There have been plenty of people out there in movie-review land claiming that Alfonso Cuaron’s Gravity is the end-all of science fiction films or that it redefines the genre or, in the case of one famous director, that it is “what a science fiction film should be.” While I can say that I really enjoyed this movie and was blown away with some of what it brought to the big screen, beyond the visual effects, there was little to Gravity that hasn’t been done better in a wide variety of other films.
The story of the film is very, very basic. Some astronauts are in space working to fix a space station. Some Russian missile detonation causes issues and creates a hail of debris. Said debris is coming right at the group and they must try to get out of the way ASAP. Of course, they don’t and the only survivors happen to be Dr. Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock) and Matt Kowalski (George Clooney). Trapped in space with no way out, they must make their way across the vast expanse to reach another space station in hopes that they can find a way down.
From pretty much start to finish, with very few breaks, the movie is a series of disasters and complications. First the hail of debris messes up their ship. Then Stone gets launched into space and must be rescued. Then they have to travel to the next place, where yet another disaster awaits to thwart them. Etc, etc, etc. While this formula normally bores me to tears when I see it in other flicks, with Gravity is managed to hold my interest for the majority of the film. The action is put together so well that I was literally grinding my teeth with the tension of each moment. It’s not a movie where you can sit back and easily say “Yeah, but that character has to survive, so all this is just a light show.” The way everything comes down, you’re drawn into the visual chaos on the screen in such a way as to leave that analytical part of the brain behind.
Even the amazing visuals eventually get tiring, however. Luckily, this is just about the same time the movie switches gears and the endless chain of bad luck comes to a halt. Finally, Stone makes it to her potential rescue vehicle. But then it becomes an issue of whether she has the will to go on.
And this is where the movie didn’t quite live up to what people have been saying. The characters - all two of them - are almost completely devoid of development. There’s some back-story concerning Stone’s dead child and then Cuaron relates that to her desire to live or die later, but you could have interchanged any other survival motive and come out with pretty much the same movie. I realized exactly how little I was attached to the characters when, while discussing the film afterwards, neither I nor any of my friends could remember the names of the main characters. There was just no reason to invest in them in any other way than to see if they survived or not.
Also, the symbolism in the film is pretty heavy handed, though I think some of the reason behind that is the fact that the movie bombards you with so much chaotic action that when something else happens it stands out. I think I’d have to view the film again to make a proper judgment on that front.
In the end, Gravity is beautiful and a work of technical genius. Cuaron (or the people that work for him) have definitely set a new standard as far as how to make things look good and how to make action put you on the edge of your seat. As far as the story goes, Gravity was not such a revolutionary flick. Again, I may have just been overwhelmed with the kick-assedness of the visuals, so I may change my mind once I see the movie again (without the 3D). If you haven’t seen Gravity yet, I would advise seeing it in 3D first. And this is coming from a guy that hates 3D with a passion.
As far as critics vs. audiences go, it looks like Gravity has a solid 97/88% over at Rotten Tomatoes. I’d put my number somewhere in the middle of that, personally.
Photo Credits -
Gravity courtesy of sicedaca.com
1 comments