JayDee's Movie Musings

i agree here, as bad as it was, these are the bright spots. McGregor makes a great young Obi Wan. wish i could see him surrounded by a better movie

Wait a minute, did Lucas direct all of the prequels? I honestly had no idea about that.

That actually explains a lot. A LOT.

__________________
Here, if you have a milkshake, and I have a milkshake, and I have a straw. There it is, that's a straw, you see? You watching?. And my straw reaches acroooooooss the room, and starts to drink your milkshake... I... drink... your... milkshake!
-Daniel, There Will Be Blood

I remember seeing a picture of Ewan sat looking totally despondent in his Jedi cloak between takes surrounded by green screen.

He needed a Midi-chlorian Energy Drink.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

definition #37 in the Oxford English Dictionary for impressive:
managing to still look kinda cool despite being in the Prequels

I agree completely. This is pretty much what I said/feared would happen in the late 90's. Rather than just seeing people would love to see the trilogy again and that there was an audience out there for more, Lucas seemed to see the special edition tweaks as the pull and made 3 new films of them.

__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.

Plot - Dr. Ryan Stone (Bullock) is medical engineer on her first shuttle mission on board the space shuttle Explorer. She is accompanied by veteran astronaut Matt Kowalsky (Clooney) who is commanding his final expedition before his retirement. During a supposedly routine spacewalk to service the Hubble telescope however disaster strikes. High-speed debris from a destroyed satellite strikes the Explorer, destroying the shuttle and killing everyone on board, leaving only Stone and Kowalsky left alive and all alone, tethered to nothing but each other and spiralling off into the infinite blackness of space.

As you can tell from my humming and hawing over the score above I'm not entirely sure how to judge and rate Gravity, largely because it doesn't really thrive in the areas where I would usually fixate on for a film. For a start its plot it exceptionally simple. I think Dude Where's Your Car had a more complex and intricate plot than this does! You really could give a very thorough summary of everything that occurs throughout the entire film in a single sentence. The film also doesn't push any boundaries with its dialogue or its characters. The dialogue is minimal and hardly the kind of work that will be studied for years to come in screenwriting classes, while the characters are largely blank slates with little in the way of characterisation. So as a 'film' in the classic respects there's not a great deal to it. As an event or an experience however it's a completely different matter. On those terms it is absolutely, truly, undeniably astonishing. And astonishing on an almost inconceivable level. I mean I honestly cannot fathom how some of this film was constructed. I would be absolutely fascinated to watch the special features on the future DVD to see just how Cuarón pulled some of this off. In particular the film's opening shot which unfolds in one singular and unbroken take (which apparently lasts for 17 minutes) really needs to be seen to be believed and will assuredly earn itself a place in cinema history when people discuss such things.

So as a 'film' I don't know what exactly to make of it. As a technical exercise and a feat of film-making however it is an incredible achievement. And I really can't go any further without addressing the film's special effects. While going into space may be a dream for many of us, and despite what Richard Branson may think, the overwhelming majority of us are unlikely ever to have that experience. In Gravity however we have the closest thing we may ever have to realising it. Right away from the film's opening images of Earth viewed from orbit you just know you are about to witness something special. Some of the CGI on show here is at a level we have hitherto never seen before. The way it captures the incomprehensible vastness of space as well as the sheer beauty to be found up there is exceptional. It really wouldn't take a lot of effort to convince a slightly gullible person that Cuarón and co. actually went into space itself to shoot the film. Cuarón takes full advantage of these astonishing effects to compose some wonderful shots. There's one shot where the camera pulls out for a extreme wide shot of Bullock's character floating off into the infinite canvas of space, becoming nothing but a tiny speck, that had several filmgoers around me gasping and producing mutterings of “wow.” Gravity also marks the rare occasion where I would actually encourage anyone wanting to see the film to watch it in 3D. I'm not a proponent for the technology but here I think it's almost a must. As with James Cameron's Avatar it was the 3D that added so much to Gravity's status as a real 'event.' As with Avatar however it makes me question how much I'll enjoy the film when it's relegated to the comparatively tiny screen of my TV and it's non-3D capabilities. Is there enough here as a film that it can stand on its own? Or when you remove the experience factor I've talked about does it greatly hurt the enjoyment.

As I said earlier the script and story are actually really quite simplistic, especially for a film being hailed as a masterpiece, with a great number of contrivances present. What you essentially have is a good old-fashioned survival movie/thriller. It takes the idea of being ship-wrecked that we've seen numerous times before but just transports it from one immense expanse (the ocean) to another (space). And on these terms the film is exceptionally effective. It's an extremely tense, nerve-shredding experience. A problem throughout the film for Bullock's character is that she is breathing too fast, depleting her levels of oxygen. Well for me I was in the exact opposite position. The film is so unbearably tense, and for such a large majority of the time, that I actually found myself not breathing. I was also so tensed up that I would frequently notice that I had balled my hands into tight fists. The film really does present a truly horrifying prospect to ponder. If you ever held dreams of becoming an astronaut then this may well and truly extinguish them. Watching how close and how easily the characters can succumb to disaster, through no fault of their own, is a frightening prospect. And putting myself in their shoes was really quite unsettling as I imagined how horrible it would be to just drift off into the vast emptiness. Oh and the moments where the characters are floating around untethered and needing to grab a hold of something to ground themselves are wrought with anxiety as we watch them desperately grasping at objects that slip through their fingers. It is an immersive and truly captivating experience.

Film Trivia Snippets - Considering how big a star he is it may come as rather a shock that if you don't include the Ocean's franchise this is actually the first film starring George Clooney to break the $100 million mark at the US box office since The Perfect Storm all the way back in 2000. /// In a nice little touch the off-screen voice of Mission Control is provided by Ed Harris. Harris played the same role in 1995's Apollo 13, and also portrayed astronaut John Glenn in The Right Stuff. /// During filming for an underwater scene, Alfonso Cuarón held his breath along with Sandra Bullock to make sure that he wasn't asking too much of her. In the end he found that he was unable to match Bullock's lung power. /// When she manages to reach the Russian Soyuz capsule Dr Stone puts on a spacesuit that has a patch with the number 42 on it. As anyone who read The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy will know 42 is "the answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, The Universe, and Everything"

A frequent complaint levelled at science fiction films down the years, and one that has still rarely been addressed and corrected, is the issue of sound in space. The likes of Star Trek and Star Wars have often been ridiculed for their loud explosions and the pew-pew of their lasers given that in the vacuum of space there is no air, and hence no sound. Now while you could accuse Gravity of embellishing the truth on some aspects for dramatic effect, here it adheres to fact, allowing proceedings to unfold in silence except for the terrified gasps and laboured breathing of Sandra Bullock and Steven Price's exceptional score. As well as lending the film authenticity I think it actually worked in building the sense of anxiety and dread. With all the explosions and carnage going on around them, having it occur in utter silence I actually found to be a strangely unnerving experience.

Acting duties pretty much fall solely on the shoulders of Sandra Bullock. I've actually been rather surprised at the number of people on here expressing a strong dislike towards her, with some even going as far as stating that she was the sole reason why they were not interested in watching the film. Now personally I've got to say that I've always liked Bullock, finding her an immensely likeable and charming performer. And I've got to say that here in Gravity I thought she was just absolutely exceptional. While I wouldn't quite put it on the same standing as Tom Hanks' amazing solo performance in Cast Away she really does carry this film. I felt that she conveyed the sheer terror of the situation wonderfully through her facial expressions and her eyes. A lot of people weren't exactly over-joyed that she picked up an Oscar for her work on The Blind Side. If she was to become a two-time winner however I'm struggling to imagine how too many people could argue with it. I think that she deserves every award that will undoubtedly come her way.

Film Trivia Snippets - Before eventually going into production Gravity had been languishing in development hell for four years because the film's ambition in terms of cinematography, visual effects and realistic "story atmosphere" of outer space had been beyond the limits of the current technology. That changed however with the release of James Cameron's Avatar which showed that the technology had advanced to the required levels. /// Alfonso Cuarón developed the script at Universal and originally hoped to cast Angelina Jolie, and according to some sources she was officially cast. Universal decided however that the film would be too expensive and put the film into turnaround. The project was picked up by Warner Brothers with Cuarón casting Bullock and Robert Downey Jr. in late 2010. Downey had to drop out at the end of the year however due to scheduling conflicts. /// Following Jolie's departure from the project and before Bullcok was cast Natalie Portman turned down the role while all of the following actresses were either tested or approached to take on the role - Rachel Weisz, Naomi Watts, Marion Cotillard, Abbie Cornish, Carey Milligan, Sienna Miller, Scarlett Johansson, Blake Lively, Rebecca Hall and Olivia Wilde.

I also felt that George Clooney was a really smart piece of casting as her fellow astronaut, Lietenant Matt Kowalski. As a character Kowalski is actually quite a bland, nondescript individual. We don't learn a single thing about him and there is no great interest generated by his actions; even in these unimaginably horrific conditions he remains completely calm and controlled throughout. He's a character that you could very easily forget ever existed as soon as he disappears from the screen. So to make sure he makes some sort of impression upon the viewer, you need to cast someone with a natural charm and an easy-going warmth and Clooney certainly falls into that category. He is also responsible for the very rare moments of levity in the film, providing some welcome relief from the near continuous tension that permeates proceedings. Considering the situation facing them, having the characters introduce humour could easily have come across as straining credibility. Thanks to Clooney however you just accept it.


Conclusion - As an example of what is now possible in terms of technology there is no doubt that Gravity is a landmark film. Alongside it's boundary-pushing CGI the film also features astonishing examples of editing, sound design, cinematography and direction. When it comes to the technical awards at this year's Oscars I don't think any of the other films will need to bother showing up. Where it is less ground-breaking however is in its story and its characters, meaning that I didn't connect with it on a really deep level. Whenever I see a magazine or website list it as the best film of 2013 I will not feel any need to argue against it. On a personal level however I think I loved the likes of Rush, Iron Man 3 and Thor: The Dark World more and can certainly see me wanting to re-watch them more often. What I really need is to re-watch the film on a standard TV to see how it holds up without the addition of the big screen, 3D experience. Oh and on a side note can I say how nice it was to see a big event movie with a running time of just 90 minutes! When I was growing up all films seemed to be 90 minutes but these days at least 2 hours seems to be pretty much the standard.

__________________

Someone elsewhere asked me for my thoughts on the film, and they kind of act as a balance to some of your comments about plot and character:


I think people are being too harsh and are expecting something else when at heart it is like a good old fun disaster film where plot and character aren't as important as the visuals and thrills.

__________________

SPOILERS! Don't read my post if you haven't seen the film Gravity!

@Daniel: Hmmm, I wouldn't classify it as just a usual disaster movie. This film is definitely more than that.

I saw Gravity's story as some sort of life lesson. The main scene for me was the surreal moment when Clooney's character climbs back in the space craft and convinces Sandra's character to focus on the positive things in life, in stead of her sorrow.
I know it sounds like a cliché message, but I thought it was a very effective moment in the film. Maybe it was because the audience in my theater was responding so well. Everyone was literally sniffling when Sandra was letting herself go and when she closed her eyes and then suddenly George comes in, makes a witty remark and everyone starts laughing, while still having tears in their eyes. Brilliant stuff! Mainstream cinema at ist best, in my opinion.

The filmmakers were letting the audience experience the fact that the smallest thing can get you going again, as long as you are open for it. It's basically the main existential message that many philosophers, storytellers and film directors already told before. You have to find the purpose and the beauty of life inside yourself first and then you can find happiness in even the smallest moments and most evident things, like in the final scene, just standing on a beach, feeling the gravity of Earth, makes dr. Ryan Stone feel alive again, ready to go through with her life, in stead of giving up.
The message is comparable with scenes like the 'strawberry scene' in The Seventh Seal or the moment in Stardust Memories with Louis Armstrong's Stardust playing while Woody is watching his ladylove just reading a book on the floor.

Gravity may not be graving as deep into the real substance of finding meaning in life like the two other films I've mentioned, but I think it has its qualities on that field too (depicted in a way we rarely see in its genre), which makes it a more interesting film to watch content-wise (so not only in terms of visuals) than an ordinary disaster movie, in my opinion.

Anyway, great review, JayDee! Very in detail!

__________________
Cobpyth's Movie Log ~ 2019

Gravity will surely be a favorite of mine for years to come, and I agree with everything Cobpyth had to say.

Gravity is undoubtedly a better experience in the theatre (what good movie isn't?), but I think it will play exceptionally well at home too. Some of you guys have to stop sounding like you're apologizing for liking/loving it.

Count me in the I love Gravity camp, my favorite of the year thus far. I have never used the term "immersed in a film" until seeing this. The best theater experience I have ever had and as someone who loves going to the theater that will count for something even if the film loses a little at home.

Personally I think the knocks on the story are being a little over stated. Surely someone who preferred Thor and Iron Man to this would agree. When I hear people talk about 2001, that's how I think and hope I will be talking about Gravity in twenty years, it was that kind of experience. As for 2001, it took me three sittings to get through because I kept falling asleep and had to back track. Shhh, don't tell the Kubrickians around here. I am rambling but the point is, different films hit people different ways.

__________________
Letterboxd

I guess if Cuaron had made Gravitas it'd be considered deeper and duller.

Attachments

 

Count me as someone who loved Gravity! The 3D is spectacular! And I admit I do not like paying extra money to see a movie in 3D, and I prefer it as a gimmick ala Drive Angry, but I still thought it was an awesome film! I admit I did not rush out to see this movie at first. Not because of Bullock who is one of my favorite actresses, but because of Clooney, one of my least favorite actors.

As for how it will play out on home viewing, I think it will do fine. The cinematography I think is good enough to still wow people, and Bullock does a damn good job on screen. I will admit that I think the best way to view this movie is in 3D on the big screen as intended. Which can be done with large 3D TV's, but if you do not have one I don't think it is dire important to rush out and buy one just so you can watch this movie.

__________________
Fear and Loathing in MoFo... The Gunslinger 45's Top 50 Favorite Films

In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's reviews

Your right about Gravity being an event that must be seen on big screen/3d, but I'm not sure I'll be particularly bothered about seeing it on a TV screen. As an event though I had to give it 9.5/10. So tense to watch and amazing visually especially the Earth being so big and clear in the background.

Movie Muse, some of us don't go to movie theaters, so reviews come in handy for getting Dvd's.
What I don't get about Gravity, if it does have great special effects and is meant for the big screen, why is it only 90 minutes long?

Because... it's a strangely reasonable modern movie.

Wha? Grrrr.
Exactly. If only the rest of Hollywood would get this. *sigh*

Mainly I would say because not a great deal happens. It's essentially a disaster/survival film with 2 people in space, no real plot complexity to get stuck into or side plots. It's exactly as long as it needs to be.