GRANT:
I have to start this review with an apology of sorts. The first few times the trailers for Gravity showed up on my T.V. screen, I immediately dismissed the film. A film, starring Sandra Bullock, in which she drifts away aimlessly in space? Thanks but no thanks. Had it not been for Mr. Gonzalez and my respect for his taste in film, I can guarantee you that I would never have seen Gravity, much less in 3-D. (Which is the format in which I’d highly recommend watching this film in) So in essence my apology is to Alfonso Cuaron (The Director) for dismissing your film without even giving it a fair chance.
With that being said, having seen the film, I have to say that I wasn’t wrong with my theories of how the movie would play out. In fact, with the exception of one brilliant scene, the movie’s plot is rather linear and predictable, but that doesn’t mean it’s not exciting to watch.
In an era where people’s creative outputs are put under more scrutiny and criticism than ever before, it’s easy to pick out the flaws and toss aside any redeeming qualities of a work, especially if the work doesn’t achieve the daunting task of blowing everyone’s preconceived expectations away. This can make it hard for frequent movie goers to simply enjoy a film for entertainment’s sake. Fortunately, that’s exactly what Gravity manages to accomplish.
As I said, there aren’t many surprises in terms of plot, but Gravity flexes its visual muscles throughout, at the same time enhancing the eye candy with brilliant shots and camera angles that draw you in and keep you engaged, never fully easing up until the end. I found myself mentally repeating the phrase “How did they film that?” several times while watching, and the attention to detail displayed within this film is something that we as viewers don’t get the pleasure of seeing often enough in modern cinema.
Overall, Gravity is more of a visual spectacle that happens to be a movie and that’s fine. The pacing is excellent and Sandra Bullock and George Clooney give solid acting performances throughout the duration of the film. If you’re looking for a movie that serves a well-balanced source of entertainment, Gravity is well worth the price of your admission ticket.
GONZALEZ:
As my esteemed colleague pointed out, I had to drag him into the theater on this one (only kind of kidding). While he had some reservations on the movie, I would’ve been at a screening as early as I could. So I guess I should explain why “Gravity” was my most anticipated film and is currently the 2nd best film of 2013 (so far).
In 2004, the third Harry Potter film, “The Prisoner of Azkaban“, came out and promptly impressed the hell out of me. Where I found the previous two HP films slightly anemic and bound to the page, “Prisoner of Azkaban” felt made for the big screen and wasn’t afraid to deviate from the page. “Azkaban” was a visual feast: cinematography favoring deep blacks, some nice long takes, camera moves that push through impossible spaces. Despite a slightly wonky script, it’s still my favorite film in the series. This was my first exposure to the work of Mexican director Alfonso Cuaron. His follow-up came in 2006 with the dystopian sci-fi film “Children of Men“.
Around this time I was starting my first year of college. “Children of Men” was exactly the right film for me to see back then. Along with it having an intriguing premise concerning the effect of human infertility on the world, what really floored me was how Cuaron told the story. In the middle of an incredibly realistic future world going to hell unfolds the story of a disillusioned man protecting humanity’s last hope. Themes of religion, immigration, and faith intermingle perfectly to create the best film of 2006 imho. And on a purely technical level, the cinematography by Emmanuel Lubezki is astounding, full-stop. “Children of Men” features two single-shot scenes, one taking place in a car and the other weaving through a refugee camp, of such complexity that they have to rank with similar shots from “Goodfellas”, “Hard Boiled”, and “Boogie Nights” as the best ever done.
So you could say I’m a huge fan of Alfonso Cuaron.
Which brings us to “Gravity”, Cuaron’s first feature-length film in 7 years (hence the anticipation). I had heard about this film for some time now as Cuaron has been working on it for about 3-4 years. It was cruel to make me wait that long but good lord was the wait worth it.
It’s safe to say that you’ve never seen anything like “Gravity” on the big screen before. I’ve not witnessed a space film this realistic as to make you feel like you’re up there with Sandra Bullock and George Clooney. It all starts with the opening shot, which in true Cuaron fashion is a long take. And what a take it is. After a few words on black describing the nature of space, the title appears set against a cacophony of noise generated by the soundtrack. And then suddenly, nothing. No sound. Just a vast shot of the Earth with space in the background. Gradually, you get to hear com chatter emanating from the rear channels of the surround system (hope you see this film in a great theater). A shuttle slowly comes into the distance, with Matt Kowalski (Clooney) floating around it. We’re then introduced to Ryan Stone (Bullock) on her first space walk, trying to repair the Hubble telescope. If you’ve seen the trailers then you know what happens next. Space debris unexpectedly hurtles towards the astronauts and eventually sends poor Stone flying uncontrollably into the vastness.
All of this is done in one shot lasting approximately 13 minutes (by comparison, the longest take in “Children of Men” lasts 6 minutes) and there are many more of these kinds of shots throughout the film, all featuring seamless visual effects work that makes “Avatar” look garish. But this is not just Cuaron and cinematographer Lubezki showing off. Though I’m sure that kind of thinking enter into their thoughts a bit (it is show business after all), these long takes serve the purpose of the story just as much as they did in “Children”. “Gravity” is told mostly from Stone’s perspective and by employing no cuts we’re thrown deeper into her plight. We’re experiencing this with her. In fact, during one scene we literally go into a close-up from inside her helmet, seeing what she sees.
There is thankfully more to the film than just Sandra Bullock floating helplessly through space but that would take away much of the fun. Like I said before, while some of the character bits are familiar, “Gravity” is a highly unique experience. It’s a rarity in a world populated with “Transformers” (sorry Michael Bay): a special effects movie that is both viscerally exciting and elegant, realistic, and intimate. Hopefully it inspires other filmmakers to follow suit. If not…Perhaps we can shoot the lazy directors/writers into space.
GONZALEZ: So what would you rate the film out of 10?
GRANT: It’s tricky because I can’t really grade it on the same scale that I would for regular movies… but after our back and forth about the pros and cons of the film, I’m willing to give it an 8 out of 10.
GONZALEZ: It’s a 9 out of 10 for me. it lived up to all my high expectations and showed me something I may never get to see in real life.
GRANT: In the era of the movie blockbuster, Gravity does serve as an excellent reminder of a movie experience.
