@westside-steve said:

if her space suit got ripped off and she showed her tits i'd give it a D.

@westside-steve said:

Best description I've heard of Avatar was that it's a roller coaster. You know exactly what you're going to get, and it's a fun, albeit shallow, ride. I'd put Gravity in the same category. Had to suspend disbelief when Bullock and Clooney made it to the next satellite and he was hanging on by a rope that was slipping. Outside of that, solid film.

@slowburn said:

gravity is a vignette featuring Hollywood superstars with a prime message of.........never give up. I think we all are bettered a bit by these feel good flicks and, as mentioned, the special effects were trippy

Thank Christ it was only an hour and twenty minutes long.

This^

Saw it tonight. Really put off seeing it, but it entertained more than I thought it would.

Z

1. The special effects were awesome, how the heck did they do that? Mostly computer generated...

but still..

2. The dialog was dumb. Interesting though, that Clooney ...got back into the spaceship later, and then...

you know. But

How can you continually say "I can't breathe" ...but you just keep right on breathing? eh....

and, when the rope is tangled around her foot, and he lets go?

It's outer space. He wouldn't have been a big drag on her. It's ....outer.....space. He was no draft.

3. But the visuals were amazing. How did they do that weightlessness?

4. Yes, she was undertrained. 6 months? I think not. Chinese and Russian language/flight expert...?

ha. Not buyin it.

5. I wonder what an astronaut would have been thinking while watching it, though.

6. Honestly, Clooney's dumb banter started to remind me of his role in "Oh, brother, where art thou".

7. There IS an awful lot of space garbage up there.... makes ya wonder...

Was worth watching with nothin better to do. But I'm glad we didn't pay to see it at the theater.

The beginning was boring, the dialog was dumb, and the director was surely stoned. But she

did look good in black shorts.

Thank Christ it was only an hour and twenty minutes long.

@gftchris said:

Do you guys have IMAX in the states? We have it here, it works as a sort of 3D experience, without the glasses, on a curved screen. You don't quite get the stuff flying at you like in Avatar (the only film I've seen in 3D so far) but it's pretty good.

We have 3d Imax

@hoorta said:

Do you guys have IMAX in the states? We have it here, it works as a sort of 3D experience, without the glasses, on a curved screen. You don't quite get the stuff flying at you like in Avatar (the only film I've seen in 3D so far) but it's pretty good.

@the-cysko-kid said:

And ya see, that's where I have trouble. Like the little gizmo of the Tree of Souls floating an inch away from your nose- against a very 2-D background- at least for us 3-D challenged folks. That's what I usually see watching a 3-D movie, three layers of 2-D images stacked on top of one another. Sucks, but until they come up with virtual holographic projection, I'm not inclined to pay the extra $$ to catch a 3-D flick at the movies. I tried again last summer catching Star Trek Into Darkness 3D, and came away disappointed. I try to stay sort of cutting edge in my Man Cave Home Theater, but I have zero interest in adding a 3-D monitor toy.

@the-cysko-kid said:

Avatar in 3d was a treat

But it dragged a little and I was never anxious to see it again.

of course I see a lot of movies and special effects only impress me for a few minutes.

WSS

@hoorta said:

OK, well, I guess that is like being color blind. I much preferred the 3-D version of those films, which I didn't think I would.

I just didn't like having to pay an extra 3.50 for the 3-D though.

@the-gipper said:

No I didn't. I also sometimes read HiDefForum- and there's a thing about 3-D. 3-D really isn't 3-D- it's 2 simultaneous two dimensional images your brain has to process into a 3-D image. Some folks (including me) either can't do it at all, or do it poorly. I much preferred the 2-D version of Avatar to the 3-D version.

And in that regard I don't think moviegoers are all that concerned about technical accuracy. There were worse flaws than that, which the common layman would know nothing about.

Like I said, the whole damsel in distress thing, and the whole "Captain, communications are down" thing were bigger flaws to me.

But OK, I will give it that it had great effects. Especially in the 3-D mode.

Hoorta: did you see the 3-D version?

WSS

1) The Special effects were cutting edge- to have you believe you were in zero gravity circling the Earth were astounding, never seen before CGI. BUT.

2) That movie SUCKED, on many levels. How it ever got a nomination for Best Picture is beyond me. Us guys who know a little about orbital mechanics- the whole premise of the movie was total BS. Even if you want to believe the Ruskies (or the US) had satellites in counter rotational orbits in the same altitude as the Hubble or IST (they don't) you're not going to be seeing enough space junk coming @ an effective 36,000 mph in the wrong direction to destroy both destroy a shuttle or the ISS.

3) I love ya as an actress Sandra, but that wasn't Oscar worthy. So you can fly both a Soyuz capsule and a Chinese escape pod without any training? I suppose I could push enough buttons to get 'em to do something too.

4) So count me that knows something about Space Reality- Gravity is as far fetched from real Space Reality as Star Trek. If you can enjoy it on that level- great- I give it a C- and a waste of my $6 PPV money.

Sometimes they are one and the same?

@the-cysko-kid said:

Yeah ok Steve most reviews are designed to critique the movie in question to let people know whether they ought to see them or not., not to detail how everyone dies and give away the ending. Generally, if you're not a douche, you'd put some sort of spoiler alert at the beginning of it.

Actually I try never to look at any other critics reviews before I go catch a film. Usually I go within days of its opening just in case.

It also pisses me off when the rushes or the previews give you just about every detail of the film. If not every detail at least a pretty good idea of what is to come.

Still on top of the previews just about every review gives you some sort of synopsis: about the plot.

I'd always prefer to be totally surprised.

That's why I wont read a review until after I've given a grade. Oftentimes I am shocked that the big boys loved some piece of crap or that everyone hated something that I really liked. Of course you know the old saying about assholes and opinions...

WSS

@westside-steve said:

Don't read reviews and don't discuss movies before you see them if you don't want that to happen.

WSS

Yeah ok Steve most reviews are designed to critique the movie in question to let people know whether they ought to see them or not., not to detail how everyone dies and give away the ending. Generally, if you're not a douche, you'd put some sort of spoiler alert at the beginning of it.

@the-cysko-kid said:

Well, sorry, but...

@westside-steve said:

Don't read reviews and don't discuss movies before you see them if you don't want that to happen.

WSS

...this.

Plus, do you really not know the plot? That was my biggest gripe, that there was no plot or surprises.

@the-cysko-kid said:

That was terrible man, you basically ruined the whole movie for me. Thanks.

Don't read reviews and don't discuss movies before you see them if you don't want that to happen.

WSS