Gravity

"Gravity" shares the spotlight with "American Hustle" with each film having ten Oscar nominations, more than other movies from 2013. "Gravity" was nominated in catagories for Actress, Cinematography, Directing, Editing, Musical Score, Production Design, Sound Editing, Sound Mixing, Visual Effects and Best Picture. It took home 7 statuettes, more than any other film from that year. I didn't know what to expect from the director of "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban" when I heard about this movie. Then the reviews started coming in and they were glowing for "Gravity". My friends also were ecstatic. I made sure to see this film in IMAX 3D and I was also very impressed. Every cinematic characteristic was given special attention and the film's relationship to the audience is also a high priority. Director Alfonso Cuaron utilized some familiar story moments we have seen before in a space movie but made them original for his show. The special effects, sound and 3D were very good and the acting was noteworthy from Oscar-winners Sandra Bullock and George Clooney. So, why did I give it a low rating when compared to others? First off all, it could have been lower. Secondly, as a unique individual, I did not connect with the movie as well as others movies I have seen. It is hard for any film to appeal to every single moviegoer and while I enjoyed my experience & believe that everyone should see this film in IMAX 3D, I could not relate to the characters/story as much as I wanted to. I will try to discover the reason as to why by way of the following.

I don't consider this film science fiction. It is more of a thriller because it takes place in a more realistic scenario than you would normally see in science fiction. Having said that, some artistic choices remind us that it is just a movie and not real. The special effects are amazing as is the 3D but that is both a blessing and a curse on the realism of the movie. The special effects are such that it is hard for me to tell which elements are practical and which are CGI. I commend the filmmakers for that but I think I see more CGI and eye candy than in-camera effects. I personally like invisible CGI and this movie needed seamless special effects. The effects may be good and you many not know how they were done but you can still tell they are there. This is a directorial choice of Cuaron and that is something I can't argue against. The movie is exactly the way he wants it to look and it is very impressive in IMAX 3D. I just felt some potential realism was lost. Buzz Aldrin applauded the look of zero gravity in this show and I agree with him. On "Apollo 13" however, they did much of the movie in simulated weightlessness to great effect. As good as "Gravity" portrayed weightlessness, practical effects can sometimes be better. I will say that the depiction of inertia in zero gravity is well done. Without gravity, air resistance or friction, Newton's laws can have violent consequences. When I first heard the line, "I have a bad feeling about this mission", me and at least one other "Star Wars" fan in the theater chuckled. However, the movie was able to make that line its own as the film progressed. "Gravity" had a lot of impressive long shots especially the opening shot. I kept watching for the first cut so long that I missed it when it came. This is more proof of Cuaron's excellent directing skills. Another great quality of the film is the use of POV shots. What is unique about some of them is that there is no cut to a POV shot but instead we transition to it. The appearance of Marvin the Martian had a purpose other than just being a gag and served it that purpose well. When Stone makes it in the ISS, some visual symbolism is employed to portray a feeling of safety. After Stone has shed her space suit, it appears as if she is in the womb. But she must leave this "womb" in order to live and thus she floats towards the Soyuz module. Kowalski's final scene in the movie is also handled very well from a directorial standpoint. When you think about it, we shouldn't accept the scene we are presented but we do accept it thanks to the acting and directing. While the movie does emit genuine psychological turmoil, I felt that other movies such as "The Impossible", "Cast Away" and "World Trade Center" did it better. The reason for this is that I have different tastes than others. Most people will be able to be emotionally invested in this story. I guess one reason why I had trouble relating to the film was the lack of back-story. There is sufficient back-story but we hear about it only. Personally, I like to see it. I enjoy films that give us exposition scenes before this inciting incident. I am not saying that what was done in this film is wrong, just different. Using a fire extinguisher in space as a thruster might be considered cliché because we have seen it in other films like "WALL-E" but the way that Cuaron depicted it allowed us to forget that. A few implausible moments in the film made me question the story being told such as Stone guessing the right buttons on the Shenzhou capsule but I am sure this is my picky nature speaking. One important quality of the movie was its sound. We only hear sounds that the characters would hear in space. During space walks, there is a lack of sound except for the slight noise of a working drill for example. We hear it in space because the vibration of the drill vibrates the air inside the space suit. The musical score and its use allowed for feelings of terror and claustrophobia to take center stage.

I am so glad that Angelina Jolie was too expensive and busy to be in this film. I would not have accepted her in the role of Stone. Also, I don't know how I would feel about Natalie Portman in this movie. Her past projects might have distracted me during her performance while her talent might have surprised me. I would have accepted either Marion Cotillard or Scarlett Johansson as Stone by the way. Sandra Bullock however did not disappoint. Robert Downey Jr. was at one point going to play Kowalski and I don't know how I feel about that. He is a two time Oscar-nominated actor of course but his "Iron Man" persona probably would have distracted me. It is hard to tell if that would have worked either. Anyways, George Clooney has the ability to play an everyman and I accepted his performance fully. Ed Harris was the perfect choice for Houston Control. After Tom Hanks, he represents NASA more than any other actor. I also heard that Shawn Levy was a possible director for this movie and I once again am left to wonder what the outcome would have been for me on a personal level. There were a few moments that reminded me that this is an Alfonso Cuaron film such as the use of digital light and digital water on the lens of the camera. He was not only the director but helped to write, produce and edit "Gravity" This appears to be an auteur project. Producer David Heyman and Cuaron reunite on this film and the result was pleasing. Many of my friends were happy that the movie was so short (90 minutes) but I both agree and disagree with them. I am happy that the movie had a suitable running time for its story. Movies like "The Lord of the Rings" are meant to be long because their stories demand it. "Gravity" did not need a long running time and the filmmakers knew that. There are plenty of examples of a movie feeling too long or too short but that is thankfully not the case this time. The movie wasn't short but rather was the perfect length.

I think that Alfonso Cuaron deserved this Golden Globe and Oscar wins for Best Director. He created a very believable disaster on screen. Many people might conclude that I have baseless criticisms for "Gravity". Quite the contrary, I am being critical on myself. There is nothing irritatingly wrong with this film. It was very well done. Along with the direction, the acting, special effects, etc. were great on such a big screen. I wanted this movie to win Oscars for Cinematography, Sound Editing & Visual Effects and I got what I wanted. I also bet it would win for Sound Mixing, Original Score, Director, Sound Editing, Visual Effects and Cinematography. I was right. It surprised me with its Oscar win for editing though. "Gravity" just doesn't entertain me as much as other shows do. I like movies that have the story has their focus and one Oscar that "Gravity" is not nominated for is for its screenplay. There are so many successful and unique directors in Hollywood because the movie lovers of the world are unique themselves. The public demand for movies requires a variety of filmmakers to satisfy everyone. There is undoubtedly a large audience for "Gravity"; I may not need to see this movie against but I was glad I went. I do have one last question: why do we see the film's title three times?

3.5 Stars