Just saw Gravity. Might be the best movie I ever saw. Gorgeous, scientifically accurate, made me cry actual tears once and grab the arms of my seat twice. Writing, acting, direction, SFx, all perfect. As P-C's friend said, not a single nit to pick. Also, I apologize to Sandra Bullock for ever thinking she wasn't a heavyweight actor.

I saw in IMAX3D and I'm glad I did, but if you have movie-induced vertigo or problems with "shakycam" effects you should probably see it in 2D.

It was Bullock's delivery of the "My father wanted a boy" line that clarified it for me, and I understood that character's whole backstory from that plus the senseless loss of her daughter. This is who she is: a woman who's always been not quite good enough, who did one thing right and lost it for no real reason, and lost her own real reason for living at the same time. This is why she started out crying "what do I do, what do I do" and how easy it was for her to accept her own death and give up, and how wonderful it was for her to start fighting for her own life. You don't have to see the movie as Stone's self-actualization journey, but it is.

Thirdly, v. curious about how 3D improves the experience. Sounds intriguing.

I thought it increased what was already an immersive experience due to the camera work. Objects float in space, in three-dimensional space, and you really feel the distance between the objects and characters, especially when things are just out of reach and they're floating toward the screen.

Also, I apologize to Sandra Bullock for ever thinking she wasn't a heavyweight actor.

She's got chops! Not sure when she's going to shake the romantic-comedy stigma, but maybe this will help.

grab the arms of my seat twice.

Ha, I was either gripping the armrest or clutching my own hands or my face the entire time.

More than once, Gravity reminded me of a SF short story called The Cold Equations.

Neil DeGrasse Tyson wanted a bit more realism in Gravity, it seems:

[link]

I had to roll my eyes at some of that. I can't tell whether he's joking around or whether he actually did not like the movie.

and only one of those things would have affected the plot.

And Cuarón fully admits the scientific inaccuracies. It's kind of glaring, and in the moment, I didn't think about it at all, but I think he earned a little sacrificing of scientific realism.

I think he was probably genuinely annoyed by what he sees are obvious mistakes in a movie being sung to the high heavens for it's scientific accuracy. And since when does 7 tweets count as "going ballistic"?? To paraphrase the comments, Chill out, Business Insider, it's just a guy who didn't like a movie!

well, I'm not sure even sure that he didn't like the movie. he wanted more realism, but he may have liked the movie too.

Okay, so it wasn't totally scientifically accurate. It still did a damn good job of it, better than most "science" fiction movies.

He's right about Matt drifting away from Stone, though. She should have been able to yank him to her with minimal effort. When I saw it, I assumed they were being flung outward by the rotation of whatever they were hooked to, but I may have been wrong.