So, there's one thing that needs to be said first, before anybody starts to talk about 'Gravity.' It's kind of a prerequisite. Like an elephant in the room, that will gore you with its tusks if you don't talk about it: This movie is breathtaking.

HAH. But seriously though, 'Gravity' is one of the most impressive technical achievements ever put to film. It is arguably THE most impressive technical achievement ever put to film. I would disagree, by nature of every field and achievement having its own individual degrees of difficulty, but what this film does it does like no other you've seen before- and I doubt will again for the immediate future. Computer-effects aided filmmaking like this will one day be commonplace, but that will not be for another decade or more, and at the rate that technology is improving that's practically an entire generation. To say what's been accomplished here is impressive is an understatement: It's like nothing else, period. It's a game-changer, and the progress made here will influence films and filmmakers for lifetimes to come.

With that statement of the movie's greatness out of the way, I can now say that 'Gravity' is not a great movie. It's a very good movie, but it's not a great one. Impressive technology alone does not make great art. Great art must work on multiple levels, and have more noble ambitions, in order to properly move and captivate an audience. 'Gravity' is certainly engaging, and it makes a valiant attempt to be something more than a special effects showcase, but it never quite ascends beyond its own visual accomplishments. It's difficult to critique intentions, and there's no reason to really criticize a movie that's very good, but throughout my experience with this movie I constantly felt a divide. It is certainly a powerfully immersive experience some of the time, but the issue is the rest of the time it's merely visually, awe-inspiringly, jaw-droppingly stunning to look at. Is that a bad thing? No. No, it's a very good thing. But it's not a great thing.

This divide results from, not sensory clash, but sensibility clash. The problem with 'Gravity' is that it's too smart for it's own good. Alfonso Cuarón (remember that name if you haven't heard it before, it will forever be the mark of a quality movie) directs this movie in a way you have never seen before (unless you've seen 'Children of Men'), taking the long and elaborate gliding shots of your Steven Spielbergs and your Quentin Tarantinos to unimaginable heights. His camera swerves and pivots and glides through solid objects, utilizing motion to build spacial awareness and carefully blocked interactive moments in place of individual shots. You don't watch an Alfonso Cuarón film, you go along for the ride. That can fascinating when it works, but distracting when it doesn't. You aren't familiar with these filmmaking, so when you're bombarded with them for the length of a feature, without break, the innovation can steal focus and a technique that was meant to facilitate immersion begins to defeat its own purpose. The trouble with revolutionary art is that the message is often lost beneath the method, and it's hard to determine if you are being disengaged because you were not prepared to deal with it or if the art itself was simply flawed in execution at some point. I believe the answer is in the middle. Once films like this become commonplace audiences will be less inclined to lose themselves in its presentation, but by nature of its innovation the presentation will take some priority in its institution.

The simple fact is that, at times, it's obvious 'Gravity' is being impressive only to be impressive. Many of its show-stealing effects are warranted, highly-effective filmmaking techniques, but plenty more feel like they are just there for show. Instead of emphasizing the story or themes on screen they cover it up. And, crucially, the film frequently feels likes its story and themes are in support of its technical achievements, not the other way around. The story here is slight and bare-bones, a simple and generic Hollywood-ized survival tale. In a lesser film with lesser distractions its plot holes and narrative conveniences would be far more glaring, but even here they can not be overlooked. Things happen because they must, events are overly-simplified to enable easy drama and ticking-clock scenarios (quite literally), and characters show all the depth of a screenwriter who's learned how to properly mime character depth from other superior sources. It's fine stuff for movie-of-the-week material, and it's guaranteed to keep your interest, but that's because the formula's been proven to do just that. Even the symbolism (mankind's humble infancy in the scope of the universe) is handled as bluntly as the biggest of space-babies, although without any of that other space story's more subversive and intriguing elements. For a revolutionary film, it's awfully mundane.

Which is probably more than acceptable. We need passionate filmmaking: No matter where that passion lies, the end product will be engrossing. If Alfonso Cuarón is more interested in exploring visual experiences than he is intellectual or emotional ones, that's perfectly fine. And it's not that he's adverse to engaging the mind and the soul. There is plenty of heart in 'Gravity,' because good melodrama is good melodrama, and one can't help but be captivated with existential awe when confronted with the vastness of space and fragility of life. He would be better served to realize where his ambitions lie, however, and next time allow somebody else with a focus purely on engaging those other elements to handle the script, but for now he's proven to be more than capable of delivering the goods. The very goods. But not the greats.

You still have to see this. If only to enjoy the view. 4 out of 5 stars (HAH).