Gravity (film)

[Publius]

Less positive here - "it's quite literally a 'check your brain at the door' blockbuster" - http://www.aintitcool.com/node/64145 "Quite literally"? Will they have neurosurgeons at each theater to perform the brain extractions and re-implantations? How will moviegoers perceive the movie without their brains? Wouldn't the extraction in fact kill them? More seriously, this review sums up what I expect from this movie: an awesomely visually stunning effects reel with minimal substance. That's what Hollywood does best these days.

[Neil]

Should you see the film in 3D (Cinemablend)? - http://www.cinemablend.com/new/3D-Or...ket-39663.html Does 3D Fit : 5/5 Planning & Effort : 5/5 Before the Window : 5/5 Beyond the Window : 5/5 Brightness : 5/5 The Glasses Off Test : 5/5 Audience Health : 5/5 Ummm... So looks like 3D is a must then!

[rongravy]

Wow, just saw it. I thought it stayed pretty tight throughout the whole movie. The shatter and scatter of the collisions was amazing, I love how the breaking up of one thing could spell doom for other stuff in its vicinity. I wish I could've seen it in IMAX, or at least in 3D, yet alas... I'm glad it didn't end up with Angelina Jolie in the part, I just don't think it would've hit home nearly as strong, if at all. I also read Ed Harris had voice in this. I thought the guy kind of sounded like him. One thing I noticed is how quiet the movie is. You'd think a full weekend audience would have a few rude and rowdy rapscallions in it, but no one made a peep. I would highly recommend seeing it. I didn't really think much of it beforehand, and expected alot of supposedly witty dialogue to show us their acting chops and garner a few award nominations, meaning I thought it was going to be a snoozefest. I saw it in a really nice theater with good sound, so I can imagine how it'd be in 3D and such. Gush, gush, gush.   Maybe now a sequel with Clooney's story, and maybe even possible rescue hisself?!?

[bassman]

Loved it, loved it, LOVED it. If at all possible, see it in IMAX 3D. This truly is the greatest 3D film yet and shows what can be done with the technology if used correctly. James Cameron wasn't kidding when he said Cuaron set the bar incredibly high with 3D film. As Ron mentioned, there are certain scenes you can tell were specifically designed for IMAX 3D and the result is amazing. Absolutely jaw-dropping to have the massive IMAX screen fill my entire field of vision and feel as though I was in space. Both beautiful and terrifying at the same time. Excluding the use of 3D technology, just the cinematography in general is amazing. Of course it has the aid of CG to fill in some gaps, but if you're the type of person that pays attention to the cinematography and camera work, there are several scenes that leave you with a huge smile on your face. I also disagree with some reviews that suggest it's all flash with no substance. I can't say too much for fear of spoilers, but there is plenty depth to this film, imo. Probably quite a bit more than most effects-heavy blockbusters. I will say that there are some in-your-face Romero-style commentaries that reference birth and re-birth. Parts of these couldn't be missed unless you're just staring at the screen and thinking about tomorrow's breakfast. In all, I think this film delivers on all levels. It was everything I expected and more. While it may not seem like it, this is a perfect movie to view during the Halloween season. Parts are downright terrifying, imo. Also, this is one NOT to be missed in theater. Especially IMAX 3D / 3D.

[Neil]

OK - I'm going to London to see this IMAX 3D!

[Publius]

From what I've heard, the physics and orbital mechanics in this movie are just bonkers. It's like space isn't a real place for people, so they think that if a movie is set in space they can do whatever they want with it.

[rongravy]

From what I've heard, the physics and orbital mechanics in this movie are just bonkers. It's like space isn't a real place for people, so they think that if a movie is set in space they can do whatever they want with it. From the stuff I saw in that guy's tweets griping about the movie, ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh... http://news.yahoo.com/gravity-inaccu...161723027.html Now, I'm like, "Damn, I wanna see it again so I can see if it really matters that her supershort hair floats or not." Who cares? I didn't read anything that was that big of a deal. I personally thought she had rather thick upper thighs for a white girl. How come nobody mentions that?!?

[Neil]

From what I've heard, the physics and orbital mechanics in this movie are just bonkers. It's like space isn't a real place for people, so they think that if a movie is set in space they can do whatever they want with it. Oh I do hope it's not too daft in that department - That'll wind me up!

[MinionZombie]

I read the stuff he was complaining about (even though he also said he really enjoyed the film), and it was mostly stuff we'd have never otherwise known - distances between space stations, the directional flow of debris, that kind of thing. I won't get to see it in cinemas (nevermind IMAX 3D), I'm out in the sticks, so it'll just have to be home video for me.

[Publius]

I read the stuff he was complaining about (even though he also said he really enjoyed the film), and it was mostly stuff we'd have never otherwise known - distances between space stations, the directional flow of debris, that kind of thing. Yeah, but that goes along with what I was saying before about treating space as not being a real place. If you depict an astronaut using an MMU with about 25 m/s delta-v to make an orbital transfer that requires multiple kilometers per second of delta-v, that's like having a character in a movie set out (on foot) from 10 Downing Street and arrive a half-hour later at the office of the President of France, just because you assume that the audience will have no conception of where these places actually are in relationship to each other or that it won't matter to them. Whether a character's hair floats is petty nitpicking about a visual detail, but the above is a crucial plot element which is a classic deus ex machina. On the other hand, I've since seen another review that suggested that the movie is basically set in an alternate reality where some of these plot elements, total fantasy in our world, may only require moderate suspension of disbelief. For example, it appears that at one time it was proposed that the Hubble Space Telescope and the ISS should co-orbit for ease of maintenance of the HST. If the movie is set in an alternate reality where that proposal was adopted, it makes the orbital transfer described above easier to swallow.

[bassman]

Minor errors like that will always happen. No big deal in the grand scheme of things. I saw an article from the legendary Buzz Aldrin(who still holds the record for the longest space walk) in which he says he was thoroughly impressed with how accurate the film depicted zero gravity. He does list a few minor quibbles, but like I said, they're basically nothing in the grand scheme of things. "I was so extravagantly impressed by the portrayal of the reality of zero gravity," Aldrin wrote. "Going through the space station was done just the way that I've seen people do it in reality. I was happy to see someone moving around the spacecraft the way George Clooney was. It really points out the degree of confusion and bumping into people, and when the tether gets caught, you're going to be pulled -- I think the simulation of the dynamics was remarkable. We were probably not as lighthearted as Clooney and Sandra Bullock. We didn't tell too many jokes when people were in some position of jeopardy outside the spacecraft, but I think that's the humanity coming through in the characters. This movie gave great clarity to looking down and seeing the features of Earth … but there weren't enough clouds, and maybe there was too precise a delineation from space. We're in a very precarious position of losing all the advancements we've made in space that we did 40 years ago, 50 years ago," he said. "From my perspective, this movie couldn't have come at a better time to really stimulate the public. I was very, very impressed with it."

[Publius]

Minor errors like that will always happen. No big deal in the grand scheme of things. Isn't that the whole question, though, whether this kind of thing is a minor error? Would it be a minor error if a political thriller portrayed Paris as being within a brisk half-hour's walk from London, as in my example? I submit that most moviegoers would not accept that, in the way that they accept grossly inaccurate depictions of how easy it is to get from one object in LEO to another, because things in space aren't "real" to them in the way that cities on Earth are. Space is basically a fantasy world for most people, even if you use real-life settings like the ISS and Hubble telescope. Anything goes in space because people don't know any better, and even if they do know better intellectually they can't really internalize it. It's just tremendously difficult for the human mind to imagine the scale, and only a tiny handful of people have first-hand experience with it. When it comes to fiction, I think, lack of familiarity breeds contempt.

[doejoe]

Greate movie is in my watch list

[Neil]

OK, saw this last night and really enjoyed it. HOWEVER, I have to say one scene bugged me because of how unnecessarily unrealistic is was. *spoiler*   So the two of them crash onto the ISS and skim over it and past it, and are only saved by some cables around Bullock's leg. Fine. But then the cable is slowly slipping off for some reason, as if there's a force pulling on them? What is this mysterious force, and why does Clooney disconnecting remove it and return Bullock's direction of travel back towards the ISS? This is how that scene should have played out... The two of them crash into the ISS and grapple/skid over it as we saw. Clooney overshoots and Bullocks leg is caught in the cables, just as we saw. But the cables do not stop them and her leg slowly slips out and the two of them are drifting away from the ISS at only centimeters per second, but there's nothing they can do. Clooney has an idea, gives his 'sacrifice' speech and simply (now the two of them are face to face with each other) pushes her as hard as he can back towards the ISS. Done! Her direction of travel is now back towards the ISS, and his speed is now increased away. It's absolute 100% correct physics and just - if not more - sacrificial in nature. EDIT: I've seen some other comments on this scene and there seems to be some speculation centrifugal force is in play. That they are swinging around the IIS on the cables, hence a force... Indeed one clip seems to show this being the case, but I'll swear a long shot of them in the film shows it as a very static position without swing!?

[shootemindehead]

I won't get to see it in cinemas (nevermind IMAX 3D), I'm out in the sticks, so it'll just have to be home video for me. Livin' the dream, Mini...livin' the dream...