User Score
7.8

Generally favorable reviews- based on 2455 Ratings

User score distribution:

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Nov 11, 2013
    0
    I will start by saying I am a huge fan of "user ratings" and I have consistently used this website to make viewing decisions. This movie was so bad, that I finally did it...I made an account so I could share with you, and hopefully alter your decision.
    Gravity was one of the worst movies I have ever seen! In a film that was rich in special effects that I will admit are quite stunning,
    I will start by saying I am a huge fan of "user ratings" and I have consistently used this website to make viewing decisions. This movie was so bad, that I finally did it...I made an account so I could share with you, and hopefully alter your decision.
    Gravity was one of the worst movies I have ever seen! In a film that was rich in special effects that I will admit are quite stunning, lies a hollywood turd that people are choosing to gawk at.
    This movie is literally the "SANDRA BULLOCK CAN GRAB ONTO POWER HOUR". If you would like to see her continually miss grabbing for 2 hours..then this movie is for you. Clooney is the highlight..all for about 5 minutes he is actually in the film! I hate this movie, I hate it so much.
    Granted its visually appealing, that is about all its got. DONT WATCH THIS GARBAGE MOVIE!
    Expand
  2. May 26, 2014
    0
    Probably the worst movie I've ever seen. It was so boring and horrible acting. I honestly just wanted them to die the entire time, that's how bad this movie was.
  3. Dec 24, 2013
    0
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Training an astronaut takes a whole lot of time and money. They are trained to deal with all sorts of calamities. How Sandra Bullock even made it through the first day of astronaut school is a mystery. She is in constant panic mode, which really gets utterly annoying after 10 minutes. The movie starts with a botched attempt by the Russians (of course) to shoot down one of their own satellites. Since when is that the way to retire a satellite Every time anybody retires a satellite, it is all over the news. Because it is crashed into the ocean. It is never ever shot down, that is not even technically possible. What is George Clooney doing in this movie Nobody knows, he just...dies, in a pathetic attempt to create heroism. The dialogue is awful all the way. Why is the ISS completely abandoned Why is she sitting there in that pod in her underwear She really is not a looker, she is almost 50, and I swear I could see the cellulitis on her legs. In all, given the utter flatness of her character, who cares if she makes it or not ?
    I simply do not see how this movie can get such a high rating.
    Expand
  4. Mar 23, 2014
    0
    the worst filme I whocht I bort on bule ray 3d and it was not in perst at all not whot I acspected at all wood not reck amend it to eney one.dont bye this film 0.0 ot 10
  5. Nov 5, 2013
    0
    This is one of the worst films to come out this year, don't believe all the hype. They got great visuals and put a cheesy terrible story on top of it to try to justify making the film. The director doesn't take a single step into actually developing the characters, but instead casts Bullock is that typical weak female lead. Bullock is also terrible as usual.
  6. Dec 14, 2013
    0
    as de sjors was blijvn levn haddekik viele mier puntn heheven. T es deure metakritik da mine moat deine kutfilm wou gn zien. Echt gnen aanrader. Tenzij ge ne nolifer bent
  7. Oct 14, 2013
    4
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Repetitive.
    The reason why this movie has and 8 for the score is for two reasons: George Cloony, and the special effects.
    Why the movie is repetitive:
    FIrst 30 min: George Cloony gives a great performance, and then gives a cheesy goodbye speech to Sandra bullock, who is a very mediocre actor.
    Middle 30 min: Everything goes to sh*t and there is a loop of the same scene 3 times. It goes like this: Everything is going fine, then something goes wrong, and then the debris comes, and Sandra Bullock saves herself at the last second. This happens at least 3 times in the movie.
    Last 30 min: Sandra Bullock says woof woof to a chinese guy for 10 minutes, and then has a cliche' dream of George Cloony, which allows her to get out of her hopeless situation. Then the movie ends with the typical i-will-push-to-the-end ending, and she arrives on earth as the "only survivor'.
    So typical.
    Pros:
    George Cloony
    Special Effects
    Nice 3D
    Good Directing
    The chinese guy
    Cons:
    Repetitive
    Terrible writing
    Sandra Bullock
    Loops
    The whole movie is filler, this movie could have been half an hour. Its all stretched out.
    Sandra Bullock didnt die.
    A chinese guy that had 10 minutes of audio time gave a better performance than anyone on screen
    There are only two actors.
    Slow
    Pointless
    Spinning
    Heavy Breathing
    George Cloony gave a performance for maybe 20 minutes.
    The whole budget was spent on SFX, and they spent very little for the acting.
    A hollywood sellout movie. Very average and typical
    Expand
  8. Mar 9, 2014
    3
    Hype hype hype hype hype hype - let it die down a bit then I'll watch it - I thought. Idiot. Forgot the Oscars would dredge it all up again.
    Bit the bullet and sat and watched it. I am finding it hard to compliment this film, or rather which bit was the best of the worst. OK, the effects were OK - the over the top necessity to nudge and re nudge inane objects such as spanners or pipes,
    Hype hype hype hype hype hype - let it die down a bit then I'll watch it - I thought. Idiot. Forgot the Oscars would dredge it all up again.
    Bit the bullet and sat and watched it. I am finding it hard to compliment this film, or rather which bit was the best of the worst. OK, the effects were OK - the over the top necessity to nudge and re nudge inane objects such as spanners or pipes, while in space, just so the effects guys can work on the inertia and movement to make it look, "natural", as if you wouldn't bat an eye but thought it so smooth it had to be real. OTT. Stop it, get on with making the film you idiots, but when you do can you stop making the 3D bits so bloody obvious. If I want to be blown away with 3D, I'll put my shoes on and go look at the real world, maybe actually interact with things, like you know, touching and smelling? However, when watching films, I do not wish to see a floating screw come spinning towards the camera, blurring out the rest of the frame - only for it to mean NOTHING and not even be in 3D (some of us people at the foot of the entertainment equipment ladder just cant afford, nor would like a 3D television thank you) so why waste my time and place 3D film sections in a 2D film. Lets face it, 99.999% of people who watch this film at home will be doing so on a normal TV!
    Emotionless acting, over the top effects for effects sake, absolutely ridiculous physics and other goofs (I read on IMDB after watching), finalised my views that this film did not deserve at least 2 of the 7 Oscars it won....
    Visual Effects, a couple of scenes where the Earth was reflected on the visor of Bullock, the image did not respond as it should when she rotated her head. Just stuck there when it should have twisted. Poor.
    Cinematography, With great power comes great responsibility. With great budgets comes over the top cinematic, long drawn out panorama's of small things progressively getting bigger as they smoothly glide towards the camera in a never ending slush of emotion and "beauty". YAWN. BOOOOORRRING! I could do better with a disposable stills camera.
    Expand
  9. Dec 27, 2013
    4
    Astonished by the reviews this is garnering. No mention of the fact that it's sentimental bunkum almost totally lacking...gravitas. Would have been much improved if she'd looked up at the end to see two gorillas on horseback looking at her quizzically!
  10. Mar 22, 2014
    2
    I really don't get it. What is the big deal with this movie?? Its probably one of the worst Ive seen ever. Its up there with Starship Troopers 2 & 3 for quality. A movie has to be more than visuals, and behind all the glam of the earth shots there is nothing, maybe the most flimsy plot ever. Neither my wife nor I could sit and watch it, but after seeing al these fantastic reviews I thoughtI really don't get it. What is the big deal with this movie?? Its probably one of the worst Ive seen ever. Its up there with Starship Troopers 2 & 3 for quality. A movie has to be more than visuals, and behind all the glam of the earth shots there is nothing, maybe the most flimsy plot ever. Neither my wife nor I could sit and watch it, but after seeing al these fantastic reviews I thought there has to be something here. Mid way through I'd decided to watch to the end just for the slimmest chance and hope of seeing Bullock be killed, but had to be content that the movie just ends.

    I give it a 2 - 1 for some of the cool effects leading to the meteor strike and 1 for George Clooney who was mildly entertaining for his part.

    Confused and bemused.
    Expand
  11. Nov 11, 2013
    4
    I don't know what is worst; that the the story is so cheesy or that the story is so predicatble. I felt no compassion for any of the characters nor did I find any of the movie to entertain me. The movie is an empty shell hidden in fantastic visuals and immersive 3D effects. The visuals and the effects made me enjoy the movie a little. However it is not something I will remember or anythingI don't know what is worst; that the the story is so cheesy or that the story is so predicatble. I felt no compassion for any of the characters nor did I find any of the movie to entertain me. The movie is an empty shell hidden in fantastic visuals and immersive 3D effects. The visuals and the effects made me enjoy the movie a little. However it is not something I will remember or anything I will ever suggest anyone to pay to see. Expand
  12. Jan 14, 2014
    2
    Another standard issue vapid hollywood action movie. They make astronauts out to be a bunch of no talent ass clowns who lose their **** in a crisis. And physics does not work that way. Come up with some more plausible plot twists that aren't completely deus ex machina.
  13. Nov 25, 2013
    3
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I had purposely not gone to too much trouble to find what this film was about. Its obviously a space drama/disaster flick, that was enough to interest me and pay my admission fee.

    I had hoped this film was going to be the closest experience to being in space itself. I was very let down. The film never gripped me, made me feel any empathy with the characters, never made me feel any sense of threat, dread, or consequence of what would happen to them.

    This film looks (even in 3D) like actors playing people in space, not the immersive moviegoing experience i was hoping for. The whole thing was a miscast for me even before i sat down, that said, i still retained an open mind about the cast. The acting was about as wooden as it comes (for the record i think clooney is a great actor in the right part, Bullock, sorry ive yet to see her in anything remotely good) and the script is at times cringeworthy. For example Bullocks eenie, meenie, minie, moe button pressing when her life is at stake was pathetic.

    The visuals could not save this heap of rubbish, although the destruction of the ISS was the only positive i could find in the film viewing wise.

    In a nutshell, overhyped tat with no real purpose, meaning or substance.

    Oh, one last thing, how convenient that when Bullock lands back on earth she is mere metres away from the nearest beach.
    Expand
  14. Jan 30, 2015
    0
    Quite frankly, yes, it was an alright movie. It was a great thrill ride, but nothing else. I didn't feel any emotion, care about any characters, nothing, it was just a thrill ride, and that's fine, but the amount of praise the movie gets for it is just absolutely **** insane! That's the reason I'm giving it a zero, which is unfair, yes, but god dammit, why would a movie like this recieveQuite frankly, yes, it was an alright movie. It was a great thrill ride, but nothing else. I didn't feel any emotion, care about any characters, nothing, it was just a thrill ride, and that's fine, but the amount of praise the movie gets for it is just absolutely **** insane! That's the reason I'm giving it a zero, which is unfair, yes, but god dammit, why would a movie like this recieve so much praise? Great visuals? Cool, but that doesn't equal a good movie. Creepy soundtrack that sets the mood? Fair enough, great, but that doesn't equal a good movie. Great cinematography? Yes! I love that, but none of any of that matters in the end if I feel no care or affection for anything about or in the movie. Another well made thrill ride that deserves max a like, 6 or 7/10. Expand
  15. Oct 22, 2013
    3
    Expectable though great looking sci-fi movie. Gravity is well shot and the special fx are pretty faultless. It looks great but the storyline is just disastrous and almost insultingly predictable. The character development is just ludicrously poor. Clooney is just a guy who´s character is almost not there. He´s not affected by the accident and is just emotionless like a machine. He show´sExpectable though great looking sci-fi movie. Gravity is well shot and the special fx are pretty faultless. It looks great but the storyline is just disastrous and almost insultingly predictable. The character development is just ludicrously poor. Clooney is just a guy who´s character is almost not there. He´s not affected by the accident and is just emotionless like a machine. He show´s some compassion towards Bullocks character though it is of such low amount of value to the movie as the movie is of low amount of atmosphere.
    In the moment the movie started to get interesting and you could get at least a development and a little piece of compassion towards Bullock it kills not only the atmosphere of this scene but also disrupts any bond of connectivity to the movie and Bullock. The end of the movie is annoying and boring, you don´t have to watch the movie to know what´ll happen. If they would have concentrated more on the story and the character development it would been a great movie but now... it´s just another undeserved academy award nominee I may would be giving them one for the cgi fxs
    Expand
  16. Nov 22, 2013
    3
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. So I walked into this movie thinking this might actually be better than the trailer actually showed but it turns out that the movie was the trailer, but it had more. You are first introduced to one of the loudest noises I have ever heard in a movie. I swear it was so loud everyone in the theater had to cover their ears to save their eardrums from being blown out. This happens throughtout the whole movie it goes from quiet air into an uneccesarily loud sound and then back to silence and then repeats. Enough of the sound though let's talk about the movie. You first see a random extra astronaut and then you are introduced to sandra bullock's character dr. Ryan stone who in the past has lost a daughter at the age of 4 which is a sad story to me, but that isn't the point we are watching gravity. Basically the explorer gets hit and then the rest of the movie is sandra bullock breathing and crying for the last 50 minutes or so. Did I mention the excellent cameo of George Clooney? Well might as well consider it a cameo and call sandra bullock and the voice on earth the cast; a whopping cast of two people for a film. There was no great plot just bullock floating in space trying to get down to earth. There was zero character development meaning I could have cared less whether bullock survived or not. The movie was also one of the dullest if not the dullest movie I have ever seen it was so dull that me and my friend kept poking jokes at it and laughing our mouths off. Although I do give the film a thumbs up on George Clooney's cameo and good message about survival, it is still one of the worst movies I have ever seen absolutely horrendous. Overall 3/10 Expand
  17. Mar 13, 2014
    2
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Great visuals,great direction,great musical score, BAD screenplay and average acting.At times Bullock's character really irritated me, and how can an astronaut who's only had 6 months of training be so calm and know so much about the workings of the shuttles? Really disappointed they didn't make a better effort to write a better story, visuals and music alone don't make a great movie. Expand
  18. Nov 15, 2013
    1
    I was told that Gravity was boring in 2D so we saw it in 3D and it was boring....... and Stupid. George Cluney just played his part like a guy who thinks I'm beautiful so I don't need to act, so he cracks jokes while an exploding satellite destroys their spacecraft, 'looks like Facebook will be off the air haha'. When they make it to the ISS Bullock has to flip through the user manual toI was told that Gravity was boring in 2D so we saw it in 3D and it was boring....... and Stupid. George Cluney just played his part like a guy who thinks I'm beautiful so I don't need to act, so he cracks jokes while an exploding satellite destroys their spacecraft, 'looks like Facebook will be off the air haha'. When they make it to the ISS Bullock has to flip through the user manual to learn how to fly the thing, how ridiculous, really this movie is a joke, don't waste your money. Expand
  19. Mar 18, 2014
    1
    Dreadful! The characters are Hollywood stock - the wise-cracking alpha male hero, the shrieking frightened woman, the dispensable minority etc etc. The attempts to develop the characters are so pitiful they make things worse (the dead daughter? What was that about?). And the dialogue is so cheesy you'd think it was made in the 1980s. The film does do a good job of conveying zero gravity,Dreadful! The characters are Hollywood stock - the wise-cracking alpha male hero, the shrieking frightened woman, the dispensable minority etc etc. The attempts to develop the characters are so pitiful they make things worse (the dead daughter? What was that about?). And the dialogue is so cheesy you'd think it was made in the 1980s. The film does do a good job of conveying zero gravity, and it's quite amusing when SB strips to her underwear for absolutely no apparent reason but those are the only good things about it apart from the fact it's nice and short (shorter still if you fast-forward the unnecessary escape-pod scenes).

    I'd say if you thought Avatar was a great film and/or you've recently had part of your brain removed you will enjoy this. Nobody else should bother.
    Expand
  20. Oct 14, 2013
    4
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Incredible visuals, disappointing story, and here it is: almost every attempt to get back to earth falls apart, with a dozen narrow escapes in between. To me, the moment when Oscar™ winning actress Sandra Bullock crawls ashore is when the story got really interesting and was when a good story might have begun. But then the movie ends a minute later. The filmmakers forgot to research some things that might have made the relationships more plausible between Oscar™ winning actor George Clooney and Oscar™ winning actress Sandra Bullock. Tragedy strikes in space, and to kill time and use up precious oxygen while floating around, Oscar™ winning actor George Clooney engages Oscar™ winning actress Sandra Bullock in a cheeky get-to-know-you conversation. Wouldn't they know some basic bio facts about each other after training together for a few years? I didn't hear much dialogue that would have seemed believable on land, let alone in space, where there are a few more protocols to follow. Oscar™ winning actress Sandra Bullock and Oscar™ winning actor George Clooney were cast pretty pointlessly here- neither Oscar™ winning actor was really suited to the roles, and Clooney's chatty charm seems out of place in space. There is so little character development and so little spark beween the two ONLY characters in the movie, that I could never snap out of the realization that I was watching Oscar™ winning actor George Clooney and Oscar™ winning actress Sandra Bullock. In the end, the movie was just like its setting, just a lot of empty space. But pretty. Expand
  21. Nov 4, 2013
    3
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I was very excited to see this movie. I was pretty disappointed that the entire runtime consists of Sandra Bullock falling though space. Let me break it down for you.

    Phase 1: Satellite she's working on gets blown up. She falls for a very long time until George catches her.
    Phase 2: They float toward their ship, which they know is blown up. After confirming their friend who they saw die is dead, they depart.
    Phase 3: They float toward another satellite. Shortly after arrival in blows up. Sandra escapes in a pod and begins floating toward yet another satellite.
    Phase 4: Sandra gets to said satellite and then floats to earth. THE END.

    Nothing happened in this movie that made it stand out for me. The special effects are cool, but even those are few and far between that will really make you go, "Wow." I have no doubt this movie will continue receiving praise and will be Oscar material because it is very well made in the same way Lincoln was. It's a little sad that they didn't try to make it more interesting.

    3/10 Would not bang.
    Expand
  22. Nov 1, 2013
    4
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I really have to add a voice of sanity here, this film is fatally flawed. Did any of the reviewers ever do basic physics at school or play on a swing ?

    At the critical point of the film, George Cluney's character is hanging on a tether and being PULLED away in a sustained fashion this simply cannot happen if you are weightless. Similarly, when Sandra Bullock's character is hurtling to earth subject to the g forces of re-entry her helmet is floating about weightless, who are the technical advisers here, Micky and Minnie mouse? I could just about get over that, if it were not for the acting of George Cluney, so he is about to die, be cast off into space and commit suicide and he is as jolly as a lamb in springtime am I the only person who finds this a little incongruous. As for the graphics, well the earth would not be out of focus when you are in wide shot at infinity and it was. Sandra's acting would have been a lot more believable if being a pilot, she knew which way a hatch opened and did not get thrown nearly into space TWICE by opening the door the wrong way gasp. For all of that, there were still some good space ship graphics and a nearly belivable plot, if a little simple.
    Expand
  23. Nov 5, 2013
    3
    Something is wrong here. How can 49 "official" critics can be positively unanimous about this movie ???
    Some of them calling this a masterpiece Come on. After the first stunning images and the opening scene, you can go home. All the rest is dull and pathetic.
  24. Nov 6, 2013
    2
    I saw this movie with my family and didn't think it would have been this bad but let me tell you its 91 minutes of cgi. To start with the beginning when the movie was starting you just stare at the earth for a good 3 minutes which isn't a big deal IF YOU DIDN'T SHOW IT AS MUCH THE REST OF THE MOVIE! I mean it s in almost every frame. Then the debris hits and kills the man that I GUESSI saw this movie with my family and didn't think it would have been this bad but let me tell you its 91 minutes of cgi. To start with the beginning when the movie was starting you just stare at the earth for a good 3 minutes which isn't a big deal IF YOU DIDN'T SHOW IT AS MUCH THE REST OF THE MOVIE! I mean it s in almost every frame. Then the debris hits and kills the man that I GUESS we're suppose to feel for because Oh! he's got a picture of his family. You can not throw a sentimental moment when you don't even show the persons back story! Then lets go with the rising action and such POINT A TO POINT B?! REALLY? Oscar worthy my ass. When you have a story that Does Not Show its just a point A To point B movie THAT'S A GOOD MOVIE. IT TAKES YOU ON AN ADVENTURE NOT DROLL FLOATING! Then the ending was the Worst ever. She doesn't even get home and you are to expect she does HOW?! shes in the lower hemisphere who the hell knows where she even is or if that shes alive!? 2 out of 10 Waste of my time. Expand
  25. Nov 10, 2013
    1
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This movie was not worth the effort to watch. There was virtually no character development, very weak and almost non existent plot line, which in the end became incredibly predictable. The movie essentially came down to a cliche plot device, a female character with a pain riddled past who miraculously survives against all odds, and the laws of nature/science.

    (SPOILERS) I want to make a particular note to the infuriating ending. Not only does she make a decision no one in their right mind would make (taking off her helmet in a burning cabin); she somehow manages to escape said cabin whilst its being filled with water. THEN, she still has enough oxygen left in her breath to swim out, take off the suit and beat the water pressure, all on a single breath. This is but one of the many irritating scenes of the film.

    The only reason I gave this a 1/10 was just because of the spectacular visuals and the good use of cinematography, and surprisingly, one of the few films which actually made good use of the 3D projector technology, but this is not enough to justify what I can only assume a very high budget film.

    DO NOT GO AND WATCH, ITS A WASTE OF MONEY!
    Expand
  26. Dec 10, 2013
    3
    The movie was alright, but the events are totally unbelievable. It had lots of intensity at first, then it got tedious. Cliche after cliche, unbelievable scene one after another, and a complete lack of a plot with substance. I can't grow attached to Sandra Bullock or George Clooney pretending to be astronauts, that's beyond my ability to suspend disbelief for movie viewing pleasure. IThe movie was alright, but the events are totally unbelievable. It had lots of intensity at first, then it got tedious. Cliche after cliche, unbelievable scene one after another, and a complete lack of a plot with substance. I can't grow attached to Sandra Bullock or George Clooney pretending to be astronauts, that's beyond my ability to suspend disbelief for movie viewing pleasure. I won't spoil the movie, because there's nothing to spoil, the trailer sums up the entire 90 minutes of your life that you just wasted watching it. Nice special effects, but I play video games if that's all I'm looking for. I wanted a movie, and I was disappointed when I left the theatre. Expand
  27. Nov 11, 2013
    4
    Great special affects but technically LOL. It breaks one law of physics per minute (sometimes more than one per minute). It also breaks about every rule of spacecraft operations. Worth seeing for the special affects, but it isn't how things really are in space.
  28. Nov 16, 2013
    1
    This movie is extremmmmmely boring.....and the story is not nice at all.....it is just a short story being stretch to a length of 91min....Really boring. Furthermore, this movie contains much more educational content than a fictional story content....BUT WHAT I WANNA WATCH IS A NICE MOVIE BUT NOT AN EDUCATIONAL FILM!!!
  29. Dec 2, 2013
    3
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This is my first ever movie review but I felt obliged to balance out what I can only be describe as a severe blow to my faith in my fellow species.

    Visuals & Sound:

    The special effects are excellent and at their best during the spattering of "action" scenes (i.e. where debris is flying around).

    The first twenty or so minutes of the film are in this reviewer's opinion the only part worth watching hence why it earned it's score. After the second wave of debris there is very little else of note in terms of visuals.

    In regards to sound there was nothing particularly noteworthy either way.

    Plot and Acting:

    The plot is banal at best. Everything about the setting, the evolution of the characters and the circumstances they face comes across as contrived.

    Let us be sports and start from the premise that we'll pretend Sandra Bullocks' character (who I have no desire to remember the name of) is actually qualified to be out on a space walk. She portrays the most irritating, incompetent and pathetic woman I have ever seen in a film. It was cringe-worthy to watch. After about 30 minutes of the film, finally having had enough of listening to her hyperventilating, I honestly wished she would just snuff it.

    Regrettably George Clooney's far more entertaining character dies off around this time and I believe I might have awarded this film at least twice the present score had I gone on to watch him fighting to survive for the next hour.

    Instead I watched Sandra's idiotic character fail utterly to struggle for survival yet somehow miraculously make it back to a beach on Earth somewhere by the end of it.

    This film made me feel angry and rather embarrassed by its portrayal of the female lead. I don't think it is a question of bad acting but due to the script being very poor and as a result having to be over acted to try to create tension.

    Conclusion:

    I am baffled by the good reviews. Aside from two or three spectacular SFX shots and a similar number of chuckle worthy Clooney lines, there is nothing to recommend about this film.
    Expand
  30. Dec 16, 2013
    2
    It was almost an amazing film and I almost believed Sandra Bullock wasn't Sandra Bullock but I have never gone from being so engrossed in a movie to so uninterested and it's all because of their crappy physics.

    We are asked to suspend belief beyond belief. They set up the rules for the physics by overemphasizing it in the beginning and then we have to swallow that the rules don't apply
    It was almost an amazing film and I almost believed Sandra Bullock wasn't Sandra Bullock but I have never gone from being so engrossed in a movie to so uninterested and it's all because of their crappy physics.

    We are asked to suspend belief beyond belief. They set up the rules for the physics by overemphasizing it in the beginning and then we have to swallow that the rules don't apply later on in the film in order to accept the new plot turn. I couldn't do it.
    Expand
  31. Dec 23, 2013
    2
    For me it went beyond suspense and straight into frustration and a lot of growling at Bullock.Yes, it's a movie, but you can't help but wonder how the hell someone as clueless as the protagonist even made it out of the atmosphere. Beautiful visuals and lovely execution of zero-gravity, but quite frankly I hated the protagonist so much it distracted me from just about everything else.
  32. Jan 9, 2014
    1
    Cool effects, but did bad science. Also, why is someone who works in a hospital (who happens to be a woefully incompetent astronaut) playing with electronics on Hubble?
  33. Jan 16, 2014
    4
    The first 20 minutes of this film are amazing - visually stunning. After that its a one dimensional narrative in a 3D format : how will they get from A to B? There's no story, nothing interesting in the characters. The single bit of drama turns out to be a really stupid 'dream' sequence which is a kop out. And an easy ending. I don't know how this film has achieved any nominations.
  34. Apr 29, 2014
    1
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Sandra Bullock and the special effects are the only reason this movie even got a 1. As a movie that was based on reality, its lack of being realistic is staggering. One of the main actors dies near the beginning. The ending is anti-climatic. How this movie won even one Oscar is beyond me. It was a movie devoid of dialogue for the most part with fancy special effects in space. Expand
  35. Jul 15, 2014
    4
    As a space travel enthusiast I found this movie to not be correct at all. The likelyhood of the events happening in the movie is completely impossible. The odds of the space station that broke apart being just a few miles away from the I.S.S is completely improbable. Sandra Bullock also used up almost all of her oxygen in a minuted and was left with just 3% of it left and you expect meAs a space travel enthusiast I found this movie to not be correct at all. The likelyhood of the events happening in the movie is completely impossible. The odds of the space station that broke apart being just a few miles away from the I.S.S is completely improbable. Sandra Bullock also used up almost all of her oxygen in a minuted and was left with just 3% of it left and you expect me to believe that she survived for another hour in space before she got to the International Space Station on just that. I think not. The script writers should have payed more attention to the facts before writing these impossible ways Sandra could have survived. Expand
  36. Mar 7, 2014
    4
    Let's simply make a few points, Pros and Cons

    Pros: 1. Great Visuals 2. Steady paced does not get boring Cons: 1. SANDRA BULLOCK..same character in every movie she is in, panics in every scene and is practically hopeless 2. Story..very weak and felt they had to fill it with pointless stories to fill awkward silences. 3. Predictable 4. All the stations get destroyed pretty much
    Let's simply make a few points, Pros and Cons

    Pros:
    1. Great Visuals
    2. Steady paced does not get boring

    Cons:
    1. SANDRA BULLOCK..same character in every movie she is in, panics in every scene and is practically hopeless
    2. Story..very weak and felt they had to fill it with pointless stories to fill awkward silences.
    3. Predictable
    4. All the stations get destroyed pretty much on the second Sandra Bullock arrives, even though the debris had already circled twice.
    5. Terrible ending

    This film is terrible. only good things are the visuals and the pace the movie goes at. if they casted a better female actress who didn't just panic and flap her hands about like in EVERY film she has ever done, this maybe would have been a worthy Oscar winner.
    Expand
  37. Oct 28, 2014
    4
    A visual masterpiece but my god if that was not the worst story/script of the year. Paper thin characters with little to no back story so it's hard to get an emotional attachment to them. The overly dramatic music through out got tiresome real freaking quick as well. Filled with cheap last minute escapes and life saving events. Not to mention the fact that it's really rough to get into andA visual masterpiece but my god if that was not the worst story/script of the year. Paper thin characters with little to no back story so it's hard to get an emotional attachment to them. The overly dramatic music through out got tiresome real freaking quick as well. Filled with cheap last minute escapes and life saving events. Not to mention the fact that it's really rough to get into and is quite boring at times. Seriously overrated film. Expand
  38. Mar 18, 2014
    4
    Fun film on IMAX 3D. Enjoyed the film but found the 2 hollywood actors completely annoying and ruined the experience. Also the director needs to be slapped for some moronic scenes i.e. clooney rinky dinking on his jet pack around the shuttle at the beginning. Worthwhile watching it only once and that is it. All the awards and oscars the film has won is nothing but hot steam, the richFun film on IMAX 3D. Enjoyed the film but found the 2 hollywood actors completely annoying and ruined the experience. Also the director needs to be slapped for some moronic scenes i.e. clooney rinky dinking on his jet pack around the shuttle at the beginning. Worthwhile watching it only once and that is it. All the awards and oscars the film has won is nothing but hot steam, the rich praising the rich. Expand
  39. Jan 12, 2014
    2
    I almost fell asleep half way through this movie out of boredom. This film feels like this: imagine there is a trashcan on top of the hill. A woman jumps in it and starts rolling down the hill. Trash fal out of the can and she falls out of it too. A bit later she catches the trashcan and jumps in it again and starts rolling down the hill again. And then the hole thing repeats.... But don'tI almost fell asleep half way through this movie out of boredom. This film feels like this: imagine there is a trashcan on top of the hill. A woman jumps in it and starts rolling down the hill. Trash fal out of the can and she falls out of it too. A bit later she catches the trashcan and jumps in it again and starts rolling down the hill again. And then the hole thing repeats.... But don't worry, they have a simple trick to wake you up. A cougar will pop up in her underwear just in the right time to keep you awake or from moving away from the movie....if you like cougars, of course. You can watch much more interesting IMAX movie about Earth seen from space, no need to watch cougar jumping from can to can in her underwear. Expand
  40. Mar 1, 2014
    1
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Worst movie I have ever seen in my life. Yes it has good special effects, but it disrespects the basic laws of physics, for a movie that is focused in space, it should respect the basic laws, like weight.
    The film has really no story, horrible dialogues. In the beginning of the movie while Sandra Bullock is repairing the Hubble Telescope the other guys are playing around.
    She must had started the mission with less then 15% of oxygen, because right after the rain of debris she had 10% of oxygen remaining, wastes 2% of oxygen in 2 seconds, and survives with 1% of oxygen remaining for almost 10 minutes till she gets to safety.
    I don´t even understand how can this movie be so overrated(Metascore: 96/100), Inception is way better than this "movie" and has worse score(Metascore: 74/100)
    Expand
  41. Mar 1, 2014
    1
    I thought Ed Wood was no longer making movies because he died. His sequel to Plan 9 from outer space was vastly inferior. The acting, plot and dialogue didn't come close. Plan 9 had actual dialogue not silly women howling like dogs. Whaaa?
  42. Dec 21, 2014
    3
    I apologize, but this movie seems to be made for stupid people.
    The only praise anybody ever gives this film is how "visually stunning" it is. It seems as if plenty of intelligent people have mentally devolved after seeing Gravity, because apparently substance no longer matters, and visuals are enough to make a good movie.
    The characters in Gravity don't need to be there. I might as well
    I apologize, but this movie seems to be made for stupid people.
    The only praise anybody ever gives this film is how "visually stunning" it is. It seems as if plenty of intelligent people have mentally devolved after seeing Gravity, because apparently substance no longer matters, and visuals are enough to make a good movie.
    The characters in Gravity don't need to be there. I might as well have watched a movie about pieces of metal floating in space. Oh wait, they have that! It's called "Space Junk"! You know, I heard that was the original working title for this movie, too!
    The story sucks, to put it plainly. Sandra Bullock's story is completely generic and uninteresting, and pretty much occupies the entire film after the rather intense opening. Let me be clear, I don't want to dispute that the movie is breathtaking on a technical level, but without any interesting motives or characters, and absolutely zero valuable ideas or concepts expressed, who cares? Apparently everyone. Go watch Transformers, you mouth breathers.
    Graphics don't make the game good, pretty colors don't make the painting good, and being catchy doesn't make a song good. Visuals don't make a movie good. Sometimes, they make it awful. Gravity is awful.
    Expand
  43. Nov 23, 2014
    4
    Gravity es una película que aunque contiene unos muy buenos efectos visuales a lo largo de la historia que abarca el film, contiene algunos fallos (no me refiero a lo técnico).

    Este largometraje empieza bien, y continúa así hasta los primeros 15 minutos, luego de eso ya la película empieza a buscar soluciones para encajar bien las piezas del final, pero, esas soluciones hacen que la
    Gravity es una película que aunque contiene unos muy buenos efectos visuales a lo largo de la historia que abarca el film, contiene algunos fallos (no me refiero a lo técnico).

    Este largometraje empieza bien, y continúa así hasta los primeros 15 minutos, luego de eso ya la película empieza a buscar soluciones para encajar bien las piezas del final, pero, esas soluciones hacen que la película se torne aburrida, simplona y fastidiosa hasta que llegan los últimos 15 minutos.

    Así que, en general, Gravity es una película fastidiosa en donde si no has visto la película, solo basta con ver los primeros 15 minutos y los últimos 15 para entenderla bien.
    Expand
  44. Mar 27, 2014
    2
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Characters are not well developed. Plot is lacking. Ryan Stone does not seem well prepared or deserving of her job. She is portrayed as weak and helpless, although she is the heroine of the film. George Clooney's character is overly silly while simultaneously seemingly un-phased by the chaos around him. He under acts, while she over acts. They don't mesh. The seemingly unending chaotic events become so ridiculous, that I expect them to continue even after she lands ( I mean, the water entering the capsule, the heavy space suit); I expected her to get tangled in the parachute or get captured by natives or something. And the attempts to force religion and spirituality into the plot ("I don't know how to pray, because no one taught me")...give me a break. Overall I feel insulted as a movie viewer. As if you can just wow people with the view or something...could have been great...with different actors and a well developed plot....but I am not impressed. Expand
  45. Mar 28, 2014
    4
    Very surprised that the critics thought so highly of this film. I must have missed something. I thought it was boring, ridiculous and full of clichés. Sure, the visuals were great, but as someone else said - "why not just play or watch a video game?"
  46. Jan 21, 2015
    4
    Visually Impressive but really that's all there is to it. Alfonso Cuaron's space opus is 90 mins of Sandra Bullock explaining the plot to herself. The film is literally devoid of ideas.
  47. Sep 7, 2014
    1
    Not only is this movie incredibly boring, it is incredibly inaccurate. I can't believe I actually watched the whole thing. The movie is called gravity, yet the way everything works in relation to gravity or a lack thereof is just plain wrong. How did Sandra Bullock's character become an astronaut? She seems very under-qualified. Also, none of the characters are explored enough to becomeNot only is this movie incredibly boring, it is incredibly inaccurate. I can't believe I actually watched the whole thing. The movie is called gravity, yet the way everything works in relation to gravity or a lack thereof is just plain wrong. How did Sandra Bullock's character become an astronaut? She seems very under-qualified. Also, none of the characters are explored enough to become likable. I know it has great ratings and reviews everywhere, but you don't need to waste your time. Expand
  48. Sep 10, 2014
    1
    We watched “Gravity” last night – 90 minutes of drek. Beyond the special effects, which weren’t that special, the movie was clichéd and flawed from beginning to end. It is a testament to how bad Hollowwood (spelling error intentional) has become at making movies that have some meaning and relevance.
    First cliché, right of the 50s, was NASA’s choice of sending a neurotic female scientist
    We watched “Gravity” last night – 90 minutes of drek. Beyond the special effects, which weren’t that special, the movie was clichéd and flawed from beginning to end. It is a testament to how bad Hollowwood (spelling error intentional) has become at making movies that have some meaning and relevance.
    First cliché, right of the 50s, was NASA’s choice of sending a neurotic female scientist into space. If NASA was hoping that this would help revive interest in supporting space travel, I think they should reexamine their public relations procedures. There was nothing likeable about Sandra Bullock’s character, even after the movie “treated” us to a gratuitous strip tease as she slowly sunk into a near catatonic state (either in sympathy with the audience, or because she was struck with the realization of what she would do to make her career relevant again.)
    And then we have George Clooney as a retiring astronaut on his last mission. To call this a cliché would be cliché. To borrow from South Park, it was hard to see him, even in space; through the dense cloud of smug he seems to bring to every role. His character has seen it all, done it all, knows it all, knows how attractive he is, has something to say about everything- the man is not acting in this role, the man is just having an average George Clooney day.
    Even if you were able to accept that the Russians would be somehow stupid enough to send a missile to destroy a satellite, knocking out all communication satellites (even their own) and destroying the space station they invested billions of rubles in, how can you accept that every other manned vehicle in orbit was somehow able to warn their crews in time and get them down safely except for the most maneuverable one of all – the space shuttle? Again, not a great promotional piece for NASA is the Russians and Chinese could send out the “ABANDON SHIP! “signal before NASA’s vaunted tracking stations should.
    It only gets worse as Clooney drags Bullock to the wreck of their shuttle, so we can see lovely floating shots of dead people we never meet (it might have been a nice idea to do a few establishing shots in the shuttle), but who I felt more sympathy toward than the two nut cases floating in space.
    Then Clooney drags her off to the space stations. On the way Bullock’s neurotic character manages to waste all her oxygen – even Clooney’s smug can’t stop that from happening. When they get to the station she manages to get herself in a tangle, but not enough of a tangle to save Clooney, who “gallantly” (read foolishly) unclips himself.
    A pity they didn’t learn from being bounced around, and watching things bounce around, and from the fact that in space all you need is a sight force to move things, that a light tug on their tether would have sent Clooney right into her arms.
    The rest of the movie is predictable. She overcomes the odds, displays her great ability to brood, and makes it to the Chinese escape pod (are you paying attention NASA?). She despairs as there is no fuel to start the engine, and decides to die. The Ghost-of-Clooneys Past comes to visit her, and gives her the solution.
    We are treated to a reentry screen that has all the technical flair of the final scene in “This Island Earth” where the flying saucer comes to a flaming end, without the sympathy for the character that that movie engenders. Bullock’s character survives the watery landing, but is bound and determined to do one more stupid thing, and does it by blowing the side escape hatch off the side of the pod rather than using the one she used to enter the pod on top.
    The results are predictable. The pod sinks. She, weighed down by her suit, has to take it off (there sound track should have at this point should have had strip tease music.) She struggles to shore. The movie at this point should have ended there, but we are “treated” to another soft-core moment of Bullock writhing in the mud.
    She finally manages to struggle to her feet, and toddles off down the beach toward… the sunset, or something, well we don’t know. But the ending did reflect perfectly how I felt about the movie – it just toddled along toward…well, we don’t know. Between the cloud of Clooney smug, the bollocks of Sandra’s performance, and the 1950s B-movie feel dressed up in high tech effects, this movie, like gravity, sucks. Hollowwood should be ashamed of how many awards this stinker won.
    Expand
  49. Sep 20, 2014
    2
    Medical engineer Ryan Stone works feverishly to repair her shuttle hundreds of miles from the Earth’s atmosphere after a catastrophic collision with orbiting debris damages her likelihood of reentry and survival in Gravity.

    Watching this movie you want to use terms like cool and awesome because, technically speaking, this movie is magnificent and awe-inspiring to watch. The purely
    Medical engineer Ryan Stone works feverishly to repair her shuttle hundreds of miles from the Earth’s atmosphere after a catastrophic collision with orbiting debris damages her likelihood of reentry and survival in Gravity.

    Watching this movie you want to use terms like cool and awesome because, technically speaking, this movie is magnificent and awe-inspiring to watch. The purely computer generated images of the vast abyss of space, a cusp of Earth’s surface and a gleaming sun astronomically farther away in the background is spectacularly beautiful. With limited knowledge of space and aeronautics, this is about as real as I can imagine, though I know experts disagree – I’m looking at you Neil deGrasse Tyson. Beyond the aesthetically pleasing set design, I find little else in this picture remarkable.

    While beautiful, its artistry in scenery makes the film detached and voyeuristic. Gravity starts almost immediately with the collision and has very minimal character development initially. These factors led me to be unable to suspend disbelief and truly immerse myself in the story nor become invested in the main character’s survival. Further, the plot is tired and worn out. Several movies of a similar plot precede Gravity - which is basically a disaster survival story in space (most notably 2001: A Space Odyssey and Apollo 13, among others).

    I can’t help but imagine the executives at Warner Bros. and how this film came to be:

    We need a hit film, a huge money maker, but something new, fresh!

    CGI, its all about that CGI, that’s what sells movies…we’ve just got to take it to the next level!

    Yeah, but we’ve done just about everything on earth…

    That’s the problem! On Earth…space! Brilliant, and we will make it in Imax, get even more money for the tickets.

    Yeah, but we have to get actors that get a huge draw in the box office.

    Who is hot right now?

    Robert Downey Jr.? Angelina Jolie?

    Nah, Jolie has something scheduled already. Downey probably won’t want to do it, he’s too improvisational, won’t be his style.

    We could get Clooney? Everybody loves George.

    But what about the girl? Who won best actress last year? Jennifer Lawrence? Too young. Meryl Streep? Too old. Natalie Portman? Not likeable enough. How ’bout Sandra Bullock? Sandy will probably do it.

    But who is going to take the risk of making this movie? It could tank. Well, he will have to be a relative unknown, but made a hit before, international, so hungry to break into mainstream Hollywood. Alfonso Cuarón? I think he wanted to be an astronaut when he grew up. Isn’t he shopping a script set in space?

    And the rest is history…

    In all seriousness, the movie never connected with me, while visually brilliant, it is lacking in all other regards. If you are into special effects and the sheer technical breadth of the undertaking of that crew, whom I commend, then I suggest this movie.

    More reviews of recent releases can be found at our website.
    Expand
  50. Sep 22, 2014
    1
    This is literally the WORST movie I have ever been made to watch in my life. In my opinion it is just a really really bad version of Apollo 13. It takes her 10 freaking minutes to grab a wrench!.....3 times!!!!!! You already know exactly what s going to happen before it happens. Extremely predictable. Then, the worst part, after suffering though 3 hours of terrible-ness, it doesnt evenThis is literally the WORST movie I have ever been made to watch in my life. In my opinion it is just a really really bad version of Apollo 13. It takes her 10 freaking minutes to grab a wrench!.....3 times!!!!!! You already know exactly what s going to happen before it happens. Extremely predictable. Then, the worst part, after suffering though 3 hours of terrible-ness, it doesnt even give a legitimate ending! She would have died when she hit Earth and then all of a sudden she walks onto a tropical island Expand
  51. Dec 1, 2014
    2
    Resisted watching the flick for a while, because personally biased against both main actors. As expected, both the script and acting were really poor - any high school drama club would have done much better job.
    And what a load of clichés and cheap thrill unloaded to top it off!
    The reason why I did watch and why I wanted to write the review is the undue praise by science community.
    Resisted watching the flick for a while, because personally biased against both main actors. As expected, both the script and acting were really poor - any high school drama club would have done much better job.
    And what a load of clichés and cheap thrill unloaded to top it off!

    The reason why I did watch and why I wanted to write the review is the undue praise by science community. This flick is NOT sound scientifically at all. There are multiple mistakes and flaws in logic. To list a few:
    - The GPS satellites could not be taken down by the same event (they are at a lot higher altitude).
    - The sound does not conduct in vacuum, which they stated, but for some reason could not resist putting in the movie.
    - There is a huge misunderstanding of momentum of motion. And after boosters are activated in the Russian pod. Both the pod and Bullock travel at the same speed - there is no way for her to slow down with a little canister of fire extinguisher (to say nothing about the fact that activating booster would not be controllable and landing at Chinese station is virtually impossible).
    - The astronauts do not wizz by around the station and would not be able to float from station to station.
    - In general, there are a lot of childish scenes about the space stations: they can't chat via the microphone after station is destroyed (they are not on cell phones in there). Stoned Sandra would not be able to hack into Russian capsule computer to fool it... or activate Chinese satellite for that matter.

    I will give a couple stars for cinematography and for an attempt to stay true to science, but instead of praising this meek stab at sci-fi, people who can think should discard it as a worthless Hollywood fluff.
    Expand
  52. Dec 1, 2014
    4
    What a boring and predictable movie! Don't waste your time! The only good thing about this movie is the cinematography and the special effects... Way overrated!
  53. Dec 3, 2014
    1
    Sorry, I dont like this movie and disappointing. It doesnt work for me and my wife. Sandra act was copying her personal style and characteristic in whatever movie she is in. An astronaut or whatever you call it, is not a commoner like woman driver in "Speed". She is so fragile, and not as an astronaut we imagine she should be. I hate her communication with Anqanna (?) and the song, andSorry, I dont like this movie and disappointing. It doesnt work for me and my wife. Sandra act was copying her personal style and characteristic in whatever movie she is in. An astronaut or whatever you call it, is not a commoner like woman driver in "Speed". She is so fragile, and not as an astronaut we imagine she should be. I hate her communication with Anqanna (?) and the song, and the dog voice, the baby's voice. It is irritatting my human sense. I hate the role of Clooney and his long boring words. Expand
  54. Feb 16, 2015
    2
    boring movie, good looking if not enough, if i want see earth from space without history, i can see nasa channel. anyway,this movie is worth see it, just for the awesome images from space. you can put mute.
  55. Mar 31, 2015
    1
    Very boring. Most of time you hear awful breathing. Sandra in outer space - a very doubtful decision. while watching you wait something interesting, but this movie doesn't show something worth watching.
Metascore
96

Universal acclaim - based on 49 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 49 out of 49
  2. Mixed: 0 out of 49
  3. Negative: 0 out of 49
  1. Reviewed by: James Mottram
    Nov 3, 2013
    100
    A stunning space saga that takes off for new technical frontiers without leaving its humanity behind.
  2. Reviewed by: David Denby
    Oct 6, 2013
    90
    Gravity is not a film of ideas, like Kubrick's techno-mystical "2001," but it's an overwhelming physical experience -- a challenge to the senses that engages every kind of dread. [7 Oct. 2013, p.88]
  3. Reviewed by: Dana Stevens
    Oct 4, 2013
    80
    This is not to say that Gravity is a masterpiece: Unlike Cuarón’s extraordinary "Children of Men", it doesn’t quite pull off its ambitious effort to combine formal inventiveness, heart-pounding action, and intimate human storytelling. But it succeeds thrillingly at the first two of those categories, and only misses the mark on the last because it tries a little too hard — which is certainly a welcome respite from the countless sci-fi thrillers that privilege the human story not at all.