Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

"Gravity" (2013)

Trailer for the upcoming movie "Gravity" starring Sandra Bullock and George Clooney; astronauts attempt to return to Earth when their space station is shattered by debris.

The screenplay is credited only to Alfonso Cuaron (who also directed) and Jonas Cuaron, but I swear I read a sci-fi story with the same basic plot when I was a child -- I can't remember if it was a space station near Earth or near Mars, but it gets hit and the survivors, in their space suits, are drifting away from each other, inevitably to die, but still able to communicate with each other. Anybody else know this story?

by Anonymousreply 38612/08/2013

They crap in their pants. The end.

by Anonymousreply 105/09/2013

I don't think I could watch this movie. Being sucked into a vacuum or void is one of my biggest fears.

by Anonymousreply 205/09/2013

There is no sound in space so why are we hearing explosions?

by Anonymousreply 305/09/2013

Mine too, R2, mine too. I hit the shit pile face first after Casino.

by Anonymousreply 405/09/2013

Unless Sandy and George play Mexican boys who have sex with each other, this is one Cuaron movie I won't be seeing.

by Anonymousreply 505/09/2013

God. I hate myself for saying this, but I want to see it.

by Anonymousreply 605/09/2013

Is this just watching Sandra Bullock die on screen for two hours?

by Anonymousreply 705/09/2013

Stoner film.

by Anonymousreply 805/09/2013

Was it from a Ray Bradbury story? The guy falls from space and a little kid on earth thinks he's a shooting star..

by Anonymousreply 905/09/2013

I want to see this, but I get the feeling that it would work better with two unknowns rather than Bullock and Clooney.

by Anonymousreply 1005/09/2013

The OP may have been thinking of the early 70s film "Marooned", where astronauts at a space station find themselves stranded and running out of oxygen.

It was not a good film, in fact MST3K used it for comedic purposes, so a remake might well be better than the original.

by Anonymousreply 1105/09/2013

A film with two agreeable but unexciting stars where the audience knows the entirre cast is going to die - sounds like a blockbuster.

by Anonymousreply 1205/09/2013

R12, Is it really that morbid? I can't imagine anyone wanting to see this.

by Anonymousreply 1305/09/2013

OP, how old are you? I think it was first done in the late 60s on TV on a program called Stage 68. Stage 68 would produce plays for TV, sometimes broadcast them live, one hour long or so.

by Anonymousreply 1405/09/2013

I Love Bullok and Clooney, but this movie doesn't seem to have any more story to tell. If this is the set up, the obvious conclusion is .. . spoiler alert. . . they die, so what exactly are we watching for?

by Anonymousreply 1505/09/2013

r14, I'm 43. I remember getting it out of the elementary school library when I was in 3rd or 4th grade; anyway, it was part of an anthology -- it could be the Bradbury story referenced above, because I remember the story ending with one of the astronauts falling into the atmosphere and burning up.

by Anonymousreply 1605/10/2013

Wasn't this supposed to come out last year? That they pushed it back a year doesn't say anything good.

by Anonymousreply 1705/10/2013

Its Open Water set in space.

by Anonymousreply 1805/10/2013

Sandra Bullock is lost in space and then dies? I'm there!

by Anonymousreply 1905/10/2013

So unless some alien comes along and anal probes either of them, it's a long dialogue of fears, wants, desires and what?

by Anonymousreply 2005/10/2013

An movie with Clooney screams AVOID for me. Although I love the director. Y Tu Mama Tambien is one of my favourites.

by Anonymousreply 2105/10/2013

OP here, yes, it is a Bradbury story:

"Kaleidoscope" -- A group of astronauts are sent floating helplessly through space after a malfunction in their ship. The story illustrates the final thoughts and conversations of the crew members as they face their death. The narrator bitterly reflects on his life and feels he has accomplished nothing worthwhile. His final thought is a wish that his life would at least be worth something to someone else. Ultimately, the narrator is incinerated as he falls through Earth's atmosphere and appears as a shooting star to a child in Illinois.

by Anonymousreply 2205/10/2013

in spite of my dislike for SB, i will see this. looks gripping. and you know they both die at the end.

by Anonymousreply 2305/10/2013

I am pretty sure I've seen a scene like that in a film, but I can't remember what it was. Anyone?

by Anonymousreply 2405/10/2013

[quote]I am pretty sure I've seen a scene like that in a film, but I can't remember what it was. Anyone?

You may be thinking of the scene in 2001 where HAL severs one of the astronaut's oxygen tube and sets him adrift. Different, but similar circumstances and the same end game.

by Anonymousreply 2505/10/2013

I just remembered. There was a scene in MISSION TO MARS by DePalma where Tim Robbins gets detached from the space ship and in order to spare his wife's life takes his helmet off and floats away in space.

[italic]As the ship enters Mars orbit, a swarm of meteors collides with it, breaching the hull. The crew works quickly to repair the damage, but the external fuel tanks are overlooked, causing a large leak and later, an explosion. They quickly put on pressure suits and maneuver their way to the R.E.M.O. module orbiting the planet. Woody concludes that the only hope of a successful rendezvous with the R.E.M.O. is for him to launch himself directly at it using the remainder of his jet pack fuel, carrying a tether from the others. He successfully attaches the cord to the R.E.M.O., but is unable to properly land on it, floating helplessly away toward the planet. Terri tries to rescue Woody, but knowing she would run out of fuel before reaching him, Woody removes his helmet and dies to save her.[/italic]

by Anonymousreply 2605/10/2013

I can think of a dozen actors and actresses who would be better in this than Quirky and Smirky. But he probably needed to cast vapid Hollywood big names in order to get the project off the ground.

by Anonymousreply 2705/10/2013

It should be Justin Timberlake and Anne Hathaway

by Anonymousreply 2805/10/2013

The Clooney casting is ok, it's the Bullock casting that seems rather silly to me. She wasn't the first choice: Angelina Jolie was initially cast but had to drop out; then practically every star/starlet in Hollywood tried to get the part: Rachel Weisz, Naomi Watts, Natalie Portman, Marion Cotillard, Abbie Cornish, Carey Mulligan, Sienna Miller, Scarlett Johansson, Blake Lively, Rebecca Hall and Olivia Wilde; finally, Bullock got the part.

(From that list, I woulda preferred Weisz, Watts or Cotillard.)

by Anonymousreply 2905/10/2013

Doesn't Clooney's character die in the first third of the movie leaving Bullock alone on screen for the remainder of the film?

by Anonymousreply 3005/10/2013

What the Fuck is Olivia Wilde doing in that list? Or Sienna "never was" Miller for that matter.

by Anonymousreply 3105/10/2013

Getting stranded in space was a popular theme in the fifties and sixties.

by Anonymousreply 3205/10/2013

It sounds interesting but I can't stand Bullock. If any other actress was cast I would go to see it.

by Anonymousreply 3305/10/2013

R29, they finally offered it to Bullock because she'd had those 2 back to back hits and this movie cost a bundle to make. That's why they couldn't cast a "lesser" name. Ditto Clooney.

In any case the stars of the movie are supposed to be the special effects.

by Anonymousreply 3405/10/2013

I'd rather Clooney was in August: Whatever County onscreen instead of producing than in this as an actor. God I hate him. I was interested in this one, but didn't know he was in it.

And poor Sandy "everyone loves her even if she can't act" Bullock being overshadowed by cunt face Julia "everyone loved but now hates her even if she can't act" Roberts.

Thought this thread would be more popular, this is one of the most awaited films rather than generic Weinstein Oscar bait.

by Anonymousreply 3505/11/2013

Why the Clooney hate? I don't love all his films but I thought he was great in Michael Clayton, Syriana and In the Air. Bullock seems terribly miscast

by Anonymousreply 3605/11/2013

Clooney is too old to play an astronaut.

by Anonymousreply 3705/11/2013

This movie would be a lot more appealing to me if the Bullock and Clooney were JM J and Rosemary. Now THAT would be picture. Songs! Light comedy! Costumes!

by Anonymousreply 3805/11/2013

Clooney is too old and boring. Bullock reminds me of that scene from Notting Hill where Julia's character was in a space movie.

by Anonymousreply 3905/11/2013

I was underwhelmed watching the preview. I don't want to imagine sitting for 1.5 to 2 hours of this tedium. I checked IMDb: Bullock and Clooney play the only characters. It seems like OPEN WATER in space without the sharks. If there isn't an antagonist of some type, I question how the tension and interest will be sustained (and no, watching those two hold onto debris until they're shaken loose won't do it for me).

by Anonymousreply 4005/11/2013

Exactly - it is Open Water without the water. I couldn't bring myself to watch that and I doubt I'm going to want to put myself through this torture either.

I don't think Jolie ever signed on - the studio just went after her with a full court press and though I think she wanted to work with Cuaron she wasn't interested in the script.

Clooney can be a lot of fun to watch even with just so-so performances but I was really disappointed in both Up in the Air and The Descendants. Both completely overhyped.

Ditto with Bullock - she's usually a likeable screen presence.

by Anonymousreply 4105/11/2013

I like anything SPACE. I will be there!

by Anonymousreply 4205/11/2013

Sorry, but I like some story in my movie. This seems like purely a character piece (although presumably also with amazing visuals given the director). Really nothing about it is tempting me to pay to see it on the big screen

by Anonymousreply 4305/11/2013

Gotta agree with r35. I'm FAR more eager to see this than D.O.A.-looking Oscar-bait "August: Osage County."

by Anonymousreply 4405/11/2013

Here are the three new GRAVITY clips recently released by Warner Bros:

by Anonymousreply 4507/25/2013

Damn, r45, this movie looks absolutely stunning. I SO can't wait to see it. Indeed, it's the first movie in years that I've had any desire to see in IMAX.

by Anonymousreply 4607/25/2013

It also seems a little like The Abyss when Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio is talking Ed Harris through his dive.

by Anonymousreply 4707/25/2013

[quote]There is no sound in space so why are we hearing explosions?

Cuarón said that was only added for the trailers, but for the actual film he's going for a more realistic approach, à la 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY.

by Anonymousreply 4807/25/2013

It will be a Best Picture nominee. Bet on it. I predicted "Babe" would be nominated before it was released too.

by Anonymousreply 4907/25/2013

R49 = Gene Siskel posting from the great beyond

by Anonymousreply 5007/25/2013

I like both actors but the trailer leaves me wanting a helluva lot more. As someone else said, I need there to be an actual story, not just two bodies being cast adrift in space for two hours.

And interesting that Sandra is going to be billed first instead of Clooney. Granted, it's likely just a decision by Cuaron to list them alphabetically but still found it surprising nonetheless.

by Anonymousreply 5107/25/2013

r51, Sandra is the focus of the film; Clooney reportedly only appears in half of the film while Sandra is practically in every frame.

And the struggle to survive against extraordinary odds and in the face of life-endangering disaster is the oldest story in history.

by Anonymousreply 5207/25/2013

You know, it's kind of like Open Water without the water.


by Anonymousreply 5307/25/2013

So will this be Sandra's own CAST AWAY IN SPACE?

by Anonymousreply 5407/25/2013

And no sharks, r53.

by Anonymousreply 5507/25/2013

r54, hopefully it will be a better film (so far, it looks to be).

A Best Picture nod will depend not only on critical acclaim but box office as well; based on that extended trailer, it looks like a sure bet for Best Visual Effects, Cinematography, Sound Effects and maybe even Director.

by Anonymousreply 5607/25/2013

[quote]What the Fuck is Olivia Wilde doing in that list? Or Sienna "never was" Miller for that matter.

Sienna and Olivia are semi-bearable (barely); WTF was BLAKE Lively doing on the list of potential leads? Christ.

by Anonymousreply 5707/25/2013

Looks pretentious.

by Anonymousreply 5807/25/2013

R49, What are your predictions for Clooney's other film, Monuments Men?

by Anonymousreply 5907/25/2013

OMG! The 2nd and 3rd trailer! The film looks so intense.

So now Del Toro and Cuaron are doing BIG time movies, what about González Iñárritu? Still making low budget films?

by Anonymousreply 6007/25/2013

I have to say I was sort of riveted by the extended trailer. I hope Sandy can pull it off. Good for her to at least try something different than.

by Anonymousreply 6107/25/2013

I hope it has the same uplifting ending as Open Water!!!

by Anonymousreply 6207/25/2013

Not R49, but Monuments Men is total Oscar bait. It's about the art men who sought out stolen pieces of art the Nazis took during WW2.

by Anonymousreply 6307/25/2013

R63, (or R49) So who will be nominated and for which awards?

by Anonymousreply 6407/25/2013

Gays in Space!!!!

by Anonymousreply 6507/25/2013

r65, I'm sure it's not the first time!

by Anonymousreply 6607/26/2013

But Sandy doesn't have a blind, overweight, illiterate, handicapped minority person to save.

by Anonymousreply 6707/26/2013

Alfonso Cuaron has consistently knocked it out of the park. I've been reluctant to see ANYTHING in the theatres this last year or so, but this'll get me there.

by Anonymousreply 6807/26/2013

Agreed, Cuaron is an amazing director. Those trailers are terrifying.

by Anonymousreply 6907/26/2013

[all posts by ham-fisted troll a removed.]

by Anonymousreply 7007/26/2013

No, r70. According to IMDb, the movie is 88 minutes long and is essentially a straight-ahead thriller -- perhaps even in real time (think The Set-Up or High Noon) -- of an astronaut's attempt to survive in the bleakness of space.

by Anonymousreply 7107/26/2013

How fucking scary!

by Anonymousreply 7207/26/2013

[quote]A Best Picture nod will depend not only on critical acclaim but box office as well;

If a movie is decent and a big studio release these days a Best Picture nomination is guaranteed. With 10 slots the bar has been set pretty low.

by Anonymousreply 7307/26/2013

[R29] Jolie's career is over. As Sienna Millar don't make me laugh.

As for Clooney his career was over as soon as we all saw that running scene in the Descendents. He looked like an old man.

[R51] why shouldn't Bullock get top billing over Clooney she is the Oscar winner after all and has probably had bigger box office hits than Clooney lately.

by Anonymousreply 7407/26/2013

R74, Clooney is also an Oscar winner, but yes, Bullock is the bigger star.

Not too thrilled with the cast but Cuaron's films are always thrilling and beautiful to look at.

by Anonymousreply 7507/26/2013

I think this film looks terrific and I can't wait to see it.

by Anonymousreply 7607/26/2013

Once you see the picture you'll understand why she gets top billing. She's the ENTIRE MOVIE. Clooney is gone after 20 minutes.

by Anonymousreply 7707/26/2013

Well I am going to see The Heat on Wednesday when it opens in the UK and will then find out when Gravity opens. Bullock is going to have a good year.

by Anonymousreply 7807/26/2013

I'm sure it will look beautiful but I have no desire to see the agonizingly slow death of Sandra Bullock's character. As she floats endlessly in space, she will realize no one can come rescue her. She will have to accept that her fate is to starve to death or suffocate to death.

Since her suit probably won't allow her to commit suicide, the only other mercy killing she can hope for is gravity.

If she can get pulled into a planet's gravitational pull, she can die a quicker death - which I'm sure will be shot beautifully.

No, thanks. I've depressed myself enough just thinking about it.

by Anonymousreply 7907/26/2013

[quote]Clooney is also an Oscar winner, but yes, Bullock is the bigger star.

Bullock will make the film seem more "audience friendly". Clooney has been in too many movies that take an ounce of brain power to enjoy. That's a big no-no.

by Anonymousreply 8007/26/2013

r79, why would that prevent you from seeing the movie? I don't understand it. I've seen far more disturbing films and perhaps this one does end with her dying at the end, but it looks like a technically bravura piece of filmmaking and if I cry at the end, bonus.

by Anonymousreply 8107/26/2013

The following is a bit spoilery, though non-specific, so read at your own risk:

The script that was leaked has her using an escape pod on a nearby Chinese station. She makes it.

by Anonymousreply 8207/26/2013

I don't know if this has been posted yet, but here's a link to all 3 teaser trailers:

by Anonymousreply 8307/26/2013

Clooney has TWO Oscars.

by Anonymousreply 8407/26/2013

[R84] for acting or producing?

by Anonymousreply 8507/26/2013

Couldn't she take her helmet off and die rather quickly? Is it true that astronauts actually carry cyanide with them just in case? One of my friends is an astronaut, I should ask her.

by Anonymousreply 8607/26/2013

r85, for Best Supporting Actor for "Syriana" (2005) and Best Picture as one of the producers of "Argo" (2012).

by Anonymousreply 8707/26/2013

It could be like Beckett in Space if they have a good script.

Like Happy Days in Orbit!

by Anonymousreply 8807/28/2013

Can't wait to see this movie, comes out in the UK in November.

How hot is Sandra looking in Venice.

by Anonymousreply 8908/29/2013

'Gravity' Reviews From The Venice Film Festival: 'Nerve-Shredding,' 'Extraordinary'

Since the first trailer for Alfonso Cuaron's "Gravity" debuted in May, audience anticipation for the space-set two-hander has been tumbling through cyberspace with an untethered excitement. Judging from the early reviews of "Gravity" after its Venice Film Festival bow on Wednesday, interested parties likely won't be disappointed.

"As scripted by Cuaron and his son Jonas, this tale of one woman’s grim expedition into the unknown is a nerve-shredding suspenser, a daring study in extreme isolation, and one of the most sophisticated and enveloping visions of space travel yet realized onscreen," wrote Variety critic Justin Chang in one of the many initial rave reviews. "It falls among that increasingly rare breed of popular entertainments capable of prompting genuine 'How did they do that?' reactions from even the most jaded viewers, even as its central premise is so simple and immediately gripping that one might just as readily ask, 'Why didn’t anyone do it sooner?'"

Sandra Bullock and George Clooney star in "Gravity," which, in keeping with Cuaron's previous film, 2006's "Children of Men," utilizes long-takes and precious few cuts to drive the action. Initial reports suggested that the opening of the film was shot in one, continuous 19-minute take, but the Venice Film Festival reviews suggest that the "Gravity" opener is a mere 13-minutes of unbroken cinema wizardry.

"At once the most realistic and beautifully choreographed film ever set in space, 'Gravity' is a thrillingly realized survival story spiked with interludes of breath-catching tension and startling surprise," wrote Todd McCarthy for The Hollywood Reporter. McCarthy's review, which contains a little too much information about the film's plot, does confirm something Clooney had said in earlier interviews about the film: there are no aliens.

"It is a very odd film, really," Clooney told USA Today in 2011. "Two people in space. No monsters."

Both Clooney and Bullock are being praised in the early reviews for their work, with many critics singling out Bullock for giving one of her best performances yet. That kind of validation is likely music to Cuaron's ears, who had initially cast Angelina Jolie and then Natalie Portman in the role, before landing Bullock.

"Without giving too much of the plot away –- rest assured there are plenty of twists and turns –- this is very much Sandra Bullock’s film," wrote Mark Adams for Screen Daily. "Much has been made of Angelina Jolie turning the role down, and it only coming Bullock's way after Nathalie Portman's pregnancy, but Bullock's combination of intelligence and straight-forward charm works perfectly here, plus she convinces in the physicality of the role, whether it be flying through space or fighting fires inside a space craft."

Warner Bros. is set to bring "Gravity" to the Toronto International Film Festival in early September, and with an October release date, it's clear that the studio has awards season on its mind for the film. Regardless of what happens between now and next year, though, at least Cuaron might want to get his tuxedo dry-cleaned.

"The film’s technically perfect, of course, from the terrific sound design to the impeccable effects (the exact extent of the CGI is difficult to say, because pretty much everything looks photo-realistic, even when things head indoors)," Oliver Lyttelton wrote for The Playlist. "But it's also cleverly written, and more than anything phenomenally directed, from the way that he uses every available surface to tell his story (someone’s going to write a book one day on the use of reflections in this film) to the way he and [cinematographer Emmanuel] Lubezki shift the light to vary the color palette, preventing it from becoming repetitive. Almost every decision is inspired."

by Anonymousreply 9008/29/2013

Is this set in the future when they've started using senior citizens as astronauts?

by Anonymousreply 9108/29/2013

I read some review online, I think the source was a Houston newspaper, that basically said Bullock was riveting. Frankly, I was shocked.

by Anonymousreply 9208/29/2013

There's a new trailer. James Cameron has seen the film and had this to say:

“I was stunned, absolutely floored. I think it’s the best space photography ever done, I think it’s the best space film ever done, and it’s the movie I’ve been hungry to see for an awful long time....What is interesting is the human dimension...Alfonso and Sandra working together to create an absolutely seamless portrayal of a woman fighting for her life in zero gravity.”

by Anonymousreply 9309/04/2013

Another excellent (non-spoilery) review:

[bold]We've seen Gravity and it's even better than we'd hoped[/bold]

We've seen Alfonso Cuarón's Gravity and it is one of the best space films we have seen in ages. One part giant showcase of the cosmos and one part a deeply harrowing action thriller, Gravity is about to show Hollywood what a real white-knuckled audience looks like. And here is our spoiler-free first impression of the film.

(see link for the rest)

by Anonymousreply 9409/07/2013

Is it better than Spaceballs?

by Anonymousreply 9509/07/2013

really looking forward to this

by Anonymousreply 9609/09/2013

Another hit for Sandy!

by Anonymousreply 9709/09/2013

So who stars in the sequels?

by Anonymousreply 9809/09/2013

Must have been hell to come up with product placement for this one. Maybe a Pepsi can or GE heat shield floating through the assorted space junk Ms. Bullock will surely bump into.

by Anonymousreply 9909/09/2013

How were the reviews at TIFF?

by Anonymousreply 10009/09/2013

The reviews at TIFF were excellent, R100.

by Anonymousreply 10109/12/2013

This seems like a life altering movie that is better than sliced bread.

Is it really all that, bitches?

by Anonymousreply 10209/15/2013

I'm over Sandra. She is starting to remind me of Tom Cruise. She had to adopt her brown baby, to get over the Jessie scandal. When people bring children into the mess just for publicity...I say, fuck 'um.

by Anonymousreply 10309/15/2013

I am hearing visuals: breathtaking, everything else: meh.

by Anonymousreply 10409/15/2013

Coming out of TIFF, it appears that "Gravity" is second to "12 Years a Slave" as a sure-fire Oscar Best Picture nominee.

by Anonymousreply 10509/15/2013

It's probably visually absolutely stunning, but for me Clooney is an absolutely no no for a movie. The guy just can't act. He ruins every movie for me. Bullock is an OK actress, so lets just hope she pulls it off and apart from the visuals there is some interesting character stuff in this movie.

by Anonymousreply 10609/25/2013

I saw an advance screening and it's brilliant with a big "except". The photography and camera movement are mind blowing. I don't know how else to explain it than that you absolutely feel like you the observer are there in space, floating and moving with the character. I even liked Sandra Bullock who beautifully underplays her role. Now the big exception. Clooney plays essentially himself in the movie: the charming rogue who is too slick for his own good. To see Clooney being Clooeny at times took me out of the action and the film would have been better with a different actor in the role.

by Anonymousreply 10709/25/2013

In space no one can hear you scream

by Anonymousreply 10809/25/2013

Did the studio force Clooney on Cuaron? I find it hard to believe he (Cuaron) really wanted him in this movie. Clooney has the acting ability of cardboard. He is just awful!

by Anonymousreply 10909/25/2013

An early poster nailed it "Open Water" without the sharks. I love both actors, but I cannot bear the thought of listening to them mentally preparing for a slow death for two hours. In Open Water I left frustrated by how easily they gave up and how quickly they died, I can see no hope here. Life is too depressing as it is.

by Anonymousreply 11009/25/2013

When doesn't Clooney play Clooney, R107?

by Anonymousreply 11109/25/2013

Probably, R109. I assume Bullock was politely suggested by the studio as well. Its a big budget movie with no comic book tie in or marketing potential, so the studio was probably reluctant to greenlight it without having a very big star attached. After all, from what I gather 99% of the movie is watching this one person by themselves.

by Anonymousreply 11209/25/2013

I can't stand either Bullock or Clooney but the movie looks very good and I wouldn't mind seeing those two die on screen for two hours.

by Anonymousreply 11309/25/2013

Isn't it possible that Sandra and George are the ones who brought the movie along? Maybe it was their project and they brought Cuaron on board? I'm sure he was paid well.

All of you assholes always complaining about actors...idiots probably don't know a damn thing about actors, you just know how to pick.

Did it ever cross your mind that sometimes people simply like to see a movie star, because they LIKE the movie star.

by Anonymousreply 11409/25/2013

If you think of it actors are kind of ludicrous. On screen they're able to single handedly stop meteorites, kill monsters and deliver an endless stream of smart assed quips, but in real life most of them probably couldn't even save a kitten from a tree or say something even remotely interesting.

by Anonymousreply 11509/25/2013

I know, R115. I mean Daniel Day Lewis... He isn't even President of the United States. That kinda sucks, doesn't it?

Let's just watch Big Brother all the time. That's REAL people doing REAL things. Not ludicrous at all.

by Anonymousreply 11609/25/2013

Sandra was Alfonso's 8th pick or something like that. He first went to Jolie who turned it down twice. The list is quite remarkable and laughable.

by Anonymousreply 11709/25/2013

R117, Can you post the complete list of men and women that he considered?

by Anonymousreply 11809/25/2013

R118, if you go to imdb under Trivia, you can see the lengthy list of women who were approached or screen tested for SB's role prior to her being cast. The only other person mentioned for the GC role is Robert Downey Jr.

by Anonymousreply 11909/25/2013

R119, Thanks for your info. I like RDJ's comic timing but I can't see RDJ physically as an astronaut.

by Anonymousreply 12009/25/2013

This should be Julia Robert's movie!

by Anonymousreply 12109/25/2013

[quote]Isn't it possible that Sandra and George are the ones who brought the movie along? Maybe it was their project and they brought Cuaron on board? I'm sure he was paid well.

Dumbest thing I've read in weeks.

Cuaron wrote the film, it is his project.

by Anonymousreply 12209/25/2013

R92 had me rolling

by Anonymousreply 12309/25/2013

[quote]Sandra was Alfonso's 8th pick or something like that. He first went to Jolie who turned it down twice. The list is quite remarkable and laughable.

The most laughable part is that Blake Lively was considered at one point. Blake EFFING Lively. It boggles the mind. Was she really screwing Harvey?

Is this cow's film career over yet?

by Anonymousreply 12409/25/2013

He also was after Natalie Portman, who has been in nothing but bombs except for Black Swan.

I don't understand why the only true box office star other than Jolie would be so far down on his list. Did he think Bullock couldn't act well enough? If so, wtf was he thinking with Blake NotSoLively.

by Anonymousreply 12509/25/2013

I think it's more a case of Lively being forced onto Cuaron. There were lots or rumors she was knee-deep with Weinstein for a couple of years there and he pulled a lot of strings to get her scripts and auditions.

I mean, around this same time she was actually up for consideration for Catwoman in Nolan's last Batman film and on the shortlist for Tiffany in SLP! a big WTF all around. And she landed the lead in the Oliver Stone debacle with Kitsch and Aaron T-J, a flop but still at the time a coveted role in Hollywood.

by Anonymousreply 12609/25/2013

Not even Cukor could have fixed this film.

by Anonymousreply 12709/25/2013

R114 If you like good acting and not just pretty faces, you don't go for either Clooney nor Bullock. Although she can be an OK actress at times. Clooney is a terrible actor. Too bad RDJ dropped out, but he is just in a money making mode right now.

by Anonymousreply 12809/25/2013

[quote]This should be Julia Robert's movie!

Bitch, please.

[quote]I don't understand why the only true box office star other than Jolie would be so far down on his list.

Angelina Jolie, a box office star? Since when? Her movies tank.

by Anonymousreply 12909/25/2013

Why are people bringing up Blake Lively and Weinstein since Gravity has always been at Warner Bros. Weinstein has no say or influence there. If anything BL could've been pushed at WB by Jeff Robinov, as a favor to Ben Affleck, given the rumors about Blake and Ben during the town.

Anyway the reason Bullock was so far down the list is because of her age. End of story. Had she not just had back to back hits in The Proposal and The Blind Side and won an Oscar, she would not have been approached and the movie would still be in development.

by Anonymousreply 13009/25/2013

[quote]Did the studio force Clooney on Cuaron? I find it hard to believe he (Cuaron) really wanted him in this movie. Clooney has the acting ability of cardboard. He is just awful!

I agree but the only other option considered was Robert Downey Jr. Granted they both do a different type of smug, but they're still smug.

by Anonymousreply 13109/25/2013

[quote]All of you assholes always complaining about actors...idiots probably don't know a damn thing about actors, you just know how to pick.

Lol@ R114, talk about someone who doesn't know jack shit about movies and this movie in particular.

by Anonymousreply 13209/25/2013

R131 Even RDJ's worst performance is better than Clooneys best. Clooney is so awful and so completely unbelievable in every role, he takes me out of a movie every time.

by Anonymousreply 13309/25/2013

In "Marooned" Richard Crenna floats away.

by Anonymousreply 13409/25/2013

I've seen it.

Have contacts in the industry.

It's the movie if the year so far.

It's just edge of seat, amazing to look at, thrill ride.

Both Bullock and Clooney are great in it.

by Anonymousreply 13509/25/2013

I thought Bullock hated Clooney, didn't she say something about him at the oscars when she won?

by Anonymousreply 13609/25/2013

I saw a preview - it's an absolutely amazing movie, but beware of motion sickness. I sat through the credits and noticed that Clooney's Waldo is once again credited as his hairdresser. That's a hell of a longtime relationship.

by Anonymousreply 13709/27/2013

Yet another amazing review... this review is spoiler free (especially if you don't play the video):

[bold]'Gravity' review: try not to scream[/bold]

by Anonymousreply 13810/01/2013

Val Kilmer was probably available for the Clooney role.

by Anonymousreply 13910/01/2013

[quote]WTF was BLAKE Lively doing on the list of potential leads?

Hollywood rewards years of faithful, dedicated bearding.

by Anonymousreply 14010/01/2013

Based on the review in R138, I think I'm going to actually try and see this in 3D...

by Anonymousreply 14110/02/2013

I just saw it!

The best part is the space stuff!

The worst: ignore if you don`t want to read minor SPOILERS....

The corny, corny dialogue, which was written by someone writing dialogue that would be for the typical Bullock and Clooney characters! Bullock actually tried to act a bit more than Clooney who was really there to do his same old shtick. I think Marion Cottiliard and Rebecca Hall would have been ok, but I did not mind Sandra (just the terrible dialogue!) And her hair. Was that a wig - if people are being paid 20 million or whatever, they should get a haircut. The ending was a bit unbelievable. It was not as seductive and magical or deep as the trailer suggested, unfortunately.

It was NOT the Bradbury story - that would have made a cool(er) movie.

by Anonymousreply 14210/02/2013

It just sucks when great movies have crap actors in them. Why anybody is giving Clooney an acting job is completely beyond me. More and more he sucks as a director as well.

by Anonymousreply 14310/03/2013

Based on what r142 said, I'm not so sure I want to see the film.

by Anonymousreply 14410/03/2013

Currently at 98% on Rotten Tomatoes, making it one of the best reviewed wide-release films of the year.

by Anonymousreply 14510/03/2013

When was it released?

by Anonymousreply 14610/03/2013


by Anonymousreply 14710/03/2013

I don't give a shit about Rotten Tomatoes anymore. Most critics are bought anyway.

by Anonymousreply 14810/03/2013

Just home from the movie. Wow. Film moment of the year is Sandra Bullock's tears floating into the audience. Great movie. I don't know how they made it.

by Anonymousreply 14910/03/2013

This thing is being universally praised. I MUST see it.

by Anonymousreply 15010/04/2013

It's gonna open to $45-$50 million.

I would think that makes it a hit!

by Anonymousreply 15110/04/2013

Sandy definitely has earned her spot at the top of Hollywood's A-list actresses.

by Anonymousreply 15210/04/2013

great visually and technically--the "plot" as it were it basically ridiculous-but its a fun ride neither actors have a real character to play--and Bullock, who has to carry the bulk of the film, is not innately interesting (or talented) enough) to make "Ryan Stone" (great porn name?)-compelling

by Anonymousreply 15310/04/2013

Best film this year...5 Stars!

by Anonymousreply 15410/04/2013

Totally agree!

by Anonymousreply 15510/04/2013

Eli Roth and Anthony Rapp just Tweeted about the film. Eli said he loved it and that it made him fall in love with filmaking all over again, and Anthony Rapp said he's excited to see it.

by Anonymousreply 15610/04/2013

I saw it in IMAX 3D; don't see it any other way. It is truly worth the extra $$.

Visually magnificent. The acting is mediocre, and the dialogue is awful. Sandra's Oscar bait speech is hilariously bad.

by Anonymousreply 15710/04/2013

Beautiful film. Highly satisfying. Bullock's tears float in space. What's not to love?

by Anonymousreply 15810/04/2013

Saw it tonight.

Un-fucking-believably amazing.

I am a huge fan of Cuaron, but this is his masterpiece. Just perfect.

The 3D is essential, if only for the one scene with the floating zero G tear...

He will win the Oscar, and Sandy has a 99% chance.

by Anonymousreply 15910/04/2013


Can you believe the amount of haterade these fools are drinking? Clooney is great- calm, charming, with a hint of fear.

The bitches that turned it down- Jolie, Padme Amidala, BLAKE FUCKING LIVELY (no way) - are going to kick themselves when Sandra accepts the Oscar for this.

I will be seeing it again this week with some friends---and I NEVER go to see a movie twice in a theater!

by Anonymousreply 16010/04/2013


That floating tear is THE moment. Subtle, slow, and amazing.

Saw it with my family, and all of us singled out that moment (and the Marvin the Martian moment) as memorable.

by Anonymousreply 16110/04/2013

good god I hope she doesnt win again-(and not for this)-you really could have basically put any other actress into this ill defined role

by Anonymousreply 16210/05/2013

She won't win. The film will win Best Director, but Bullock's performance (and some of the dialogue) have been identified as weak points...even by critics who've praised the overall movie.

Cate Blanchett is still the front runner for Best Actress...and there's no guarantee Sandra Bullock will even be nominated (although the odds are high).

by Anonymousreply 16310/05/2013

Saw it in 3D (as someone else said: a must).

That list of other talentless actresses must be a joke. No fan of Bullock but she does a good job. The only other A list actress in Hollywood who could pull it off would be Roberts methinks. Blanchett has become too mannered and actressy in her performances, and Kidman is just an automaton.

Some have criticised the subtext story but if you've ever lost anyone you deeply loved you'll have no problems with it. "I just drive" was for me a really resonant line.

by Anonymousreply 16410/05/2013

The trouble with those other actresses is that none of them look like they've LIVED. That's why they're crap actresses: they've got nothing in their perspnal histories to emotionally bring to a roll. Bullock does look ordinary like she's been knocked round a bit.

by Anonymousreply 16510/05/2013

Wait... Anthony Rapp is excited to see it?

by Anonymousreply 16610/05/2013

Can someone spoil the ending for those who are not going to see the film?

by Anonymousreply 16710/05/2013

How about in another thread, R167?

by Anonymousreply 16810/05/2013

"Graxity" (2013)

At once the most realistic and beautifully whisked film ever set in a kitchen, 'Graxity' is a thrillingly realized survival story salted with interludes of breath-catching venison and startling giblets," wrote Todd McCarthy, restaurant reviewer for The Hollywood Reporter. McCarthy's review, which contains a little too much flour and sausage into the film's jandra, does confirm something Clooney had said in earlier interviews about the film: there are no biscuits.

by Anonymousreply 16910/05/2013

Just back from the movie. 3D no Imax.

It was not on my list but the reviews changed my mind. (96 on Metacritic!).

Not a fan of Bullock or Clooney but I loved them both. I thought they were perfect. For those who complain about the dialogues, read the NYT review and the silence effect.

The 13-minute opening shot/scene is pure magic and the famous tear. I feel sorry for the people who know about the tear, what a moment.

And, surprisingly, the movie got me. I was a mess at the end.

And....for lesbians are going to get hard and wet during that final scene.

by Anonymousreply 17010/05/2013

It reminded me at times of that Bradbury story Kaleidoscope mentioned upthread. I read that story in its EC adaptation in a reprint collection of Weird Science or Weird Fantasy, and it has stayed with me.

This movie was pretty good but not quite the second coming.

Another supporting nom for Clooney?

by Anonymousreply 17110/05/2013

Saw "Gravity" this afternoon...

First of all, it's worth repeating: If you see it, do whatever you can to see the IMAX version! I remember being fairly unimpressed with the 3D effects in Avatar and Oz the Great and Powerful, but Gravity really put 3D to great use. As others have noted, the scene with the tear was pretty profound...but I found myself reflexively ducking during a scene where debris appeared to be coming toward the audience.

Secondly, I'll admit, I was originally skeptical about how effective Sandra Bullock and George Clooney would be in their respective roles, but they were...perfect. When I left the theater, I was hard-pressed to think of other actors who could've pulled been as nuanced...especially since SB and GC are among the few actors who can pull off dramatic AND comedic roles. SB's performance wasn't as showy as I was expecting...still, she managed to hit all the marks and lose herself in the role. GC, to an extent, was GC; however, it helped that the two stars had amazing chemistry. SB will easily get a Best Actress nomination, but GC was good enough for a Best Supporting Actor nod.

Ultimately, I loved the film and would have to agree with the reviews that say it revolutionizes modern filmmaking. No, you don't really get to know much about any of the the same time, you don't really need to know about what makes them tick since you're only witnessing a snapshot in time.

Gravity is easily the best film I've seen all year...not because of the acting or dialogue, but because it was truly an unforgettable film experience.

by Anonymousreply 17210/05/2013

I just saw it this afternoon (3D). I loved it...amazed at the special effects and cinematography and Bullock has done the best work if her career. Her scene when she gave up was wonderful.

by Anonymousreply 17310/05/2013

Just saw it in IMAX 3D and it was, by far, the best film-going experience I have had in a LONG time. It was so amazing that I was left mouth-agape at the sheer brilliance of it. The performances, the effects, the script, the direction, the soundtrack--everything was just perfect. A crowning achievement for all involved. This one is Oscar-bound for sure.

by Anonymousreply 17410/05/2013

I think this movie in 3D would set off my vertigo.

by Anonymousreply 17510/05/2013

Once again, I hated it. Do people always have to have a goddamned techy thrill ride with noise and screeched to think they've seen a good movie.

Oh, wow! It's SOOOOOO dramatic! And things go in every direction!!!!!! It's just like space!!!!!

I now hate Bullock. She's the biggest phony in the business.

by Anonymousreply 17610/05/2013

Ah, the contrary effete who disdains anything popular, has arrived.

by Anonymousreply 17710/05/2013

Yeah, R177. He's so tedious.

by Anonymousreply 17810/05/2013

So, we have one person out of 178 replies that hates it.

On Datalounge, that makes it a masterpiece!

I've been thinking about parts of the movie today, and anticipating seeing it again tomorrow with some friends I'm dragging with me. I saw it in regular 3D, but making a longer trek uptown to see the IMAX.

by Anonymousreply 17910/05/2013

I'm seeing it tomorrow.

by Anonymousreply 18010/05/2013

Seriously, the best new movie I've seen this year.

I saw it in 3D, but plan to see it again in Imax later next week.

Clooney is Clooney, and Bullock, a world away from her rom-com roles, gives her best performance ever.

by Anonymousreply 18110/05/2013

Interview with Bullock at the Venice Film Festival:

by Anonymousreply 18210/06/2013

OP could also be thinking of 2001 A SPACE ODYSSEY with one of the astronauts drifting off in space after losing contact with the spaceship.

I saw the trailer for GRAVITY yesterday, it looks terrific, will have to see in on the big screen.

by Anonymousreply 18310/06/2013

Yup, Marvin and the tear. Also, the beginning flicker of the fire was fantastic. Loved the film.

by Anonymousreply 18410/06/2013

I wish someone would tell me the ending. I'm not going to see it. I don't like floating in space movies. I need terra firma.

by Anonymousreply 18510/06/2013

R185, Google "Gravity spoilers." Your wish will come true. But lets leave spoilers out of this thread for a while.

by Anonymousreply 18610/06/2013

All I want to say is, according to some stuff I read, J Lo was offered the part Sandra Bullock got. Jennifer Lopez. Can you believe it? And she turned it down? I can see them offering it to Robert Downey, Jr. But J Lo?????

by Anonymousreply 18710/06/2013

[quote]If this is the set up, the obvious conclusion is .. . spoiler alert. . . they die, so what exactly are we watching for?

Life is like that. The obvious conclusion is we are all going to die, so what exactly are we living for?

by Anonymousreply 18810/06/2013

Just got back from watching it in "IMAX" (quotes because it's suburban multi-plex IMAX-lite, not the real massive IMAX) 3D.

And my one word review: "WOW"

My two word review: "Holy Crap!"

My suggestion to you: Go see it. Seriously.

by Anonymousreply 18910/06/2013

Here's the truth: the 3D is incredible, but the movie feels truncated and the script is very, very badly written. Their are themes - spirituality, fate - that are picked up and abandoned. I expected long monologues between the actors to humanize the story, though this was not the case. The actors were fine, but did very little. Bullock landing the ship was the same acting she did trying to stop the bus in Speed. Incredible effects that normalize space travel - for this alone, see it in 3D - but the script is almost as bad as a student film. It has NO depth. It was over before I knew it, and for its shallowness, I was glad for that.

by Anonymousreply 19010/06/2013

We saw this yesterday after seeing all the positive reviews and even though I'm not really a Bullock fan, I loved it. I couldn't believe when it ended because it went by so fast. I honestly thought we'd only been there for an hour. It was really thrilling and beautifully shot. I never see 3D movies because I don't think they're worth it, but this movie is a must in 3D.

Sandra was on NPR this week talking about how they shot it and it seemed like a huge mental task for her.

by Anonymousreply 19110/06/2013

What was the significance of the scene where Ryan appears to be in utero?

by Anonymousreply 19210/06/2013


Scarlet Johannson and Blake Lively were also in talks, shows you how incredibly stupid Hollywood execs are.

Clooney is a shit actor, Bullock is also not really great.

If you like great cinematography this movie will probably be for you, if you want compelling storytelling and great character acting, this movie will become boring very quickly.

by Anonymousreply 19310/06/2013

Amazing! As other posters said, you have to see this film in IMAX. Truly an experience.

It almost makes me angry to think they considered Blake Lively for the role. Talk about taking you out of the moment. Was Cuaron thinking with his dick?

by Anonymousreply 19410/06/2013

R194, I seriously doubt Cuaron wanted Blake Lively or Jennifer Lopez...a lot of times it's studios that try to intervene and fuck things up from the inside.

After seeing the film, I wasn't even so sure that Angelina Jolie, who was originally cast as Ryan Stone, would've been believable as an astronaut. Sandra Bullock isn't a traditional knockout so she was able to bring an ordinariness that the role required.

by Anonymousreply 19510/06/2013

I agree R190 and R193. I can't believe all the superlative, uncritical raves. I liked the space stuff - but oh, the dialogue/script! With all the effort and money that was put in that, if only the script was better - it really could have been a fantastic movie.

by Anonymousreply 19610/06/2013

[quote]J Lo was offered the part Sandra Bullock got

No one would have believed J lo floating in space, her ass is too heavy

by Anonymousreply 19710/06/2013

What, no Denise Richards?

by Anonymousreply 19810/06/2013

When Clooney and Bullock were first promoting this movie, they were implementing the old HW PR trick - oh there is something going on between the costars. Dead sure indicator that the movie is not intellectually challenging!

by Anonymousreply 19910/06/2013

They clearly like each other and get on well, but it's a strictly platonic vibe. There's no romance there whatsoever.

by Anonymousreply 20010/06/2013

There were tons of gossip rags with both Clooney and Bullock together on the cover, suggesting there was something going on. If your movie needs the promotion help of the gossip rags it's also an indicator you should leave your brain at home when you finally go see the flick.

by Anonymousreply 20110/06/2013

The people bitching about the dialog, script, or plot just need to go over to the "I hate Gravity" thread with the other contrarian curmudgeons. Because you're just so completely full of shit.

by Anonymousreply 20210/06/2013

[quote]I never see 3D movies because I don't think they're worth it, but this movie is a must in 3D.

I never see movies in 3D either but saw this one, and I agree it was well worth it.

By the way, I saw where they make you give back the 3D glasses at the end of the screening by dropping them into a huge barrel outside the theater. I admit I was somewhat surprised by this but did think it makes sense because reproducing them for every screening would be massively expensive (though I'm sure some people probably do sneak out with them anyway).

by Anonymousreply 20310/06/2013

Why wasn't Jodi Foster picked for this role?

No pesky romances, it's perfect for her.

by Anonymousreply 20410/06/2013

[quote]The only other person mentioned for the GC role is Robert Downey Jr.

I'm surprised Tom Cruise wasn't offered the part (though I'm certainly not complaining that he wasn't) or Matt Damon (though maybe he would be too young).

I thought Clooney did a wonderful job.

by Anonymousreply 20510/06/2013

[quote]I can't believe all the superlative, uncritical raves.

If it matters, A.O. Scott in his NYT review did point out a few problems he had with the script (though nothing major, of course).

by Anonymousreply 20610/06/2013

They should have done it with RDJ and Marion Cotillard, at least the acting would have been interesting.

by Anonymousreply 20710/06/2013

Is there an "I Hate Gravity" thread? Please, someone start one!

by Anonymousreply 20810/06/2013

I don't think Sandra and Tom would like to compete about who's name would have top billing.

by Anonymousreply 20910/06/2013

You have to see this movie stoned. Every single thing makes sense. The limited dialogue, the human moments, the intense feeling of impending doom.....everything is heightened and everything is fucking perfect. Trust me on this. Get high first.

by Anonymousreply 21010/06/2013

It was definitely "Marooned", back when Richard Crenna was considered hot. It did have James Franciscus, too. Worth checking out.

by Anonymousreply 21110/06/2013

Here is the "I didn't like Gravity" thread.

by Anonymousreply 21210/06/2013

[quote]The people bitching about the dialog, script, or plot just need to go over to the "I hate Gravity" thread with the other contrarian curmudgeons. Because you're just so completely full of shit.

Truer words have NEVER been spoken. If anyone finds fault with this flawless movie (and I say flawless as a true film buff and connoisseur), then they should be banned from seeing movies for the rest of their lives.

by Anonymousreply 21310/06/2013

thanks, R212!

by Anonymousreply 21410/06/2013

[quote]By the way, I saw where they make you give back the 3D glasses at the end of the screening by dropping them into a huge barrel outside the theater. I admit I was somewhat surprised by this but did think it makes sense because reproducing them for every screening would be massively expensive (though I'm sure some people probably do sneak out with them anyway).

Blimey, you're brilliant!

by Anonymousreply 21510/06/2013

You thought the 3D glasses were yours to keep?

by Anonymousreply 21610/06/2013

Saw it in IMAX 3-D this afternoon and I LOVED it. Really LOVED it. I went because "A Little Princess" is one of my favorite films and I also loved "Prisoner of Azcaban" so Cuaron was the draw.

I really liked Bullock and can't imagine someone else pulling it off. It needed a likeable/ capable everywoman to pull it off and she really delivered. Clooney was good as well.

I disagree that themes were raised and dropped- I think themes were floated at dramatic moments to tie into the final moment of the film which still has me emotionally wrecked. I went home and made a great dinner for the husband and neighbors to celebrate my life.

by Anonymousreply 21710/06/2013

No, R216, I didn't. Going into the screening, I didn't think anything about it at all until they made the announcement that you were to give them back after the show. I've always avoided any movies in 3D, so "Gravity" was the first time I've ever attended one (and willing to admit I actually enjoyed it more than I thought I would).

My post at R203 was just an observation by a 3D newbie you might say, nothing more.

by Anonymousreply 21810/06/2013

When I saw this, I was reminded about why everyone fell in love with Sandy Bullock when she made her breakout in SPEED. You root for her. You want her to win. She's very likeable onscreen, which some actors just can't manage to pull off. She will definitely be nominated for a Best Actress Oscar, and will likely win.

by Anonymousreply 21910/06/2013

She will win because she is toned! Or was that the body double or CGI?

by Anonymousreply 22010/06/2013

[quote]Or was that the body double or CGI?

I admit I wondered the same thing, since much of the publicity surrounding the release has emphasized that everything in the movie except the actors' *faces* is CGI; they said nothing about their bodies.

by Anonymousreply 22110/06/2013

That's Sandy's body for sure. Her legs are always toned and she's in incredible shape.

by Anonymousreply 22210/06/2013

Her body was digitally airbrushed, if it was not CG. Which totally goes against the theme of the film - about embracing one's humanity and mortality - but hey, that's Hollywood.

by Anonymousreply 22310/06/2013

I loved it..

by Anonymousreply 22410/06/2013

[bold]'Gravity' pulls in $55.6 million for biggest October opening ever[/bold]

Alfonso Cuarón's Gravity is already a hit with critics, but this weekend it saw box office to match, pulling in a total of $55.6 million in box office for the biggest October opening ever. That's a career-best for both Sandra Bullock and George Clooney, and the second best of Cuarón's career, after Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban.

It's also a surprising victory for 3D. A typical movie will do about half its box office total in 3D screenings, but Gravity took in 80 percent from 3D tickets, suggesting moviegoers will still pay for a well-crafted 3D experience. It also took in 20 percent of its total in IMAX theaters, something IMAX Entertainment president Greg Foster linked to the format's history of educational space films. "A lot of people who grew up going to see IMAX space documentaries like Space Station and Hubble 3D made the connection to see this film also in IMAX," Foster told Variety.

by Anonymousreply 22510/06/2013

Neil deGrasse Tyson on twitter is pointing out a lot of technical flaws. The main one is the compression of distances. The Hubble and the International Space Station are in different orbits, about 120 miles apart.

Another good question: why is Bullock's character, a medical doctor, servicing the Hubble?

by Anonymousreply 22610/06/2013


I saw "Y Tu Mama Tambien" when it came out (in the US) and loved it, showed it to all my friends, and even went to see HP2 since ACuaron was the director.

"A Little Princess" and "Children of Men" are masterpieces.

"Gravity" is his entree into "film legend". When James Cameron (and despite the hack nature of Titanic and Dances with Blue Aliens) the director of "The Abyss" calls your movie a quantum leap--- well, he's made the "Big Leagues"!

The quants in HW predicted $35M. It did $56M. That is some MAJOR outperformance of expectations!

Sandra will win the Oscar, as will Alfonso. The rest will just be blessed to be nominated in the same category.

by Anonymousreply 22710/06/2013

[quote]and even went to see HP2 since ACuaron was the director.

HP3 actually.

by Anonymousreply 22810/06/2013

I didn't like the movie as much as other people did, but it's refreshing to see a movie do so well that isn't based on an established property, isn't a sequel, and doesn't have a fucking superhero in it.

Of course, Hollywood will probably learn the wrong lesson from it's success.

by Anonymousreply 22910/07/2013

Yeah, yeah, yeah, gripe about the weak screenplay, but why aren't more people gripping about Sandy's terrible wig?

Seriously, people. Whoever said for the money she was paid she should have gotten a haircut is totally correct! She'll look back on this film and see the bad hair and that's what she'll remember, mark my words.

by Anonymousreply 23010/07/2013

Clooney dies in the movie. Sandra saves her life by flying to earth in a Chinese spaceship. ENJOY

by Anonymousreply 23110/07/2013

I complained about the wig!

by Anonymousreply 23210/07/2013

I thought Children of Men would have been better if it had a more interesting actor in the lead. Clive Owen was so mediocre and so uninvolved that he whole movie became contrived and a bit try hard.

Cuaron needs to cast more interesting actors in his movies. Maybe he is one of those directors who think actors are just props and he is the main star of the movie. Most directors are bordering on self-aggrandizing.

Y Tu Mama Tambien was his best work IMHO. Funny, thoughtful, great story, wonderful actors, great cinematography. Love that movie!

by Anonymousreply 23310/07/2013

I was also distracted from time to time by the wig. It just wasn't realistic!

by Anonymousreply 23410/07/2013

Cuaron also directed one of my all-time favorite films (with the same brilliant cinematographer), "Children of Men".

by Anonymousreply 23510/07/2013

I saw the 3D version last night. Thought it was very good (not jaw-dropping), with some truly gorgeous cinematography and creative uses of 3D/CGI.

But it may have stirred me more than I realized, because I had unusual insomnia throughout the night and it felt connected back to the film.

by Anonymousreply 23610/07/2013

To the morons complaining about the 'wig', do you have any idea what hair looks like in zero G?

by Anonymousreply 23710/07/2013

Does it look like a wig bought from an ad in the back the National Examiner?

by Anonymousreply 23810/07/2013

I hate George and Sandra, two overrated actors with Oscars and they didn't deserve them.

by Anonymousreply 23910/07/2013

I really enjoyed the movie but did anyone else notice that George Clooney sounded like Buzz Lightyear?

by Anonymousreply 24010/07/2013

They should have picked Precious to play the lead.

by Anonymousreply 24110/07/2013

In space, she's a very skinny lady.

by Anonymousreply 24210/07/2013

Do you know what a wig looks like in zero G, R237?

by Anonymousreply 24310/07/2013

Why didn't they pick Precious?

by Anonymousreply 24410/07/2013

Clive was one of the best things about "Children of Men" - perfect casting.

by Anonymousreply 24510/07/2013

Coz they racist

by Anonymousreply 24610/07/2013

OK. I'm sure the visual effects are stunning, and George and Sandra are a box office formula made in Heaven, but I'm not going to see this in the theatre because it seems like a boring storyline.

If they both die, it won't be unexpected so they will be dead after trying desperately to not be dead. If only one of them dies, it'll be one of those Jack & Rose on the fucking Titanic moments, no matter who survives. If they both live, it's the proverbial Hollywood ending, albeit filled with edge of the seat thrills, and suspense, and, "OMG, I really didn't expect these twists and turns."

by Anonymousreply 24710/07/2013

R247 has been there, done that. He's going to sit at home and never read another book, never watch another movie, never watch another television show, because however the plot turns out, he's been there before.

by Anonymousreply 24810/07/2013

I'm not a Bullock or Clooney fan R247 but I can say it's worth going to see. Definitely not boring.

by Anonymousreply 24910/07/2013

And for all those snipes about scientific errors - Cuaron has stated time and again that certain things were done knowing they were not correct in order for the story to progress. It's a movie, folks, not a fucking documentary!

by Anonymousreply 25010/07/2013

[quote] If they both die, it won't be unexpected so they will be dead after trying desperately to not be dead. If only one of them dies, it'll be one of those Jack & Rose on the fucking Titanic moments, no matter who survives. If they both live, it's the proverbial Hollywood ending, albeit filled with edge of the seat thrills, and suspense, and, "OMG, I really didn't expect these twists and turns."

Without wanting to spoil anything, I can tell you that the relationship between the characters isn't romantic. It's professional and informed by mutual respect. This movie is no "Titanic."

by Anonymousreply 25110/07/2013

Eh, we don't want to have to make intelligent, well made movies that people are craving, so we're just going to chock this up to no competition this weekend for Gravity.

Now, Fast and Furious 12, THAT is going to be great!

by Anonymousreply 25210/07/2013

I've developed a distaste for Sandra. I was fine with the persona that her publicist has created but when she decided she had to adopt the brown baby, that was a little too much for me. She's 50 year old carrying around a little boy on her hip....all for show.

by Anonymousreply 25310/07/2013

R247 just made one of the stupidest posts in this thread so far.

Seriously. There is nothing "Boring" about this movie. Jesus.

by Anonymousreply 25410/07/2013

Here's a summary of Neil DeGrasse Tyson's Twitter debunkery:

by Anonymousreply 25510/07/2013

I love him. Is he family?

by Anonymousreply 25610/07/2013

I'm definitely not a "been there, done that" person, but just from the chatter and the trailer and the video clips I've seen this movie doesn't seem that compelling to me. I mean it's two actors and a green screen and lots of special effects. You loved it. Fine. I'm not feeling it. Also fine.

by Anonymousreply 25710/07/2013

I saw it when I was in St. Louis yesterday. First showing of the day. Pretty incredible film.

As others have said,the 3-D was amazing. Great film but so intense. I don't think I took a breath for 90 minutes...

by Anonymousreply 25810/07/2013

R257, you continue with your ridiculous assumptions.

You're exhibiting exactly why people shouldn't judge books by their covers.


by Anonymousreply 25910/07/2013

What's sad? It's a fucking movie. Visually stunning, well acted. Great. Glad you enjoyed it.

by Anonymousreply 26010/07/2013

I like Sandra but for the life of me, I never understood why she married Jesse James.

by Anonymousreply 26110/07/2013

Anything over seven inches and someone's gonna get hurt.

by Anonymousreply 26210/07/2013

The movie is an excellent example of stunning craftsmanship.

by Anonymousreply 26310/07/2013

We just got back from seeing it. Wow. Really great movie. I had to remember to breathe every so often. Very intense and incredibly well done. Great chemistry between Sandra Bullock and George Clooney, who both gave terrific performances.

by Anonymousreply 26410/07/2013

About 2/3 into the film, something happens that could lead you to believe Bobby's in the shower.

by Anonymousreply 26510/07/2013

This is going to clean up during awards season.

by Anonymousreply 26610/07/2013

Well, it's going to get a bunch of noms for sure. It totally deserves noms for Picture, Director, Effects, Actress, and sound.

by Anonymousreply 26710/07/2013

Hate that Clooney dies in the movie

by Anonymousreply 26810/07/2013

What's the pleasure, R268? That's the second time you've posted a spoiler. Seriously, why do it?

by Anonymousreply 26910/07/2013

[italic]"Baby, it's … 'Gravity.'"[/italic]

by Anonymousreply 27010/07/2013

LOL, you're late R270! After I'd seen the movie the other night I came home and popped that Brenda Russell song right into my CD player.

by Anonymousreply 27110/07/2013

Spoiler268 just needs attention. Any kind of attention will do. Let's just move on.

by Anonymousreply 27210/07/2013

And here I thought the title referred to the gravity of her situation...

by Anonymousreply 27310/07/2013

Interesting, R273.

by Anonymousreply 27410/07/2013

Oh, I do have one criticism of Sandra Bullock.

She has some ugly feet!!

by Anonymousreply 27510/07/2013

An astronaut runs down the movie's bad science:

by Anonymousreply 27610/07/2013

Only one 'bad science' thing really bothered me... mostly because a small change could have fixed it.

The other 'bad science' things are irrelevant. They were things jettisoned in order to make the story feasible and make it move forward.

We already take for granted certain things that aren't true at the start of the story (we no longer have space shuttles, and this never actually happened in the past when we did), so I'm willing to overlook a few minor details.

It's not like it's like Armageddon or something, that was blatantly inconsistent and scientifically inaccurate from start to finish. This movie made a grand effort to be accurate in tons of big ways and tiny touches. It got a few wrong here and there, most in service of the story. Big deal.

If you're after accuracy, you want a documentary, not a Hollywood movie.

by Anonymousreply 27710/08/2013


by Anonymousreply 27810/08/2013

Nice to see a movie that doesn't drag on. 90 minutes was perfect.

by Anonymousreply 27910/08/2013

What 277 and 279 said.

by Anonymousreply 28010/08/2013

Agree with r277 and r279 said.

That was one of the first things I thought of going back to the car, r279. I wasn't trying to be grand or epic in scope and run almost 3 hours with a lot of extraneous dialog and scenes. Very compact storytelling. Loved that.

by Anonymousreply 28110/08/2013


by Anonymousreply 28210/08/2013

Ugh. SandyButtocks.

by Anonymousreply 28310/08/2013

I, too, loved that it isn't 2.5 hours long. The 90-minute running time is perfect.

by Anonymousreply 28410/08/2013

Gravity is the most exciting movie I have seen all year. I loved it from the opening sequence to the very last frame. This movie is 100% pure adrenaline!

by Anonymousreply 28510/08/2013

^^I agree

by Anonymousreply 28610/09/2013

"There is no sound in space." (Cuaron)

"Silence is the most perfect expression of scorn." (George Bernard Shaw)

by Anonymousreply 28710/09/2013

I'm going to see it again this weekend.

by Anonymousreply 28810/10/2013

R275, I didn't notice her feet, the rest of her body is perfection.

by Anonymousreply 28910/11/2013

Why didn't her hair float? Product?

by Anonymousreply 29010/12/2013

R290, it was so short and boyish that it couldn't float. I believe that's why they gave her the short wig, because her natural long locks would have been a pain in the ass to have floating around in every scene, nevermind distracting.

by Anonymousreply 29110/12/2013

Ever hear of a side pony?

by Anonymousreply 29210/12/2013

I saw "Gravity" in IMAX last weekend. I was thoroughly impressed. It was exciting from the first frame to the last. I thought the effects were fantastic and in IMAX I felt like I was lost out there with them. Great, great film. I cannot rave about it enough.

Bullock and Clooney were very good in their roles. Sexy Ed Harris' voice was heard, but he was, unfortunately, not seen. I want to see this one again and again. It will definitely be a Blu-Ray purchase for me later. Kudos!

by Anonymousreply 29310/12/2013

Everything about Sandy is sexy. Does she show her bare feet in the movie?

by Anonymousreply 29410/12/2013

Yes, R294. Several times.

by Anonymousreply 29510/12/2013

Yes, R294. There are a couple of extended scenes where you see her bare feet (if you're into that).

by Anonymousreply 29610/12/2013

Saw it today, a few thoughts:

- What goes without saying at this point: beautiful, nerve wracking, some corny dialogue in the beginning (although do we really know what people in that environment talk like?)

- Mindblowing for its lack of editing. Cuaron is on the forefront of reversing 30 years of increasingly fast editing in film in favor of longer shots. Not just the opening, but throughout the film, including Sandra's long monologue in the Soyuz pod. His filmmaking is deceptively straight forward.

- Speaking of Sandra, I don't see how the movie could work with someone else. She was just the perfect choice, I believed every moment of her performance. If it was another actress I could have seen myself saying "oh, just DIE already" several times.

- I also think Clooney was perfect. We're talking about a guy at the end of his career, probably a former Air Force pilot, cocky, jokester, etc. I thought he was just right, RDJ would have been a disaster.

- The movie is all about rebirth, of course, with the striking in utero image of Sandra when she first disrobes in the space station and float in the fetal position. The final image was pure primordial swamp as Sandra symbolizes the first man to crawl and then walk.

- Was some of the storytelling clunky? I really think only the reappearance of Clooney was jarring and unnecessary.

To me, Gravity is one of the few films I've seen in recent years that even TRIED to be visionary and great and swung for the fences. It was telling that the previews were for another Jack Ryan/Tom Clancy movie... and some other shit that was so formulaic and unmemorable I won't even bother.

I agree with the poster who said Hollywood will learn all the wrong lessons from this.

by Anonymousreply 29710/12/2013

I saw this in IMAX 3D and that was the only thing I liked about it. Pretty boring if you ask me.

by Anonymousreply 29810/12/2013

All I can say is that Clooney ruins every movie her is in. The guy is just awful, boring, stiff, unimaginative - was this really the best actor Cuaron could get?

by Anonymousreply 29910/13/2013

Ugly shit

by Anonymousreply 30010/13/2013


I have a big cock.

by Anonymousreply 30110/13/2013

I can't wait to see Sandy's beautiful bare feet in Imax 3D. How many minutes total do you think her bare feet are exposed?

by Anonymousreply 30210/13/2013

A relatively long time, R302. She's floating barefoot through the space ship for a lengthy period, and at the end there's a good shot of them as well.

by Anonymousreply 30310/13/2013

It seems the bottom of her feet are a little dirty (thanks IMAX) but I had to wonder how they got smudged. I have to assume she washed before she was on the space ship, and then her feet should never have touched the ground again. So when did they get dirty?

by Anonymousreply 30410/14/2013

Maybe the feet in the space suit were dirty.

by Anonymousreply 30510/14/2013

Critics are stupid for praising this piece of garbage starring that dickhead Clooney who can't act to save his pathetic life.

by Anonymousreply 30610/22/2013

Going to see it again this weekend!!

by Anonymousreply 30710/22/2013

I'm sorry that you're so angry at the world, R306. There there.

by Anonymousreply 30810/22/2013

I thought it was excellent. Bullock is great. Clooney is Clooney doing the same schtick in a spacesuit.

by Anonymousreply 30911/04/2013

They gave her dirty feet in the spirit of Caravaggio.

by Anonymousreply 31011/04/2013

R308, Sorry your mom dropped you on your head and that, as a result, you're simple.

by Anonymousreply 31111/04/2013

Saw it on Saturday, quite enjoyed it. I never go to the movies any more, but made an exception for this film. Sure, the script was a little schmaltzy, who gives a shit? I was trying to imagine what it would be like to be that alone, floating out there without a safety net of any kind. You could hear a pin drop at some points.

It would have been great to have smoked a joint before watching. Maybe next time.

by Anonymousreply 31211/04/2013

Saw it last night. I didn't mind it, but kept wondering what it would have been like to see some unknowns in it. I couldn't quite buy Clooney as an astronaut. Visually, though - A+. Saw it in 3D and it was quite spectacular.

by Anonymousreply 31311/04/2013

If you want to see a great sifi flick with superb acting and an intelligent story go see Moon.

Moon was made with just a tiny fraction of the budged compared to Gravity, but is 10 times more compelling and more sophisticated. But unfortunately mainstream audiences just want lazy entertainment.

by Anonymousreply 31411/04/2013

I agree, R314. 'Moon' was awesome. But not the same type of movie as 'Gravity', which is as much about special effects as anything else.

by Anonymousreply 31511/04/2013

[quote] Moon was made with just a tiny fraction of the budged compared to Gravity, but is 10 times more compelling and more sophisticated. But unfortunately mainstream audiences just want lazy entertainment.

I love this type of argument - i.e., that you have to make a choice between two movies (and why? because they both take place in space? Other than that there's no similarity at all). I enjoyed Moon a lot. I also thought Gravity was a marvel in film making, and top notch entertainment.

You sound incredibly pretentious and pompous.

by Anonymousreply 31611/04/2013

R316 You don't have to insult me just because I have a different opinion.

by Anonymousreply 31711/04/2013

Oh that's rich, R317, given that you insulted everyone who liked Gravity.

by Anonymousreply 31811/04/2013

Mainstream audiences do want lazy entertainment.

by Anonymousreply 31911/04/2013

Exactly what R315. Gravity was meant to be a largely visual and cinematic experience. To compare it to Moon is unfounded. They weren't trying to be the same movie.

by Anonymousreply 32011/04/2013

Both movies were science fiction, but Moon was character/story driven and they did not spent tons of money on camera tricks, Gravity was just focusing on visuals and CGI and there was no compelling story and the acting was lame.

by Anonymousreply 32111/04/2013

Sometimes you want a cheeseburger, sometimes you want filet mignon. Who says you can't enjoy Moon AND Gravity unless you're a complete pretentious twat?

by Anonymousreply 32211/04/2013

R321 reeks of bitterness and envy

by Anonymousreply 32311/04/2013

Since when does a BO success go hand in hand with quality movie making?

by Anonymousreply 32411/04/2013

Since nearly every review printed since the movie opened has been a glowing one. Who the hell are you, Speilberg?

by Anonymousreply 32511/04/2013

Audiences are not so please with it apparently. Half of the people think they were fooled by too glowing reviews.

by Anonymousreply 32611/04/2013

What's funny, R326, is that you're obviously bothered by the success of a movie that is critically AND commercially adored. I'd bet anything that you're a failed filmmaker and this is just residual envy.

by Anonymousreply 32711/04/2013

R327 Your superficial analyses reflects your taste in movies!

by Anonymousreply 32811/04/2013

[quote] Audiences are not so please with it apparently. Half of the people think they were fooled by too glowing reviews.

Really? Half the people? Wow, I had no idea this was going on! Please cite your source for this amazing statistic. I'd love to read about it.

by Anonymousreply 32911/04/2013

The screenplay for GRAVITY was pure schlock, but it was still entertaining.

by Anonymousreply 33011/04/2013

What's schlocky about the Gravity script? Two astronauts fight for their lives when their spacecraft is destroyed. Where's the schlock?

by Anonymousreply 33111/04/2013

The schlock is in the dialogue R331, not the overall concept and plot -- except for the ridiculous fantasy sequence. Did you LIKE the dialogue?

by Anonymousreply 33211/04/2013

Saw it today and enjoyed it much more than I thought I would. As everyone has stated, it's visually stunning. Sandra was also good in it. Is she the best actress around? No. But she has moments when she's more than capable.

It's a shame that she won for The Blind Side. If she had gotten her Oscar for this, there'd be less criticism of her win.

And to those saying she wasn't the right actress for the part, I disagree. If you're going to do a movie like this where your lead is basically the ONLY thing going on, you need someone that people like and relate to. Sitting through 90 minutes of someone who doesn't have that appeal and likability is never going to work. Out of all the names thrown around before Bullock, I don't see any of them being able to pull that connection off with the audience.

by Anonymousreply 33311/04/2013


To the person who said they didn't see the need for Clooney's last scenne, I disagree. I think ultimately it worked. She's about to die, she's no longer breathing in oxygen, so her brain's going to be doing funny shit. Sometimes your mind conjures up what it needs in order to get you to do what it needs you to do. I think it was a fine catalyst, although, it was obvious that it was what it was.

I'm just thankful they didn't bring her daughter into it.

by Anonymousreply 33411/04/2013

r332 it's not a fantasy sequence. It's a hallucination caused by oxygen deprivation. It's common, and scientists believe it's the basis for all "near death experience" stories.

by Anonymousreply 33511/04/2013

Oops, I didn't refresh in time to see r334's post before I wrote mine.

by Anonymousreply 33611/04/2013

R336 No worries, you probably explained it better.

by Anonymousreply 33711/04/2013

Good post, R333.

[quote]To the person who said they didn't see the need for Clooney's last scenne, I disagree. I think ultimately it worked.


It did. When I first saw it I, too, thought for a split second that he was actually still alive. It was probably just after he sipped the vodka that I realized she was hallucinating. The second time I saw it, when that scene came, people immediately cheered when they saw Clooney. Of course I knew that he was really still dead, but hearing people's reactions to what they inherently wanted to be true was satisfying. It supplied people with sort of a last bit of hope.

[quote]The schlock is in the dialogue R331, not the overall concept and plot -- except for the ridiculous fantasy sequence. Did you LIKE the dialogue?

There was nothing wrong with the dialogue. The technical-sounding aspecs of the astronaut jargin was believable (particularly for anyone who isn't a science/space nut), and the rest was completely credible and appropriate. Clooney's character was a jokester and a wiseass, and his dialouge was perfect for that type of character. Sandra's character was serious, straight-laced and a bit sad, so ditto for her character's dialogue. When the time came for her to fight for her life, she was saying things that anyone in that situation would say to psych themselves up. When she truly thought she was going to die, and was a bit delirious, everything she said was appropriate and rang true.

by Anonymousreply 33811/04/2013

R333 I would have loved to see Marion Cotillard in the lead, Sandra is not the worst choice of all the names thrown around, but her being liked does not mean she is a character actress, which of course she is not. I can't think of a worst actor than Clooney, he ruins every movie he is in because he is never believable. RDJ would have been a way better choice, but since Cuaron did not want to put up with RDJ's improvising (I guess RDJ was not very happy with the writing) the script stayed as inane as it is now.

Directors worst enemy is sometimes their big ego.

by Anonymousreply 33911/04/2013

For the person asking whether or not NASA gives cyanide to their Astronauts as a just in case:

[quote]A long-held rumor exists that NASA provides suicide pills to astronauts for worse-case scenarios (as depicted in Contact). NASA has denied this for decades, some stating that it would be easier and more comfortable to reduce oxygen in the chamber, as depicted in this film.

by Anonymousreply 34011/04/2013

[quote]There was nothing wrong with the dialogue.

The same people complaining about the dialogue would also complain if it was too well written and say that it was unbelievable because those characters would never speak that way.

R339 I can respect that and wouldn't have minded seeing Cotillard in the role either, but I also don't see her pulling it off or getting people as emotionally invested. And Sandra might not be a character actress, but she doesn't need to be. She pulled this off just fine.

by Anonymousreply 34111/04/2013

There was nothing wrong with the dialogue... Clooney's character was a jokester and a wiseass, and his dialouge was perfect for that type of character."

No. It's beyond ridiculous to think that even someone who's a "jokester and a wiseass" would behave that way in the situations depicted in the film.

"The same people complaining about the dialogue would also complain if it was too well written and say that it was unbelievable because those characters would never speak that way."

No, again. I don't want them to speak in ways they wouldn't speak in those situations, but I would have liked them to speak in ways they WOULD speak in those situations. This is primarily a comment on the dialogue for the Clooney character.

"Well written" doesn't mean "written in a hyper-literate style that's alien to the characters," it means "written in a way that's true to the way the characters woul speak in the real world."

by Anonymousreply 34211/04/2013

[quote]No. It's beyond ridiculous to think that even someone who's a "jokester and a wiseass" would behave that way in the situations depicted in the film.

No. I've known people who are "jokesters" like the Clooney character who most certainly have maintained that sense of humor even in desperate situations. It is just some people's nature to speak and behave in a jovial way, even when the time calls for seriousness. That being said, the character DID get serious several times. Of course, when he tethered her to him and they were floating to the other space craft, he began to joke again because A), he thought they would probably make it and B), he wanted to make Ryan feel better.

by Anonymousreply 34311/04/2013


I can understand your points, but I still don't think that Clooney's dialogue was out of character for him. The character is a jokester and a wiseass, he's also a seasoned Astronaut who has been on countless missions. As a veteran to space missions, he knows how to react and keep his head, and calm people down, and he uses his jokester nature to do so. The character is also written such that he accepts things for what they are and understands what he can and cannot control.

I get it if you have a problem with his dialogue, but I personally don't. It doesn't seem out of character or unbelievable to me.

by Anonymousreply 34411/04/2013

[quote]The character is a jokester and a wiseass, he's also a seasoned Astronaut who has been on countless missions. As a veteran to space missions, he knows how to react and keep his head, and calm people down, and he uses his jokester nature to do so. The character is also written such that he accepts things for what they are and understands what he can and cannot control.


by Anonymousreply 34511/04/2013

The only thing unrealistic about the Clooney character is how he was zooming around at the beginning. Yeah, that would never happen, not even close. WAY too reckless.

(and of course, his recklessness was using up fuel they needed -- and didn't have -- later on, so he's a complete ass responsible for his own death)

by Anonymousreply 34611/04/2013

Can we talk for a second about how gross the visual was of Sharrif's face?

by Anonymousreply 34711/04/2013

Yeah, that was pretty jarring.

by Anonymousreply 34811/04/2013

Sharrif's character was so superficial you could see right through him.

by Anonymousreply 34911/06/2013

"The only thing unrealistic about the Clooney character is how he was zooming around at the beginning. Yeah, that would never happen, not even close. WAY too reckless."

Exactly. And while he was doing something that would never conceivably be allowed by NASA, he kept talking in a stupid, joking manner, even as Sandra Bullock's character was attempting a difficult extra-vehicular repair.

Incredible that some of you think much of the dialogue in this movie wasn't ridiculous. Even a lot of people who love the movie overall -- including me -- think the dialogue is ridiculous.

by Anonymousreply 35011/06/2013

You are reading WAY too much into this, R350. It's a movie. It's not meant to be 1,000 percent accurate. It's meant to be a 90 minute thrill ride. It's called creative license. Okay, so maybe NASA wouldn't allow him to do that in real life. If you want real life, watch a documentary. This was the best movie of the year, Clooney buzzing around in space or not. As someone upthread said, his character was a seasoned pro. He knew what to do to calm the nerves of others, and he knew what he was doing, period. It's why, when they first got word of the debris, he demanded for Ryan to shut down her work. He was serious when it counted.

by Anonymousreply 35111/06/2013

Totally agree, R350. Ridiculous, banal, cliched.

Clooney's dialogue was all jokey, and I do not think a 'jokey' 'seasoned pro'would be that jokey, or calm in that situation.

by Anonymousreply 35211/06/2013

May I direct you all to this thread wherein we talk about the rampant inability of Americans to understand satire and creative license?

by Anonymousreply 35311/06/2013

Clooney can't act, he is terribly uncool and in the last 10 years he has the charm of a cardboard box.

by Anonymousreply 35411/06/2013

I was expecting Clooney's monologues to have more flavor, wit and gut laughs. Instead it was all pretty bland.

by Anonymousreply 35511/06/2013

R352 reeks of instigator trollism.

by Anonymousreply 35611/07/2013

R352: Exactly. I think it was a good idea on Cuaron's part to make Clooney's character a seasoned veteran who is therefore able to be something of a jokester even in the midst of a space mission, I just think he went WAY too far with the dialogue. Same thing with Clooney's last scene. I do understand the point, I just don't think it was well written.

R353, I didn't follow your link, but "satire" and "creative license" are two very different things. Do you think GRAVITY is meant to be a satire?t

by Anonymousreply 35711/09/2013

R350 I suggest you search YouTube for Canadian astronaut Chris Hadfield, watch a few of his videos then ask yourself if Clooney's dialogue and behavior are unrealistic.

by Anonymousreply 35811/09/2013

R358, I looked at a couple of Hadfield's videos. Are there are any where he's joking around while outside of a vehicle in outer space, or during a tense situation inside or outside the vehicle?

There's no reason not to be cracking jokes when you're inside a vehicle and everything is going fine, but that's not what happens in GRAVITY. Understand the difference?

by Anonymousreply 35911/09/2013

R359, Many professional diplomats are also chosen because they can diffuse very tense and extremely dangerous situations by their lighthearted approach to life, smiling and cracking silly jokes. Doctors will tell you about patients dying in terrible pain able with the same attitude.

by Anonymousreply 36011/09/2013

[quote]There's no reason not to be cracking jokes when you're inside a vehicle and everything is going fine, but that's not what happens in GRAVITY. Understand the difference?

You really are dumb. In the film, George's character is serious when he needs to be (when the debris is coming; when he's trying to rescue a drifting Sandra; when they are grabbing at things to hold on to), but he also interjects playful banter into the situation to calm Ryan Stone, who is a novice astronaut. He is a pro, so he knows when to get serious and when joking around will be beneficial to others who aren't as seasoned as he is. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out, but, look at who I'm talking to...

by Anonymousreply 36111/09/2013

The floating around, joking at the beginning, while Ryan is trying to fix the malfunction, is a film device. WTF did you want Cuaron to do? Maintain absolute silence except for some urgent pretentious dialogue? Did you want them to act like surgeons in an operating room? "Scalpel." " Clamps." "Sponge."

We already know their astronauts, so no need for a lot of tech dialogue to show how smart they are. This was about the personalities and character of the two leads, as much as it was abut their dilemma. For me I saw a lot of similarities to The Poseidon Adventure's characters in that respect.

We know she's competent, even though a novice, or she wouldn't even be there. She lacks his experience, and even 6 months in a flight simulator can't prepare her for every eventuality.

She doesn't have his comfort with being in space, and I think he keeps telling her about seeing the beauty, so he can get her calmer, and looking at things differently. because this is their reality right at that moment.

Clooney's character obviously jokes to relieve tension. Sandra's character is so intense and serious about doing well, and he is trying to get her to relax. The important aspect of that is, if she's too tense she may do something to hurt herself, and him.

He's playing teacher & coach, without being obnoxious and superior. What he teaches her in their scenes together, is how to work the problem, and be creative and optimistic. That was my take away for the two characters.

by Anonymousreply 36211/10/2013

Yeah, but doesn't work.

It feels false, phony, and contrived, and it detracts from the movie - a movie that creates a visual and physical verisimilitude of a reality that most of us will never experience, and merges it with a human reality of day to day interactions that we have spent our whole lives in. One "feels" real, and one "feels" false.

In fact, your surgery scenario would have been a better way to open the film, with the dramatic contract between the order and quiet professionalism and the traumatic chaos that follows.

by Anonymousreply 36311/10/2013

r363 what do you do for a living?

by Anonymousreply 36411/10/2013

I'm assuming astronaut, R364.

by Anonymousreply 36511/10/2013

And are we forgetting that a lot of his joking around occurs when her oxygen levels are dropping and she's wasting more of it by hyperventilating and he's oooh.. trying to calm her down.

Your co-worker is hyperventilating and wasting oxygen. It's so unrealistic to try to joke with her to calm her ass down so she doesn't die.

by Anonymousreply 36611/10/2013

Oh, shut the fuck up R366.

by Anonymousreply 36711/10/2013

Yeah, anything you say R367. So tough. So angry.

by Anonymousreply 36811/10/2013

He's not an astronaut.

by Anonymousreply 36911/10/2013

Wait a second, R367.. Im basically agreeing with you and you tell me to shut the fuck up?

by Anonymousreply 37011/10/2013

I was joking, R369. Joking.

by Anonymousreply 37111/10/2013

What does it matter what I do for a living, r364? I'm not an astronaut. But I have met and talked with human beings in professional work situations. Still, maybe I'm just another American with a rampant inability to understand satire and creative license.

by Anonymousreply 37211/10/2013

This movie SUCKED!

by Anonymousreply 37311/10/2013

[quote]Wait a second, [R367].. Im basically agreeing with you and you tell me to shut the fuck up?

My apologies, R370. I mistook your previous post. I just did trolldar and see that you are on the right side of this conversation.

by Anonymousreply 37411/10/2013

Probably, R372, because you could have written a better script. In my opinion, anyway.

by Anonymousreply 37511/10/2013

There is nothing wrong with him having some jokes/a yjoke attitude and we know WHY they put that there/made his character like that - it was just false and stupid to have him like that all the time. Even when you hear tapes of pilots in difficult situations - they will remain calm, but at times they will not (understandably). When you are talking life and death in outer space, even Mr Cool and Calm would be swearing and frankly scared, but there was nothing genuine about the dialogue in this film.

This is a good point: [quote]It feels false, phony, and contrived, and it detracts from the movie - a movie that creates a visual and physical verisimilitude of a reality that most of us will never experience, and merges it with a human reality of day to day interactions that we have spent our whole lives in. One "feels" real, and one "feels" false

by Anonymousreply 37611/10/2013

Maybe I am "dumb," R361. Or maybe I and a whole lot of other people just have a different opinion than you as to how ridiculous much of the dialogue is in GRAVITY, especially the dialogue for Clooney's character.

Yes, I think it was a good idea in theory to make Clooney's character something of a jokester who would try to defuse tense situations with humor; the problem is that Cuaron went way, way too far with that idea. The movie almost lost me during the first few minutes, when we're expected to believe that Clooney's character is doing laps around the space shuttle -- and would ever conceivably be allowed by NASA to do such a thing -- just to break a spacewalking record.

If you think that's remotely plausible, maybe you should consider that you're the one with a substandard intellect.

by Anonymousreply 37711/11/2013

Talk about Clooney wandering around space at the beginning of the movie made me wonder, and this is sort of off topic, but do other planets have gravity?

If you got too close to their atmosphere would they pull you into them? I remember watching astronauts on the moon, and it seemed like there wasn't much gravity. They sort of floated around.

Also, what would cause space debris to travel at such a high rate of speed it would crash into the space ship and damage it? I thought everything was weightless out there?

And why didn't the force and speed of all that debris pull Clooney and Sandra off and hurtle them into space like poor Sharif? It was realistic, but it wasn't.

by Anonymousreply 37811/12/2013

Clooney's character was trying to break a space-walking record of an actual astronaut (whose name escapes me.) His mission was to get the scientist there and back.

So how did the real guy rack up all the time? Wasn't there any free time where the guys could just enjoy the freedwom of outside-the-craft space walking?

I don't think his casual space walking was so farfetched.

by Anonymousreply 37911/12/2013

Saw this today.

One of my favorites of the year. Music, acting, direction, special effects. Amazing!

Wondering how many Oscar noms this will rack up?

by Anonymousreply 38011/19/2013

It just hit $500 million worldwide, and will likely hit $600 mill worldwide before it's all said and done. And Sandra's already started the awards season off right with a Palm Springs film fest award and some Peoples' Choice noms for her role in the film. It really is her year. With "The Heat"'s big box office and "Gravity"'s huge numbers, she's clearly THE A-list actress.

by Anonymousreply 38111/19/2013

Here is the man who had the crying baby during the "big" dog barking scene with Sandra

by Anonymousreply 38211/21/2013

Also, what would cause space debris to travel at such a high rate of speed it would crash into the space ship and damage it? I thought everything was weightless out there?

There's a difference between WEIGHT [as computed on Earth] and MASS, R378. Weight is a function by gravity, while mass just *is*.

And the reason the debris would do such severe damage is because there's nothing to slow the items down like there is on Earth (ie, gravity and wind resistance).

by Anonymousreply 38311/21/2013

Just saw this. Script was a little hackneyed but Sandra was phenomenal, even though it was basically her driving the bus against time again. Same old, with cool effects.

by Anonymousreply 38412/07/2013


The debris is in near geo-sync orbit, so it is moving at 1020Kph+/hr.

One of the last Shuttle missions was nearly ended because a piece of metal about the size of a nail hit the 1023K/hr.

Imagine a bullet the size of a grain of sand hitting you at 30x the speed of sound. The impact wound would be tiny, but the exit wound would be the size of a fist.

That's why they are trying to find ways to clean up space junk.

by Anonymousreply 38512/08/2013

WTF was going on with Bullock's face. It looked like a mask. Botox, fillers? Ugh, how can you even tell she was acting when her face was frozen.

by Anonymousreply 38612/08/2013
Need more help? Click Here.

Follow theDL catch up on what you missed

recent threads by topic delivered to your email

follow popular threads on twitter

follow us on facebook

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!