Reviews

I can't quite decide if this movie is a "so bad, it's good" kind of situation or not. Literally everything that happens in this movie is completely inaccurate or impossible, or just the wrong way to do things. From an untrained civilian who's suddenly pulling bullets out of people while they lay on a plane to the passengers pulling an emergency exit door inward while in flight to planes crashing into each other simply because they've lost comms (there are procedures for this!), every scene of this movie is just filled with facepalm-worthy events and dialogue that will have you either laughing or sighing in exasperation.

The plot is almost too nonsensical to explain. A group of people gets stranded "skybound" in a private jet as the US is attacked. At first, they're unable to land because they can't communicate with anybody (again, this is literally something pilots are tested on), then they can't land because there's a nuclear war. They seem to fly around for *days* on end - the movie shows at least a couple of day/night cycles that I noticed. Eventually they decide to fly to Hawaii, from Long Island, after already having flown around for 2 days without fueling. But it's okay, guys - as long as they throw the minibar and furnishings out of the plane, they've got the range! Oops, no they don't - time to REMOVE AN ENGINE! With an axe! We all know that planes designed for 2 engines are more efficient if you literally cut one off, right?

It doesn't help (or does it?) that even though the movie is set in the US and all the characters are supposed to be from Long Island, most clearly have European accents. Those who don't still speak in a weirdly robotic way that makes it sound like they're trying really hard to hide the accent they probably do have. Or maybe they're just bad at acting. Even the controller at whatever non-existent airport they take off from is clearly trying to imitate what he probably thinks of as an "urban American" accent over his obvious European accent.

The characters in the movie love to say the name of the movie in conversation, as if it's a word anybody ever says in real life. At one point, the father of one of the characters tells her over the phone to "stay skybound!" Maybe it's a word Europeans use?

I admit that I came late to this show, having only discovered it around the 12th season or so. I watched every episode I could voraciously once I did find it, though, going all the way back to the first season. Mike and Edd's no-nonsense way of buying and then fixing up cheap old cars as cheaply as possible was a refreshing change from the flashy American car "restoration" shows I was used to.

If you can watch those earlier episodes, I highly recommend them. It's almost charming how in the early seasons, some cars don't get much more than an oil change and a polish! That's a whole show! But it gives the show an air of something a DIYer can tackle - it's all about showing you what to look for in buying a used car, and how to fix minor problems.

And it was basically like that up until season 12, when the show was moved to California and production changed hands to Velocity. Then it started inching closer to an American-style restoration show, where no expense is spared in taking a neglected but undeniably classic car and making it "better than new", even to the point of adding modern features that would never have been available originally. Still, at first they did still feature oddball cars like the AMC Pacer, in one of the weirdest-ever episodes of trying to transform an ugly duckling into a swan (and failing).

In season 14, Edd left, leaving the mechanic position to Ant Antstead. He is not the problem - I actually like him despite replacing the beloved Edd. He obviously knows what he's talking about and, while I think he sounds a little too happy to be on TV sometimes, he's fun and interesting to watch. He was a good choice as Edd's replacement.

The problem is the show has now gone fully over into just being another cookie-cutter American restoration show. There is very little detail in the workshop bits, which is why Edd says he left. They now gloss over very important parts of the restoration - at the end they'll say "we also replaced the exhaust system, removed all the rust and gave it a full paint job"... wait, what?! Show it! Show it from start to finish! Why do you think we're watching?! It's no longer a DIY help show at all. It's just "look at what we did to this car!"

There are little things too that diminish the character of the show. Mike doesn't hunt for vehicles anymore (in the early seasons, he'd sometimes even have to see two or three before finding one he liked!); he's just already out traveling to pick one up that's obviously already been scouted. Sometimes he even seems surprised at what he finds when he he sees what his producers picked out for him. There's no budget to speak of anymore for either buying cars or fixing them up - they just spend whatever they need to for an impressive restoration/upgrade, though they do give the spend amounts at the end of the episode. And buyers always seem lined up in advance - they don't seem to have any problem selling cars on anymore. It all feels like it's totally for show at this point, not real at all.

It's still watchable because of the personalities of the hosts, but it is not what it was.

This films borrows heavily from the likes of Charlie Kauffman and David Lynch for multiple "films within films" that are really pretty much impossible to keep straight. Luckily the film is interesting, visually beautiful and yes, emotional enough that I was captivated anyway, and I quickly learned not worry so much about "where I was" in the story.

The film leans heavily on real science for much of its central conceit of branching reality as we make choices in life. With its talk of relativity and string theory (most of which is actually pretty accurate, as someone who's interested in such things), you can almost think of the film as an exercise in exploring the "many worlds" theory of quantum mechanics.

But don't worry if you're not up on the science, because the film ends up being a lot more grounded than that. Its overarching story is about love, after all, and the real explanation for what's going on ends up being based on emotion rather than science.

This film could have been a masterpiece in the same way something like "Mulholland Dr." is a masterpiece - an inventive, complex, deep and emotional film with multiple layers to peel back but a simple and resonant message at heart. And in fact, my wife - who is not into science fiction (or science) at all - called it "one of the best films she has ever seen".

But I felt let down by the ending, which becomes hugely and unnecessarily expository and works really hard to tie up every loose end into a neat and tidy little bow. The film is perfectly content to keep you in a state of mild confusion right up until the last 10 minutes, when absolutely everything is explained in monologue. And many will find the explanation unsatisfying, at least at first.

I will say that it ends up being one of those movies - like Mulholland Dr. - that you look back on once you know the "secret" and say "oooooh, so that's why this happened". The internal logic of the film suddenly becomes clear, and that can be fun. I just wish I had been allowed to get there on my own, without being dragged on a leash.

Still deserves an 8 out of 10 for the first 8/10 of the film, which is perfect.

Looking at the previous reviews, this is obviously a polarizing film. In a way I can understand that, because it's so different in some ways from what most American movie watchers seem used to these days. It's a sci-fi film without two opposing sides blowing each other up, without capital ships blasting each other with torpedoes or fighter planes carving up empty space as if they're moving through air, all the while making swooshing sounds you'd never hear in real life.

At the same time, others criticize this film for its *lack* of realism, mainly on the basis that as a film that's *supposed* to be realistic, it's just so improbable. And it is, but then so is every film - that's what makes good films interesting! Nobody's going to watch a film about how Sandra Bullock went to space, fulfilled her mission and then came home without incident. Lots of things happen to her in this film that seem impossible but aren't - they're just implausible when taken together, but that adds up to an exciting film.

The plot is pretty simple - the Russians knock out one of their own satellites (no, not by mistake), which in turn sets off a chain reaction (yes, this was a mistake) among other satellites that creates destructive shrapnel flying around the Earth at 50,000 miles per hour. This is something scientists have actually worried about for years, because so much of what we send up to space goes into basically the same orbit - space is vast, but the altitudes that make sense for orbit are actually pretty limited in number. And there are thousands of objects up there now. The ISS itself - in real life - has had to adjust course due to flying shrapnel in the past, and shuttles themselves have been hit with small debris while in orbit (discovered after landing). So the premise is entirely realistic.

How Dr. Stone (Sandra Bullock) deals with the situation you may or may not find believable, but nothing she does is outside of what's possible, and it wouldn't be much of a movie without the drama of knowing she's always *this close* to dying. The movie entirely revolves around her, so she needs to be in a constant state of conflict. And she is - literally as soon as she solves one problem, another invariably crops up, and it becomes almost a running joke even to her. (She exclaims things like "what now?!", "are you kidding me??" and "I hate space!" at various points.) But this is not much different than real-life emergencies both in space and in the air, where problems can cascade and need to be solved one by one.

It's a cliché to say things like "such and such actor is a revelation!" and it's strange to say it about someone who's been around as long as Sandra Bullock, but I confess I never respected her as an actress before this film. I still thought of her as the bubbly dullard from "Speed" and her other early films, but she drew me in here emotionally in a way that I was not expecting. Yes, she is strong enough now to literally carry an entire film with her acting. A little bit of her former self still comes through at times - for example, it's still cute when she swears, and I'm not sure it's meant to be in this film. But I actually appreciated those breaks in tension.

All that said, this is not, as some others have said, the second coming of "2001: A Space Odyssey". In fact, I can't think of anything that really elevates this film above that of a very well-acted, very well-shot action thriller. There doesn't seem to be a larger statement or message in "Gravity", or any meaning to the story beyond what's literally presented on screen (unless you want to say it's a film that's against space pollution, or something). In this way, it *is* actually similar to other Hollywood movies of the present - what you see is pretty much what you get. There's nothing to really sink your teeth into beyond that.

You'll notice I haven't even mentioned the special effects so far - and that's because while they're impressive, they're not what makes a good film. "2001" was made in 1968 with plastic models and we still hold it up as the top film in the genre. No, what makes this a really good film is the acting, the tension created by the situation Dr. Stone is put in, and the execution of the directing, cinematography, sound and yes, to some extent the visual effects - in that order. I was actually generally just as impressed with the sound (and lack thereof) in this film as I was with the visuals. The realistic sound helped really put me there, although the music was a bit overbearing at times (what else is new in Hollywood?).

In the spirit of "Melancholia" (which came out the same year), "Another Earth" uses sci-fi as a plot device for telling a dramatic personal story. That means it will likely appeal to a different audience - this film has more in common with something like Bergman's "Cries and Whispers" than it does with "Star Trek". However, like a Bergman film it is dark and deliberately paced, and it's also fraught with first-time directorial mistakes. Is it wrong to wish for a remake of such a recent film?

Brit Marling is a revelation. She simply needs to be in more things. She plays Rhoda, a promising and smart high school student who's just been accepted to MIT and who dreams of going to space one day. On the night of her post-acceptance celebration, she drives home drunk and, while trying to look up at a new planet that the radio tells her has just been discovered, she slams into a car being driven by John Boroughs (William Mapother - Ethan from LOST) and further occupied by his wife and son. The latter two die in the accident, and instead of attending MIT, Rhoda spends the next four years in jail.

She comes out a changed person - remorseful and depressed but still thoughtful, her dreams repressed but not gone. It's a character that could easily have been insufferable in the wrong hands - we're being asked to feel sorry for a drunk driver that killed two people, including a small child. Yet Marling makes us feel Rhoda's pain and remorse, as well as the fact that she knows she's also ruined her own promising life. She takes a job as a high school janitor instead of trying to continue her studies, as a form of self-imposed punishment. From there, she attempts to make amends with John in an unconventional way - but we can see the trouble coming from the beginning.

The movie's kind of all downhill from there. It becomes both predictable in a general way and illogical in the choices the characters make and by the internal logic of the film itself. This is the worst of both worlds, and the opposite of the way a good film works. In retrospect, it seems obvious that Mike Cahill and Marling (who also co-wrote the script) had a beginning and ending in mind and needed to figure out a way to "get there from here". This is the wrong way to write a film, because it forces the characters to make choices no human being would ever make, and for the world in general to work in ways that it does not.

For an example of the latter, the new planet that's discovered clearly has all the same land masses as Earth - that's visible with the naked eye. Yet scientists don't seem to know until very late in the film that it's inhabited - something any $100 Wal-Mart telescope would be able to tell them, let alone something like the Hubble. Even once it's really confirmed as "Another Earth", the government seems to exercise no control over the situation - a private company decides to fly there with no government interference at all. The reasons for all that are obvious in the context of the film - any sort of realism here would ruin the ending.

These are not things you need to be a science geek to know (like gravity) - these are things anyone would realize. We all know you can see cities from space, we all know our government would go nuts if aliens suddenly appeared at our doorstep.

Another example: John does not recognize Rhoda when he meets her again, either by face or by name. This is supposedly "because she was a minor" at the time of the accident, so he never knew who killed his wife and son. This of course makes no sense at all and isn't the way the legal system works, but it's necessary for the film to work as it is. (It would have made a bit more sense if he'd been blinded in the crash and just couldn't see her, but then the ending of the film would need to be changed, and that clearly wasn't on the table.)

It's a shame, because many times in the film I found myself thinking "it would have been better if they'd done *this* instead" - there are many times in the film when there are clear alternatives to these nonsensical plot devices and character choices that would have actually led to a *more* interesting plot. It would have been harder to arrive at the ending as filmed, but that's okay - the story should lead to the ending it leads to, not the other way around. There could have been many interesting endings to this story, but I feel like they picked the one they did because it was probably the cheapest of all the interesting options to film. (It was also, unfortunately, the most predictable - after all the lack of logic up to that point.)

This is a film that shows promise for the future, but is filled with rookie mistakes and doesn't really add up to a coherent film. It's atmospheric, thoughtful and has an interesting premise. It just needed an experienced professional to come in and clean it up and give it better focus. I'm anxious to see what Cahill and Marling do in the future (either separately or as a team), but I almost wish they'd saved this film until such time as they could really do justice to the concept.

Ryu is a contract killer who makes her living shooting people in Tokyo, and whose only friend is a guy she meets at the ramen museum in Yokohama. Meanwhile, David is a Spanish guy running a wine shop in Tokyo whose girlfriend kills herself. When his dead girlfriend's family then hires Ryu to kill him, the two instead begin a torrid love affair.

None of these things are spoilers - all this happens in the first act of the film.

If this already makes no sense, congrats - you've got this movie pegged. It's been a while since I've seen a serious film with characters who make such nonsensical decisions and whose actions seem to have all the consequences of a superhero movie. For example, the police don't even seem to investigate Ryu's many murders, despite the fact that she seems to be responsible for nearly all of Japan's gun homicides (they get about 10 total per year - that's not a typo - and she's responsible for at least three within the span of a few months).

The film is just not believable on any level. Tokyo itself is miscast - I never take film titles literally, but this one borders on false advertising. There are plenty of gratuitous cityscape shots to remind us where we are, and occasionally people speaking Japanese (not often enough considering it's, you know, Tokyo), but otherwise there is nothing uniquely of that city in the film and plenty that is completely out of character for it. There is no "map" here, and the only sound I found recognizable from Tokyo (a city that's a cacophony of unique sounds) was the slurping of ramen.

In fact, at times I felt much the same way about this film as I did about "Lost in Translation" - it often feels like a travelogue from somebody who has missed the point. Tokyo is depicted as a slow, dead city, filled with English speakers, western tourists eating sushi off of naked women, gun crime, and depressed residents who eat ramen all the time and go to love hotels and karaoke bars not to have fun, but to wallow in their misery. I understand contrarian filmmaking and it can be interesting to see a film that illuminates the dark side of a place, but western filmmakers *always* seem to try to show this side of Tokyo - it's no longer contrarian (if it ever really was), it's a common theme that's just plain wrong. At this point, it would be contrarian to show Tokyo as it is for most people - a loud, energetic and fast-paced city. Heck, "Fast and Furious: Tokyo Drift" gets it better than this film does.

The main characters are both unsympathetic. At best, Ryu is a cold- blooded murderer, and no backstory is ever given to try to soften that. A narrator (her ramen friend) literally pleads with us throughout the film to feel sympathy for her, but he also tells us right from the start that he can't offer an explanation for who she is or what she does. David, meanwhile, is just a jerk - the night after his girlfriend commits suicide, he attempts to pick up Ryu in his wine shop, and almost never says a kind word to her after that (he doesn't know who she really is, so he thinks she's just some random pickup). She inexplicably seems drawn to him.

It would help if David wasn't miscast as well. Now, I don't mean any personal offense to Sergi Lopez and I am not too familiar with his other work, but given his character's jerk-ish personality it just strains credulity that a much younger woman (much less two of them) would be so sexually drawn to this doughy middle aged man, and in fact the sex scenes are borderline embarrassing to watch. David's character really needed to be a Johnny Depp type in order to work - a westerner you could really see women falling for no matter what, who could get away with saying hurtful things and still sound suave doing it.

About the only redeeming quality in the film is Rinko Kikuchi, who does her best with what she's given. She makes it clear that Ryu's a tortured soul despite not having many spoken lines and a script that inexplicably goes out of its way not to tell us why. The script works against her, but she almost manages to make Ryu sympathetic completely on her own. That's no small accomplishment.

I won't give away the second and third acts but suffice to say they are in keeping with the rest of the film. It never makes sense.