User Score
7.8

Generally favorable reviews- based on 2550 Ratings

User score distribution:
Watch On

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 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 ****
  2. 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'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
  3. Mar 9, 2014
    3
    Hype hype hype hype hype hype - let it die down a bit then I'll watch it - I thought. Idiot. Forgot the Oscars would dredge it all up again.
    Bit the bullet and sat and watched it. I am finding it hard to compliment this film, or rather which bit was the best of the worst. OK, the effects were OK - the over the top necessity to nudge and re nudge inane objects such as spanners or pipes,
    Hype hype hype hype hype hype - let it die down a bit then I'll watch it - I thought. Idiot. Forgot the Oscars would dredge it all up again.
    Bit the bullet and sat and watched it. I am finding it hard to compliment this film, or rather which bit was the best of the worst. OK, the effects were OK - the over the top necessity to nudge and re nudge inane objects such as spanners or pipes, while in space, just so the effects guys can work on the inertia and movement to make it look, "natural", as if you wouldn't bat an eye but thought it so smooth it had to be real. OTT. Stop it, get on with making the film you idiots, but when you do can you stop making the 3D bits so bloody obvious. If I want to be blown away with 3D, I'll put my shoes on and go look at the real world, maybe actually interact with things, like you know, touching and smelling? However, when watching films, I do not wish to see a floating screw come spinning towards the camera, blurring out the rest of the frame - only for it to mean NOTHING and not even be in 3D (some of us people at the foot of the entertainment equipment ladder just cant afford, nor would like a 3D television thank you) so why waste my time and place 3D film sections in a 2D film. Lets face it, 99.999% of people who watch this film at home will be doing so on a normal TV!
    Emotionless acting, over the top effects for effects sake, absolutely ridiculous physics and other goofs (I read on IMDB after watching), finalised my views that this film did not deserve at least 2 of the 7 Oscars it won....
    Visual Effects, a couple of scenes where the Earth was reflected on the visor of Bullock, the image did not respond as it should when she rotated her head. Just stuck there when it should have twisted. Poor.
    Cinematography, With great power comes great responsibility. With great budgets comes over the top cinematic, long drawn out panorama's of small things progressively getting bigger as they smoothly glide towards the camera in a never ending slush of emotion and "beauty". YAWN. BOOOOORRRING! I could do better with a disposable stills camera.
    Expand
  4. Oct 6, 2013
    3
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. There are some beautiful visuals, but like the rest of the movie, they are repeated and repeated ad nauseum. If not for them, though, the movie would have no redeeming features. Too much of it takes place inside spacecraft that isn't functioning properly, and Bullock's hapless, rather unlikable character had me drumming my fingers, wanting to just doze off, and wondering how long we would be subjected to her suffering and fiddling futilely about. Her tedious character is in most scenes; Clooney has more life, but disappears early on, and returns only briefly. Might be worth seeing for the occasional beauty of it, if you don't expect anything in the way of story or character development. Expand
  5. Oct 24, 2013
    3
    I got back into my metacritic account after a long time because of my disappointment in the movie. First, this movie is hit hard in the lacking of a good script and one thing that I despise is cheesiness unfortunately this movie is loaded with awkward, goofy screenwriting many will disagree with this and that's fine. But I guarantee many of you out there saw this and saw beyond its veryI got back into my metacritic account after a long time because of my disappointment in the movie. First, this movie is hit hard in the lacking of a good script and one thing that I despise is cheesiness unfortunately this movie is loaded with awkward, goofy screenwriting many will disagree with this and that's fine. But I guarantee many of you out there saw this and saw beyond its very amazing cinematography and visuals which are the small bit of praise I will give for Gravity. Now to move to the acting and the characters, first off the acting was limited, it was much of just sandra bullock and unfortunately this isn't her best performance, not necessarily her fault here though. The fault lies in what I see as TERRIBLE characters and story to boast. I am someone who gets fully engrossed in a movie emotionally and its not a hard thing for me to usually do. This movie was just bland, if you look past the fantastic visuals and cinematography what you get is a story with a bland character and a couple moments of George Clooney being George Clooney. I am an avid movie goer and lover of movies, I don't hate on movies much but I was so disappointed in this movie due to the high metacritic score (usually a good sign in my opinion) but I seriously thought this was complete trash. Expand
  6. Oct 5, 2013
    3
    I was very disappointed with this movie. I was expecting much better, but this was by no standards a terrible movie. It just could have been much better. Two things I loved in this movie were the cinematography as a whole and the action sequences. The effects were good and the camera angles/shots were fantastic, and the action sequences were well-produced. However, this does not make upI was very disappointed with this movie. I was expecting much better, but this was by no standards a terrible movie. It just could have been much better. Two things I loved in this movie were the cinematography as a whole and the action sequences. The effects were good and the camera angles/shots were fantastic, and the action sequences were well-produced. However, this does not make up for this movie's mediocre plot. The story was extremely repetitive, very simple, and somewhat boring. Along with the underachieving plot, I thought that Clooney's acting was uninspired and lazy, Bullock over-acted to the point that she got very annoying and unconvincing, there was minimal character development, and I did not feel any sympathy for the characters. While this movie had some of the best cinematography I have seen in a while, the rest of it was poorly done. This movie is not worthy of any oscars other than cinematography, and truly is not worth your time. Expand
  7. 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
  8. Oct 8, 2013
    3
    Visually stunning, but preposterous. Within 15 minutes, I said this is ridiculous. Not even superman could have as many lives as Sandra Bullock. The dialogue is also lame. There is some emotion, but you really don;t care. There is no comparison to 2001, except that both movies take place in space.
  9. Oct 13, 2013
    3
    Good cinematography aside (which you might eventually just stop noticing sadly enough) everythign else is shallow and token. The characters, the plot, the acting, the action, the theme, nothing stands out. The movie relies on it's setting to thrill and at times it does but much like everything else in the movie it groes tiresome fairly quickly. Let's see what else to say? There's a partGood cinematography aside (which you might eventually just stop noticing sadly enough) everythign else is shallow and token. The characters, the plot, the acting, the action, the theme, nothing stands out. The movie relies on it's setting to thrill and at times it does but much like everything else in the movie it groes tiresome fairly quickly. Let's see what else to say? There's a part where Sandra Bullock barks like it dog (no it only somewhat makes sense in context) and that was the moment where i realized the 10.50 i paid for the screening was 10.50 too much. The minority character dies almost instantly (and in a super gruesome manner) because hey, every other hollywood movie treates minorities poorly, why not an Oscar hopeful one too? The 3D was actually pretty token and desperate. Want good 3D, go see Avatar or Dredd or Oz, certainly not Gravity. Expand
  10. Oct 22, 2013
    3
    Expectable though great looking sci-fi movie. Gravity is well shot and the special fx are pretty faultless. It looks great but the storyline is just disastrous and almost insultingly predictable. The character development is just ludicrously poor. Clooney is just a guy who´s character is almost not there. He´s not affected by the accident and is just emotionless like a machine. He show´sExpectable though great looking sci-fi movie. Gravity is well shot and the special fx are pretty faultless. It looks great but the storyline is just disastrous and almost insultingly predictable. The character development is just ludicrously poor. Clooney is just a guy who´s character is almost not there. He´s not affected by the accident and is just emotionless like a machine. He show´s some compassion towards Bullocks character though it is of such low amount of value to the movie as the movie is of low amount of atmosphere.
    In the moment the movie started to get interesting and you could get at least a development and a little piece of compassion towards Bullock it kills not only the atmosphere of this scene but also disrupts any bond of connectivity to the movie and Bullock. The end of the movie is annoying and boring, you don´t have to watch the movie to know what´ll happen. If they would have concentrated more on the story and the character development it would been a great movie but now... it´s just another undeserved academy award nominee I may would be giving them one for the cgi fxs
    Expand
  11. 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 wouldI 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
  12. 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
  13. Oct 12, 2013
    3
    This movie's title was terribly, terribly misleading. Virtually the whole film was set in space, where as I'm sure you'll be well aware, there is NO GRAVITY! It was only in the last five minutes or so where any of the characters had to deal with the effects of this force. Even talented performers like Sandra Bullock and George Clooney would be hard-pressed to show any significant characterThis movie's title was terribly, terribly misleading. Virtually the whole film was set in space, where as I'm sure you'll be well aware, there is NO GRAVITY! It was only in the last five minutes or so where any of the characters had to deal with the effects of this force. Even talented performers like Sandra Bullock and George Clooney would be hard-pressed to show any significant character development from dealing with gravity in such a short amount of time. Most good Science Fiction movies, such as "Alien", feature their main subject (i.e. the title of the movie) for at least a good two thirds of their duration. I haven't been so misled since the preserve-less 1996 film "Space Jam". Expand
  14. Oct 15, 2013
    3
    The newspaper critics listed here on metacritic must have been shown a different film to the one I just watched. How can it be that this film with no substantial story/script/science and thoroughly patronising depiction of a female astronaut is being hailed as a masterpiece on par with Kubrick's 2001? Utter nonsense. If you thought Prometheus was visually stunning but utter nonsense withThe newspaper critics listed here on metacritic must have been shown a different film to the one I just watched. How can it be that this film with no substantial story/script/science and thoroughly patronising depiction of a female astronaut is being hailed as a masterpiece on par with Kubrick's 2001? Utter nonsense. If you thought Prometheus was visually stunning but utter nonsense with regard to the character development and story/script, then avoid this movie at all costs. I am giving this film 3 marks out of 10 for the stunning visuals alone. Expand
  15. Oct 21, 2013
    3
    Did I really see the same movie as all of those who are saying "amazing, one of the best movies ever, best I've ever seen, fabulous performances...."?

    Seriously? I guess this is the perfect movie for our ADD society where we need something sparkly to happen every 7 10 seconds... it's short attention span theater albeit pretty to watch with wonderful photography. It woefully lacks in
    Did I really see the same movie as all of those who are saying "amazing, one of the best movies ever, best I've ever seen, fabulous performances...."?

    Seriously?

    I guess this is the perfect movie for our ADD society where we need something sparkly to happen every 7 10 seconds... it's short attention span theater albeit pretty to watch with wonderful photography. It woefully lacks in character development and is void of any plausibility. It's The Perils of Pauline in Space, a paste diamond set in a Faberge egg of photography.
    Expand
  16. 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
  17. 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.
  18. Dec 10, 2013
    3
    The movie was alright, but the events are totally unbelievable. It had lots of intensity at first, then it got tedious. Cliche after cliche, unbelievable scene one after another, and a complete lack of a plot with substance. I can't grow attached to Sandra Bullock or George Clooney pretending to be astronauts, that's beyond my ability to suspend disbelief for movie viewing pleasure. IThe movie was alright, but the events are totally unbelievable. It had lots of intensity at first, then it got tedious. Cliche after cliche, unbelievable scene one after another, and a complete lack of a plot with substance. I can't grow attached to Sandra Bullock or George Clooney pretending to be astronauts, that's beyond my ability to suspend disbelief for movie viewing pleasure. I won't spoil the movie, because there's nothing to spoil, the trailer sums up the entire 90 minutes of your life that you just wasted watching it. Nice special effects, but I play video games if that's all I'm looking for. I wanted a movie, and I was disappointed when I left the theatre. Expand
  19. 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
  20. 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 theSome 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
  21. 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):
    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
  22. Dec 21, 2014
    3
    I apologize, but this movie seems to be made for stupid people.
    The only praise anybody ever gives this film is how "visually stunning" it is. It seems as if plenty of intelligent people have mentally devolved after seeing Gravity, because apparently substance no longer matters, and visuals are enough to make a good movie.
    The characters in Gravity don't need to be there. I might as well
    I apologize, but this movie seems to be made for stupid people.
    The only praise anybody ever gives this film is how "visually stunning" it is. It seems as if plenty of intelligent people have mentally devolved after seeing Gravity, because apparently substance no longer matters, and visuals are enough to make a good movie.
    The characters in Gravity don't need to be there. I might as well have watched a movie about pieces of metal floating in space. Oh wait, they have that! It's called "Space Junk"! You know, I heard that was the original working title for this movie, too!
    The story sucks, to put it plainly. Sandra Bullock's story is completely generic and uninteresting, and pretty much occupies the entire film after the rather intense opening. Let me be clear, I don't want to dispute that the movie is breathtaking on a technical level, but without any interesting motives or characters, and absolutely zero valuable ideas or concepts expressed, who cares? Apparently everyone. Go watch Transformers, you mouth breathers.
    Graphics don't make the game good, pretty colors don't make the painting good, and being catchy doesn't make a song good. Visuals don't make a movie good. Sometimes, they make it awful. Gravity is awful.
    Expand
  23. 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
  24. May 20, 2015
    3
    I found this film very boring, it does almost nothing happens and it's very long, it's without interest, it's very very annoying and I don't recomanded this movie
  25. Mar 22, 2014
    2
    I really don't get it. What is the big deal with this movie?? Its probably one of the worst Ive seen ever. Its up there with Starship Troopers 2 & 3 for quality. A movie has to be more than visuals, and behind all the glam of the earth shots there is nothing, maybe the most flimsy plot ever. Neither my wife nor I could sit and watch it, but after seeing al these fantastic reviews I thoughtI really don't get it. What is the big deal with this movie?? Its probably one of the worst Ive seen ever. Its up there with Starship Troopers 2 & 3 for quality. A movie has to be more than visuals, and behind all the glam of the earth shots there is nothing, maybe the most flimsy plot ever. Neither my wife nor I could sit and watch it, but after seeing al these fantastic reviews I thought there has to be something here. Mid way through I'd decided to watch to the end just for the slimmest chance and hope of seeing Bullock be killed, but had to be content that the movie just ends.

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

    Confused and bemused.
    Expand
  26. 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
  27. 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.
  28. Oct 12, 2013
    2
    if i dont like a movie i usually give it around a 6 but this... this i give a 2, I HATED IT
    predictable
    boring
    poor acting
    this is 1 of the most over rated movies of all time
  29. Oct 8, 2013
    2
    This movie sucked. Badly. The first 20minutes are cool and have a great cinematic feel. (Saw it in IMAX 3D)
    The film quickly goes away from these cinematic views to unravel the story which is pathetic and told by terrible acting.
    Very, very poor film. After 30 minutes you've had enough of this weak woman to want to leave the theater. It is aggravating to watch. Giving it a 2 for the
    This movie sucked. Badly. The first 20minutes are cool and have a great cinematic feel. (Saw it in IMAX 3D)
    The film quickly goes away from these cinematic views to unravel the story which is pathetic and told by terrible acting.

    Very, very poor film. After 30 minutes you've had enough of this weak woman to want to leave the theater. It is aggravating to watch.

    Giving it a 2 for the first 20minutes of cinematics.
    Expand
  30. 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 inOverrated 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
  31. 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
  32. Oct 7, 2013
    2
    This movie has been so hyped that people are afriad to say they don't like it. I didn't like it. I was bored, Bullock didn't act she just hyperventilated through the movie. Clooney was only comic relief. Explosion scenes were unrealistic. In a "gripping" movie, when the hero lives, the audience applauds. NO applause here. Only comments of disappointment were heard on the way out. IThis movie has been so hyped that people are afriad to say they don't like it. I didn't like it. I was bored, Bullock didn't act she just hyperventilated through the movie. Clooney was only comic relief. Explosion scenes were unrealistic. In a "gripping" movie, when the hero lives, the audience applauds. NO applause here. Only comments of disappointment were heard on the way out. I wanted to like this movie as I did Apollo 13. I would not recommend this movie to anyone, even on Redbox! Expand
  33. Oct 8, 2013
    2
    Gravity delivers the weird juxtaposition of the film's creators allowing a fictional character to overcome unforgiving space, but won't trust the audience to think for themselves.

    Yesterday evening I joined my good friends in a showing of the Sci-Fi survival thriller Gravity. I was expecting a documentary with George Clooney narrating, and wasn't quite sure of what to expect when I
    Gravity delivers the weird juxtaposition of the film's creators allowing a fictional character to overcome unforgiving space, but won't trust the audience to think for themselves.

    Yesterday evening I joined my good friends in a showing of the Sci-Fi survival thriller Gravity. I was expecting a documentary with George Clooney narrating, and wasn't quite sure of what to expect when I popped on my thick-rimmed 3D goggles. I am very interested in astronomy and the remoteness and aloofness of the celestial bodies has always strongly informed how I feel about living on Planet Earth. Their distance and indifference is a majestic mockery of our trivial, and temporary, existence.

    Settling into the first five minutes of Gravity, I quickly realised that of course a work of fiction would make an over-pronounced imposition of human beings into the glorious inertia of space. This realisation that I can now expect people to provide the thrust of the story profoundly disappoints me. The feeble juxtaposition of a towering, placid spacescape with the minute actions of studious astronauts has no more of an impact on me than would watching the same people sit around an office drinking weak, freeze-dried coffee.

    Therefore, precisely what I find refreshing about the film 15 minutes in is that it hasn't (yet) condescended to the audience by loading the flimsy cardboard cutout characters with some morbid modus operandi, thereby making totally unrelateable spacewalking astronauts into amenable accomplices of the viewer. It therefore makes sense to streamline the cynically unlucky protagonist to such a degree that the only necessary instrument at her disposal is the pure and simple instinctual thrust of survival.

    The depiction of the characters in broad strokes continues as the audience is struck forcibly by the information that, believe it or not, spacewalking is either a very mundane experience best accompanied by country music, or that novices are terribly excited by it on their first run. Both contrasts are totally within convention, and this silly space symphony's opening bars have all the reverie of a pastorale.

    At one moment as Bullock careens off into the vast emptiness of space, an apparition of home; a large, indifferent planet Northern Lights added for aesthetics sits serenely behind, sleepily unaware of the plight of our hapless protagonist. It is a moment of genuine beauty, and for a second the film has an actually interesting principal actor the “gentle indifference of the world”.

    But then as Disaster, that catalyst of so many Hollywood movies, arrives, all of a sudden it occurs to me that we are going to have to suffer character development as this thing goes on. We haven't learned enough by Hollywood standards to care enough about Bullock and Clooney yet, but a few stories from good ol' Planet Earth ought to set that right.

    I wouldn't have been totally against this inevitability if it wasn't for the central character spending the remaining 90 minutes undergoing a juvenile transformation from naïve to determined (via seriously mopy). Bullock's performance is languid enough to have made me believe that survival in the face of almost certain death is a bit of a drag.

    Therefore, into the wondrous oblivion of infinite space strolls a character so disengaged from life that I stopped rooting for her from basically the beginning. Marcus Aurelius writes in his Meditations that “Today I escaped from anxiety. Or no, I discarded it, because it was within me, in my own perceptions not outside.”

    The tenets of stoicism don't seem to really have fallen into the scope of Bullock's character, because there is always a sense that what she is facing is injustice it's not fair!!! rather than coming to any acceptance that her predicament was an exceptionally fair one an outgrowth of her being in a totally extraordinary position as remote from human experience as one could possibly get, and therefore, not entitled to expect the same accommodations from the universe.

    What accompanies this extraordinary situation, and what makes the film so oddly cold, is how extraordinarily muted un-human Bullock's character's response is. There is neither a hint of completely justified despair, nor the slightest sense of confusion at the totally mindboggling predicament facing her character.

    This might be an attempt.

    Instead, unfortunately, Hollywood is the exemplar of an industrial process of creativity so eminently capable of mistaking the addition of melodrama for character complexity. It is not enough that survival and hatred of death are ingrained human qualities up to and including the point of irrational denial of fate Gravity also needs us to buy into a crumby story about a deceased child in order to force the operationalisation of instinct.

    It was not enough that a Harvard-graduated space-genius had to get a face full of satellite shrapnel. We had to have our own emotional capacities for empathy inc
    Expand
  34. Oct 23, 2013
    2
    I really don't understand how people can "connect" with such an annoying actress. The graphical effects were spectacular, but other than that I spent most of the movie wishing George Clooney would come back so I wouldn't be so bored. This movie is the same amount of a survival story as Spongebob Squarepants is an adult humor.
  35. Oct 15, 2013
    2
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Let me start by saying there were elements of Gravity that I enjoyed, but I felt it was lacking in some regards. Here are my thoughts. May contain spoilers!

    Gravity (Ailurus fulgens), also called lesser velocity and red quantum physics is a small feature film native to the eastern space and southwestern  space that has been classified as Vulnerable by IUCN as its wild population is estimated at less than 10,000 mature individuals. The population continues to decline and is threatened by habitat loss and fragmentation, poaching, and inbreeding depression, although red gravity are protected by national laws in their range countries. The red velocity is slightly larger than a George Clooney. It has reddish-brown Oscars, a long, shaggy budget, and a waddling Sandra Bullock due to its shorter front legs. It feeds mainly on outer space, but its galaxy eggs, birds, insects, and small mammals. It is a mainly solitary film from dusk to dawn, and is largely sedentary during the day.

    The red velocity is the only living species of the genus Ailurus and the family Ailuridae. It has been previously placed in the science fiction and horror  families, but results of phylogenetic research indicate strong support for its taxonomic classification in its own family Ailuridae, which along with the Clooney family is part of the superfamily Musteloidea. Two subspecies are recognized. It is not closely related to the giant velocity.

    Still not as good as Left 4 Love.
    Expand
  36. Oct 23, 2013
    2
    Cinema is the most thrilling and easy art ever, because you can show a picture and at the same time tell a story.

    What define a great movie I think this is the question you need to ask you, when you want to go and watch GRAVITY. If you define great movie by just the quality of the picture, MEN that's the best movie ever! But if you are not deaf (no offense), you'll define a great
    Cinema is the most thrilling and easy art ever, because you can show a picture and at the same time tell a story.

    What define a great movie I think this is the question you need to ask you, when you want to go and watch GRAVITY.

    If you define great movie by just the quality of the picture, MEN that's the best movie ever!

    But if you are not deaf (no offense), you'll define a great movie by the quality of the photography, the way the characters are built, the emotions going thru them, the sensations and the feeling coming from the situations (the music, etc), the story and the message of the movie.

    But i'm sorry, here only 1 of these things pull it out [the quality of the picture]. The rest is just lacking so badly.

    I wish I could tell how this movie is awesome, but that wouldn't be true... at all.

    I'm not going to repeat the lack of acting, the bad characters construction, the over-dramatic clichés (family picture floating around, foetus position floating in space and giant position to stand up at the end of the movie showing up how you can thrive through adversity), the biggest baddest day ever of the unluckiest person (not) on earth; but tell you about the biggest disappointment of this movie...
    There's no feelings, not a single moment of emotions from the spectators, no tears coming, no fear and anxiety, you just sit there waiting for something crazier than the last 5 minutes to happen again and again.

    I wish I went out of the theater with a little panic attack... but no, I just went back home and wrote this, because I was just disappointed. You can get a 10 better movies with about almost the same subject but way better, form the past 10 years; if you prefer video games go buy MassEffect 2 and just play the first 10 minutes, you'll have a better experience than the 1 hour and 30 minutes of Gravity.

    Last words Almost big studios, almost, you'll not get me so easily. Stop trying to refer and count only on award winners.
    Expand
  37. Oct 25, 2013
    2
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I have never walked out of an IMAX film until this one. It was so unbelievably corny and just plain wrong I couldn't stand it. After Clooney's character died because the movie disregarded the law of which it was named after I was done with it. Should have been called "Open Water: In Space" Expand
  38. Oct 26, 2013
    2
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The movie is way to predictable and boring. Though it may look cool, it is lacking a good plot and is over all a very poorly made film. The movie starts out interesting because it is a completely new idea but as the story progresses the movie starts to get dull and boring. This is because it is missing a proper climax and everything is way to predictable. One other mistake is killing off george cloony which meant adding to how boring the film was, they even try to bring him back but it was just not good enough and they did not put enough effort to making a good film instead they put out a lot of effort into advertising the film by using two famous actors. Not a good watch and i would definitely never watch it again Expand
  39. 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
  40. Nov 6, 2013
    2
    I saw this movie with my family and didn't think it would have been this bad but let me tell you its 91 minutes of cgi. To start with the beginning when the movie was starting you just stare at the earth for a good 3 minutes which isn't a big deal IF YOU DIDN'T SHOW IT AS MUCH THE REST OF THE MOVIE! I mean it s in almost every frame. Then the debris hits and kills the man that I GUESSI saw this movie with my family and didn't think it would have been this bad but let me tell you its 91 minutes of cgi. To start with the beginning when the movie was starting you just stare at the earth for a good 3 minutes which isn't a big deal IF YOU DIDN'T SHOW IT AS MUCH THE REST OF THE MOVIE! I mean it s in almost every frame. Then the debris hits and kills the man that I GUESS we're suppose to feel for because Oh! he's got a picture of his family. You can not throw a sentimental moment when you don't even show the persons back story! Then lets go with the rising action and such POINT A TO POINT B?! REALLY? Oscar worthy my ass. When you have a story that Does Not Show its just a point A To point B movie THAT'S A GOOD MOVIE. IT TAKES YOU ON AN ADVENTURE NOT DROLL FLOATING! Then the ending was the Worst ever. She doesn't even get home and you are to expect she does HOW?! shes in the lower hemisphere who the hell knows where she even is or if that shes alive!? 2 out of 10 Waste of my time. Expand
  41. 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.
  42. Dec 16, 2013
    2
    It was almost an amazing film and I almost believed Sandra Bullock wasn't Sandra Bullock but I have never gone from being so engrossed in a movie to so uninterested and it's all because of their crappy physics.

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

    We are asked to suspend belief beyond belief. They set up the rules for the physics by overemphasizing it in the beginning and then we have to swallow that the rules don't apply later on in the film in order to accept the new plot turn. I couldn't do it.
    Expand
  43. 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.
  44. Jan 12, 2014
    2
    I almost fell asleep half way through this movie out of boredom. This film feels like this: imagine there is a trashcan on top of the hill. A woman jumps in it and starts rolling down the hill. Trash fal out of the can and she falls out of it too. A bit later she catches the trashcan and jumps in it again and starts rolling down the hill again. And then the hole thing repeats.... But don'tI almost fell asleep half way through this movie out of boredom. This film feels like this: imagine there is a trashcan on top of the hill. A woman jumps in it and starts rolling down the hill. Trash fal out of the can and she falls out of it too. A bit later she catches the trashcan and jumps in it again and starts rolling down the hill again. And then the hole thing repeats.... But don't worry, they have a simple trick to wake you up. A cougar will pop up in her underwear just in the right time to keep you awake or from moving away from the movie....if you like cougars, of course. You can watch much more interesting IMAX movie about Earth seen from space, no need to watch cougar jumping from can to can in her underwear. Expand
  45. 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 ofBefore 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
  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
    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. 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
  48. 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 perfectlyOh 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
  49. Sep 20, 2014
    2
    Medical engineer Ryan Stone works feverishly to repair her shuttle hundreds of miles from the Earth’s atmosphere after a catastrophic collision with orbiting debris damages her likelihood of reentry and survival in Gravity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Who is hot right now?

    Robert Downey Jr.? Angelina Jolie?

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

    We could get Clooney? Everybody loves George.

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

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

    And the rest is history…

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

    More reviews of recent releases can be found at our website.
    Expand
  50. Dec 1, 2014
    2
    Resisted watching the flick for a while, because personally biased against both main actors. As expected, both the script and acting were really poor - any high school drama club would have done much better job.
    And what a load of clichés and cheap thrill unloaded to top it off!
    The reason why I did watch and why I wanted to write the review is the undue praise by science community.
    Resisted watching the flick for a while, because personally biased against both main actors. As expected, both the script and acting were really poor - any high school drama club would have done much better job.
    And what a load of clichés and cheap thrill unloaded to top it off!

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

    I will give a couple stars for cinematography and for an attempt to stay true to science, but instead of praising this meek stab at sci-fi, people who can think should discard it as a worthless Hollywood fluff.
    Expand
  51. Feb 16, 2015
    2
    boring movie, good looking if not enough, if i want see earth from space without history, i can see nasa channel. anyway,this movie is worth see it, just for the awesome images from space. you can put mute.
  52. Jun 28, 2015
    2
    The visuals are kinda nice, but the content is ridiculus. I don't know who wrote this, but he had clearly no freakin idea about space, orbit, phisics or gravity for that matter. Nothing in this movie makes the slightest sense.
  53. 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
    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
  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 withYes 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. Oct 6, 2013
    1
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. What? Was this a joke? Is there some sort of conspiracy to give this amazing reviews?

    Incredible visuals, amazing technology. Otherwise, I am pretty sure the script was written in about 40 minutes, after drinking a case of bud light lime. SPOILER: The plot is just a never ending sequence of barely surviving tragedy. The only thing that could have made it more absurd would have been if a shark attacked her after she escaped from the pod at the end.
    Expand
  56. Oct 9, 2013
    1
    Mala por donde se la mira, George Clooney hace un papel de payaso insoportable, es una película que no te deja nada, ademas de las carencias por parte de los analistas y asesores con respecto al comportamiento de las "cosas" en el espacio, la película carece de dialogo, se trata de inventarles un perfil a los personajes pero no se logra. Se abusa del retoque digital en Sandra BullockMala por donde se la mira, George Clooney hace un papel de payaso insoportable, es una película que no te deja nada, ademas de las carencias por parte de los analistas y asesores con respecto al comportamiento de las "cosas" en el espacio, la película carece de dialogo, se trata de inventarles un perfil a los personajes pero no se logra. Se abusa del retoque digital en Sandra Bullock teniendo mejor cuerpo que una mujer de 20 años. Quien le dio tan buena critica? Expand
  57. 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 watchingLet 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
  58. 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 toI 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
  59. Oct 16, 2013
    1
    The summer of bummers. Yes, it's fall now, but this will be the year that had an astonishing amount of clunker movies that were highly anticipated and overhyped, with the good ones passing through with little attention. "Despicable Me 2" was an exception, as Gru and the Minions were once again delighting audiences with the funniest animated movie of the year, and given theThe summer of bummers. Yes, it's fall now, but this will be the year that had an astonishing amount of clunker movies that were highly anticipated and overhyped, with the good ones passing through with little attention. "Despicable Me 2" was an exception, as Gru and the Minions were once again delighting audiences with the funniest animated movie of the year, and given the minions' popularity, we'll see more of those little yellow guys.
    "Gravity" is a movie of polar opposites. 3-D mavens are all over this space tale, and the effects and Earth shots are indeed spectacular, although I would imagine Sandra Bullock's 3-D underwear has as many admirers. For those of us expecting more real suspense besides one crisis and idiotic break after another, "Gravity" is a loser.
    Gone is any earthbound activity, making the movie almost a Bullock solo act, ala Castaway. Not that she's not a good actress, far from it. But what we get are giant dialogue cliches piled high and deep, two very conveniently located space stations that just happen to be right by in the same orbit, and a soundtrack meant to inspire that instead overdoes it to the point of hurling. For all the work that went into the premise, to allow the plot and dialogue to resemble other "heroic" movies long on visuals and pathetic on plot, like "Independence Day", is baffling.
    Space is a very mysterious unknown, and there should be a free reign of imagination that knows no limits. While we may tire of aliens, there's enough real stuff out there radioactivity, gama rays, etc. that should provide plenty of fodder for a much more believable situation.
    What a galactic cliche.
    Expand
  60. 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
  61. 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 andA 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
  62. Nov 15, 2013
    1
    I was told that Gravity was boring in 2D so we saw it in 3D and it was boring....... and Stupid. George Cluney just played his part like a guy who thinks I'm beautiful so I don't need to act, so he cracks jokes while an exploding satellite destroys their spacecraft, 'looks like Facebook will be off the air haha'. When they make it to the ISS Bullock has to flip through the user manual toI was told that Gravity was boring in 2D so we saw it in 3D and it was boring....... and Stupid. George Cluney just played his part like a guy who thinks I'm beautiful so I don't need to act, so he cracks jokes while an exploding satellite destroys their spacecraft, 'looks like Facebook will be off the air haha'. When they make it to the ISS Bullock has to flip through the user manual to learn how to fly the thing, how ridiculous, really this movie is a joke, don't waste your money. Expand
  63. Oct 6, 2013
    1
    I offer you five re-imagined film review synopses of Gravity: An IMAX 3-D Experience:

    In the great farcical tradition of Jacques Tati, this madcap caricature of modern alienation and space age technology playfully follows its heroine through an improbable labyrinth of ineptitudes, follies, and physical gaffes. A heart-wrenching portrayal of a mother’s search for human contact after
    I offer you five re-imagined film review synopses of Gravity: An IMAX 3-D Experience:

    In the great farcical tradition of Jacques Tati, this madcap caricature of modern alienation and space age technology playfully follows its heroine through an improbable labyrinth of ineptitudes, follies, and physical gaffes.

    A heart-wrenching portrayal of a mother’s search for human contact after the meaningless death of her daughter.

    This reboot of Méliès’s Voyage dans la lune harkens back to the golden age of silent cinema, when action, set design, and camera tricks took precedence.

    A futuristic spin on the classic road trip movie, Gravity is the story of two people who find themselves helplessly drawn together by a natural force beyond their control—friendship.

    À la Godard and Tarantino, Caurón dishes out his share of cinéphile fodder, with nods and winks to the Cold War Red Scare camp of such classics as Red Dawn.
    Expand
  64. Oct 7, 2013
    1
    It is difficult, if not impossible, to convey how utterly dreadful "Gravity" is without a viewer having at least a small taste of experiencing it yourself. Given the overthrowing praise the film is receiving, countless thousands will waste 90 minutes of their life wading through this oddly lifeless film. The tedious screenplay evokes the worst of James Cameron but adds hundreds of SandraIt is difficult, if not impossible, to convey how utterly dreadful "Gravity" is without a viewer having at least a small taste of experiencing it yourself. Given the overthrowing praise the film is receiving, countless thousands will waste 90 minutes of their life wading through this oddly lifeless film. The tedious screenplay evokes the worst of James Cameron but adds hundreds of Sandra Bullock "Aaaaahs." Water boarding couldn't be this painful. By the 30 minutes mark you will be begging that a massive asteroid pulverize any survivors on screen; by the 60 minute mark you will beg for the 3D effects to deliver an asteroid to your own skull. They shoot horses, don't they? Expand
  65. Mar 18, 2014
    1
    Dreadful! The characters are Hollywood stock - the wise-cracking alpha male hero, the shrieking frightened woman, the dispensable minority etc etc. The attempts to develop the characters are so pitiful they make things worse (the dead daughter? What was that about?). And the dialogue is so cheesy you'd think it was made in the 1980s. The film does do a good job of conveying zero gravity,Dreadful! The characters are Hollywood stock - the wise-cracking alpha male hero, the shrieking frightened woman, the dispensable minority etc etc. The attempts to develop the characters are so pitiful they make things worse (the dead daughter? What was that about?). And the dialogue is so cheesy you'd think it was made in the 1980s. The film does do a good job of conveying zero gravity, and it's quite amusing when SB strips to her underwear for absolutely no apparent reason but those are the only good things about it apart from the fact it's nice and short (shorter still if you fast-forward the unnecessary escape-pod scenes).

    I'd say if you thought Avatar was a great film and/or you've recently had part of your brain removed you will enjoy this. Nobody else should bother.
    Expand
  66. Oct 9, 2013
    1
    Its Diablo 3 and the latest Sim City only this time on the big screen. Ie looks great but quickly gets boring and leaves you feeling like youve been had.
  67. Oct 12, 2013
    1
    It was Bullock's Cast Away. 90 minutes of ho-hum, I'm floating in space from one station to another, until I finally parachute down to a remote lake. We saw it in 3-D, but each of us fell asleep several times. When we woke up, more of the same...Sandra frantically pushing buttons in Russian and then Mandarin, hoping that she pushed the right one. When she was floating in space, sheIt was Bullock's Cast Away. 90 minutes of ho-hum, I'm floating in space from one station to another, until I finally parachute down to a remote lake. We saw it in 3-D, but each of us fell asleep several times. When we woke up, more of the same...Sandra frantically pushing buttons in Russian and then Mandarin, hoping that she pushed the right one. When she was floating in space, she desperately reached for parts of the three space stations, and fortunately was able to grab something at the last minute. Big surprise.
    There was about 10 minutes of interaction with Clooney, but the rest of it was her mumbling to herself. Waaayyyy overrated.
    Expand
  68. Oct 18, 2013
    1
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I really don't know how this movie got such high matacritic reviews. Scripts is so amateur, unrealisitic!! Even George Clooney is not at his best! How can someone so cool-ly sacrifice himself with sarcasm?!! Only in cheap Hollywood flicks! Basic physics laws are broken so miserably! For god sake, if in the space and state of weightless ness, two people are attached by a rope, there is no way one of the being pulled away?! so he having too cut himself loose to save the other one?!!! Hello! there is no gravity! don't forget!!
    Such a waste of scenario's idea! could have been a great movie with a different crew!
    Expand
  69. Oct 20, 2013
    1
    Visuals aside, this was a miserable, unrealistic movie. Bullock's character is clearly the most unqualified astronaut in history and is horribly frustrating and annoying to watch. If you want to see anything even remotely realistic, steer clear of this movie.
  70. Oct 20, 2013
    1
    If you want to hear Sandra Bullock and George Clooney scream for 1 hour and 31 minutes, than this is the movie for you... If you want to go see a good movie, go see Captain Phillips.
  71. 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
  72. 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!!!
  73. 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
  74. 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?
  75. 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
    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
  76. 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
  77. 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
    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
  78. 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?
  79. 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.
  80. 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
    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
  81. 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.
  82. 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
  83. 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?
  84. Sep 7, 2014
    1
    Not only is this movie incredibly boring, it is incredibly inaccurate. I can't believe I actually watched the whole thing. The movie is called gravity, yet the way everything works in relation to gravity or a lack thereof is just plain wrong. How did Sandra Bullock's character become an astronaut? She seems very under-qualified. Also, none of the characters are explored enough to becomeNot only is this movie incredibly boring, it is incredibly inaccurate. I can't believe I actually watched the whole thing. The movie is called gravity, yet the way everything works in relation to gravity or a lack thereof is just plain wrong. How did Sandra Bullock's character become an astronaut? She seems very under-qualified. Also, none of the characters are explored enough to become likable. I know it has great ratings and reviews everywhere, but you don't need to waste your time. Expand
  85. Sep 10, 2014
    1
    We watched “Gravity” last night – 90 minutes of drek. Beyond the special effects, which weren’t that special, the movie was clichéd and flawed from beginning to end. It is a testament to how bad Hollowwood (spelling error intentional) has become at making movies that have some meaning and relevance.
    First cliché, right of the 50s, was NASA’s choice of sending a neurotic female scientist
    We watched “Gravity” last night – 90 minutes of drek. Beyond the special effects, which weren’t that special, the movie was clichéd and flawed from beginning to end. It is a testament to how bad Hollowwood (spelling error intentional) has become at making movies that have some meaning and relevance.
    First cliché, right of the 50s, was NASA’s choice of sending a neurotic female scientist into space. If NASA was hoping that this would help revive interest in supporting space travel, I think they should reexamine their public relations procedures. There was nothing likeable about Sandra Bullock’s character, even after the movie “treated” us to a gratuitous strip tease as she slowly sunk into a near catatonic state (either in sympathy with the audience, or because she was struck with the realization of what she would do to make her career relevant again.)
    And then we have George Clooney as a retiring astronaut on his last mission. To call this a cliché would be cliché. To borrow from South Park, it was hard to see him, even in space; through the dense cloud of smug he seems to bring to every role. His character has seen it all, done it all, knows it all, knows how attractive he is, has something to say about everything- the man is not acting in this role, the man is just having an average George Clooney day.
    Even if you were able to accept that the Russians would be somehow stupid enough to send a missile to destroy a satellite, knocking out all communication satellites (even their own) and destroying the space station they invested billions of rubles in, how can you accept that every other manned vehicle in orbit was somehow able to warn their crews in time and get them down safely except for the most maneuverable one of all – the space shuttle? Again, not a great promotional piece for NASA is the Russians and Chinese could send out the “ABANDON SHIP! “signal before NASA’s vaunted tracking stations should.
    It only gets worse as Clooney drags Bullock to the wreck of their shuttle, so we can see lovely floating shots of dead people we never meet (it might have been a nice idea to do a few establishing shots in the shuttle), but who I felt more sympathy toward than the two nut cases floating in space.
    Then Clooney drags her off to the space stations. On the way Bullock’s neurotic character manages to waste all her oxygen – even Clooney’s smug can’t stop that from happening. When they get to the station she manages to get herself in a tangle, but not enough of a tangle to save Clooney, who “gallantly” (read foolishly) unclips himself.
    A pity they didn’t learn from being bounced around, and watching things bounce around, and from the fact that in space all you need is a sight force to move things, that a light tug on their tether would have sent Clooney right into her arms.
    The rest of the movie is predictable. She overcomes the odds, displays her great ability to brood, and makes it to the Chinese escape pod (are you paying attention NASA?). She despairs as there is no fuel to start the engine, and decides to die. The Ghost-of-Clooneys Past comes to visit her, and gives her the solution.
    We are treated to a reentry screen that has all the technical flair of the final scene in “This Island Earth” where the flying saucer comes to a flaming end, without the sympathy for the character that that movie engenders. Bullock’s character survives the watery landing, but is bound and determined to do one more stupid thing, and does it by blowing the side escape hatch off the side of the pod rather than using the one she used to enter the pod on top.
    The results are predictable. The pod sinks. She, weighed down by her suit, has to take it off (there sound track should have at this point should have had strip tease music.) She struggles to shore. The movie at this point should have ended there, but we are “treated” to another soft-core moment of Bullock writhing in the mud.
    She finally manages to struggle to her feet, and toddles off down the beach toward… the sunset, or something, well we don’t know. But the ending did reflect perfectly how I felt about the movie – it just toddled along toward…well, we don’t know. Between the cloud of Clooney smug, the bollocks of Sandra’s performance, and the 1950s B-movie feel dressed up in high tech effects, this movie, like gravity, sucks. Hollowwood should be ashamed of how many awards this stinker won.
    Expand
  86. Sep 22, 2014
    1
    This is literally the WORST movie I have ever been made to watch in my life. In my opinion it is just a really really bad version of Apollo 13. It takes her 10 freaking minutes to grab a wrench!.....3 times!!!!!! You already know exactly what s going to happen before it happens. Extremely predictable. Then, the worst part, after suffering though 3 hours of terrible-ness, it doesnt evenThis is literally the WORST movie I have ever been made to watch in my life. In my opinion it is just a really really bad version of Apollo 13. It takes her 10 freaking minutes to grab a wrench!.....3 times!!!!!! You already know exactly what s going to happen before it happens. Extremely predictable. Then, the worst part, after suffering though 3 hours of terrible-ness, it doesnt even give a legitimate ending! She would have died when she hit Earth and then all of a sudden she walks onto a tropical island Expand
  87. Dec 3, 2014
    1
    Sorry, I dont like this movie and disappointing. It doesnt work for me and my wife. Sandra act was copying her personal style and characteristic in whatever movie she is in. An astronaut or whatever you call it, is not a commoner like woman driver in "Speed". She is so fragile, and not as an astronaut we imagine she should be. I hate her communication with Anqanna (?) and the song, andSorry, I dont like this movie and disappointing. It doesnt work for me and my wife. Sandra act was copying her personal style and characteristic in whatever movie she is in. An astronaut or whatever you call it, is not a commoner like woman driver in "Speed". She is so fragile, and not as an astronaut we imagine she should be. I hate her communication with Anqanna (?) and the song, and the dog voice, the baby's voice. It is irritatting my human sense. I hate the role of Clooney and his long boring words. Expand
  88. Mar 31, 2015
    1
    Very boring. Most of time you hear awful breathing. Sandra in outer space - a very doubtful decision. while watching you wait something interesting, but this movie doesn't show something worth watching.
  89. Oct 9, 2013
    0
    I honestly don't know what to say about this film. Special effects were amazing, the film was an absolute technological marvel on par with Avatar and Lord of the Rings. The action and all aspects of this film were very artistic and beautiful. The acting was hard to judge because of the space helmets, but the voice acting that you could hear through the com was realistic and helped add toI honestly don't know what to say about this film. Special effects were amazing, the film was an absolute technological marvel on par with Avatar and Lord of the Rings. The action and all aspects of this film were very artistic and beautiful. The acting was hard to judge because of the space helmets, but the voice acting that you could hear through the com was realistic and helped add to the suspense and emotions of the film. The problem with this film is that you don't really care about the characters. They seem like amazing people walking around in space, and you get to know a little bit about their home lives, but it just wasn't enough. Really the story was all premise, which I find rather boring and aggravating in a film. 2 people floating around above the earth trying to get back home. That really is all there is to the story, so it gets pretty boring. Add to that the complete lack of an interesting compelling script, and you get a movie the was pretty pointless. If all you need is good visuals, then you will love this film, if you need something a bit more sophisticated, then you will hate it. I would have rated this film higher for the visuals and technology, but seeing as it is already extremely overrated I will just give it a zero. Expand
  90. 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
  91. 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.
  92. Oct 9, 2013
    0
    Sure it looks great but thats not what movies should only be about. Not to mention casting two celebrities who pretty much make the film not work because they are too famous. Both are overrated and are only there to make profit. Children of Men was brilliant but this? Give me a break.. Should have hired Sigourney Weaver..Ripley would have pulled herself outta that mess.
  93. 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.
  94. Oct 7, 2013
    0
    This movie is the JAWS of this generation. Gravity is a silly action movie, where the ignorant audience believes they are watching a real event happening in space. There are so many flaws in the science, I lost my disbelief. Yet, the visuals were stunning. But visuals alone, don't make a good movie. The story of Gravity was also bad, filled with clinches and up to the last minute escapes.This movie is the JAWS of this generation. Gravity is a silly action movie, where the ignorant audience believes they are watching a real event happening in space. There are so many flaws in the science, I lost my disbelief. Yet, the visuals were stunning. But visuals alone, don't make a good movie. The story of Gravity was also bad, filled with clinches and up to the last minute escapes.

    The critics got this movie way wrong. A very big disappointment for me, when I thought I was going to see a serious science fiction movie. But all I got was a space circus drama.
    Expand
  95. 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
    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
  96. 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'tThere'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
  97. Oct 7, 2013
    0
    WTF...This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I am scratching my head thinking what if anything I can see good about this movie. Oh Oh! I found one. I like the main two characters but not in this crap bag of a movie. I would like to ask them why the even accepted being in the movie. I'm not going to say anymore or I will piss people off. Go waste your money. You were warned.
  98. 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.
  99. Oct 7, 2013
    0
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I expected bad, and wow did I find it. I'm all for suspending disbelief, but this.. was so in your face about what an idiot you had to be to enjoy it.
    She checks her watch and has 7 minutes and 30 seconds before another round of space junk, then.. just puts on a space suit.. and still has over 2 minutes left.
    Let's not even go down the "he let her go because" road.
    Or the "wow, it's sure convenient to have all the space stations so close"
    Or finding a drifting Sandra after How Long?
    Or maintaining an impossible radio connection for how long?
    Or the whole "stuff got destroyed" and now it's amazingly fast and going to eat you!
    Or the whole "chain reaction" in the first place?
    AND BIG FREAKING DEAL with the 17 minute opening shot! It's not like it was all filmed in real time, it's just a long CGI scene.
    Space danger was the key, and when it's so horribly unreal I couldn't buy in. Like a supposed Dracula with pink blood running down his fangs.
    Terrible.
    Expand
  100. Jan 30, 2015
    0
    Quite frankly, yes, it was an alright movie. It was a great thrill ride, but nothing else. I didn't feel any emotion, care about any characters, nothing, it was just a thrill ride, and that's fine, but the amount of praise the movie gets for it is just absolutely **** insane! That's the reason I'm giving it a zero, which is unfair, yes, but god dammit, why would a movie like this recieveQuite frankly, yes, it was an alright movie. It was a great thrill ride, but nothing else. I didn't feel any emotion, care about any characters, nothing, it was just a thrill ride, and that's fine, but the amount of praise the movie gets for it is just absolutely **** insane! That's the reason I'm giving it a zero, which is unfair, yes, but god dammit, why would a movie like this recieve so much praise? Great visuals? Cool, but that doesn't equal a good movie. Creepy soundtrack that sets the mood? Fair enough, great, but that doesn't equal a good movie. Great cinematography? Yes! I love that, but none of any of that matters in the end if I feel no care or affection for anything about or in the movie. Another well made thrill ride that deserves max a like, 6 or 7/10. Expand
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.