Cosmic Drivel dressed up with Cosmetic CG

Rating: 1/10 (15 May 2015)

Many others have pointed out what a stinker this film is, but no amount of criticism is truly enough. So I'm adding my own.
Gravity fails in two ways.
1. Physics. Yes, physics. If you base a film in space, and pretend to be realistic, you do need to have a grasp of high-school physics. And when major, MAJOR plot points depend on a total violation of physics, what you've got is an epic failure of a movie. I liked the realistic silence, but when George Clooney 'falls' away from Sandra Bulluck, despite there being nothing whatsoever to pull him away, I stopped caring about further events in this film.
2. Story. There is none. Well, very little - but what there is makes almost no sense. Sandra Bullock is in a disaster, and she miraculously escapes. She's a trained astronaut who has all these weird emotional problems? She fantasizes about Clooney's ghost? She manages to figure out a control panel labeled in Chinese? Oh, please, spare me.
I've seen space adventure done better in B-movies of the 1950s. Above all, this film is mis-titled. It takes place in free fall, therefore 'gravity' plays no role in it! A better title would have been 'Action and Reaction.' But the writers clearly didn't understand such a deep concept. So they went with Gravity because it seemed catchy. Ugh.
If you want to see how this kind of space-survival story SHOULD be handled, read Andy Weir's brilliant The Martian. Let's hope Ridley Scott doesn't spoil that, in his upcoming screen adaptation. But it would be very difficult to dumb it down worse than Gravity.