Gravity (2013)

Gravity: Directed by Alfonso Cuarón. With Sandra Bullock, George Clooney, Ed Harris, Orto Ignatiussen. Two astronauts work together to survive after an accident leaves them stranded in space.

“Gravity (2013)u003cbr/u003eu003cbr/u003eA 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.u003cbr/u003eu003cbr/u003eThe idea of being under constant stress, worrying for your main characters, should not be new if you know the director Alfonso Cuaronu0026#39;s previous major film, u0026quot;Children without Men.u0026quot; And like that film, he works with his same cameraman, Emmanuel Lubezki, who has become a co-conspirator in his films. Thatu0026#39;s a good thing. This movie is a visual stunner. Yes, it has a lot of u0026quot;effectsu0026quot; if you can call them that, but that have such visual coherence they remain logical and reasonable, even as they tip into the fabulous. Itu0026#39;s an achievement.u003cbr/u003eu003cbr/u003eSandra Bullock is the main character here, even more than her co-lead George Clooney. And sheu0026#39;s pretty amazing. You might think she doesnu0026#39;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 sheu0026#39;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.u003cbr/u003eu003cbr/u003eOnce 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.u003cbr/u003eu003cbr/u003eThe answer is no. And thatu0026#39;s a strength. Itu0026#39;s definitely good that the writers (including the director) did not push the sentimentality too hard (thereu0026#39;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 u0026quot;Grey.u0026quot; No distractions here.u003cbr/u003eu003cbr/u003eExcept 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 itu0026#39;s also really subtle. There are few moments (memorable ones, like Bullocku0026#39;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.u003cbr/u003eu003cbr/u003eThe 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. u003cbr/u003eu003cbr/u003eThe 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 Bullocku0026#39;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 itu0026#39;s both gorgeous and taut with terror. u003cbr/u003eu003cbr/u003eThere 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 doesnu0026#39;t really matter. Itu0026#39;s not about likelihood on any level. And the movie is so accurate in so many ways it will seem very conceivable. u003cbr/u003eu003cbr/u003eItu0026#39;s hard to imagine not liking this movie on one level or another. No, it isnu0026#39;t crazily imaginative like a Tarantino or Coen film, and it doesnu0026#39;t work its way into social or psychological significance, but what it deliberately does focus on is flawless.u003cbr/u003eu003cbr/u003ea postscript: be sure to see the Cuaron directed parallel short film u0026quot;Aningaaqu0026quot; which is recently posted all over. Google it.”