MovieChat Forums > Gravity (2013) Discussion > I have no clue why it got such high rati...

I have no clue why it got such high ratings...

posted 9 years ago by nawal_bo
28 replies | jump to latest

This is my first time writing a review, but since lately I have seen quite a few movies with high ratings that turned to be, in my opinion, quite a fluke, here goes.

First of all, I found the plot weak, illogical, and uncaptivating (if that word even exists). I was tempted to stop watching right from minute 22 into the movie... I kept wondering why on Earth would someone who worked in a hospital for 18 hours be ever recruited to go to space. That connection escapes me... If it were an 'algorithm' she developed, I don't see why any of the NASA engineers couldn't have gone to install that themselves... still remains an unsolved mystery to me.

How could she get a transmission from Earth (Chinese guy with his baby and dogs) but not from Houston? Weird...

Why would the Russians just decide to blow up their own satellite? They did not just endanger the Explorer mission, but technically others (the Chinese???!!) as well. Aren't there any protocols for procedures like that? I'm guessing there should be because no one would want that to happen to their billion-dollar missions... I wonder...

It kinda seemed to me that the movie started somewhere in the middle of the events. A big chunk seemed to have been thrown out somewhere.

Acting was a bit strange: Sandra Bullock just gasping the entire movie, and George Clooney making weird snarky comments. Not sure what the point was exactly.

It just seems to me like an attempt to use fancy visual effects to mask a weak plot. Very unfortunate, and certainly does not deserve such a high score.

[–] TheNabOwnzz 9 years ago

Alot of modern movies have high ratings but turn out to be really underwhelming. I guess they probably paid off the critics for positive reviews and academy awards don't mean anything anyway. As for the Imdb ratings, there are alot of kids blindly giving movies a 10 nowadays because they have some fancy special effects or CGI or something like that instead of decent acting or a reasonable plot. Basically ratings don't mean anything.

[–] SloppyJ30 9 years ago

Right; the critics are all paid off. Why the studios chose this strategy for Gravity, but not for recent mega-budget critical flops like The Lone Ranger, Battleship, John Carter, Mars Needs Moms, etc I'll leave to higher minds to figure out. Maybe someone just forget to mail the checks for those?

[–] sopclod 9 years ago

Acting was a bit strange: Sandra Bullock just gasping the entire movie, and George Clooney making weird snarky comments. Not sure what the point was exactly.

Kowalski was supposed to be cool under pressure; his leadership style was to put everyone else at ease. Whether that works for you or not is another matter. Stone is new to space, and I'm guessing that space is gasp-worthy. I've never been.

They don't give a lot of background about why Stone was sent into space, but it is implied that she is an expert in that particular piece of technology and we know that she was put through a 6 month training program.

I think people come into movie with certain expectations. Gravity was sold as having an ultra-realistic depiction of space, and I think a lot of people were disappointed when that didn't extend to the plot and flow of events.

The point of this movie is to show the extreme harshness of working in space in new ways, not necessarily to outline a realistic scenario of what could go wrong. It might have been improved if the plot was tightened up, but some things had to be unrealistic, like the proximity of the space stations.

[–] SkippyJustice 9 years ago

Gravity was sold as having an ultra-realistic depiction of space

Just reading this. Several astronauts have mentioned how unrealistic Gravity was in it's depiction of space.

[–] pjmcgill142 9 years ago

Several astronauts have mentioned how unrealistic Gravity was in it's depiction of space.

Who were those astronauts? Dave Wolfe, among others, sings the movie's praises when it comes to depicting life in orbit.
http://www.indianapolismonthly.com/news-opinion/former-astronaut-david-wolf-reviews-gravity/

[–] SkippyJustice 9 years ago

Here you go. Also several engineers have made similar comments. Everything in the same orbit and everything within reach of each other was also ridiculous. It would be like watching a movie where the main character was within a few minutes walk from the polar ice cap and Antarctica. Also not mentioned was how the Bullock character was completely ill equipped for space travel and lets not talk about the howling like a dog scene or the space ghost seen with Clooney.

http://www.space.com/23105-gravity-film-review-astronaut-leroy-chiao.html

[–] pjmcgill142 9 years ago

Everything in the same orbit and everything within reach of each other was also ridiculous.

It doesn't take an astronaut to tell you this was a leap for the movie. The director had made that point from the get go... but some feel they need to announce it like no one ever realised it. And, of course, there's a little more to orbital rendezvous than simply 'point and shoot'.

But thanks for the link for the astronaut. Strangely, Chiao isn't as outraged about the movie's liberties as some critics on this board... and he had some good things to say about the movie.

I always wondered how on earth Bullitt's Mustang survived all of those jumps in San Francisco without once dinging the sump. And why they kept passing the same VW...? Why his boss would hold off an investigation into a double fatality involving police, just because 'it's Sunday'. Luckily, like this one, it didn't ruin the movie for me.

[–] D_DragonMan 9 years ago

I only gave it a high rating because I liked the acting from both characters.

[–] DethstruXioN 9 years ago

I gave it a high rating for the space imagery, im a sucker for space, i did the same for Interstellar and 2001:ASO and many others.
Interstellar and 2001 are both great, but the climax is pretty much "out there", you can love it for its artistic liberty, i dont mind ambiguity but i tend to have issues with abstract things, but i loved the whole space travel and space station aspect of them.

I just love it when a movie spends time and detail on it, as for the story/acting.. meh, they didnt impress me much, although i might give 2001 a pass on that since i dont remember rolling my eyes at them.

But, Moon is still my favorite space drama so far.

EDIT: all the more reason why IMDb should add separate ratings for aspects in a movie, like; Cinematography, Story, Acting, Rewatch value etc.
Im guilty of being part of the high rating, i gave it a 9, but thats purely because i love space stuff, i guess i should put it down to an 8, but in no way does this rating reflect on the actors or writing, this is purely technical.

[–] Ugottrollololol 9 years ago

2013 had the most inflated review scores: Gravity 96 97%, 12 years a slave 97 98%, America Hustle 90 95%. The critics just made me laugh. Those films definitely do not deserve such a high score and should be much lower.

[–] jeffiris 9 years ago

I agree. This film was so implausible I wanted to retch. How likely is it that a "mission specialist, in this case a medical technician, could possibly have the experience to pilot spacecraft from 3 different countries! I mean, is it really enough to just read a manual or two? How many of us could even drive a car just from reading the owner's manual? Also, where on earth (no pun intended) did the film's title come from? The plot had nothing to do with gravity--in fact, almost the whole film takes place in free fall--except that the trajectory of the satellite explosion debris defies it. If you want to see a really great recent film in which gravity really is the main plot device--and right on the mark, scientifically--then go see Interstellar, probably the finest SCIENCE fiction film since 2001: A Space Odyssey. See it, read Kip Thorne's book about the science of the film, then see it again. Repeat as necessary.

[–] pjmcgill142 9 years ago

How likely is it that a "mission specialist, in this case a medical technician, could possibly have the experience to pilot spacecraft from 3 different countries!

I must have missed that bit. She piloted 3 different spacecraft? I counted the Soyuz and then the Chinese version of the... Soyuz.

Also, where on earth (no pun intended) did the film's title come from? The plot had nothing to do with gravity--in fact, almost the whole film takes place in free fall...

Your question says it all. Do you think if an astronaut/spacecraft is in 'free fall', there is no gravity? Besides, I'm not sure the superficial meaning is what the title is about.

[–] jogerrit 9 years ago

I'll tell you where the title "Gravity" came from: the novel that inspired it (even though Cuaron claims in interviews that the story all came to him "in a vision" and he wrote the screenplay in three weeks).

http://www.tessgerritsen.com/gravity-lawsuit-affects-every-writer-sells-hollywood/

I give this post about 24 hours before IMDB deletes it because the studios control IMDB.

[–] spookyrat1 9 years ago

How likely is it that a "mission specialist, in this case a medical technician, could possibly have the experience to pilot spacecraft from 3 different countries!

It's 2 countries' crafts, and she says she has trained on simulators in discussion with Kowalski, who also mentions the Russian and Chinese piloting protocols are exactly the same.

Also, where on earth (no pun intended) did the film's title come from? The plot had nothing to do with gravity--in fact, almost the whole film takes place in free fall ...

After recovering from RATFLMAO on multiple occasions, I checked my high school science books to find that free fall is any motion of a body where gravity is the only force acting upon it. 🐭

[–] starstream-89756 8 years ago

I saw that too. She's a medical specialist but she's able to pilot the Soyuz module from the ISS, and then knows how to read Chinese in order to safely re-enter the atmosphere and safely land in the lake? They could at least have set that up early on by making some comment that not only does she know medicine but she reads Cyrillic and Chinese too.

[–] EvilBaldDude 9 years ago

Why would the Russians just decide to blow up their own satellite?

If they'd lost all control of a "spysat gone bad", why wouldn't they? If it has super secret technology or data, they might decide that's better than letting it, or even bits of it, fall into the hands of another government.

They did not just endanger the Explorer mission, but technically others (the Chinese???!!) as well.

Not really. Kessler Syndrome is only theoretical. In the real universe, many believe it's already started anyway.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome

[–] DethstruXioN 9 years ago

The Kessler Syndrome is theoretical yes, it is similar to the great Pacific garbage patch on Earth, you visibly dont actually notice it, but particles are definitely there.
But like Neil Degrasse Tyson also stated, this movie heavily exaggerates on it.

But evidently they did blow up everything in orbit, including the Chinese station.
So they will have to be fessing up some secrets for sure, otherwise it could be WW3.

[–] freakiejason 9 years ago

I agree that many of these modern movies have inflated ratings, but I really do not consider this to be one of 'm. It is a remarkable movie. A near perfect action thriller, in space. It is not gifted with a particularly interesting plot or dialogue, but it has other things going for it. It does something that I have not seen in ages in a film, it puts the viewers right up there into the action. Plus, the imagery is fantastic.

[–] jcmiddel 8 years ago

The action-thriller ended for me with the bourne movies, I was revived with action-thriller movies like the raid 1 and 2. And for me, this movie is not very thrilling. The acting was average, plot doesn't make sense, and has tons of holes, in other words: there is no plot. The writing is awful. The acting was terrible. And this is all what I got from the movie.

It does not deserve 7 oscars just because it's visually stunning. In that case I can find watchmen, or any other zack snyder film visually stunning and give it 7 oscars but they're aren't apparently. Because Critics.

[–] harrison_1 9 years ago

If nothing else, I did wonder whether the two leads were too old for these parts, but I guess they did ok. When Bullock was conversing on the radio with somebody who seemed to be speaking gibberish, doing strange chants all the time with a crying baby in the background, I had to look it up on the FAQ of this site to understand what the *beep* was going on. Also I'm not sure why we kept hearing country radio playing at various times. Did they have radios in their helmets or something ? Apart from these gripes, the movie was alright, even though it was never going to live up to the hype. Without doubt, the best thing it had going for it was the 91 minute running time, that is to be applauded in this day and age of bum numbing, Eye shutting, padded out pointlessly overlong flicks of 150 minutes or more.