Gravity doesn’t live up to the Hype! Michelle’s Review


The internet just exploded with excitement when the trailer for Sandra Bullock, and George Clooney‘s latest flick – Gravity hit. People were spooging themselves, using phrases like “life altering,” “stunning,” “changes the very fabric of cinema,” etc. This was just for the trailer. After a week of hype, I watched the trailer thinking to myself “I didn’t get it. It’s two people floating in space for two minutes.

Director Alfonso Cuarón (one of the most overrated and overpraised directors in years) has crafted a small, well-told story that takes place in an enclosed environment within a sparse 90-minutes. After a Russian Satellite explodes (those damn Russians are villains even when they don’t mean to be!) the space debris hits the orbiting American space station/satellite that Ryan Stone (Bullock) and Matt Kowalski (Clooney) are working on.

There are moments in the film that are gripping, but once you get past the basic idea that they are stranded in space and they have 90 minutes to reach a Chinese Satellite before they run out of air, the movie becomes a bit pedestrian.  The setup is nicely done, but there’s nowhere for it to really go and the ending was ridiculous – I expected someone to scream “You blew it up!” We watch the inexperienced Stone panic and bumble her way through getting back to her space station.  There are really nice moments where you do get a sense of weightlessness and feel tension.


Like the trailer, the movie is – two people floating in space for 90-minutes. I guess there must be some sort of male, porn fantasy going on here that eludes me.  Is the movie ok? Yes. Is it, to paraphrase, James Cameron “The Best Space Movie Evah?” Heck no, not even close. Are Bullock and Clooney good? Yes, at being Bullock and Clooney, but I didn’t really see them stretching themselves too much and I never really bought the idea of Bullock and Clooney as Astronauts.

From a purely visual standpoint, there is nothing in this film that haven’t been shown in a million other films set in space, only films like Sunshine and Moon actually had more compelling characters. The 3D was nicely done and richly detailed, but 3D against black backgrounds looses something.


I’m not saying I didn’t like the narrative thrust of this film but there’s not enough meat here to make me think it’d be something I’d be excited to watch again. Writers , and provided a very nice, easy to digest story that doesn’t have any hidden layers to it. In some ways I wish they included flashbacks so that we could discover more about Ryan and Matt, on the other hand I’m glad they didn’t. It helped maintain the momentum of the story. The film is very situational and not character driven. This is not “epic” or “revolutionary” film-making, it is just merely good.

follow site essay records death penalty essay argument standard essay margin size bp oil spill essays rguhs dissertation topics in nursing rice university admissions essays go to site source are humans too dependent on technology essay sample film 2011 sul viagra buying a research paper drinking cause and effect essay texting and driving paper essay on increased life expectancy flomax and viagra together buying viagra chemists here 1 amendment essay enter write an essay for me enter viagra effet secondaire go to link prednisone canine congestive heart problems thesis binding baggot street source link resume for tutoring jobs Finale Grade C

318 thoughts on “Gravity doesn’t live up to the Hype! Michelle’s Review”

  1. Oh really? 3D against a black backgrounds “looses” something? Tell me more!

    Nice. I guess that, much like Cuarón, double-checking your review for simple grammar mistakes is overrated.

    I can understand hitting the movie for an underdeveloped narrative, but to say the visuals and direction are anything we’ve seen before is absolutely asinine. I don’t think you need to be reviewing films, dear.

      1. Dear, honey, sweetie, or darling may be capitalized or left lower case– it’s up to the writer and there isn’t a formal rule on the matter.

        And even it was wrong, I don’t get paid to write comments. Sadly, the author of this article does.

      2. And you should be “Sterilized”…well maybe that’s to harsh….Just be sure to wear a condom..oops “Condom”

    1. She couldn’t even follow the plot of the movie. They didn’t have 90 minutes until they ran out of air, they had 90 minutes until the satellite debris would return from orbiting the earth and hit them again.

      1. Truth is, Gravity shot it’s wad in the first 15 minutes. The rest of it was B movie filler. That will be the legacy. Michelle was basically correct. The plot was barely worth following. Maybe she fell asleep. I almost did.

    2. She has a real problem with capitalization and punctuation, too. Satellite and astronaut are not proper nouns, she doesn’t close quotes, etc. As a former journalist and editor–who got out because people like her will write for free or next to nothing and editors don’t seem necessary anymore–all I can say is it’s a brave new world.

      1. I’m sorry. Yeah, it must be hard when anybody with a keyboard can have their reviews on Rotten Tomatoes now. :/

          1. The horrendous atrocity above is an insult to writing and to movie reviews. It doesn’t matter if she “came to the right conclusion” (which is entirely subjective), what she wrote above is an abomination and she should be fired. Should this happen, Michelle should choose to go work at a Denny’s. She’d fit in there.

          1. Do you know what’s interesting, Marty? Your response above contains a comma splice, and you used the incorrect version of ‘too’. It’s no wonder you sympathize with Michelle.

  2. Proofread much? The first sentence of this review is a train wreck. That the remainder is riddled with errors makes one wonder what sort of dog-and-pony show this ‘magazine’ actually is.

  3. Annnnd, Michelle Alexandria didn’t like it! All the great reviews were getting me excited, but now I finally know that I need to see this as soon as possible.

  4. The hell? Nothing like this has been seen before in a movie, let alone a movie set in space.

    1. A movie set in space… Um, how about Alien and Aliens? Two of the best movies ever made and set in space.

      1. What are you talking about? This film has nothing to do with the Alien franchise. It’s Apples and Oranges. Any sequence that are somewhat similar, like the destruction of the space ship in Alien and the destruction of the space station in Gravity, Gravity easily comes out on top in terms of technological innovation. There aren’t sequences of people hanging out and walking freely in space in any Aliens movie that I can think of, either.

  5. Can you please just change the title to I WROTE THIS SO I’D GET SOME PAGEVIEWS? Because that’s clearly what this is.

    1. Yeah, I clicked on it! In that respect, she’s brilliant. I’ve now heard of Eclipse Magazine. Won’t be coming back, totally disagree with the review (though I did find the latter half of the flick to be filled with cringe-worthy dialogue) but still–bravo.

  6. “throw phrases?” “Spooges?” Wow. Calling yourself an editor with such a poor grasp on the English language. “Looses?” I didn’t know Rotten Tomatoes counts the reviews from the 12 year old boy set.

  7. The movie was a 90 minutes of formulaic, predictable crash boom movie with out cars and guns but instead with space shrapnel and exploding satellites and space stations. Grateful it was short, sorry I wasted my time and money. The rave reviews are grossly overstated…probably because the media loves Clooney. He has one character role he plays: space suite, Armani suit, medical scrubs…always the same. He is easy on the eyes but come on…

    1. The film was much more about Sandra Bullocks character than Clooney. Gravity was a story of a woman finding her will to live again after a devastating loss. She was reborn. The imagery of her floating in the space station chamber like a baby in the womb and her struggling to take her first steps on earth make that clear.

      1. Really, gosh all of that completely escaped me. I didn’t get any of that with the directors’ subtlety and deft hand.

        Please, the plot was so trite and thin and the message was so obvious a third grader would figure it out. There was nothing complex or interesting there at all. They dressed up an obvious money-making techno flick with a couple of big names.

        I guess if one’s IQ is in the 80 range it was fabulous.

        1. Well from doing a Mensa test my IQ’s 154 and I liked the film….

          Guess you got it the wrong way round. How does it feel to have an IQ in the range of 80 and look like a judgemental idiot?

          1. Hey Mr. ‘Faux Braniac’ here’s a bit of education for you- a review is ALL about judgement! You don’t have to agree with me, I don’t have to agree with you.

            The bottom line is, in my opinion, this movie is an insipid, trite, very expensively made and overhyped lifetime movie.

            And, in my opinion, the majority of viewers are all jumping on the bandwagon proclaiming it to be ‘wonderful’ only because they equate quality to a Kardashian.

            So go brag about your intellect to someone who cares. And take note that I didn’t try to ‘one up’ you in the IQ department.

          2. By saying this:

            ‘I guess if one’s IQ is in the 80 range it was fabulous.’

            You’re pretty much implying that the majority of people who wrote positive comments about it are stupid and easily entertained.

            Judge the film, not the people who watch it!

          3. RLinAZ — you seem a tad bit defensive and a little bit hostile… Perhaps you’ve been consuming a great deal of Kardashian-esque television in your spare time and its made you punchy, like one of them “Real Housewives.”

            You insulted everyone elses intelligence for appreciating the film. You do realize your entire tone is confrontational and unnecessarily insulting… right? Go back and read your posts.

            You’re one of those individuals who pushes someone and when they push back screams: “why ya pushin’ me?”

          4. a lifetime movie?? What movies do you watch? Your just pulling insults out of you know where because the movie didn’t impress you and you want to feel special in being in the extreme minority. I’m not saying you had to like the movie, but not liking it does not make your criticisms insightful, useful, or more informed than the 99% of people who are saying this movie was great and visionary. The masses can certainly be deluded to believe certain things quite often, but in the case of this movie, with all the trite and terrible action films that are made nowadays, the minimalistic beauty and art of Gravity is something that needs to be applauded when it comes a long.

          5. And you “did” a Mensa test? You didn’t “take” a Mensa test? Maybe you “did” the one they use for chimps.

          6. Shit!….maybe I did….?….I guess that means chimps are smarter than you 😛 Now who’s being a tool! Pedant! lol

          7. And it’s ‘took’! Past tense. If you’re going to be a smart arse get it right!

      1. Of course it’s not about the plot, there wasn’t any.

        Seriously…this movie and it’s popularity is an indicator of the dumbing down of our populace.

        1. Is there something wrong with finding beauty in simplicity? This movie is not a character study, it is a study of human life. It was allegory.

          1. Beauty in simplicity.

            Do you seriously believe that the director intended to make this a movie about simplicity?

          2. So now you’re saying it was deep and complex? You can’t have it both ways.

            BTW, your tone is very condescending and not at all helpful.Review the movie, not the reviewers.

          3. I did not say it was deep and complex. Nor did I say that is was a movie about simplicity. I said in my opinion it panders to a low bar, quick-buck, insipid mentality which is pervasive in our country.

            If you feel insulted by my viewpoint then that’s about you, not me.

        2. Yes of course, what movie you watch is an indicator of your intelligence level. So all the garbage men and doctors and construction workers and cashiers and lawyers and professors and teachers and fishermen and managers and nurses and architects and physicists and novelists and engineers and post hole diggers and flounder pounders and electricians and plumbers and jackrabbit hunters who have seen and will see this film are viewers because they’re dumbed down.

          1. No I didn’t say they would see this movie because they were dumbed down, I said they would consider it a masterpiece and give it undeserved praise because they have been dumbed down. Try to keep up.

          2. It’s easy to keep up. We’re not discussing how to split the atom. The problem is your failure to communicate properly. What really comes shining through, however, as many other posters have accurately pointed out is your condescending tone, defensiveness, and tactic of rudely insulting people because they disagree with you. Grow up.

          3. It’s YOUR failure to communicate, you’re I’ve said things I have not….reframing them to support your argument. If you want to fight I suggest you fight fairly…the threads do have a record of your posts.

            You are on the attack because of my viewpoint, you have exhibited a pretty wide range of defensiveness and condescension and you are rudely insulting of me because I disagree with you.

            Pot meet kettle.

  8. Movies Ms. Alexandria liked more than Gravity:

    The Mortal Instruments, Jobs, Alex Cross, The Lone Ranger, White House Down, After Earth, Battleship, Wrath of the Titans, all the “Underworld” movies, all the “Twilight” movies, and Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun Li.

    It’s safe to say the vast majority of us don’t agree with her or even understand half the things she says. She may be a moron, she may be “slow,” she may just like giving great movies negative reviews and bad movies positive reviews to see us all squirm. One thing is for sure, even though she clearly can’t write above the level of a child who’s been held back in 5th grade for a few years, she has a great job that we all envy. Is she married/sleeping with someone? Probably. Does the editor of this site read any of these “reviews”? Most assuredly not. But damned if we’re not all giving her the attention she clearly craves more than any desire to feel respected. And that’s something

    1. I actually tried clicking on her name in order to read the reviews of the movies you named, and ‘voila’! “Page not found.” With the other writer (Sheldon…something or other), his reviews come up just fine! My hope is that she isn’t paid any significant amount of money (if any at all) to write movie reviews. I shudder to think that the reality is that she is a well-paid writer. Unless this review was deliberately written as a test to measure angry online backlash. If that is the case, then touché, Ms. Alexandria/Eclipse magazine!

      1. You actually took the time to click on her porn for 3 minutes…tiny steps..
        PS if she reviews Don Jon don’t bother…

        1. Wow, you took the time to use ellipses in your reply. Also, incorrectly on two occasions. You’re learning how to communicate!! Aw, baby steps, you’ll get there eventually.

    2. Ok. Take a step back for a minute. While the reviewer did make errors in grammar, to imply that she got her job because she slept with, is married to, or related to, a person in a “position of power” is not only completely unfounded, but also completely ludicrous. She “probably” committed such an offense? Why because she made grammar errors in an online publication? That’s how you draw your conclusion that she’s sleeping with the boss? What’s really sad is the 67 thumbs up received for an accusation of this nature. And all you grammar geniuses missed the most blatant grammar error: paragraph 5, “…..there is nothing in this film that haven’t been shown in a million other films…”. The verb “haven’t” should be “hasn’t”. But whatever. Granted, one wonders how the grammar errors got past the editor, but unless you’re attempting a touch of dark sarcasm, to make these kind of accusations is lame. While the grammar errors are inexcusable the writer still has a right to freely present her critique, and in my humble opinion makes some very compelling points as to why this film may not be all that it has recently been cracked up to be. I’m excited to see the movie. So I’ll reserve my judgement until then as to how good I think it is, and how accurate I think this reviewer is. If it’s true she liked all those movies you listed above then I really have to question her ability to judge a movie, but again I’ll go see this one and then make an informed call. It’s easy to pass judgement, but let’s not be too hasty.

      1. If your job is to have respectable opinions and to write them coherently, yet you manage to fail at both spectacularly while maintaining your position, it seems pretty natural to assume some sort of nepotism right? Maybe I’m wrong.

        Either way, you’re missing the point. I was questioning her ability to “judge a movie” as you say far more than her grammar and writing ability, which is obviously questionable and beyond argument. In addition to her giving positive reviews to the movies listed above, she also tends to give negative (and poorly written) reviews to very good movies. This all leads to my main point, she’s a troll in search of attention. A troll incapable of writing a coherent critique of anything while being paid to do exactly that.

        I was venting more than anything. I saw the movie, very much enjoyed it, and while I can understand someone not enjoying it, it’s clear this women wrote this review to be provocative, and judging by some clear plot points she missed, possibly either didn’t finish the movie or paid very little attention. She succeeded at being provocative but did so with so little tact or talent it struck a chord with me. I apologize if you took offense, but my judgement doesn’t seem like too much of a stretch to me. Maybe my comment got all those up votes because there’s at least a touch of truth in what i’m saying. Maybe

        1. Because 81 people agree with you, your accusation is validated? Or because your accusation is valid, 81 people agree with it? If you have proof, please roll it out. Otherwise, the spurious and frankly misogynistic accusations which you admit are little more than venting are not adding to the debate you should be having. In fact, they are painting you in a very poor light, Mark.

          1. Spurious! Good word! I had to look it up…

            “not being what it purports to be; false or fake.”

            I like it.

            The accusation was that she is a troll in search of attention is misogynistic? Not enough evidence? False or fake? Read the whole comment!!! There’s plenty of evidence!

            The accusation that she’s not good at her job is misogynistic? Not enough evidence? False or fake? Are you serious? She’s a terrible writer, gonna argue that?

            Joking that she might be related to or in a relationship with someone in a position of power and that’s why she gets to keep her job in spite of her being bad at it… is that misogynistic too? That was obviously a joke, but that could be true of anyone who’s bad at their job but still has it. Man or woman. Again though, just a joke and an extremely small part of the comment.

            These are all gender neutral accusations… I even compared her to a male critic with all the same characteristics.

            Anyway, you both need to cool it with the “jump to the helpless woman’s defense” act happening right now. That’s misogynistic. She can’t defend herself well enough she needs a man to come to her defense? She needs a big strong man like you?

            Dammit! I got involved in an internet argument didn’t I? And in the process I gave page views to a troll whose only desire is to get page views. Irony.

        2. You used the word women instead of woman. Murphy’s law. Grammar dicks, lol. I used to be one.

    3. You clearly forgot Flesh Gordon and Gigli.

      The former being the space movie she saw “more” in than Gravity.

      1. In any case keep your expectations down…maybe you can catch a good preview..Inside Llewyn Davis would help..

        1. Where there’s a will there’s a I always find it odd when people fail to address specifics and get personal..and don’t use the word snarky again…I certainly hope you don’t use it in any songs you may write..

    4. I put Gravity in the top ten worse movies I have ever seen. What a piece of shit! I’m glad one critic went out and said the TRUTH! I saw nothing worth watching! If anyone can explain why Gravity was such a good movie I’ll be glad to listen. I wouldn’t tell my worse enemy to go watch this movie. A waste of time and money. I wish I had more thumbs for I can give that garbage four thumbs down!

      1. Why limit yourself to your thumbs.. Use all your digits, personally I give it 21 digits down..or 20 when I’m thinking of Sandra getting out of her space suit…then she gets one digit up…

      2. You need to get a grip with the difference between the words, worse and worst. I figured the first one was a typo, then I saw you used it again. This indicates that you actually think you are using the correct word.

        1. I didn’t know we were in grammar school. I see I have my own personal editor Nurse L. Hey what’s your email for I can send you a few papers that need editing for College! You couldn’t compete with me on a intellectual level so you decided to attack my grammer whoops I mean Grammar. Let me edit that one myself before you point that typo too! You need to get a grip and understand that movie Gravity was GARBAGE!!!

      3. RIGHT ON!!! As I commented in another post, it is obviously the same Hollywood/liberal million dollar hype machinery being used for this movie that is also being used to foist “Obamacare” down our throats. I was nodding off after the first 20 minutes.

  9. Cuaron one of the most overrated directors?

    For you are better films like White House Down, The Lone Ranger, GI Joe: Retaliation, The Mortal Instruments City of Bones, etc?

    Dear you should change jobs, to movies that are good low rate and give bad movies that give them good rate.

    Das but not fresh criticism

  10. “There are moments in the film that are gripping, but once you get past
    the basic idea that they are stranded in space and they have 90 minutes
    to reach a Chinese Satellite before they run out of air…”

    You shouldn’t be writing reviews of a movie you didn’t pay attention to. The 90 minutes was the amount of time it would take for the debris to orbit back, which was kind of a major part of the plot.

    Also your writing and review are very childish. It seems to me like the point of the film was lost on you (or did you fall asleep?) so you got mad and wrote this review.

      1. Actually, by definition, a satellite is any object in orbit, which would include a space station. Therefore, the reviewer was technically correct, even if by accident.

  11. You are so terribly, shockingly, apocalyptically, moronically wrong. How in the HELL did you get to be a Rotten Tomatoes critic? Did you even watch the movie? You are, without a shadow of a doubt, the worst critic I’ve read since Kyle Smith from the New York Post. You’re a joke, and you need to stop. I’m embarrassed for you.

    Oh, and one more thing – I’m not sure how 3D on a black background “looses” something. It doesn’t really have any way to loosen anything. Wait, did you mean “loses”? Oh, great. So, not only are you incapable of having a valid point, you don’t know how to write properly. Lovely. Can someone translate her first sentence for me?

    “Earlier this year the when the trailer for Sandra Bullock, and George Clooney‘s latest flick – Gravity, the internet just exploded with people spooging themselves and throwing phrases like “life altering,” “stunning,” etc”

    I don’t think that’s English…

      1. Thank you, David. That’s exactly right. Michelle gives no valid supporting reasoning behind why she didn’t like Gravity (whereas she gave “Jobs” a positive review), and the review is RIDDLED with unacceptable grammatical errors. Rotten Tomatoes should NOT include her reviews in the Tomatometer, and Michelle needs to find a different profession. Some people just aren’t cut out for this gig, and Michelle is the poster child of not belonging.

  12. you give life of pi a negative c in 2012, and a positive A- in 2013 when it wins an Oscar. I’m sure you’ll be doing the same for Gravity.

  13. Horrible review! Spoils the plot in the first paragraph! Thanks a lot! And it’s horribly written on top. Wow, I thought Rotten Tomatoes at least vetted it’s reviews enough to screen out people who can’t even write. Calls it “good” in the last sentence, then grades a C. Since when is a C good? It’s meant average as long as I’ve been alive. Well, why bother, will not be bookmarking this site.

    1. Believe me she did you a favor..sappy, gratuitous semi-nude weightless scene..not clooney…

  14. Michelle, do you really review movies for a living? Please consider my advice. Get a new job because you are not very good at what you are doing here. Your records show.

  15. How does “good” equate with a “C” score? If I remember right, that’s average, not good.

  16. BTW, this was Michelle’s response to another tweeter regarding her review:

    “I said it was good, not great what more do u want from me? To warship it like everyone else?”


  17. Proof that anyone with the ability to sign up on a blog is able to be a movie reviewer.

  18. Congratulations on being “that” individual. Your review was absolute garbage and the fact that you actually called Alfonso Cuaron overrated, coupled with your pre-existing bias, makes this review pathetic. Please, stop reviewing films; you’re one of the worst reviewers on the planet. Likening this to a “male porn” fantasy? Seriously? You are trash, Michelle.

    1. Michelle If this was the 18th century Salem I think this group would declare you a witch and burn you at the stake…

  19. Well done Michelle. There were some really nice camera shots but this movie was not anything I hadn’t seen several before. It was surprisingly brief and I could not understand what mysterious nonsensical force pulled George Clooney into the abyss. I guess it was the Hollywood force that allows movie directors to get away anything that teenagers will believe. I especially hated that a bimbo in space can bumble at the controls and still pull off a landing with pieces of the craft flying off.
    Anyway, congratulations on having the sense to tell it like it is. This movie is vastly overrated as I expected from the trailer.

      1. “Well done Michelle.”
        Merle is either a) Michelle or b) someone that thinks a review with enormous amounts of spelling and grammar errors is worth reading.

        1. I’m not Michelle. I read the handful of negative reviews that are on Rotten Tomatoes. Michelle’s was among them. Those writers basically saw this movie as I did. It made some advances in graphics but there wasn’t much to the movie other than that. It certainly doesn’t make it a historical film and that is what is being implied by the vast majority of commenters. The film made me lose my concentration about 15 minutes into it. A few new tricks do not make a good movie.

          1. Ok, so you do enjoy sloppy reviews then? Thanks for the confirmation. I guess you probably like your movies poorly made, too. I think there’s a Michael Bay movie on later, I won’t keep you.

          2. congrats for being like the 5-10 people on this planet that think this movie wasn’t that great. I’m sure you are the ONLY people who could see through the hype and say it like it is. Pat yourself on the back.

          3. I saw it with five other people, we all thought it was shit. But you know what? It’s just a dumb Hollywood film, why are you people so upset that other people didn’t like it? There’s a world out there with actual things to get pissed about in it. Try life sometime, and maybe you’ll care less that we thought some film you’ll forget about in five minutes sucked.

          4. i don’t care nor am I hurt that you don’t like it. But your general statement about this film is just not what the consensus is. You aren’t the one voice of reason in an overhype fest, you’re one random person who wasn’t impressed, nothing more and nothing less. It’s fine if you want to talk about how you didn’t enjoy it but don’t paint those who find it to be a quality cinematic experience as dumb sheeple who like hollywood disaster fluff. There are actually intelligent people who know what good cinema is who like this movie, who think it was great. You are making it sound like people are zombie drones for buying into the hype on this thing. Well, I’m sorry to say but there are completely reasonable people who consider the hype warranted surrounding this film. You are the one who needs to get over that.

          5. As a Miley Cyrus fan, you are clearly disqualified from offering an opinion on anything substantial. Keep rubbing and sucking your foam finger and giggling about it.

          6. Most of them get out of school at 3, then there’s the bus ride home, dinner, homework, the Big Bang theory reruns, a bath, a movie, any movie is a big deal to them, give’m a break..

          7. You lost your concentration 15 minutes in? Funny, my 5 year old sat through the entire movie without a problem….

          8. Let me rephrase that. The film was unable to hold my attention. Certainly, I could concentrate on any movie for 90 minutes if the movie was deserving of it. I’m sure your child will also develop the ability to distinguish quality. I thought Gravity was fabulous for 15 minutes.

    1. As a space systems engineer, I can tell you how little you actually know about orbital mechanics. The dynamics of the zero gravity were almost flawless and they actually spent years calculating and composing the film, almost like a ballet. And after six months of training, I would hardly call even a first time astronaut bumbling. It was hard for me to find much wrong with it, so you can stop fretting over “mysterious forces” and whatnot.

      1. “They spent years calculating and composing the film, almost like a ballet…” LOL good God, you just… made that up?! The film was greenlighted from its screenplay only two years ago.

        1. The movie was actually greenlit by Warner in February of 2010, so that’s actually closer to 4 years than it is 2. This was a project of Cuarón’s for even longer than that. I guess what I meant to say is that a lot of work was put into making the motion look believable; every little movement and nuance was planned before filming even began. To say Cuarón and his son haven’t put their everything into this film is ridiculous.

          And no, I didn’t make that up. The ballet analogy has been used in interviews many times.

        2. That doesn’t mean Cuaron wasn’t working on it prior to it having been “greenlighted”. As if you have a clue.

      1. I know enough. Look at what the space engineer wrote below. He goes on as if this is a zero gravity question. Nonsense. This is explained by simple orbital mechanics.
        I’ll say one thing for his movie.
        1. The scenery is great
        2. Sandra Bullock has great legs.

    2. Nice spoiler, numbnuts. Warn people first. Simple courtesy for those who haven’t seen it. Jesus…

      1. Oh yea he really blew the plot open! Because no one’s seen scenery before in a movie and everyone would be blown away by Bullock’ s legs. Braindead.

      2. HA HA HA Why are you reading the thread of a movie review if you didn’t want for it to be ‘spoiled’?!

        No worries, there is nothing to spoil. The entire plot line can be written in about 3 sentences….maybe less.

  20. Don’t worry peeps! When it wins the Oscar for Best Visual Effects she’ll look even dumber for saying there’s been better visuals in other space films.

    I guess all the space candy in Star Wars episodes I to III have melted her brain and made her forgot that that is probably what space actually looks like. Sorry love we don’t have a big asteroid coming towards us or three moons orbiting Earth. Get over it!

    Nearly everything in Gravity has been referenced from high res images supplied by NASA. If you ever go to space then maybe you might be entitled to have an opinion about what might look better especially if in this instance people have spent 5 years of their lives trying to get it to look right rather than taking 6-12 months to bosh it out for the everyday punter like yourself.

  21. How could someone not like this movie? How could someone not realize that the technicals of this movie are groundbreaking? This review is ridiculous. “Gravity isn’t just the best movie so far this year; it would be the best movie in probably at least 40 of the past 50 years as well. It’s an amazing movie and an amazing spectacle.

    1. The reason I did not like this movie was that it entails 13 minutes of beautiful film followed by 77 minutes struggling to make a story.

      1. It didn’t struggle to make a story – it did make a story.

        91% of regular customers like this movie and that means that 9% of people don’t like this movie. How does it feel to be in the bottom 9% of the class?

  22. Number one.. reviewer: this review is idiotic. To start with: there is a grammatical error in your first graph… Not only are you a marginal critic, but you have a lousy editor. Number 2: just go out and make a movie. You’re definitely one of those critics who SERIOUSLY needs to make a movie to see just how nearly impossible it is. You so “hipsterishly” (and that’s the only way to describe it) dismiss something that took artists 4 years to painstakingly craft to look realistic and extraordinary. And really: Alfonso Cuaron is one of the most overrated directors? Really? Says the critic who no one has really heard of and no one would even really read if it weren’t for space on Rotten Tomatoes. Michelle Alexandria… you, my dear… are a blockhead. Make a movie, write a script, do something other than these pedestrian reviews… then come back and talk to us.

  23. If you ever use the word “overrated” in a review, you are instantly discredited, because it implies preconception, which any “professional” critic should NEVER have. You discredited yourself in the second paragraph.

  24. Bullock and Clooney as leads are the tip off that this is not intended to be a serious sci fi film. Instead it signals that it is another over-hyped Hollywood gee whiz glitzer…pablum for the masses looking to be be thrilled.

    It is too bad because we are overdue for a really top notch sci fi thriller, perhaps not having been dealt one since the original Aliens.

    Furthermore the plot line is far from original. The best of this type is an old short story by the master Arthur Clarke, who has an astronaut abandon ship after a short power failure in a launch from the moon. The astronaut must jump from his ship with enough velocity and in the right direction or he will crash back into the moon. What follows is pure craftsmanship of sci fi story telling.

      1. It is UTTER Hollywood fluff for the dumb masses. And that is all. It’s just Speed in space, a disaster thriller with wooden dialogue, implausible action sequences, a predictable ending and no emotion or introspection whatsoever. It looks pretty, that’s about it.

        1. What a supercilious prig you are. You clearly are full of your own self-importance, along with something else you’re full of.

    1. That’s “the original Alien” not “Aliens” unless you thought Aliens was superior to Alien? If so, your opinion is dismissible, which, ironically, is the same if you thought Alien was a “top notch sci fi thriller”. Alien was one of the purest art films I have ever seen, while Aliens was fluff…great fluff actually, but a mere shadow of the brilliance of Ridley Scott’s top masterpiece, “Alien”. Alien was a film that made you become involved and wouldn’t let you off the hook till Ridley blew the bastard out into space. The actual Alien in the movie was never fully shown, which only added to the power of the film…there are some films, by some directors that are the best they’ll ever do. 2001 was Kubrick’s masterpiece, Star Wars: A New Hope was Lucas’ and Alien was Scott’s. Quentin Tarantino will also never top Pulp Fiction, and M. Night Shyamalan’s The Sixth Sense was another. Gravity is Alfonso Cuarón’s masterpiece, period…he will never do better.

  25. I don’t understand “critics” who are unable to appreciate the technical merits of a film. Saying that this film is anything short of revolutionary betrays either an agenda, or a lack of attention. No film set in space came close to this in terms of cinematography. 2001 was the best by a long shot. This bests 2001 by an equal long shot. From a technical perspective, this is to space films what The Matrix was to action films.

    1. “nothing short of revolutionary”??? What are you on? And can I please have some?

      The film was popcorn crap, at best.

      1. 97% rotten tomatoes, 96 on Metacritic. That metacritic score is basically unheard of. There is nothing that can be said to you to convince you, though. You’re too impressed with yourself and your contrarianism. This film will win in almost all the technical categories at the awards shows, that’s for sure. Bullock will be nominated for acting, the movie will be nominated for Best Film, Alfonso will be nomed for Director. Just get over it dude, you didn’t like it, that’s fine. Doesn’t make you the one right dude in the crowd. once again, Mr D, you are clearly the troll on this board. Stop slinging insults at people as your way of giving criticism, it’s childish DRIVEL, with a V.

  26. It’s funny and sad how a review can get so many people riled up as if you all had some hand in making the movie. Yes the review was poorly written with grammatical/spelling errors and some opinions that don’t make much sense, but her final grade was pretty close to mine. Other than it being visually stunning I don’t agree with the hype.How was it possible that Sandra seemed to slow down from spinning after she was flung from the scope to give George her location? How she didn’t vomit after spinning like that and admitingly being sick already was beyond me. And she surely would have ran out of oxygen at the rate she was going in addition to George wanting to hold a conversation even after he calmed her down. What pulled George into deep space I’m not sure it was plausible. Anyway it being visually stunning is not enough for me to crown this movie the best picture and an above C+ grade. On a side note this was better than the Lone Ranger…lol(not sure how she rated that higher).

    1. Ha! Lone Ranger was a j.o.k.e. Johnny Depp as Captain Jack/Tonto…another big name, bigger budget and utter schlock to scam the masses.

      Hollywood is putting out pretty pitiful material these days. I don’t expect every film to be an epic cinematic experience, or a subtle, thinking persons,adult type of film…After the Wedding and La Vie En Rose are two of the best in the past decade as I cited in another post here. I am only aggressively critical about the ones which claim to be EPIC and then miss the mark by a few thousand miles.

      I’m really not a film snob…I recently saw and enjoyed Austinland. It was unpretentiously silly; had an original type of setting and my expectations were low…as they set them in the trailer. Truth in advertising, what a concept! It turned out to be funny…Jennifer Coolidge was fabulous and the rest of the cast surprised me too. Kind of a 2013 version of My Big Fat Greek Wedding.

      Asking for a refund when I’ve been had has become a personal form of consumer rebellion…and the theaters I go to are happy to issue me a credit toward a future film. If more consumers did the same probably the quality of films would have to rise to become viable.

  27. It saddens me that you get paid to write this pure drivel. I would love to look at your resume. Your review makes you sound like a casual fan of cinema. Hardly somebody who sounds like they know what they are talking about.

    Cuaron is a great director. Children of Men was fantastic and Prisoner of Azkaban might be the best Potter film.

    I could write circles around. Guaranteed. Let me know if Eclipse Magazine is hiring. I can’t believe you used the word “spooge”. Very unprofessional.

    1. Your critique of this reviewer sounds fairly accurate. But what can you write circles around?

      1. I meant to say I could write circles around her. Meaning, I’m not even a professional critic and I could do a better job. I’ve written over 150 movie reviews. I’d be happy to post one. In fact, I will be posting my Gravity review tonight. I could link it here if you’re interested.

      2. Sure let’s see it. I’m interested in reading it. I’m a writer, but not of movie reviews although I’d like to write one. Give me any review of any movie you like and then I’ll share my review of that same movie. Thank you. By the way, if you don’t mind me asking, do you make money writing reviews?

  28. I completely agree that infants could write a better review. The review reads like it was written in ten minutes — not a single part is insightful or convincing. It also shows a lack of understanding of the basics of the English language. The comma and hyphen use here is all over the place. There are endless run-on sentences and clumsy structures. And I was amazed that nice/nicely are used four times in a very short review. Does Michelle not know any other positive adjectives/adverbs? I also think describing anything or anybody as ‘overrated’ generally indicates a lack of empathy or respect for the popular audience. While I do not share your opinions, an opinion is a just an opinion, and I am sure there will be others out there that will think the same. However, the utterly poor quality of the writing here is unforgivable. You are not a film critic.

    1. As a former teacher of writing and reading, I find Chris’ response to be spot-on. Whether you agree or not with the review, it’s hard to concentrate on plot-points when wading through such poor writing. BTW, I agree that the film is not the best thing ever, and I am not a fan of Bullock or Clooney, but the film was visually stunning, and certainly worth watching.

    2. Well she actually is a film critic and one of the few that didn’t fon all over a very average movie with good effects…and when was the last time you saw a movie with bad effects..that was mastered twenty years ago..

    3. Infants can write?! Wow where are these writing infants you speak of? Is there a youtube video I watch?

  29. It’s obvious you went into this review wanting to write a bad review. Your bias bleeds through, this is a terrible critique. Stuff you’ve seen done better in other movies? A million I might add? You’re an idiot my friend.

    1. Well I went into this movie with high expectations and could not believe how contrived, boring and tedious it was….it doesn’t take much to entertain this group..

      1. I’m getting tired of the select, and very select they are, few who weren’t impressed with this movie. They act like we are all idiots for enjoying this film. There are plenty of intelligent/intellectual types who consider themselves students of the art of film who find this movie high quality. We aren’t easily pleased sheeple flocking like zombies to the cinema to drool and eat our popcorn. There are smart people who liked this movie, get over it.

  30. So you gave The Lone Ranger an A-, but you give Gravity a C? lol, I’d say your review abilities should be revoked. Quickly.

  31. Aah, so you’re one who hates universally acclaimed movies. You say this is something we haven’t seen from space movies a million times before?? lol okaaaaay then. What a joke of a review…

  32. When I click on the reviewer’s name, in order to read other reviews that she has written, I get an “Oops…page not found” result instead. I wonder if this site’s server is being bombarded with all of the justifiably negative reactions at her review. This was terribly written and articulated; to me, it comes across as the bitter and immature reaction of a jilted teenager.

    1. Films like this are honey-traps for wanna-be ‘serious’ film critics. There’s almost nothing to criticize about the movie except for a thin plot.. which is also a non-starter since it was a visual movie that shows an astronaut’s fight for survival.

  33. This bitch is a stupid critic. How is this not a great movie? Children of Men was brilliant. But I guess that’s also from an ‘overrated’ director, too.

  34. I must correct myself; the exact result I get is “You 404’d it. Gnarly, dude. Surfin’ ain’t easy…blahblahblah.”

  35. I have to agree with Michelle..I was excited to see this film but it was boring as heck with a terrible plot. Drift through space…debris…drift through space…even more debris.

    1. That’s like reducing The Godfather down to talk talk talk, gunfire, talk talk talk, more gunfire. lol

      1. Oh wow, equating Gravity to The Godfather is like equating chewing gum to a dinner at La Cirque.

        1. Tell that to their average critic scores. Somebody has golden oldie syndrome. Coppola is incredible but that doesn’t mean there will never be a movie greater than The Godfather.

          1. I didn’t say there wouldn’t be did I?! Extremely inane leap of thinking there Internal Meaning.

            I am saying Gravity doesn’t deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence.

            Citizen Kane is still one of the most magnificent movies ever made for multiple reasons…golden oldie or not. Godfather is too, different reasons, same kind of quality. The vast proportion of movie critics of any age, experience and discernment agree.

            Newer doesn’t automatically convey better. But having to explain this to you further substantiates my earlier point…dumbing down…down…. down.

          2. I am as much a fan of Sunset Blvd or old Hitchcock or Kubrick as any guy. Gravity has its flaws and I am in no way saying it’s better because it’s modern. I just thought it was refreshing to see a Hollywood “blockbuster” – as you say – with such incredibly long and technical takes. It harkens back to stuff like Kubrick or Tarkovsky and I love that. It may not be a perfect movie, but I think it signals a new breed of blockbusters and that I am okay with.

          3. No you clearly stated I suffered from golden oldie syndrome because I said Gravity wasn’t anywhere near the same quality or category of great filmmaking as the Godfather which by definition means you do.

            I have different (higher) standards of what constitutes quality in filmmaking than you do. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t enjoy Gravity or have a positive opinion of it.

            I simply believe Gravity is undeserving of the accolade it is receiving and have stated why. I may be in the minority, I’m perfectly fine with that.

          4. I agree it is probably overhyped. Whether or not it’s a different kind of movie than The Godfather there is no comparison.

          5. What I meant was that Gravity simply has the same universal praise that The Godfather does, and from more reviews too. Not at all saying it is a better movie.

          6. I can dig that, but I can’t see any parallel to Tarkovsky or Hitchcock or Wilder. Maybe Kubrick.

        2. You obviously missed the point. Take a universally acclaimed movie.. which both are, and reduce it down to a stupid exaggeration.

          1. Exaggeration based on YOUR opinion…spot on critique in mine.

            Majority approval doesn’t connote quality…consensus and profitability yes…discernment and thinking…no.

            I don’t watch The Kardashians, Honey Boo Boo or Duck Dynasty. The majority of our population does. Popularity is entirely irrelevant to quality of content.

            PT Barnum was exactly right.

            And I don’t care what you think, why do you care what I think?!

          2. Minority disapproval is no closer to conveying lack of quality than majority approval is to conveying quality.

            And we don’t care.

          3. You’re so confused.. When critics (who often rail against shows such as Honey Boo Boo) and fans are in nearly perfect alignment, it’s very telling… and doesn’t happen all that often in Film.

            And what’s this notion of ‘majority approval?’ 51% is majority, but Gravity is at 98% on Rotten Tomatoes. 98 out of 100 is just a weeee bit more than majority. It’s even more than a super majority. Quit being silly.

          4. Boring, truly boring.

            I didn’t say I did or didn’t exaggerate…this whole conversation is pointless.

            You spend your money however you choose…I couldn’t care less.

        3. Are you aware of how using analogies differs from making statements of absolute equivalence at all? No? Well can you Google it maybe?

          1. You know, for a second there? You almost made it sound like I was here to entertain you. Silly me for thinking you’d gotten some entertainment value from your trolling but it’s clear you haven’t. So what exactly is your purpose besides burning through the local oxygen supplies?

            Next time just say you don’t know an analogy when you see it, rather than making it clear your brain is little more than a counterweight and you are running your mouth purely for warmth.

          2. Ooo… ouch…that hurt, you are so clever…and so insightful!

            Vanquished…I have been mortally wounded and will never post an opinion again…so swift is your intellect and compelling your argument.

  36. I agree with this review.

    I was taken out of the movie the moment George Clooney spoke. He is the same character in every movie. One gear of acting. Not believable as an astronaut, in this film.

    I literally heard the majority of the audience groan in unison, when they realized we were going to have to endure yet another “don’t let go” scene.

    As a werewolf movie tends to end with them getting shot with a silver bullet, it seems almost a prerequisite of a space movie, to end it with a fiery, blaze-of-glory, atmospheric re-entry scene…and then a parachute.

    The visuals and sense of disorientation it gave, were nothing short of amazing.

    Completely overhyped. I’m gonna go watch the 3rd Harry Potter again, and try to forget about it.

    P.S. If you want a much more tasteful, fulfilling, yet flawed, space movie, check out Europa Report.

    And stop saying shitty things to someone who gave an honest review.

    1. Hear hear!! I don’t understand why there is such an emotional connection to this film for people when I found it to be the most vapid film I’ve seen in God knows how long, no emotional engagement in it whatsoever.

      1. They could have made this movie for adults but it’s risky. Instead, they went for the easy money which means a young audience. Thus, we get nonsensical situations, one disaster after another, George Clooney pissing away oxygen telling Mission Control humorous anecdotes, etc. This is the Hollywood we love to hate. I agree with you in scratching your head about people’s emotional connection to this film. I think if you interview the same people five years from now their opinions of this movie will be cooled considerably.

        1. I said the same thing about the Jurassic Park trilogy. That it could have been made for adults but instead they sold out to skate in under an R rating and get the under 17 money.

          This film had no such stink on it, sorry. Why not complain that it wasn’t as “gripping” a space flick as other classics like, oh…Event Horizon.

          This is comedy. Nobody is this stuck up nor have they seen anything so “purist” outside of a local playhouse theater that they need to whine like this.

          1. Who’s whining? Great graphics. Shit story. I do not care in the least. I think it deserves a couple of Oscars. Best 13 Minutes of Graphics. Best Legs by a 49 Year-Old.

          2. Hehe I worked on the VFX for the film and I can tell you in half the shots where you see her legs, one of them is fake. She had one of her legs in a brace to keep her in mid air and we replaced it with a CG one. So there you go! The CG must be good 🙂

        2. One disaster after another, indeed. This movie was a constant barrage of, “I’m in danger, I’m momentarily safe, I’m in danger, I’m momentarily safe, I’m in danger, I”m momentarily safe”.

          The writing lacked quite a bit. So many cool directions they could have gone. I would love to see an alternate version of this movie, where she keeps tumbling into space, experiencing various spacial anomalies in light, mind & perception, maybe even seeing some ghostly form of her dead daughter, ultimately leaving such moments ambiguous in definition, letting the audience form their own conclusions. Maybe it was the light from a distant nebula…maybe it was a ghost…I guess thats asking too much.

  37. Lady-you obviously haven’t taken a physics class in your life , and don’t understand that prior”outer space” movies , in comparison to this one , appear amateurish at portraying Physical reality (Newtonian Physics ) .

  38. You’re a moron. Not because I disagree with you, but because you have no clue what you’re talking about, or how to talk about it. Please, stop reviewing movies until you learn something about movies, and something about writing.

  39. What a sophomoric, infantile, uninsightful review! What are you, a fifteen-year-old boy? “Spooge?” Really?

    I won’t even address the atrocious spelling and grammatical errors, the lack of attention to/misinterpretation of plot details, and the ignorance about basic physics that any child can learn by playing a few games of Angry Birds.

  40. This “criticism” is an insult to every single person who calls themselves a film critic. It is moronic. You should feel bad. I would expect a 13-year-old to right a review of this quality.

    ‘the ending was ridiculous – I expected someone to scream “You blew it up!”’

    ^That’s a thing you actually wrote Ms. Alexandria. I think it about sums up your intelligence level.

  41. This is, simply put, an art film. As such it doesn’t necessarily follow the narrative rules of so many films that have ever dealt with life and death situations. That is what this is, a survival tale in a most peculiar situation. I could nitpick things, like the fact that you see the debris coming, which would not be the case with a relative velocity of 25,000 mph. At that speed, the debris would span a hundred times the length of the ISS in a single second! That said, it wouldn’t have made cinematic/artistic sense to just have the ISS explode for no apparent reason! So Cuarón slowed the debris down to a few hundred mph to have it make visual sense. There are others, like the fact that the Hubble is not even remotely close to the ISS in it’s orbit. None of these “details” takes away from the artistic impact, and the gut wrenching reality of what Cuarón is showing us.

    You see, what they describe in this movie is a real danger in low Earth orbit…although not generally considered to be of the magnitude that this incredible film presents it. Debris fields exist and NASA tracks all of it…down to perhaps the size of a baseball. With relative velocities possible up to say 30 to 35 thousand mph, a baseball sized object would have the equivalent inertial/kinetic energy as, say a pound of C4 high explosives. A BB sized object would tear through one side of the ISS and out the other causing rapid decompression in short order.

    This film is not exactly science fiction. It is informed speculation about a very real phenomenon/danger in low Earth orbit. This film could be a warning to future manned missions…because we have polluted the space directly above are heads with literally millions of bits of debris, ranging from the size of an automobile, to a paint fleck. One paint fleck did exactly that on an early Shuttle mission…leaving a crater that thankfully did not penetrate one of the quartz windows in the commanders view.

    1. You’ve obviously never seen an actual art film, and wouldn’t be able to comprehend one if you did. This film is mindless Hollywood rubbish.

      1. LOL, this coming from you, a huge Miley Cyrus fan, and you’re arguing about other people’s bad taste? Mindless Hollywood rubbish? So now you’re the deciding factor about what’s Hollywood rubbish and what isn’t, huh? All hail king Mr D?

      2. Ultomatt gave an informed review of the scientific aspects of the film. And qualified it as an art film. I think he is correct in saying that it is an art film. That is, while it attempts to present reality it may be incorrect in its representation. Which is fine. Because this movie is what we call science fiction. So he/she wasn’t judging art films. As such your statement is misguided. And stupid.

      3. You’re clearly the kind of geek that thinks art films are one thing, and in so being, are meant to be only one thing. This film is in a genre by itself, as 2001: A Space Odyssey was, as Alien was, as Blade Runner was. I consider ALL of them to be art films. They were done by pure artists who had a vision of truth and beauty in storytelling in the medium of film. Funny too that Ridley Scott started in film as an ART DIRECTOR! An art film is many things to many people, and it’s ok to agree and disagree on this point, but not on the intent, which in this case was pure artistry. Just because a film costs 100 million dollars to make doesn’t exclude it from the term ART FILM.

        And up yours…I’ve seen more art films than I can count. Ever see Kwaidan? That is an art film! Ever seen Burden of Dreams? That is an art film. EVER SEEN GRAVITY???? No? You might want to flush out your head and give it look, see and hear…you might like it. Ok…not really, but then, who really cares…not you that’s for sure.

    2. ultomatt, I dont fully agree with you regarding the debris. They would be very fast but am not sure what the actually relative velocity would be — did they specific 25k mph in the movie? Since even though both ISS and debris are moving fast in orbits — their relative speed would depend exactly on how their orbits relate to each other.

      Secondly, even if they are very fast — the viewing distance in space is huge — because there is nothing in between. So atleast the larger of the debris should be visible I think.

      1. Good point. I was thinking the same. Ultomatt’ s science may be correct, but I’m not entirely convinced with the speed of the debris passing at 25k mph. Forget about relative speed (I’m no astronomer, but I know what relative means), I just have doubts as to whether it would appear to the astronauts that the debris was passing them at such a high speed. But I could be wrong. I was the other day at lunch.

      2. 25K mph was the call in the film. And that speed is relatively correct. The ISS is traveling at 17,500mph (about 5 miles a second) and the debris fields were said to be approaching at terminal velocity of 25,000mph. The reality is, combined speeds well over 5 miles per second are the result of two entirely different orbits crossing at odd angles.

        From Wikipedia…

        “The first major space debris collision was on 10 February 2009 at 16:56 UTC. The deactivated 950 kg (2,090 lb) Kosmos 2251 and an operational 560 kg (1,230 lb) Iridium 33 collided 500 mi (800 km)[87] over northern Siberia. The relative speed of impact was about 11.7 km/s (7.3 mi/s), or approximately 42,120 km/h (26,170 mph).[88] Both satellites were destroyed and the collision scattered considerable debris, which poses an elevated risk to spacecraft.[89] The collision created a debris cloud, although accurate estimates of the number of pieces of debris is not yet available.”

        “Gravity” is many things, one of which is a real world warning of the destruction of orbital spacelanes. On several occasions, the crew of the ISS have had to evacuate to the Soyuz escape spacecraft due to NORAD tracking objects that came close to the ISS. I believe ISS does have some micrometeorite protection, but it’s only good for very small objects. A bowling ball sized object of similar weight to a bowling ball would be capable of doing terminal damage to the structure of the ISS. If a hundred such bowling ball sized objects were to hit, the ISS would simply be destroyed, much the way it’s shown in the movie.

        And the velocities are far too high to actually see the objects approaching, unless you had the specific attitude and sun angle to visualize them…for a few seconds tops. To give you a relative idea of the kind of speed we’re talking about, imagine taking a photo of an astronaut on the ISS at say a thousandth of a second shutter speed. Do you know how far the astronaut would have traveled in that 1/1000 of a second? About 26 feet. At 25K mph that number would be about 37 feet.

        The physics is pretty good in the movie, but the situations are false. There is no Chinese space station yet (Tiangong)m but when it does go into orbit, it won’t be close to the ISS, because there is no reason for it to be so close. Also, the destruction of Tiangong couldn’t have happened the way they show it…ISS was, in the movie, over 300 miles high. Even with the destruction of the ISS, it’s doubtful that it would lose that much altitude that quickly. And if Tiangong was near, and in a lower orbit, they wouldn’t linger. Every altitude off the Earth’s surface has a specific orbital speed, and none are exactly the same (re: gravity gradient), so if Tiangong was 50 miles below ISS, or a 100 miles, it would either recede from ISS rapidly, or procede from ISS rapidly.

        So…the film’s physics is good enough to suspend disbelief. I know too much about this subject to be fooled, but in this case it was not done to fool, only to make the film elements come together to save the main character. There were problematic plot devices, but none for me that were deal breakers.

        I loved this film, and I refuse to apologize to anyone for feeling this way. Rarely does a film come along, much less a science “fiction” film, that blows me away. Gravity is one of those rare movies.

        1. ultomatt, wise words. In fact, seeing the ISS, Hubble and Chinese station so near, and at nearly zero relative speeds to each other was the most unscientific part of the movie — this is something I actually disliked in the movie. The debris thing — I understand that they are moving fast, but if there are big debris I think they definitely could be visible, esp if they are shiny metals or something. But the orbital closeness of ISS, Hubble and Chinese station is unforgivable. Still I loved the movie, obviously. The visuals are stunning, and the depiction of zero gravity is mind-boggling.

          1. I always thought that in space, you could be moving at 10,000 mph and it doesn’t feel like it because of the lack of gravity/atmosphere/etc. Being in orbit, they were probably moving at the same speed to other objects (very fast, but not noticeable because there’s nothing to compare your speed to).

    3. I do agree with you regarding the other thing though. I am not sure whether Hubble, ISS, and Chinese station are so close to each other. Again their orbits could be completely different — with different altitudes, direction, speeds, and where they are in the orbit.

    4. I disagree, an art film would be ‘After the Wedding’ or ‘La Vie En Rose’. Gravity?! It is an art film like Dark Shadows was or District 9.

    5. I think you nailed it, this is much more than a movie, it’s a way we can reclaim the lead in the space race…Just brilliant…

  42. Oh thank God for this review, I can’t take anymore shallow mainstream folks pretending this is amazing. It’s just Hollywood dribble, from start to end.

        1. v. driv·eled or driv·elled, driv·el·ing or driv·el·ling, driv·els
          1. To slobber; drool.
          2. To flow like spittle or saliva.
          3. To talk stupidly or childishly.

  43. You should not be allowed by Eclipse, or any other source of information for public consumption, to provide such nonsensical “advice” to prospective movie goers. If this is part of your employment ie. Eclipse paid you for this, then they need to reexamine a few basic requirements… Vision? Hearing? Comprehension? Perhaps a little urine sample should be tested. Just an unbelievably abysmal job performance.

  44. Good for you for going against the popular line- this movie has it all: bad casting, bad science, bad acting!

  45. A movie starts at the beginning and ends when they run the credits. I watch it in it’s entirety and then come to a conclusion. In this film we open with George Clooney floating around, in a spectacular setting, being, well, George Clooney; floating around being cocky: doing little else other than wasting precious oxygen on a space mission. It was about that time when it lost my attention and I began admiring the clamshell lights in the theater. Then I was listening to everyone eat popcorn during the few intense silent periods in the movie. Then I watched the girl three seats down from me intently leaning forward and staring at the screen as if this was something interesting.

  46. The movie-going audience is a bell curve that peaks around age 15. This is the age group that movie directors are going after. If you liked Gravity, well, I have nothing more to say. They got you.

    1. Your bell curve is upside down. Insults are the tools of the cynic who has nothing worthwhile to say other than one liners. Why do I think you loved trash like Independence Day and Armageddon? Tiny minds indeed.

      1. I didn’t see either of those films you mentioned.. The reviews were consistently uninteresting so I avoided them. Why did you see them? I saw Gravity because the early reviews were very flattering to that movie. So I went, I viewed, I thought. The first 15 minutes were great; then the movie tried to ride along for the next 75 minutes on the success of the early graphics. It didn’t work because they didn’t have much of a story: High school cheerleader pilots a Chinese spaceship in her underwear. Cool.

  47. i saw you gave pacific rim a “D” but i chose to say nothing… but this time… you are just criticizing for the sake of criticizing… please learn to appreciate art…

  48. DON’T LISTEN TO THIS REVIEW. Just saw the movie and it was visually stunning. There is a palpable sense of tension from almost the beginning and I really found myself rooting for Ryan (Bullock’s character). I have never seen a space movie this true to the actual physics of space flight. In fact, physics was a character in the film…you couldn’t ignore it.

    And yes, the debris comes every 90 minutes (due to it’s orbital velocity) so to say that the plot takes place over 90 minutes is a total misread.

  49. Sounds like the writer of this article enjoyed the film but is having a hard time admitting it so she decides to desperately forage for reasons not to like it. Admit it Michelle(the writer), your indissoluble cynicism had predisposed your moderately intelligent mind for a dud but you were humbled by a pretty impressive film (by today’s standards).

  50. The only way you can say that you didn’t see anything that you haven’t seen in better space films is if you were in the bathroom listening to it through the wall.

    I’d love to see the list of “better” films that this critic thinks present space like this one did. Because right now it looks more like she simply wants to be the critic that sounds edgy, die hard, and controversial.

    1. Yeah you vote me down but now with two of you on the job (you and the critic) I still haven’t been given one reason to search archives for films that present a better space experience than Gravity nor any reason not to believe this critic’s main objective was to run counter to public opinion.

      Come back when you’ve got something.

        1. Saw it. Never ducked once. Never once forgot I was watching a tape. Never felt involved in anything. There was no experience.

          I said something that presented space BETTER than this. Not something with a better plot or more engaging actors. And so did the critic for that matter but…

          1. Ah I see…so if there is a lot of CRASH! BOOM! then the movie is a rousing success in your book.

            You can claim Apollo 11 isn’t a space move but you’d be dead wrong. And you’d be dead wrong to claim it wasn’t suspenseful and realistic since it was based on an actual event.

            If you mean just staring at a screen with pictures of space well, that’s a different thing all together and I seriously doubt the director intended it to be a movie about watching space. And if he had he would never have gotten it financed. But if that is why YOU love the movie, good on you. I go for the better plot and more engaging actors every single time.

            BTW I never ONCE forgot I watching a tape, or that I was watching Sandra Bullock as Ryan what’s her name trying to look brave-agonized-frightened-mournful-brave-conflicted-reborn and finally attempting to win a second Oscar. The ending was the WORST thing I’ve seen in a while.

            The only component missing from this film was a giant sign on the screen saying “Trite, extremely unlikely allegorical tale of rebirth (played by commercially viable actors) as a result of tragic loss in outer space’ with an arrow pointing to it.

            As I said, the dumbing down of the public.

          2. What’s with the reference to “tape”? Are you still watching VHS? and if you are, are you doing it in a movie theater? Film is the medium, not tape…unless they use the Red camera system which is pure digital from HARD DRIVES!

            Also, get the films you love and hate straight….there is no film called Apollo 11!!! Ron Howard made a film called APOLLO 13 that was a great film. However, Apollo 13 can’t touch “Gravity” for sheer gravitas, and gravity. Regardless of your puerile assessment of this film, it is now and will remain, a great film that will stand the test of time.

            You probably thought 2001: A Space Odyssey was boring, yes?

          3. I made the correction to the Apollo error in a previous post. I didn’t make the tape remark originally, the previous poster called it tape and I merely was referencing/mimicking his terminology.

            No I didn’t think Space Odyssey was boring but I definitely think you are and desperately need to get a life.

            And Gravity sucked.

          4. I agree, not the best movie ever (better than Gravity though-that remark will drive the loons here crazy-ha!) but frighteningly prescient.

          5. Just amazing. We clearly saw two entirely different prints. And tape? What tape? Are you stuck in the 20th century with your Betamax?

        2. I’m thinking your reference was meant to be Apollo 13. Apollo 11 would have been a really boring film, cause nothing bad happened. They made it to the Moon (with a bit of nail biting due to there only being about a minute of fuel left), Neil Armstrong screwed up the single most important line of his life, and then they came home to ticker tape parades world wide. The life of Buzz Aldrin would make a better movie…especially the part where he punched out the moon landing denier.

          Where you get “rubbish” in regards to “Gravity” is a mystery as far as I’m concerned. I guess with a film that is this amazing and popular, there just have to be people who want some attention, and in the way to get it is as a contrarian,

          1. Not liking something you like makes me neither contrartian or needing attention.

            All I have done is disagreed with the overall reviews of the movie…you behave like I shot Kennedy.

  51. Clooney and Bullock in a remake of The Misfits perfect..Gravity didnt work for me..Just saw the movie….totally overrated…effects were good but what effects aren’t..
    Didn’t care for the casting. Had it been made in the 1960s Marylyn Monroe and Clark gable would of been the equivalent. When bullock had to strip down it felt contrived although it was the high point in the movie for me sorry west hollywood etc. clooney stayed in his space suit. Felt like I’d seen every aspect of this movie play out on earth.
    Go see My taste: Stay away
    Rush +. Ron Howard’s come back Pacific rim- del toro should be ashamed
    Mud + great Iron man- been there seen that
    Man of steel+ surprised me Lincoln-was waiting for the ET bicycle scene…
    Place beyond the pines+ for adults Grudge Match ” just a hunch”-
    Blue Jasmine+Dice “who knew”
    Inside Llewyn Davis+ “more than a hunch”

    1. I agree with you Marty. Add to the list Prisoners, loved Rush, loved Blue Jasmine, loved Place Beyond the Pines. I’d see a move with you anytime. I appreciate bringing some intellect and discernment to this brawl.

      1. Funny, I took prisoners off because the list was getting to long..Its always nice finding someone who has the same “good taste.” I don’t mind disagreeing with reviewers but to go after the grammar usually points to ones inability to rationally go after the critics points..get back to me when you want to take in a movie, you obviously have good taste.

        1. Wow! “I’d see a movie with you anytime” “you obviously have good taste” talk about gaying it up on the comments section hahahahahahaha

          1. And apparently I’M the one who is making inflammatory, condescending remarks. Gaying it up? really?!

  52. And the “male porn fantasy” thing? If movie reviews could actually make women look dumber and less empowered all by themselves? Then this critic resorting to gender red herrings and non sequiturs to cover for lack of real insight and the courage to simply say “I didn’t enjoy the movie” would have me feeling dumb as a bag of hammers right now.

    No, you actually can’t imply that you’d have to be a porn addled guy to find something enjoyable about Gravity. Nice try though.

  53. Spot-on review ! Interesting to watch, but not “groundbreaking”. It’s amazing; how hype can affect the intellectually lazy. This flick is nothing more than a roller coaster ride – fun, visceral, but hardly a “masterpiece”. Enjoy it for what it is.

    Bullock for Oscar ?? PUH-LEEZE. If this flick deserves any Oscar nom, it’s for the FX.

    1. Speak for yourself in regards to intellectual laziness. I went to see this film without expectation other than for great FX based on the trailer. There was no “hype” about this film in my regard. I am actually a cynic when it comes to science fiction, but as I wrote, this is NOT science fiction, it is informed speculation. It is an exponential look at a very real danger on orbit.

      I am not a fan of Sandra Bullock, but I also don’t discount her talent. This was a nuanced performance that should get attention. If you bring ill feelings to the party, in reference to Ms Bullock, that’s your loss.

      The movie “Twister” was a roller coaster ride. “Gravity” was and is an art film, with few pretensions. It also is, simply put, a warning. The level of destruction this film represents is over-the-top, but it’s not entirely out of the realm of possibility.

      I quote Wikipedia…

      “Currently, about 19,000 pieces of debris larger than 5 cm (2.0 in) are tracked,[1] with another 300,000 pieces smaller than 1 cm below 2000 km altitude.[1] For comparison, the International Space Station orbits in the 300–400 km range and both the 2009 collision and 2007 antisat test events occurred at between 800 and 900 km.[1]”

      The point is, NASA and other space organizations have to pick their orbits carefully due to pollution of the spaceways by old hardware left in orbit. Among the worst offenders are the upper stages that boost satellites into their final orbits. The upper stage is cast off to eventually re-enter the atmosphere on their own. Only problem is, most remain on orbit with fuel and oxydizers still extant in the stages tanks. Many of those fuels are corrosive, and eventually destroy the seals between tanks that, by design, share tank walls.

      What happens is entirely predictable…an explosion that blows the upper stage into much smaller pieces. The pieces go off in random directions, but essentially remain in the same orbits. The end effect being, the thousand bits that used to be a vehicle the size of a schoolbus, that would re-enter the atmosphere in a relatively short time due to it’s big cross section, now are the size of breadboxes and trashcans with much smaller cross sections relative to the direction of travel. The larger the cross section, the greater the friction from the upper atmosphere. The smaller, less friction and greater time required to de-orbit.

      Then other bits of debris from other collisions and fuel explosions collide with each other and make tinier bits. Make those bits tiny enough, and you eliminate orbital paths due to objects in those orbits being permanent residents. In some cases they won’t come down for at the very least decades, and in some cases, centuries.

      So…there is a purpose for this film, but the fact is, it is an art film that is simply dealing with truth…which is the goal of artists worldwide.

    1. Nobody held you back. I felt the same way about Independence Day. I attended a preview showing of Independence Day on July 3, 1996 in San Diego, and I knew this film was trouble when the the White House was destroyed and the audience applauded! The cries of Semper Fi (from Marines stationed in SD) also told me this was a bad idea.

      I wrote a review of that elephant dropping and spoke my mind without pulling a single punch. ID was the worst film I had ever seen up to that time. Then came Armageddon and I was convinced that ID wasn’t alone in the category of total wastes of film.

      “Gravity” is none of that. “Gravity” is a simple concept with profound implications. I don’t care who disagrees with me, or why. A whole lot of people disagreed with me on those two steaming loafs, Independence Day and Armageddon, but they were wrong, those two money making meatballs were among the very worst that film can be. “Gravity” is the exact opposite.

      1. Fortunately it was a short movie.. I actually loved ID, hated there Godzilla remake, didn’t bother with Armageddon and was very disappointed with Pacific Rim, it was no Pan’s Labyrinth. The Fifth Element is my favorite sci fi of all time…as far as Gravity goes i couldn’t get past the casting ect but you know where I stand on my lack of appreciation of this movie..I’m waiting for dec 6th, Inside llewyn Davis..

        1. I am well aware of subjectivity in films…I’m very tolerant of well intentioned comments. Not so much with people who are just being scurrilous and negative, for effect.

          We will agree to disagree about ID. Just an awful mess of a movie. I had been waiting months for it’s release, and even attended a preview showing (apparently I got on tv at the time, for being the 4th in line). Suffice it to say, I was expecting a masterpiece…but was sorely let down. When they wasted Brent Spiner so soon in the movie, I just flinched. And the entire treatment was like a cartoon, from Will Smith punching out an alien with a helmet on (ever try punching an astronaut with a Lexan helmet on?…you don’t even touch the astronaut, and you break your knuckles) to everyone high fiving at the end when it is revealed that over a billion human beings perished. And a mother ship a quarter the mass of the Moon going off like a flashbulb…c’mon, a two year old could do better than that!

          There were so many things blatantly wrong with that giant turd, I don’t have the time anymore to elaborate. I did write a synopsis at the time, i.e. a blow by blow of how that movie blowed…blew…whatever! And it’s funny, most of the world loved it, as evidenced by it’s box office. That proved to me that a 100 million people most certainly can be wrong…and were.

          Pan’s Labyrinth was a great film, but so disturbing in the end that I’ll never see it again. Kind of like Schindler’s List…glad I saw it, and glad that I won’t see it again. Those are not popcorn movies, unless you want to use your popcorn cup to get sick in.

          Fifth Element was so whacked out and weird that it was very difficult to follow….it definitely had some serious energy though, and outstanding graphics. What about 12 Monkeys? Or, by the same author, Brazil? Actually, one of my fav’s by Terry Gilliam is The Fisher King…ironically not his screenplay, but a masterpiece nonetheless. The cast was amazing,and Mercedes Rule got the Academy Award for best supporting actress. Micheal Jeter was also amazing when he sang the song “Lydia”. Even Tom Waits had a small, but precious spot in the film. Gilliam is a great director.

          All I can say about Gravity is, it really touched something in me. I did not go in with ANY expectations on that film. I love movies like that, that come out of nowhere…kind of like The Sixth Sense.

          1. Loved the sixth sense and apparently felt towards Pacific Rim like you did towards ID. Never did see 12 monkeys,Brazil or The Fisher King although I do like non traditional movies going back to el topo, ken russells The Devil, Seven Beauties. I tend to follow directors, some of my favorites: Michael Powell, Lina Wertmuller the Coens. Movies are as subjective as music.. Had I been born in the 1920s I guess I’d like big band music instead of The Doors and Black Oak Arkansas..go figure.

  54. They had 90 minutes of air left? As soon as I read that sentence, your review loss every ounce of credibility because it’s obvious you can’t even do the most basic part of your job – paying attention to the movie. How you became a journalist I have no idea quit your job and find a new one.

  55. The statement, “nothing in this film that haven’t been shown in a million other films set in space” only screams the headline that the reviewer has no idea what the hell she is talking about. What a sullen, sarcastic review.

  56. There hasn’t been a more polarizing subject since the Tesla S fire….which remains the greatest car ever made…

  57. This looks and reads like it was written by an 8th grader for extra credit. I’m worried about the lack of comprehension skills for this, “writer”. I must say the mind reels. How did she get this job?

    1. At least get it straight when you attempt to criticize the writer(s) with your puerile insults. The film was written by the director, Alfonso Cuarón and his son Jonás Cuarón. His son is thirty two this year.

      Please…what films in the science fiction genre do you like?

      1. I’m pretty sure billy meant that the review looks and reads like it was written by an eighth grader. Not the movie.

  58. Michelle, the fact that you pretend to be ‘marty1234’ instead of
    actually responding with your real name is even sadder than your
    reviews. Armond White is is a better critic than you. He actually understands the movies he bashes.

    You give a voice to every idiot who didn’t grasp the movie and thinks that it’s somehow the movie’s fault.

    1. Why thank you..I’m not Michelle. After seeing the movie I was curious about the reviews and happened on to this site..I was encouraged by her general review and C rating but when I saw the personal attacks and rave reviews for this nothing of a movie i decided to have some fun..when the village voice’s Ella Taylor gave a horrible review to “A Serious Man” I did the same but Ella was a good sport about it and we exchanged numerous jabs, unfortunately Ella’s a Dybbuk. People on this site are less tolerant and uptight..similar to the last night I ever did stand up at The Comedy Store where I was thrown off stage..some people just have no sense of humor..

  59. I have never been so angry towards a reviewer. This is a bombastic, asinine, review. She claims this film is “merely good”. Are you kidding me? This film is beyond good. The pacing, visuals, and camerawork and unparalleled. Then the author tries to tie in a “male porn fantasy” comment that is outrageous and of very poor taste. I am disappointed to say the least that a person who gave Silent Hill: Revelation a C+ and Gravity a C is writing reviews. That is a true tragedy. Very, very, disappointed.

    1. The camerawork is sub-par. Bullock’s character’s hair doesn’t even act like it’s in a zero-g environment. Ron Howard filmed Apollo 13 in an actual 0-g environment inside “vomit comet” aircraft doing zero-g parabolic dives. The astronauts in Apollo 13 were actually filmed IN a zero-g environment.

      Looks like this director just phoned it in and wanted to shoot it in some studio to make it easier on himself to commute home every day to his Hollywood lifestyle. Lazy choice.

      Other errors in the script show the writers were amateurs. For one, communications satellites orbit at almost 23,000 miles above the earth. Yet in the film, the astronauts and narrative show they are in a 230 mile-orbit.

      Another error is that the International Space Station’s orbit is at a 230-mile orbit and the Hubble Telescope is at 350-mile orbit. Yet in the film Gravity, they are in the line of sight of each other!

      And finally, why would Bullock — a medical doctor — be servicing the Hubble Space Telescope? Doesn’t make any sense.

      1. You’ve commented on the following things:
        1) sub-par camerawork
        2) Sandra Bullocks hair
        3) Shooting the film in a studio so the director could commute easier
        4) Lazy script
        5) Satellite orbit
        6) Space Station being in sight
        7) Medical doctor servicing a NASA telescope

        Let me comment on your comments:
        1) Sub-par camerawork? That is a ridiculous comment. I don’t even know where to begin. Clearly, you know nothing about camerawork
        2) Sandra Bullocks Hair — I can’t believe you actually went there. That is hilarious
        3) Easier commute — Now your just sounding stupid
        4) Lazy script — Once again, ridiculous. Lazy? Oh yeah, like planning out that movie was just one big lazy table sit together where every single scene and every attention to detail was lazily put together. Idiot
        5) Satellite Orbit — Who gives a shit. Its a fucking movie
        6) Space Station sight — Once again, WHO GIVES A SHIT. Its a fucking movie
        7) Medical doctor — For the THIRD TIME, WHO GIVES A SHIT, Its a fucking movie
        Arguing about distance/trajectory/ in a movie is like arguing that in real life one character could not possibly get to somewhere else in the films alleged time space. Its a stupid argument. Very petty

        Jesus. I feel good and bad I spent time writing a reply to your ludicrous response.

    2. I nearly cried when we learned her daughter died..didn’t the book imply she was a suspect?

  60. Miss, you are (by far) the WORST film critic i have ever seen. please stop writing about movies please!

    1. Actually we need more critics like Michelle Alexandria who don’t act like cheerleaders for the Hollywood hack factory that churns out forgettable nonsense all the time.

  61. Warner’s selling point was the audience’s vicarious “ride-like experience” with the film. Giving the film the benefit of the doubt, perhaps the story is weak and the characters empty to allow movie-goers to project onto George and Sandy. I myself enjoyed this ride for 20 minute or so, but rapidly grew weary of the repetition and corny dialogue. I appreciate Michelle’s difference of opinion against the colossal Warner’s hype machine.

  62. She said that it was ‘merely’ good. She gave it a C (being a little technical here, but the whole review, especially the last part, sounded a lot more like a B- or so). Isn’t that supposed to indicate a mediocre movie? I think Rotten Tomatoes should have put this at ‘fresh’.

    1. Merely good would be high praise for this film indeed. Schlock. Pure, big budget, vapid schlock.

      1. In my opinion, it was pretty good. It emphasized a lot on the visuals, and it was a good suspenseful movie. Well, I guess our opinions differ. I just see it as a fun movie and absorbing movie, not too much else. I’d give it three stars out of four.

  63. Totally agree with you in regards to the visuals, I have seen more wonderful and awe inspiring images from space via National Geographic explorations… And eventually the whole scenes imploded into a video game of explosions and visual graphic effects that made it boring!!!!!!!!

  64. She’s one of the few people who has the courage to state how much this movie really, really, bombs. It is appalling to think that anyone would even call it “good”. It is laughably inept. To think of all the millions wasted on this bungle that might have gone to worthy creative efforts.

  65. Just because this movie didn’t impress you doesn’t make you a more informed movie goer or more intelligent then the rest of us. I’m okay with your opinion, just don’t act like you are smarter then everyone else because you didn’t like it. There are plenty of seasoned critics and not so easily impressed viewers who thoroughly enjoyed Gravity…time you get over it.

    1. Uh…I’m pretty sure a film critic is allowed to criticize a film without having to “get over it.” You sound like you want to deny the right of others to not like a film. Very bizarre.

      1. Nowhere in there did I want to deny people that right. You didn’t even read my comment or you glossed over it clearly. What I have noticed is that a good portion of people that are being critical of the film are being critical of the people who liked it and think it was great. They are chalking it up to over hype and belittling those who find it to be a worthy viewing experience. Have at it if you want to not like the movie, but that doesn’t make you a smarter or better informed critic, it just means you didn’t like it. No big deal. I’m suggesting that those people are just going to have to get used to this movie gaining praise, because that is what it is getting. Belittling other peoples opinion isn’t going to change that fact.

  66. Wow. ” Overrated AND overpraised! ” … Care to delineate the difference between the two?

  67. Sounds like someone intentionally went against the grain, knowing her review would stand out on RT and attract attention to her shitty blog.

  68. Just watched Gravity 3D IMAX – You, Miss Alexandria, must have walked into the wrong movie. Gravity was worth watching twice in a row. An incredible movie-going experience!

    1. Id see it again, if you had a gun to my head..and even then I’d have to think about it..

  69. Are you kidding, even if you don’t love this movie, you have to admit it is good. Your review was way too harsh…this is a gripping, intense movie that blends real and imagined worlds seamlessly. The special effects are unlike anything seen in all the movies you mention. Alfonso Cuarón creates a visual experience surpassing other classics such as Apollo 13, Lord of the Rings, 300, Thor and Avatar. Maybe Imax made all the difference for me?


  70. It’s a shame that such a poorly written review has to stand as one of the only dissenting voices in a sea of glowing reviews because I think the film definitely had some major flaws that people have been blinded to by the admittedly stunning visuals. While I enjoyed it overall I felt the visuals camouflaged a fundamentally mediocre film.

  71. LOL what a clueless review. There is no space film ever made that quite conveys how difficult it is to maneuver in a Zero G environment.

  72. I think a lot of people are missing the symbolism and allegory found in this film. Stone is a character who is already dead when this film starts, or at least not living. Through this terrifying disaster in space she is reborn. She finds the will to live.

    There is a moment when she first reaches the Russian spacecraft and is suspended in midair with coils flowing around her as if she were a baby in the womb. She then has a moment where she is howling like a dog; I took this to be the crying and howling of a baby frightened and confused at what is happening around them. She then plummets from the heavens and lands on Earth where she takes her first steps as a woman reborn and ready to actually live.

    The movie did not focus on Stone’s past much because it did not matter in the moment. You can let the events in your past paralyze you, make you give up, or you can decide to reignite that passion for life and go on. Whenever a person loses someone close a piece of them dies, how you find the will to go on is a struggle we can all relate to. This story was about that moment of rebirth.

  73. I’m not going to bash the critic here.

    [Apparently, anybody who has anything remotely negative to say about this movie, on this site and others, becomes inundated with anger and insults].

    Well, I saw “Gravity” just last night, and I’m sorry to say that I left feeling underwhelmed.
    There are gorgeous technical achievements in this film, to be sure. But, that was about it. I was very disappointed because I really, really wanted to enjoy this film.

    Unfortunately, it seemed to me that the characters, and Bullocks’ tragic Earth backstory, felt forced, false, and at times, [wince] even a touch annoying.

    Better luck at the movies next time….

  74. Seriously. How could you possibly have left the theater not feeling like this was one of the best movies EVER made. You have really lost all credibility here. You have the right to be critical, but your explanations are misleading and you really seem clueless to how much of a masterpiece this movie was.

  75. You should no longer have a job… your opinion is baseless and wrong. This movie was brilliant and you show why I don’t listen to movie critics, ever. Bullock’s performance was “phoned in” and “shallow”? Wow… loss for words with your remarks.

    And you reviewed Street Figher, Twilight, White House Down, and the list goes on as better movies than “Gravity”. Seriously Eclipse, fire this reviewer. You are better off with someone new.

  76. Actually, I think your evaluation is right on….it merely turned out to be one of those “out of the fry pan into the fire, unending” story lines. Pretty pictures, but ho-hum.
    I think it is safe to say that the same multi- million dollar Hollywood/politico hyping mechanisms used for Obamacare are in effect for “Gravity”. If it wasn’ t Clooney, it would have had to have been Will Smith in the male role.

Comments are closed.