Completely agree. I thought so when I first watched it. It was an ok movie. I'm not upset that I spent money on it but I don't think it deserved the accolades it received.

I came out of the theater loving it, but my friend said it was predictable and rediculous. Obviously, without the 3D, it doesn't have the same impact when watching it at home.

I did watch it at home so I would have missed the 3D visuals. I'm just not sure it'd have been enough to redeem it for me.

i watched it in 3d six times at the theater

once in one of them rocking chairs

it was one of those movies where WB actually released it twice, despite having a good first run.

it was a rollercoaster of a ride, but seeing it at home or netflix is like going fishing in your own backyard pool.

YMMV, as with every movie. Movies are subjective, period. I rarely go out to movies but saw Gravity in the theater and felt it was the best use of 3D I'd ever seen. The plot wasn't anything spectacular, but that's why it didn't win a screenplay award. It takes considerable talent as a director to put that much, visually, on screen without overshadowing the characters or confusing the audience. Considering how many similar movies have ended up lackluster at best, the film was a remarkable success.

This movie works entirely because of its visuals. Who cares about the plot, when you have the greatest visuals ever seen? Name any other space movie that has better visuals.

@chrimas15 said: Name any other space movie that has better visuals.

2001.

@chrimas15 said:

This movie works entirely because of its visuals. Who cares about the plot, when you have the greatest visuals ever seen? Name any other space movie that has better visuals.

2001 was already mentioned (classic)... still trounces every other space movie...

I would argue Interstellar has better cinematography than Gravity, despite Gravity having more spectacle. You can be wowed by seeing Gravity in the theatre for the first time, but on a second viewing Interstellar remains more visually interesting.

Alien felt more visceral and was visually more immersive than Gravity. Gravity is like watching someone ride a rollercoaster, Alien felt like you were there yourself. The novelty of Gravity wears off quickly. Even on a visual level. It really is a one trick pony, despite how great that trick is.

You do raise a good point though, there aren't that many great looking space movies. Some sci-fi movies have wonderful visuals (e.g. A.I., Inception, etc...), but very few space movies pull it off well. I like the way Solaris looks and parts of Sunshine, but they're not on the same level as what we're talking about.

I liked it. Compared to this year's and last year's films, only Hacksaw Ridge was clearly better, maybe Lala Land if you like that stuff...It's a killer movie. Who cares about seeing it twice? I have and enjoyed it both times, but if we're mentioning value of movies on multiple views, compared to Moonlight, I'd pick Gravity any day of the week. Same with Spotlight. The movie is a spiritual, visceral experience that makes you feel like you're there in space. Plus Sandra Bullock in spandex...I think Alien's better, Interstellar was pretty bad, and 2001 I just can't get into, but I appreciate the end and what it did for the genre. It's just a tad slow and outdated for most of it to really enjoy.

Only saw it once but enjoyed it quite abit. I thought it was solid all around. Had nothing really to complain about.

@Damienracer said:

Not overrated at all one of the best space movies ever! The background story into Sandra's character was deep... Again renovatio you've wowed me with your cluelessness.

Don't get me wrong... I liked the movie in theatre, and still like it having watched it at home... I even used it when going to audio dealers to compare which speakers to buy for my home theatre system...

Gravity just feels a little, well, light-weight (sorry for the pun)... I like Bullock's character, the backstory, her will to survive and she brought a lot to what could have been just a simple character... But still, the movie was mostly her bouncing along a rope, from one space equipment to another... There wasn't much to the movie...

I'm not saying it's not a good movie, it is... I'm saying is the way people talked about it when it first came out was like it was one of the most emotional and transformative things they have ever seen... It's good, but it's not THAT good...

I think The Wolf of Wall Street should have gotten best directing above this... Maybe it was closer than I give Gravity credit for, but I really do think that.

@Renovatio said:

@Damienracer said:

Not overrated at all one of the best space movies ever! The background story into Sandra's character was deep... Again renovatio you've wowed me with your cluelessness.

Don't get me wrong... I liked the movie in theatre, and still like it having watched it at home... I even used it when going to audio dealers to compare which speakers to buy for my home theatre system...

Gravity just feels a little, well, light-weight (sorry for the pun)... I like Bullock's character, the backstory, her will to survive and she brought a lot to what could have been just a simple character... But still, the movie was mostly her bouncing along a rope, from one space equipment to another... There wasn't much to the movie...

I'm not saying it's not a good movie, it is... I'm saying is the way people talked about it when it first came out was like it was one of the most emotional and transformative things they have ever seen... It's good, but it's not THAT good...

I think The Wolf of Wall Street should have gotten best directing above this... Maybe it was closer than I give Gravity credit for, but I really do think that.

I disagree. This was one of the very few movies that actually blew me away in the past decade. I'm a skeptic of movies these days, and I wasn't expecting much due to the hype, but I was genuinely impressed with this one. TWOWS on the other hand, was a movie that was incredibly disappointing; one of the movies that makes me a skeptic of anything hyped. It was okay, but Gravity was a good movie. I actually very much prefer Boiler Room to TWOWS when it comes to the topic. It was done much better.

@Reasonable Kermode said:

@Renovatio said:

It's been a few years since this was released but I think it's safe to say that Gravity is overrated and didn't deserve the Oscar for directing...

Have any of you even bothered to re-watch it?

Once you get past the special effects, it's such a small and inconsequential movie.

Agreed. Nice visuals. No depth, but it was mildly enjoyable.

The Oscars are all about advertising and politics. They're irrelevant.

People who prefer style over substance, and don't like to think too much, love this movie.

I completely agree with all of this.

It's interesting to read the very different takes on this movie...

I like the aesthetics, the impressiveness of it, the full use of current cinema technology and the spectacle so I'm willing to cut it a lot of slack on the cerebral and emotional parts, how thin the plot is but I think the hype of the movie really got to me... In particular, the hype that wasn't about the visual and aural quality, but rather the way critics were talking about this as the future of cinema... As if emotion, story and ideas didn't matter as long as we had a pretty picture and sound...

I still think it towers over Avatar, both technically and as an engaging movie... now THAT was an overrated movie... Honestly, I didn't even find Avatar's visuals to be as spectacular as critics made it out to be... It was a level above the "story" CGI scenes in the better video games at the time... Not that big a deal... And the visual compositions were weak... In that context, I think Gravity is a step up in both spectacle and, arguably, a step up as a movie...

I think "Interstellar" is much more overrated.