User Score
7.8

Generally favorable reviews- based on 2236 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. 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
    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
  2. 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 become likable. I know it has great ratings and reviews everywhere, but you don't need to waste your time. Expand
  3. 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.
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. Jul 1, 2014
    3
    Some scenes look beautiful, but that's about all I can say that's positive. The laws of physics are broken several times, in the first collision, the guy who was exposed to the vacuum of space should have exploded due to the pressure difference, in the process of docking with the several space stations it's highly unlikely that the difference in velocities would be anything less than the speed of a bullet.

    For a 91 minute movie one would not expect to be bored and wishing for it's termination, but that is how I felt about this movie. The story of this movie consists solely on a series of extremely unlikely and seemingly inescapable impasses, that 'somehow' are overcome.
    Expand
  7. 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?
  8. 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?
  9. Jun 9, 2014
    2
    Oh God I got so bored while watching this movie! I mean like stale dialogues and heavy breathing constitutes almost 80% of the film. There were a few good scenes but apart from that it was painful to watch. And no I'm not talking about sympathising with the characters, I mean like real mental pain that I suffered while watching this movie. Performances are so poor that it perfectly complements the overall movie :P Expand
  10. Jun 3, 2014
    3
    This main girl character must be the dumbest and most stupidest human ever sent to space. If this is the best and brightest what NASA can muster then we are all doomed.
    Should i say that she is irritating as ****
  11. 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.
  12. May 21, 2014
    4
    Gravity isnt a bad film, it isnt exactly good either... it is, however, very, very overated..only good point is that the visuals are stunning.........
  13. May 4, 2014
    3
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Growing up in Flower Mound, Texas, I quickly discovered that there was very little to do for a teenager without much money. If you weren't hungry for some fast food or in the mood to window shop, you might as well go home and watch television. Thankfully for me, an AMC Movie Theater opened in Highland Village not even 5 minutes away from where I live in 2007. It is very difficult to try to explain just how many afternoons and evenings I have spent there with friends or family seeing the new hit movie. Visiting there at least every other weekend, I must have spent at least $1,000 since it opened. Seven years of the good, the bad, and the ugly, and by now, I might even be considered an unofficial movie critic.
    So, a couple months ago I heard from some friends and family members about this exciting new film, Gravity. Critics raved calling it the greatest movie of 2013, destined for glory, and certain it would be considered an instant classic for years to come. I was skeptical, but they were right after all, at least about the awards. Just a little while ago, Gravity won Best Cinematography, Best Editing, and Best Director at the 2014 Oscars. By the end of the night Gravity had won seven Oscars, an impressive feat. I never thought that the trailer for some space movie with Bullock and Clooney looked particularly good, but by this point I had to see it, and so I did.
    Gravity was one of the most confused and predictable movies I have seen in the last couple of years. The whole idea of the movie for those unfamiliar is that while on a spacewalk, Dr. Ryan Stone (Bullock) and her team are hit by debris from a Russian satellite that has mysteriously exploded. Unfortunately, Dr. Stone becomes the sole survivor of the impact and must try to get home without help from NASA. This is where things start to get really confusing, as there is almost no explanation as to why no one can help Stone with the establishment of a simple radio communication. But hey, it’s a movie after all so we can look past a basic plot hole. Since the film takes place in the quiet void of space, much of the plot advancement is based entirely off of Stone’s own internal struggle of getting back to earth, and the fear that she might not be able to. However if you were hoping for a main character who is full of life and determined to fight for her life, you’re looking at the wrong movie entirely. Stone apparently has no family or friends and according to her, no one cares if she lives or dies. As if the plot wasn't struggling enough, we now have a main character that doesn’t really want to try to survive and is content to just sit in her spacecraft and wait for the inevitable. Yes, that is actually part of the movie which goes on for about 15 minutes. Earlier I mentioned that not only is the plot confusing, but it’s stupidly predictable. Once you watch the first couple of “close calls” that Stone has, you realize that that’s the entire basis of the movie. Stone simply cannot perform a single task well, so by the last half of the movie, you can accurately predict how events will play out since you know that not only is the main character an incompetent buffoon, but she’s also the luckiest person in existence. That being said, the visuals were interesting and oddly vibrant for such a drab setting. In the end though, I found Gravity to be emotionally stale, entirely expected, and a characterless excuse for some sort of space adventure. I would recommend avoiding this movie altogether, but if you must see it, borrow it from a friend or watch it on the internet. You’re better off spending $10 on a really tasty sandwich, at least that doesn't come with a side of disappointment.
    Expand
  14. 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
  15. Apr 14, 2014
    1
    Let me just start out by saying that I am completely baffled by the 96/100 critic score that this got. Either the critics were stoned (like the composer for the movie was) when they watched this, or they were paid. Seriously though, for 75% of the film you're ears are stuck listening to the same 5 second loop of a terrible piece of "music"(?) being pounded into your brain while watching Sandra Bullock being catapulted around space. That's pretty much the entire film for you. There, I saved you the rental money. Expand
  16. Apr 8, 2014
    2
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Imagine a firefighter enters a building that is blazing with flames. He looks around, screams for 10 minutes, and runs away because he is completely unqualified for the job.

    That is what this movie is like, except replace the firefighter with an astronaut.

    The only good thing about this film is that it looks nice. But to be honest, it's not worth an hour and a half of your time to watch a film when you can just go on Imgur and type in 'nice space pictures' and start viewing galleries of visually appealing space pictures without having to listen to someone screaming and constantly gasping for air (when they are supposed to be an astronaut with some experience).

    The worst part about watching this film is that when it finally finishes, you realise that Sandra Bullock is in the middle of nowhere and will probably die anyway. So much for the whole 'survival' theme.

    Also, 'Gravity' doesn't make sense as a title. It should be called 'Zero Gravity', 'Zero Oxygen', or 'Screaming Lady in Space'.
    Expand
  17. Apr 4, 2014
    1
    One of the worst films I've seen. Cinematography excellent but plot was beyond weak! I was waiting for a twist at the end that would salvage something from my hour and a half of viewing but even the end was rubbish! Far fetched, scientific flawed, but acted well and the sound guys did an amazing job also. Weak storyline ruined what could have been - but definately wasn't - a first class film.
  18. Apr 1, 2014
    0
    Horrible piece of sh*t, insulting physics and logic from the very premises. I won't make a list of errors here, but suffice to say it's impossible to watch this without going "what the **** why the **** every few minutes.
  19. Mar 30, 2014
    1
    I am shocked how bad this movie is, taking into account all the hype that's in the air. It looks good, but the plot is weak and trivial. Also, for the sake of the plot, science is just ignored in few scenes. How exactly you ask ? Well, picturing wrong the force of GRAVITY is a good example! Btw, the title is very loosely refering to the movie, it doesn't have much sense.
    Again, if you
    like CGI effects and that's good enough you will be happy. If that's not enough, save 90 mins of your life. Expand
  20. 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?"
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. Mar 18, 2014
    0
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This movie is a disgrace to science. None of the writers heard of inertia? Bullock wouldn't have made it out of the opening scenes. I haven't seen a movie this bad since Buckaroo Banzai. Clooney was horrible and so care-free about dying. CGI and one cliff hanger after another. Horrible script. This movie is everything thats wrong with society. If I could give this movie a negative numerical rating, I would. If you love sic-fi, pass this movie by. Expand
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. 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
  28. 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
  29. 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
  30. 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
  31. Mar 5, 2014
    0
    There's a better "g"-word to describe this movie--Garbage. I rented this last night and was incredibly disappointed. This is oscar-worthy? Dallas Buyers Club, absolutely. Her, definitely. But Sandra Bullock fumbling around in space for 90 minutes with a George Clooney voiceover? It doesn't work. It's not interesting, it's not gripping, and it doesn't translate to anyone who hasn't been in space, which is probably about 99.99% of the human population. Apollo 13 did it MUCH better, so if you're dying to see a good **** happens, even in space" flick, go for that instead.

    And lemme tell ya. With all that open space out there around Earth, the Hubble Space Telescope, ISS, & Chinese station sure seem very close together….If you can float from one to the other using a can of hairspray as your propellant and NOT run out of air…I'm calling BS. A big can of BS.

    In summary, the acting is trash. The script is pompous. And the story is a yawner. Read some of the other negative reviews so at least you're informed if you choose to watch it.
    Expand
  32. Mar 4, 2014
    0
    I can't believe this won Oscars. I have seen the same kind of graphics in video games, so I was not impressed. The acting is so boring. Boring dialog. I was glad when George Cloony's character floated into space, so that I didn't have to listen to that stupid country music and his boring conversations. I feel asleep and don't know if I can bring myself to finish this sleeper of a movie. Thank goodness I didn't pay to see this in the theater. Save your money and your time by skipping this movie. Expand
  33. Mar 2, 2014
    0
    Better than '12 years a slave'?
    Oscar winner 2014?
    Let's watch it!
    And it was sooooo booooring. Uhh.
    The lauded earth and space sequences - omg, Avatar was much more inspiring in that respect.
    Only the over 70s in the academy jury could like that.
  34. Mar 2, 2014
    0
    Meteor hit every station as soon as Bullock reach it, and of course there are russian and chinese stations floating around and you can reach those with fire extinguisher.
    The story is totally cheap and even stupid and dumb. This is NOT a Sci-Fi but someone's not really good imagination.
  35. 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
  36. Mar 1, 2014
    0
    Just when I am wondering why people on here keep giving bad reviews to great movies with complex, emotional screenwriting, here I see one of the lamest movies since Jodi Foster did "Contact", and people think it's cool because they watched it in Imax-- which reminded them that there are stars and a universe and stuff above our heads.

    This movie has no story whatsoever. Literally nothing
    happens-- whoever called this "intense and gripping" must not have watched a movie since "The Wizard of Oz". Sandra Bullock floats around in space, there is a meteor shower (because wtf else happens in space without alien attacks???), George Clooney is in the film maybe 20 min....probably because he'd rather float off into space and suffocate to death than continue making this movie with Sandra bullock. I mean, at least with Ms. Congeniality we got to see her in a dress.

    P.s. -- how do you have fires burning on the exterior of structures in outer space? Fire requires certain compounds present in the atmosphere... 
    Expand
  37. Mar 1, 2014
    1
    It was like having diarrhea. Worst movie I have watched in my whole life. You didn't feel an emotional connection with the characters. The logic was heavily flawed. Very cringe worthy. The visuals was good, but not good enough to justify for everything else. And Ryan(Sandra Bullock) was mentally retarded.
  38. 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?
  39. Mar 1, 2014
    1
    My god this was a horrible flick. It mainly consisted of beautiful filming, heavy breathing, and a dumb as a sponge character. Dr Stone keeps on blithering “I am running out of oxygen” but she just babbles, fidgets and keeps babbling instead of just relaxing and breathing slowly as an astronaut would be trained to do This character was a joke. She could not get out of a public toilet cubicle if she locked herself in it.

    The only redeeming character was Matt Kowalski but then there were
    really only two characters in the movie.

    I should have just watched Vanishing Point again
    Expand
  40. Feb 28, 2014
    4
    While the visuals and sound brought this up a couple of points for me, the story itself was linear, very predictable and just boring. Seriously cannot see what all the fuss was about....
  41. Feb 26, 2014
    3
    This movie has the same problems as Avatar: It's all sizzle and no steak. I'm not going to lie, this is one of the most visually impressive movies I've even seen, but that's about all it has going for it. If you were expecting a gripping story filled with emotional themes about survival, love, betrayal, or revenge, then you'll no doubt be in for a disappointment.

    Visuals (10/10):
    Probably one of best I've ever seen in a movie, and even better if you watch it in 3D. Don't expect to get much enjoyment if you watch it on a standard TV though.

    Plot (2/10): I'm not overstating one bit when I say this: This movie has NO plot whatsoever. Without spoiling anything (although there is nothing to spoil anyways), this entire movie is about some woman in an astronaut suit floating around in space and jumping between satellites. No protagonists, antagonists, foil characters, plot-twists, climax, or any other common elements that make up a story. The intro of the movie failed to give any background information on the two characters, and the ending was highly predictable.

    Characters (3/10): This movie only has two characters, and both of them were completely void of any personality whatsoever.

    Clooney played as an astronaut with a one-dimensional personality with no emotion whatsoever. In one scene is was being painfully being hurled around space with space junk, and he starts saying this: "Looks like America has lost its Facebook". WTF? You are close to being chopped into pieces and you are wasting your time joking around? What's worse is that he is smiling through the entire movie with no fear whatsoever, even in times when he is close to getting killed.

    If you thought Clooney was bad, then don't get me started on Bullock. Seriously, whose idea was it to choose her, out of all the people? There are far more better actors out there that could've suited this role 10x better, but I'd guess they had to please the feminists somehow. All she does is whine and complain throughout the entire movie, saying stuff like "Don't leave me all by myself!" and "N-n-n-n-n-noo!". I'm not joking when I say this, she only speaks about 10 lines through the entire movie. What's worse is that she takes her clothes off in one scene. WTF? Isn't this movie supposed to be about survival?

    Emotional Content (3/10): I'm sorry but I felt no emotional attachment to Bullock whatsoever. How am I supposed to feel attached to a 50-year-old women that floats around in her underwear (which I actually found pretty disturbing), and someone who whines all the time? I literally felt like taking off her mask and hurling her into space, I just couldn't bear her any longer.

    Physics (1/10): Using a fire extinguisher to chase after a satellite floating at a speed of 1000km/h+ is really realistic, right? Of course your average Mcdonalds worker will think it's realistic, but if you have even a remote background in basic physics, this entire movie will seem cringe-worthy.

    All in all, this movie would make a great 4-D simulation ride at Chuck-e-Cheese's, but as a movie which you're going to sit through for 2 hours, this falls horribly flat.

    Pros: Groundbreaking visuals and special effects
    Cons: Non-existent plot, horrible characters and acting, no emotional value whatsoever, cheesy unnecessary jokes, unrealistic physics
    Expand
  42. Feb 25, 2014
    0
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. How the hell did this movie get such high marks? It is a true representation of many things wrong with stupid people in America (and elsewhere too I suppose). Nothing is believable in this movie, starting with putting a mentally unstable, traumatized nitwit in space after a mere 6 mos of training....really? I don't want to hear BS about metaphors and symbolism....barf...any good movie has that, but they have to fit the story. You don't hear noises in space (I did in Gravity). She just mashes buttons in Chinese and Russian...OMG stupid....

    You know what. F&^k it, I'm not even gonna repeat the stupid premise or nitpick the bold disobeying of basic science in this movie. If you're too stupid to know, then you're gonna love this movie no matter what I say. It just utterly fails to ground itself in any resemblance of reality or physics. Strong marks for cinematography and CGI, but it's wasted on this pointless plot and horrible dialog.

    A truly jarring movie would have been if she died alone in space slowly and helplessly, **** and pissing herself, because that is what would/should have happened. I guess all you need is a fire extinguisher to navigate space. I give this movie a 5, but rating it zero to make up for the overhyped 10s. Please don't let any acting Oscars go to this movie. Special effects or visuals maybe.

    BTW the score was annoying as hell....and 75% of the time there should have been NONE. I was trying to experience the silence of space....luckily Clooney died and shut up eventually (only to come back in a dream...sigh)....just a crap movie. The suspension of disbelief is too much to ask for anyone with half a brain.
    Expand
  43. Feb 25, 2014
    0
    I don't want to be rude, but I really didn't enjoy this movie. It's not about having serious "physical inaccuracy", it's just that this movie is missing some key elements required for any movie! Like you need to have a Protagonist AND antagonist for the story to work! This move has none. Also if you ever wanted a twist or something there is none. It was simply boring. Nothing else dull story with no twists and or plot changes, nothing. Expand
  44. Feb 20, 2014
    1
    I'll preface this by saying I'm a film maker, so I might be a bit jaded...

    But this movie is about as enjoyable as being hit in the face with a big flopy donkey dick, easily one of the worst pieces of trash I've ever seen. Plot? who needs one. Characters? naaa, that's old. Empathy? Depth? development? screw it.

    I don't know how a movie can make this many mistakes. besides being
    boring as **** it makes no sense, and from a technical standpoint is ludicrous. I see now why chris hadfield found this movie so hard to swallow.

    2/10
    Expand
  45. Feb 19, 2014
    1
    I think is the time I've been more disappointed with a films. I only go to the cinema about once per year, because of the price and the poor quality of the films, having seen the reveiws of Gravity I decided to spend about 22 pounds to see with my wife a 3D version of this films...well, I fell asleep after 25 minutes, the films is SO TEDIOUS, I couldn't stand it! the visuals are Ok, but to be fare, I was impress at any moment for anything about them...

    Seriously I think is the most overrated films ever!!!!

    By the way, the films is full of cliches, the character of clooney is something quite pathetic...
    Expand
  46. Feb 17, 2014
    2
    When I watched this movie, I thought it was 1998 .. because that was the last time either of these main characters were popular!

    The movie looked great ! .. but Clooney and Bullock ! ? are you serious! ..ruined the movie for me.

    I could guess everything that was coming, and most parts I just kept thinking " how typical " .. it could of been a great movie, but it was obviously dumbed
    down for the mainstream and from the look of the 8.1 score it has got, it worked ! .. but not for me!

    My least favourite part, the country music and good old American boys themed start, god I hated that more that fundamentalist Christians.. they would of loved it though LOL
    Expand
  47. Feb 15, 2014
    2
    Before seeing this movie in theaters, I had a feeling that it was going to be bland. I was right. The 14-word summary on Metacritic ("After debris destroys their space shuttle, two astronauts desperately try to return to Earth.") pretty much sums up the entire, barely-there plot of this movie. With only a handful on on-screen characters, and very little dialogue, the 91 minute runtime of this movie consisted of floating sequences, dull periods of silence, and more floating sequences. While this movie excelled in developing a realistic and encompassing space environment, it is not a movie I would ever see again. Expand
  48. Feb 12, 2014
    2
    Overrated seems to be wrong. Words like "intense, gripping, breathtaking, beautiful" I've read in some reviews serve as perfect antonyms for what my opinion about the film was. Yet another splendid cinematography (it gets a 2 because of that, otherwise it would be a nice round 0) used for all the wrong reasons. I really don't understand why the critics loved it so much, this has flaws in every direction you look at it.

    My favourite reviews, especially, are the ones that refer to the film as "realistic", which is nonsense and I don't think I should explain why. The acting is horrible, and honestly I was expecting a little more from Clooney, who's been doing a lot of decent stuff recently. Sandra Bullock's gasps will be everything you hear for a good hour, and I take it they had to write them all down in the screenplay to get it to two pages.

    No character development, same trite space story. The struggle for survival and blah blah, while everything I wished was for Sandra Bullock to die already.

    Do not give money to this kind of cinema because you help boasting their income and encourage them to continue on this line, and we've had enough of that.
    Expand
  49. Feb 9, 2014
    0
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Very boring movie. I was falling asleep. She should have died and at least we'd grieved a tiny bit. Other than awesome visuals, the movie lacks so much. We never did attach to the character because she was so pathetic. The story is empty and void of spiritual dimension. When Matt showed up again was the best scene but it was all a dream??? Expand
  50. Feb 1, 2014
    4
    This film is the most overrated thing I have ever watched. Not only is it just ludicrous to put religious themes in there but the fact that the laws of physics didn't even apply was the worst part, apparently the ISS was only 100 miles from the shuttle but if you look at the Earth and the ISS it is clear it is almost 3,000km away! Such a stupid film and mind numbingly offensive to people with knowledge on Astronomy. Sandra Bullick also acted horribly and unrealistically, no depth to her character at all, just strange reactions and boring backstory on her daughter. One thing I'll give it is the cinematography is superb but if you have a background on Astronomy DON'T WATCH THIS FILM! It will frustrate the **** out of you.  Expand
  51. Feb 1, 2014
    0
    Flawed Science and so dull. I was forced to bet with myself how many times the characters would miss the vital piece of space equipment before finally saving themselves again. Ghastly waste of time
  52. Jan 27, 2014
    1
    I didn't watch this movie in an Imax theatre, so maybe the "ahh" factor what might be the reason that people are giving this movie such ludicrous high ratings all over the board eludes me, but in my opinion it's an aggravatingly bad movie.
    The visuals are great, everything looks fantastic, but that's it.
    This movie screams "preposterous". it pretends, in an arrogant way, to be a
    realistic "current time" sci-fi movie/drama, but it crashes and burns with monstrous factual errors. after the fourth physics-defying scene i couldn't watch it anymore.
    Probably a great movie if you can suspend your disbelief, but the pretence of this movie is you don't.
    Expand
  53. Jan 26, 2014
    0
    I spent money on this movie and it was a waste of my time. I saw the trailer before I went and saw the movie and at the end over the movie I was very disappointed because the trailer made it look good but the trailer was the whole movie. I tell all of my friends to watch the trailer and that's the movie. This movie was a waste of time and money. I have no idea why everyone liked it so much but I guess it was because everyone these days are stupid and can't think about anything but the simplest things that that go on. I say to the people who made this movie go and watch an episode of doctor who and then look at this movie. I am saying you guys suck and British people are so much better. Go take a lesson from Steven Moffat because he knows how to write an amazing story line and keep it going and make it better as it goes on. I will never watch a movie that is made by you and I will tell all of my friends the same thing I told them about Gravity that it sucked and is waste of time and money and no one in their right mind should go see it. Before I go might i just add that the acting sucked as well I hated that actors that you got they absolutely sucked and should never act again. Expand
  54. Jan 26, 2014
    1
    Yes the film is technological masterpiece , visuals is great, directing is perfect and "Oscar worthy" but Gravity is simply boring and overrated.It's frustrating that no one has the guts to tell they didn't like the move, well I'm telling, i hate it. I watched 3 hours long The Wolf of Wall Street and never get bored and then I watched 90 minutes long Gravity but I was bored to death with Sandra Bullock's exaggerated acting that makes you don't care what is going to happen. Expand
  55. Jan 25, 2014
    0
    This movie is bad and equally as overrated as uncharted 3 even the secret life of Walter Mitty was better than this steaming pile of **** **** this movie to hell it doesn't deserve all of this praise the story is the combination of uncharted 3 and ratchet size matters and sonic heroes that's a pretty bad sign since the new Mario games suck.
  56. Jan 25, 2014
    3
    I am one of the few people who didn't enjoy Gravity. I found Sandra Bullock's character annoying. If this was the real world her character wouldn't have even passed basic training. She lacked knowledge about space that would be extremely important for an astronaut to know. I also didn't like her character's back story. It was just sad to be sad, there was no real reason for it. I would have prefered a stronger character fighting to live for what they had back home rather than having Bullock's character have really nothing to live for. What I did like about the movie was the special effects. They were amazing to watch. Maybe I would have enjoyed Gravity more if I saw it in IMAX but on a regular screen it was majorly lacking. Expand
  57. 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
  58. Jan 19, 2014
    0
    For a movie that prides it self on accuracy, it seems to have none. Even if you take the whole intro for granted, there was a scene that pissed me off (spoliers) ---->

    When she gets caught in the station and captures the other astronaut there is something pulling them away. Do they not understand the conecpt of zero G, there is nothing pulling anyone, like really come on. You could at
    least make a plot that didn't have as many holes as this

    end of spoilers TLDR non realistic unnecessarily full of plot holes
    Expand
  59. 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.
  60. 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.
  61. Jan 14, 2014
    0
    This film has no story line, no action, no, well, anything worth watching a film for really. The acting might be okay and the visuals etc, but it is just way too boring. Very overrated.
  62. 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
  63. 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?
  64. Jan 8, 2014
    1
    A movie that is not about science fiction should stay true to science that governs our universe. Being an engineer myself i cringed every second i saw b-s physics just to advance the non-existent plot. Not a movie for educated people who actually likes a plot and presentation to go along with it. More of a movie for the brainless people who thinks woofing in a spacepod is emotional and opening the airlock of it is actually a cool idea for the reunion cliche.

    This movie is a litmus paper to stupidity and the ratings show the average brain power of people who watched this movie.
    Expand
  65. Jan 1, 2014
    0
    This has to be one of the worst films that I have seen in a long time. Not even the presence of Sandra Bullock and George Clooney made this film work for me. No character development. Too many bad luck scenarios to make the film remotely believable. Absolutely amazing cinematography but a story line that was weaker than the tea at an all night diner. Sappy elements thrown in to make you feel more connected but it was like throwing tomatoes at a wall. Sorry but I did not connect to any of the characters. Oscar worthy? I have to call BS. Simple survival story in space? Get a grip. Poorly written, good visuals. Feels like it was written under pressure. Sorry but I do not recommed this film at all. Expand
  66. 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!
  67. Dec 26, 2013
    0
    This movie is a joke. It had amazing visuals that took some 7 years to do (they had to wait for the technology to be created). It had a script that was written in 30 minutes, while the writer was drunk and high. It had acting that was great at first, but got repetitive and annoying. Worst of all, there's no arc, there's no story; it's just the same 5-minute loop over and over again. If you've seen the trailer, you've seen the whole movie. Expand
  68. 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
  69. 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.
  70. 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
  71. 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
  72. Dec 12, 2013
    0
    This movie is utter BS. Waste of time, money, and poor actors. If you want a cheap lobotomy, watch this movie. If you had basic physics in school, avoid this movie, as it will do your head in! I now know why the name of the film is called gravity, it's because they screw around with it, all the freaking time!!
  73. Dec 12, 2013
    0
    One of the most overrated, boring, stupid films I have seen in a long long time. The only redeeming thing was the special effects. Everything else was ridiculous, stupid and boring. I actually wanted to walk out half way though, couldn't care less whether or not she survived at the end.
  74. 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
  75. Dec 3, 2013
    0
    What a load of rubbish! This movie, which is seriously just two people floating around in space, is being hailed as "revolutionary" and "ground breaking" and "like nothing you've ever seen before." What!? We've all seen Apollo 13, haven't we? Only that had an interesting story, and characters who didn't just scream and act embarrassing the whole time. The special effects weren't even that impressive. And yet no doubt it will win best visual effects at the Oscars, as well as about twelve thousand other awards because delusional critics have brainwashed themselves into thinking this is a "masterpiece." Expand
  76. 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
  77. Ndi
    Nov 29, 2013
    1
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. What a turd. TUUUUURD.

    Stupid physics, plenty mistakes, personal drama that was completely unnecessary, long, drawn out, awkward pauses where they had to fill with monologues,

    How does this movie even rated anything with critics? Has nobody any integrity left? I understand I get to look at Sandra Bullok's ass, but seriously, she's 49. Work out or not, 49. And for that cash, SFX was wavy at best, they had not one physicist on site (feels like he quit midway through) that could tell them that people aren't dolls and if you bow out a hatch while holding it and it thows you off, it also breaks your arm, rips the suit, and damages the airlock. Hence they cycle thing.

    While she is "feeling better" about having air, the poor bastard outside was suffocating. I know they couldn't afford Clooney but come on.

    Every time she gets undressed, she throws away clothes like she's in her bathroom. Keep the f*** suit, idiot, you're in space and it has AIR. You never know when you need air.

    The ISS catches fire, she ignores it (while splashing water inside because what the hell, it's not like they need EVERY panel), then she fails to put out the fire because she doesn't understand reaction, then the ISS blows up and she says "I hate space". B*tch, at the time the movie happens the ISS is the single greatest achievement of the human race and you are supposed to be a scientist and you, YOU f*cked it up. YOU missed the fire, YOU couldn't operate an extinguisher, YOU killed the ISS. At this point, I'm hoping she makes it, I want her hanged.

    Anyone with 6 months training can operate a NASA vehicle, fix Hubble, fly ISS's Soyuz, execute procedures in Russian, launch escape pods in Chinese because all you need is a bit of mashing of buttons I don't know why they keep that long training thing. Any half-stupid, is-sick-in-space, suicidal-tendencies 50 year old female can operate any and all space stuff, because space stuff is the same.

    Station blows up, there is a billion pieces of shrapnel, 50 hit the camera, 20 hit my eyes in 3D, 140 shred the pods, NONE touch Soyuz, her, or any other important stuff.

    She has been attacked by debris twice, fire once, lack of air once, tethered by chute once, and threatened several times, she never hurries. NEVER. To keep that zero-G feel, no button is ever pressed fast, no screw done soon, even when she sees the cloud of stuff coming at her, she steps out of the pod and the camera does a lazy 360. Sure, 90 seconds to impact, take the view.

    I could go on for ages, this is a stupid, stupid movie, with a stupid premise, bad re-entry angles, and bad writing.

    BAD WRITING.

    What was that c*ap about her dead daughter? Did that pan out? No. Just another detail to make me feel sorry for her. Well it didn't work. By the time she touched down, I was hoping she drowned, and so did half the theater. She almost drowned in a space suit. Do you know how hard that is?

    I hate critics. Pounding action? No pounding action. Total of 5 minutes of action. Have you forgotten 15 minutes of pulling Ryan through space? Tell me about yourself, Ryan, we don't have budget for more than this. Intimate human storytelling? My daughter is dead, my dog died, I'm depressed. Boo hoo, such a deep human connection we have now. It's not like it's artificially planted, like the faceless guy with picture of family. Or the scattered pictures of families on every single dead guy in the Horizon. And personal toys.

    There is such a thing as pulling every string of my heart and it is sad.

    How can you give this dump a good score?
    Expand
  78. 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
  79. 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
  80. Nov 22, 2013
    0
    This movie is atrocious. Sandra Bullock wailing like a dog at the controls of a spaceship?? The writers of this nonsense should be ashamed of themselves. Absolute Rubbish
  81. Nov 21, 2013
    1
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This film is dire. Goodness knows how it comes by such critical acclaim. The CGI is excellent, but when you've whirled around in space for the umpteenth time the novelty starts to wear off. There is almost no plot. There is no realism in the dynamics of free fall. You just can't dangle on the end of a rope when there's no gravity. The film just repeats the same scenes over and over. Bullock tries to use US reentry vehicle, but it all goes horribly wrong, then the Russian reentry vehicle, but it all goes horribly wrong, then the Chinese one, which works, hoorah! Each change of vehicle necessitate Bullock squeezing in and out of her spacesuit in her underwear hang on isn't that Ripley's thing in Alien? When Bullock is under stress she hums to herself (hang on isn't etc etc). And oh God protect us from American (sorry guys) schmatlz. Bullock has a young daughter, but that's not enough, it has to be a dead daughter, but that's not enough, after Clooney dies, Bullock sends him off with a message for her dead daughter. Ugh. As someone else here said, given the way disaster is piled on disaster it was a wonder there wasn't an alligator shark monster from the black lagoon in the lake that she so fortuitously landed in. Expand
  82. Nov 17, 2013
    4
    Why is there so much buzz about this movie? It is just a woman breathing into the microphone. The theater audience was half-awake during this movie. I will give 4 points to the stunning visuals in this movie, however.

    Summary: Overrated, Boring, Visually Fantastic
    Grade: 36%
  83. Nov 16, 2013
    0
    Terrible, even in 3D with the amazing CGI & soundtrack, I wanted to puke my balls out of my the entirety of this movie. The plot sucked balls, Clooney or however the you spell his name is a chode, and Bullock needs to reconsider her career options.
  84. 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!!!
  85. Nov 15, 2013
    0
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. For having George Clooney being such anchor for this movie I expected more George Clooney. Not just ten minutes if him rambling then drifting into space. His name is on the poster after all. I found Sandra Bullocks character incredibly annoying. She kept acting like she had no idea what she was doing then wastes precious air talking to Clooney when she needs to get her bum on the ship. Did she not realize you need air to live? Face palm. Then that weird baby fetal position while he drifts further away. As for the CGI I'm pretty sure the three space stations they blew up were the same station. Very redundant .very predictable. I don't understand what the hype is about, I was incredibly disappointed. Expand
  86. Nov 15, 2013
    2
    Coming here and seeing that the critic's score of this movie is 91 and the one of a movie like "The Green Mile" is just 61 surprised me a lot. A great trailer and then nothing: insignificant characters, repetitive plot, banal ending. Don't waste your time and money.
  87. 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
  88. 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.
  89. 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,
    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
  90. 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
  91. 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
  92. Nov 9, 2013
    3
    I'm so INCREDIBLY disappointed. I could never imagine how clichée filled, "sentimental" and stupid this movie is. The dialogue (and the monologue!) is among the dumbest I've ever heard. As if that wasn't enough, I found myself questioning most of what was happening so many flaws and logical gaps. Frankly, the most enjoyable thing about this movie was the 3D and I really, really hate 3D. I can't even imagine who would find this movie gripping. It's beyond me. Expand
  93. Nov 9, 2013
    0
    The most over rated movie in a generation. These are two one dimensional characters shot in 3D, nothing more. Strip away the glitter and you would be paying someone else to watch it for you. If you want a Disney roller coaster ride without the movement then go see it. If you want something that has anything besides visual marshmallow goop then skip it.
  94. 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
  95. 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.
  96. 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.
  97. Nov 4, 2013
    0
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Neither NASA nor any other space agency would ever send the character Sandra Bullock played into space. They don't need a hysterical woman who knows nothing about space or the technology she has to use.
    If you know nothing about physics or space you probably will like that movie but if you are interested in these things (like me) you'll hate it because you know that nearly everything is against logic or physics.

    And to be honest: In a SciFi movie I don't give a damn about a "deep" insight of the characters. Especially when their stories have nothing to do with the movie.

    Before I checked who made the movie I thought the same guy who did After Earth also did this one.

    At the end: The nearly drowned in the rescue capsule? Oh holy This nearly happened in real life to NASA astronauts and thus NASA (and all other space agencies) fixed that problem.

    The director just wanted to make a awesome 3D movie but didn't cared about a good and especially logical story. I hope he NEVER does a movie again so the investors have money left for good movies.
    Expand
  98. 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
  99. Nov 2, 2013
    2
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. In a word: Boring.
    I was sorely disappointed by this film. I knew from the advertisements and some reviews I briefly glimpsed at (so as not the have the movie "spoiled" for me), what I was getting myself into. I can appreciate the fact that there is very little sound and the colour palette is very restricted. Survival movies focusing primarily on one character can still incorporate an interesting story. This did not. At all.
    This movie had so many wasted opportunities. Elaborate on characters' backstories. Display awesome imagery of space and Earth (like show us the Great Wall of China or something). Instead we got to listen to a country music radio station and heavy breathing for over an hour. Get ready to suspend belief.

    We're expected to believe that a woman as scrawny as Sandra Bullock is able to open a pressurized port-hole door and have it swing violently open? We expected to believe that she is strong enough to grip onto handles and bars while flying through space? We're expected to believe that while her life is on the line she's still able to crack wisecrack jokes to herself? We're expected to believe that during every stop she makes along her space travels her oxygen tanks magically refill? We're expected to believe she can propel herself along a very precise path with a fire extinguisher? We're expected to believe that by randomly pressing buttons (she literally plays "eeny meeny miney mo") on a complex space control panel, you're able to get back to Earth?
    This movie failed on every level!
    Expand
  100. 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
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.