Gravity: Movie Review

I watched Alfonso Cuarón's newest sci-fi disaster film this past weekend, and needless to say, it was intense. Folks who are space aficionados like myself will be impressed by the amount of work that was put into making the space shuttle, the International Space Station (ISS), the Soyuz and other actual vehicles and satellites look as authentic on-screen as possible. There are lots of creative licenses that Cuarón took with the film—such as the fact the ISS and Hubble Space Telescope (HST) are shown to be in the same orbit (the HST actually orbits more than 340 miles above the Earth while the ISS orbits at an altitude of 220 miles)—but this was obviously done to enhance the well-executed drama in the movie. Also, George Clooney's astronaut, Matt Kowalski, gleefully flies around the HST in that jetpack (modeled after NASA's since-retired Manned Maneuvering Unit)...not caring that one careless mistake could lead to him colliding with the billion-dollar telescope. And in later scenes, we see Sandra Bullock's character Ryan Stone (you would think that Stone would've changed her first name after turning 18 or something) wearing nothing but a tank-top and pajama shorts after removing her 300-pound spacesuit inside the ISS—when in real life, she would have a full-body thermal undergarment underneath her EMU (or Extravehicular Mobility Unit...NASA's fancy term for the spacesuit). Of course, Bullock flaunting her stuff in Gravity is to be expected from the director behind that "kid-friendly" flick, Y Tu Mamá También!



What makes Graviy such a treat to watch for die-hard space geeks is the fact that (potential spoilers ahead) Bullock uses existing spacecraft and their actual functions to make her way back to Earth. As depicted in the movie, the Soyuz does need to separate into three components prior to reentry, and has those landing retrorockets needed to touch down on the ground safely; and China does have a space station (Tiangong-1) orbiting the Earth right now. Explorer, however, is the actual name of a full-scale shuttle mockup currently on display at NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas. If Cuarón wanted the movie to have a stronger impact (pun unintended) on the audience with its authenticity, he could've named the shuttle after real orbiters (Discovery, Atlantis or Endeavour)...and designate the on-screen Hubble servicing mission as STS-136 instead of STS-157 (the space shuttle program came to an end after STS-135 in 2011).



The truly terrifying thing about Gravity is that it isn't really going overboard in its depiction of space debris wreaking havoc on the ISS and other orbiting craft in deep space. In real life, it was China that was reckless enough to destroy a satellite with a missile back in 2007...and the ensuing debris still poses a threat to other spacecraft circling the Earth today. Not to veer off-topic since this is only a movie review, but the only hypothetical thing about Gravity is how a fictional astronaut made her way home after experiencing a crippling strike against her spacecraft at the beginning of the movie. What isn't hypothetical is the fact that space junk surrounding the Earth, if left alone, will lead to a calamity that won't be as far-fetched as what we see in Gravity. And that's the message that we should take from Alfonso Cuarón's hit film.



Oh—and as for Gravity's Oscar prospects this March, if the brilliant sci-fi film District 9 can receive a Best Picture nomination in 2010, then so can Gravity next year. Like Avatar, Gravity's groundbreaking visual effects (especially the 3-D aspect) should make it the frontrunner to WIN the Best Visual Effects Oscar...along with Best Cinematography and perhaps Best Film Editing as well. Carry on.