IMDb > Gravity (2013) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guide
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Gravity More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 194:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]
Index 1932 reviews in total 

1553 out of 2405 people found the following review useful:

Gravity is Weightless

Author: tcara111 from New Jersey
6 October 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Did those who've written glowing reviews of Gravity see the same movie I did? Look, I wanted to like this flick, I really did. And I don't want to rag on it, but if you're going to make a dramatic science thriller, you had better get it right or expect to catch it from the smart people. Despite the cosmic setting, the only star I can give Gravity is for the computer generated graphics.That said, this is not a movie for intellectuals and those of a scientific bent will be sorely disappointed. What made Ron Howard's Apollo 13 so gripping was its dramatic realism and superb acting. Unfortunately, none of those adjectives applies to Gravity, with the possible exception of some drama. However, for thinkers, effective drama requires an intellectual investment in the credibility of the story, the characters and the interaction between them. Intelligent humans need to believe that what is being depicted could actually happen. Unfortunately, the events depicted in Gravity are likely to alienate anyone with an above average IQ. Once one has acknowledged the impressive graphics, any anticipation of emotional investment is quickly dashed to smithereens by the unbelievably vapid and inane dialog. It is painfully obvious that someone with a double-digit scientific IQ appears to have awoken one morning and haphazardly decided to write a "space movie". The physics are off, the events highly improbable. The entire story demands a suspension of belief in reality. Worst of all, the dialog and interaction between the characters is so juvenile that anyone with a brain gets the immediate impression that the project is the product of sophomoric show-biz types who think that the way to move the product is to recycle hackneyed clichés, shiny objects and big explosions. Bullock's character, Dr. Ryan Stone, is so unprepared and emotionally disabled by adversity that it is impossible to believe that she would have been selected as a mission specialist. Yet, she manages to flit from one space wreck to another and yet another. She consults operation manuals in Russian and, later, Chinese, yet she is heard muttering "eeny meeny miney mo" while haphazardly pushing control buttons like some clueless chimpanzee. The space vehicle's communication equipment fails to pick up "Houston Control", yet, miraculously, is able to receive a bizarre Chinese comedy and howling dogs, which Bullock's character feels compelled to imitate. Clooney's character, Matt Kowalski, is such a clichéd hero that he is depicted as nonchalantly jesting with the hysterical Dr. Stone while he himself is drifting into a desperately life-ending situation. We are expected to believe that, despite having trained intimately together for this mission, these characters address each other by their formal titles and make clichéd announcements back to a non-responsive mission control. Kowalksi has waited until he's drifting to his death to ask where Dr. Stone is from and if she has any kids. Finally, director Cuaron makes a supremely lame attempt at cinematic iconography depicting Bullock floating in a fetal position, a la Kubrick's Space Odessey. And after having had such a bad day and having plunged to Earth in a flaming meteor-like reentry, Stone emerges, unscathed and barefoot mind you, from the ocean onto an idyllic, uninhabited beach like some primal human emerging from the sea. Now, I feel bad about feeling bad about this movie. And I respect Ms. Bullock and Mr. Clooney as actors. However, it is my humble opinion that actors must assume some responsibility for the roles they accept. This movie was so cringe-worthy that the only reason I sat through it was to see how ridiculous it would get. Alas, other than the black hole into whose abyss was irretrievably sucked away any hope I once had for discovering intelligent life in this movie, "Gravity" lacked gravitas.

Was the above review useful to you?

792 out of 1177 people found the following review useful:

Lost in Space

Author: BKTrayner from United States
8 October 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The big "spoiler" is that this is a big budget Hollywood move with a preposterous plot and lots of special effects. The problem here is that nobody could possible survive through any of this, and the special effects become a substitute for any meaningful plot. Even taken on its own terms, the movie makes no sense. Sandra Bullock has become an astronaut but lacks even the basic skills for that occupation. She tells us she always crash landed the flight simulator, and we find her thumbing through an instruction manual about the size of the instructions for a DVD player to figure out how to safely pilot a space craft back to earth. She even picks the buttons eeny, meany, miney, mo style. Add to this the contrived scenario that she has not only lost a child but also is "revived" and given a reason to live by the now dead George Clooney appearing in a dream sequence. And how great a movie can it really be where there is only one character (and almost no dialog) on camera for most of the film. The special effects are impressive, but what they've obviously done is use computer graphics to create all the weightless effects. As such, things remain weightless even when they shouldn't be, and you eventually become more interested in looking for the screw-ups than watching the movie. Please, please, please. Will someone make a movie with a clever plot that keeps you guessing to the end and with interesting and passably believable characters.

Was the above review useful to you?

647 out of 993 people found the following review useful:

In Space no one can hear you – "ask for your money back!"

Author: Lee Brandon-Cremer (shuttlealmanac) from Sydney, Australia
3 October 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

In Space no one can hear you – "ask for your money back!"

Disclaimer: Spoiler Alert - its horrible.

I just left the movie theatre angry. I cant think of a time that's ever happened to me.

Yes I may know more than the average Joe regarding manned spaceflight, after 30 years of writing about it. That doesn't mean the movie makers have to insult movie goers with the lack of any sense of reality. No wonder people don't think man landed on the moon.

From start to finish there were blatant factual errors in everything from the laws of Physics, Engineering and Orbital Mechanics to the unidentifiable views of the earth. I recognized two views of the earth, one of Florida and Cuba, the other the Nile in Egypt. It seems the producers decided to mess with those as well, good luck recognizing them.

I stopped counting errors after 50, by that point I was considering leaving the theatre, a few others managed to escape.

I know at least one NASA Astronaut bragged about making a contribution to the film as a technical adviser. I wont name her because its embarrassing enough for her to know she did that. I always wonder why movie makers use Astronauts as tech advisors when they have no intention of actually using their contributions.

Im not going to quote any of the script, why waste your time. It's a ranting monologue from an Astronaut with all of six months training at NASA to conduct an EVA at Hubble and who addresses her crew mates by their formal rank and last name only. Oh and magically during her six month training to fly on the Shuttle she managed to get a little Soyuz pilot training under her belt, very fortunate for her.

Finally, the movie is poorly written, almost ad-libbed, poorly researched, with a story line that has no connection to reality. I wouldn't watch this a second time if I was paid to. At the end I was expecting to see a 2,000 year old arm from the Statue of Liberty on a beach, seriously.

For a more representative vision of Spaceflight you may choose to watch the Simpsons episode where Homer and an inanimate carbon rod, save the Space Shuttle.

I highly do not recommend this movie unless you download it for free off Pirate Bay or get someone else to pay for you.

FYI – Im not a movie reviewer and I typed this out in five minutes, because I want my money back.

Was the above review useful to you?

473 out of 697 people found the following review useful:

Great Visuals, Weak Script overall

Author: vikascoder from Germany
4 October 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Visually, Gravity is unlike what we have seen on a cinema screen before and arguably it has one of the best uses of 3D in a movie. The setting is spectacular and the premise is inventive.

On every other front,the movie falters badly. Once you get over the initial wonderment surrounding the beautiful visuals, the chinks start showing up. Overall the script is very weak. Apparently the Russians bomb their own satellite by mistake and the debris is flying around at bullet speed, smashing everything in its way. Now upon hearing an emergency evacuation request, Kowalski (who has been wasting his precious thrusters all this while, floating around, spouting inane dialogs) orders Ryan (Bullock) to disengage from whatever she is repairing. Apparently Ryan has six months of training (only) and fails to be responsive and then the trouble starts.

We come to know that Ryan has some head issues surrounding the death of her daughter as the writer felt a dire need to give Ryan some sort of existential problem in her head to make her character feel more human. Apart from this minor bit, nothing is presented in terms of character development for any other protagonists. Who is Kowalski? Who are the people who died in their space pods? No idea.

Then the whole manufactured sense of suspense. Every time Ryan gets anywhere near the Air Lock (she does it three times), the debris presents itself like on cue every single time. Then a fire in a space station, then running out of Oxygen, then something then something. It's fine that they used some standard tricks but it all seems so manufactured and mechanical by the numbers suspense.

Also at times I couldn't shrug off the feeling that what they are showing on screen is not actually factual. Do the controls on various international space stations have their national languages on them? Really? Maybe they do but seems hard to believe when 20$ phones are built with custom User interfaces with changeable languages, why have your billion dollar space stations with Russian or Chinese characters on your buttons totally beats me. Oh manufactured suspense owing to the whole can't-understand-this-thing machinery.

The the dialogs when they come are nothing to write home about. Ryan has a hallucinatory moment when she talks to herself following some Mandarin Chatter on the radio which is cringe worthy. I wont even mention the in-your-face allegory about rebirth which is there for to make the movie seem deeper than it is.

So what works for the movie? It's a cross between an IMAX documentary with some suspense elements thrown it which makes it look path breaking.

But it's not. Not a bad watch but nothing to rave about either.

Was the above review useful to you?

555 out of 899 people found the following review useful:

don't waste your $$

Author: bberger6-816-331914 from United States
12 October 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The short version: Gravity is a real stinker ... what's all the hype? Clichéd, BORING,technically lame, not worth 3-D, and beyond Bullock's abilities ... Don't waste your $$.

The longer version: WHY is this movie receiving so much hype? What a LOSER! Not only is it BORING, but dishonors the brave men and women who are REAL astronauts. Sorry, Neil Armstrong ... not even a BABY STEP for mankind in this stinker.

Every possible cliché is at work here: the damsel in distress, the "strip" of the damsel, the depression of the damsel, the refusal of the damsel to obey orders, the damsel repeatedly wailing "what do I do nowwwwww?", etc. How this lame-o "brilliant medical engineer" EVER qualified to be an astronaut is not explained (must be due to all the budget cut-backs).

Similarly, the other "astronaut," George Clooney, a know-it-all wise guy, suicidally releases himself into deep space early on for no good reason ... so we're stuck with Ms. Lame-o and weak special effects for most of the movie ...

Said damsel is the flyweight actress Sandra Bullock -- whining, preceding every other line with a snurfff (Best Boy! get that woman some Benadryl!), and heavy breathing sum up her portrayal. You wouldn't want HER along as a member of the team, well, anywhere ... even Disney World ...

WhyEVER would George Clooney lend his name to such bunkum?

Don't waste your money ... and the 3-D ... laughable -- not EVEN worth it ...

Was the above review useful to you?

282 out of 419 people found the following review useful:

Super special effects, weak story and dialog

Author: (junkmail-385) from United States
6 October 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

In segments, Gravity has marvelous special effects--truly a remarkable achievement. The weak parts of the movie are the contrivances that link these segments together, along with unbelievably bad dialog. (Maybe someone will be brave enough to register the contrivances formally as "goofs" here on IMDb?)

No way could astronauts from the shuttle ever reach the International Space Station, but Gravity asks us to believe both this could happen and that an astronaut could then go on to reach a Chinese space station, too. These objects just don't orbit anywhere--ANYWHERE!!!!--near close enough to each other to make these events even remotely possible. Not only are their orbits vastly different in altitude and trajectory, it would be highly unlikely for them all to be near each other in the same orbit. Oh, I almost forgot to mention that Gravity also asks us to believe that the orbit of the space debris intersected with that of the shuttle and was synchronized with it.

No way could Ryan Stone figure out how to operate a Soyuz capsule in a few seconds of reading the manuals. No way could Ryan Stone figure out how to operate the Chinese capsule just by poking around.

Of lesser failures: Space debris traveling 20,000 miles an hour relative to an observer is not going to be visible except *possibly* as an indistinct cloud that passes by so fast the "observer" won't know what hit them.

For all of the CGI effort, I had hoped the Earth would look more realistic and (naturally) beautiful.

In closing, the special effects were great but the weak story relied on too many absurd contrivances and the script contained no redeeming dialog (sorry, George). On balance: 7 stars.

Was the above review useful to you?

289 out of 446 people found the following review useful:

What the heck did I just see?????????

Author: Azlan Lewis from United States
17 October 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

First of all there is NOTHING I repeat NOTHING that warrants the cost of a 3D ticket.

Second, this movie is boring and overly predictable.

Third, there is nothing in this movie that makes you want to care that suddenly this "mission specialist" played by Bullock is stuck up in space alone.

Fourth, where points could have been made to make you want to care about anyone in the movie they don't bother. Clooney's character keeps telling "Mission Control" stories for the most part that they've heard about his life. We haven't heard them and you never do. His character is only concerned about getting a record for the longest un-tethered space walk.

Fifth, Bullocks character acts like a buffoon. She "claims" to only have had 6 months of training. Based on what she says she would have been disqualified due to her questionable mental state after (years before)her daughter dies from some play ground accident at her day care. Now I like Sandra Bullock, but this performance is not worthy of an Oscar at all.

Sixth, She "magically" makes(this is because she spent over 5 minutes breathing in pure carbon monoxide, if this had been real she'd be dead) it to the Russian Soius Space capsule. She then using pictures in books can magically use buttons in Russian capsule to make it work, though claimed she trained on the simulator for them, she still needs the books to operate these things. She then "magically" get an empty fueled Soius capsule over to the Chinese station. Which is identical to the Soviet but in Chinese instead (this is probably fact as China bought their space station tech from Russia)and again using picture books she gets the thing to work.

Seventh, Drama and suspense, WHERE, you are told that the satellite debris will be around ever 90 minutes, the astronauts set their timers for the count down so again that's NEVER a surprise not only that, it's camera shot debris coming, look at watch. NO suspense.

Eighth, The ending, Specialist Ryan escapes in the Chinese capsule and gets back to earth, crashes in to the water and you are left with her walking on the beach. That's it you just wasted 100 minutes for this pointless that could be done in 30 minutes.

NOT worth your time or money.

Was the above review useful to you?

255 out of 385 people found the following review useful:

A contrary view to the popular acclaim

Author: arathorn357 from Sydney, Australia
6 October 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The box office takings and the almost universal acclaim from the critics for this movie - see eg would suggest that this is a must see - well here is a contrary view.

This may be from an age perspective (I was at school watching TV when that Armstrong guy sang 'I was walking on the moon one day' in July 1969) - and for the first 20 minutes we have a similar light hearted banter from G. Clooney, who while being highly space savvy is, unlike that original space larrikin, just plain annoying as he tries to emulate past heroes as he calms and guides S.Bullock through a predictable and ongoing series of high impact incidents. A handsome show off, with a serious penchant for rescuing damsels in distress, sits naturally with our George, whatever the state of his pulse.

But the movie is really about Bullock's character, and she is an actor capable of both great comedy and feeling (often within the same work) but here she is just not believable with the exception of the initial panic scenes that do get everyone's heart racing for a short time. In dealing with loss she has suffered on earth and in facing eternity in space, neither portrayal is credible.

Weaver in Aliens or Hanks in Apollo 13 - those were stories that really got to you (well, me anyway) but at the end of this its all a bit so what?

A very honorable exception for the cinematography, especially if you see it in the IMAX or 3D versions which really do give you a new perspective on space - but well deployed technology alone does not a movie make.

I give it 4 out of 10 - slightly disappointed at something that could have been so much better. I appreciate most of the world seems to disagree with my view.

Was the above review useful to you?

223 out of 332 people found the following review useful:

Impossible to sympathize with the main character

Author: Dani
21 October 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Most of the other reviewers who gave it 1/10 have already nailed it. Yeah, the CG was beautiful, but the story and physics were awful.

But also, what was up with the "woman of science" going all religious when faced with death? "oh lord if you are up there... oh wait". What's more she always seemed to need a man around to tell her what to do. What does she do when she doesn't have his guidance? Tries to kill herself. Great.

Sandras character just spent the entire time messing things up. You could cut together her bumbling about, add yakety sax and a laugh track, and title it "Sandra Bullock is a klutz in space!"

And don't get me started on the imagery. They were really trying to hit home on that fetus thing... that shot went on forever. How dumb did they think the audience was? Pretty dumb I'm guessing if they all believed the reviews and threw their money at it. Yes we get it, she was reborn and overcame the grief of losing her daughter. But now we're secretly hoping she gets eaten by a camel or something. That would have made it worth the 90 minutes.

Was the above review useful to you?

560 out of 1019 people found the following review useful:

The most visually stunning movie I have ever seen

Author: Beju Lakhani from Canada
9 September 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This movie is absolutely stunning from the get go. I can't remember ever being pulled into a film so completely and thoroughly, and I don't think I've seen a more beautiful film. Its a pretty intense ninety minutes, with Bullock's character constantly battling one catastrophe after another, and all of it is amazing to see. The plot is pretty straight forward (see it, I won't talk about that), but its the way they pull it off that makes it absolutely worth seeing. Thanks to some incredible CGI, great direction, and solid acting, the movie is an absolute must see. I'm normally not a fan of 3D movies (I hate wearing the stupid glasses), but this movie uses it wonderfully and to great effect. I would strongly recommend seeing it in an IMAX theatre if you get the chance - if there was ever a movie made for 3d IMAX, this is it.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 1 of 194:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
Awards External reviews Parents Guide
Official site Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history