« Israeli rejects peace with Iran | Main | The Very Models of Modern Admirals? (or Generals) »

09 November 2013


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Steve Colton

When I read the first (rave) reviews, I thought, this sounds inanely absurd. After your wonderful (as always) dissection, I have even less incentive to see this. Why is it impossible to get decent science fiction on film (or whatever). Best I have seen in years is Firefly.


"have permitted themselves to slip the surly bonds of art for the doubtless artful but ultimately stultifying ersatz of craft."

Well said. Thank you for the review.


Don't they teach the uses of 'duck' tape in PHD programs any longer?

Charles I

Dammit, now I'll have to watch just to get to the capsule scene . . .and yes, I would kiss my mother with this mouth, but not with your mind.


I haven't been to a 3D movie since Abbatoir(sp?). The cool thing I found then is that if you turn the 3D glasses upside down you can see the way they composited the movie. One good example was the way the gauges on the instrument panel are shifted with respect to the console. There are lots of other really neat effects.


IMHO Sandra Bullock is a mindless chatterbox whose primary acting asset is her endless prater that fills up the allotted two hours without much needed forethought or expense. Fate seems to have destined her to roles with trite, poorly planned plots. You couldn't pay me to see one of her films.

Having said that, my wife loved it. Special effects and 3-D. That judgement from her was unprecedented.


I enjoyed it; but I'm a true Sci-Fi geek, the kind who likes 2001, A Space Oddyssey. (TWIL didn't like it).

Sure, I've got plenty of serious quibbles (a Medical Doctor, sent to repair some electrical device? Guessing about which button to push in a Chinese spaceship, and guessing right?), but while watching it, I found it easy to suspend disbelief.

This was the first Sci-Fi movie which I was able to look at as being NOT sci-fi - there was NO magic future-tech at all!

BTW, I think it was named "Gravity" because of the very last scene, when it becomes a recognizable physiological problem, rather than an unbeatable, invisible strategic enemy. Looked at that way, it's a great name for the flick.

Medicine Man

Thank you for the review, Mr. Farrell.

This isn't a film I'm really interested in seeing. It strikes me as main a "spectacle"-type film and I'm not all that interested in the premise. I shall take your review as confirmation that I was right to give it a swerve.

Oddly, I've heard in other quarters that Bullock was actually not half bad in this one though. This is remarkable because she tends to suck in films that aren't at least partly comedy.

Medicine Man

I want to add that I'm happy to see you mention the endless Ring-ology while talking about CGI overkill. While I've enjoyed most of them to some extent, I do feel that Peter Jackson has a certain lack of restraint, both with his "all in"-attitude towards big spectacles and his tendency to cudgel the audience across the face with sentimentality.

My wife is going to insist we see the next one in the theatre and while I'm sure I won't hate it, I'm confident that there are going to be one or two eye-roll worthy moments to sit through.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad