A Feast for the Eyes

Rating: 7/10 (22 November 2013)

Gravity (2013) is a feast for the eyes. I was filled with a feeling of wonder and amazement by the many views of the earth, the sun rises and the rest of the universe. It was, for a while, rather tranquil and I enjoyed watching it much like I would an astronomy based documentary. Whilst the visual effects of this film were in a league with Prometheus (2012) and Elysium (2013) the story was more in line with Buried (2010) by Rodrigo Cortés. Essentially gravity is Buried in space; small cast, monologuing lead characters and of course the life or death situation. That being said I don't want it to sound like gravity is unoriginal although it has similarities with Buried it takes a lot of imagination to adapt the idea for Sci-fi setting .I think that Alfonso Cuarón should be applauded for not only trying to bring something new to the Sci-Fi genre, but succeeding in making a film that was on the most part very very good.
The Positive Points
Cinematography: As I said in the introduction this film is visually stunning. The special effects seemed to be top notch throughout. I couldn't fault it. I watched the 2D version and could see some scenes would have been really good in 3D. As well as some scenes where they may have used the 3D in a more gimmicky way, which isn't really my cup of tea but each to their own.
Atmosphere: I felt the feel and the atmosphere of this film was really well done. For example after the opening (SPOILER START) when the camera is just looking at space and there is no sound, you really felt the loneliness of space and the fact that the characters you are about to meet really are fish out of water.(SPOILER END) I felt these moments were really well thought out, and help the viewer relate to the way space must feel, sound, and appear.
Main Plot: The main plot (SPOILER START) this being astronauts in space, disaster strikes, who will survive, will anyone make it home etc. (SPOILER END) was fairly strong. I felt it was all very believable (but I do not have an in depth understanding of space or physics) and I could even look passed a few of the little plot holes as they weren't hugely serious. This main plot line was exciting, fast paced, and left on its own would have made a great film.
Acting: The acting in this film was great. I thought that both George Clooney( Matt Kowalski )and Sandra Bullock (Dr Ryan Stone) played their respective character well with the strong performances we have come to expect from them, especially in serious roles like these. That's all that really needs to be said here; Good Acting.
The Negative Point
Sub Plot & Character Development: Just to be clear (SPOILER START) when I say Sub Plot & Character Development I am only talking about the tragic passed of Dr Ryan Stone. (END SPOILER) This is the area of the film that I really disliked. I felt the revelation that (SPOILER START) Ryan's daughter had died a few years earlier to the events in this film and therefore she had no one on Earth to miss her, due to the fact she now just drives her car in a never ending depression (SPOILER END), was a cheap/ weak way of forcing depth to a character. On top of this I didn't feel it worked at all. In fact, the fact that I felt like they were trying too hard and pushing a sad tale down my throat really distracted me from the film. Essentially this failed for two reasons. 1) They hit me with this hugely emotional back story before I was emotionally invested in the characters and therefore it had little effect on me the first time, and just annoyed me when it turned up later on in the film, and 2)They chose something that not many can relate too. Seriously, I have no idea why this back story was chosen. In fact it would have made more sense to have had (SPOILER START) the daughter still alive on Earth, as we could probably all relate to being apart from a loved or being concerned about how they would be if we were unable to return home. (SPOILER END) 3) finally I just felt it was unnecessary and added nothing to the film, I still felt that the characters were 1 dimensional. All I can think is that it was cheap shot at character development that if the script had been worked on a bit more this could have been done in other ways. Going back to Buried (2010) I do not remember Ryan Reynolds character being 1 dimensional and he was the only actor in the film. So the small cast is no excuse! OK sorry about that but I feel more and more that with films at the moment they try forcing you to feel sorry for a character as a cheap way of satisfying character development on their check list for the script. Rant Over.
Alas this review comes to an end. Overall I think this film was good, unique and I am glad that Alfonso Cuarón brought this to the table. I think directors/writers should always be rewarded for attempting something new. After all it would be boring if all films were the same. This film was on the whole very very good but had they re-looked at the character development then they could have had something amazing.