Gravity debris

Gravity movie review – It’s no 2001: A Space Odyssey

Gravity debris
Gravity collision in outer space

Gravity fails to inspire

If you’re planning on seeing Gravity, directed by Alfonso Cuaron, you might want to read this review first. As most of you cinema fans know, the American movie industry is based largely on hype. In order to generate that hype, you have sites like Rotten Tomatoes, which amalgamates a bunch of national movie critic reviews to provide a percentage of what critics overall think of the movie.  It also includes fan reviews. But the emphasis is first placed on what the national movie critics think. Critics definitely influence the fate of movies and how well or poorly they will do at the box office. Movies that tank are often the butt of jokes and movie critics themselves get their share of the blame by producers who feel their film was never given a chance.

But back to Gravity. The visuals are, for the most part, spectacular on the big screen. I felt like I was floating in outer space and nauseous at the same time. Director Alfonso Cuaron certainly does his best to use technology as a means of capturing the story of our two beloved astronauts at the center of the picture, George Clooney (Lt. Kowalski) and Sandra Bullock (mission specialist Stone). George plays a cowboy’esque astronaut; he’s quick to raddle off tails of his escapades back on Earth to alleviate the boredom of his spacewalk. I can’t recall the last time an astronaut was ever bored in outer space. He comes across as a smart-ass. If I were an astronaut, I’d be insulted by Clooney’s performance.

Now I’m not sure what astronauts are like in outer space and I’d be very curious to hear recorded conversations between NASA headquarters and the astronauts in space to get an idea of just how chummy the communications are. But by any stretch of the imagination, Lt. Kowalski’s personality is a real turn-off. He’s the “know it all” so when the proverbial sh-t hits the fan, he’s the one that will lead the rescue of himself and Bullock. Well that’s not exactly how it goes and I won’t go into greater detail about how Bullock saves herself but the repartee between both characters had a false ring to it.

When astronauts travel to outer space together don’t they know a little bit about the background of each other? I’ve got to believe they do and yet we have Clooney peppering Bullock with questions about her family life back in Illinois when her oxygen levels are dropping precipitously. Why would Lt. Kowalski knowingly endanger Stone’s life by asking her more questions when she should be slowing down her breathing and not be talking at all?

Stone, as played by Bullock, is more realistic. She’s doing her best to not vomit while performing her duties nearly 400 miles above the Earth’s atmosphere. There’s nothing to dislike about Stone but then you keep asking yourself is there anything special about her? Not sure there is.  Bullock displays adequate relief and drama as things progressively worsen for her. But by the film’s conclusion, I was sort of like, thanks Hollywood, I know how this one is going to end.

In space no one can you hear vomit

At 372 miles above the Earth

There is nothing to carry sound

No air pressure

No oxygen

My expectations for Gravity had me thinking that I was going to be overwhelmed by the gigantic universe. And in a way I was but at the same time director Alfonso Cuaron performs the cardinal sin.  In outer space, there is no sound. No oxygen. There is silence. But throughout the entire movie, Cuaron actually plays sound. As if it was necessary? If any one of you reading this now ever watched 2001: A Space Odyssey, you will remember that the scenes taking place in outer space were DEVOID of any sound! It was creepy!

But in Gravity, we’ve got sound; we also have synthesizer music that tries to heighten the level of tension. It’s absolutely ruinous to the film’s drama. I’m not sure what prompted Cuaron to provide a soundtrack but this film would have been so much more memorable if there had been NONE. Imagine, you’re watching mission specialist Stone fighting to survive in outer space and all you can do is watch and you can’t hear a pin drop!

Much of Gravity is based upon a series of calamities. Things just get worse and worse for our astronauts once they have been notified by Mission control that a shower of debris is heading their way. We see in slow motion just how powerful the collisions are and I can’t imagine why visuals alone wouldn’t be sufficient to keep your attention. But Cuaron insists upon a soundtrack and suddenly we are taken away from outer space and brought back down to some studio somewhere on planet earth where a composer is fiddling around on some MacBook Pro figuring out what sounds can be made to fit the disaster on screen.

The casting of movie stars did little to enhance Gravity

Movie critics like Mick Lasalle of the San Francisco Chronicle couldn’t rave enough about the casting in Gravity. I’m not sure why they fell in love with the acting in this film. As previously mentioned, Clooney’s macho bit was obnoxious. Bullock did surprise me. I’ve never liked her voice or her acting. But she does an adequate job here. Not that the dialogue she’s given was believable in the slightest. Talk about family and children just seems trite even in outer space. Screenwriter Jonas Cuaron had to come up with something for our astronauts to say but I think he misses the boat. Bullock, when alone in her capsule, adequately expresses her fear of dying. In a funny moment, Clooney appears out of nowhere and we expect him to “save the day.” Alas, it’s only a dream. The thing is, did I really care if Bullock was going to make it or not? When you watch the ending of the film, you might actually have a good laugh instead of the catharsis you were hoping for.

I don’t think the casting of Clooney or Bullock was in anyway inspired.

Time to revisit 2001: A Space Odyssey

Back in 1968, no one was prepared for the “Space Odyssey” that Stanly Kubrick brought to the screen. In particular, the battle between HAL and astronaut Dave Bowman was scary and watching HAL kill off one of the astronauts was positively frightening. And guess what?  There is NO SOUND IN OUTER SPACE. Watch this clip to remind yourself of just how powerful a scene this was not only then but to this day. I can tell you that Gravity doesn’t even come close to matching the drama of this one scene alone.

Let’s do away with the Hollywood soundtrack and SOUND IN SPACE

When I read all of the ridiculous reviews praising this film’s grandeur and inspired casting, I’m reminded why it’s so beneficial to be a student of history. You can research and identify what films have come before that tackled similar subject matter. 2001: A Space Odyssey was a more honest attempt at capturing drama in outer space. Director Alfonso Cuaron missed the opportunity to create a dramatic film without the Hollywood varnish. He blew it. We not only get an artificial soundtrack but we know that Sandra Bullock will survive.

If you’re like me, you don’t go see movies to make you feel good. You go see films to be riveted, captivated, and drawn into something that makes you forget it’s only a movie. It’s a movie that doesn’t come rapped with a bow tie. I can’t say Hollywood makes too many of those. Films that make you forget they are films are an endangered species.

For those who go to the movies to simply turn off your brains than by all means go see Gravity and be enthralled by the large scale visuals of floating in outer space above planet Earth. But for those who see films to be both entertained AND engaged than you require just a bit more truth, profundity, and less Hollywood contrivance.  In particular, let’s do away with the Hollywood soundtrack. Let’s do away with the artificiality of soundtracks, meaning synthesizer-oriented sounds that are clearly added to height the drama, which a film, if it’s a great story to begin with, doesn’t need.  The human drama provides plenty of soundtrack until itself without the need for an artificial one.

Digiprove sealCopyright secured by Digiprove © 2013-2014 Byron Gordon

7 thoughts on “Gravity movie review – It’s no 2001: A Space Odyssey

  1. I couldn’t agree more. He opens the film by stating there’s no sound in space and throughout, there’s music. endless music and it had the effect of taking me out of her situation. I’d love to see a version without the soundtrack I think it would be far superior. The other niggle…why couldn’t Stone’s back story not be as a mother, why couldn’t she be a career scientist, you know, just to be different. When she began to relate her story to Kowalski, my eyes rolled. As such the casting didn’t bother me, but I think you made some good points. So, thank you, your review is the first one I read where the music was totally and utterly redundant.

    1. Thanks for the comment! I’m glad someone else agrees with my sentiments about the soundtrack. For the record, I hate just about any soundtrack in films today. They are almost all extraneous, superfluous, and actually showcase the weakness of the script because the director feels a soundtrack is necessary to augment the drama.

  2. Hi there

    Thanks for some interesting comments. I agree that 2001 is leagues above Gravity. One reason- 2001 was made in 1968 and some of the visuals technologically rival films made (Gravity in this case) nearly 50 years later. Obviously there are some allusions to 2001 in Gravity. The theme of rebirth etc- the foetal position scene. Regarding Gravity s soundtrack I agree a lot of space scenes had a poor accompaniment musically but the end scenes with that pulsating musical score were fantastic. To conclude who will ever better 2001’s philosophy, depth and genius and vision? To say Gravity is a poor film would be unfair. It’s a fine work. One worthy of best Director Oscar at this year’s awards.

    1. Thanks for the comments, Mark. I’m glad you understood my complaints about this film. Maybe saying it’s a poor film was my way of forcing the viewer to evaluate a little closer just what made this film so popular, as opposed to actually a “fine piece of work.” I’m not sure I agree with your definition. For a hollywood disaster epic, yeah, I guess this is a fine piece of work. I don’t think it merits a best director oscar but it does what it’s supposed to do, in the end. Entertain. I just think it would have been a better film all together if the director had bothered to really study 2001 he might have done some things differently.

  3. I completely agree. I saw Gravity in the theater and I thought it was pretty good. But I was NOT expecting it to win so many god damn Oscars. I mean, for gods sakes…it seems like it was winning every other Oscar they were handing out. Why can’t the academy spread their praise out a little? It’s not as though we’ve never seen outer space in a movie before!

    I could go on to say why 2001: A Space Odyssey is a better film in terms of philosophy, evolution, science and empowering detail. But that would take ages. So I’m just going to end this by saying, yes….Gravity was fine, but as you put: It’s certainly no 2001. And it never will be. The fact that it won more Oscars than 2001 enrages me to no end.

    1. Thanks for the comments, Sarah. I’m in complete agreement with you. The fact that it won so many Oscars annoyed me. But to top it off, an Oscar for best director? Come on. This is a hollywood disaster film, like so many that have preceded it before and will be made again. It will never a 2001 because that was not its attention. Like I said, this was an OK film but the over the top accolades it received were completely without merit. I have no desire to purchase the DVD.

Comments are closed.