User Score
7.9

Generally favorable reviews- based on 2206 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. Jun 13, 2014
    1
    Worst Movie of the Decade. Why was it nominated for Oscars in the first place? In understand why they won best visual effects in a motion picture. But Really who enjoys this stuff?
  2. Jul 21, 2014
    0
    Hollywood's two most benign actors (Clooney, Bullock) carry no weight and from the outset I so wished the main characters would be sucked into the vacuum of space and obliterated by the black hole that so richly represents their talent.

    The infinite depths of space as a back drop to the limited range of the actors and the simpleton script makes for great irony ....Television's 'Lost In
    Space' opening credit sequence had more to say. Expand
  3. 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
  4. 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,
    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
  5. 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 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
  6. 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!
  7. 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 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
  8. 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 anything I will ever suggest anyone to pay to see. Expand
  9. 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.
  10. 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 rich praising the rich. Expand
  11. 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
  12. 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´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
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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 to learn how to fly the thing, how ridiculous, really this movie is a joke, don't waste your money. Expand
  16. 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, 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
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. 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.
  21. 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 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
  22. 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
  23. 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. 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
  24. 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.
  25. 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!!!
  26. 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
  27. 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
    later on in the film in order to accept the new plot turn. I couldn't do it. Expand
  28. 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.
  29. 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?
  30. 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'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
  31. 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.
  32. Jan 21, 2014
    4
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. In visual terms "Gravity" is overwhelming with those images of the Earth. The infinity and immensity of the universe is beautifully put into the picture . The insignificance of man in this intolerable environment gives you a constant tightness . However, I think that you only get that overwhelming feeling when you watch this movie in the cinema. On a normal LCD TV in the living room there's not much left of this space spectacle. And that's quite a damper on the expected experience because the story on its own isn't really that much of a deal. I think it's a great achievement to create such an entertaining film with this simple story and only two characters constantly on the screen.

    I sat almost the entire movie on the edge of the sofa cause of the tension. The movie has a surprisingly fast pace. It's one situation after the other . But if you omit the stunning CGI and forget about the probably impressive 3D images , there remains nothing else than a boring tedious blockbuster. And they made such a big fuss about it. A big hype over nothing, my guess. Reading roughly through the remarks at IMDb I'm not the only one with that idea. I also found it disturbing that someone can be so unlucky in just one day . Chronologically all this happens: the shuttle gets hit by debris resulting in some casualties and one person (Bullock) floating in space, she's picked up again by Clooney , but is almost without oxygen , with his thruster pack they go on their way to the ISS , they smash into it and Clooney releases himself heroically to rescue Bullock, almost choking she enters the ISS , a fire breaks out and she has to disconnect the Soyuz , the Soyuz gets tangled to a parachute, the ISS is destroyed by debris , the Soyuz has no fuel , Bullock uses the burners for landing, she reaches the Chinese space station using a fire extinguisher , goes into the atmosphere , and even though she doesn't understand Chinese she lands safely by randomly pressing the right buttons. That's not enough though. She almost drowns also after the landing . It wouldn't be a surprise she'll never ever join a space trip again in her life.

    Although the two main actors are not the least , they can't make the film look better. Sandra Bullock didn't convince me as being a scientist with high intellect . She looked more like a Miss America who won a space trip . Clooney was so extremely charming and gallant in space. I expected every moment that he would serve a delicious Nespresso. And then realizing that the making of this empty movie needed $ 100 million. They could have made a few better movies with that kind of money. And I won't mention the technical and scientific impossibilities as they are described by a NASA expert on Wikipedia. But OK, otherwise it would be a even more boring and dead serious flick .And it should be entertaining, not ? Unlike many other spectators, I didn't think the moment where Ryan starts barking and howling like a dog was ridiculous or silly.For me it was rather a touching moment.

    Conclusion : a gem in imaging, but as space itself , it is an airless story. It feels more like a black hole
    Expand
  33. 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
  34. 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?
  35. Mar 14, 2014
    2
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Serious people says "In space no one can hear your scream". I says "That's better. They can only shut up." To my great sadness here we got two spaceball who flying and spinning in space and trying to save themselves from black mouth of emptiness. Smart one is flying there right now when you read this. But the bullock lady trying hard. And she made it. Yay, she made it to Earth with a little glimpse of sadness on her tired nazi face. I swear to God, her face look like nazi in late 30s. CGI here is okay, but acting and directing is more like totally bum. Mexican gringo win some trophy for this, but don't be naive people. Go to see some old sci-fi or some Sigourney Weaver movie. This could be much better for your mind and heart. Expand
  36. Jul 25, 2014
    4
    Gravity es un film que aunque tiene buenos efectos visuales, después de un tiempo la película se torna simplona y aburrida hasta los últimos 15 minutos del film.
  37. 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
  38. 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?"
  39. 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
  40. Jun 12, 2014
    3
    Visually Impressive but ridiculously overrated. It literally has no plot. Have people the films are a medium to tell stories using images rather than simply showing intriguing images with stunning visual effects?
  41. 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 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
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.