Kermode says, truly worth seeing in 3D.
Might appeal to people who enjoyed: 
Any sci-fi, really. And Chris Hadfield's performance of Space Oddity.

Comments

Visually spectacular and the opening shot is as technically impressive as anything I've seen in years. The science is, as widely reported, pretty choppy. Bullock is surprisingly good. Clooney smarms his way through on autopilot, as usual.

It is a hell of a rollercoaster, but the script is simply dreadful; full of cliches which add nothing whatsoever to the story.

It does contain one sequence which is worth the entry price alone (about halfway through, don't want to spoil it - it involves someone floating in zero G with their eyes closed).

Definitely see it in the cinema, not sure it's a truly great movie or will stand repeat viewings.

It's nowhere near as good as that. Hackneyed plot and lack of character development just drew attention to the bad science. This was my first ever 3D film, and the first film with 3D recommended by Mark Kermode. Well, if he thinks that's the best, what must the others be like?

It was hyped to the max but the stunning effects aside (and they are stunning) there is precious little to it really.

Saw it in 3D, something I rarely do. Not bothered about the suspect science - the whole thing was executed so beautifully that disbelief was fairly willingly suspended. Thought Bullock excellent, Clooney on autopilot as reported above, but was gripped - I mean, really, really, toe-curlingly gripped - throughout.

I don't think it's as profound or spiritual as perhaps it thinks it is, but overall was moved and impressed.

back when 1st released I went to see 2001 on a Sunday night.
Thought it was brilliant didn't know to heck what it was about.
Bought the book and read it the following week.
Saw the film again the following Sunday.
Thought it was brilliant but still hadn't a clue what it was about.

Saw Gravity during the week and am going back to see it again tomorrow night.
Now the story is pretty simplistic but boy was the viewing experience in 3D a blast, so going back for more.
I have never seen 3D before except briefly on a TV and trailer for the Hobbit(Part2) while I was in the cinema.
But with Gravity you are up there with the astronauts.

It was fast paced and entertaining...as you say the visuals are stunning. I think maybe we are meant to feel the isolation and vastness of space thus the lack of character interaction as such.A new level of film making really... let's hope boundless imagination starts to become the norm again as it's a very successful movie.

it is visually stunning. It is the best example of 3D cinema, bar none. Have you ever seen the inside of a teardrop?

However, I saw it tonight. 3D, IMAX. I thought it was brilliant. I was absolutely enthralled throughout. The effects are stunning and at the service of the plot. OK, there's not an enormous amount of character development but so what? That wasn't the point of the film - though there is a kind of religious epiphany at the very end, I think.

Also - did anyone else think there was a Jaws homage in the shuttle?

/not seen it yet

(and I went with an ex NASA employee who would suck her teeth every so often)

Great technology. Cliche characters.

Towards the end, we both had the same reactions: Shit, they did a Grissom. And then "shark!" only to be disappointed when it didn't appear!

on my new home multiplex, 3D effects simulated by a glass of Black Label. I enjoyed it much more than I thought I would. "Immersive" - there, I said it. Bullock and Clooney (sounds like an Essex estate agent) are appropriate stars in the sky. I like a bit of symbolism, me, and Clooney's "dream" self talks about how safe Bullock feels floating in the womb. And then her birth trauma, heaving herself out of the water, gasping for breath. You don't have to read it that way, it works as a straighforward narrative. Two thumbs aloft!

I've never had a cinema experience like it. It was breath-takingly beautiful & I felt I was up there with them, actually in the thick of the peril.

At the two third mark, my disbelief pended. I sucked my teeth at the 'science' so much, they became painfully loose. I stopped rooting for the characters. I could see the ending coming and actively wished for a different one, one that American audiences would not have liked.

I won't be watching it again but I'll definitely going for the IMAX, surround sound 3D whole bit as the preferred option in future.

3d,IMAX the lot. I thought it was brilliant, a true cinematic experience that you don't always get nowadays.

But it was £27 for two of us!!!! £27!!!!! I did mention to the ticket lady that it used to be 5p for Saturday morning pictures in 1972! But she didn't seem bothered!

You did, didn't you?

They are included in the price for IMAX flicks! I can only imagine how much it costs if you have kids!

...you're not the last person on Afterword to see it. I've missed it every time it came round but finally managed it, and on a Saturday morning, too; the first time I've been on a Saturday morning since I was about 9, when it was probably about 6d. I've resisted 3D so far but I didn't have a choice as it was 3D or nothing. As Kermode writes, it's a film which demands to be seen in 3D and I was utterly captivated as bits of space debris and water droplets appeared to float over my head. Enthralled too by the liberated Marvin the Martian toy coming toward me. The science sceptics are missing the point; does it have to be realistic? It's a movie...Sandra Bullock was pretty good in the Ripley role and brought a real sense of emotion to her part, which seemed to suggest an escape from her earth-bound past. Loved it...

Now I'm the last Afterworder to see it. We absolutely loved it; the visuals are so stunning that they atone for any flaws. Unsurprisingly, it made me think of that Hubble 3D film on IMAX, but with added disaster.

One thought from the credits: did they really need three people to do the casting? It's hardly The Longest Day.