"Gravity" floats in on rave reviews

Critics are blown away by Alfonso Cuaron's Gravity, an orbital thriller starring Sandra Bullock and George Clooney.

Kenneth Turan, with the LA Times, writes that "words can do little to convey the visual astonishment this space opera creates," while Richard Roeper describes it is among "the most stunning visual treats of the year and one of the most unforgettable thrill rides in recent memory. You'll have to remind yourself to breathe during some of the more harrowing sequences."

The NPR's Bob Mondello says that "Doctoral theses will be penned on the breath-catchingly realistic, gorgeously choreographed, entirely mesmerizing opening", and the NYT's A.O. Scott writes that Cuaron "succeeds by tethering almost unfathomably complex techniques—both digital and analog—to a simple narrative."

Jocelyn Noveck with the AP adds that what you can't know, until you're in the theater, "is just how much you'll feel like you're up there in space, feeling its vastness, perhaps even feeling cold."

(Some folks keep talking about astronomers exposing factual errors in the movie. Which is fair enough. The beautiful thing about science, though, is that gravity gets to expose factual errors in astronomy.)

Notable Replies

  1. Rindan says:

    Spoilers ahead. In fact, if you are worried about spoilers, why the hell are reading this discussion thread? Go away. Watch the movie.

    Do you know what I actually like the best about Gravity? How few Hollywood tropes it had. After watching the Hollywood trope filled abomination that was Elysium, you really can appreciate Gravity. If Gravity had been written by the same monsters that wrote Elysium, it would have been filled with tearful flashbacks of her child, some long and drawn out shitty dialog from Cloony when he was floating off, and some hamfisted moral dropped on your lap with the subtly of an asteroid.

    They did so much right with Gravity. They let it speak for itself. On top of that, they made a vague effort to keep it realistic. They took artistic license, but only when needed. Sure, Hubble and the ISS will NEVER been in even vaguely the same orbit, and maybe the debris wouldn't be such an epic and dense buckshot, but outside of a few bits and pieces here and there... not bad.

    In my jerk off fantasy, Hollywood is going to see the epic reviews and big box office numbers and go "Hey, maybe we should shoveling stupid cliches and tropes into all of our movies. It appears people like them better when we don't do that." I won't hold my breath. I am sure some asshole gave Michael Bay another 100 million to make another atrocious transformers movie.

  2. "gravity gets to expose factual errors in astronomy"

    ?? I don't get it

  3. You can never have enough of Sandra Bullock in her gym clothes.*

    *as stated in the scientific paper "Theory of Bullockness and its Effects on the Circulatory System"

  4. bwv812 says:

    I assume he is referring to the way the precession of Mercury and observed light bending around the sun helped prove Einstein's General Relativity, but I'm not sure if this is best characterized as a 'facutal' error in astronomy.

Continue the discussion bbs.boingboing.net

20 more replies

Participants