I'm pretty sure the title is a pun
Just want to talk about Gravity for a little bit here.
Visually: Spectacular. We saw this in (real) IMAX 3D, and it was worth every penny. There are very few movies where I feel like you can legitimately say that (maybe Avatar, except story-wise it was kind of shit). The effects are great, and each shot is framed beautifully. It will probably win awards for cinematography, effects, directing. What IMAX adds is a total sense of immersion: like the characters, your view becomes dominated by the stars and the blue sphere of Earth.
Characters: In all honesty, weak. Clooney and Bullock deliver good performances, but nothing groundbreaking here. They basically play the same people they play in every movie. Which really means that your perception of their performance is dependent on the quality of the film itself. If Sandra Bullock feels like a bad actress, it's because she's in a lot of shitty movies. But in this film, they work just fine. Perhaps they could have picked a stronger actress, but I also feel like her individual merits as a character are largely irrelevant because that's not the what the film is about. You relate to her struggle not because she is a mother who lost her child or a scientist in an unfamiliar environment, but because she is human, she is a good person, and she is in trouble. There are few people who deserve to die in space, and she is not one of them.
There is a lot of talking in this film, and it's not the best dialogue, but it serves a purpose: it is their shield against oblivion. Against the darkness, against the silence. It reminds them that they are still alive and that someone out there still cares about them.
Story: Gravity is a survival story, yes. But I've seen people try to compare it to Alien, simply because it's in space and they say the debris field is the "monster." But what that tells me is that a lot of people lack the media literacy to really talk about a film like this. It's not really a science fiction story... well, it sort of is, in that there's science and fiction. But it's not really part of that bigger genre in the way we understand it. Gravity a drama in the subgenre of "trying to get home against great odds." And that's very simple, and powerful, and relatable.
The science isn't perfect. This article from Time does a good job summarizing the major problems with it. But they also say that the inaccuracies don't matter as much when you consider how much the movie got right, and the fact that it's a great movie. I've also seen Neil DeGrasse Tyson going off on it a bit, and he has some valid points, but at the same time it's like, "relax, nerd." I suppose it's easier to enjoy a film when you don't know the subject well-and Tyson would know this subject well-but some scientists have been happy with how much was accurate, and hell, there were moments where I was like, "Yeah, that's not right," and I shook it off and let myself enjoy the drama.
Sandra Bullock not wearing enough under her spacesuit? Yeah, I noticed that right away. Not plot important and possibly would confuse and prolong what was a very streamlined movie.
George Clooney zipping around easily with a jetpack? Oh, I know they don't work like that but I decided to roll with it. It's one of those small liberties the movie takes which edge it into traditional science fiction that I don't feel hurt the overall message of the film.
Debris field destroying everything in orbit? Unlikely, but not impossible (as noted by Tyson, even). This is a fictional scenario, and one of the purposes of media is to explore "What if?" The first thought that went through my head though, was, "Man, the Russians are gonna be pissed that this is their fault."
The trips that the characters take between their shuttle and the ISS? Yeah, I knew it was impossible, but here's the thing: the story doesn't work if they have nowhere to go. To be honest, when I first saw the trailer, I thought the movie was actually going to be two hours of watching Sandra Bullock die. Which would have been riveting in itself as a character exploration, but seeing it was something different was a pleasant surprise.
The most important thing Gravity does scientifically is that it will get people talking about space debris. Which is a real issue, and something we seriously need to consider if we want to continue exploring space (and many space agencies do in fact, have protocols for it). I note that there were in fact, two incidents in real life that have similarities to what happened in the film (in 2007 and 2009), and I believe they may have inspired Cuarón to make this film.
It makes me incredibly sad that this movie was probably released the week of NASA's 55th birthday on purpose, and they weren't even open to appreciate it... or capitalize on it.
Visually: Spectacular. We saw this in (real) IMAX 3D, and it was worth every penny. There are very few movies where I feel like you can legitimately say that (maybe Avatar, except story-wise it was kind of shit). The effects are great, and each shot is framed beautifully. It will probably win awards for cinematography, effects, directing. What IMAX adds is a total sense of immersion: like the characters, your view becomes dominated by the stars and the blue sphere of Earth.
Characters: In all honesty, weak. Clooney and Bullock deliver good performances, but nothing groundbreaking here. They basically play the same people they play in every movie. Which really means that your perception of their performance is dependent on the quality of the film itself. If Sandra Bullock feels like a bad actress, it's because she's in a lot of shitty movies. But in this film, they work just fine. Perhaps they could have picked a stronger actress, but I also feel like her individual merits as a character are largely irrelevant because that's not the what the film is about. You relate to her struggle not because she is a mother who lost her child or a scientist in an unfamiliar environment, but because she is human, she is a good person, and she is in trouble. There are few people who deserve to die in space, and she is not one of them.
There is a lot of talking in this film, and it's not the best dialogue, but it serves a purpose: it is their shield against oblivion. Against the darkness, against the silence. It reminds them that they are still alive and that someone out there still cares about them.
Story: Gravity is a survival story, yes. But I've seen people try to compare it to Alien, simply because it's in space and they say the debris field is the "monster." But what that tells me is that a lot of people lack the media literacy to really talk about a film like this. It's not really a science fiction story... well, it sort of is, in that there's science and fiction. But it's not really part of that bigger genre in the way we understand it. Gravity a drama in the subgenre of "trying to get home against great odds." And that's very simple, and powerful, and relatable.
The science isn't perfect. This article from Time does a good job summarizing the major problems with it. But they also say that the inaccuracies don't matter as much when you consider how much the movie got right, and the fact that it's a great movie. I've also seen Neil DeGrasse Tyson going off on it a bit, and he has some valid points, but at the same time it's like, "relax, nerd." I suppose it's easier to enjoy a film when you don't know the subject well-and Tyson would know this subject well-but some scientists have been happy with how much was accurate, and hell, there were moments where I was like, "Yeah, that's not right," and I shook it off and let myself enjoy the drama.
Sandra Bullock not wearing enough under her spacesuit? Yeah, I noticed that right away. Not plot important and possibly would confuse and prolong what was a very streamlined movie.
George Clooney zipping around easily with a jetpack? Oh, I know they don't work like that but I decided to roll with it. It's one of those small liberties the movie takes which edge it into traditional science fiction that I don't feel hurt the overall message of the film.
Debris field destroying everything in orbit? Unlikely, but not impossible (as noted by Tyson, even). This is a fictional scenario, and one of the purposes of media is to explore "What if?" The first thought that went through my head though, was, "Man, the Russians are gonna be pissed that this is their fault."
The trips that the characters take between their shuttle and the ISS? Yeah, I knew it was impossible, but here's the thing: the story doesn't work if they have nowhere to go. To be honest, when I first saw the trailer, I thought the movie was actually going to be two hours of watching Sandra Bullock die. Which would have been riveting in itself as a character exploration, but seeing it was something different was a pleasant surprise.
The most important thing Gravity does scientifically is that it will get people talking about space debris. Which is a real issue, and something we seriously need to consider if we want to continue exploring space (and many space agencies do in fact, have protocols for it). I note that there were in fact, two incidents in real life that have similarities to what happened in the film (in 2007 and 2009), and I believe they may have inspired Cuarón to make this film.
It makes me incredibly sad that this movie was probably released the week of NASA's 55th birthday on purpose, and they weren't even open to appreciate it... or capitalize on it.