A little less hype, a little more detail.

A little less hype, a little more detail.

review

don't know if has boobs though ... but i'd definitely watch if it did

edit ... it's a 12A, so I guess no boobs

Ok, I did my civic duty and saw it.... no boobs but close, I got to see Sandra Bullock in a tight wet tanktop. yay! \o/

Anyway, yeah the OP totally over-hyped it. It's good, no question but I noticed a few issues.

Let's see if anyone here has more sense than a highly trained astronaut.....

(Note: Little spoilers, if you read beyond this point you you are hereby taking full responsibility that you, not I, have ruined this movie experience for you. Though if you feel you have been wronged because you are that entitled please send hatemail that I can post in C&P. Thank you for your patience in reading this disclaimer)

1. You have a very limited supply of air and you have to make it a long distance to live, do you:

A) Breathe slowly to conserve as much air as possible
B) Breathe normally because you need to be able to think clearly in order to save yourself
C) Take the deepest fastest breaths possible to show God you love the air he made

(She chose C a lot)

2. You're floating slowly down a space station corridor and pass a panel that's shooting sparks and blobs of fire out, do you:

A) Stop and try and get the fire under control
B) Look at it, shrug and go "Meh, what's teh wrost that could happen" and continue down the corridor
C) Not notice it

(She chose B)

3. Things are looking grim! The ISS escape doohickey has no fuel and you need to get 100 miles to a Chinese thing that happens to be in the 1 area where all the cool space stuff hangs out (Hubble, ISS, chinese station, meteor things). Keep in mind your training included using this thing, do you:

A) Stop, take a breath, and figure out what means of propulsion exist that might be usable
B) Throw a temper tantrum
C) Give up and shut off the oxygen pumps and sit there until you die

(She first did B then immediately changed her answer to C)

Here's what I was thinking watching George Clooney with his little jetpack in the beginning

Sacrifices have to be made to advance the story, especially in fantastical and hypothetical situations.

Just ask Peter Jackson.

Had Bullock/Clooney plotted a course to the ISS accurately and the film got us there accurately, it would have taken about 2 hours of screentime before they could get on with the rest of it.

Imagine if "2001" had stayed "realistic" towards the end as the novel does. It would have become a forgotten snoozer.

This film is an examination of human nature and the isolation and the fight for survival. From a cinematic standpoint, nitpicking is irrelevant.

Gravity huh. Might watch it at some point but ...eh, you know. Sandra Bullock and George Clooney, two well-known actors who aren't really that great apart from their appearances. If you need to cast that kind of people, the movie itself is probably lacking in depth, directing, script or something else.

Good-looking people in space, yay.

Since we're talking about films we've watched recently: The place beyond the pines (2012) is worth a watch. Very good directing, fitting soundtrack that is used well, good acting and most of all the story is presented in an interesting and surprising way. Most movies tend to follow specific, cultural trends and it's easy to predict what's going to happen if you've ever seen a TV show or a movie. Not this one.

If the movie has to be space-related (because we're on eve forums), go watch Moon (2009) which is pretty great.

Other great (drama) movies:
The Master (2012)
Capote (2005)
Detachment (2011)
The Help (2011)

There's a whole crapton of excellent movies out there but this is a short list for those who are stuck watching drivel that rely on special flashy settings, strange circumstances, special effects and sexy actors because the people who wrote the movies weren't very good and the target audience has the attention span of a sugar-filled child.

Gravity huh. Might watch it at some point but ...eh, you know. Sandra Bullock and George Clooney, two well-known actors who aren't really that great apart from their appearances. If you need to cast that kind of people, the movie itself is probably lacking in depth, directing, script or something else.

Good-looking people in space, yay.

.

Thank goodness there are others out there actually doing legitimate film criticism, which this is absolutely not.

Find me an supremely ugly actor and actress who would have improved things. Go ahead. There are tons of ugly over there in LA LA LAND is there not ? And they are so out of work. (hint: there really are not any).

Thank goodness there are others out there actually doing legitimate film criticism, which this is absolutely not.

Find me an supremely ugly actor and actress who would have improved things. Go ahead. There are tons of ugly over there in LA LA LAND is there not ? And they are so out of work. (hint: there really are not any).

Ok, I did my civic duty and saw it.... no boobs but close, I got to see Sandra Bullock in a tight wet tanktop. yay! \o/

Anyway, yeah the OP totally over-hyped it. It's good, no question but I noticed a few issues.

Let's see if anyone here has more sense than a highly trained astronaut.....

(Note: Little spoilers, if you read beyond this point you you are hereby taking full responsibility that you, not I, have ruined this movie experience for you. Though if you feel you have been wronged because you are that entitled please send hatemail that I can post in C&P. Thank you for your patience in reading this disclaimer)

1. You have a very limited supply of air and you have to make it a long distance to live, do you:

A) Breathe slowly to conserve as much air as possible
B) Breathe normally because you need to be able to think clearly in order to save yourself
C) Take the deepest fastest breaths possible to show God you love the air he made

(She chose C a lot)

2. You're floating slowly down a space station corridor and pass a panel that's shooting sparks and blobs of fire out, do you:

A) Stop and try and get the fire under control
B) Look at it, shrug and go "Meh, what's teh wrost that could happen" and continue down the corridor
C) Not notice it

(She chose B)

3. Things are looking grim! The ISS escape doohickey has no fuel and you need to get 100 miles to a Chinese thing that happens to be in the 1 area where all the cool space stuff hangs out (Hubble, ISS, chinese station, meteor things). Keep in mind your training included using this thing, do you:

A) Stop, take a breath, and figure out what means of propulsion exist that might be usable
B) Throw a temper tantrum
C) Give up and shut off the oxygen pumps and sit there until you die

(She first did B then immediately changed her answer to C)

Here's what I was thinking watching George Clooney with his little jetpack in the beginning

this got me thinking about the female astronaut who drove across the US to threaten a woman over another astronaut.

she wore diapers to save time while driving. when she arrived, she threatened the woman with a knife (i think? if she made it there)

my conclusion was: maybe a hyperventilating astronaut is not so far from reality.

still don't want to see it.

in all seriousness, they should've picked:

for bombshell, Charlize Theron. but maybe she's got too much space time due to that aliens movie

for pretty-due-to-good-genes-which-also-explains-her-intelligence: Lena Heady (you know, Leonidas' wife)

Ashley Judd ...?

imo, Sandra Bullock was miscast because in order to have a round, dynamic character in this story which involves full panic mode... you'd need to start with someone who has a personal reputation--with a character reputation to match--of being capable of remaining calm under pressure.

however. my film professor (who was also my lit professor, and my college writing professor) would probably rip me a new one for sounding like an internet movie critic troll. There's also a chance he personally approves of Gravity for reasons I am not so cultured to appreciate...

but i'm just saying, the premise of a scared astronaut would logically, and ideally, use an actor capable of a range from calm under pressure to cracking under it.

If I watched the same preview and it was Tommy Lee Jones losing his cool, I would sit up and pay attention. ('what ifs' get hammered by my prof too, and don't worry I wouldn't include something like it in a paper).

I'm not saying it couldn't be a woman. I just don't think it should've been Sandra Bullock.

edit: my bad, I just saw the director's filmography, and it makes sense now. He wrote and directed it. Children of Men and his writing credit (screenplay) tells me my prof likes the movie and I shouldn't talk bad about it in class. I'm sure there are a lot of positive things about the cinematography that don't involve Sandra Bullock's acting, that I just don't appreciate at the moment.