Werewolves vs. Scotsmen - DOG SOLDIERS

Dog Soldiers
2002 - 105 minutes - Horror/Action
Director: Neil Marshall
Country: United Kingdom
IMDB: 6.7
Metacritic: N/A
RT: 76%

CinemaChagrin's Rating: B

Watch this movie if you enjoy:

• Horror-action films
• Great B-movies
• WEREWOLVES!
• Tons of great gory violence/action

Avoid this movie if you dislike:

• B-movies or horror films
• Extremely gory movies
• Werewolves...duh
• Some plot holes/horror cliches

If you were to combine George A. Romero's 1968 classic horror film Night of the Living Dead with James Cameron's pulse-pounding 1986 sci-fi action film Aliens, you'd probably end up with something like Dog Soldiers.

Of course, the antagonists in this English horror flick are werewolves, not zombies or aliens. A direct-to-DVD directorial debut (hence the cheap-looking poster), Dog Soldiers established newcomer Neil Marshall as a promising new horror director back in 2002. I initially took interest in this film after seeing one of Marshall's later productions, The Descent (an absolutely fantastic and terrifying horror film about a group of six women trapped underground and fighting for their lives against vicious creatures after a spelunking expedition goes wrong). Many of Marshall's talents as a director seen in The Descent are on display in Dog Soldiers, albeit in a less-refined form.

The protagonists of Dog Soldiers

The plot of Dog Soldiers is pretty straightforward (which is a good thing): a squad of 6 Scottish soldiers are sent into the Scottish highlands on a routine training mission. They trudge through the woods, making their way towards a rendezvous point before coming across the gory remains of a special forces team that was supposed to serve as a mock enemy for the mission. They soon afterwards encounter the enemy that inflicted so much carnage - a group of vicious werewolves. Outnumbered, the Scotsmen retreat into an abandoned farmhouse to make a last stand.

Dog Soldiers is an unabashed B-movie - obviously low budget, filled with stock characters, flush with plot twists seen coming a mile away - and a damn fine one at that. Though it is very horrific at times, the film never takes itself too seriously, and features several hilarious moments. The violence is ridiculously over-the-top and gory, while the plot is pretty predictable. Characters oftentimes make nonsensical decisions, and there are some pretty big plot holes. Why do I like this movie so much, you ask? Mainly because it's ridiculously entertaining!

Bad doggy!

What makes Dog Soldiers so entertaining, elevating it above most horror B-movies? A number of reasons, really. Firstly, Neil Marshall successfully builds tension through a variety of methods, including really neat black and white "werewolf-vision" shots, excellent camera angles, and swift editing. Marshall also doesn't make the mistake of showing the audience the monsters too early on the film. Throughout the first half of the movie, all we see are quick cuts of the werewolves running through the woods or lunging towards the soldiers. There are also also some really cool moments where a werewolf is just off screen, its visible exhalations fogging up soon-to-be broken windows. 

Though the film is very action-heavy, there are several suspenseful and terrifying moments. Additionally, while most of the characters in the film constitute stereotypes (the gruff sergeant, reluctant leader, crazy bad-ass), they are developed much more than your average horror flick. Several have very memorable personalities and scenes;  it is much easier to root for them to prevail as a result (even though they don't have much of a chance). 

What really makes Dog Soldiers stand out is the action. Once the werewolves are introduced, the rest of the film is almost constant action. Part of the quality of the action can be attributed to Marshall's direction - the action sequences are all well-shot - but a lot of the entertainment stems from the premise itself: a horde of vicious werewolves duking it out with six Scottish soldiers (by the way, the accents are hilarious). The werewolves look absolutely fantastic, no CGI bullcrap, just cool werewolf suits that look really scary. Finally, the film avoids many of the worst horror cliches, including random/pointless nudity/sex or a forced romantic subplot.

I don't really have a lot of substantive things to say about Dog Soldiers (cause it's not really that deep); it's just a lot of fun! If you in any way like horror films, action films, or werewolves, this movie is a MUST SEE! It is supremely entertaining, a horror film with a good blend of action, suspense, comedy, and yes, horror. It also has a really cool soundtrack. Oh yeah, and characters we actually like and care about (always a good thing). As far as B-movies go, you can't go wrong with Dog Soldiers!

-CC

Watch the full movie on YouTube!

Is it perfect? "Oh you betcha" - FARGO

FARGO

1996 - 98 minutes - Crime/Drama/Thriller
Directors: Joel Coen, Ethan Coen
Country: United States
IMDB: 8.2
Metacritic: 85
RT: 94%

EpicEnthusiast's Rating: 10/10

Watch this movie if you enjoy: 

• crime thrillers

• the Coen brothers 

• unique cinematography 

• real-life sets/Minnesota

Avoid this move if you dislike:

• blood/violence

• profanity

• Minnesota accents

(minor spoilers and language below)

The first time I watched the Coen Brother's classic crime thriller Fargo, I saw some quality, but was underwhelmed overall. It had some cool camera shots, but seemed dry and slow. Only after a second viewing did I realize just how brilliant the seven time Oscar nominee is.

The story revolves around a man named Jerry Lundegaard, who because of financial troubles, decides to hire a couple of hit men to kidnap his own wife. The plan is to have his wife's wealthy father pay a large ransom in which Jerry would split with the hit men. There was to be no violence, no blood, or no mishaps. Not so much. All three happen, and a diligent (albeit slow and pregnant) police officer is on the case.

William H. Macy as Jerry Lundegaard

The beauty of Fargo lies within its characters. They aren't hot shot cops or wealthy business men or professional killers. They're all ordinary people. They live in a small town and drive bland sedans. The fact that a man like Jerry Lundegaard, (William H. Macy) who says "heck" and "darn tootin" is willing to have his own wife kidnapped for money is what makes it so effective. Macy is one of a trio of cast members to give the performance of a career, and he plays the tame, innocent Minnesota man toperfection. Everything from his facial expressions to his mannerisms to his quirky comments authenticate Lundegaard, and make it that much more compelling as we watch his hazardous act of desperation.

Steve Buscemi plays Carl Showalter, who is one of the hit men hired by Lundegaard. His character is unique in that he is loud and authoritative while also frail and "funny looking," as he was called multiple times in the film. His partner, (played by Peter Stormare) doesn't seem to take him seriously, but he's the one driving the getaway car, and collecting the cash. On the surface he's a ruthless and heartless villain, but he's humanized by prostitutes and the need for conversation on a long car ride. He's expertly developed, and very well acted from Buscemi.

Frances McDormand as Marge Gunderson

And finally we have the the police officer investigating it all. Frances McDormand plays the lead role of Marge Gunderson, and amazingly doesn't even appear until more than thirty minutes into the film. Looking at McDormand, you might think she'd be the last actress to play a police officer, but she did an exceptional job. She mastered the easily identifiable Minnesota accent, and even pulled off a fake pregnancy. What makes her character so fascinating though, goes back to the simple showcasing of her everyday life. She has a husband at home who paints. She eats fast food. She visits a friend from her past that has always been enamored with her. (Which by the way, is one of the most awkward and cringing moments I've ever seen on screen.) She's getting ready to have her first child. She lives a standard life, and is simply doing her job. In this case, her job just so happens to entail investigating a brutal homicide, but Gunderson herself is what carries Fargo, and McDormand put together a dynamite performance. Perhaps her husband (Joel Coen) being behind the camera had something to do with it, but either way her Oscar was well deserved.


Also rightfully recognized by the academy, was the Coen brothers' masterful script. When we think of scripts associated with a crime drama, comedy isn't typically associated. An exception that comes to mind is my favorite director Martin Scorsese and his films Goodfellas and Casino. He and Nicholas Pileggi insert some black comedy into those scripts, and mix humor and tragedy. Truthfully though, what the Coens do in Fargo takes it to a different level. Many parts of the film are tragic, and death is certainly prominent, but they're coupled with laugh-out-loud hysterics along the way. From the constant "oh yah's" and "you betcha's" to the philosophical inquires about life. The Coen brothers manage to balance a serious tone with a humorous one, and thats something that rarely works. Memorable quotes go from this:

So, I'm tendin' bar there at Ecklund and Swedlin's last Tuesday, and this little guy's drinkin' and he says, "So where can a guy find some action? I'm goin' crazy out there at the lake." And I says, "What kinda action?" and he says, "Women action, what do I look like?" and I says, "Well, what do I look like? I don't arrange that kinda thing," and he says, "But I'm goin' crazy out there at the lake," and I says, "Well, this ain't that kinda place." 

And this:

Steve Buscemi in Fargo

Would it.. .kill you to say something? "No." That's the first thing you've said in the last four hours. Thats a... that's fountain on conversation, man. That's a geyser. I mean, whoa daddy! Stand back, man. Shit. I'm sitting here driving. Doing all the driving, man. The whole fucking way from Brainard driving. Just trying to...chat, ya know. Keep our spirits up, fight the boredom of the road, and you can't say one fucking thing just in way of conversation. Oh fuck it. I don't have to talk to you either, man. See how you like it. Just total fucking silence. Two can play that game, smart guy. We'll just see how you like it. Total silence. 

To my favorite quote of the film, coming minutes after laughing out loud:

So that was Mrs. Lundergaard on the floor in there. And I guess that was your accomplice in the wood chipper. And those three people in Brainard. And for what? For a little bit of money. There's more to life than a little money, ya know. Don'tcha know that? And here ya are, and it's a beautiful day. Well. I just don't understand it. 

The screenplay mixes a number of emotions into one brilliant whole. It all meshes and flows in an almost inexplainable fashion. One of the best scripts I've ever come across. 

Another Fargo nomination that should have turned into a trophy was the cinematography by the Coens and Roger Deakins. They masterfully used the camera to both set a scene, and tell a story. When the shot called for facial expressions, they glued it to the actors and let them run with it. When the shot called for perspective and surrounding, they gave a unique angle. The outdoor atmosphere in the film was essential to the story, and it didn't take long to be absorbed by the snow. Although it wasn't actually filmed in Fargo, different areas of Minnesota and Canada certainly sufficed. Some standout stills: 

Overall, Fargo is an absolute masterpiece. It may be the only film I've ever seen that allows me to say that every single scene is perfect. There is simply nothing wrong with it. It'll make you laugh, wince, smirk, cringe, and maybe even cry. The characters are wonderfully developed, and supremely acted. The script is incredibly natural, and the cinematography is flat-out special. It was robbed of best picture, and should have won the other four oscars it was nominated for too. I've yet to see the 1997 winner The English Patient, but I'd be absolutely shocked if it even compared to Fargo in overall quality. Dare I say, it's the best film the Coen brothers have ever made. The late Roger Ebert concurs: 

"Rotates its story through satire, comedy, suspense and violence, until it emerges as one of the best films I've ever seen."


-EE

One last note I'd like make is in regards to the film's minuscule budget. Even for 1996, to make a film of this nature for around $7,000,000 is incredible. More and more today, movies are being produced in front of a green screen, and CGI and special effects take over. I find it both extremely refreshing and very impressive when films are shot in real places, and are made for less than what the actors are being paid. It makes Fargo that much more of a monumental achievement. 

"I Watched It So You Don't Have To" - ENDER'S GAME

ENDER'S GAME 
2013 - 114 minutes - Sci-Fi/Action
Director: Gavin Hood
Country: United States
IMDB: 6.8
Metacritic: 51
RT: 62%

CinemaChagrin's Rating: D

Watch this movie if you enjoy:

• Science-fiction movies
• Asa Butterfield
• Harrison Ford
• Hailee Steinfeld

Avoid this movie if you dislike:

• Sloppy writing
• Seeing a beloved book butchered on the big screen
• More cheese than Wisconsin

[minor spoilers below]

Okay, so I should have seen that one coming.

Seriously, read the book!

Despite mostly mediocre reviews, some pretty underwhelming trailers, and questionable casting choices (who decided Viola Davis would be a good fit for a military-science fiction action film anyway?), I convinced myself to go see Ender's Game for a few reasons. One, no theaters in Greenville are playing 12 Years A Slave (a travesty!). Two, because the majority of the cast looked amazing (seriously, Harrison Ford, Ben Kingsley, Asa Butterfield, Hailee Steinfeld, and Abigail Breslin? That's a lot of talent for one movie!). And most importantly, three, I am a HUGE fan of the book. I first read it in the 4th grade, and have probably reread/listened to it 4 or 5 times since then. It's an incredible work of fiction, with wonderful characters and a thoroughly gripping story.

Since it's publication in 1985, the book has had a well-deserved reputation of being nigh-unfilmable. And for good reason too: it features a six-year old protagonist, takes place over the span of several years, and features brutal murders and mass genocide on a galactic scale. Sounds like the perfect book for kids, eh? Well it actually is, in a manner of speaking. It's really a rare kind of book - one that can appeal to readers of all ages.

But enough about the book, I'll get to the point and talk about the movie. (And no, I will not talk about author Orson Scott Card's virulently homophobic views. Anyone who boycotts this movie because Card hates the gays needs to get off of their high horse. IT'S A MOVIE!) 

No seriously, I'll talk about the movie now. First things first: it wasn't as bad as it could have been. Yes, I know that is quite a low standard. But we've all seen how bad book-movie adaptations can go (Eragon still gives me nightmares). Sometimes they go remarkably well (Lord of the Rings, Fight Club, Apocalypse Now), but for the most part, they usually miss the mark. In a way, Ender's Game reminds me of last year's Hunger Games, in that they both are not terrible, but really not good either. Although the former's source material is of a much higher quality, and the movie turned out a little worse.

Mazer Rackham (Ben Kingsley), Colonel Graff (Harrison Ford), and Ender (Asa Butterfield) in Ender's Game

The gist of the plot is this: Earth was attacked by an alien race called the Formics (and pejoratively "the Buggers" in the book, after their bug-like appearance, but for some reason that term is NEVER used in the movie, which is puzzling) about 50 years ago. Tens of millions of people were killed. Humanity vowed never again to be caught off guard. The unified world government established a "Battle School" space station and drafted all of the world's child geniuses to become the next generation of brilliant military commanders in preparation for an impending Formic invasion. Our protagonist, Ender Wiggin, is of course the smartest of them all, destined to save the human race from annihilation. But not is all as it seems, of course.

Let me start with what I liked about the film. Don't worry, this won't take long: 

1. The acting all around was pretty strong for what the actors had to work with (which admittedly wasn't much). Asa Butterfield gave a solid performance as Ender, as did Hailee Steinfeld as Petra Arkanian. Newcomer Aramis Knight actually captured most of Bean's spunk pretty well. Harrison Ford was probably my favorite, as he did his gruff and tough guy role quite convincingly.

2. The visuals were pretty good overall (although for a budget rumored to be around $100 million, I was slightly underwhelmed - then again I just saw Gravity, which makes everything else look bad. But that was only made for a budget of $90 million! Hey, what gives??). Director Gavin Hood did a good job of visualizing many aspects of the book. The Battle Room looked really cool, as did the battle sequences between the Battle School armies. Apparently much of the Battle Room was a practical set, not all computer generated, which is impressive. I also thought the animated rendition of Ender's "mind game" was very creative and well done. Quite disturbing, as it should be.

Petra Arkanian (Hailee Steinfeld) and Ender (Butterfield) share a tender moment

...and now for what sucked. First of all, when I see book-movie adaptations, I like to view them in two ways: 1) as a movie and 2) as an adaptation. Ender's Game isn't necessarily a terrible movie, but it is an ineffective adaptation. I won't delve into the nitty-gritty, but key subplots are completely obliterated, the roles of Peter and Valentine are essentially non-existent (what a waste of Abigail Breslin!), and many character relationships are altered or compressed to save time. 

Which leads me to my next point of contention: the pacing. The first 4/5's of the film move incredibly fast - to a point where things become incoherent at times. If I hadn't read the book, I may have had difficulty understanding what was happening. Characters feel paper-thin and extremely underdeveloped. However, during the closing act of the film, the pace slows to a crawl. With the plot essentially wrapped up and very little emotional depth to carry it, the film becomes uber-boring for the last 10 minutes or so. 

Ender gets a stern talking-to from Colonel Graff

As I mentioned previously, some of the casting decisions are somewhat puzzling. Viola Davis was horribly miscast as Major Anderson, and Game of Thrones actor Nonso Anozie did not seem to fit the bill for Sergeant Dap at all. And while I appreciated that Ben Kingsley appropriately voiced his dialogue in Mazer Rackham's Kiwi accent, it was very inconsistent and jarring at times. All of these are somewhat minor details though. 

I must say the writing was the single weakest aspect of Ender's Game. The dialogue was hokey (and not in a good way) and not fluid at all. It's always frustrating to see otherwise spectacular actors hamstrung by a poor script. One particularly irritating aspect of the writing involved the use of the word "game". There were several instances during the movie when characters would shout "It's just a game!" or "This isn't a game!" or something else about playing a "game". Stop trying to shoehorn the title of the movie into the movie so much!

A lackluster musical score didn't help buoy the film's prospects either. Seriously, 90% of Hollywood film music nowadays sounds exactly the same. Oh what I would give to go back to the glory days of Bernard Hermann, Miklos Rocza, and Franz Waxman. But I digress...

In the Battle Room

To wrap up, Ender's Game is not a complete failure, but it hardly lives up to its source material. A talented cast was largely wasted on a weak script and hurried plot. The movie looked and even felt like one giant video game (albeit one where you can't participate!), as so much of it involved digitally-generated action sequences. There is nothing wrong with a visual-centric film (see, Gravity) if the special effects serve a clear purpose. Ender's Game  just feels like an empty shell with a pretty coat of paint, despite all of the familiar characters and lines from the book that were awkwardly shoehorned in with little context ("Remember, the enemy's gate is down!"). Interestingly enough, though a lot of the CGI in the film looked good, most of the actual costumes looked pretty cheap. The Battle School jumpsuits alternated between janitorial garb and snorkeling wetsuits, while high-ranking officers wore uniforms that looked like something employees at a theme park would wear.

Overall, it's decent popcorn entertainment. Fans of the book probably will be let down in a big way, but those of you who have not read the book may enjoy it somewhat. I wouldn't recommend going out and paying to see it in theaters, but you could do far worse with $9. 

-CC

(One minor implausible wish: that the movie had been rated R. It would have been really cool for the filmmakers to have gone all out and made the hand-to-hand combat and "mind-game" scenes just as unrelentingly brutal and gruesome as they are in the book. But alas, a PG-13 rating sells more tickets for this kind of movie.)

Lust, Liberation, and "Come On, Really?" - TITANTIC

TITANIC

1997 - 194 minutes - Drama/Romance
Director: James Cameron
Country: United States
IMDB: 7.6
Metacritic: 74
RT: 88%

EpicEnthusiast's Rating: 8/10

Watch this movie if you enjoy: 

• romance films

• engrossing atmospheres 

• history 

• Leonardo DiCaprio 

Avoid this movie if you dislike:

• James Cameron films

• love/relationships

• unrealistic moments

James Cameron's epic Titanic is certainly a landmark in recent film history. It was nominated for a record 14 oscars, and won a record 11 of them, including best picture, best director, and best cinematography. It was budgeted at an astounding $200,000,000 that was only surpassed by Cameron's 2009 Avatar ($270,000,000) as the most expensive film ever made. That proved to be a reasonable price to pay though, as it spent a record fifteen straight weeks at #1 at the box office, and has grossed over $658,000,000 as of June 8, 2012. It's ranked #6 on the American Film Institute's list of top ten "epic" films of all time, and was the first film ever to win best picture at both the Oscars, and the MTV Movie Awards. 

Much of this praise is deserved, but not all. 

The film opens with a present day dive down to Titanic remains. Although its mostly fictitious (as i'll touch on below), Cameron was fascinated by the real ship, and ended up spending more time with it underwater than the original passengers did. In fact, he used the site of the Titanic to persuade the studio to budget the film. He told them it would add appeal, strengthen the story, and sell more tickets. He was certainly right. That perspective and background really adds to the plot, and makes for a much more compelling narrative from the older version of Rose Dewitt Bukater (Gloria Stuart), even if it isn't real. 

After that initial setup, we plunge on to the ill-fated ship with the Rose of 1912 (Kate Winslett), and one of the film's strengths is immediately introduced: the setting. Presumably, much of the $200,000,000 budget was used on the set, and attempting to re-create the Titanic, and for me, it was money well spent. As Rose and her family board the ship, we seem to be doing it with them. Cameron gives us a spectator's view of the gigantic vessel first, and then we head inside to be absorbed by interior. The camera mimics another person on board, and it travels through hallways, spirals up and down staircases, and soars above the ship outside. We get a bevy of perspectives, and by the end of the film, we feel familiar with the ship. All other attributes aside, Cameron created a gorgeous replication that significantly added to the story. Titanic isn't a masterpiece as a whole, but visually, it's nothing short. 

The life like set of Titanic

Along with a personal tour of the luxurious accommodations of the ship, we also get an inside look on Rose's life. She's part of the Dewitt Bukater family that has ironically lost all their money, but is shielded by the family name. At just seventeen (which isn't believable at all due to her acting and appearance), she dresses in extravagant gowns, collects fine art, and dines with other wealthy adults. Her fiance Cal Hockley (Billy Zane) can buy her anything she wants. She seemingly has it all, and yet something is missing. Winslett does a great job of depicting disconnection and bleakness on screen, and the escape from her family becomes a major theme in the film. 

One night while seeking some alone time on the deck, she meets the young American Jack Dawson (Leonardo DiCaprio) and sparks fly. The acting from the pair is sound, and Winslett was deserving of her Oscar nomination. Take out a few weak lines from Cameron's script, and she may have won it. Billy Zane also does a nice job of creating a character in Cal that we're supposed to hate. However, the real power in Titanic comes from the connection between Rose and Jack. 

Billy Zane as Cal Hockley

Kate Winslett as Rose Dewitt Bukater

Jack is precisely what Rose needs in her life. He's an affectionate artist that doesn't have a dollar to his name. He won his Titanic tickets in a poker game and doesn't even have a real home. They're opposites that are quite alike. He instantly recognizes that Rose is trapped by her family, and that she's living a life she's being told to live. While hesitant at first, Rose ultimately follows her heart and breaks down the walls holding her back. In one particular scene,  she tells Jack she's leaving after he asked if she loved Cal. She walks away, but doesn't get far. Jack is legitimately invested in her. He's fascinated by her appearance (and I will say she was quite stunning at times), her charisma and her situation. Rose needed someone to confide in, and after this point, they became truly inseparable. 

Cameron develops the two wonderfully, and they both dominate the screen. Their backgrounds are just a preface to a beautiful connection formed as the film goes on. He shows us what they make each other feel physically and emotionally. He shows us how they laugh and dance together. He shows that every second they have with each other is precious. He even creates an authentic and powerful sex scene, which is quite rare in film today. The beauty of Titanic comes from two people experiencing true love in the midst of a tragedy. They're connection touches you deeply, and certainly outweighs any negatives I may point out below. Cameron succeeds in creating the experience of a lifetime for two characters, and their moments together carry his film. 

My qualms with Titanic may be minor, but are impossible to ignore. If you've yet to see the film, you may want to skip this next paragraph. 

Up to the point of the ship beginning to sink, I was thoroughly enjoying the film. I shrugged off some questionable dialogue, and ignored some outlandish moments, but was impressed overall. However when the sip began to sink and panic from the passengers surfaced, dumb moment after dumb moment transpired. It started with the immediate breaking of Jack's handcuffs in the flooding room. Rose finding the axe was reasonable enough, but as she made clear by her practice swings on the cabinet, she could hardly use the thing. But then add the risk of chopping Jack's hand off, and suddenly she's a lumberjack. Quite dumb. Next was the ever so lucky escape from a flooding staircase. What are the chances that a crew member walks by as they're trying to unlock the gate? Why would he still be down there? Then he drops the keys and leaves them behind. Oh but don't worry, they were dropped within reach of Jack who dove underwater and reached through the gate to snag them. Phew, that was a close one. And then how about Cal suddenly going on a shooting spree? I'm all for sudden bursts of anger, but that was just laughable. Everything turns into slow motion and he misses all six shots. Who saw that one coming right? Again, not technical flaws, but I was definitely disappointed in Cameron. He wasn't creating a documentary, but if he cared enough to thoroughly explore the original ship, and cared enough to include real people and their actions (many of the first class passengers on the ship were actual passengers, and to use one example, one of the crew members did in fact shoot themselves on the deck of the ship), then he should have at least tried to keep everything as realistic as possible. These are just a few of the infamous scenes in the film that bring negative attention, and that could have easily been avoided. 

All that being said, Titanic still possesses a lot of quality, and again, the primary relationship of the film is what will stick with you, not the futile flaws. It's a breathtaking visual experience that features strong, developed characters and very good acting. The soundtrack is memorable, and the Oscar winning cinematography is impossible to ignore. You'll become a passenger of the ship yourself, and get attached to your fellow travelers. As James Berardinelli of ReelViews says, "You don't just watch Titanic, you experience it," and I'd encourage you to experience it as well. 

An iconic scene in Titanic

-EE


One last note. In 2010, the film was released in 3D, and I'd recommend steering clear of that version. While I haven't seen it, I recently saw Gravity in 3D, and could easily pinpoint where 3D effects would be added in Titanic. Unlike Gravity, they would be used primarily for entertainment. They'd add flying debris and rushing water during the sinking of the ship, and while it may add a different perspective, it would ultimately take away from the tone. Again, the film focuses on a relationship, and not the physical sinking of the ship. Just my two cents.

The trailer for Titanic can be seen here:

LET'S TALK ABOUT GRAVITY

GRAVITY 

2013 - 91 minutes - Drama/Sci-Fi/Thriller
Director: Alfonso Cuarón
Country: United States
IMDB: 8.7
Metacritic: 96
RT: 98%

CinemaChagrin's Rating: 10/10
EpicEnthusiast's Rating: 10/10

(a few minor spoilers below...)

Hey guys, EE here. Today CC and I are going to talk about Alfonso Cuarón's new beauty, Gravity. I'm sure you noticed the extremely high scores above, and as we'll discuss below, we believe them to be entirely accurate. I'd like to preface by saying that this film is one that really needs to be seen in a 3D theater. Personally, I'm not a fan of 3D films, but this was like nothing I've ever seen before. It put a whole new meaning to what a 3D movie can be. As of October 14th, 2013 it's still in theaters, and should be for some time longer. Do yourself a favor and go check it out. So with that, let's talk about Gravity. 

CC: I'd like to begin by just reiterating how highly I'd recommend seeing this film in theaters in 3D (and IMAX if you get the chance). Like EE, I tend to be skeptical of 3D pictures - I've found that in many movies 3D effects are used for gimmicky or flashy purposes. The 3D effects in Gravity are breathtaking yet subtle. The film does contain a few instances of the classic 3D cliche "object floats towards the audience," but they were very well done (for example, George Clooney reaches towards the audience at one point to retrieve a drifting bolt that has come loose from the Hubble Space Telescope). However, the use of 3D in Gravity goes far beyond these simple moments. The 3D layering effects help to immerse the viewer into the film - coupled with Cuarón's fluid and constantly-moving camerawork, one could even imagine that they are in space with the two protagonists. All of the objects in space - from the ISS to the Soyuz spacecraft to the spacesuits - looked incredibly full and realized, thanks in large part to the refined and convincing 3D effects.

EE: Totally agree with you CC. I never felt overwhelmed or jarred by the 3D effects, and in this case, they really added to the film. One shot that stood out to me was an action scene in which debris from a destroyed satellite was flying around. Some was coming towards the audience and made me flinch. It wasn't annoying or overdone though, and actually made me feel like I was in the middle of the chaos. Cuarón did an excellent job 0f choosing when and when not to use the 3D effects. 

Dr. Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock) in Gravity 

CC: I can’t emphasize enough the sheer visual magnificence of Gravity. From a technical standpoint, it's a wonder how the film was made at all. The technology used in the film had not been developed in 2009 when the project began. Director Alfonso Cuarón and cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki have created a camera that glides and flies through space, following the protagonists in a smooth and steady motion while capturing all of the action. Cuarón, known for his extensive use of long shots in his previous works (most notably in the 2006 post-apocalyptic film Children of Men), has outdone himself here once again. The opening shot, an incredibly beautiful and thrilling combination of exposition and action, lasts an astounding 13.5 minutes! It’s difficult to wrap one’s head around how that is even possible, but the fluid motion of the camera always ensures that the viewer witnesses everything important happening on screen. The rest of the film features several more long shots, excellent editing, and some incredibly engrossing first-person sequences which (coupled with the 3D effects) immerse the viewer even further in the experience. Beautiful shots abound throughout the entire film, from gorgeous vistas of the curvature of the Earth with the sun breaching the horizon to detailed reflections on visors and even teardrops. At several points in the film, recognizable geography passes under the astronauts (oh hey – there’s the Nile River and the Sinai Peninsula!) while the Northern Lights dance across the Arctic Circle.

EE: It was definitely awesome to see landmark features of the globe from such a unique perspective.  I'd also like to point out another one of Cuarón's films, Y Tu Mamá También . Although a totally different genre, (and certainly more risque) it's another gorgeous film. He certainly has a way with a camera, and Gravity is undoubtably his masterpiece. I'd seen photos of earth from space, but could never grasp the actual beauty of it. In Gravity, the planet came to life. Polished and silent aerial shots of oceans, clouds and mountains. Absorbing shots of the atmosphere swallowing debris whole. The physical appearance was one of many beautiful aspects of the film, and I could have floated above the earth with Dr. Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock) and Matt Kowalski (George Clooney) for hours. I was awe inspired from the opening seconds to the final shot. 

CC: I wholeheartedly agree with you on that point. Gravity is definitely a visual powerhouse. It looks so real that I wouldn't have been too surprised if they had actually filmed the whole thing in space! But aside from the visual strengths of the film, Gravity also featured wonderful storytelling and a truly gripping tale of personal perseverance and survival.

A brief moment of respite in Gravity

EE: That's another aspect of Gravity that really stood out to me: the story structure and natural dialogue between Stone and Kowalski. I’ve read a few things claiming the script was immature and out of place, but I think those comments are missing the point. In the midst of a detrimental space accident, I don’t want clichéd reactions or space engineer/astronaut jargon. I want raw human emotions, and natural conversation. I think Cuarón and his son Jonas did a phenomenal job of this with their screenplay. I never had thoughts of “no one would say that” or “well that’s a bit much” and in fact, I thought nearly all the dialogue was incredibly plausible. It was a constant portrayal of real and understandable thoughts that really connected you to the characters.


CC: Once more, it seems like we agree (such a rarity at times)! I found the dialogue to be quite realistic (barring a few minor technical discrepancies, like the mixture of the metric and customary measurement systems). Aside from the great dialogue, Gravity also featured excellent acting from both its leads. One critic noted that George Clooney plays "George Clooney in a space suit," an apt observation. Clooney brought his trademark wit and warmth to the film, but the screen definitely belonged to Bullock. Her austere and understated performance hit just the right combination of vulnerability, strength, and perseverance. Bullock's character is not a confidant, experienced veteran of spaceflight, but instead an inexperienced newcomer to zero-gravity. This makes her journey and personal growth that much more gripping and powerful. Given all of the trials and difficulties that her character overcomes over the course of the movie, it's impossible not to root for her.

EE: Absolutely. Bullock gave the performance of her career, and totally dominated the screen. The acting was top notch from a minuscule cast, and I also think the characterization in the film was masterfully done. Many movies fall victim to over emphasizing certain character traits that may or may not pertain to the story. Or some films don't give us enough background, and we're left wanting to know more. Gravity gave us just enough. Small, yet powerful details give us insight to the characters, and we gradually feel more and more for them. In some instances, the amount of development may be considered small, but in a lot of ways this story isn't even about the characters themselves. It's a about a journey of fear, hope and, survival. We follow the characters through space and get attached to the thought of them making it out alive. We can relate to their thinking and their actions, and because we're so immersed in the film, we feel the fear ourselves. We feel the lonely and empty silence. Cuarón did something special in that he attaches us to the characters and their surroundings. Couple the two and you have one incredible thriller. 

Stone (Bullock) and Matt Kowalski (George Clooney) in Gravity

CC: Agreed - Gravity is one heck of a thrill ride of a movie, visually stunning with compelling characters. Many observers have pointed out certain scientific inaccuracies in the film (and Cuarón has acknowledged that he took some liberties with physics for dramatic effect), but that is beside the point. Gravity is not meant to be a perfect representation of space, but instead is meant to instill a certain sense of wonder about what lies beyond our frail little planet in the wide expanse of the universe. Gravity is not just a film, it's an experience. From the astounding visual effects to the wonderfully-realized characters, Alfonso Cuarón's work is a masterpiece in this regard. I'd like to close my comments with a brief quotation from former US Astronaut Mark Kelly, weighing in on Gravity:

"But the truth is, most of this [scientific inaccuracy] doesn't matter. Cuarón has given us a glimpse of the awe that is the universe beyond our atmosphere. And physics aside, he does it remarkably well."

EE: Great stuff as usual CC. I really hope this discussion made you guys want to go check the film out. Rarely do I even go to the theater to see a movie anymore, (let alone in 3D) but Gravity is one I'll probably go see again. I'd say it's just about as perfect as a Sci-Fi thriller can be. An absolute gem of a film that will be remembered as one of the best ever produced. I can guarantee two things: You won't be disappointed, and you'll have never seen anything like it before.

- EE & CC

If you haven't already seen a trailer for the film, check out this visually astounding clip below: