"Gravity" Review

 The more I think about Alfonso Cuarón’s “Gravity”, the more I see it as a mixed bag. On the one hand, it’s a visual experience immersing the audience in space in a way unlike anything I’ve ever seen before. On the other hand, I think it falls short of greatness by adhering to crowd-pleasing elements that distract from the tone and weight of the premise and story.

Sandra Bullock stars as Ryan Stone, a doctor-turned-astronaut who, while on a spacewalk to set up a deep-space scanning program she invented, gets stranded when debris destroys the ship, leaving her and the commanding officer Matthew Kowalski (George Clooney) to struggle for survival and a way home against all odds.

Where “Gravity” succeeds is in creating an experience. Never have I felt as close to being in space as I did here. The attention to detail with movement, sound, and visuals is phenomenal. Whether it be the way Ryan enters a room in a space station upside down, the lack of sound whenever she and Kowalski are in space, or the glow of the sunrise creeping on the earth, the movie creates this environment realistically.

This is one of those movies I’m going to have to see the behind the scenes features for; some scenes just made me stroke my chin wondering, “I wonder how they achieved this effect,” or “Think of all the storyboarding this must have taken to plan!” There’s a soothing scene where Ryan takes a breather in the space station, floating in the middle of the airlock for a few minutes. Her movement is so smooth; it makes you believe she’s really floating in zero gravity. Of course, I don’t know for sure if the filmmakers shot that scene in a zero gravity simulator of some kind, but the effect works so well, it makes me want to know how it was done. Did she stay still and the room moves around her? Were there wires involved, and if so, how was the wirework executed in order to simulate the movement? Scenes like this reveal the filmmakers’ creativity and dedication to the environment, it makes me admire all the work that went into it.

One of the points people have brought up with this movie is its use of 3D. I think the main problem with 3D is that when using it the old way, for shock and pop-up effects, it looks hokey and gimmicky. When using it the new way, to increase depth, the actors end up looking like paper puppets. 3D is intended to break the boundaries of reality and fiction. The line doesn’t end at the screen; the audience can become enveloped in the story with this illusion. This is where “Gravity” gets it right. The 3D is used to stretch the limitations of space, expressing its infinite nature. The IMAX screen is an advantage here because 3D glasses tend to limit the scope of vision. IMAX usually gets the audience to sit farther back to see everything, so the 3D can use depth without sacrificing the audience’s vision. Overall, the effect helps the visuals; I’d recommend spending the extra money.

So what are my problems with “Gravity”? I think my main issue is tone. At some points, “Gravity” seems like an art film; the importance is placed on experience and mood rather than the narrative. However, there are enough comic relief and pop-out 3D effects to make it more palatable for the Hollywood crowd. The first couple times, these kinds of choices don’t distract too much from the story, but after the 3^rd time Ryan nearly misses the spacecraft while being dragged into space, the effect wears thin and it gets irritating. George Clooney can be a bit much playing Kowalski; his inability to be fazed is an interesting quality, but decreases the value of the heavy stakes at hand. Most of the comic relief is attributed to him and save for a couple scenes, his jokes fall flat. Whenever the movie tries to be more like an action film, it pulls away from the experience and it ends up bringing the movie down a notch.

Despite its faults, “Gravity” is a visual masterpiece, using its attention to detail and its effects to create the most realistic depiction of space I’ve seen. The visuals are a showstopper, but balance well to serve the story, which enthralls and weaves tension in a story of trying to survive at all costs. I definitely recommend it, especially in IMAX 3D. Take a view and let your perception play around. I’m the Man without a Plan, thanks for reading, and join me next time for another movie review.

"Gravity" trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OiTiKOy59o4

"Runner Runner" Review

Hello all, I’m the Man without a Plan, returning yet again with another movie review. This time I’m taking a look at “Runner Runner”, where Justin Timberlake stars as Richie Furst, a Princeton grad student and gambling marketer who, when he finds out an online poker website cheated him out of his tuition, travels to Costa Rica to meet with the CEO, Ivan Block, played by Ben Affleck, and get his money back. Block is generous, rewarding his efforts and civility with not only the refund, but a job in his company, working as a senior affiliate. Richie thinks he’s living the highlife, but little does he know Block may have other sinister motives in mind.

Richie Furst is a severely weak character. He’s a Princeton grad student going for a Master’s degree in finance. He’s presented as exceptionally intelligent, analyzing many pools of data in no time. His hope is to become a broker on Wall Street, making lots of money, living the good life. So when Richie needs to find a way to pay off his college debt, why would he feel the need to resort to gambling?

He praises gambling’s intent to be purely fair; everyone has the same chances of winning. This may be true, but he forgets that not everyone has the same stakes to lose. He’s cemented in a position that could put him on the road to solving his problems and fulfilling his dreams, but is risking all his tuition and academic career for a chance at a quick fix. However, not only does he consider it a smart idea to gamble his money away, but also thinks it wise to travel to a foreign country, gain an audience with the head of a multi-million dollar company, and convince him to give his money back. How many average customers get to walk up to an office with complaints and get to speak with the head of management, no questions asked? Isn’t this what human resources departments are meant for? This plan carries no weight in the real world and serves as just a way to get Timberlake from point A to point B. Now, I wouldn’t blame Timberlake for most of this; he plays naïve and dumb convincingly enough, but the character is so inconsistent, it’s hard to take him seriously.

The rest of the cast is hit and miss. For the most part, the secondary characters are bland: the love interest is just a love interest, the corrupt politicians hammy, but not enough so to be memorable. Anthony Mackie delivers some laughs as an over-the-top FBI agent; his intense delivery of the typical cop dialogue gets chuckles out of me, especially the scene where he first threatens Richie with jail time and exile from the U.S. Ben Affleck has fun as Ivan Block. He’s laid-back and suave, but shows enough glee with his evil to resemble a decent Bond villain. Affleck’s having some fun here, and I rooted for him most of the film.

“Runner Runner” is intriguing. I haven’t seen a movie this jumbled in a long time. The plot seems to be pushed along, spitting out whatever ties can connect the dots and keep the movie going. Much of the dialogue relies on gambling puns and lingo not many people outside of the poker scene would understand, and unlike a movie like “21”, it doesn’t bother to help explain these complicated statistics and concepts to non-aficionados. By doing so, the scenes drag and the movie bores quickly. It tries to create suspense with its action scenes, but they ultimately feel weak, without much consequence. It tries to be dramatic, but interjects silly moments in-between that draw the audience out of the scene. Well, if it ends up silly, could I call it a comedy? Not at all, for the most part, the movie takes itself too seriously to seem self-aware. Overall, I think this is an exercise in trying to string together a quick thriller with some in-demand actors that ends up being forgettable and irritating. Some of the sets are appealing and the soundtrack works well, but it’s not worth the boredom. I’d say skip it.

Thank you very much for reading, I’m the Man without a Plan, and I’ll see you all later on the next movie review.

"Runner Runner" trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAz_oUxUuDg