Gravity - Doesn't fall flat

Gravity
Directed by Alfonso Cuarón
Written by Alfonso Cuarón and Jonas Cuarón
Released Oct 4, 2013

Reviewed by Ann Wilkes


Gravity, starring Sandra Bullock and George Clooney was much better than I expected. Honestly, after seeing the preview, I expected something like Castaway with Tom Hanks. One of those soul-searching, endlessly long waiting games. The trailer doesn't leave much to go on.

Debris hits the International Space Station after the Russians decommission one of their own satellites with a missile. Two astronauts, who were EVA, Ryan and Matt, survive the accident, but with the ISS trashed, they're on their own. Mission control, due to a chain reaction from the debris hitting other satellites in the same orbit, has gone silent. Matt and Ryan, stranded in space, with no help from below, did anything but wait for rescue. The suspense in this flick was non-stop.

Though there were a lot of "no way" moments, the story was a good one and the acting drew me in and made me forget the plot holes. But I'll still list some. ;) I didn't buy Matt's rationale for letting go when he did. Maybe they only paid Clooney for x amount of scenes. Seriously. Don't want to spoil it for you, but when you get there, you'll know what I mean. In fact, if you want to talk more and don't mind the spoilers because you've already seen it, or you just don't mind spoilers, read more in my comment below.

It was also way too full of coincidences, but I'll let that go for the sake of a good yarn. The distances seemed a bit far-fetched, or rather, not far enough fetched. Also, I wanted to yell at Ryan to calm down and quit using so much oxygen. Don't they teach astronauts any meditation or other calming techniques for when they need to reserve oxygen? And then Matt should have been making sure she's conscious now and then, but not making her talk more. Yeah, maybe that was to calm her down, but she still used more oxygen doing most of the talking.

Sandra Bullock delivered a believable, touching performance of an IT specialist on her first space mission. Though she admitted to being close to losing her cookies most of the mission, when spun at high speed in free-fall, she amazingly held it together. Hmmmmm.

Clooney played the cool veteran, enjoying tootling around with his suit jets, making fun of their fellow space walker (before the accident, obviously).  Post-accident, he kept Ryan focused and remained calm, if not a bit too lackadaisical. Stereotypical hot-dogging pilot, only in space. Not sure he was the pilot, but you get the idea. Not too complex. Ryan, on the other hand, has an interesting backstory.  I won't spoil that for you.

In the final analysis, I'd say this is a worthwhile movie and definitely one to see on the big screen. Don't forget to check out my comment below if you don't mind spoilers. I'm hoping to actually get a lively discussion going on that point. Come back here after you've seen the movie and weigh in.

Europa Report - an intimate look at space exploration

EUROPA REPORT
Release Date: Aug 2, 2013
Director: Sebastián Cordero
Review by Emily Bettencourt

The exploration of new galaxies, trips to new planets, and the existence of alien life are all concepts that have a well-earned place on the shelf of science fiction classics. I was somewhat doubtful that Europa Report could deliver the space journey story in a new way.

The film, directed by Sebastián Cordero, is billed as a documentary-style science fiction thriller, which charts the journey of a privately funded spacecraft exploring the icy surface of Europa, Jupiter's moon. After a catastrophic technical failure and a loss of communication with Earth, the astronauts must complete their mission alone, and survive both the toll of deep-space travel and the discovery they make on Europa.

It's the documentary styling that makes Europa Report unique. It doesn't quite fit into the found-footage genre, but the film does rely heavily on a sense of realism provided by fixed onboard cameras—a rare move in a genre dominated largely by sweeping camera angles and grand storytelling. The onboard camera footage provides both a window into the daily lives of the crew members and a means for them to tell their own stories, in the form of recorded video logs.

This realism is also where much of the tension in the film has its origins. The cameras record every aspect of the crew's daily life, which gives viewers access to even the most tedious details of their routines—a trick which could be grating, if done poorly, but one which Europa Report handles remarkably well. The psychological and physical costs of deep-space travel are not so difficult to imagine when the viewer has such direct access to the astronauts' daily lives. 

Another of the film's strengths is its cast, comprised equally of familiar and unfamiliar faces, all of whom delivery a cohesive and powerful performance. Some more familiar names may include Michael Nyqvist (of Millennium Trilogy fame), Daniel Xu, and Christian Camargo, as well as Sharlto Copley, Karolina Wydra, and Anamaria Marinca. Although some characters have more screen time than others, the actors work well to deliver an impressively convincing portrayal of a group of people trapped in a tiny space, alternately cooperating and annoying each other.

The third area in which Europa Report excels is in the science and the attention to detail that went into it. The filmmakers worked with NASA/Jet Propulsion Laboratories, SpaceX, and more in order to most accurately depict what a mission to Europa would look like—from the surface of the moon itself, to the spacecraft necessary to get there, to the life that they may or may not find on the surface. The structure of the spacecraft's design comes from NASA research and development archives, and the creature models were created with the help of leading astrobiologists. As a result, the world that Europa Report inhabits is full of rich detail, creating a plausible, mind-blowing experience.

However, I did have one major nitpick. The film's documentary style is framed by sets of interviews, with staff and scientists from the company that funded the Europa mission. However, the film itself seemed to be an attempt at an in-media-res telling, but with little logic and in no particular order. The sequences of events felt choppy and disjointed. Catastrophic events happened to characters that I had not yet become attached to. This may be a style that some viewers have no difficulty following, but I found myself confused in many places and, unfortunately, my confusion remained at film's end.

Europa Report certainly succeeds at being a unique approach to the space odyssey story, with its documentary-style film-making and the sparse, even bleak storytelling. Despite its (in my opinion) flawed chronology, it was still an interesting, at times heartbreaking, and often armrest-gripping flick that I would recommend to anyone who enjoys the space exploration genre.

Monsters! Robots! Monsters vs. robots!

 
Pacific Rim

Review by Lyda Morehouse 

Release date: July 12, 2013

Director: Guillermo Del Toro

On the drive to the theatre to see Pacific Rim, I told my friends, “You know what I want this movie to be?  Monsters! Robots! Monsters vs. Robots!”

One-hundred and thirty-one minutes later, I nodded sagely and pronounced gleefully, “There were monsters! There were robots!  They fought!”

What I loved about Pacific Rim is that Guillermo Del Toro didn’t even pretend that wasn’t exactly the sort of movie he set out to make.  Before we even see the movie title credits we’re thrown into a montage that explains everything we need to know: for reasons unknown (and who cares!?), alien monsters started rising out of a rift/wormhole in the Pacific and humanity bonded together to create giant robots to stop them from stomping Tokyo (and Sidney, San Francisco, etc.) to smithereens (never mind that our giant robots do at least as much damage, because: Monsters! Robots! Monsters vs. Robots!)

The story rather foolishly, in my opinion, follows our handsome, indistinguishable dude-hero, Raleigh Becket (Charlie Hunnam) as he falls from grace as a jaegger, a monster/kaiju hunter (aka robot driver), when a mission goes horribly wrong.  Eventually, and as a surprise to no one but our hero, Raleigh is called back to action when the kaiju mysteriously power-up and he is needed.  Having lost his jaegger partner, he’s paired up with Mako Mori (Rinko Kikuchi), a sexy badass with a mysterious past and a controlling father-figure.

For my money, Mako would have made a better main character.  I found her back story compelling and her moment of honor and revenge was by far the most emotionally satisfying and visually awesome (swords!) part of the movie.  My only other disappointment of the movie was that Mako didn’t get to beat her own apology out of the indistinguishable jackass rival-character.

There were side plots involving somewhat mad scientists and Ron Perlman being awesome in gold-plated shoes.

My only true caveat about Pacific Rim is that I think it appeals most to either serious or casual fans of the kaiju genre (which is all the Godzilla films as well as some others.)  I fall into the casual fan category, but, on the flipside, I’m a big shonen manga/anime fan. I will happily watch hours and hours of movies and TV shows that involve fight scene after fight scene where our clichéd hero powers-up and shouts things like “Thundercloud formation!”  (an actual moment in Pacific Rim, by the way, but not done by our hero.)  I’ve been told by people much more knowledgeable about such things than I, that there are not only a ton of homages to the original Godzilla films, but also moments that will feel gleefully familiar to fans of Mazinger Z, Mobile Suit Gundam and Zeta Gundam, Evangelion.

But, all that being said, I went along with one friend who was bored almost to tears by Pacific Rim, because it wasn’t her thing. The idea of “Monsters! Robots! Monsters and Robots!” was not enough for her.  She wanted decent dialogue, a bit of humor, characters to care about, and maybe, you know, a story.

Eh, whatever.  We agreed to disagree about Pacific Rim. Because: Swords! Acid spitting kaiju! Elbow rockets!  Wing-sprouting monsters!

And . . . did I mention?  There were monsters!  There were robots!  They fought!

Latest Spiderman Movie Deserves to be First

The Amazing Spider-Man   

Released July 3, 2012  (USA)

Review by Karina Fabian

My family loves superhero movies.  We saw Avengers on opening day and some of us have gone back to see it again and again.  Captain America and Iron Man get replayed on DVD, and Liam just got IronMan socks for his birthday.  Batman, unfortunately, has gotten too dark, but we enjoyed the movies for awhile.

When it comes to Spiderman, though, the reigning opinion has been “Maybe on Netflix.”  However, when the latest version, starring Andrew Garfield as Spiderman, and with Gwen Stacey (Emma Stone) as his love interest instead of Mary Jane, came out, we decided to give it a chance.  Frankly, the trailer where Spidey takes on the carjacker had sold us—here at last was a Spiderman who had some fun! 

Knowing that they were probably rebooting in order to introduce him to the Avengers later in the series, we went in with high hopes—and weren’t disappointed.

SPOILER ALERT, though I’ll try to be vague.

The thing we loved most about this version was its believable, three-dimensionality of characters.  Peter was not just a whiny nerd-genius stereotype sating his guilt by avenging the death of his Uncle Ben.  Instead, he was a shy, socially awkward, smart kid.  As Amber put it, “I know these kind of guys!”  The scene when he has dinner with Gwen’s family and gets into an argument about Spiderman with her Police Chief father is very well done—especially in the way what Capt Stacy says effects his character growth later on.  The other great thing (as seen by my kids even more than me) is how the mask gave him confidence.  You could even hear it in his voice—he was louder, deeper and surer of his words.  He became the smart-alecking Spiderman we know and love in the comic books.

(There was one faux pas in the character development, however.  I have been informed by my teenage daughter that no “sciencey geek” of her generation would use Bing.  Product placement fail?)  

Uncle Ben and Aunt May had a wonderful relationship—and not just the two-dimensional “Love you always.”  I think my favorite couple’s line is when May grumbles, “Why didn’t you tell me you didn’t like my meatloaf?  Thirty-seven years of marriage!  How many meatloaves did I make you?”  The best part is how she’s walking away when she says the last—just a very natural exasperation.    Uncle Ben is much more believable—he gets frustrated, tries to keep his temper, and the scene where he is killed exemplifies who he was as a man—someone trying to do right rather than a random victim.

Gwen works better than MJ as a girlfriend, I think.  It was nice to see a heroine comfortable in her home, supporting her boyfriend, showing some spunk—and not clueless!  Thank you for a girlfriend who wasn’t clueless!

My favorite side character is Flash--the jock bully who becomes a Spidey fanboy.  From the beginning, he is not seen as a cardboard cutout, and the scene when he tried to express his sympathy to Peter after Uncle Ben dies was one of the most real of the movie. 

Dr. Curt Connors, who became the Lizard, was not money-hungry, fame-mongering—or even desperate to use the formula for his own benefit.  He’s actually a scientist who tries to stay ethical until the genetic soup drives him insane.  The thing about Spiderman I like is that you have ordinary people pushed into extraordinary situations, and this movie stays true to that.

The plot is your typical Genesis-of-Spiderman plot: nerdy boy gets spider bite; uncle delivers the “responsibility” speech then dies because nerdy boy doesn’t listen; nerdy boy dons suit to fight crime while supervillian discovers the key to his powers; big fight scene where nerdy boy proves his stuff and truly becomes Spiderman.  Having Gwen (who was his original girlfriend) mixes things up, but what really made this movie enjoyable is that all the elements play more naturally and believably—and as a result, you get caught up in the story rather than the action.

Overall four stars of five.  This is what the Spiderman movie should have been to begin with.

On IN TIME and suspending disbelief

I watched In Time and it spurred a whole host of questions in my mind. This is definitely a movie where you have to check your brain at the door. But what is it about some movies that make that harder than others? The movies that are obviously not trying to be serious are easier. We can suspend our disbelief for our favorite comic superhero or super heroine. We just want to watch him or her fight bad guys with slick, fun-to-watch skills.

When it comes to science fiction, it's a little trickier. I think the first thing is that the premise has to be somewhat in the ballpark of feasible, right? Or is it just that even if it's too far out there, it has to have logical rules?

In In Time, time is a commodity. Everyone is born with (or inserted with at birth? - not quite clear) a subcutaneous clock on their arm. They have 26 years on the clock. They live for 25 and then the clock "starts." People exchange time on their clocks for services and goods. When their clock starts at 25, they stop aging. But if they don't earn more time to add to their clocks, they'll quickly use the year they start with long before that year is up.

At first glance, it's an interesting premise. It puts a whole new spin on “Time is Money.” It plays to our dual desire to live forever and never age.

In the In Time society, there are time zones - but not like we have today. These zones are to separate the classes. And apparently the powerful system that governs society can raise the cost of living in the zones of the lower classes at will, causing the clocks of those unfortunates to run out. The script suggests that many must die for a few to live forever. But how does the death of some poor soul increase the amount of "time" available to the rich? That’s never explained.

Transactions are conducted by grasping each others arms and magically, the correct amount is transferred sans device. And never is their a suggestion that anyone would take more, even though some are mugged or timed out by thugs or well-dressed, greedy people.

And if this can be done person-to-person and is all digital, what’s with the clunky cases that have a concave edge that fits over the arm to download or upload time? I suspect they’re a device to enhance the whole Bonnie and Clyde thing that the co-stars have going on. A bank robbery isn’t as exciting if you can’t take stuff out of a physical vault. And didn't I see this on the news in the 70s? Her name was Patty Hearst.

What's with the old-fashioned rotary (or perhaps push button) phones again? Is writer/director Andrew Niccol a Battlestar Galactica fan?

And puzzle me these…

If Will Salas (played by Justin Timberlake) and his mother (Olivia Wilde) are so short on time and in debt, where did she get all those fancy, new-looking clothes?

What society would stand by and put up with prices going up arbitrarily on everyday services without any advanced warning? They may be the powerless, lower classes, but they are still the masses! The rich are afraid of accidental death and the poor have nothing to lose.

What's with the women always running (and very well) in high heels? OK, this is just a personal pet peeve that spans all genres.

Wouldn't looking exactly the same all your long life be a little boring? I'm surprised they don't do things to alter their looks in other ways to break the monotony.

The flashing lights on the retro cop cars are too close to the edge of the windshield. That would distract the heck out of the driver. Just saying.

Speaking of the cars…what fuels them? Still using fossil fuels in this advanced medical-manipulation age?

That’s another thing. It seems like the time thing is the ONLY advancement. How likely is that?

The life clocks have to be part software - or wetware. Where are the hackers?

Was I just in a bad mood that night, unwilling to just park my brain and enjoy? Or was it the inconsistencies? I loved Logan’s Run (the 1976 movie based on a similar premise) and didn’t get bent out of shape over the mysterious tech. I can’t wait to see MIB III. I do know how to shut my brain down and enjoy. Why couldn’t I this time?

What makes it hard for you to suspend disbelief? What makes it easier? Let the discussion begin!

TRON Legacy - First Glimpse

I drove down to San Francisco last night for a screening (23+ minutes of scenes from the first half) of TRON Legacy in 3D IMAX. Before the lights went out and the glasses went on, director Joseph Kosinski took questions from the audience -- most of which he didn't answer except to say we'd have to wait till the movie came out. A few people managed to ask questions he would answer.

From the first story session with Kosinski in September 2007, the movie was intended for 3D rather than adapted as such after the fact. It's more expensive to produce, but it presents this classic to its full potential. "The first TRON set the bar very high," Kosinski said. "It is more time and effort, but we think it will pay off in the end."

He also pointed out that you don't have to have seen TRON to follow the movie. TRON Legacy "is a stand-alone sequel." The musical score was composed by Daft Punk and recording was completed, with a full orchestra, in London a couple of weeks ago.

In TRON Legacy, Jeff Bridges reprises his role as Kevin Flynn -- and also plays his own nemesis, Clu 2.0. In the first scene of the preview, Sam's apartment, we find Flynn's son Sam driving his motor bike (that probably costs more than our two cars combined) into a cargo container makeshift abode. Sam, played by Garrett Hedlund, closes the garage door behind him and reaches for a cold one from the retro fridge and tosses his pug the rest of his fries. The place looked like something the Forgotten Man would come up with. It's only redeeming feature is the waterfront view.

He's visited by a friend of his Dad, Alan Brady, who claims to have received a page - yes page - from Sam's Dad originating from his office at the arcade that had been disconnected 20 years before. Sam doesn't need to live in his hovel. Apparently, he owns a Fortune 500 company he has no interest in running. Sam's character is a spoiled twenty-something dripping with teenage angst and abandonment issues. It was a little over the top. Alan tosses Sam the keys to his Dad's arcade and so the adventure -- and the eye candy -- begins.

Of course, in the program, it's still the future imagined (by a man) in the 80s complete with female "programs" in platform heels assigned to disrobing Sam and outfitting him for play in the game. 80s icons are interspersed here and there. In the game, death is spelled D E R E S. Players lose resolution. The CGI does not disappoint and the 3D effects during the game scenes really pop.

Sam is inserted as a player in the game and manages to survive long enough for his father's friend? assistant? Quorra to find him and bring him back for the big reunion with Dad. Sam's in the passenger seat of this high tech vehicle not knowing who is behind the helmet driving the car with precision and ease. Quorra evades their pursuers and takes the car "off the grid" where they can't follow.

When asked if there would be a sequel to TRON Legacy, Kosinski said, "That's not up to me to decide. That's up to you guys." Of course, there isn't just a movie. TRON Evolution, the video game, releases on Dec. 7 and is available for pre-order now. All game-related assets from the movie will be handed over to the game folks.

TRON Legacy premieres on Dec. 17. Watch trailers, enter sweepstakes, play the video game, etc. at http:disney.go.com/tron. I'm a fan of TRON and after just 23 minutes, I'm a TRON Legacy fan as well.