Gravity

Director: Alfonso Cuarὀn

Starring: Sandra Bullock, George Clooney, Ed Harris

Written by: Alfonso Cuarὀn, Jonas Cuarὀn

Rated PG-13 for intense perilous sequences, some disturbing images and brief strong language

I felt physically exhausted after watching “Gravity.” I wasn’t simply sitting in a theater watching images pop on the screen with 3D glasses on my head and surround sound in my ears; I was careening through space for every terrifying second, fighting to survive. 

“Gravity” isn’t just a movie. It’s a metaphysical experience.

The plot of the film is ingeniously simple. Medical engineer and rookie spacewalker, Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock), finds herself spiraling through the infinite expanse of space when debris destroys the shuttle that she’s working on with veteran astronaut Matt Kowalski (George Clooney). With a dwindling oxygen supply and no contact with Earth, Stone and Kowalski must work together to find a way home.

Just imagine how utterly horrifying it would be to be trapped in space, doomed to forever sail across a sea of emptiness without any way to steer yourself toward a destination. I imagine it as similar to being in a state of complete paralysis: conscious but helpless. It’s an intriguing thought for sure but can an entire movie be sustained on such a simple premise?

In the hands of director and co-writer Alfonso Cuarὀn, the answer is a resounding “yes.” There are some really inventive ways that he builds and releases tension, none of which I’ll spoil here. You’ll just have to trust me. The movie never fails to capture your attention.

“Gravity” is primal storytelling at its best, less focused on character arcs and more on wringing a kaleidoscope of emotion out of the audience. It’s alternately terrifying, thrilling, heartbreaking, awe-inspiring and breathtaking.

That’s not to say that the characters are undefined, quite the opposite in fact. The film gives us just enough information to connect with them as human beings without distracting us from the immediacy of the narrative. We identify with their internal struggles so that, when everything goes haywire, it feels like something is at stake.

It also helps that we’re given remarkable performances from the two leads, especially considering that they had to act mostly in front of a green screen while suspended in the air. Clooney brings his usual charm to a character who’s much nobler than what we typically see of the actor. He’s a voice to give us an occasional break from the terror that dominates the film. However, it’s Bullock who makes the film as compelling as it is.

Her desperation is evident in every facet of her performance, most notably in her erratic breathing, something she does so convincingly that I found myself involuntarily matching her pace. She’s the conduit through which the audience feels emotion and much of the film’s success is thanks to her total dedication to the demanding role. I fully expect her to take home a ton of awards for her work.

What’s just as impressive as the acting is the stunning scenery that surrounds the actors. The view of the Earth is majestic, especially when it eclipses the sun and casts varying bursts of light and color onto the screen. The effects are extraordinary and rendered in painstaking detail. You’ll marvel just as much at the destruction of a satellite – and the resulting confetti of debris – as you will at the way a person’s breath collects on the inside of their helmet.

It’s all framed by a camera that fluidly mimics the weightlessness of space, flowing and spinning around the characters in mostly unbroken takes (the first shot of the film is 13 minutes long.) It’s composed more like a dance than an action picture, recalling the iconic “Blue Danube” scene from “2001: A Space Odyssey.” The technique makes you feel like you’re a character in the film; an unseen entity tagging along for one wild ride.

I also highly recommend seeing the film in 3D, even if you’re not a fan of the format. The 3D is so thoroughly convincing that it feels like an extension of your own reality. It’s beyond immersive. It’s probably as close as you’ll ever get to actually traveling in space.

Cuarὀn cannot be given enough credit for making everything work as seamlessly as it does. It feels like an evolutionary step forward in cinema, not just in terms of technology and experimentation, but also in the way that he marries big-budget spectacle with the artistic sensibilities of less mainstream entertainment.

“Gravity” is stellar. This new classic in science fiction is worthy of being mentioned alongside masterpieces of the genre like “Star Wars” and the aforementioned “2001.” See it on the biggest screen possible. It’s one of the best and most adrenaline-inducing experiences I’ve ever had at the movies.

5 out of 5 stars.

Carrie

Director: Kimberly Pierce
Starring: Chloe Moretz, Julianne Moore, Ansel Elgort, Judy Greer, Portia Doubleday
Written by: Lawrence D. Cohen, Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa (screenplay), Stephen King (novel)
Rated R for bloody violence, disturbing images, language and some sexual content

Originally published in the East Tennessean

Kimberly Pierce’s remake of the classic horror film “Carrie” isn’t exactly a bad film, but it’s one that’s so beholden to the original that it comes across as lazy and unnecessary.

The strengths of “Carrie” rest in the timelessness of its subject matter. Social outcast Carrie White is mercilessly bullied by her high school classmates. At home she has to contend with her abusive mother, whose warped and ill-informed Fundamentalist views on religion are extreme to say the least.

Carrie is empowered when she discovers that she has telekinesis, which revealed itself when she went through puberty. As Carrie cultivates her power, a few of her classmates scheme to humiliate her at prom. The consequences are devastating.

I’m not really one for comparing films, even when it comes to sequels and remakes. I like to judge a movie on its own merits and not those established by outside influences. However, I feel that comparisons to Brian De Palma’s 1976 adaptation of the Stephen King tale are impossible to avoid because the new film rarely ever attempts to step out of the exploding shadow of its predecessor.

Entire scenes, shots and sections of dialogue are lifted wholesale from the original film, so much so that it makes it feel less like homage and more like outright plagiarism. I understand it’s a remake, and many people prefer their classic tales to remain untouched, but I feel that the point of a remake is to offer new perspectives or update the story to make it more relatable to modern sensibilities.

Scenes between Chloe Moretz and Ansel Elgort
are surprisingly sweet. 

The only way that they bring the story into the present is with a minor plot point involving a cell phone, where the infamous shower scene is videoed and put up on YouTube. Other than that, the few changes that are made actually diminish the movie’s impact.

There seem to be fewer scenes about Carrie’s status as an outsider and more that focus on her tormentors. This would have been an interesting perspective had the care been taken to develop these characters and analyze why they are or aren’t conflicted with their feelings toward Carrie.

The book and original film do a great job of this, but in the new film you just get the same vapid teens in the same high school milieu that populate every other generic horror film. It feels inauthentic and you end up caring very little about what happens to the characters.

It’s a shame we see less of Carrie and her mother, Margaret, because the two main actresses are the best part of the movie. Chloe Grace Moretz does a great job of showing us just how demoralizing it can be to suffer from bullying every day, and how empowering it must feel to discover that she can fight back.

Although, honestly, I think that Moretz is a little too pretty to be completely believable as a pariah. Of course, that’s not a knock against her. It’s not her fault. You’d just think the make-up department would do more than ruffle her hair to show why most of the boys find her unattractive.

Carrie’s mother is a tricky role to pull off -- it could have easily devolved into over-the-top hysterics -- but Julianne Moore balances the benevolence with the malevolence very well. Margaret’s behavior is somewhat subdued compared to the earlier adaptations but, nonetheless, Moore is a fierce presence that gives the mostly inert movie some signs of life.

"You've got red on you."

Also, the final outburst of violence is disturbing for all the wrong reasons. It’s a little too slickly stylized and special-effects driven. It revels in the violence rather than portraying it as the tragedy that it is, and it just feels wrong. We’re supposed to regret the death that ensues when Carrie snaps, not cheer it on.

I’m always happy to see a film attempt to shed light on the issue of bullying. Most kids and teens who bully don’t realize the profound psychological effect their actions have to those on the receiving end.

While that message is there and clear in “Carrie,” unfortunately, it’s diluted by its broad characterizations, toned-down content and inability to make the film relevant to a modern audience. It looks even worse in the wake of last year’s excellent film “Chronicle” which is a loose re-imagining of “Carrie,” only from a male perspective.

Coming from the director of the thoughtful and wrenching “Boys Don’t Cry,” I was hoping this new version of “Carrie” would be a more grounded, gritty and emotional examination of teenage oppression, as opposed to the stylized and dreamy approach that De Palma took. Unfortunately, it seems that this version of “Carrie” was crafted more with a paycheck in mind than a message.

If you've not seen the original film or read the book, then you may enjoy this movie for the simple pleasures it offers. Even if much of it is copied from another movie, it’s still looking over the shoulder of a great piece of entertainment. Just keep in mind that there are better alternatives out there.

2.5 out of 5