Gravity (3D) (1 Viewer)

[Bob Magaw]

I haven't watched tv, a movie or listened to the radio in 23 years but I will watch this

pretty much just you and the unibomber among the non-amish population and certain insular seminary communities in the US.

seriously, that is awesome... guessing you read occasionally?

 

[AcerFC]

I saw it, liked it, didn't love it

Didn't seem like anything special to me. Saw it in 2D

 

[Warrior]

saw it in 3d, wasn't that great. was annoying to listen to all the running commentary throughout the movie. just shut up and open the damn hatch!

 

[LittleLarry]

was annoying to listen to all the running commentary throughout the movie. just shut up and open the damn hatch!

I guess that's what you have to do when you have only 2 actors.

I saw it last night in IMAX 3D. It is a visually stunning movie.

However as a movie it's a little ridiculous in many parts. I mean, how many times are we going to run into the problem of!

Spoiler

Attacking Space Debris!!

 

[Spectrum]

This is my favorite movie of the year so far.

Wow, I don't understand the lukewarm reception from half of the posters here. I loved it. Saw it in IMAX 3-D.

Alfonso Cuaron though is one of the best directors, so you really can't go wrong with his films.

1. Amazing visuals. Cuaron spent a couple of years essentially shooting an animated version first. They had to pre-viz and choreograph all of the robotic arm movements. The opening shot is 15-min, similar to Cuaron's long takes in "Children of Men."

2. Suspenseful thrill ride. Purely on a visceral level, the suspense exceeds every recent thriller.

3. It's not a film like 2001, though many have called this the best space movie since 2001. It's very different: it's a genre film, and so its focus is not on any kind of any grand social or philosophical ideas. It's more simple and is more "accessible" to those looking for a simple thrill ride. However, the film is undoubtedly Cuaron and carries a humanist, emotional message.

 

[Spectrum]

was annoying to listen to all the running commentary throughout the movie. just shut up and open the damn hatch!

I guess that's what you have to do when you have only 2 actors.

I saw it last night in IMAX 3D. It is a visually stunning movie.

However as a movie it's a little ridiculous in many parts. I mean, how many times are we going to run into the problem of!

Spoiler

Attacking Space Debris!!

Spoiler

The whole idea of the chain reaction is improbable, Cuaron admits, but not impossible. If you buy into that premise, as one must do with other disaster films, then it's a fantastic film.

 

[Rohn Jambo]

I saw it in IMAX, which is probably the best for the special effects.

Okay, so it may not be the bestest movie of the year but you get to see the great views like an astronaut without going through the training.

 

[Rohn Jambo]

was annoying to listen to all the running commentary throughout the movie. just shut up and open the damn hatch!

I guess that's what you have to do when you have only 2 actors.I saw it last night in IMAX 3D. It is a visually stunning movie.

However as a movie it's a little ridiculous in many parts. I mean, how many times are we going to run into the problem of!

Spoiler

Attacking Space Debris!!

Spoiler

The killer debris field is in orbit and attacks very 90 minutes.

 

[Bob Magaw]

I saw it in IMAX, which is probably the best for the special effects.

Okay, so it may not be the bestest movie of the year but you get to see the great views like an astronaut without going through the training.

good reason to see on big screen...

3-D?

 

[Rohn Jambo]

I saw it in IMAX, which is probably the best for the special effects.

Okay, so it may not be the bestest movie of the year but you get to see the great views like an astronaut without going through the training.

good reason to see on big screen...

3-D?

Yes, go for the IMAX-3D.

 

[Sand]

Awesome flick. Kept the thoroughly sucked in for the length of the film. The physics of space was really done well.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

Neil deGrasse Tyson had fun this weekend "fact-checking" Gravity in a series of "Mysteries of Gravity" tweets. Some funny stuff.

 

[snowmonkey501]

I will be seeing this in the theater.

Question - Is it worth it to see in 3D? The only movie I've really thought was worth the 3D was Avatar. Does the 3D meet that standard?

the only reason to see this movie is for the cinematography/effects. nothing else matters. if you go in expecting anything plot related you will be disappointed.

 

[snowmonkey501]

was annoying to listen to all the running commentary throughout the movie. just shut up and open the damn hatch!

I guess that's what you have to do when you have only 2 actors.

I saw it last night in IMAX 3D. It is a visually stunning movie.

However as a movie it's a little ridiculous in many parts. I mean, how many times are we going to run into the problem of!

Spoiler

Attacking Space Debris!!

Spoiler

The whole idea of the chain reaction is improbable, Cuaron admits, but not impossible. If you buy into that premise, as one must do with other disaster films, then it's a fantastic film.

it is not a fantastic film. no matter what color the sky is in your world.

Spoiler

russians shoot down satellite. resulting debris cloud causes chain reaction among other satellites with pieces moving as fast as 20000 mph. quick. everyone get in the shuttle. oops. too late. now shes spinning off into space and the shuttle is destroyed. clooney catches her with his space jet pack. have to get to soviet space station. running out of fuel and oxygen. bullock makes it inside. clooney drifts off. bullock says shes gonna get him but he tells her no. shes gonna make it. blah blah blah. he floats off into space...

bullock powers up space station...oops...I accidentally started a fire and the station is exploding. quick get in escape pod. ok now lets go home...cant...its parachute was deployed and its stuck to space station...have to get out and cut it loose. quick...debris field is closing in on you at 20000 mph. (its made a complete orbit of the earth in 90 mins) station exploding...whew...made it...now have to get to chinese station to get home...

using jets to steer ship to chinese station...spinning spinning...power it on....oops...no fuel. tap tap tap...its clooney tapping on the window...where did he come from...wait...dont open the door, i dont have my helmet on...sigh...oh, I didnt know that we could fake the ship into thinking we were landing to fire some rockets and get us going to the chinese station...whew...glad you showed up george. wait...it was just a dream. I was in an oxygen deprived sleep and almost drifted off into space...no. I want to live...ok we're going home. points ship toward chinese and fires those landing thrusters. woohoo...now were moving...ok...coming in hot...gonna have to bail out and hope to make it...oops...almost forgot fire extinguisher. I need that to steer myself in space. (I learned that shooting it it off in a zero g environment to put out a fire I started on the russian space station can be rough on your head if you arent careful) jump out of rocket...point extinguisher and quickly point myself to the station...whew...made it...quick get inside before this station plummets back to earth. its already in a descent. this is gonna be bumpy. get in chinese escape pod...everything is in chinese...I cant read this...wait...lets see if this button works...nope. what about this one? nope. dammit I knew i should have played more mah jong...lets try this one...yay...ok its getting warm and the ship is hurtling through the atmosphere...stabilizers!!!!

found em. i hope this thing has a parachute..we're in luck...whew...that was gonna be a hard landing. ahhhh...landed in lake. let me outta this thing..whoosh...glub glub glub...get breath and get out before this thing sinks to bottom....whew im out...but im not floating to the top....my space suit is filling with water...quick...get out of space suit...rise to surface and take big gulp of fresh oxygen. ahhh...dry land...

now...where am i?

 

[snowmonkey501]

I saw it in IMAX, which is probably the best for the special effects.

Okay, so it may not be the bestest movie of the year but you get to see the great views like an astronaut without going through the training.

good reason to see on big screen...

3-D?

Yes, go for the IMAX-3D.

this is the only venue to watch this movie. spend the 15-20 bucks for the special effects/cinematrography. but do not expect anything regarding the plot. it is not NBA FANtastic,

 

[AcerFC]

was annoying to listen to all the running commentary throughout the movie. just shut up and open the damn hatch!

I guess that's what you have to do when you have only 2 actors.

I saw it last night in IMAX 3D. It is a visually stunning movie.

However as a movie it's a little ridiculous in many parts. I mean, how many times are we going to run into the problem of!

Spoiler

Attacking Space Debris!!

Spoiler

The whole idea of the chain reaction is improbable, Cuaron admits, but not impossible. If you buy into that premise, as one must do with other disaster films, then it's a fantastic film.

it is not a fantastic film. no matter what color the sky is in your world.

Spoiler

russians shoot down satellite. resulting debris cloud causes chain reaction among other satellites with pieces moving as fast as 20000 mph. quick. everyone get in the shuttle. oops. too late. now shes spinning off into space and the shuttle is destroyed. clooney catches her with his space jet pack. have to get to soviet space station. running out of fuel and oxygen. bullock makes it inside. clooney drifts off. bullock says shes gonna get him but he tells her no. shes gonna make it. blah blah blah. he floats off into space...

bullock powers up space station...oops...I accidentally started a fire and the station is exploding. quick get in escape pod. ok now lets go home...cant...its parachute was deployed and its stuck to space station...have to get out and cut it loose. quick...debris field is closing in on you at 20000 mph. (its made a complete orbit of the earth in 90 mins) station exploding...whew...made it...now have to get to chinese station to get home...

using jets to steer ship to chinese station...spinning spinning...power it on....oops...no fuel. tap tap tap...its clooney tapping on the window...where did he come from...wait...dont open the door, i dont have my helmet on...sigh...oh, I didnt know that we could fake the ship into thinking we were landing to fire some rockets and get us going to the chinese station...whew...glad you showed up george. wait...it was just a dream. I was in an oxygen deprived sleep and almost drifted off into space...no. I want to live...ok we're going home. points ship toward chinese and fires those landing thrusters. woohoo...now were moving...ok...coming in hot...gonna have to bail out and hope to make it...oops...almost forgot fire extinguisher. I need that to steer myself in space. (I learned that shooting it it off in a zero g environment to put out a fire I started on the russian space station can be rough on your head if you arent careful) jump out of rocket...point extinguisher and quickly point myself to the station...whew...made it...quick get inside before this station plummets back to earth. its already in a descent. this is gonna be bumpy. get in chinese escape pod...everything is in chinese...I cant read this...wait...lets see if this button works...nope. what about this one? nope. dammit I knew i should have played more mah jong...lets try this one...yay...ok its getting warm and the ship is hurtling through the atmosphere...stabilizers!!!!

found em. i hope this thing has a parachute..we're in luck...whew...that was gonna be a hard landing. ahhhh...landed in lake. let me outta this thing..whoosh...glub glub glub...get breath and get out before this thing sinks to bottom....whew im out...but im not floating to the top....my space suit is filling with water...quick...get out of space suit...rise to surface and take big gulp of fresh oxygen. ahhh...dry land...

now...where am i?

 

[Northern Voice]

Pretty much agree with the above, visually great, story just ok, Saw it in UltraAVX 3D (IMAX was sold out) and enjoyed it, but not the best of the year, decade, etc... that a couple people seem to be pushing it as.

 

[arrow1]

Our IMAX is showing "Flight of the Butterfies."

 

[Fennis]

98% on Rotten Tomatoes

90% Audiences

 

[James Bond]

Saw it in 3D. Yes the special effects are stunning. The 3D is wasted. So what if they undo a bolt and it floats towards you? Was it really needed to tell the story? Well I guess the story was petty implausible anyway.

Spoiler

How does Bullock keep holding on with one hand when she is constantly being violently thrown about? How does she not get hit by any of the space debris?

 

[Disco Stu]

Buzz Aldrin made his name in the ’60s as the second man to walk on the moon as well as one of the first to float in space. The retired astronaut—who is now 83 years old—gave his opinion on the new outer-space thriller Gravity.

Aldrin commented to the Hollywood Reporter that he was “so extravagantly impressed by the portrayal of the reality of zero gravity.” He noted that the way Gravity showed the process as well as the space station filmmakers used were realistic.

“I was happy to see someone moving around the spacecraft the way George Clooney was,” he said. “It really points out the degree of confusion and bumping into people, and when the tether gets caught, you’re going to be pulled — I think the simulation of the dynamics was remarkable.”

 

[Apple Jack]

Pretty obvious the studio determined the ending. Cuaron wrote the script and that is not his style at all. Regardless, a ####ing incredible movie experience. And it's a 3D IMAX film. Why bother if you're not going to see it as it intended to be seen?

 

[Fennis]

Pretty obvious the studio determined the ending. Cuaron wrote the script and that is not his style at all. Regardless, a ####ing incredible movie experience. And it's a 3D IMAX film. Why bother if you're not going to see it as it intended to be seen?

Spoiler

http://movies.yahoo.com/news/did-gravity-really-end-seemed-alternate-theory-spoilers-195959701.html

(SPOILER ALERT: Don’t read another word of this if you haven’t seen “Gravity.” And if you have seen “Gravity,” know that this might throw your GPS into a spin.)

If the end of “Gravity” is to be taken at face value, our heroine — Sandra Bullock’s chronically oxygen-deprived ride-along scientist Ryan Stone — has quite a story to tell.

But to whom will she be telling it? Her NASA handlers, the rabid press, a nation of adoring fans … or her daughter (and possibly the cast of “Lost”)?

In Alfonso Cuarón’s dazzling 3D survival tale, a burst of third-act diversions leaves open the possibility — to this viewer, at least — that Ryan never actually made it to the beach of some remote paradise.

Not in her Earthbound form, anyway.

There’s just enough ambiguity to suggest that Ryan perished somewhere along the way, most likely in the airlock of the Russian Soyuz capsule, moments after she shut down the oxygen supply to hasten what seemed at the time like her inevitable demise.

Or perhaps her final undoing comes when the astronaut who floats up to the airlock window (he’s not recognizable at first, certainly not as Matt Kowalski) pops the hatch; Ryan is freaking out as he spins the crank, realizing that he’s about to eject her into the void. A sleight-of-hand edit even suggests that’s exactly what happens.

And here’s where it gets squishy.

The events that take place afterward — Ryan’s otherworldly encounter with Matt, her newfound resolve to carry on, her speech on the way down and that lucky-as-hell landing — play out like an absolution. If Ryan’s soul has in fact detached and drifted early in the third act, it certainly spends the rest of the movie acting out the way things should have gone.

This isn’t to suggest that Cuarón, who co-wrote the screenplay with son Jonas, meant to allow for this theory. Their version may be a simple tale of survival, roll credits, everybody claps and goes home agog. But there’s just enough of a seam between the practical realities of the film’s setup and its payoff for a doubt to wiggle through.

Metaphysical ambiguity is de rigueur for space movies, of course … compared with “2001: A Space Oddyssey” or “Solaris,” “Gravity” is downright grounded.

Even if Ryan truly survives all 91 minutes of the film, then the spiritual interlude isn’t such a stretch — there’s plenty of real-world precedent for mystical phenomenon in aerospace. From the spirit-guide visit Charles Lindbergh described during his transcontinental flight to John Glenn’s “fireflies” swirling Friendship 7 to the outlandish tales told by certain moon astronauts, the idea that the friendly ghost of Matt Kowalski shows up to give Ryan a pep talk (and an escape plan) is plausible enough; the idea that she hallucinates it even more so.

But those events also fit if Ryan in fact simply passed out and died aboard the Soyuz, leaving the completion of her journey to the soul.

From her self-affirming soliloquy on the bumpy ride down, to the fact that she lands in water but near the beach (what are the odds of that?) to her near-impossible swim to the surface — even the very look of the verdant, paradisal beach where she washes ashore — nothing dissipates the possibility that she’s landed not on Earth, but the next plane. She just had some personal spiritual/emotional business to wrap up in order to get there.

If you’re buying any of this, then “Gravity” concludes much like last year’s 3D juggernaut, “Life of Pi” — in that you, dear viewer, get to choose whichever version of the story you prefer.

And if you’re not, well … planet Earth is blue, and there’s nothing I can do.

 

[-jb-]

Has anyone that has seen this seen Europa Report? If so, how do they compare?

 

[snogger]

Pretty obvious the studio determined the ending. Cuaron wrote the script and that is not his style at all. Regardless, a ####ing incredible movie experience. And it's a 3D IMAX film. Why bother if you're not going to see it as it intended to be seen?

Spoiler

http://movies.yahoo.com/news/did-gravity-really-end-seemed-alternate-theory-spoilers-195959701.html

(SPOILER ALERT: Dont read another word of this if you havent seen Gravity. And if you have seen Gravity, know that this might throw your GPS into a spin.)

If the end of Gravity is to be taken at face value, our heroine Sandra Bullocks chronically oxygen-deprived ride-along scientist Ryan Stone has quite a story to tell.

But to whom will she be telling it? Her NASA handlers, the rabid press, a nation of adoring fans or her daughter (and possibly the cast of Lost)?

In Alfonso Cuaróns dazzling 3D survival tale, a burst of third-act diversions leaves open the possibility to this viewer, at least that Ryan never actually made it to the beach of some remote paradise.

Not in her Earthbound form, anyway.

Theres just enough ambiguity to suggest that Ryan perished somewhere along the way, most likely in the airlock of the Russian Soyuz capsule, moments after she shut down the oxygen supply to hasten what seemed at the time like her inevitable demise.

Or perhaps her final undoing comes when the astronaut who floats up to the airlock window (hes not recognizable at first, certainly not as Matt Kowalski) pops the hatch; Ryan is freaking out as he spins the crank, realizing that hes about to eject her into the void. A sleight-of-hand edit even suggests thats exactly what happens.

And heres where it gets squishy.

The events that take place afterward Ryans otherworldly encounter with Matt, her newfound resolve to carry on, her speech on the way down and that lucky-as-hell landing play out like an absolution. If Ryans soul has in fact detached and drifted early in the third act, it certainly spends the rest of the movie acting out the way things should have gone.

This isnt to suggest that Cuarón, who co-wrote the screenplay with son Jonas, meant to allow for this theory. Their version may be a simple tale of survival, roll credits, everybody claps and goes home agog. But theres just enough of a seam between the practical realities of the films setup and its payoff for a doubt to wiggle through.

Metaphysical ambiguity is de rigueur for space movies, of course compared with 2001: A Space Oddyssey or Solaris, Gravity is downright grounded.

Even if Ryan truly survives all 91 minutes of the film, then the spiritual interlude isnt such a stretch theres plenty of real-world precedent for mystical phenomenon in aerospace. From the spirit-guide visit Charles Lindbergh described during his transcontinental flight to John Glenns fireflies swirling Friendship 7 to the outlandish tales told by certain moon astronauts, the idea that the friendly ghost of Matt Kowalski shows up to give Ryan a pep talk (and an escape plan) is plausible enough; the idea that she hallucinates it even more so.

But those events also fit if Ryan in fact simply passed out and died aboard the Soyuz, leaving the completion of her journey to the soul.

From her self-affirming soliloquy on the bumpy ride down, to the fact that she lands in water but near the beach (what are the odds of that?) to her near-impossible swim to the surface even the very look of the verdant, paradisal beach where she washes ashore nothing dissipates the possibility that shes landed not on Earth, but the next plane. She just had some personal spiritual/emotional business to wrap up in order to get there.

If youre buying any of this, then Gravity concludes much like last years 3D juggernaut, Life of Pi in that you, dear viewer, get to choose whichever version of the story you prefer.

And if youre not, well planet Earth is blue, and theres nothing I can do.

woah ..

 

[cstu]

Has anyone that has seen this seen Europa Report? If so, how do they compare?

Gravity was a space action movie, Europa Report was more of a drama.

 

[cstu]

Pretty obvious the studio determined the ending. Cuaron wrote the script and that is not his style at all. Regardless, a ####ing incredible movie experience. And it's a 3D IMAX film. Why bother if you're not going to see it as it intended to be seen?

Spoiler

http://movies.yahoo.com/news/did-gravity-really-end-seemed-alternate-theory-spoilers-195959701.html

(SPOILER ALERT: Don’t read another word of this if you haven’t seen “Gravity.” And if you have seen “Gravity,” know that this might throw your GPS into a spin.)

If the end of “Gravity” is to be taken at face value, our heroine — Sandra Bullock’s chronically oxygen-deprived ride-along scientist Ryan Stone — has quite a story to tell.

But to whom will she be telling it? Her NASA handlers, the rabid press, a nation of adoring fans … or her daughter (and possibly the cast of “Lost”)?

In Alfonso Cuarón’s dazzling 3D survival tale, a burst of third-act diversions leaves open the possibility — to this viewer, at least — that Ryan never actually made it to the beach of some remote paradise.

Not in her Earthbound form, anyway.

There’s just enough ambiguity to suggest that Ryan perished somewhere along the way, most likely in the airlock of the Russian Soyuz capsule, moments after she shut down the oxygen supply to hasten what seemed at the time like her inevitable demise.

Or perhaps her final undoing comes when the astronaut who floats up to the airlock window (he’s not recognizable at first, certainly not as Matt Kowalski) pops the hatch; Ryan is freaking out as he spins the crank, realizing that he’s about to eject her into the void. A sleight-of-hand edit even suggests that’s exactly what happens.

And here’s where it gets squishy.

The events that take place afterward — Ryan’s otherworldly encounter with Matt, her newfound resolve to carry on, her speech on the way down and that lucky-as-hell landing — play out like an absolution. If Ryan’s soul has in fact detached and drifted early in the third act, it certainly spends the rest of the movie acting out the way things should have gone.

This isn’t to suggest that Cuarón, who co-wrote the screenplay with son Jonas, meant to allow for this theory. Their version may be a simple tale of survival, roll credits, everybody claps and goes home agog. But there’s just enough of a seam between the practical realities of the film’s setup and its payoff for a doubt to wiggle through.

Metaphysical ambiguity is de rigueur for space movies, of course … compared with “2001: A Space Oddyssey” or “Solaris,” “Gravity” is downright grounded.

Even if Ryan truly survives all 91 minutes of the film, then the spiritual interlude isn’t such a stretch — there’s plenty of real-world precedent for mystical phenomenon in aerospace. From the spirit-guide visit Charles Lindbergh described during his transcontinental flight to John Glenn’s “fireflies” swirling Friendship 7 to the outlandish tales told by certain moon astronauts, the idea that the friendly ghost of Matt Kowalski shows up to give Ryan a pep talk (and an escape plan) is plausible enough; the idea that she hallucinates it even more so.

But those events also fit if Ryan in fact simply passed out and died aboard the Soyuz, leaving the completion of her journey to the soul.

From her self-affirming soliloquy on the bumpy ride down, to the fact that she lands in water but near the beach (what are the odds of that?) to her near-impossible swim to the surface — even the very look of the verdant, paradisal beach where she washes ashore — nothing dissipates the possibility that she’s landed not on Earth, but the next plane. She just had some personal spiritual/emotional business to wrap up in order to get there.

If you’re buying any of this, then “Gravity” concludes much like last year’s 3D juggernaut, “Life of Pi” — in that you, dear viewer, get to choose whichever version of the story you prefer.

And if you’re not, well … planet Earth is blue, and there’s nothing I can do.

Spoiler

Where that theory falls apart is that everything she did up until that point was a one in a million long shot. I could just as easily believe, and in fact moreso, that she died at the beginning of the movie and Clooney never saved her. If you believe she did everything up to the Soyuz then you might as well believe the whole thing.

By the way it was very difficult to miss the birth symbolism throughout the movie - from her looking like she was a baby after first getting to the ISS to crawling out of the water and starting to walk at the end.

 

[cstu]

Saw it in 3D. Yes the special effects are stunning. The 3D is wasted. So what if they undo a bolt and it floats towards you? Was it really needed to tell the story? Well I guess the story was petty implausible anyway.

Spoiler

How does Bullock keep holding on with one hand when she is constantly being violently thrown about? How does she not get hit by any of the space debris?

There were unnecessary cheesy uses of 3D throughout the movie but I think it helped create a sense of distance that made it even more intense.

 

[cstu]

98% on Rotten Tomatoes

90% Audiences

10% tea partiers?

 

[cstu]

This is my favorite movie of the year so far.

Wow, I don't understand the lukewarm reception from half of the posters here. I loved it. Saw it in IMAX 3-D.

Alfonso Cuaron though is one of the best directors, so you really can't go wrong with his films.

1. Amazing visuals. Cuaron spent a couple of years essentially shooting an animated version first. They had to pre-viz and choreograph all of the robotic arm movements. The opening shot is 15-min, similar to Cuaron's long takes in "Children of Men."

2. Suspenseful thrill ride. Purely on a visceral level, the suspense exceeds every recent thriller.

3. It's not a film like 2001, though many have called this the best space movie since 2001. It's very different: it's a genre film, and so its focus is not on any kind of any grand social or philosophical ideas. It's more simple and is more "accessible" to those looking for a simple thrill ride. However, the film is undoubtedly Cuaron and carries a humanist, emotional message.

I'm not going to call it my favorite movie of the year, there's not enough depth here to do that, but it's one hell of a thrill ride.

 

[cstu]

I haven't watched tv, a movie or listened to the radio in 23 years but I will watch this

 

[Fennis]

Pretty obvious the studio determined the ending. Cuaron wrote the script and that is not his style at all. Regardless, a ####ing incredible movie experience. And it's a 3D IMAX film. Why bother if you're not going to see it as it intended to be seen?

Spoiler

http://movies.yahoo.com/news/did-gravity-really-end-seemed-alternate-theory-spoilers-195959701.html

(SPOILER ALERT: Don’t read another word of this if you haven’t seen “Gravity.” And if you have seen “Gravity,” know that this might throw your GPS into a spin.)

If the end of “Gravity” is to be taken at face value, our heroine — Sandra Bullock’s chronically oxygen-deprived ride-along scientist Ryan Stone — has quite a story to tell.

But to whom will she be telling it? Her NASA handlers, the rabid press, a nation of adoring fans … or her daughter (and possibly the cast of “Lost”)?

In Alfonso Cuarón’s dazzling 3D survival tale, a burst of third-act diversions leaves open the possibility — to this viewer, at least — that Ryan never actually made it to the beach of some remote paradise.

Not in her Earthbound form, anyway.

There’s just enough ambiguity to suggest that Ryan perished somewhere along the way, most likely in the airlock of the Russian Soyuz capsule, moments after she shut down the oxygen supply to hasten what seemed at the time like her inevitable demise.

Or perhaps her final undoing comes when the astronaut who floats up to the airlock window (he’s not recognizable at first, certainly not as Matt Kowalski) pops the hatch; Ryan is freaking out as he spins the crank, realizing that he’s about to eject her into the void. A sleight-of-hand edit even suggests that’s exactly what happens.

And here’s where it gets squishy.

The events that take place afterward — Ryan’s otherworldly encounter with Matt, her newfound resolve to carry on, her speech on the way down and that lucky-as-hell landing — play out like an absolution. If Ryan’s soul has in fact detached and drifted early in the third act, it certainly spends the rest of the movie acting out the way things should have gone.

This isn’t to suggest that Cuarón, who co-wrote the screenplay with son Jonas, meant to allow for this theory. Their version may be a simple tale of survival, roll credits, everybody claps and goes home agog. But there’s just enough of a seam between the practical realities of the film’s setup and its payoff for a doubt to wiggle through.

Metaphysical ambiguity is de rigueur for space movies, of course … compared with “2001: A Space Oddyssey” or “Solaris,” “Gravity” is downright grounded.

Even if Ryan truly survives all 91 minutes of the film, then the spiritual interlude isn’t such a stretch — there’s plenty of real-world precedent for mystical phenomenon in aerospace. From the spirit-guide visit Charles Lindbergh described during his transcontinental flight to John Glenn’s “fireflies” swirling Friendship 7 to the outlandish tales told by certain moon astronauts, the idea that the friendly ghost of Matt Kowalski shows up to give Ryan a pep talk (and an escape plan) is plausible enough; the idea that she hallucinates it even more so.

But those events also fit if Ryan in fact simply passed out and died aboard the Soyuz, leaving the completion of her journey to the soul.

From her self-affirming soliloquy on the bumpy ride down, to the fact that she lands in water but near the beach (what are the odds of that?) to her near-impossible swim to the surface — even the very look of the verdant, paradisal beach where she washes ashore — nothing dissipates the possibility that she’s landed not on Earth, but the next plane. She just had some personal spiritual/emotional business to wrap up in order to get there.

If you’re buying any of this, then “Gravity” concludes much like last year’s 3D juggernaut, “Life of Pi” — in that you, dear viewer, get to choose whichever version of the story you prefer.

And if you’re not, well … planet Earth is blue, and there’s nothing I can do.

Spoiler

Where that theory falls apart is that everything she did up until that point was a one in a million long shot. I could just as easily believe, and in fact moreso, that she died at the beginning of the movie and Clooney never saved her. If you believe she did everything up to the Soyuz then you might as well believe the whole thing.

By the way it was very difficult to miss the birth symbolism throughout the movie - from her looking like she was a baby after first getting to the ISS to crawling out of the water and starting to walk at the end.

I’m not sure I buy the article, but I thought it was an interesting perspective.



Of course I did miss the symbolism you mentioned, although I did think about it briefly at the first part you mentioned, (never the second part), but I was mostly too caught up with how amazing the weightlessness of space looked.

.

 

[Fennis]

This is my favorite movie of the year so far.

Wow, I don't understand the lukewarm reception from half of the posters here. I loved it. Saw it in IMAX 3-D.

Alfonso Cuaron though is one of the best directors, so you really can't go wrong with his films.

1. Amazing visuals. Cuaron spent a couple of years essentially shooting an animated version first. They had to pre-viz and choreograph all of the robotic arm movements. The opening shot is 15-min, similar to Cuaron's long takes in "Children of Men."

2. Suspenseful thrill ride. Purely on a visceral level, the suspense exceeds every recent thriller.

3. It's not a film like 2001, though many have called this the best space movie since 2001. It's very different: it's a genre film, and so its focus is not on any kind of any grand social or philosophical ideas. It's more simple and is more "accessible" to those looking for a simple thrill ride. However, the film is undoubtedly Cuaron and carries a humanist, emotional message.

I'm not going to call it my favorite movie of the year, there's not enough depth here to do that, but it's one hell of a thrill ride.

 

[SHIZNITTTT]

Just got back from this flick. Wife liked it, I thought it was meh at best. IMO don't waste your money or time. Wait for it on ppv

 

[badmojo1006]

Just got back from this flick. Wife liked it, I thought it was meh at best. IMO don't waste your money or time. Wait for it on ppv

I was 5 minutes of Avatar on TV a couple of nights ago. It looked so flat and lifeless (I don't have a 3D TV). Gravity is the same way. I like Gravity better than Avatar. Gravity would look awful on regular TV

 

[Copeman]

Me and the girlfriend saw this yesterday (IMAX 3D). I will echo many other sentiments in here, the story itself was good enough, not great by any means. The actors did a fine job with what they had to work with. The effects were amazing, and if you see it, you need to spend the extra and see it on IMAX 3D. Watching certain parts made it feel like a roller coaster ride. For a movie, I'd give it a 6/10. For a "movie experience", I'd give it a solid 10.

 

[Sand]

I'm not going to call it my favorite movie of the year, there's not enough depth here to do that, but it's one hell of a thrill ride.

As someone whose day job is "rocket scientist" I'd say there is a lot of depth to this movie. (I loved it).

Perhaps you earth crunching, technophobe, pinko commie liberals just don't get it?

 

[Horses Mouth]

i'm not a fan of 3D as it hurts my eyes but will go for the right movie. is this a must-see-in-3D?

 

[SHIZNITTTT]

i'm not a fan of 3D as it hurts my eyes but will go for the right movie. is this a must-see-in-3D?

no

 

[Daywalker]

i'm not a fan of 3D as it hurts my eyes but will go for the right movie. is this a must-see-in-3D?

I saw it in 2D and thought the effects were fantastic. I usually avoid 3D because you lose the glow of the movie screen.

People in these threads usually dislike 3D as well but it seems the consensus this time is that the 3D really added to the effects.

 

[coyote5]

Just got back from this flick. Wife liked it, I thought it was meh at best. IMO don't waste your money or time. Wait for it on ppv

I was 5 minutes of Avatar on TV a couple of nights ago. It looked so flat and lifeless (I don't have a 3D TV). Gravity is the same way. I like Gravity better than Avatar. Gravity would look awful on regular TV

That is such awful advice. If you're not going to watch it on the IMAX or at least the big screen in the theater, don't bother.

 

[Apple Jack]

i'm not a fan of 3D as it hurts my eyes but will go for the right movie. is this a must-see-in-3D?

As essential a film to see in the theater as I can remember and equally essential do see it in IMAX 3D. Agree that you shouldn't even bother otherwise.

 

[glock]

Got tickets to see thus Sunday in NYC at the AMC Lincoln Center IMAX. They say the screen is HUGE.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

No IMAX 3D showings here. Is it worth seeing in regular 3D? Seems like almost everyone in this thread who loved it saw it in IMAX, and the people that saw it in regular 3D were lukewarm on it.

ETA: Looks like I can drive an hour and spend cash to see it in IMAX 3D, or I can drive 5 minutes and use some gift cards I have lying around to see it in regular 3D. Does the IMAX make that big of a difference over regular 3D?

 

[SHIZNITTTT]

Can someone please tell me what the even liked about this movie? Seriously? Other than seeing Bullock in short shorts and that was for 5 minutes. Visual effects blah blah blah.

 

[SHIZNITTTT]

No IMAX 3D showings here. Is it worth seeing in regular 3D? Seems like almost everyone in this thread who loved it saw it in IMAX, and the people that saw it in regular 3D were lukewarm on it.

ETA: Looks like I can drive an hour and spend cash to see it in IMAX 3D, or I can drive 5 minutes and use some gift cards I have lying around to see it in regular 3D. Does the IMAX make that big of a difference over regular 3D?

I saw it in 3D Imax sitting dead center with hardly anyone else in theater with dolby digital THX at full blast, had my popcorn hot, and my soda cold. Was relaxed the temp in the theater was a nice 72 with hardly any humidity. And, the movie still sucked.

 

[badmojo1006]

Can someone please tell me what the even liked about this movie? Seriously? Other than seeing Bullock in short shorts and that was for 5 minutes. Visual effects blah blah blah.

WHy do you go to movies? I am asking a serious question.

 

[Fennis]

Can someone please tell me what the even liked about this movie? Seriously? Other than seeing Bullock in short shorts and that was for 5 minutes. Visual effects blah blah blah.

It is a visually amazing movie (visual effects blah blah blah) that is very suspenseful (emotions blah blah blah) and effects that have never before been shown in a movie (special effects blah blah blah).

 

[Brownsfan]

The wife and I took our 20 year old niece to see it. We drove an hour to see it in 3D on IMAX. Wife and I enjoyed it more than the niece did. Not much in the way of story as has been said. The movie was captivating. That's the best way I can describe it. I never looked away from the screen. This is what a movie experience is supposed to be like.

 

[SHIZNITTTT]

Can someone please tell me what the even liked about this movie? Seriously? Other than seeing Bullock in short shorts and that was for 5 minutes. Visual effects blah blah blah.

WHy do you go to movies? I am asking a serious question.

Usually to be entertained. Maybe all the hype before the movie lead me to believe I was going to see something very special. Instead it was a predictable movie with special effects. To each their own