The New 2001: A Space Odessey?

Rating: 10/10 (4 October 2013)

Few cinematic experiences are quite as immersive or as complete as Gravity, the tightly developed and much-hyped space drama by writer/director Alfonso Cuarón – and the director's first movie since 2006's highly acclaimed Children of Men.
With Gravity, Cuarón gives audiences a vastly different experience than he has before, one so unique in its presentation that it's curious any studio would finance it (to the tune of $80 million) and give it a wide release. Warner Bros. took that chance, and early buzz indicates it might pay off.
And yet there's something familiar about Gravity, especially within the science fiction genre. Anyone who has enjoyed a small-cast science fiction film – say, the Sam Rockwell vehicle Moon, or the horror classic Alien – will similarly like Gravity, which epitomizes the sub-genre. It follows a medical engineer on her first mission to low-Earth orbit (Sandra Bullock) and a nearly retired veteran astronaut (George Clooney) as they struggle to survive floating untethered in space after a barrage of debris violently destroys their spacecraft. A title card in the film's opening frames sets the stakes: "Life in space is impossible."
Except for a few transmissions with mission control (voiced by Ed Harris) and some quick, jarring shots, Bullock and Clooney comprise the film's full cast. It's just the two of them in stark contrast with the infinite and hostile vastness of space, low on oxygen and fuel, struggling to make it to safety. Turns out there isn't a lot of that in space.
The film begins with a single extended shot that lasts – so I've read; I didn't time it – some 17 minutes. Cuarón is a master at the extended shot (the one-take war shot near the end of Children of Men was one of the last decade's best scenes), and Gravity is full of them, but the beginning is striking. It starts quietly, serenely, with gorgeous shots of Earth and space, as Cuarón plays with the lack of stable perspective inherent in zero-G, but once the action starts, it doesn't stop. There are plenty of nerve-wracking moments and a number of shocks and surprises, with some of the tensest moments saved for the final scenes. But to say much more would diminish the fun of this movie.
Gravity is a technical masterpiece on all fronts, an all-out sensory blitz with deft, cleverly utilized sound editing and production. (My favorite touch was at a moment when Bullock hits her head hard, followed by several stressful seconds of ringing.) And the attention to detail is mesmerizing, with Cuarón making only a few minor physics missteps – mostly necessary, even intentional, in order to advance the plot. Clocking in at just 90 minutes, the film doesn't spend a lot of time ruminating on philosophy, which is perhaps a missed opportunity. But it feels tight: Every scene, every frame, is necessary to tell the story, and every aspect of the film's production works in concert to create one of the most engrossing films audiences are likely to see.
But it's the film's astonishing visuals that make it so thoroughly captivating, thanks to some amazing special effects and the camera-work of frequent Cuarón and Terrence Malick collaborator Emmanuel Lubezki. Astronauts who have caught early screenings have said that Gravity is the closest they have felt to being in orbit without leaving Earth. If you lean back and let yourself get lost in the cinematography, you'll feel the same. I've never felt so immersed in a film as I did watching Gravity. This is definitely a movie to catch in 3D.
It's still early in awards season, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Bullock, Clooney and Cuarón were expanding their award shelves in anticipation. On many fronts, Gravity is probably the year's best movie to date, and if you don't pick too many nits about orbital physics, you will likely agree. Just get lost in the experience, and be sure to unclench your fists when the credits start rolling.