Gravité

To me, 'Gravity' may not quite the masterpiece that it has been touted to be, though the critics and positive reviews do a fantastic job summing up the film's merits. However, while it is easy to see why some won't like it it is nowhere near as bad from personal opinion as the negative reviewers say. It is nowhere near the worst film ever and not deserving of a 1/10 rating with the visuals, effects and direction being such an achievement, the trend to bash critics and those who agree with the general consensus has also become extremely annoying.

Alfonso Cuaron is is an extremely talented director, all his films to date have proved that. 'Children of Men' is especially good and one of the best films of the decade, have always have had a huge soft spot for 'A Little Princess', 'Y Tu Mama Tambien' is not for everyone but for me it was a near-masterpiece, 'Prisoner of Azkaban' is one of the best directed films of the 'Harry Potter' franchise and as polarising as 'Gravity' is there is no denying that Cuaron's direction and the visuals were exceptional. 'Gravity' may be my second least favourite film of his, with 'Prisoner of Azaban', still very good, faring least, this is saying little and is testament to Cuaron's talent.

'Gravity' does fall short of perfection. Its weak spot is the script, it does tend to ramble, feel manufactured and cheesy and doesn't do an awful lot to make the characters more than mere clichés. The story doesn't always grip with a few slow, dull spots, and the ending puzzles.

However, as said already in this review and by previous reviews (acknowledged in most less than positive postings, 'Gravity' is a triumph visually and technically. The cinematography is tremendous, quite possibly the most beautiful and best shot film of 2013. The setting is striking and the special effects are a marvel. Cuaron's direction is exceptional, some of the best he has ever done, a master of visuals and mood.

With that being said, 'Gravity' has much more to it than the visuals and direction. The music is an incredible fit, it's haunting, sweeping and breathtakingly beautiful. A good deal of the story is gripping, with intimacy, tension and great emotional impact.

Sandra Bullock gives one of her finest performances here and gives the film a certain grace, while George Clooney has a cool calmness that fits his role perfectly. Ed Harris is also impressive.

Overall, an achievement visually, technically and directorially, but despite its faults 'Gravity' is much more than those things. 8/10 Bethany Cox

This movie is probably one of the hardest i have to "review". Normally i review movies on my enjoyement of them, and i don't care to give a 6 or a 7 if the movie entertained me, even if its legitely a "bad movie" per normal standards.

When it comes to this one, i would give it a 4 if i would rate on my enjoyement alone. I was ...kinda bored to be honest. I looked at the time left 3 times and this is just a 90 minutes movie. That said, gotta give credit on the visuals and special effects as a whole.

The movie is beautiful, and i can only imagine how impressive it must had been in 2013 on a cinema screen. Apparently this was also in 3D, wich i usually don't like, but i could totally see why this particular movie would be enhanced by it. Now myself i watched it on a regular 1080p TV on bluray, and it was still impressive.

The issue is the story is not that compelling. And its even worst once you look at all the "goofs" on IMDB and realize a lot of what happen could simply not happen. Its not that actors act bad or that their characters have any major problems, its just that the concept of very few characters in a movie, at least to me, often result in a lack of developement. Its a survival story, thats it.

Now, i personally wouldn't rewatch the movie, unless maybe on an IMAX screen or something by curiosity, but my bluray has a ton of extras and to be fair i am actually curious to watch them for once. Like how they did the zero gravity stuff and such.

So in a nutshell is it worth a watch? Yeah kinda... for the visuals. And i must aknowledge that aspect, but at the same time i can't say i was really "entertained". So i am gonna give the movie a 6 wich i feel is a compromise between my 4 for entertainement and 8 for technical aspect.

The script has issues so knock a few points there, no matter what. If you reading this on Letterboxd, i can't give this the yellow heart. But that does not mean its not a well made movie and that you won't enjoy it.

Gravity is an outstanding visual film directed by Alfonso Cuaron, crammed with some lovely area views, and excellent 3D effects that were used in an appropriate manner to create an extraordinary CGI appearance. I enjoyed the movie but didn't find it to be one of the very best of the year. The problem with this movie is the story, technically it's a flawless masterpiece and the 3D is amazing with a strong performance by Sandra Bullock, but the story is thin and predictable. Bullock does give one of the better performances of the year and the 'man vs. nature' storyline is always a compelling one but this movie mainly works as an amazingly beautiful visual feast and little more. Overall, Gravity is technically sound and very likable, but looking back you might wonder what the movie was about. If you accept Gravity as pure popcorn-munching fun and nothing else, you won't go away disappointed

You've been floating round the Earth outside the bubble, making repairs to telescope whose name is Hubble, and then proverbial hits the fan, deviating from the plan, before you know it, you're cast adrift, in lots of trouble. Matt Kowalski reaches out to gather in, you make your way with him to station that's within, but it's battered and quite bruised, you're frustrated and bemused, and the air you breathe is getting rather thin. But the cards that you've been dealt may just play out, although there's not insignificant, amounts of doubt, in fact the chances are quite low, that you will find a place to go, though a trajectory has been set, somewhere about.

Visually stunning. A real first in the technical department and presumably that was the extent of its intent. None of the great themes of Kubrick's 1968 masterpiece "2001: A Space Odyssey", are present here. This is a superlative, 90 odd minutes of remarkable beauty but the 90 odd minutes become really long because, just like the heroine we have so little to cling on to, story wise. It seems petty to criticize a film of this kind for whatever it doesn't accomplish because what it means to accomplish, it does in spectacular fashion. I just felt that I was served a glorious appetizer without a main course. Two huge stars in space Sandra Bullock and George Clooney. Why? If the idea was to dazzled us with something we had never seen before, great unknown actors would have added an extra something. Kubrick used Keir Dullea in "2001: A Space Odyssey", yes, Keir Dullea, or as Noel Coward put it, Keir Dullea, gone tomorrow. We know that if Sandra Bullock was in charge she, one way or another, will land safely. She's terrific, don't get me wrong, but I wasn't as worried about her as I should have been. The last problem was the score. Why? A standard horror/action flick musical score with cheap shots here and there. I think the purity of the work needed to be extended on every department. Now, putting all that aside, director Alfonso Cuaron must be applauded and I strongly recommend you to run and see it in the biggest screen you can find and in 3D.