Gravity

Gravity isn't just a movie, it's an experience. It's an experience of sight, it's an experience of sound and it's an emotional experience, as well. This film makes you feel like you are drifting among the stars, instead of just showing you a story set in space. The visual effects are unique, awe-inspiring and terrifying, and while the plot is simple, there is beauty in its simplicity. I've never seen a movie quite like Gravity.

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.

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 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

To me, 'Gravity' may not quite the masterpiece that it has been touted to be, though the critics and positive reviews do a fantastic job summing up the film's merits. However, while it is easy to see why some won't like it it is nowhere near as bad from personal opinion as the negative reviewers say. It is nowhere near the worst film ever and not deserving of a 1/10 rating with the visuals, effects and direction being such an achievement, the trend to bash critics and those who agree with the general consensus has also become extremely annoying.

Alfonso Cuaron is is an extremely talented director, all his films to date have proved that. 'Children of Men' is especially good and one of the best films of the decade, have always have had a huge soft spot for 'A Little Princess', 'Y Tu Mama Tambien' is not for everyone but for me it was a near-masterpiece, 'Prisoner of Azkaban' is one of the best directed films of the 'Harry Potter' franchise and as polarising as 'Gravity' is there is no denying that Cuaron's direction and the visuals were exceptional. 'Gravity' may be my second least favourite film of his, with 'Prisoner of Azaban', still very good, faring least, this is saying little and is testament to Cuaron's talent.

'Gravity' does fall short of perfection. Its weak spot is the script, it does tend to ramble, feel manufactured and cheesy and doesn't do an awful lot to make the characters more than mere clichés. The story doesn't always grip with a few slow, dull spots, and the ending puzzles.

However, as said already in this review and by previous reviews (acknowledged in most less than positive postings, 'Gravity' is a triumph visually and technically. The cinematography is tremendous, quite possibly the most beautiful and best shot film of 2013. The setting is striking and the special effects are a marvel. Cuaron's direction is exceptional, some of the best he has ever done, a master of visuals and mood.

With that being said, 'Gravity' has much more to it than the visuals and direction. The music is an incredible fit, it's haunting, sweeping and breathtakingly beautiful. A good deal of the story is gripping, with intimacy, tension and great emotional impact.

Sandra Bullock gives one of her finest performances here and gives the film a certain grace, while George Clooney has a cool calmness that fits his role perfectly. Ed Harris is also impressive.

Overall, an achievement visually, technically and directorially, but despite its faults 'Gravity' is much more than those things. 8/10 Bethany Cox