[mcgsxr]

I am glad that so many liked this one, but I honestly did not get it.

Not being a science guy, that had little to do with it.

I swear for me it was just a rerun of Tom Hanks in Castaway.  The space scenery was good, and the soundtrack good to work out the system but I just did not get into this flick.

[martyo]

Last summer we bought our first flat screen, a 60" Panny plasma smart tv. It does 3D but we aren't big fans of 3D. We both like Clooney a lot and have enjoyed some of Sandra's work over the years. Comcast had Gravity for $5 so the other night we gave it a try. After reading some of the reviews here we figured we'd try out the 3D on the set. We didn't think that much of the movie but the TV sures does 3D good. We were very impressed. No headache either.

[jimdgoulding]

Hi, Mark,   

For those of you with HBO, you must be watching True Detective.  Matthew M really shows us his chops on this one and very well may have figured into his win at the AA.  I mean those people watch TV, too.  I haven't seen Gravity either.  I gather it mostly takes place in a small capsule in space.  Well, what looks like space.  I've read it's an acting tour-de-force for Sandra Bullock.  Glad she landed the role, but somehow it doesn't interest me.  !2 Years a Slave, either.  That's kind of an old tire to me.  But, it interests multiple somebodies, for sure.  Younger audience, perhaps.  And it's always good to see a new actor or actress or a writer and director emerge. 

Damn good show the Awards was except for the fact that you could see most everybody reading the monitor.  The editing gave a lot away, too, but the MC rocked!  I think she was delightful.  Anyway, it made for good TV viewing for my daughter and I and millions more.  People in the profession must be very happy and I'm happy for them.  Anything that depends on creativity has my admiration.

Gotta see at least one of the Best Picture noms.  Probably the one Cate Blanchet won for .   
 

[spudco]

What was your favorite film of the year?

I liked Blue Jasmine and The Butler but they weren't nominated.  Both had great, complex characters that dealt with difficulties in unique ways.
I thought Dallas Buyers Club was very good - definitely best actor and a great supporting role performance.
Tom Hanks was great (as usual) but Captain Phillips just didn't make the grade for me.
I haven't seed 12 Years a Slave, Nebraska, Her, The Wolf of Wall Street or Philomena but looking forward to viewing all of them.

[Rob Babcock]

Blue Jasmine never came to the theaters here, sadly.  I'll probably pick it up on Bluray.  The reviews for The Butler were mixed and I never got around to seeing that one.

To me Her was the best film of 2013, and I will be buying that on Bluray once it comes out. 

[mcgsxr]

I am sure I am an outlier in movie appreciation. 

I turned off Captain Phillips (tried twice to watch it!), did not make it through The Butler, won't ever watch a Woody Allen movie again, turned off Dallas Buyers Club, and have not seen 12 Years a Slave yet. 

Agree that Mathew is tearing it up on True Detective, but did not like Mud or The Paperboy, which both had similarities to how MM plays it.

American Hustle or Wolf of Wallstreet would be my favs of that year. 

[charmerci]

There was a movie, Europa Report released last year in very limited release that stayed accurate (mostly - they had to change a thing or two for plot reasons) to astronomy and science.


http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2051879/


Would have liked to have seen it in the theaters but never came to our area.

[Rob Babcock]

I was baffled that Captain Phillips got nominations.   It didn't flat out suck but I surely didn't walk out of the theater thinking I'd seen something special.  Baffling to see the guy that played the "leader" of the pirates get a nom as well.  DBC was a good movie I thought, not amazing but good.  Leto was astonishing in it but MMC, he was alright but Oscar-worthy?  Guess someone thought so.

[JohnR]

OK I'm really trying hard to appreciate this one (again). But where is the $!%# country music coming from? Makes no sense.

[JohnR]

And why did Clooney let go? How much gravity is there up there anyway? This is the type of thing that makes this movie cross over from a serious Sci-fi movie to a glib and cheesy... well, I was going to say remake, but it's not remaking anything, it's glib and cheesy all by itself. Now that is an accomplishment.

OK, I'll try to keep watching.

[JohnR]

OH.

My.


God.....






I actually managed to force myself to watch this thing from beginning to end. Those of you who liked this movie were absolutely right, it is much better than I thought on the first viewing.


2 out of 5.

[kevin360]

OK I'm really trying hard to appreciate this one (again). But where is the $!%# country music coming from? Makes no sense.

IIRC, the country music was coming from the shuttle. We are hearing the comm between the astronauts, which includes the two who were inside.

And why did Clooney let go? How much gravity is there up there anyway? This is the type of thing that makes this movie cross over from a serious Sci-fi movie to a glib and cheesy... well, I was going to say remake, but it's not remaking anything, it's glib and cheesy all by itself. Now that is an accomplishment.

OK, I'll try to keep watching.

Yeah, that's one of those twists of reality that flies in the face of the rest of the film. On the way to the ISS, the behavior in very low gravity is accurately portrayed, as is Ryan's predicament when trying to escape in the tethered Soyuz. That whole thing with Matt freeing himself to save Ryan was just, plain stupid. When they reached the end of the line, as it were, they would have rebounded back towards the ISS. Instead, Matt's hanging as if being pulled by the gravity we'd find at 250 feet instead of 250 miles out. I guess the story needed an act of heroism - glib and cheesy, indeed.

Of course, this complaint glosses over the fact that Hubble is orbiting well over 100 miles further out and not along the same path or at the same speed as the ISS. In other words, they could never have reached it in the first place. As I mentioned earlier, it's science fiction.

[JohnR]

As I mentioned earlier, it's science fiction.

Well, maybe this particular movie has just hit the "sweet spot" for disagreeing about what constitutes good fiction vs bad fiction. It seems to me that "fiction" has to agree with "reality" unless there's an explicit reason to do otherwise. So, aliens attacking people on a ten-year space mission is fine, because once we accept that people are on a ten-year space mission and there are such things as aliens, everything else is consistent either with that premise OR the basic things that we take for granted, like there's an up and a down, that bullets and flamethrowers kill things. etc. However, if these basic rules (given those initial assumptions) get violated on an ad hoc basis, then what we have is nothing more than bad fiction/sci-fi. ... yes...?

[kevin360]

Yes, I agree that Matt's sacrifice was bad science fiction. There was an explicit reason. Apparently, the story needed an act of selfless heroism, but I think the writer(s) could have concocted a better scenario. Pretty much, all of the other things we are forced to accept are very much like the things you mention regarding aliens, etc. Matt's fate was cheese - no other way to slice it.

Still, I thought it was an enjoyable movie. I try to take my wife's advice and not analyze the plot of films, but that's difficult to do at times. Analyzing is what I've done for a living for the past 35 years.

[ajzepp]

If the "science" of the film is passable enough to where Buzz Aldrin can enjoy it, then that's more than good enough for me 

[Rob Babcock]

I think the story needed some heroism from the guy but more importantly the story required Bullock's character to face the trials alone.  As some have pointed out, the places where there's "bad science" it's because there otherwise would have been no movie!

[konut]

And why did Clooney let go? How much gravity is there up there anyway? This is the type of thing that makes this movie cross over from a serious Sci-fi movie to a glib and cheesy... well, I was going to say remake, but it's not remaking anything, it's glib and cheesy all by itself. Now that is an accomplishment.

OK, I'll try to keep watching.

This was the only thing that really annoyed me, all the other scientific transgressions were much less onerous in comparison. I cannot stress strongly enough that the impressive nature of the Imax 3D experience went a long way towards  mitigating the flaws that were apparent. I will not be buying the Blu-ray.

[Rob Babcock]

I bet seeing it in IMAX is about as close as a civilian will ever get to being in space!

[JohnR]

I think the story needed some heroism from the guy but more importantly the story required Bullock's character to face the trials alone.  As some have pointed out, the places where there's "bad science" it's because there otherwise would have been no movie!

Oh, he could have just putt-putted his jetpack in the wrong direction and then ran out of fuel. I mean, that would have been about in keeping with the silliness of doing laps around the shuttle in the first place.

Anyway! I'll shut up now. Except... I put Man of Steel on a while ago and was watching the fantastic opening sequences in Krypton, thinking "Now there's a science fiction movie!" And it occurred to me... Gravity is not actually sci-fi.... right?

[kevin360]

I bet seeing it in IMAX is about as close as a civilian will ever get to being in space!

Not quite, you should watch 'James May at the Edge of Space'. It's available via HuluPlus. James is a civilian and he's been to the top of the thin blue line - what a view!

Oh, he could have just putt-putted his jetpack in the wrong direction and then ran out of fuel. I mean, that would have been about in keeping with the silliness of doing laps around the shuttle in the first place.

Anyway! I'll shut up now. Except... I put Man of Steel on a while ago and was watching the fantastic opening sequences in Krypton, thinking "Now there's a science fiction movie!" And it occurred to me... Gravity is not actually sci-fi.... right?

Now, you're really quibbling! Astronauts do play at times. When Matt was doing laps around the shuttle, he was merely playing a bit while testing the MMU (which is very real). Since the mission at that time was still quite routine, what is your objection? Had he just put-putted himself to his doom, there would be no act of heroism - a required element, I suppose. Even though I like Rob's suggestion that the story was best served by Ryan's facing the dilemma alone, I would have rather seen him get taken out by the sattelite debris while freeing the Soyuz from its deployed chute. There was still plenty for Ryan to overcome in getting home.

The opening sequence of 'Man of Steel' is awesome sci-fi, but the bulk of the film is another example of a diminished story in the service of big action. Quite honestly, I find most of these types of films boring. Yeah, the effects are monstrous, but effects don't make a movie. Whether or not you liked it, 'Gravity' meets the criteria of sci-fi, whereas 'Man of Steel' does not.