But there you had at least the 3D to enjoy, which was just breathtaking.

This is why Gravity has no chance at Best Picture. Probably about 60-75% of oscar voters watched a shitty low-def screener on their TVs or laptops.

With a 9-month old, can't really see many movies in a movie theater, but in Bolivia every movie is available at every local store (pirated of course) within a week of being released somewhere in the world. Hence, over Christmas I watched a less than DVD quality version. Because I couldn't see the visuals, I was only able to focus on the other aspects of the movie.

The acting was ok. Bullock was decent in parts. Obviously the story was far fetched, but the fact that she was able to get from the International Space Station to Hubble seemed way too impossible. Yet, as a piece of fiction I did like it.

Overall - B

You're never gonna buy the way too impossible story in Apollo 13 either!

Not sure what you meant by this comment? Apollo 13 actually happened, and everyone already knew the outcome (of the movie). With Gravity:

"The Hubble Space Telescope, which is being repaired at the beginning of the movie, has an altitude of about 559 kilometers (347 mi), and an orbital inclination of 28.5 degrees. The International Space Station has an altitude of around 420 kilometers (260 mi), and an orbital inclination of 51.65 degrees. With such significant differences in orbital parameters, it would be impossible to travel between them without precise preparation, planning, calculation, appropriate technology and a large amount of fuel"

Was this not noticed by anyone else? As soon as this sequenced happened I no longer felt tense watching the movie since the impossible was already happening.

The impossible happens every day.

So are people finally realising that this movie isn't that great?

It's phenomenal, actually.

Somethings that have very low probability or may not have been previously well understood (and therefore thought impossible), may happen every day. But that scene was such extremely low on the probability and the exact mechanics are well enough understood that it wouldn't happen on any day. The director himself said the film was fiction, which indeed it was interesting fiction.

I question your logic in needed a large amount of fuel.

IT'S A MOVIE. YOU DON'T TRY TO FIND LOGIC IN A FREAKING MOVIE.

If the premise of the movie is that they tried to make it as realistic as possible and had a ton of experts come to weigh in on how zero gravity works, etc, then that would lead to someone trying to see how realistic it was. There were some amazing things done in the movie (inside the space station for example), but the fact they went between the ISS and the HST (unrealistic) made me question it. That is all. And as I stated it was an act of fiction.

That made you question it? Not Clooney somehow catching up to a Spinning Sandy going at god knows how fast?

Yes, that made me question it. The movements were actually really well done and were supervised with people that had been in space. The spinning would have happened (though potentially not as fast). Given the proximity of Clooney that didn't bother me.

The proximity of other spacial craft ... ya not so much.

I actually liked this better the second time in plain old flat 2D. Every single shot in this movie is gorgeous. Surprisingly I found that it was Clooney who was dragging the movie down during its the slow period. It's not that he is bad, just that Sandra by herself in space is much more compelling. I was alot more into the final leg of her journey, and somehow was more fearful for her life than the first time I saw it, even knowing the ending. The music is also alot powerful than I remembered, hooking me in even when the film is dragging.