Category Archives: Sandra Bullock

Spoiler Review: Gravity

Leave a reply

Spoiler Review is a new series where I will review movies that require many spoilers in order to review them properly. This is my review of “Gravity.” This goes without saying: SPOILER ALERT.

Every time a movie comes out that uses 3D really well, like really really well, I never hesitate to call it the second coming of cinema. “Avatar.” “Hugo.” “Life of Pi.” Yes, I do strongly regret giving “Avatar” that much credit.

I don’t want to say “Gravity” has changed the game. It’s just responded to the tools of our time so well and it has done what many others only wished they could accomplish. More importantly, if you ever doubted that the wonder of the movies has been stolen by TV, then look at “Gravity,” and you’ll understand that it never went anywhere.

This spoiler review needed to exist. It is impossible to fully expound on “Gravity” without revealing many important twists and turns. Also, it is the kind of film enhanced by going in completely surprised. Once things start to explode, the story seems very straightforward. Yet, it also has such an uneasy and unpredictable edge to it. Maybe that’s because Cuaron decided to kill off one of Hollywood’s biggest stars halfway through and then let one person run the rest of the show. Cuaron pulled a similar move in “Children of Men.” I like when movies do this. Wait, that sounded bad. I’m not sadistic, but taking an event that would normally end a film and putting it so early on is always daring. Not only that, but it will always carry the film into another direction.

Clooney’s death also leads to one of the greatest fake outs in recent memory. Kowalski’s return elicited groans from the entire audience. However, it just didn’t sit well with me from the beginning. For one thing, he kicks out a window in outer space while she sits there with no helmet on. She covers her mouth and somehow is fine. This isn’t the season of “24″ with the nerve gas where everyone just covers their faces with a tissue and is somehow fine. “Gravity” can’t get every scientific detail right, but this one was too obvious.

I’m sure Cuaron knew what kind of reaction he’d get with that scene. Good job, it worked. And it just gave even more of a sense of how alone Stone was in space. “Gravity” is less about the fear of life on another planet and more about the fear that we are but a tiny speck in a vast, empty universe. As Frankenstein’s Monster once said: “alone…bad.”

After Kowalski dies, Stone is left to fend for herself. And oh what a beautiful performance Bullock gives. She takes what could have been a repetitive 91 minutes of screaming and floating and turns it into a one woman show. It’s a lot like James Franco’s performance in “127 Hours” as she displays so many altering personalities in such a short amount of time. The most beautiful moment in the entire film is not a shot of space, but rather the scene where Stone communicates with an unknown Chinese man. She hears his dogs bark and asks them to keep barking. Then she barks along with them. These two have so little common and don’t even speak the same language. She’s trying literally anything to keep herself motivated to survive.

Eventually, there is going to be a “Gravity” backlash, because that’s what happens with any movie this big. In fact, its already begun. People are going to compare it to other movies and identify a lack of originality. However, what I hope everyone will remember is that this is the anti-space space movie. “Gravity” is not against space, but rather it challenges our notions of what lies above. At the beginning, Kowalski plays an old western tune as he floats around. Space has always been labeled the final frontier, but what is rarely acknowledged is that it is so hard to conquer a frontier that we know so little about. Unlike many of its contemporaries, “Gravity” acknowledges the many dangers of space. Its opening title card makes note of how much the temperature fluctuates. A little bit later, Kessler Syndrome causes a chain of destruction that I am still trying to wrap my head around.

And then there is Bullock, who is constantly fighting the voices in her own head as she doesn’t have anyone else to talk to for a majority of the film. She constantly has to fight between holding on to any object that will keep her alive, and letting go of all of her earthly problems, which are inconsequential when the remains of a Russian satellite are hurtling right towards you. “Gravity” shows so much, but leaves much more to the imagination. The image of her driving through Illinois with the radio playing and no direction at all is a sad yet lovely one, enhanced by the fact that we never actually get to see it. With this, the film also plays against the idea of sci-fi films in which one tries to escape their earth forms in search of a better self. Ryan Stone was hired for the job because she’s a damn good technician, but I’m sure she also really needed an escape from her lonely life. Yet, orbiting above earth, all she finds is chaos.

Cuaron has proved himself a master of visual metaphors. That’s why I’ll let it slide every time Clooney says “I have a bad feeling about this,” because that is the worst foreshadowing possible. Instead, just marvel at the moment Ryan boards the ship and sheds her suit, her body curled up and looking very much like a baby in the womb. Most filmmakers would settle for a trite Jesus on the Cross reference, but Cuaron loves his baby imagery.

That was the first rebirth of Ryan Stone. The second comes at the end, as her module crashes on earth and against all odds, she survives. Watching her swim out of the ocean and then crawl onto land before slowly getting up was like watching an ancient creature evolve right before our eyes. It’s like the Star Baby from the end of “2001″ [Editor's Note: I STILL DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT STAR BABY IS] landed on earth. Ryan Stone might be born a new, but she is no blank slate. She has a hell of a story to tell. I picture the rest of her life will include telling people this amazing story of hers at fancy dinner parties, and then chiding them because they never got to experience it in IMAX 3D.

This is not a love story.

Movie Review: Gravity

1 Reply

“In space, no one can hear you scream.”

This is now the famous tagline from “Alien,” and the basis for “Gravity.” “Gravity” hasn’t been advertised as a horror film, but it captures the fear of being alone in space better than most others that have tried way too hard to do so.

“Gravity” marks the long awaited return of Alfonso Cuaron who last directed “Children of Men,” which is still one of my favorite films of all time. Like “Children of Men,” there is no indication of when the camera starts and stops rolling. Cuaron is one for relentless action. Immersive might not even be a strong enough word to describe “Gravity.” I get the feeling that Cuaron just wanted us to float in space with him forever. There were multiple times where I felt short of breath. Apparently, you don’t need any dimensions beyond 3D to get all your senses this invested in a movie.


Plot details shouldn’t matter here much, and I want to keep it as surprising here for everyone who is reading this. The most important thing to know is that Sandra Bullock and George Clooney play two very attractive people in space. They’re assigned to fix a space ship. Things go haywire, communications breakdown, and suddenly they’re both free falling through space. If anybody remembers the scene in “Thank You For Smoking” where Rob Lowe breaks down of a movie set in space starring two attractive movie stars (one of them being Clooney), just know that “Gravity” is the exact opposite of that.

Before relying heavily on action scenes, “Gravity” is a space porn spectacle on level with “2001: A Space Odyssey.” The advent of 3D works so well here because it gives such an honest depiction of the vast scope of the universe. The long shots that Cuaron made so famous in “Children of Men” are a little stiller here, but there’s still the sense that he just wants to let the camera roll, and see what magic unfolds.

Unlike most film sets in space, “Gravity” is not about what life exists beyond our earth, but rather the lack thereof. When Matt Kowalski (Clooney) asks Ryan Stone (Bullock) what her favorite part about space is, without hesitation she replies “the silence.” Space is such a serene place, and that is why disaster makes it all the more frightening, because there’s nowhere to turn to when it hits the fan. It is also a fitting place for Ryan, who wants to be as far as she can from some of the tragic events of her own life.

Many have said that the script of “Gravity” is nothing special. While it is mostly very straightforward, it takes a lot more risks than people have been giving it credit for. One major event not even midway through completely alters the events of the film. In addition, its near lack of dialogue is a bold move which draws attention to how much of a visual driven media film is. The lack of dialogue prevents it from ever being bogged down by too many rules and too much exposition. Its never a terrible thing to make the viewers figure out some details on their own.

There are moments where it seems like “Gravity” is about to slip off into implausibility or worse yet, become “Vertical Limit” in space. However, it finds ways to stay out of that territory. “Gravity” is basically a two man show, with the two performers living up to the challenge. Bullock hands down steals the show, and proves that she can take nearly any kind of role. There’s a scene later in the film that involves her making a bunch of noises, including barking sounds, that’s she makes sad yet uplifting. I hate to make the “Alien” comparison again, but don’t be surprised if you see shades of Ripley in her performance.

When “Gravity” ended, I had that feeling I only get from truly great films. I felt a mix between exhilaration and profound shock that brought tears to my eyes. I could have sat there and watched it again. I don’t know how “Gravity” will hold up without the big screen and extra dimension, but I don’t want to worry about that just yet. While film itself is permanent, they are only in theaters for so long, and the experience is a fleeting one. “Gravity” is the reason why we go see movies in theaters.

Movie Review: The Heat

Leave a reply
Most buddy cop comedies are about to mismatched cops who can’t follow the rules. But what if the movie itself, can’t even follow the rules? “The Heat” proves that the results are dangerously and potentially hilarious.
While “The Heat” is a buddy cop comedy, I’d say it’s more like “Superbad” than “21 Jump Street.” However, the buddy aspect is more important than the procedural part. Ashburn (Sandra Bullock) and Mullins (Melissa McCarthy) only follow the buddy cop formula slightly. Sure, the movie teams up a brash cop with an uptight one, yet neither of them really play by the rules. Ashburn is something of a detective prodigy, but she’s maligned by most of the people she works with. You know someone is lonely when they have to steal their neighbor’s cat for company. 
Mullins, meanwhile, is equally good at sniffing out criminals, she’s just a little worse at keeping them from escaping. She may be is insanely over-the-top, but this is a role that McCarthy was meant to play. She gives it just the right amount of heart and never seems irritating.

Bullock and McCarthy have a dynamic, almost natural chemistry together that I certainly did not expect. If the two of them didn’t work well together, the script would have felt flat. It is clear that the two of them are not just partners, but growing friends.
Let’s back up for a moment. This is a comedy first and foremost. And on that, it delivers in every way possible. A large part of comedy is about debasement, and both lead actresses of “The Heat” are more than willing to get down and dirty for laughs. The bad thing about most action comedies is that they often put all of the jokes in the first half and then get weighed down by serious plot in the second half. “The Heat” never loses its comedy momentum, and it brilliantly adds comedy to some of its most tense scenes. I challenge everyone to make a stabbing scene as funny as one that happens in “The Heat.”
“The Heat” is an example of perfect harmony between the three parts of the Holy Trinity of any movie: Director, Writer, and Actors. The writer lays out the blue print, the director brings the blue print to life as he or she sees it, and the actors bring meaning and humor to the words. With “The Heat,” TV writer Katie Dippold (“Parks and Rec”) makes a seamless transition to the big screen. After this movie, she will be one of Hollywood’s most sought after screenwriters. She brings over her expertise from TV by bringing life to an entire ensemble, as opposed to just two characters. 

Her style works perfectly with director Paul Feig’s. Feig always enjoys letting the camera run so he can capture an honest moment. While many scenes go well beyond their natural breaking point, they rarely feel unnecessarily long. The more a scene builds, the more we learn about the characters. Dippold’s strong ear for dialogue perfectly aligns with Feig’s ability to capture “real” moments. I hope to see more movies from this creative team in the very near future.
Just like any good script, “The Heat” is all about the buildup and the payoffs. Mullins never curses throughout the movie, only saying “what the F” whenever she can. So you can guarantee that when she finally does drop a real f-bomb, it’s going to be worth the wait. Even with all the humor (a lot of it deriving from improper use of knives), “The Heat” leads to a surprisingly moving conclusion. 
“The Heat” amounts to a whole lot of riffing. However, what keeps it from being nothing more than a two hour gag reel is that it is stringed together by a pretty decent plot. While I didn’t care that much about who had the drugs and whatever, every character is well developed enough that the stakes do matter. 
As the years go by, Paul Feig gets better and better as a director. Like his contemporary Judd Apatow, he is striving to create a comedy family. A large part of “The Heat” is about Mullins’ big, loud Boston family and family values overall. Like any good family, “The Heat” is warm and inviting even in the midst of its insanity. This is a great comedy because it is dark, but never quite filled with contempt.

Why Do People Like This: Speed

Leave a reply

Why Do People Like This is a new segment where I discuss a thoroughly overrated movie.


Pop Quiz Hot Shot!

It is said that “Speed” was pitched as “Die Hard” on a bus. This is one of the most brilliant pitches ever made. Too bad “Speed” isn’t nearly as good as “Die Hard.”

When it comes to movies, I’m like Alvy Singer, in that I won’t see a movie in theaters if I am late. Even two minutes late. I like the credits, too. But it appears that I have broken some of my own rules for “Speed.” I like to justify it by putting into consideration the fact that I caught it on AMC on a Saturday night. AMC is known for playing both classic, and classically cheesy, movies.

In the pop culture lexicon, “Speed” doesn’t usually fall into the second category. In fact, if the ratings on the information option on cable are to be trusted, it gets three and a half out of four stars. So about the same rating as “No Country for Old Men” and “The Social Network.” “Speed” is an entertaining thriller. But a great one? Not even close.

For the longest time, “Speed” was on that list of movies that I am guilty of never watching. That list still includes “Top Gun,” “Trading Places,” and “A Beautiful Mind.” I can now take “Speed” off of that list, and relief washes over me in a wave of meh.

The premise of “Speed” is simple, yet effective: a terrorist plants a bomb inside a bus, and said bus cannot go under 50 miles per hour at anytime, or else it will explode. From the start, I had no clue how that bomb would be diffused. That is what drew me to the movie. Unfortunately, “Speed” goes for the most obvious conclusion possible.

First off, everything about “Speed” is absolutely ludicrous. Now, no movie can ever be truly, fully realistic. Even the ones that claim to be so are usually the most highly implausible (*cough* “Crash” *cough*). But really, are we supposed to believe that a bus can make it over a jump that large? I have never taken a physics class, but even I know that stunt does not look right. Usually in a Hollywood blockbuster, the coolness factor justifies the suspension of reality. This shot might have looked cool in 1994, but it has not aged well.

“Speed” was written by Graham Yost. Yost would go on years later to create “Justified,” which I am told is one of the best dramas on television. But there is something “Speed” lacks in its script. The potential of both comedic and dramatic bonding between the passengers on the bus is passed up so that each of them instead can be used to forward the plot. The only passengers to get some form of personality are Cam from “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off” (Alan Ruck, who should be acting more) and the teacher with the annoying voice from “Donnie Darko.”

And lest we not forget the dull chemistry between the two leads: Keanu Reeves and Sandra Bullock. Bullock is charismatic when she chooses to be; Keanu doesn’t seem to have a choice. When he isn’t busy sitting on a park bench by himself, he is being the lamest actor to ever be called a leading man. Why are we made to root for this hero? What is he overcoming, and what makes him so special? He really should have stuck to movies more like “Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure.” Seriously, that movie does not get enough credit.

The end of this movie devolves into a big kiss between the two leads. However, Jack (Reeves) never seemed to be trying to save Annie (Bullock) out of love, but rather obligation. Bullock is able to get the second best line in the movie, when she says she lost her license because of speeding, just seconds after she is asked to take the wheel. The other best line is when Jack says that Howard Payne (Hopper) has “lost his head.” That sentence has multiple meanings.

Hopper is the scene stealer here as the psychotic and mysterious villain. He is strangely less over-the-top here than he usually is, and considering the fact that he once played Frank Booth. The small amount of screen time he gets certainly increases the intrigue in his villain, but I would have rather seen a movie completely about him than about anyone else here.

“Speed” is not completely horrible. There are a lot of thrilling moments and I will admit that I was afraid that the bus would actually blow up a few times earlier on. Then, I remembered if that happened, there wouldn’t be a movie. But that constant fear helps to keep the movie alive. However, this thrill is broken up by a lot of poor character development as well as an incessant need for a happy ending. “Speed” is a lot of great parts searching for a greater whole.

You can catch “Speed” on AMC about the same amount of times that you can catch “Wedding Crashers” and any Tyler Perry movie on TBS. Translation: A lot. 

The Oscars: The Show Goes On

1 Reply

Despite a feud between ABC and Cablevision that left millions unable to watch the big show, the Academy Awards still went on as planned.

As expected, “The Hurt Locker” took home the big prize at the Academy Awards, along with five other Oscars. Also, as expected, “Hurt Locker” director Kathryn Bigelow broke one of the last glass ceilings and became the first woman ever to take home the Best Director prize.

Perhaps the only real surprises of the night came in the Screenplay categories. The Best Adapted Screenplay category seemed like a done deal: “Up in the Air” had it basically since it came out in December. It’s balance of comedy and drama, along with its ability to be both original and faithful, made it seem like a shoo-in. Instead, the heart-wrenching screenplay for “Precious” took home the prize. It seemed as if “Precious” had lost much of its momentum after its November release. Guess I was wrong on that one.

Meanwhile, in Best Original Screenplay, “The Hurt Locker” and “Inglourious Basterds” were virtually tied. It seemed that “Basterds” was a frontrunner, as “Hurt Locker” was much more of an achievement in directing and editing than it was in writing.

However, this night was a “Hurt Locker” sweep, so Tarantino unfortunately walked home empty handed. However, the film didn’t get totally shut out: Waltz got his well-deserved Best Supporting Actor trophy. He also gave what was probably the best speech of the night. Seriously, this man has a knack for taking ordinary words and making them sound like poetry. As Waltz’s Landa might say, “that’s a bingo!” Lets hope he rides this to a fortuitous future career.

Another win, although expected, was still no less exciting. Jeff Bridges won the first Oscar of his long career for his performance as a burnt out country singer in “Crazy Heart.” He movingly thanked his parents, saying the award was as much for them as it was for him. There’s nothing much more to say about the greatness of Bridges besides this: “The Dude Abides.”

No surprises in the female acting categories, either. Mo’Nique took home an Oscar for something that will not be lost in time and Sandra Bullock won for “The Blind Side.” I have not seen “The Blind Side” yet, so therefore I can’t judge Bullock’s worthiness. However, from what I’ve seen of her, I do know that she is a good actress, and never a great one. Perhaps she can prove me wrong.

Now, onto the show itself. It was a night of ups and downs, or as the Dude would say, “strikes and gutters.” The biggest up were the two hosts: Alec Baldwin and Steve Martin. Both men are funny and charismatic, but two hosts seemed like two much. However, it was perfect in every way. The two actors read off their scripted banter in the most perfect harmony. And they threw out a few good improvised lines, as well.

The pair of Baldwin and Martin were a welcome improvement over last year, when the Academy attempted the “song-and-dance man” approach with Hugh Jackman, with little success. While Baldwin and Martin would be great recurring hosts, Neil Patrick Harris proved himself an eligible contender contented his surprise performance at the beginning of the telecast. The combination of Baldwin and Martin (along with other performers like Harris) made a mostly predictable show easier to watch.

Before the winners were even announced, the Best Picture race was defined as a race between “The Hurt Locker” and “Avatar,” a true David and Goliath story.

This isn’t the first David and Goliath Oscar race, but this was one of the very first where David came out the victor. In the past, it seemed an A-list cast and a successful box office gross were key to getting the crown. It makes you think now that maybe “Goodfellas” could’ve beaten “Dances with Wolves,” “Pulp Fiction” could’ve beaten “Forrest Gump,” or even “L.A. Confidential” could’ve beaten “Titanic.”

Will “The Hurt Locker” be remembered down the road as a cinematic classic, or one of Oscar’s biggest mistakes? Maybe in the future it’ll be known as the best film made about the Iraq War, with “Inglourious Basterds” and “A Serious Man” being masterpieces ahead of their time, “Avatar” a fun blockbuster that changed visual cinema, “District 9” a sci-fi film on the same level with “Blade Runner,” and “Up in the Air” as an example for aspiring filmmakers of how to write a good script.

What I’m trying to say is that no matter your number one preference, and no matter what won, this was a rare year where almost every film and filmmaker earned their nominations. Here’s to hoping 2010 is going to be another good year for cinema.

See the Full List of Winners Here.