After watching 15 minutes of Gravity, I was bored to tears

Gusto BruntGusto Brunt Posts: 12,351
Forum Member
✭✭
I have two major problems with this film: George Clooney and Sandra Bullock.:o

As actors, I find them incredibly boring and self aware they're acting.

The only George Clooney film I have ever managed to sit through was that vampire flick he made about 15 years ago. I thought his acting sucked (no pun intended), but the film was okay.

Since then, trying to finish a George Clooney film has been torture. I just find him so bland, and he's always George Clooney playing George Clooney. It's his voice too. It gets on my nerves.

Now, Sandra Bullock. She's another who plays herself, and who's in love with herself. You're always aware that it's Bullock up there on that big screen.

If you ignore the fact they're both middle aged astronauts, then the tedious dialogue in the first 15 minutes will kill any interest in this film.

Everyone says the space shots are great. I wasn't impressed. Looked really fake to me. Earth reminded me of one of those Earths you'd see in a low budget 1950s sci-fi flick. :D

So after 15 minutes, what happened in the film happened (no spoilers here) and quite frankly I couldn't care less. I couldn't care less about Clooney's character, and I couldn't care less about Bullock's character.

I might return to this movie if I am feeling up to it, but so far, no interest.

I know I am not alone. More than 2,000 gave this hyped film one star on the IMDb.

So, should I continue watching??:)
«1

Comments

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 5,832
    Forum Member
    You got all that from watching a whole 15 minutes?
  • LMLM Posts: 63,477
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    No film is that great in 15 minutes. It normally takes half an hour to 40 minutes for the plot to really kick in. You spend 15-20 minutes establishing characters and the surroundings.

    You barely gave it a chance. If you said you watched it for an hour and then didn't like it, then fair enough.
  • Trsvis_BickleTrsvis_Bickle Posts: 9,202
    Forum Member

    So, should I continue watching??:)

    Indeed you should.

    Not because it gets any better (it doesn't) but on principle because you can't judge any film on the first 15 minutes.
  • dearmrmandearmrman Posts: 21,508
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    No film is that great in 15 minutes. It normally takes half an hour to 40 minutes for the plot to really kick in. You spend 15-20 minutes establishing characters and the surroundings.

    You barely gave it a chance. If you said you watched it for an hour and then didn't like it, then fair enough.

    I would disagree, regardless of plot developing I think you would know after the first 10-15 minutes if a film is for you. As you say it establishes the characters & surroundings, if you have neither interest in either by that time, it is unlikely you will enjoy the rest of the film.
  • LMLM Posts: 63,477
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Well we all have different personal ways on what we judge a film on before giving up. That just happens to be my personal one.
  • Partly CloudyPartly Cloudy Posts: 591
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    If you ignore the fact they're both middle aged astronauts, then the tedious dialogue in the first 15 minutes will kill any interest in this film.

    By the time they get into space these days, most astronauts are in their 40's and 50's, so that was the one thing that ran true for me ... not being very knowledgeable about all the other aspects of space.
  • EVILSPEAKEVILSPEAK Posts: 980
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I couldn't watch it either, that occasional DVD Screener notice at the bottom of the screen utterly ruined it for me. How dare they!
  • BowmaniBowmani Posts: 188
    Forum Member
    This was the most awesome stand out movie of this year. I saw it in 3D at the cinema an the visuals were just stunning. This was totally gripping.
  • MediaMan5MediaMan5 Posts: 960
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    This says more about you than the film op :)
  • Will_BennettsWill_Bennetts Posts: 3,054
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I agree with the OP . The 3d effects were nice but the film itself was pretty boring.
  • necromancer20necromancer20 Posts: 2,548
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Best film of the year IMO.
  • Johnny ClayJohnny Clay Posts: 5,326
    Forum Member
    Best IMAX 3D experience of the year.

    Popcorn, giant Coke, the works. I wanted it to blow me away on that level and it did.
    So, should I continue watching??:)
    If it means no more tiresome 'Ooh, hark at me!' attention-seeking posts then no, don't bother.
  • seelleeseellee Posts: 10,718
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I have two major problems with this film: George Clooney and Sandra Bullock.:o

    As actors, I find them incredibly boring and self aware they're acting.

    The only George Clooney film I have ever managed to sit through was that vampire flick he made about 15 years ago. I thought his acting sucked (no pun intended), but the film was okay.

    Since then, trying to finish a George Clooney film has been torture. I just find him so bland, and he's always George Clooney playing George Clooney. It's his voice too. It gets on my nerves.

    Now, Sandra Bullock. She's another who plays herself, and who's in love with herself. You're always aware that it's Bullock up there on that big screen.

    If you ignore the fact they're both middle aged astronauts, then the tedious dialogue in the first 15 minutes will kill any interest in this film.

    Everyone says the space shots are great. I wasn't impressed. Looked really fake to me. Earth reminded me of one of those Earths you'd see in a low budget 1950s sci-fi flick. :D

    So after 15 minutes, what happened in the film happened (no spoilers here) and quite frankly I couldn't care less. I couldn't care less about Clooney's character, and I couldn't care less about Bullock's character.

    I might return to this movie if I am feeling up to it, but so far, no interest.

    I know I am not alone. More than 2,000 gave this hyped film one star on the IMDb.

    So, should I continue watching??:)

    I'm guessing you tried watching illegally on some dodgy stream or something similar? As you wouldn't go to a cinema watch 15 minutes and walk out?

    Personally I think the film is an experience and I'm not sure how it would go down on a smaller screen without the 3D. It's the best use of 3d I've seen I think. I really can't agree on the cgi I thought it was very well done and looked very realistic.

    As for Bullock and Clooney, well you either like them or not.

    I think the film is a solid 8/10 in the cinema. As before that may change once I've seen it on bluray.
  • pumazoomapumazooma Posts: 1,067
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Well worth watching. It was full of action and suspense the whole way through.

    I wonder if you noticed that the 15 minutes you've seen was one continuous shot to really pull you in to the film. I also liked that fact that it got going straight away. So many films have you wondering what's going on for 30-40 minutes before things start to come together. 5 Minutes in and it was all happening.

    Apart from some dodgy physics here and there I loved it.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 3,599
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The opening shot is like 15 minutes! You judged an entire movie on one shot.
  • Virgil TracyVirgil Tracy Posts: 26,806
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I have two major problems with this film: George Clooney and Sandra Bullock.:o

    As actors, I find them incredibly boring and self aware they're acting.

    The only George Clooney film I have ever managed to sit through was that vampire flick he made about 15 years ago. I thought his acting sucked (no pun intended), but the film was okay.

    Since then, trying to finish a George Clooney film has been torture. I just find him so bland, and he's always George Clooney playing George Clooney. It's his voice too. It gets on my nerves.

    Now, Sandra Bullock. She's another who plays herself, and who's in love with herself. You're always aware that it's Bullock up there on that big screen.

    If you ignore the fact they're both middle aged astronauts, then the tedious dialogue in the first 15 minutes will kill any interest in this film.

    Everyone says the space shots are great. I wasn't impressed. Looked really fake to me. Earth reminded me of one of those Earths you'd see in a low budget 1950s sci-fi flick. :D

    So after 15 minutes, what happened in the film happened (no spoilers here) and quite frankly I couldn't care less. I couldn't care less about Clooney's character, and I couldn't care less about Bullock's character.

    I might return to this movie if I am feeling up to it, but so far, no interest.

    I know I am not alone. More than 2,000 gave this hyped film one star on the IMDb.

    So, should I continue watching??:)

    so you just walked out of the cinema after 15 minutes ? :confused:

    how much did you pay ?


    .
  • Thunder LipsThunder Lips Posts: 1,660
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    It doesn't even remotely get better, sounds like you made the right call for yourself to bail out.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 3,231
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    If you ignore the fact they're both middle aged astronauts, then the tedious dialogue in the first 15 minutes will kill any interest in this film.
    They're both younger than Chris Hadfield (the singing astronaut), who retired only a few months ago. There's nothing needs ignoring.

    As for the rest, I can't help you. I've never disliked an actor enough to struggle getting through a film, let alone an actor as vanilla as Clooney or Bullock. The effects reminded you of a '50s B movie? Whatever. Sounds like you've forced yourself to dislike it, to be honest.
    I know I am not alone. More than 2,000 gave this hyped film one star on the IMDb.
    It's over 3000 now. That's 1.8% of the total votes, I wouldn't get carried away with the argumentum ad populum just yet.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 3,231
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    EVILSPEAK wrote: »
    I couldn't watch it either, that occasional DVD Screener notice at the bottom of the screen utterly ruined it for me. How dare they!
    I'll bet the 3D glasses didn't even work either.
  • JohnbeeJohnbee Posts: 4,019
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Is the OP some kind of nutcase going to a film starring two actors he always hates?

    I thought she was very good in that film about the bus that has to go fast and another about her and the man in a coma to whom she says she is to be married, and several others of which I will not relate the plots. I have not seen G. Clooney I think.
  • LojenLojen Posts: 1,009
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Johnbee wrote: »
    Is the OP some kind of nutcase going to a film starring two actors he always hates?

    Agreed. If you dislike the two main actors so much you are never going to get past it, no matter how good or bad the actual movie is. It's the same for me with Christian Bale. The difference is I avoid movies he is in.
  • JasonJason Posts: 76,557
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    seellee wrote: »
    I'm guessing you tried watching illegally on some dodgy stream or something similar? As you wouldn't go to a cinema watch 15 minutes and walk out?

    Personally I think the film is an experience and I'm not sure how it would go down on a smaller screen without the 3D. It's the best use of 3d I've seen I think. I really can't agree on the cgi I thought it was very well done and looked very realistic.

    As for Bullock and Clooney, well you either like them or not.

    I think the film is a solid 8/10 in the cinema. As before that may change once I've seen it on bluray.

    well exactly. it's the very definition of an event film that must be seen on the big screen and preferably in 3D as well. To watch it on a small screen in 2D pretty much neuters the whole effect of the film.
  • Fairyprincess0Fairyprincess0 Posts: 30,061
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The first 15 minuets is the best bit.... The rest is just Sandra bullock (who I normally love) floating.
  • boddismboddism Posts: 16,436
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I have two major problems with this film: George Clooney and Sandra Bullock.:o

    As actors, I find them incredibly boring and self aware they're acting.

    The only George Clooney film I have ever managed to sit through was that vampire flick he made about 15 years ago. I thought his acting sucked (no pun intended), but the film was okay.

    Since then, trying to finish a George Clooney film has been torture. I just find him so bland, and he's always George Clooney playing George Clooney. It's his voice too. It gets on my nerves.

    Now, Sandra Bullock. She's another who plays herself, and who's in love with herself. You're always aware that it's Bullock up there on that big screen.

    If you ignore the fact they're both middle aged astronauts, then the tedious dialogue in the first 15 minutes will kill any interest in this film.

    Everyone says the space shots are great. I wasn't impressed. Looked really fake to me. Earth reminded me of one of those Earths you'd see in a low budget 1950s sci-fi flick. :D

    So after 15 minutes, what happened in the film happened (no spoilers here) and quite frankly I couldn't care less. I couldn't care less about Clooney's character, and I couldn't care less about Bullock's character.

    I might return to this movie if I am feeling up to it, but so far, no interest.

    I know I am not alone. More than 2,000 gave this hyped film one star on the IMDb.

    So, should I continue watching??:)

    Its a slow paced,plot-lite "crisis" movie. Some films are more about visuals,"atmosphere" (lol) & feeling than a major plotline & this is one of them.
    I can understand it would detract from the film if you don't like the actors, but yr criticism of them applies to many other so called great. Don't De Nino & Depp play the same characters all the time??
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 6,505
    Forum Member
    I saw the advert and walked out.
Sign In or Register to comment.