Gravity* (2013)

It takes a lot for me to see a film in 3D. To date, this is only the second film I have watched in the 3D format. For most films, 3D is little more than a gimmick and does nothing to enhance the story being told. As with Avatar, this film was made specifically with a 3D presentation in mind. Few films truly merit 3D presentation but Gravity is certainly one of them. I think the film could be just as powerful in 2D but seeing it in 3D provided an even more immersive experience.

Dr. Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock) is a biomedical engineer on a space shuttle mission to make upgrades to some of the Hubble Space Telescope’s delicate instruments. During her spacewalk, a debris field caused by an exploded satellite overtakes Stone, her crew, and their shuttle. Stranded in orbit, Stone and Lt. Matt Kowalski (George Clooney) form a desperate plan to survive.

Some people complain about a lack of plot and I can see why they might think so but I think this may be because they do not share my understanding of what constitutes plot and story. As a story, Gravity is a powerhouse sequence of events. Precious little time is spent on wind-up. In your typical disaster blockbuster, probably a good thirty minutes would be spent introducing us to the characters. Here, we get maybe five minutes before things go haywire. Only after the spectacular opening sequence do we get to know the two surviving characters. Even then, we only learn about the shell-shocked Ryan because Kowalski knows he needs to distract her from the high probability that they are going to die.

But these forced conversations open us up to Ryan’s emotional journey, which I consider the film’s plot. She goes from being terrified and helpless, to mustering the courage to fight for her life, to finding the will to live. She clings to some things as she lets go of others. As in real life, people tend to find out who they are and what they’re made of during times of hardship. In 91 minutes, we witness one woman’s gut-wrenching transformation amidst the most extreme conditions. We get to know Ryan Stone at her worst and at her best and it is so, so powerful to experience.

Sandra Bullock carries this film on her shoulders and makes it look effortless. In reality, she was rigged to a wire harness in a box covered with LED lights. While you might think this film was shot in space or like on a parabolic flight like in Apollo 13, Bullock actually spent almost all of her time as if she were a marionette puppet, with the filmmakers controlling her every move. To be able to give up control of your body while delivering such a frenzied performance is astounding and, for me, this beats even her Oscar-winning performance in The Blind Side.

This movie looks like it was filmed in space. What is most astonishing is that all of the exterior spacewalk sequences are 100% digitally created, save for the actor’s superimposed faces inside the suits. Seeing pictures of the crew filming interior scenes is amazing because you realize just how much detail was added digitally. The end result is gorgeous and marks an enormous leap forward in visual effects. There are a few places where you can spot something that looks a little fake but at least 99% of this film looks real.

Not only does director Alfonso Cuarón create a nearly seamless visual extravaganza, he also employs the 3D format in a way that adds weight to the story being told. I don’t think 3D is essential to telling this story but the added depth of 3D really hammers home just how distant and isolated Stone and Kowalski are from Earth and anyone who can save them. It also enhances a few of the scenes where Stone is fumbling along the outside of a space station or spacecraft trying to achieve her goals. Cuarón likes to put long takes into his films and have the camera follow one character or drift between cameras for minutes on end without cutting. These sequences where the camera follows stone as she maneuvers around and along things are also heightened by 3D.

For a film firmly rooted in science and the here-and-now, Gravity has a moment that is open to debate. Late in the film there is a scene that can be interpreted two ways. It can either be scenes as a biological/physiological phenomenon or it can be interpreted in a spiritual way. I can’t say any more than I already have without spoiling things and I strongly encourage you to see this movie. I appreciated this scene and interpreted it the way my own way. Some may complain that this moment is something of a deus ex machine but I find it beautiful and touching. Without it, Stone’s journey is not complete.

Much like the Lord of the Rings movies did a decade before, Gravity sets a new standard by which to judge visual effects in films. It is also a hair-raising nail-biter that blasts your body with multiple adrenaline rushes. It took me at least an hour to recover from watching this film. All praise is due to Alfonso Cuarón for creating the technology necessary to will his vision onto the big screen. The fact that this film was a technical, critical, and box office triumph shows that Hollywood hasn’t completely run out of ideas yet. I can’t wait to see what Cuarón’s got in store for us next.

RATING: 4.25 out of 5

Leatherheads (2008)

Striving to replicate the mad-cap goofiness of old Hollywood comedy, George Clooney’s third time behind the camera comes up short in a number of areas. Despite a talented cast (including himself), witty dialogue and period-appropriate set pieces, Leatherheads isn’t likely to usher in a new era of old time fun at the cinema.

Maybe it’s the time period the film is set in. Very few people are still around to remember the 1920s. On the other hand, maybe it’s the old-school comedy style. Very few people (and almost no one in the current generation) care for the comedic stylings of the 1930s anymore. Then again, maybe it’s the attempt to bring together the genres of comedy, sports and romance (a tricky trifecta to perfect). Whatever it is, something went wrong with the execution of this film.

George Clooney stars as Jimmy ‘Dodge’ Connelly, a business-minded professional football player whose team is going South. Very few people care about so-called ‘professional’ football because it’s little more than a bunch of men clinging to their college game glory days (if they ever had any, that is). Rather than give up on his dreams of glory and fame, Dodge draws up a scheme to lure college star and World War I hero Carter Rutherford, animatedly played by John Krasinski, to his team.

Rutherford balks at the notion because there is no money in professional football and he’s getting dozens of job offers a day as his college career winds down. Dodge sweet-talks him into joining by promising that people will care when they find out he’s playing and the stands will be filled on a weekly basis. Tension mounts on the field as Dodge attempts to bend the kid to his will when it comes to plays but Rutherford takes advantage of his star situation to take the reigns on play-calling. Tension also mounts off the field as a hot-to-trot reporter (Renée Zellweger) looking to deconstruct the myth that is Carter Rutherford gives the footballers something else to fight over.

There are a lot of interesting things going on in Leatherheads, so it’s a shame that the dots never get fully connected. First, there’s a cynical look at the way the media all but creates heroes for the sake of propaganda and morale-boosting. There could also be analysis of the intersection of greed, obsession and pride. Thirdly, there’s a generation gap tale to be told. Lastly, we’ve got a semi-historical glimpse at the early days of professional American football.

So what goes wrong with this film? While there is some genuinely funny writing, all too often the pacing is wrong. Sometimes there is just too much time between lines while other times the back-and-forth is too quick to believe or even digest. This may be a side-effect of most of the characters being relatively paper thin. Motives are made known early on and no extra depth is needed or given. This fact stands out because there are plenty of times where members of the cast don’t seem comfortable in their roles.

While there no question that chemistry exists between the actors, the disconnect between the players and their roles hampers the effectiveness of the characters and is probably the main reason for all the faltering humor. When the actors aren’t even sure if their characters think a line is funny, how can they possibly convey that to the audience? Clooney knows what he’s doing and gives a deft performance but, just like Dodge, he can be a little overbearing and the laugh lines he delivers feel forced.

John Krasinski has a bright career ahead of him but he would probably be wise to stop his agent from landing him the role of the young cute guy. While he was still in his late 20s at the time of filming, he doesn’t look like a young man anymore. Zellweger does her best with the material but it’s far from one of her more memorable roles.

In fact, this film, despite having a lot of positive things going for it, isn’t as memorable as it could have and should have been. Maybe Clooney needs another go at the madcap comedy genre to get it right. Maybe he should avoid the genre altogether. Whatever the case may be, Leatherheads, while appreciable at best, is not the romantic sports comedy anyone thought it would be.

RATING: 3 out of 5

Syriana (2005)

This is a unique ensemble film that shows just how dangerous and interconnected the world of terrorism, politics and oil can be. Several well known actors appear throughout that film and there are a good number of impressive performances by people I had not seen before.

On the whole, it’s a challenging watch. You have to take mental notes in order to follow the story from start to finish. If you aren’t alert enough, you’ll become confused when the individual stories begin to overlap and converge.

Gripping and tense, Syriana may come off as too political for some, but that’s not the point of the film. It’s just using a fictional story to highlight the complex relationships that come along with dependence on oil.

It does begin to feel a little long-winded by the final reel, but if you stick with it, you’ll be left with plenty to ponder about.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5

Good Night, and Good Luck* (2005)

It’s a rare treat to find a film about historical events that parallels modern times without seeming arrogant and egotistical about it. A diamond in the rough has surely been found with Good Night, and Good Luck.

Director George Clooney wants you to see the parallel between the McCarthy era witch hunt for communists and the post-9/11 era witch hunt against anyone voicing dissent against the government, branding them “unpatriotic.” However, I got the sense that, as bad as Clooney wants viewers to see the parallel, he doesn’t go overboard. If you don’t pick it up, you’re still going to get a strong idea about the tenacity and vileness of Senator Joseph McCarthy’s tactics. It seems Clooney figures that if you can’t infer the parallel, you’ll at least get a history lesson, hopefully preventing us from sliding into repeating this awful past. It’s a good stance to take.

It’s not preachy and it’s not simplistic. The film is shot in glorious black and white, allowing some of the best use of contrast I’ve ever seen. The blacks are deeply black and the whites and lights stand out against them like a full moon against the night sky. This all works to Clooney’s benefit. The story motors right along and doesn’t really leave you with a traditional ending. Not everything is resolved picture perfect, but that’s life, and the struggle goes on to this day.

Memorably written and expertly shot, George Clooney continues to win me over. While this would have been a controversial pick for Best Picture, I actually think it was more deserving than Crash.

RATING: 4.25 out of 5

Batman & Robin (1997)

I used to dislike George Clooney when I was younger. I don't recall why, but I did. I used to think that George Clooney left a near-permanent stain on the Batman franchise. Having seen Clooney in films with good writing that allows his charm and acting chops to shine, I realize that Batman & Robin nearly left a permanent stain on Clooney’s career.

Batman Forever was the first Batman film I ever saw and I foolishly held it to be the standard for many years. My mistake. This film probably has more in common with the Adam West series than the comic books. Arnold Schwarzenegger seems like an interesting choice for Mr. Freeze- large, dangerous, but fragile. Then you hear the lines he is given.

Between the writing, Uma Thurman’s Poison Ivy and her henchman, the film is virtually impossible to save. A story about Mr. Freeze is unique enough, because he has a rich back story, and that’s why I don’t rate this film lower. The potential is there. The execution is not. Joel Schumacher camps up the series even further and adds unnecessary camera angles, set pieces and lighting to create a Gotham City and a Batman that nobody can believe in.

Two questions remain in my mind: 1) Why exactly was Batgirl in this movie? and 2) Who’s idea was it to put nipples on the Batsuit?

RATING: 1.5 out of 5