"Gravity" and The Limits of A Perfect 10
Monday, October 7, 2013 at 1:00AM a version of this review originally appeared in my column at Towleroad.
There's a brief scene in Nicole Holofcener's engaging indie hit ENOUGH SAID that repeats enough times that it could be the chorus if the movie were a song. A massage therapist (Julia Louis-Dreyfus) arrives at the home of a fit male client who lives on the top floor of his building. Every time she arrives he pops out with a killer smile looking down to greet her. He never thinks to help her as she arduously lugs her massage table up the entire steep flight of stairs.
Excuse the stretch but this is sometimes how it feels to write about movies. Especially the ones that are true lookers that you're still just not that into.
By any definition GRAVITY is the movie of the moment and by some measures it will come to be regarded as The Movie of the Year...
But if you've ever wondered "What's all the fuss?" about something that everyone else loved I hope you'll choose empathy when you learn (or in this case are reminded that I did not love it. In the binary-thinking of the 21st century the internet this makes me a hater but this is not the case. At every zero gravity step of its way I was trying to love it. And I did mostly like it... at least through its astounding 20 minute (?) opening act, which appears to have been miraculously filmed in one continuous shot.
In the beginning we literally circle three astronauts at work on repairs on a satellite. Two of the Astronauts are played by massive A listers George Clooney and Sandra Bullock so you know that the third (who never gets a closeup) is your "red shirt", poor thing. As the camera circles the repairs, Astronaut Clooney, supervising, also circles the satellite in a jetpack like he's kicking back in a movie theater seat himself. So we've got helixes within helixes visually. Predictably things go horribly awry and then Sandy is spinning in circles while the camera continues to whiz around everything and everyone in the vast emptiness of space. It's absolutely dizzying and I forgot to breathe. And visually ... wow wow wow.
But then what?
Though the film is unfailingly ambitious in scope and technique (the effects are mindblowing) there isn't much else to grab on. Which is strange for an Alfonso Cuarón film. The talented writer/director has never made a bad film and his best, Y Tu Mama Tambien, proves his skill at multi-tasking. That movie managed to juggle a sophisticated and frank sexual coming of age story with a great road trip comedy and while it was doing both things, it casually slipped in a socioeconomic travelogue portrait of an entire country. But Gravity skimps on everything that isn't visual effects based so we proceed from one scene to the next, each following the same pattern: Momentary Serenity, Something Goes Wrong. Astronaut Fights To Survive; and that scene repeats for literally the rest of the film.
Elsewhere you can sense the compromises made to justify its behemoth budget. Gravity makes a repeated point of telling you that there is no sound in space. So what's with that full loud orchestra guiding your emotions at every point? The casting, too, feels like production insurance.
Clooney, as an actor, rarely lets you see him sweat which works wonders for his charm-based star turns like Oceans 11 or for roles wherein he lets tiny cracks show, exposing a less self-possessed interior. Think of his increasingly unmoored corporate sharks in Up in the Air or Michael Clayton. Here that effortless megacharm proves an incongruous match for the material wherein everyone's lives are at immediate and obvious risk including his. He never once seems afraid which I'll admit took me out of the movie. Christ, he seemed more disarmed by having to run in flipflops inThe Descendants than by possible loss of oxygen in outer space.
Bullocks fares much better as the focal star of the movie, gamely meeting the physical demands of her role -- including her very own Barbarella striptease (if Barbarella was a sexless family-friendly epic that is). Unfortunately the screenplay hands her only the most basic stock character to play (Grieving Woman). Sandra Bullock is a totally dependable star so she delivers what's asked but unfortunately that's only three things: fear, sadness, and survival adrenaline.
Still, at the very least, Gravity is a directorial feat, eye-popping from frame one to end credits. It's the best visual effects reel Hollywood has produced since Avatar, and could well become the rare gold standard that holds up a even two decades later like those once-breakthroughs Terminator 2 or Jurassic Park which still look awesome despite being ripped off hundreds of times since.
In Joseph Gordon-Levitt's DON JON, Scarlett Johansson is introduced visually in a tight red dress as her male admirers, led by the title characters (newly muscled JGL...speaking of eye candy) describe her as a "dime". In that comedy's strongest move in its final act, it suddenly asks you to look at her more deeply. Gravity is that kind of a dime. The exterior is so intoxicating that it's easy to forget to even consider anything else beneath the glossy perfect 10 surface. And what's inside counts a lot in the long run. Gravity is being compared to the Stanley Kubrick classic 2001: A Space Odyssey in several reviews which, and I'm not the first to note this, is a strange comparison. 2001 is notoriously enigmatic and even if you've seen it many times its mysteries remain intact. The awe has long outlasted its now dated visual effects. With Gravity the only question that haunts afterwards is "How did they film that?"
My point though I fear I've lost it is that Gravity is a dime and I'm sure I'll give it a second chance but loving it is a steep climb from where I'm standing, looking up at it.
Other October Beauties
Whether or not you love Gravity, and my guess is you will (I'm sad to miss the love-in), it's a good time to be hitting theaters. Enough Said and Don Jon, also on my mind obviously, are far from perfect movies but as star vehicles they're exceptional in a couple of ways. The late James Gandolfini and Julia Louis-Dreyfus make a totally believable tentative couple in the former, and Scarlett Johansson has NEVER been sexier (which is saying a lot) or funnier than she is in the latter. People like to claim that the Romantic Comedy genre is a landfill but this is merely a byproduct of the strange resistance to labelling good comedies that are about Romance as RomComs. It seems that that label only successfully attaches itself to bad "chick-flicks". The good ones get dragged and dropped into the more desirable Dramedy or Comedy folders. Anyway - tangent! - October gets even better in the next two weeks when Captain Phillips and 12 Years a Slave hit and those two will undoubtedly be pitted against Gravity for 'Best Picture' honors and all three will be smeared liberally over the top ten list frenzy round the web in December and January.
Grades: Gravity: B-? (I originally gave this a C+ much to the internet's horror... but, who knows, I may upgrade because the visuals are totally "A", I'm not blind. But the internet is already building those battle lines which is going to be depressing. I can already feel my defense walls going up which is a shame because I would like to give it a second look but I refused to be shamed into worshipping it; Enough Said: B; Don Jon: B-; 12 Years A Slave: A; Captain Phillips: B+
Reader Comments (43)
Sorry, dude, but the film is a masterpiece.
No shaming, but I do hope you give it a second look. Reading the review, I think the one place that really differs from my opinion is the perception of Bullock's character. I felt her lack of initial personality spark was a distinct choice made by the script - she is reserved and, granted, a bit of an "everywoman." Her fearful emotions at the beginning made Clooney's overly calm reaction somewhat logical to me - in extreme situations, the supporting party will often put their own fears on hold to help others, which can be a coping method for extreme stress. You are right that it plays to his charm rather than playing to a fleshed out character, but I bought it.
The evolution of Bullock's character is fascinating because, without giving too much away, she herself becomes a central obstacle. I felt that this was an honest side of bleak situations we don't often see in this type of film. I cried several times, and while the initial visuals were stunning, they were not the selling point for me. I felt the part was emotional and difficult. The character's journey, while very simple in its arc, was deeply moving for me. It was not the film I was expecting on my first viewing though.
I have several "everybody loves them" films that don't work for me. This may never work for you. I hope you can ignore the critical buzz and see if you enjoy it later on though.
For me the thing about Bullock's performance that surprised me here was not the dramatic scenes she played very well - that scene where she cries and are floating really socked it to me - but more the way she was able to be an auteur vessel. That's not something I really expected from an actress like her. She was totally in tune with the picture. The thing that sticks about to me the most is the physicality in her performance, something overlooked in performances in general. Obviously she had some assistance with wires but that scene where she removes the suit is floating is magnetic as is her maneuvering around the inside of the shuttle. She was as fluid as the camera movement and I think she deserves credit for that. In addition I love the way she underplayed her depression yet consistently had it as an undercurrent, even during some of the big moments and in the humorous parts as well.
Her performance reminded me of Jessica Chastain's in Zero Dark Thirty in a way because of that stripping of a personality and really playing a force. Still in a humanistic way though.
nat, i felt the very same thing, and I even had the impression that some of the audience wasnt up for it either - there was laughter at the end, when SPOILER after a seemingly endless series of mishaps, she got entangled in those seaplants for a second - there were just too many things thrown at her, so it got repetitive.
but I was also not really in the mood for the film, so this has to be considered when reviewing it - I was not willing to fully immerse myself in the character/film, so maybe that's why some of the things seemed ridiculous to me that others found tense or breath-taking.
Loved "Gravity." Agree that "Don Jon" is far from perfect, but Johansson and Moore are SO perfect in it. And "Enough Said"…far from perfect??? Maybe not perfect, but definitely close to perfect in my books. I fell so hard for it, especially in two moments [SPOILER ALERT]: Gandolfini telling Dreyfus that she broke his heart, and Dreyfus bidding farewell to her college-bound daughter. [SPOILER ENDS].
P.S. Daniel Bruhl aces it in "Rush."
I don't know. you don't just get out of a depression by being one minute low on oxygen. So that theme was given under-exposure. You had to buy it - I didn't. I mean the symbolism was ok with me (space as the void, as depression to be sucked in vs. earth, life, new beginning), but how can you truly feel her grief if she gets things thrown at her virtually by the minute.
There is nothing on this earth as frustrating - at least, not to cinephiles, in the last third of the year - as being wildly out of skew with a clear consensus. I remember during The Hurt Locker's period of ascendance, every few hours, flipping back and forth on the question if I was just an idiot for not loving it, or if everybody else on the internet was the idiot. Silver Linings Playbook also leaps to mind. And these are both movies that I gave positive reviews! So I totally feel for you right now, even though I'm pretty unadulterated in my enthusiasm for Gravity, while agreeing completely that it's mostly a thrill ride without much of a human angle. But SUCH a ride!
I have to take you to task for one statement, though: "2001 is notoriously enigmatic and even if you've seen it many times its mysteries remain intact. The awe has long outlasted its now dated visual effects"
Dated? Sorry, man, that movie looks hells good.
Tim -- i dont mean that it doesn't look great. I mean that the visual effects themselves are dated. and they are... it's very 60s lava lamp and though some of the computer stuff was prescient some of it is also not what computers ended up being like at all visually.. but yes that movie is awesome looking
I was afraid that Gravity would leave me cold, but I actually found it to be a satisfying experience. The visuals and imagery were beautiful if a little obvious in their symbolism at times, but Bullock kept me engaged. I completely agree with Seeking Amy on the physicality of her performance. I'll admit to finding the nonchalance of Clooney's character bothersome at times, it was a bit distracting but it didn't ruin the experience for me. At this point I'd give it a B+, I'm anxious to see it again.
As for Don Jon, I think I'd give it the same grade you gave it (though ScarJo gets an A+). I don't know if anyone else has brought it up/feels this way, but I was reminded of Silver Linings Playbook while watching it, especially during the family scenes.
I loved Gravity! I'm such a sap... I wanted to cry at the end. Ha!
nathaniel:
Did you actually experience Gravity in IMAX 3-D?? Or The basic 2D Version?
I'd don't think I've ever paid 17.50 for a movie in my life but my god was the IMAX 3-D worth every penny for this film!
:)
I'm glad I'm not the only one who was disappointed. Visually, this movie is amazing. I even loved the first 20 minutes or so so very much that it made what came next even more disappointing for me. At least I'm not alone!
bacio: I'm not sure the movie is claiming that you can get out of depression after being low on oxygen for one minute. I mean the movie does open itself up to that analogy you've drawn of space=void=depression by bringing up that piece of character background, but to read that scene in that way kind suggests that this film wanted to say something about depression in the first place, when the focus seems to me to be more about effectively conveying the emotional extremis that being in such a fraught and overwhelming setting.
To make this movie as thrilling as it was, I think the filmmakers made a really conscious decision to strip back the character's background so that we could really live, moment-to-moment, in each elemental fight for survival Ryan (Bullock's character) undergoes. Additional ruminations on depression or existential matters* is not what this film's about because to layer those extras on would drag down the heart-pounding momentum of watching that struggle. For me, the leanness of the narrative works because it's actively enhancing the stakes of this simple but spectacularly effective survival story rather than the result of a weak or lazy script as some have dubbed it.
*This is why I agree in part with Nathaniel that the comparisons to 2001 are weird (in responses arguing both for and against Gravity). I guess this is like my version of the animation is a medium rather than a genre complaint . All these two movies share are settings. They're using those settings and the visionary effects they've wrought to tell completely different types of stories.
Also, I'm sorry that this Cuaron wasn't for you, Nathaniel. Especially since he's produces movies so rarely (sigh, how hard the life of a movie-goer is). Hope you're not on the end of too much internet rage. This movie worked as pretty much the most satisfying experience I've had in a theatre for a while, so I'm afraid that if those battle lines were to fall, I'm pretty sure I'd have to challenge you to a fight to the death or something similarly dramatic.
Actually, Nathaniel, I'm in a similar boat and you've pretty much summed up my feelings on Gravity. It's visual craftsmanship is undeniable but the story is repetitive, the characters thin/cliched and the score is overbearing at times. It's certainly a decent film but not one that sticks with you in an emotionally substantial way.
Nat, I'm with you on Gravity. I saw it in 3D and the action sequences and suspense took my breath away (literally, I had to remind myself to breathe), but then I was taken out of it by Clooney (for the reasons you describe so well), Bullock's immovable forehead (I actually think she was good for the most part, but if Nicole Kidman gets crap for her Botox, then what about Sandy's ultra-smooth forehead? Maybe I just noticed because I was constantly distracted by her perfect eyebrows. And don't get me started on that wig), and the use of the score (did they SERIOUSLY cue in the score RIGHT before Sandra says for the first time that the reason she loves being in space is for the silence?).
And why is no one talking about the dialogue? Some god-awful, corny, stunningly cheesy lines these actors have to work with. And her pep talk monologue toward the end? Wow. I almost started laughing.
Having said all that, it is a visual masterpiece (my god, the camera slowly floating towards Bullock until it's IN HER HELMET and then reverses focus so you see out from the helmet? Amazing.) but I totally understand a B-range grade.
It concerns me when people declare a movie a masterpiece when it is soulfully superficial. The one thing about Sandra Bullock as an actress is she doesn't manufacture pain and loss easily. She is tough and smart and courageous and extremely personable to the point that I absolutely believe alpha males would want her around. She plays "one of the guys" really well. And I also think she plays cold bitch who's fragile really well (see CRASH). But this weeping for a dead child...sorry...didn't really work (although the tears floating off her face and into the air was so damn COOL!!!!!!). I'm not saying she was bad or false and she may very well have connected as an actress to that moment but on the screen, FOR ME, she did not touch me. The IDEA of her loss, and the IDEA that her loss would haunt her at that moment, was believeable but Bullock is not an actress who can easily break my heart. Now if she was the one who floated off into space to save Clooney - that I would have totally believed. BTW - I did cry then - his sacrifice did move me to tears - but for that I mostly credit Cuaron and the techies (those magnificent visuals!!) (and the need to release tension that had been previously built up for long stretchws of the film). So I'm torn - because it is a movie going experience that is unrivaled in some ways - and it is certainly NEVER BORING - and I was invested and involved - BUT not so moved - so is it an A- or B+?? I'm right there with Nathaniel with this question.
I'm not a big fan of Sandra Bullock's dramatic efforts -- it doesn't flow as naturally as her lighter, comedic side, and a lot of it smacks of effort where the straining seams show. She surprised me so much in this movie though, and I thought there was so much more to her performance than fear, sadness and survival adrenaline. I thought she pitched desperation in there, along with despair, a resigned and bittersweet acceptance at a pivotal point and then somehow, she turned that bittersweet resignation into something more positive without straining credulity. She surprised me so much that I found myself appalled at the other choices when I was reading up on the history of this movie. Angelina Jolie? Natalie Portman? Even Scarlett Johansson, who's going through a career revival? I think they would have done interesting spins on it, but I think their personas would have actively worked against the movie.
I also liked George Clooney in this. My thought was that he knew they were on borrowed time the minute their shuttle was destroyed, but he didn't see the point in just lying around waiting for the end to come -- might as well do something and make their last hours less aggravating. He was the veteran, so he knew what the odds were. His fear was spent in voiceovers. With that in mind, his penultimate scene worked wonders for me because he knew better than anyone what was going to happen.
My sympathies though on missing the love in -- there's nothing quite like sharing a movie with almost anyone and finding a similar response; there's always a lovely sense of being part of something bigger. I loathe the position of being the outlier with movie consensus even I find myself inevitably in that position over and over again, but if you can survive the Nolan Batman backlash, where even expressing an opinion like "I liked it but didn't love it" could get buckets of hate, you can get through this minor annoyance.
It's a near-perfect film. I haven't been able to stop thinking about it since I saw it, and I'm going to see it again next weekend.
BTW, my second favorite Cuaron film (after Gravity) is Great Expectations. I just love the sets, the costumes, the soundtrack/score, the crazy Anne Bancroft performance. Such an underrated film.
I was dreading that "Gravity" would disappoint based on the reviews of a few critics I trust, but I am happy to report that I was not at all disappointed. Although the film is not dense storytelling a la Cuaron's previous masterworks "Children of Men" or "Y Tu Mama Tambien", and I can see where it could lose some viewers, especially Clooney' performance (my take is that while it isn't realistic or complex I see his cool unflappability as a counterbalance to the ever-mounting catastrophes they face as to provide a sense of hope for possibly overcoming said catastrophes); I however was totally enraptured by the film. The visuals, Sandra, the primal struggle for survival had me hook, line and sinker; I left the theater shaking, I loved it. One film it made me think of is "The Edge", also light on plot and deep characterization and leaving many unimpressed but nonetheless had me glued to the screen.
Nathaniel, I know you and I are in a similar camp on this movie.
1. I don't find Bullock bad or especially good. She is fine in the role, but I don't feel she lifts it any point.
2. The dialogue.
3. The over-abundance of score
For me, the atheist-turn-believer theme is also frustrating.
While I can see some of your points I've got to disagree with you, pretty strongly disagree.
And by the way, being so emphatic about not falling for something that "the internet" loves always comes off a bit like back-patting. I know because I've been guilty of this myself, a friend of mine pointed out my languid response to Drive, which closely resembled your review of Gravity (appreciating it on a technical level but disinterested with it on a narrative one), came off sort of holier-than-thou, like I was taking a brave stand for being unimpressed. I appreciated the reality check, felt I should pass it on.
"Gravity" was the best film I've seen in YEARS! This review missed the boat completely on this masterpiece. Meh.
moe - but i saw this before the consensus emerged that it was a masterpiece so my response was pure and not motivated by the other critics... although i will freely admit that this review makes it sound like i saw it after its festival bow.
I didn't mean to accuse you of going Armond White on this, I trust your critical integrity and value your writing and opinions (this is one of my favorite blogs), I just meant to provide a note on how the piece read. Perhaps I was unclear, if so I apologize for any offense.
"BTW, my second favorite Cuaron film (after Gravity) is Great Expectations. I just love the sets, the costumes, the soundtrack/score, the crazy Anne Bancroft performance. Such an underrated film."
Yes, I love that movie. It's so 90s classic. A LIttle Princess is great, too... and did you notice he snuck in his signature green to Gravity with the Russian space uniform Sandra wears.
It's "To be or not to be" but in space (Hamlet soliloquy, not Lubitsch movie).
I just saw Gravity this afternoon. Stick to your guns, Nat. I'm pretty much in agreement with you on this. Great-looking movie, visually stunning. Sandra was good, in some moments very good, but never really great, in my opinion (but as Nat notes, this is more due to how the character is written). Clooney's character, as others have already said, seemed the stock, unflappable, wisecracking character of a lesser film. And as someone else mentioned in an earlier comment, the number of hurdles that get thrown at her constantly started to feel rote and almost repetitive. I understand that when you're making a "thrill ride" movie you need to keep the adrenaline amped up, but...but...
I have an odd confession to make. So many people talk about how moving Gravity is and how the movie made them cry. I never felt all that moved, mostly because I felt the emotional beats of the Bullock back story and her desire to "live again" were so emotionally easy that it left me feeling...what, exactly? Not cold, really, but the emotional story just felt too simplistic for me to fully feel engaged with it. Now here comes the odd part: I was actually more emotionally moved by the end of Blue Jasmine. I know this is not a popular opinion, because part of the Interwebs narrative that is forming is that Sandra's character Ryan is so "moving" and "likable" while Blanchett's Jasmine is "unlikable" and therefore "not moving." But I was shaken and teary-eyed at the end of Jasmine, and just wasn't at any point in Gravity. Easy movie emotion calculated to get a lump swelling in my throat often has the opposite effect on me, while I can find myself getting misty-eyed, in movies and in life, at the most unlikely moments.
Just wanted to let you know you're not alone, Nat.
I skipped "Gravity" and went to see "Rush" which is well crafted but it's hard to feel sympathy for a character that is such an asshole.
I am still totally in nat's camp about Gravity
As I have said in other blogs
I had convinced myself, based on reviews like this and the deeply skeptical, bordering on hostile, reactions from a couple of friends, that I was going to be disappointed, but I wasn't. Yes, it's a bit of a stock pseudo-spiritual rebirth movie, but it is an exceptionally well crafted variation on the theme, and I guess the bottom line is that I like movies like this. For me, this is Bullock's best work to date, and I thought Clooney was outstanding in support. I'd say the real stars are Lubezki and Cuaron, but I think the whole movie is actually put in service of Ryan's arc, which comes off beautifully. I think the movie is suspended somewhere between hyper-realism and a kind of archtypal mythologizing that a lot of people are going to be turned off or made uncomfortable by. Folks who are thinking mostly of Y Tu Mama Tambien seem to feel this is out of character for Cuaron, but look at Children of Men, the ending especially. It's more disguised there but it's the same type of movie.
My mother would completely agree with your review. I agree with you on George Clooney's performance. It took me out of the moment too. HOW ABOUT SOME EXPRESSION FOR ONCE CLOONEY! I'm sick of seeing him play the same characters over and over... it just didn't suit the chaos that happened in Gravity.
On the other hand, I loved this film. The visuals get an "A+" from me. Bullock's performance gets an "A-", and the rest of the movie gets an "A" (even with the cheesy dialogue). It had me riveted from start to finish. I see where you're coming from though :)
Great review!
Saw this last night, and it totally worked for me. Afterwards, I felt like I was returning from being in zero-gravity myself, like I had to work in order to stay in contact with the ground. So A+++ for the visuals/cinematography. I totally bought Clooney - he was keeping a calm demeanor to keep the newbie calm as it was the only way to get through this situation. I felt about Bullock the same way I felt about Jessica Chastain in Zero Dark Thirty last year: very good in individual scenes, but when you look at the whole it didn't quite come together for me. If you're going to do a survival narrative (which is what Gravity is), then there has to be a MOMENT when the character makes the decision to survive - there has to be some sort of shift in their outlook, and I felt like Bullock either underplayed or blew right past that moment (I'd have to watch it again to be sure). So I didn't completely buy into the emotional core of the movie, but the thriller aspects? I haven't been on the edge of my seat for that long in ages. One of the best of the year for me, so far.
I am with you... mostly. I did like it, but I never felt Cuaron here. Cameron or Ridley Scott could have directed and I would have believed it. The last thing I anticipated going in was that I would feel at all impatient waiting for the next moment, but that's exactly what I felt.
I've got to stop getting excited about prestige sci-fi. The last 3 - Prometheus, Elysium and this - have underwhelmed.
"Gravity" was brilliant. I'm seeing it again this weekend. I couldn't believe my eyes. I think this will go down as Alfonso Cuaron's masterpiece. Your review got it all wrong.
The special effects are truly amazing....but that's it. I wanted so much to love this film but the hype was better than the reality....and I was not the only in the theater who felt this way as there was much discussion after the film was over. Unfortunately the discussion was not positive. Clooney was, as always, Clooney saying words to the effect of "Stop staring at me..I know I'm good looking." C'mon....I could have written two pages of better dialogue then the two pages that was in this movie. Applause to the the technical research team though. But Hollywood's been having a love affair with Clooney...one that has at least lasted longer than the ones in his personal life.. The best acting I ever saw from Clooney was the E.R. spisode where he saves a boy caught in a drain during a storm...I keep expecting that same terrific talent to be there each time I see one of his films...sadly I have not seen it yet, but, it will not deter me from seeing yet another Clooney film...perhpas the next time will be the charm for me. Bullock is a terrific actress and does a good job with the material she is given.
The special effects are truly amazing....but that's it. I wanted so much to love this film but the hype was better than the reality....and I was not the only one in the theater who felt this way as there was much discussion after the film was over. Unfortunately the discussion was not positive. To quote a few movie goers "what the hell was that?" Clooney was, as always, Clooney, saying words to the effect of "Stop staring at me..I know I'm good looking." C'mon....I could have written two pages of dialogue better then the two pages that were used in this movie. Applause to the the technical research team though...reminded me of "2001: A Space Odessey." But it's been obvious over the years that Hollywood's been having a love affair with Clooney...one that has at least lasted longer than the ones in his personal life.. The best acting I ever saw from Clooney was the E.R. episode where he saves a young boy's life during a storm...it was just George and the boy for most of the episode....a gripping storyline... and George was truly outstanding!! I keep expecting that same caliber of talent each time I see him in a dramatic role...sadly I have not seen it yet, but, it will not deter me from seeing yet another Clooney film...perhpas the next time will be the charm for me. Bullock is a terrific actress who always does a good job with the material she is given. I think I will write a screenplay wherein Clooney will play a role that will be challenging and honestly engage the audience emotionally...of course it will be in my dreams...but who says dreams can't become a reality?
I happen to think "Gravity" IS a masterpiece and deserves all the praise and accolades. I don't think everyone is going to agree, but it says something when an overwhelming amount of critics give it a A. We are all not imagining something that isn't there - Something is obviously working.
I suspect that "12 Years a Slave" will be the next in line to receive universal appraise, as well as the naysayers. I've thought all along that these are the only two films that can go all the way this year. It will be interesting to see how it plays out. I can even see a Cuaron/12 Years or McQueen/Gravity split happening.
I was completely taken by surprise by this film. Science fiction and action films are my favorite genres and I was expecting all the technical brilliance and pulse-pounding score. I've never seen a film in either of these genres with a female character written like Ryan. I was stunned by the end of the film. It's as though the cinematic gods answered all of my prayers before I even realized everything that has been missing from these films. Ridley Scott can obviously create a strong kick-ass female character that I enjoy watching, but is still very obviously written with a male audience in mind. Cuaron's female character in no way, shape, or form bows to the whims and pleasures of a male teenage audience. I LOVE that this film is making buckets of money. That's good for all people who want to watch quality cinema. No way any director other than Cuaron makes this film.
You're an idiot.
Thanks! I was starting to feel left out! It's not that it's bad. It's just that it's not really all it could be. It's beautiful, sure, but is that enough to be a masterpiece? Not really. I need characters, a plot, a structure. Maybe I'm just used to books and the theatre too much and I'm more demanding than the movie generation. I feel old saying that but I guess 40 is another generation altogether in the "Now means yesterday" world.
Gravity was a graphics guys demo but not a movie. It had NO plot, no intrigue no love interest, NO decent dialog, no imagination. In short it was a rip off.
We had a class project for global studies as film students. We could make an outline or do a video. We chose the video option, of course. We had a bunch of fun filming it. Enjoy!
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2kLSlZzuCYU