Gravity

Visually stunning. A real first in the technical department and presumably that was the extent of its intent. None of the great themes of Kubrick's 1968 masterpiece "2001: A Space Odyssey", are present here. This is a superlative, 90 odd minutes of remarkable beauty but the 90 odd minutes become really long because, just like the heroine we have so little to cling on to, story wise. It seems petty to criticize a film of this kind for whatever it doesn't accomplish because what it means to accomplish, it does in spectacular fashion. I just felt that I was served a glorious appetizer without a main course. Two huge stars in space Sandra Bullock and George Clooney. Why? If the idea was to dazzled us with something we had never seen before, great unknown actors would have added an extra something. Kubrick used Keir Dullea in "2001: A Space Odyssey", yes, Keir Dullea, or as Noel Coward put it, Keir Dullea, gone tomorrow. We know that if Sandra Bullock was in charge she, one way or another, will land safely. She's terrific, don't get me wrong, but I wasn't as worried about her as I should have been. The last problem was the score. Why? A standard horror/action flick musical score with cheap shots here and there. I think the purity of the work needed to be extended on every department. Now, putting all that aside, director Alfonso Cuaron must be applauded and I strongly recommend you to run and see it in the biggest screen you can find and in 3D.

Gravity (2013)

A ridiculously visual movie. The photography is astonishing. Astonishing. Add to that a story that never relents with suspense and emotional intensity and you have a remarkable movie.

The idea of being under constant stress, worrying for your main characters, should not be new if you know the director Alfonso Cuaron's previous major film, "Children without Men." And like that film, he works with his same cameraman, Emmanuel Lubezki, who has become a co-conspirator in his films. That's a good thing. This movie is a visual stunner. Yes, it has a lot of "effects" if you can call them that, but that have such visual coherence they remain logical and reasonable, even as they tip into the fabulous. It's an achievement.

Sandra Bullock is the main character here, even more than her co-lead George Clooney. And she's pretty amazing. You might think she doesn't get much room to stretch her abilities, trapped in space the whole time, but this is exactly where it shows how good she is. Even when she's talking to herself she makes it real, and moving, not a canned or cheesy sentimental or filler kind of moment. Clooney is also strong, playing the more experienced astronaut to a T, including his enduring calm in crisis.

Once you are done watching and leave the theater (or stand up from your couch) you might actually feel disoriented. Certainly in 3-D (and I saw it in the IMAX version) the effects are visceral. But looking back in the light of day you might also ask what the movie was about. Or rather, if it was about anything more than the one, relentless trajectory of surviving a series of near-death mishaps.

The answer is no. And that's a strength. It's definitely good that the writers (including the director) did not push the sentimentality too hard (there's a little). And there is no great sense of finding God or discovering your inner self. No, this is a survival film as gripping and down to earth (haha) as the vivid "Grey." No distractions here.

Except the visuals. Even in 2-D this must be something to marvel at. The 3-D was really really good, and this might seem odd to say given the theatrical mechanics of the camera and exploding spacecraft, but it's also really subtle. There are few moments (memorable ones, like Bullock's tears) where the dimensional aspects come forward. But the film basically uses the 3-D effects to enhance what is already there, nothing more. This of course, enhances a lot, but in respect to the story.

The photography is remarkable for the long takes at work, including the almost laugh- out-loud spectacular first long scene where Bullock and Clooney are doing spacewalks. The intelligence of how the camera pulls you into the scenes, with fluidity and without breaks (no edits, no cuts), is both beautiful and effective. There are even moments that are so virtuosic you wonder how they even thought they could do it, let alone then do and succeed.

The best example for me was watching Bullock spinning against the fixed starry sky, then the camera pulls closer and seamlessly starts to spin until the spinning becomes the same as Bullock's. The camera continues its approach, getting in on her helmet with reflections, and her face, and then finally her eye (yes that close), and with an incredibly deft wide angle swing we are in her head, looking out at the spinning universe, listening to her panic. Then the camera reverses and undoes all of this, step by fluid step. It takes a really long time, it happens without a single break (which means you are given no emotional escape), and it's both gorgeous and taut with terror.

There have been some questions raised about the feasibility of the various events--the different orbits of the real shuttle and space station, or the high speed of the spacewalker in a jetpack, or getting a visual on a space station 100 miles away--but you have to just let all that go. It doesn't really matter. It's not about likelihood on any level. And the movie is so accurate in so many ways it will seem very conceivable.

It's hard to imagine not liking this movie on one level or another. No, it isn't crazily imaginative like a Tarantino or Coen film, and it doesn't work its way into social or psychological significance, but what it deliberately does focus on is flawless.

a postscript: be sure to see the Cuaron directed parallel short film "Aningaaq" which is recently posted all over. Google it.

Sound: 2/2 - Stephen Price's music is alternately nightmarish and euphoric between lulls.

Acting/Characterization: 1.5/2 - George Clooney is, well, Clooneyesque, but Sandra Bullock shows palpable emotion. It's easy to root for her character as a fellow human being, despite her seeming incompetence as an astronaut.

Script/Writing: 0.5/2 - The script is uninspired, peppered with unfunny anecdotes, clichéd backstories, and inarticulate fretting, but it wisely avoids pretentious meditation on the meaning of it all for a few poignant moments of the heroine quailing in the face of death.

Visuals: 2/2 - Impeccably shot, Gravity is stunning from start to finish. Objects move with geometric beauty, while Earth is a vivid, distant dream.

Concept (Plot/Theme): 1.5/2 - The threat of space debris is wonderfully mundane and realistic, but everything that follows the initial catastrophe requires some suspension of disbelief as survival becomes increasingly improbable. Still, the film adeptly captures the minuscule fragility of human existence.

Total Score: 7.5/10

Gut Feeling: 8/10 - While I wondered how her character qualified for a space mission in the first place, Bullock delivers a moving performance in an immersive film that is worth seeing for the cinematography alone.

Final Average Score: 7.75

Gravity is an outstanding visual film directed by Alfonso Cuaron, crammed with some lovely area views, and excellent 3D effects that were used in an appropriate manner to create an extraordinary CGI appearance. I enjoyed the movie but didn't find it to be one of the very best of the year. The problem with this movie is the story, technically it's a flawless masterpiece and the 3D is amazing with a strong performance by Sandra Bullock, but the story is thin and predictable. Bullock does give one of the better performances of the year and the 'man vs. nature' storyline is always a compelling one but this movie mainly works as an amazingly beautiful visual feast and little more. Overall, Gravity is technically sound and very likable, but looking back you might wonder what the movie was about. If you accept Gravity as pure popcorn-munching fun and nothing else, you won't go away disappointed

This movie is probably one of the hardest i have to "review". Normally i review movies on my enjoyement of them, and i don't care to give a 6 or a 7 if the movie entertained me, even if its legitely a "bad movie" per normal standards.

When it comes to this one, i would give it a 4 if i would rate on my enjoyement alone. I was ...kinda bored to be honest. I looked at the time left 3 times and this is just a 90 minutes movie. That said, gotta give credit on the visuals and special effects as a whole.

The movie is beautiful, and i can only imagine how impressive it must had been in 2013 on a cinema screen. Apparently this was also in 3D, wich i usually don't like, but i could totally see why this particular movie would be enhanced by it. Now myself i watched it on a regular 1080p TV on bluray, and it was still impressive.

The issue is the story is not that compelling. And its even worst once you look at all the "goofs" on IMDB and realize a lot of what happen could simply not happen. Its not that actors act bad or that their characters have any major problems, its just that the concept of very few characters in a movie, at least to me, often result in a lack of developement. Its a survival story, thats it.

Now, i personally wouldn't rewatch the movie, unless maybe on an IMAX screen or something by curiosity, but my bluray has a ton of extras and to be fair i am actually curious to watch them for once. Like how they did the zero gravity stuff and such.

So in a nutshell is it worth a watch? Yeah kinda... for the visuals. And i must aknowledge that aspect, but at the same time i can't say i was really "entertained". So i am gonna give the movie a 6 wich i feel is a compromise between my 4 for entertainement and 8 for technical aspect.

The script has issues so knock a few points there, no matter what. If you reading this on Letterboxd, i can't give this the yellow heart. But that does not mean its not a well made movie and that you won't enjoy it.