C.H.U.D.

Cannibalistic Humanoid Underground Dweller. Or, if you prefer, Contamination Hazard Urban Disposal.

Wow, where to even begin with this one.

I caught this one on Netflix a few weeks back. It kept creeping into my Top 10, so I figured what the hell. Going into it, I expected something equivalent to The Toxic Avenger, with Citizen Toxie being shallowly replaced by equally absurd, low-budget, 80s-style monsters. What exactly was the fascination with toxic waste back then? Big globs of oozing, green-glowing barrels with skulls and cross-bones on them? Yikes.

Anyways, this flick turned out to be a complete surprise. And dare I say it, a pretty damn good one. It certainly had the B-movie aspect of, well yea, cannibalistic humanoid monsters living in the sewers. But the build-up to it, the colorful characters, their lives and problems, were definitely more interesting than I was expecting. There's Cooper, a photographer and young husband. He and his wife are dealing with typical young couple stuff, like living in an apartment and starting a family. Meanwhile, his photography subjects -- homeless people from around the city -- ask him for help with weird things going on in the subways, where they live. Then there's 'The Reverend', a one-man soup kitchen, who also gets involved with the strange occurrences. Lastly, we have Bosch, a cop whose wife, like so many others lately, has disappeared and is presumed dead. He is forbidden by his superiors to investigate any of the missing persons, but becomes increasingly desperate and defiant as the mystery unravels.

The monsters themselves are relatively unimaginative and are not particularly scary, out of context (like when one tries to break into Cooper's apartment). It's more of the idea that there's malevolent creatures living under the city, perhaps just a few feet from that subway platform, hiding in the shadows. But overall, I would say the monsters are the least terrifying part of the film. What I found particularly disturbing was the state of New York City in the '80s. Holy shit, what a dump. In many ways, that alone was enough to make this a horror movie; just watching the characters walking around dark, deserted city streets.

In the end, it's the interesting characters that make the movie watchable, and give it an unexpected but appreciable depth.

As for the drink-o-meter: you could definitely watch this bad boy with a drink in hand. It's equal parts dumb and entertaining. So have a drink that's equal parts gin and...I don't know, radon, so that it glows in the dark. During the movie you can decide if that burning sensation in your throat is the alcohol or the ionizing radiation hollowing out your esophagus. On second thought, just use an energy drink. Though I can't promise it'll be any healthier.

World War Z

In Part Two of my two-part Big Budget Movies That Came Out Last Summer But I Had Too Much Dignity To Bother Seeing Them But Last Weekend I Got Bored And Watched Them As A Way Of Putting Off Studying For My Midterms series, I will be discussing World War Z, possibly the most big budgety and putting offety of the bunch.

The film stars Brad Pitt as an action hero who spends the entire movie running away from the action. It is based on the Max Brooks book ("max brooks book" - say that three times fast) of the same title, but the only thing it has in common with the source material is that both stories take place on earth. So if you're thinking about seeing it because you enjoyed the book, you will most certainly be disappointed. It'd be like...seeing Iron Man 3 and expecting it to be anything like anything that's good.

So much burning city, and his badass hair is perfectly still. Good attention to detail.

The great tragedy of this movie is not the misuse of the source material. It could have been a great film, providing you cut out the completely moronic story, the atrocious dialogue, work up better CGI zombies (or, god forbid, hire a few extras), etc. I think the best and worst decision made by the filmmakers was the PG-13 rating. On the one hand, this toned down the shock value which has basically become the cliche of the zombie horror subgenre. If you want excessive gore and not much else, watch The Walking Dead. No seriously, do it; it's pretty entertaining.

On the other hand, the rating forced the filmmakers to come up with more interesting ways to build suspense and scare audiences. Some attempts were pretty lame, like when the greatest scientist in the world trips and blows his own head off five minutes into the movie, leaving the world-saving up to Mr. Pitt. The end result, therefore, falls more in line with a film like 28 Days Later, where the tension and anxiety comes from the non-stop pace.

The movie's weakness is that it may have been written by children. The plot is so contrived and goofy that I was laughing out loud at most of it. We have a zombie apocalypse happening, humanity is doomed, and the world-saving gets put on hold to show us Pitt's wife and children picking bunk beds and looking scared, even though they're in no danger whatsoever. The film is a jumble of exploding set pieces swarming with CGI, like a Roland Emmerich disaster movie. And all of it is based on a very thin plot involving a cure that only Brad Pitt can find. And when he does find it, the sexy badass...well, it's kind of a letdown.

And I have to revisit the shoddy effects work on the monsters. Remember the zombies (or whatever they were) in I am Legend? They just looked so damn fake. Even for the close-up scenes at the end, the filmmakers somehow thought CGI would be more effective than a real woman on the table or a real man staring down Will Smith. When it comes to humans, CGI just does not work for close-ups (hey, this seems like a good place to plug another piece I wrote on post-mortem CGI doppelgängers). Well, WWZ is almost as guilty. Even from the trailers you can get an idea of how phony the monsters look. Of course there's going to be some amount of CGI when you have thousands of zombies swarming over a city at top speed. But with the budget this movie reportedly had to work with, zombies flipping over buses and building a rage-fueled pyramid shouldn't look so awful.

In the end, the movie delivers what it promises: a movie. And if all you want to do is watch a movie for movies' sake, then this movie is for you. Movie, movie, movies. Have I used the word 'movie' enough? Okay, movi-...getting on. If you want to be critical about it, the movie is pretty shitty. But for what it's worth, it's take on zombies is refreshing, albeit a bit shy of original. Here's a drinking game to keep you motivated.

I don't really remember how our drink-rating rules work. So I'm going to give this one an 8. 8 beers. Meaning you should drink 8 beers just before you start, so that, periodically, just as you're beginning to wonder why you're watching this movie, you have to get up and pee and come back thinking it's interesting again.

Riddick

Well it certainly has been a while since I’ve done anything for this blog.  I must seem like such a lazy person, but those tweets won’t write themselves!  But seriously, I’ve found the time to bang out a review/recap/overview for, obviously, a film that came out a long while ago.  Cause I wouldn’t do anything relevent now, would I?  But instead, I’ll be doing some writing for a film that came out a while ago, but came out on DVD just a week or so ago, so let’s say it’s a DVD review and leave it at that, yeah?  So enough useless prattle, let’s get on with the show.  Review.  Recap.  Whatever.

So I guess you can see me as an odd sort of person, since sci-fi like that of Elysium and District 9 didn’t do much for me, but then anything related to the Riddick universe of stories gets me going like nobodies business.  The first film in the series, (if you can call it a series, it’s more like a hodgepodge of random entertainment across different media that somehow create an overarching story), Pitch Black, shived it’s way into my heart with it’s sharpened sense of story structure.  In so much that the story was our “hero”, the infamous criminal Richard B. Riddick, is stranded on an alien planet with a group of travelers just at the time when shit hits the planetary fan.

And then Riddick kills some things, saves some people, says some badass one liners, and then survives.  But the draw was the character, in that he was someone who embodied the idea of anti-hero very well, but still invoked some level of interest as he shows that under all the gruff and violence, he’s still “human”.  He’s not, but he’s damn close.  And then there was Chronicles of Riddick, and we won’t talk about the story, cause no one needs to go through that trainwreck again.  But what it excelled at was creating this lived in and complex universe. It just lost itself in it’s own ideas.  And after that debacle, I was sure Riddick would never find itself again.

But then there are a few absolute truths in this world, and "Vin Diesel will making something out of nothing" is one of them.  And through sheer will, I’m assuming robbery, and hope, he brought into this world Riddick.  And it’s exactly what you want from this franchise. Nothing more, nothing less.  

Riddick takes us back to the concept of Pitch Black, which at first feels like it’s just copying from the past, but rather it’s expanding on the concept that brought Dick Riddick to the people.  The story begins after Riddick has spent some time as Lord Marshal of the Necromongers (long story) but he feels himself fading from what he once was: a killer, a free man.  And he also wants to find his home, Furya, and see from where he came from and where he can go from here.  But as with most stories of a ruler hated by his subjects, he is betrayed, and left for dead on an alien planet.  Cue the Pitch Black comparisons.  But no, this is where things take a drastic, but brilliant turn.

It’s here the movie begins the first of three really distinct and unique acts.  The first act has Riddick existing alone, though he does have an alien dog he saved from a sandstorm.  This dog, for all intents and purposes it is, acts as the emotional core since Riddick, for all his gruff and sass, has no emotions.  And this part of the movie is also mostly silent, since Riddick has little to say to his dog and there is no one else around.  And we get to watch a man who thrives in the elements, well, thrive.  He makes weapons, shelter, finds food, surveys the land, and adapts.  And even with the relatively low budget the world looks well realized.  There are obvious places where sets and CG overlap, but it doesn’t take much away from the overall experience.  You get drawn into Riddick's attempt to make, really, a home in a place that lets him be himself. But the main comparison to Pitch Black is that like the aliens that come out in the darkness then, now we have aliens that come out when it’s wet, and a big ass storm is making its way across the land.  So Riddick and pooch have got to move on and get off this planet.  And thus we move into the second act, where things get very talky.

To leave, Riddick must reveal himself, and to do that he activates a beacon.  And in come the mercs.  And in comes the dialogue.  And for the most part, it’s fairly entertaining, with witty back and forths between the two sets of mercs laying claim to the bounty on Riddick’s head. One half is a ragtag team of, in my opinion, the more entertaining killers, and the other is the group of well trained, well armed, and well trained mercs.  So obviously they don't get along. And here is where we watch Riddick essentially fuck with them, trying to get them to either kill each other, or if not that, then by his hand.  And we watch Riddick be the badass we remember, effortlessly killing mercs from the darkness, and it’s rather fun to watch.

And it should be noted that the performance of David Bautista, the MMA fighter turned actor who has the role of Drax the Destroyer in Guardians of the Galaxy, has shown me that he’s much more capable of an actor than I ever thought.

All this back and forth leads to Riddick having to create a scenario in which they’ll need him as much as he needs them.  So, he steals the power nodes to the ships.  And thus we are lead in the third act, full of obvious betrayals, alien attacks, and a whole lot more blood.  And I would write more, but it’s basically that.  The dialogue turns less jokey and more serious, and things get a shit ton darker. There's some diving into character’s pasts as they relate to past stories, an insane amount of aliens, some moments of terrible CG and some moments that are quite stellar.  And then an ending that hopes for a sequel.  And so do I.

In the end, this is the kinda sci-fi film that needs to happen more often.  One that lives and breaths in an interesting universe, but doesn’t try to become an allegory for our time and preach to us.  No, just a film that aims to entertain and amuse us.  Remember when films did that?  Weird times, but that was the aim of Riddick, to bring him back to us with all the blood, action, and story we remember and love.  And hopefully we get to see more.  So rent this, buy this, watch this.  Give it a chance.  If for no other reason than helping an original story get a wider audience.

The Wolverine

As I have been repeating for the past couple of months, the movies this summer were generally underwhelming. But in my boredom lately, I rented and watched two blockbuster summer films that I suspected would be worth my time, but perhaps not my money: The Wolverine and World War Z.

Unfortunately, this blog lacks a section for movies that are no longer in theaters, not underrated, and not necessarily bad. Then again, now that I think about it, I can tag this post with as many labels as I want, so what the hell, I'll just use a combination of categories.

First up: The Wolverine, Hugh Jackman's sixth -- but apparently far from last -- portrayal of the adamantium-clawed mutant.

I was planning on seeing this film in theaters when it came out. And then...I didn't.

Anyway, the convenient thing about watching a high-profile movie months after its release is the opportunity for a clean slate; having put the summer movie season behind me, I literally had no expectations going into this film. I'm learning that the key to enjoying a comic book movie is to not take it too seriously. I'm not sure when I started expecting every superhero to match Nolan's Batman, but I think it was around the same every studio and filmmaker tried to convince me that I should.

The Wolverine is a reminder that these movies are meant to be fun. Hugh Jackman -- who apparently never ages and seems to be in better shape than ever -- loves playing the ferocious but lovable Wolverine. He manages to expertly balance the character's intensity with his aggressive good humor (he's had plenty of practice) to the point where he is always exciting to watch. And in a film willing to hold back on the overly fantastical to focus more on one man's inner struggle, Jackman is really given room to explore the role in ways that somehow seem new, even after half a dozen appearances on the big screen. On top of that, the action is rarely over-the-top or gratuitous (for the genre), which sets this film apart from other 2013 tentpoles.

Overall, this movie is worth a viewing. If you are an avid fan of the X-Men films, I think The Wolverine, along with X-Men: First Class, mark a new era for the franchise(s) and hopefully herald a revival to the genre. As usual, I'm not saying this movie is flawless; but it is an immense improvement upon it's predecessor X-Men Origins: Wolverine and an indication that a full-length film can focus on a single mutant and not get boring.

Oh, and this movie cranks up the level of gore and mature language very effectively. I do not believe either of these things make a good movie, but the fact is you don't realize how silly a ruthless, foul-mouthed killing machine with razor claws is without some spraying blood and a few 'fuck yous' until you get just that. Hopefully future iterations of the character will have a similar level of violence.

Thor: The Dark World

Well, it's midterm season. And as usual, the only way I can cope with the stress is with an egregious amount of movies and television. As you'll see in the next couple of days, I have been busy the last two weeks. Not only with schoolwork, but also with my Netflix account and my movie theater.

The amount of movies -- on top of that stress I mentioned earlier -- has made it difficult for me to process everything I have been watching. Which means my reviews are not going to be particularly insightful (as if they ever were). On the plus side, they'll probably be a little bit shorter than usual.

First and foremost, yesterday I had the pleasure of seeing Thor: The Dark World. You know who's in it and what it's about, so I'll just get to it.

First off, let's ignore the fact that the poster reminds us of another movie...

Yea, this one

As alluded to by the posters above, I went into theaters wondering how this film would compare with Iron Man 3. By now, there is no reason for me to reiterate the issues Mark and I, and much of the Marvel fan community, had with IM3. However, being that it was the most recent Marvel studios film, and the first entry in the Phase 2 film line-up, I couldn't help but use it as a template for the Thor sequel.

That being said, I was very pleased with the latest adventures of the Asgardian prince. Unlike the Iron Man films, which rely solely on Robert Downey's Jr.'s witty banter, the Thor films have an entire cast of colorful and endearing characters. And what I enjoyed most about The Dark World is that, with the exception of the new bad guy and the absence of agent Coulson, the cast is unchanged from the first film. As a result, just about every character is taken to the next level, in terms of depth and personality. Even the nine realms, particularly Asgard, are explored to a greater degree. All of this effectively expanded and enriched the universe, which is exactly what a sequel is supposed to do. And because much of it took place off earth, it eluded those questions that plagued IM3 (such as, where are S.H.I.E.L.D. and the Avengers during all this).

My biggest complaint is that the movie felt short and somewhat rushed. The villain was hardly explored, and the powerful weapon, which will apparently return in later films, was barely explained beyond its ability to destroy the universe.

This is not the best superhero movie out there. But I will say that it surpasses its predecessor, and is much less groan-inducing than this year's earlier superhero films. All of this to say that my excitement and curiosity for Marvel's Phase 2 have been reignited. If you enjoyed Thor, I think you will definitely enjoy  Thor: The Dark World.

12 Years a Slave

My efforts to make up for a lackluster year of movies with as many "awards season" films as possible are well under way. Last week, Mark and I brought you some thoughts on Gravity, and clearly we had quite an impact, because it has been steam-rolling the competition at the box office for the past couple of weeks. Mr. Clooney, Ms. Bullock, you're welcome.

Which brings us, or rather just me, to another notable October release, 12 Years A Slave. This year has been pretty strong on the African (-American) history flicks, with Lee Daniels' The Butler receiving a lot of attention, and Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom set to hit theaters before the year is out. Though, truthfully, I saw this movie for one reason, and one reason only: Michael Fassbender.

That's not entirely true; but I do love that guy. And if actors are the reason you go to the movies, I can tell you 12 Years a Slave features a lot of them: in addition to Magneto, there's Metro Man, the Rhino, Khan, Omar Little, and that guy who gets beaten to death with a bowling pin in There Will Be Blood...Oh I'm sorry, I can't seem to get into art-house mode. I meant that alongside Fassbender, there's Brad Pitt, Paul Giamatti, Benedict Cumberbatch...um, Chalky White, and...that guy who gets tortured and killed in Looper. Seriously though, Paul Dano is a talented actor, but he always plays a sniveling weasel that other actors get to hit. (And if my nods to The Wire and Boardwalk Empire aren't clear enough, that's Michael K. Williams I am referencing.)

Also, you don't have to point out that this movie is about slaves, but all of the names I mentioned belong to white actors. It's not because I am a racist. In fact, I, too, found the cast a bit imbalanced. I'm sure it says something about either the studio and its expectations for the film's reception, or the director's interpretation of the dehumanizing anonymity that the institution of slavery inflicts on history through the use of unfamiliar black actors. Or something.

Anyways, can I just review the fucking movie now?

It should not really come as a surprise that Michael Fassbender found his way into this film. Two of director Steve McQueen's (no, not the one that died in 1980) previous projects -- Hunger and Shame -- have featured the versatile actor. This time around, thanks to Brad Pitt's production company, we can now say that the number of words in a McQueen title is directly proportional to the film's budget, since, as I mentioned, this film is loaded with familiar, albeit pale, faces.

Chiwetel Ejiofor plays Solomon Northup, a happy family man living in New York in the 1840s, who is kidnapped and forced into slavery. At first Solomon tries to maintain his identity and dignity, but he slowly succumbs to the realities of slavery. Even his name is stripped from him, and he becomes simply Pratt. I'm going to spoil the end right now, but I don't think it's a big deal, and you'll see why. Solomon makes it back to his family. Boom. Cat's out of the bag. Anyways, what becomes more and more obvious and unsettling as time goes by after leaving the theater, is that this happy ending is meaningless. This free man was kidnapped and enslaved, and that's unjust. But during his time in the South, we, the viewers, witnessed the horror of slavery in all of its forms. And when Solomon escapes and regains his freedom, it almost seems unfair. He leaves the others behind, left to die, nameless, in a system that has been around for centuries and will linger for another couple of decades. There is nothing particularly special about Solomon our protagonist, other than the fact that something unfair happened to him, and in the end, his situation was righted. And so we're left wondering -- only to realize that we know clearly enough -- the fate of Pratt's contemporaries.

The strengths and weaknesses of this film are kind of the same. We are introduced to each antebellum southern male archetype: the benevolent patriarch who cares for his slaves, the brutal and pitiful plantation owner who justifies his actions with whiskey and the word of God, the abolitionist, and an array of overseers. While it makes sense to offer these extremes, in terms of the narrative, and the trials of Solomon, it tends to walk the line between character and caricature, reminiscent of that other popular slave film, Django Unchained. On a separate, some of the dialogue delivery was a little wobbly, and it felt like high school students reciting half-memorized Shakespearian verses. Likewise, it seemed a bit forceful whenever a character would wax poetic on a core theme of the film, like slavery, freedom, equality, etc. The audience has the right and the intellect to walk away with their own opinions; and for a film where the subject matter is made so vivid and unrelenting, having the characters repeat the themes verbally is unnecessary.

Overall, it is a powerful movie, full of memorable performances. Mark read a review comparing it to Schindler's List, which, subsequently, is the expectation I had going in. In a way, I agree that the honest and straightforward approach to slavery is similar to Spielberg's vision of the holocaust. There is no glorifying of anything, not even the protagonist. And when the protagonist "wins/gets away/saves lives", no one really wins. Only see this movie if you are ready to be force-fed some cold, hard truth. If you leave the theater feeling a little queasy, it's not that month-old nacho cheese you just devoured, it's your guilt as a human being.

Gravity

Now that Mark has a full-time job, and I am, once again, a full-time student, it looks like these blog posts are going to grow increasing infrequent. There's really nothing we can do about that. But we are going to keep it going nonetheless.

Today we talk about Gravity, a film currently in theaters, starring George Clooney and Sandra Bullock, and directed by Alfonso Cuaron. It seems sci-fi is back in style these days, and this entry seems like the formal invitation to a new era of the genre; once again humanity is at a juncture where the window between reality and science fiction (and breakthrough filmmaking techniques) is as transparent as ever, and Cuaron is obliged to shove our faces through it for a look at the other side.

(I'm not sure if I just made a metaphor or something. My point is, watch out for broken glass. Just kidding, it's actually that there are no screens on the windows at Alfonso Cuaron's house. ...Hey, here's a review for Gravity. Enjoy.)

Dylan: Wow. It’s been a while. Let’s see if I remember how to do this. So I just saw Gravity, in 3D, in theaters. And that’s really the only way to see it I think. It’s one of those movies where the 3D plays a role in building the world we’re thrown into (or out of). And that is one aspect in which this films holds nothing back. They clearly set out with an idea of what they wanted to do, and they went and did it as perfectly (and accurately) as possible. I’m not saying the movie was flawless; don’t get me wrong. But the detail that went into the parts that were done well was pretty seamless.

Mark:  Gotta agree with you completely. I was blown away by the depth that the 3D brought to the movie.  This is one of the cases where the 3D immerses you in the environment; it’s not just going for gimmicky shots of things flying towards you, but rather to make you feel like you’re floating around in space with the characters.  And damn, Cuaron really makes the most of it, especially in those first 15 minutes, effortlessly moving you around the ship.  Did you know that was all one take?  Makes it all the more impressive to me.

Dylan: Well, it depends on what you mean by one take? Much of that scene was just faces added into an entirely CGI render. Or at least that’s what it seemed like. But the fluidity of it all was very impressive. And in response to what you consider 'gimmicky' 3D, I argue that a lot of times the 3D effect are very purposefully gimmicky. For example, in every single scene of Bullock inside of a ship there was a pen floating past her face. Did she take the pen along with her? Why did the American, Russian, and then Chinese crafts all have the same pen drifting around the cockpit? (Maybe it was a 2001 reference.) Anyways, there was also the water and the fire and what not. But the thing is, while these are here EXACTLY for gimmicky purposes, they still work to illustrate the physics and chemistry of this bizarre and unnatural setting, which is perfectly juxtaposed at the end when we return to Earth and everything is somehow familiar but also foreign.

Mark: Alright, let me clarify my two points.  By one take, I mean that there was no editing, no jumping from person to person when they speak, or to another area around the ship.  The camera floats, as if in space, all around the immediate environment.  yes it was all on green screen and whatnot, but never once does it edit.  For me it helped draw me in to the world so much more.  And as for gimmicky, I meant like the only times 3D is being used is for things to fly at the camera.  And things do, like the pen, or water droplets, or rocketing satellite debris, but it's to add tension or for the purpose of making us feel more involved in this world.  I think the one time they really did it is when Clooney’s character let go of something and reached out to grab it.  But that was really it.  But no matter what issue or problem there might have been with a moment in the film, the pace that it kept throughout, with the tension never giving up from the moment it started, made sure I was always enthralled.  That and the absolutely gorgeous visuals.  

Dylan: That’s what I really loved about it. First of all, from a physicist’s perspective, you know I would go into this thing analyzing every detail. The title was a challenge for me. And I haven’t seen that much detail go into outer space since 2001, and that was done fifty years ago. In fact, I would have left just left out the introduction in the beginning about how nothing can survive in space. It's the 21st century; hopefully we are all aware of this fact by now. The visuals were incredible, and, as Clooney’s character occasionally states outright, the horror of space and the astonishing beauty are one in the same. It’s an uninhabitable hell, and yet you can’t help but envy the view. The scenes of moving debris were phenomenal. 

The only thing I found a little annoying was the first person perspective inside Bullock’s helmet, specifically when she’s spinning or breathing heavy enough to fog up the window. I’m not entirely against the idea, but there were a few shots that went on just long enough to make me look away from the screen, a little dizzy. I understand that we are being immersed in her reality, but if it forces you to look away, it’s forcing you back OUT of that reality. So that’s my main complaint. The other uses of first person -- climbing along the outside of the ship, trying to escape debris, etc. -- were really cool.

Mark: I didn’t have as much difficulty with those scenes, but I can see where you’re coming from.  They really play the disoriented feeling of what she’s going through, which is perfect, but I can see it being a little too perfect.  And the other thing that I loved about how this movie progresses is how it’s really quite terrifying, but it’s not trying to be a horror movie or anything.  The fear comes from how real it all is; that something like this could happen.  That in space, the smallest mistake or failure is so much worse.  And those moments when Bullock’s character is moving as fast as she can, trying to figure how to continue, you know that time is running out. And this is when things become truly terrifying: the lack of sound.  We all know that there is no sound in space, but this movie plays it perfectly.  There is a scene when she is working to open a hatch, and we see that debris is flying past, but she doesn’t know.  There’s nothing to alert her.  And we’re stuck in this tension; will she get it?  Will she get hit?  Knocked off?  And that pulls you in more.  And because no sound is there to add effect, the score pulls double duty, and holy shit does it create a whole other level to the tension.

Dylan: Yea, the score really was well done. Very subtle; nothing distracting. I’m not sure what the casualty report is for people in space. How many astronauts have had to deal with untethered slingshotting through space? I can’t think of any disasters like that. And this one is a real doozy. Russia fires a missile at one of their own satellites, but they do a shitty job, and cause a chain reaction that seems to destroy every other satellite in orbit, creating a massive debris field. This is a pretty catastrophic situation that sounds like it’s going to affect most of humanity. I’m kind of curious what’s going on on the ground during all this. But yea, I guess the drama in space is interesting too hah. Anyways, my point is, unless something goes really, really incredibly wrong, situations like this hopefully do not happen. Which is why, having seen this movie, I am more interested than ever in going into space; I think it would be awesome. But, maybe that’s not what I was supposed to take away from it all.

Mark: Yeah, because I was feeling less than interested at going into space after seeing this.  And I was thinking that everyone on earth was seeing absolutely nothing.  Based on what was happening, they had to be totally communication blackout, since most satellites were gone.  But that’s not the story here.  As for our leads, I have to say I was really surprised by Sandra Bullock.  I always thought she was an alright actress, better with comedy than drama, but she totally owned this role.  For the most part, it’s all on her, and she carries really well.  And Clooney was, well, he was Clooney, but damn he does that well.  It’s not very often that you get a movie that’s very much original, heavy, with spectacular CGI, that’s carried by a single person.  And I just realized that Life of Pi was that in a way, but I would consider this so much more than just a pretty movie.  All of its parts are great, and together it’s damn near brilliant.

Dylan: You said it on the acting. I’ve never been a fan of Clooney or Bullock. But while Clooney seems to play the same character in every movie, I am starting to fall for his charm. Bullock I have even less respect for, but she seems to be reworking her career in a very good way. Also, I did not see Life of Pi. But since you brought it up, what are your thoughts on Gravity’s possible performance come Oscar time? It definitely excels in a number of categories, not just effects. And it’s also impressively dominating the box office these past two weeks.

Mark: I was thinking about that, and honestly, the way that this is both a critical and commercial success, I can see it going up for a lot.  While there will be competition, this will be the frontrunner for most if not all the technical awards.  I think that the score was as important to this movie as the CGI, so that’ll probably get some love.  And on the major side, I would love to see Cuaron go up for directing.  He’s always done well, but this is doing so well that I can’t imagine they’ll ignore him.  And really, I think Bullock deserves at least a nomination.  This is all her.  And like I said, she carries it well.  What about you?

Dylan: The reason I ask you is because you’re much more in tune with the awards season drama than I am. I usually don’t even see the major contenders until the following year. But since so much of 2013 has been pretty crappy in the movie department, I am trying to stay interested on developments over the next couple months. Thinking back, this may be my favorite movie of the year so far. Certainly the most original. But who knows what the 'academy' will think.

Mark:  One behind-the-scenes thing I found interesting, which you may not be aware of, is how much Cuaron had to fight to keep his vision of this film.  The executives wanted a male lead as well as a love interest.  I believe the love interest came into play more once Cuaron wouldn’t give in and kept his female lead.  It was just interesting thinking how different this could have been.  Do you think it would have changed how you viewed this movie if the executives won out?

Dylan: I’m going to say yes. Only because it became excruciatingly obvious to me the point the director was trying to make with a female lead, specifically at the very end when Bullock stood up, and the camera, level with her ankles, panned up to show her sculpted, heroic body fresh out of the water. The survivor. The heroine. It reminded me of Ellen Ripley, but that’s probably because I kept thinking of the tagline “In space no one can hear you scream” from Alien. But yes, I think it made a difference having a woman. And I did not have a problem with it. 

Mark: I agree completely, and I also got the Ellen Ripley vibe from her, and from the whole movie. And it worked perfectly.

----------------------------------------------------

And there it is, kids. Go see Gravity. It is one of the best movies of the year, and possibly one of the most original films of the past couple of decades -- especially in the science fiction department -- not just because of the story and subject matter, but because of its manipulation of modern filming techniques to present a story in a way we haven't really seen before (fuck Avatar). On top of that, as we discussed, it will resonate not just with critics, but with audiences as well. And I think this film is going to be remembered as a turning point in filmmaking and storytelling on many levels.