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

Captain Phillips

Director: Paul Greengrass
Starring: Tom Hanks, Barkhad Abdi, Catherine Keener
Written by: Billy Ray (screenplay), Richard Phillips (based upon the book "A Captain's Duty: Somali Pirates, Navy SEALS, and Dangerous Days at Sea")
Rated PG-13 for sustained intense sequences of menace, some violence with bloody images, and for substance use

Originally published in the East Tennessean.

 “Captain Phillips” is a gripping true story that rises above other thrillers due to the humanity and moral complexity of its characters.

The movie is based on the 2009 hijacking of the merchant vessel Maersk Alabama by four Somali pirates. The ship’s captain, Richard Phillips, was taken hostage which prompted the United States Navy to initiate a rescue operation. 

The part of Phillips is played to magnificent effect by the one and only Tom Hanks, who reminds us again why he is one of Hollywood’s greatest treasures. 

The role is quite demanding, both physically and emotionally, and Hanks matches the varying character pitches perfectly. He effectively exudes confidence while also keeping a twinkle of terror and vulnerability in his eye. His powerful performance in the film’s final moments brought me to tears and I’m not ashamed to admit it.

Breakout star Barkhad Abdi is magnetic. 

Though Hanks is the protagonist, I’d argue that the real star of the film is newcomer Barkhad Abdi, who plays Muse, the leader of the Somali pirates. His menacing demeanor disguises a wounded soul who’s only there as a victim of circumstances beyond his control. Muse is not a man motivated by greed, he’s motivated by survival.

He’s much like Phillips in this way. They’re both just trying to do the job they have to do to get by. Their shared humanity gives them an uneasy, unspoken alliance. Each may be standing in the other’s way but there’s a mutual sense of respect and understanding.

Both know that this is a collision course that simply could not have been averted.

The film dares to make us feel compassion for the antagonists where other films typically do not. They’re more than just cardboard cutouts to take pot shots at, we become attached to them. These are real people with real lives. When the Navy finally comes in and begs for a peaceful resolution, you pray they can find one, even if in your gut you know it doesn’t exist.

In a routine Hollywood production, the end of this film would be a triumph; a celebration of the efficiency of the American military and American resolve. In “Captain Phillips” it’s a tragedy; the unintended consequences of the global economy. There are no heroes or villains here, only victims.

Coming from Paul Greengrass, who directed “United 93” and the last two-thirds of the Bourne trilogy, it’s no surprise that the film features an almost overwhelming attention to detail. In the beginning, the dedication to procedure and authenticity is a little off-putting; giving the film a sluggish pace, but his documentary-like approach is ultimately what grabs us and throws us into a seat on the ship with the captured crew.

This subtle way of building anticipation ensures that everyone who sees the film will be digging their

nails into the nearest armrest, leg, wrist or helpless pet they can find.

The climax is almost unbearably intense. Be ready for it. 

Film is a monumentally powerful medium, and it’s always encouraging to see people like Greengrass – along with screenwriter Billy Ray -- leverage their art for understanding. “Captain Phillips” is the kind of movie that helps us to fathom the human condition, and see the world in a way that’s just not as visible without the aid of film. If we as humans have to share a planet with one another, we should at least strive for perspective so that we can coexist as peacefully as possible.

I’m not sure if “Captain Phillips” will do anything to advance the human race in such a profound way, but it’s commendable that it even tries. It does, however, have the potential to at least start a few conversations and that’s a step in the right direction.

“Captain Phillips” is a terrific film because it uses its entertainment value as a thriller to force the viewer to ask questions about the characters and themselves, and to reexamine how one feels about difficult topics like terrorism, globalization and – the greatest mystery of all – our fellow man. It will hold you captive. 

4.5 out of 5

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (U.S.)

Director: David Fincher
Starring: Daniel Craig, Rooney Mara, Christopher Plummer, Stellan Skarsgård, Robin Wright.
Written by: Steven Zaillian (Screenplay), Stieg Larsson (Book).
Rated R for brutal violent content including rape and torture, strong sexuality, graphic nudity, and language.

David Fincher first solidified himself as a director of merit with the 1995 film, Seven (sorry, Alien 3.) The grimy, atmospheric thriller about a serial killer whose victims exemplified the Biblical seven deadly sins was both a critical and commercial success that catapulted his career into the Hollywood stratosphere. He would return to the murder mystery genre with the 2007 film Zodiac to similar critical albeit less commercial success. Now it’s 2011 and Fincher is once more dipping into the well with The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. Luckily for us, the auteur is as smooth as he's ever been.

His fluidity is reflected most apparently in the camera’s lens. Each shot within the film is meticulously framed and flawlessly executed, rarely relying on the modern convention of handheld cameras. As a result, the camera never bobs or shakes. An uneasy tranquility pervades each and every scene, perfectly capturing the gloomy subject matter.

Nestled snugly within Fincher’s frames is a tight and compelling mystery. Disgraced journalist Mikael Blomkvist (Daniel Craig) is hired by the wealthy and mysterious Henrik Vanger (Christopher Plummer) to investigate the disappearance of his niece, Harriet, who vanished some 40 years ago. And then there’s the titular girl with the dragon tattoo, Lisbeth Salander (Rooney Mara); the woman hired by the Vangers to pull the background check on Blomkvist. Eventually, their paths converge and the mystery kicks in proper; more on that later.

Before they meet we’re treated to a lengthy expository section detailing the backgrounds of both our hero and our heroine (not to mention the loony Vanger family.) During this portion of the film their stories can feel a bit disassociated: Blomkvist is beginning his investigation, and attempting to escape from his libelous past, by moving into a shack on the Vanger family’s personal island. Salander is dealing with the repercussions of the failing health of her legal guardian. The result of which puts her in the “care” of lawyer Niles Bjurman who uses his position of power to sexually abuse her.

Like I said, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo takes longer than most films to build up its momentum but it certainly doesn’t detract from the overall story. It serves as a means to excellent characterization for all parties; the most involving of which is, of course, Salander. Rooney Mara really came out of nowhere to snag the role and it's easy to see why. She’s fierce, fearless, and nothing less than real; able to convey Lisbeth’s inner animosity and instability without sacrificing the vulnerability that defines her pathos.

Her introspection and idiosyncrasies have most likely led to her profession as a computer hacker (and an exceptional one at that.) When Mikael decides that he needs a research assistant, the Vangers naturally inform him of Lisbeth’s expertise. The two then plunge headlong into the absorbing and complex tale of murder and misogyny. It’s fairly disturbing stuff but it’s morbidly fascinating and your investment in the characters ensure your investment in their investigation, along with the dark places it leads them.

See what I mean! No cell phone coverage!

The atmosphere is juxtaposed with a very past-meets-present aesthetic. Lisbeth and Mikael work in old, weathered buildings yet have modern technology at their disposal to aid in their research. They’ll search through dusty, disheveled libraries to find documents and pictures which they’ll scan into their laptops for added utility. It works as a subtle parallel to the Vanger family history and the mystery itself (it may even offer a clue!). As more of the past is brought into the present, more of the enigma is brought to light.  From the opening credits (a visually-arresting scene that plays to Karen O and Trent Reznor's thumping Led Zeppelin cover) to the final scene, it persistently feels like the past is attempting to prevent the characters from pursuing, or submitting to, their future.

There’s an unexpectedly thrilling climax here but it’s almost undone by the prolonged epilogue. It doesn’t exactly bother me. I’m all for closure (which you don’t really get anyway) but I couldn’t help but be taken out of the experience a bit as I watched the film slowly crawl to a close. You reach a point of catharsis and then you’ve got twenty or thirty minutes to go as the movie resolves the unresolved and you twiddle your thumbs.

Minor pacing issues aside, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is a thoroughly engrossing thriller. It’s the rare big-budget film that’s unapologetically made for adults. The central narrative is complex, the characters are morally ambiguous, and the themes are potentially unsettling but, like the biting cold of Sweden, it consumes you. Only in the case of Fincher’s film, you don’t want it to let go.

4 out of 5