Monday, October 14, 2013

Rant #1,062: "Gravity" Has Weight

My family and I went to the movies yesterday.

We often don't do this for a variety of reasons, first and foremost being that today's movies, with all of their technical prowess, have generally lost their way with stories.

Filmmaker have forgotten how to tell stories in current movies.

Also, the price is so high for tickets that you can spend $50 for just two hours worth of entertainment, and it just isn't worth it.

Just when I get sour on movies, a film came out nearly two weeks ago that knocks my reasoning on its ear, and that film is "Gravity."

The film has just two stars: Sandra Bullock and George Clooney.

It is the number one film in the world right now, and for good reason.

He plays the experienced astronaut, she the tyro (a great word that nobody uses), and they are out on a space walk trying to repair the Hubble Telescope.

Suddenly, space debris hits them, and Bullock loses her attachment, and is literally floating in space.

The next nearly 90 minutes--yes, the film is a short one, long on story, short on length--basically shows her trying to get back to some type of control of herself in space and with her life.

I am trying not to give too much away, but with the help of Clooney, she comes to terms with both of those goals.

We are taken on a whirlwind tour of outer space, both through Bullock's eyes and as an observer, and it is pretty harrowing.

We get the sense of weightlessness while sitting firmly in our movie seats, and we see the terror on Bullock's face as she works her way to a dramatic conclusion.

My family and I saw it in 3D, and the theater that we saw it in didn't charge that much more for these tickets than for normal tickets.

Has the price of 3D movies come down because people simply aren't going to them as they had?

I don't know, but that was certainly a welcome site. I had expected to pay about $40 for the three of us, but it was quite a bit less.

Anyway, the 3D does add to the film.

Sure, you see the requisite things coming toward you, but it also gives you a third dimension to watching the astronauts float through space, often unbridled.

A lot of people are knocking the film because it isn't scientifically accurate--for one, they say that Bullock's tears would not be floating as they were--but to that, I say a big "Hooey!"

Is "Iron Man" scientifically accurate?

Heck, is the way people behave in modern films accurate? Does anyone actually behave like this in real life?

Throw that nonsense out the window--Astronaut Buzz Aldrin enjoyed the film, and if he can give it a thumb's up from his perspective, that is good enough for me.

The only negative is Clooney. His character, well, he pretty much plays George Clooney in space, and that can be annoying.

But the film is Bullock's, not his, and so that knock really isn't that great, certainly not a major distraction to take away from the glory of this film.

If you see one film this year--and I think my family has only seen maybe three movies because they are mainly garbage and a waste of money--see this film.

"Gravity," at least in my eyes, has weight, a lot of weight, and when Oscar time comes, for whatever that is worth, it is going to be getting lots of statues, and they won't be floating aimlessly in space.

1 comment:

  1. I will take issue with your "Iron Man" analogy. That movie was pure comic book fantasy. "Gravity" purports to be based in reality. However, whenever I've read a scientist's comments about the film's inaccuracies, the person making the comment usually concludes "But I loved the movie."

    I also disagree with you about Clooney. He was definitely playing something out of "Space Cowboys" and it was so appropriate.

    Definitely a film worth tge extra cost fir Imax 3D.



yasmin lawsuit