Movie Review: Gravity (with George Clooney & Sandra Bullock)

[AnTiFreeze3]

I felt I had to be a little explicit with the title, because just "Gravity" is a little too vague for a forum like this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufsrgE0BYf0

Thoughts? I think it certainly has a nice 2-person cast with Clooney and Bullock, but I'm wondering if the plot might be too limited; this whole movie appears to cover what happens in about 2 minutes in 2001: A Space Odyssey.

 

[Bandersnatch]

Thoughts? I think it certainly has a nice 2-person cast with Clooney and Bullock, but I'm wondering if the plot might be too limited; this whole movie appears to cover what happens in about 2 minutes in 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Have you seen Chris Kentis' "Open Water"? It's pretty much the same concept, and the drama is pretty powerful.
So I wouldn't dismiss it just yet.

Besides, when was the last time Clooney acted in a bad film?

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Not a huge fan of Bullock in this role. Will be interesting to see how they create a workable plot considering the trailer.

 

[micromass]

Not a huge fan of Bullock in this role. Will be interesting to see how they create a workable plot considering the trailer.

Who needs a plot when we have action scenes?

 

[DHF]

The trailer ends with her spiraling off into space with no one an nothing around her. Will be interesting to see how they save her without some super sci-fi action.

 

[EBENEZR]

Eh, I dunno. Looks far too "Hollywood" to be gripping. Entertaining, maybe, but not gripping like Solaris, Sunshine or Moon.

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

Eh, I dunno. Looks far too "Hollywood" to be gripping. Entertaining, maybe, but not gripping like Solaris, Sunshine or Moon.

I just watched Sunshine a few weeks ago. Great movie.

 

[Curious3141]

Eh, I dunno. Looks far too "Hollywood" to be gripping. Entertaining, maybe, but not gripping like Solaris, Sunshine or Moon.

And by Solaris, I hope you mean the original Russian version by Tarkovsky, because the American remake was pure crap. IMO.

 

[Bandersnatch]

Eh, I could never understand why people like Sunshine. It looks fantastic, but the story is so formulaic its borderline boring, and there's definitely too little science in its fiction.


As for Gravity, I'm having high hopes for it. It's getting rave reviews from Toronto festival folks. All signs in the sky suggest another Cuaron masterpiece. If that name doesn't ring any bells, you really should do yourself a favour and watch Children of Men.

Definitely going to see this one.

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

... Children of Men ...

I'm sold.

 

[mishima]

I saw a preview in my local 3d IMAX that was basically one amazing orbital shot after the other. It was more breathtaking than the entire movie I actually went to see (pacific rim). Not really interested in SB whining, but the 3d IMAX space scenes will be worth it for me. Call me shallow, but scenes like that are novel enough to be exciting.

 

[FlexGunship]

Not a huge fan of Bullock in this role. Will be interesting to see how they create a workable plot considering the trailer.

It seems like it would be hard for her to appreciate the... gravity... of the situation.

Who needs a plot when we have action scenes?

The scene with the rocket appears to be... staged.

Image source: http://pruplelillies.blogspot.com/2008/10/horatio-cainethe-man-we-all-love-to.html

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Given the trailer it appears to me there is no possible way either can survive.

 

[Jim Kata]

I hear this movie is a real downer.

 

[IamBatman]

Not a huge fan of Bullock in this role. Will be interesting to see how they create a workable plot considering the trailer.

My thoughts exactly :).

 

[IamBatman]

oh btw here is Buzz Aldrin's comments on the movie, which I thought was pretty cool, and got me more excited for tomorrow (release of Gravity). http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/gravity-review-by-astronaut-buzz-639883

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

One of my friends will be seeing the movie at an IMAX theater in 3D. This sort of movie is what 3D was made for.

 

[IamBatman]

I'm going to AVX probably, can't stand IMAX lol, not enough space. (no pun intended)

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

98% on RT. Nothing but extreme praise. Looks like I'll have to see this!

 

[Office_Shredder]

I just saw the movie, and I can promise people there is no crazy sci-fi explanation for how anything happens. It is almost 100% realistic and the times when it is not are very minor and I think only noticeable if you explicitly are looking to criticize the film.

 

[IamBatman]

It was actually done pretty well, some parts are boring but that happens. All in all was very good, and the 3d made it even better. (For once)

 

[OmCheeto]

Looks pretty intense.

My guess is that it's a fabulous movie, and that those who said there was "too much lens flair" in another fabulous movie, will claim; "too much heart beat noise. Cliche'!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZV-UEca2W9U​

I'm glad I've never seen so many movies, that everything, in every subsequent movie, became a cliche'. Even more than that, I'm glad I was once caught in a rip-tide for two hours, and can totally relate, with this type of terror.

Dear movie critics, paid, and unpaid,

When the worst thing you can say about a movie, has nothing to do with the movie, but is merely a technical aspect, please, don't say anything.

Thank you,

Om.​

 

[reenmachine]

Well , looks like I have to see it with all the praise it received.

 

[BobG]

I just saw the movie, and I can promise people there is no crazy sci-fi explanation for how anything happens. It is almost 100% realistic and the times when it is not are very minor and I think only noticeable if you explicitly are looking to criticize the film.

There's actually one big unrealistic depiction in this movie. The Hubble orbits with an inclination of 28.5 degrees (the same latitude as Cape Canaveral), the International Space Station orbits with an inclination of about 57 degrees (same latitude as Russia's primary launch site), and China's space station orbits at an inclination of around 42 degrees (presumably the same latitude as its launch site?). If you don't care about inclination, you tend to launch due East, which gives you an inclination that matches your launch site. It's impossible to launch directly into an orbit with an inclination less than the launch site.

What that means is that you can't go from the Hubble to the ISS to China's space station. Theoretically, if the orbits are close to the same altitude (which they are), the Hubble orbit could intersect both the ISS and the Chinese space station, but you couldn't dock with it. At that altitude, a spacecraft 's speed with be around 7700 to 7800 meters per second (around 15,000 mph). To calculate the closing speed, you'd need to use the cosine law. Suffice it to say that neither the astronauts nor the space stations would survive the encounter.

You basically have to be in the same orbital plane to approach at any survivable speed and, in this case, you're talking about three separate orbital planes.

Obviously, the film must take place in the future since the Chinese space station has been completed (it's currently just one tiny pod) and shuttle flights have been resurrected.

In spite of that, the film is very, very good and well worth seeing in IMAX.

 

[DHF]

I was under the impression that the Hubble, the ISS and the Chinese space pod/station are hundreds of miles away from each other.

 

[Bandersnatch]

I was under the impression that the Hubble, the ISS and the Chinese space pod/station are hundreds of miles away from each other.

They're all within 200km orbital-height-wise, but raising or lowering the orbit takes a relatively small amount of ΔV. Changing the orbital inclination, on the other hand requires huge ΔV. The back of my envelope says that change of 28 deg inclination at velocities ~7.5km/s requires ΔV=3.6km/s.

 

[phinds]

Even beyond the inaccuracies that BobG pointed out, the PRECISION with which a totally amateur astronaut steers to both such rendezvous is absolutely not believable ESPECIALLY considering her final method of propulsion on the second rendezvous.

I also noted that at one point she was spinning, not terribly fast, inside one of the capsules and she pulled her knees up towards her chest a bit, the way an ice skater pulls in extremities to spin faster. Rather than spinning faster, she slowed down just a little. Very poor science editing.

I'm being nit-picky here because although the special effects were generally really good, I was totally disappointed in the movie overall and wish I had saved my money. I'm sure others will disagree (certainly the critics have).

 

[Evo]

I'm being nit-picky here because although the special effects were generally really good, I was totally disappointed in the movie overall and wish I had saved my money. I'm sure others will disagree (certainly the critics have).

I think people are overlooking the content of the movie and two less than stellar actors due to being wowed by special effects, seems all of the reviews praise the effects and consider it worth watching just for the wow factor.

 

[phinds]

I think people are overlooking the content of the movie and two less than stellar actors due to being wowed by special effects, seems all of the reviews praise the effects and consider it worth watching just for the wow factor.

Yeah, that was my take-away as well. The story-line for me broke down about half way through. I happen to like both the actors but for me they couldn't save it.

 

[Evo]

Phil Plait is absolutely crazy about the movie. Great review worth reading.

If you scroll down past the gushing, (based on his review, I plan to watch the movie when it's on Netflix since I know I will procrastinate until it's no longer in theaters), he does go over the science mistakes, which I think our members will be interested in.

Start at "Orbital Mechanical Breakdown"

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/10/04/ba_movie_review_gravity.html

 

[Jozape]

Just saw Gravity in 3D and I have to say that the 3D effect looked very good to me for the first time, especially on the astronaut's helmets. Seriously. Though, this movie seemed to be mostly about the visuals and what it would be like to be in space. The plot is serviceable for the purpose of the movie, but some leaps of logic had to be made for the plot which hurt the film for me slightly. I would give the movie 3 or 4 out of 5 stars and the Haribo gummy bears I had 4 or 5 out of 5 stars. Too bad the Maryland Science Center was not showing this movie, because I am sure the astronaut's helmets would have looked even better on an IMAX screen.

 

[WaterMelllon3]

Gravity looks like an amazing film!

 

[meBigGuy]

Sandra Bullock is wrong for the role since her face won't respond to gravitational effects.

 

[DHF]

I just saw this and it wasn't too bad, a few technical nits but that is to be expected in any movie, if a movie was 100% accurate it would be 100% more dull I think. for example in order for her to cover the distances she did in this movie she would have been traveling hundreds of miles an hour so each time she bumped into something it should have rendered her unconscious if not dead.

that being said I think the character development and portrayal in this movie were excellent. Stone's reactions were very human and very believable. I didn't see it in 3D because the ticket would have been double the price at my theater, never the less I still found the film very enjoyable and worth each of the $5 I spent.

 

[Tornado Dragon]

Its probably a lot more theater than science though I'm betting. ALthough they claimed they have focued more on the science aspect of it.