I saw the trailer for this, and it looked interesting although in the back of my mind I was thinking, "Realistically, both of these characters are dead ducks, so this looks like a remake of Open Water set in space." But 96% rating from Rotten Tomatoes? I don't see movies that often, but I may have to make an exception for this one.



http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/gravity_2013/

The 3D trailer is awesome. Bring the Dramamine.

We shall see. Movies tend to get a high rating just before it comes out and then the score gets readjusted. Certainly looks interesting and I do love movies about Space.

At 46 reviews, it is a good indication of what the final score will be.

But to answer the question: yes. Alfonso Cuarón is an extremely gifted and talented filmmaker.

Well, it didn't end up with a 96% fresh rating.

It's 98% now. Whoa.

I may have to see this tomorrow...

Reserved a seat for Gravity Friday afternoon, in real IMAX 3D up by Lincoln Center.

In answer to the question I posed at the top of this thread, "Yes, it is." Move over, Stanley Kubrick.

Wow. I was gonna give it a pass, but I guess I need to reconsider.

Avatar made me nauseated and motion sick. Is it that bad?

I wasn't nauseated by Avatar's special effects. If you do feel nausea while watching Gravity, close your eyes. (And there were times, I did close my eyes because the suspense was killing me.) The important difference is that in this film, you both believe in and care about the characters. It's also an important difference between it and 2001, since I really don't care as much about Dave Bowman's plight because Kubrick intentionally cast bland actors.

Is this the greatest science-fiction movie of all time? It depends on both what you consider to be science fiction and what you consider great. There's a number of film critics who think that any sort of "popcorn" movie can't be seriously considered to be a great movie, no matter how popular it is. They believe that any great movie has to have 100% realistic characters and must be grounded in drama. I think a very good case can be made for either Star Wars (or A New Hope), Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, the first two Terminator movies, or the first two Alien films.

Then there is a sub-genre of science-fiction movies I would call science fiction dramas. Up until now, 2001: A Space Odyssey has been considered the greatest of these. I believe that it now has to move over.

The chances of me not being disappointed at this point are pretty slim.

Thanks Eddy.

You may be disappointed if you take the "greatest science-fiction movie of all time" bit too seriously. But if you expect a good film, I don't think you will be disappointed.

No, no, no.... you said that it was better than 2001.

And since 2001 changed my life, I expect the same or more from this movie.

But keep in mind, that as great as 2001 is, I think it's overrated. Kubrick that man was becoming subvervient to the machines he created which is why the astronauts are bland as compared to HAL. I think that was a mistake---you need not only interesting characters, but characters played by good actors you can care about. THAT is why I say Gravity is better than 2001---but it will not change your life.

One thing I agree with the one reviewer who panned Gravity on RT----Sandra Bullock has great legs for a 49-year old. In fact, I had a hard time believing she was nearer 50 than 40.

2001 over-rated? No.
Under-stated ≠ bland.

Replace Keir Dullea with Charles Nelson Reilly and that movie would've POPPED!

"My God... Hunh-hunhnh... It's full of stars... Hunnh Hunhnh!"

Gravity is no 2001, Mr Senator.

It must look unbelievable on NYC's largest IMAX screen, we need a full report Jimbo!

I enjoyed this on a fake IMAX screen, so watching it on a real IMAX screen must be fantastic! I won't say you have to see it in IMAX to enjoy it, but this is one of those films which should be seen in a movie theatre at least once instead of waiting for it to come out on Blu-Ray.

Did he do anything outside of Match Game?

The Hollywood Squares?