I took a break from my studies (ah, dead week) and sat down last night to watch a film that I, honestly, did not think I would enjoy as much as I did.  The film is called Gravity and it was released earlier this year.  The film stars Sandra Bullock and George Clooney as astronauts orbiting the Earth, when something goes wrong and their mission must be aborted.  I remember seeing trailers for this film and thinking that it looked okay, but after viewing it, and checking out the IMDb page (, many people also liked it.  It is currently sitting at and IMDb rating of 8.4/10, with a Metascore of 96/100.  This puts it at #72 on IMDb’s “Top 250″ movie page, which places it above Disney’s Lion King, Tarantino’s Reservoir Dogs, Lucas’ Star Wars Episode VI, and Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey.

One of the most hilarious things to come from this movie is the fact that famous astrophysicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson tweeted about this film as he watched it, pointing out all of the faults with it.  He says that his tweets were in jest, however, and “To ‘earn’ the right to be criticized on a scientific level is a high compliment indeed.”  I’ll list some of these tweets down below for your reading pleasure. WARNING, SPOILERS AHEAD:

Tyson begins his tweet barrage by commenting on the name of the film.

Next, we get a harrowing dose of reality. 

Here we have Tyson commenting on something that I’m sure many people were wondering about while watching this movie.  This also starts a slew of “Mysteries of Gravity” tweets. 

This is something that I just took for granted throughout the film.  I just assumed that line of sight in space was different because that is what the film wanted me to believe. 

I’ll admit a dirty secret here: I’ve never actually seen 2001: A Space Odyssey.  I was pointing out how impressed I was with the amazing zero-G effects the entire movie.

I thought this during the film as well.  It sure seems like the zero-G is pretty finicky with how it wants to act during the film.  Why wouldn’t Clooney just float next to Bullock?

I think that this is answered on of two ways.  Either she, a.) was wearing the head cover that we can see her pull off towards the beginning of the film (like this one:, or b.) she had her hair pulled back in a tight bun.  I think these are both fair explanations.

Now, this is just something I would not have noticed after one million viewings.  I suppose that is why he’s the astrophysicist and I’m not.

Again, something that I did not know.

This one is interesting because it is not so much of a scientific commentary, but more of a sociological one.


This entry was posted in Chris Dabbs. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.