By R. David

Mind.  Blown.

Full disclosure:  I loathe this whole 3-D “revolution”.  I had yet to see one 3-D movie where I felt the technology was worth its surcharge, never mind delivered on claims to transport the moviegoer into the action on screen.  Not one.  (And yes, that includes “Avatar” and whatever other title you’re thinking to yourself, “even (fill in the blank)?!”  Yep, that one too.) “Gravity” is not only the first movie I’ve seen where I feel the 3-D is a necessary component and well worth the beefed-up ticket price, but it is the first film where the technology finally creates a truly immersive experience for the viewer.

As you watch George Clooney and Sandra Bullock float and spin through zero-gravity space, you will believe you are seeing real bodies floating out in real space.  And you will believe you are right there with them.  It is the most beautiful, existential, transcendent mind-fuck technophiles and traditional cinephiles alike could ever ask for.  “Gravity” doesn’t simply fulfill the promise of 3-D technology and IMAX and Ultra-screens, but it fulfills the promise of film magic at its most visceral level.  You will walk out of this film not just giddy from the stunning visuals, but with your equilibrium out of whack.  That’s not hyperbole; I literally felt odd walking out into daylight – walking period – after feeling as though I was floating weightlessly through a dark abyss with these characters for the last 90 minutes.  It’s a staggering feeling; comparable, no doubt, to how audiences felt seeing “L’arrivée d’un train en gare de La Ciotat” (“The Arrival of a Train at La Ciotat Station, Arrival of a Train at La Ciotat”) in 1896, with its then-revolutionary uncut image of train barreling towards the audience who fled the theater because they thought the train would burst through the screen; or perhaps experiencing “The Wizard of Oz” and its Technicolor majesty for the first time.

Speaking of uncut images, “Gravity” begins with a spectacular, 13-minute single shot in which George Clooney’s veteran astronaut Matt Kowalski “space walks” seemingly out of another galaxy – slowly emerging as a spec in the corner of the screen, floating ever closer across the curve of the earth – and settles in next to Sandra Bullock’s Dr. Ryan Stone, an all-business medical engineer on her first mission into space where she and Kowalski are to perform apparently rather routine maintenance on a space station.  Director Alfonso Cuarón (“Children of Men”) makes terrific use of the 3-D in moments both big and small.  As Kowalski and Stone maneuver around the outside of the shuttle, they sit directly in front us; as they work on the shuttle control panels, their hands and elbows invade our personal space.  When debris from a destroyed neighboring satellite comes hurtling towards them with vicious, destructive force, ripping their shuttle to shreds, the effect is nerve-wracking, causing the viewer to flinch and duck in their seats.  Their shuttle destroyed and cut off of all communications with NASA, Stone and Kowalski now have to find a way back to Earth (and before their oxygen runs out or the gravitational pull of the Earth brings that devastating storm of debris back around).  Watching these two minuscule bodies stranded and set adrift in the vast vacuum and unforgiving darkness of outer space, one can’t think of a more desperate, terrifying and impossible challenge.


For all of its technological grandeur, “Gravity” is also a marvel of simplicity.  The film is essentially a two-character play, with Clooney and Bullock both delivering convincing, pitch-perfect performances as decidedly different characters and personalities. In terms of acting, Bullock is asked to do the heavy lifting and she is – to my surprise- a revelation. I have never been her biggest fan, but she projects a soulful gravitas in emotionally exhausting scenes that most actors wouldn’t approach with the same measured restraint. For his part, Cuarón relies as much on quiet moments of intimate emotion and delicate, dreamlike visuals to wow viewers as he does those big, eye-popping set pieces.  It is that balance of the intimate and the epic that gives “Gravity” it’s emotional weight and ultimately proves to be the story’s strongest ally.  The script (co-written by Cuarón and his son Jonas) unfortunately often lacks the same degree of subtlety and originality as the images and action on screen, which is the only thing that prevents “Gravity” from rivaling Stanley Kubrick’s “2001:  A Space Odyssey” as the best movie about space ever made.  Kubrick’s masterpiece is just as beautifully artistic – punctuated by a haunting visual aesthetic – but it’s also quiet, contemplative and profound.  “Gravity” strives for profundity, but is all too eager to spell all of its themes out for the audience, and falls short as a result.

No matter.  Though it has obvious ambitious beyond pure spectacle, “Gravity” is clearly a movie made to push the boundaries of movie-making.  It’s less about dialog, storytelling, and narrative heft than the ability of film to amaze and inspire.  You can’t help but ponder with giddy excitement how directors like Kubrick and Georges Méliès would employ the technological magic today’s directors are fortunate enough to have at their disposal.  Cuarón, however, is as worthy an heir to their legend as we have today, a reputation he cements with this spectacular achievement.  You won’t soon forget his exquisite imagery – the constant illumination of the ever-present Earth seemingly just out of reach of the desperate, stranded characters, as if to taunt them; the twisted silence that accompanies all the explosions and destruction because sound cannot exist in space, the balletic movements, the final harrowing shot – like “2001”, “Gravity” is haunting in the best sense of the term.


We live in a time when technology is so omnipresent and so radically evolving that it has become nearly impossible to be truly moved or awed by advances in filmmaking.  If you see “Gravity” (and if I haven’t already make it clear, you should… now.. in 3-D and on the biggest screen possible – there would be absolutely no point in opting for the 2-D version of this film) take a moment to ponder the fact that what you are feeling is likely as close as you may ever come to a sense of true astonishment at the power of film – how technology, when used correctly and effectively, can create genuinely wondrous, immersive, mind-blowing cinema; which is precisely what movies started out striving to achieve.

For all of the technological advances proudly on display here, “Gravity” is cinema in its purest form.

4 Stars (Out of 4)



photo credit:

By R. David

On August 22, 2013 – a date that will live in internet infamy – Warner Bros. announced that Ben Affleck will be the new Batman in director Zack Snyder’s “Man of Steel” sequel.  And immediately, as is now universal custom whenever a major pop culture casting decision is revealed, the Twitterverse and blogospheres lost their collective shit.

Frankly, no matter who was named the new Batman, things likely would have gone down pretty much the same way.  After all, what else is social media for if not to bitch about pop culture news?  Well, okay; that and shit like Grumpy Cat.

Actually, for once, I’m not sure the Internet had come together in agreement on the perfect choice for the new Dark Knight.  I don’t think there was even a fanboy Top 5 that formed something resembling a general consensus.  I heard Ryan Gosling’s name floated a bit (which would have been a terrible pick) and there was some (apparently premature or flat-out false) indication that Josh Brolin was the front-runner (I can see that).  Beyond that, there was a lot of talk about virtual unknowns and guys that you’d only want to be Batman because you watch “True Blood” getting the part.

Ultimately, Warner Bros. decided to go with a big name star and someone who’s career is on a critical and commercial hot streak at the moment (if you’ve forgotten, the last movie Affleck was in – which he also directed – just won the Best Picture Oscar).  If nothing else, from a business standpoint, I can’t fault their logic.

Oh, but the all-knowing fanboy masses apparently can.

Early internet chatter on the casting news has been overwhelmingly negative; with comic book fans, movie buffs, and even people who clearly don’t really give a shit who plays Batman caught in some weird Twitter competition to determine who can deliver the zaniest pun.  The real crazies went so far as to say things like “I’ll never see another Warner Bros. movie again,” and wishing harm to Affleck so the role would have to be recast.  Hell, within 24 hours there was already a petition protesting Affleck’s casting.  Petitions, fer cryin’ out loud, people!

Most of the outrage comes from people who, ten years later, still feel burned by Affleck’s turn in “Daredevil”.  I’ll grant you guys, he wasn’t exactly an acting powerhouse in that one, but it was a shitty movie all around; a Marvel Comics’ movie before Marvel started making decent movies about their second-tier characters.


image credit:

Also, Affleck was a much different actor – and all-around person, some would argue – 10 years ago.  So this also goes for the people bringing up “Gigli”, “Reindeer Games”, or “Pearl Harbor”:  Whatever work the guy did at the height of his “Next Big Thing”, paycheck(no pun intended)-cashing, “Beniffer” days is probably not the greatest barometer with which to judge his acting skills – never mind his ability to portray Batman/Bruce Wayne.

I used to be as big an Affleck-hater as the next guy.  He seemed incapable of giving a performance without projecting an irksome air of bland smugness into every role (because, I figured, he probably was an irksome, bland and smug dude and just too shitty an actor to hide it on screen).  And nearly all of his film choices in the first two-thirds of the 2000s were utter crap (except for the time – ironically – when he portrayed “Superman” actor George Reeves in “Hollywoodland“).  But he has made a career turnaround in the last 6 years or so that is right out of a classic Hollywood comeback tale.  “Gone Baby Gone”, “The Town” and “Argo” is as impressive a trilogy as any current director has delivered, never mind as their first three films out of the gate.  Granted, his directorial chops say nothing about his ability to play Batman, but it’s worth noting that he also starred in “The Town” and “Argo” – both brooding character dramas, not unlike Batman thematically– and to great dramatic effect.

image credit:

image credit:

Also, Superhero movies have a way of chewing up and spitting out the guys who seem perfect for the job, while proving those initially thought to be miscast as revelations.  Michael Keaton, generally a comedian and in no way physically imposing, as the first cinematic Batman; Heath Ledger, untested in anything resembling dark, psychological drama, as The Joker in “The Dark Knight”; relative unknown Hugh Jackman as Wolverine; and to one generation Robert Downey Jr. was a Hollywood punch line and to another he was, “who?”, when cast as Tony Stark/Iron Man – all were met with the same sort of venom-spewing indignation from obsessive comic book fans as Affleck is receiving at the moment .

Conversely; George Clooney, an up-and-coming Hollywood A-lister, was seen as the perfect choice to carry on the  Batman torch; Eric Bana was supposed to bring a certain gravitas to the role of the Hulk that often proved unattainable in big, Hollywood blockbusters; Nicolas Cage – still doing better-than-average box office numbers on his name alone at the time – in “Ghost Rider”; and Ray Stevenson (here’s your argument for – or against, depending on how you want to look at it – casting a relatively unknown TV actor as the titular hero in a comic book movie) was supposed to be the guy that saved “The Punisher” movie franchise.

Obviously, how those supposed bone-headed casting decisions worked out VS the supposed sure-things says a mouthful about trying to predict what type of actor will make a great superhero.


image credit:


image credit:

But choosing a quality Batman doesn’t simply boil down to bold, eyebrow-raising casting decisions. Michael Keaton and Christian Bale were the only Batmen to make an impression because they shared one simple but generally overlooked trait that Val Kilmer and George Clooney lacked: the ability to give two separate and distinguishable performances – one as Batman, one as Bruce Wayne.  Keaton was (surprisingly) effectively stoic and heroic as The Caped Crusader, but had a completely different attitude and demeanor as Bruce Wayne; convincing as both the shrewd business man and cocky playboy of Wayne’s public persona, but also as the tormented recluse of the character’s true self.  So successfully inhabiting both sides of the Batman/Bruce Wayne character is what made Keaton arguably the best Caped Crusader yet.  It’s a shame Tim Burton’s two Goth-deco epics with Keaton never truly mined the depths of the Wayne psyche the way Christopher Nolan’s films and – to an even greater and darker extent – Frank Miller’s comic adaptions of the character did. I would have loved to see Keaton dig even deeper into the Batman/Bruce-public/private divide.

Christian Bale pulled off a similar feat in Nolan’s Batpics, though I was never as convinced of his fun-loving playboy persona, of course that was no doubt an intentional choice on his and Nolan’s part to portray and explore a much darker Bruce Wayne. That makes Bale’s Wayne less removed from his titular alter ego, however he was no less convincing in drawing a line of distinction between the two.

The two Joel Schumacher Batman films of the mid-90s had many problems beyond the choice of actors to play Batman. Perhaps if they had been in films less cartoonish, poorly written and overstuffed with supporting characters; and that were less of a gaudy, fetishistic visual nightmare – maybe in completely different movies – Val Kilmer or George Clooney could have been a quality Batman/Bruce Wayne. As it is, their portrayals offer no distinction between the two personalities and no exploration into the mind and motivations of the two alter egos.  They give the same performance out of the Batsuit as in, and mistake both characters for fun-loving, gadget-obsessed thrill-seekers.  James Bond in a rubber suit (and this time with nipples and a codpiece, everybody!)

image credit:

image credit:

image credit:

image credit:

I have no reason to assume Ben Affleck – or Zack Snyder for that matter; he is the guy giving Affleck his direction after all – understands this distinction and will not make the same mistakes that Schumacher, Kilmer and Clooney did.  However, I have no reason to assume he will make the same mistakes either. Christopher Nolan (you know, the guy who gave the world what is overwhelmingly considered the most complex and narratively ambitious rendering of the Batman universe on screen so far) is producing Affleck’s first stab at the character; Warner Bros. would never allow another debacle the likes of the Schumacher Batflicks; and Affleck has grown by leaps and bounds as not just an actor but as a true filmmaker who, by that very definition, should understand the necessity of character development and giving an in-depth, multilayered performance.

As much as I’ve come around to accepting The New Ben Affleck, I too admittedly have some concerns about him being the right guy for the cowl. Something about his demeanor just doesn’t scream Batman to me. And even though I think he’s been good in several dramas, I have yet to see Affleck go really dark, or tackle any psychologically complex characters. And I fear as Bruce Wayne, he will simply pull out the same smirky, smug, smart-alecky posturing he coasted on for so much of his early career, before donning the Batsuit and then simply grimacing his way through the action sequences.


But honestly, those are concerns I would have of nearly any actor set to take this role.  But that’s why they call it acting.  Ben Affleck may not have a lot of the necessary cred under his belt to justify him landing this gig; but then again, neither did Michael Keaton or Christian Bale or Heath Ledger. Producers and directors have to be trusted to know which performers embody what they are looking for in their characters and give them the part based on how they fit into that mold – and hopefully how capable they are of breaking it. My hope is that Warner Bros., Snyder and Nolan genuinely see that in Affleck, and not simply a big name to potentially beef-up grosses when a lesser-known actor may have brought a more complex performance to the table.

Only time will tell and I may eat my words (and I will gladly admit fault if that time indeed comes), but I say Ben Affleck will end up surprising us all, and his Batman will be the next step in his impressive career evolution.

Frankly, I’m more concerned that Snyder and Co. botch the whole ‘Superman VS Batman’ concept and set Affleck up to fail by sticking him in movie that treats Batman as an afterthought or stunt-casting coupe simply to get people to pay for another bombastic-yet-empty “Man of Steel” flick.  We’re assuming Snyder’s take on Batman will even want to be as dark and morally complex as Nolan and Burton’s renderings. They could be shooting for a much more family-friendly, Marvel-like take on the character(s) simply to set-up the inevitable “Justice League” behemoth and position it as an “Avengers”-style, easily accessible crowd-pleaser.

Christ, I hope not.

There too, though:  deep breath, remain calm, positive thoughts.