Keanu Reeves Plays Spock

Well, it’s official.  WALL-E is better at flying a fire extinguisher than Sandra Bullock  


It's also official!  Jeremy is going to disparage one of the best-reviewed movies of the year.  Have at it, Jeremy.


As of this writing, "Gravity" is chugging along with a tidy 98% Tomato Meter.  They don't get a whole lot better than that, but I have an issue with that number.  I'm pretty sure that the reviewers are artificially giving it a good review based on cinematics and visuals rather than the quality of the movie itself.  The film is basically the next sequel to "Speed," but up in space and with fewer bad guys.  The idea is that Sandra Bullock and George Clooney are astronauts fixing the Hubble Space Telescope in the not-entirely-too-far-off-future.  Either the Chinese or the Russians (I honestly forget who) blow up a satellite which causes a deadly storm of space-shrapnel to destroy everything in orbit in a series of chain-reaction barrages in Null-G.  Our heroes must then find a way back to earth.  Adventure ensues.  

So, let's leave aside some of the more nit-picky scientific inaccuracies such as the orbital physics of the Hubble Telescope versus the International Space Station and how it's basically impossible to jump from one to the next, and just deal with Null-G training.  It is implied that our heroes have been in space for a considerable amount of time....on the order of weeks.  It stands to reason that people entrusted with that job would be familiar with some of the basic concepts of working while in orbit.  It's shown that they do have some training when it comes to using tools and the whole equal and opposite reaction thing.  So why is it that when it's time to put out a fire, Sandra Bullock thinks that just floating in the middle of the room and spraying a fire extinguisher isn't going to have consequences?  She quickly learns the hard way that she goes flying the other direction and smacks her head into the wall.  Seems like the kind of thing that should be second-nature to astronauts. 

Turns out, we learn why a little later, when she's adrift in space and uses the fire extinguisher to proper herself toward the next orbiting satellite.  This was an incredibly unique cinematic achievement, as we haven't had a scene like that in a film ever...since 2008, when WALL-E did the exact same thing but in a Far More Adorable Way.  I'm not a rocket scientist, so maybe there's some major difference between the mechanics of flying with a fire extinguisher while in low earth orbit versus flying with a fire extinguisher adrift in deep space, but the average audience probably won't care.  

Overall, the story of this movie falls a little flat.  There some remarkably forced back-story about Sandra Bullock and her character's deceased child which involves the kind of emotional detachment that would probably make somebody unfit for NASA service.  There's the formulaic triumph over tragedy drama build-up that we've seen over and over and over in Hollywood.  There's the ridiculous Sandra Bullock-as-an-embryo metaphoric scene.  There's the 3D effects for the sake of 3D effects...there's really not a lot to like about this movie.  

Except for the cinematography, which includes some of the most amazing visuals you will ever see on the silver screen.  The fact that nearly the entire movie takes place in low earth orbit and null-gravity makes the filming amazing.  Characters are suspended and spinning wildly out of control the whole time.  Stuff floats around, water beads up (yes, tears bead up, too), Marvin the Martian floats off into space, moving characters and vehicles keep moving without opposing forces.  You have never seen a movie like this before.  You may not see a movie like this again.  Just too bad they didn't make it a better movie.  


This has been another edition of Jeremy Is In The Theatre.