Writer/director Alfonso Cuaron is undoubtedly one of the great artists working in film today. His last film, Children of Men, was one of the best science fiction films of the last few decades, and is as finely crafted as any film you'll ever see. It's visually stunning, with a jarring narrative and tense, real-feeling action sequences. We've been hearing whispers about an astronaut film for years, and various delays pushed his next film back several times. The first trailer was incredible, and Cuaron's name alone makes any film a must-see, so let's check it out.
Doctor (??) and first time astronaut Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock) is on a mission to upgrade the Hubble Space Telescope with software that she designed. While on a seemingly routine spacewalk (her first) with veteran astronaut Matt Kowalski (George Clooney), the unthinkable happens, and the two astronauts find themselves stranded outer space, low on oxygen, and desperate to survive.
The Good: First, this film is incredible to look at. Visually, it's an amazing achievement and one of the 2 or 3 best-looking films I can recall. It manages to perfectly convey the fine line between awe-inspiring beauty and certain death that is a fact of existence in the incredibly hostile environment of space. Despite the fact that the film portrays what would be the worst disaster to ever befall humanity's brief forays into space, the film still finds plenty of time to portray a real sense of awe and wonderment. Impeccably crafted, amazing to look at, and well-acted, this film is a real achievement. The narrative is tight and moves at a breathless pace - moving through naturally depicted space environs as all hell breaks loose. Considering that the entire film takes place over a few hours and features just a single scene on earth, it's pretty miraculous that this film works at all. The fact that it actually works pretty damn well is a testament to the quality of the artists involved.
The Bad: there are some scientific errors. I won't get into them, but if you're curious, look up Neil deGrasse Tyson's thoughts on the flick. So that is distracting on further evaluation, especially when the film obviously attempts to do so much right. I would never hold a film like say, Prometheus, to a requirement of a realistic portrayal of space travel, because it would never purport to exactly duplicate the settings. Gravity, however, attempts to get as much right as possible, which makes the errors particularly glaring. My biggest problem with the flick, and ultimately the single thing that prevents the film from truly being an emotionally powerful flick, is the casting. Not so much the acting, because she tries her best, but the casting. Let me explain. For a large chunk of the history of film, people were much more interested in the stars themselves than the films. You weren't seeing a movie, you were seeing a John Wayne movie, a Cary Grant movie, a Jimmy Stewart movie, etc. The 70's changed that, and acting became more about losing yourself in a role in a Shakespearian way than it did about a likable star hamming it up. There are exceptions, of course, and Sandra Bullock and George Clooney are the two biggest offenders. They are always just playing shades of Sandra Bullock and shades of George Clooney. Depending on the flick, that can work just fine. In a flick that's attempting to be an incredibly intense story of survival and perseverance, it's distracting, because I never lost sight of the fact that it was Sandra Bullock pretending to be an astronaut. At a certain level, that sounds silly, but I'd wager you know exactly what I'm talking about. I feel the casting did a disservice to the film and what it was trying to do, and I like Sandra Bullock fine, she can do all the rom-coms she wants, but I'm never going to believe her when she's crying about her daughter alone in a space capsule. Sorry, Sandy. One of the downfalls of being America's sweetheart, I suppose. Is that fair? Maybe, maybe not, but it really prevented me from going all-in on Gravity.
With that being said, Gravity is still an extremely effective and intense thriller that's incredible to look at. The visuals alone make it well worth seeing. Ultimately, the fact that the main character fell short for me prevented the film from breaking through to true greatness, but it remains a gorgeous piece of filmmaking.
8/10.
Monday, December 23, 2013
Tuesday, December 3, 2013
2013: The Year in Film: "Prisoners" Review
Late late late. I know, you know, we all know. I'm catching up, you guys! First, a disclaimer... I secretly love neo-noir crime/mystery stories of the Dennis Lehane, George Pelecanos, James Ellroy variety. You know the ones, where no one is what they seem, everyone is a shade of grey, and red herrings abound. "The Killing" tried to be this in a television format, but that's a tale for another day. So I suppose what I'm trying to say is that my opinion for this flick was directly influenced by my general affection for the genre, read on with that in mind.
From a new writer (his only other credit is "Contraband" starring Mark freaking Walhberg) and a director making his first English-language film, and not adapted from any source material that I could find (rare in a world so chock full of mystery/crime novels), the flick features a great cast. Hugh Jackman, Terrance Howard, Paul Dano, Melissa Leo, Viola Davis and Maria Bello all exist in various states of being underrated, and Gyllenhall has proven that given the right material, he can be more than a pretty face. This story of a Thanksgiving kidnapping of two young girls promises to bring a small town to its knees and push two families to the edge.
So how is it?
The Good: The cast, as mentioned above, is stellar. Jackman is tremendous, and far more savage in this role than he ever was as Wolverine. (Seriously) Dano does "creepy" as well as anyone in Hollywood, and brings a sense of unsettled malaise to every scene he's in. Gyllenhall is great. He manages to bring a quiet intensity and quirky believability to a character who very easily could have been one-note. The atmosphere in this flick is top-notch as well, as the flick is extremely intense and effective, despite a long running time. The fact that this flick doesn't seem as long as, say, Zodiac (sorry, Jake!) is a testament to the effectiveness of the filmmaking and cast. Despite a number of Red Herrings, the plot never seems to be wandering for wandering's sake, and the resolution was a surprise, which is always the point of a mystery, isn't it? The best compliment I can pay this movie is that it feels like a good book of this genre, despite being a wholly original story. That's hard to pull off. Kudos.
The Bad: Gyllenhall's character suffers from a lack of characterization, which is a shame given the strength of his performance and the fact that on the surface, his character may well have been the most interesting in the whole movie if given a chance to be fleshed out. I think a few more Gyllenhall-centric scenes at the expense of the plot could have made his Detective Loki into a legitimately great movie cop. Additionally, the crushing dread and despair of the movie, which jumps right into the mystery with very little set up or framing, is really a grind, given the long runtime. You'll feel taxed at the end of this movie, and while it's not necessarily a bad thing, it is on the edge of being too much. This maybe would have been even better as a TV miniseries on premium cable?
All in all this is a bleak, intense mystery that stands up as a solid example of the genre. It's not SAYING anything that hasn't been said, but what it is doing is letting some great performers work on some meaty material and putting together an all around movie experience that pretty effectively duplicates the experience of reading a novel. That's not easy to do. The performances are the main draw here, but the atmosphere is pretty damn effective as well.
8/10. A very good, if not great flick for grown ups. If you haven't noticed, those are kind of rare, you guys.
From a new writer (his only other credit is "Contraband" starring Mark freaking Walhberg) and a director making his first English-language film, and not adapted from any source material that I could find (rare in a world so chock full of mystery/crime novels), the flick features a great cast. Hugh Jackman, Terrance Howard, Paul Dano, Melissa Leo, Viola Davis and Maria Bello all exist in various states of being underrated, and Gyllenhall has proven that given the right material, he can be more than a pretty face. This story of a Thanksgiving kidnapping of two young girls promises to bring a small town to its knees and push two families to the edge.
So how is it?
The Good: The cast, as mentioned above, is stellar. Jackman is tremendous, and far more savage in this role than he ever was as Wolverine. (Seriously) Dano does "creepy" as well as anyone in Hollywood, and brings a sense of unsettled malaise to every scene he's in. Gyllenhall is great. He manages to bring a quiet intensity and quirky believability to a character who very easily could have been one-note. The atmosphere in this flick is top-notch as well, as the flick is extremely intense and effective, despite a long running time. The fact that this flick doesn't seem as long as, say, Zodiac (sorry, Jake!) is a testament to the effectiveness of the filmmaking and cast. Despite a number of Red Herrings, the plot never seems to be wandering for wandering's sake, and the resolution was a surprise, which is always the point of a mystery, isn't it? The best compliment I can pay this movie is that it feels like a good book of this genre, despite being a wholly original story. That's hard to pull off. Kudos.
The Bad: Gyllenhall's character suffers from a lack of characterization, which is a shame given the strength of his performance and the fact that on the surface, his character may well have been the most interesting in the whole movie if given a chance to be fleshed out. I think a few more Gyllenhall-centric scenes at the expense of the plot could have made his Detective Loki into a legitimately great movie cop. Additionally, the crushing dread and despair of the movie, which jumps right into the mystery with very little set up or framing, is really a grind, given the long runtime. You'll feel taxed at the end of this movie, and while it's not necessarily a bad thing, it is on the edge of being too much. This maybe would have been even better as a TV miniseries on premium cable?
All in all this is a bleak, intense mystery that stands up as a solid example of the genre. It's not SAYING anything that hasn't been said, but what it is doing is letting some great performers work on some meaty material and putting together an all around movie experience that pretty effectively duplicates the experience of reading a novel. That's not easy to do. The performances are the main draw here, but the atmosphere is pretty damn effective as well.
8/10. A very good, if not great flick for grown ups. If you haven't noticed, those are kind of rare, you guys.
Labels:
Hugh Jackman,
Jake Gyllenhall,
Movie Reviews,
Prisoners,
Terence Howard
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)