The one question on everyone’s mind about Best Actress is, “Can we give this to Cate Blanchett already so we can all go home?”

It’s another easy category to predict, and rightfully so. Blanchett hasn’t had a proper lead role in at least 5 years, and with Blue Jasmine she makes a hell of a comeback. As the wife of a Bernie Madoff type con man who loses everything, her performance is a roller coaster. She’s funny, pathetic, monstrous, evil, kind and completely unhinged, yet Blanchett keeps Jasmine grounded enough to never make viewers lose sympathy for her. It’s a very rare case this year where the Oscar winner is also the person who deserves it the most.

With that out of the way, let’s look at the other nominees. Judi Dench and Meryl Streep are given their usual “nominate every damn thing they’re in” recognition from voters. Dench is charming as Philomena Lee, but it feels like she can do this kind of thing in her sleep by now. Streep expectedly goes all-in as the drug-addicted matriarch Violet in August: Osage County. Streep doesn’t chew scenery in this movie, she devours it, and if she didn’t win recently for The Iron Lady I could see her being a competitor to Blanchett here. Amy Adams is the best lead in American Hustle by far, but she should be happy with her Golden Globe win. Sandra Bullock probably has the smallest chance of winning in this category, but it shouldn’t diminish the fact that she’s a major reason for Gravity’s success.

Dench and Bullock could have easily been plucked out of this category in my eyes and replaced with a better performance. First things first though, let me say that these actresses did some amazing work this year: Julie Delpy in Before Midnight, Greta Gerwig in Frances Ha, Shailene Woodley in The Spectacular Now, Andrea Riseborough in Shadow Dancer and Rooney Mara in Side Effects were all terrific. But if I had to pick one actress who deserved to be nominated, it would have to be Paulina Garcia in Gloria. I had my issues with the film, but Garcia (who won Best Actress at the Berlin Film Festival) owns every moment of Gloria.

Category Predictions

Best Actress Nominees

Amy Adams – American Hustle (review)

Cate Blanchett – Blue Jasmine (review)

Sandra Bullock – Gravity (review)

Judi Dench – Philomena (review)

Meryl Streep – August: Osage County (review)

Previous Category Analysis

Best Shorts
Best Supporting Actress
Best Supporting Actor
Best Original Screenplay
Best Adapted Screenplay
Best Foreign Film
Best Documentary

Not only is Alfonso Cuaron’s Gravity one of the most visually immersive moviegoing experiences in memory, it’s also one of the handful of films that utilize 3-D technology to enhance the cinematic experience in a significant way. The “survival” element of Cuaron’s outer-space survival epic is unquestionably enhanced by the 3-D effect, which helps to convey the infinite vastness that constantly threatens to devour stars Sandra Bullock and George Clooney.

In this short vignette, which is essentially a showcase for View-D 3-D convergence technology, we’re shown an example of exactly what’s going on behind the curtain to make the 3-D in Gravity look so damn good. Here’s a description of the clip from the original post:

In this Artist Breakdown we analyse a scene from ‘Gravity’ starring Sandra Bullock and George Clooney. Prime Focus World’s Richard Baker (Creative Director, View-D) and Matthew Bristowe (SVP, Production) take you on a step by step journey through the stereo conversion of the shot, describing how PFW’s View-D conversion process allows for the full integration of the VFX and conversion processes.

There will surely be more of these neat little breakdowns to come in the coming weeks, so keep an eye out for those!

Certainly no sci-fi film, and packed with more adrenaline than the average action film, it’s impossible not to have a physical reaction to the film Gravity. From the opening scene where astronaut Matt Kowalski (George Clooney) and medical engineer Dr. Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock) work high above the earth, the perspective is entirely disorienting. Voices from Houston check in on the astronauts, asking Dr. Stone if she’s feeling sick, and her queasy expression is easy to sympathize with. While the sensory impact of Gravity is what will make this film hard for any viewer to shake, it’s focus on every human’s instinct for survival and even human connectedness is what makes it a good film.

Gravity, while groundbreaking in its visuals, does rely upon them a bit heavily. The story is obvious by Hollywood conventions. Veteran astronaut Kowalski is finishing his final spacewalk, while Dr. Stone is on her first mission and not much of a space traveler. All seems to be going well in their mission to perform minor repairs on a space shuttle. A third astronaut, whose voice is all the character we’re really given of him, glides through space gleefully, as though to mock the tethers that keep him from spinning out into the cosmos. Then Houston gives them the command to abort. The Russians, (them again!), have destroyed one of their satellites and its remnants are hurtling in orbit directly toward them. A moment later they are bombarded with the high-speed pieces. Kowalski tries to hold on to Stone, but she is sent spiraling away from him. Thus begins her dizzying nightmare.

At times Alfonso Cuaron pulls the perspective into Stone’s helmet. Which, in that first harrowing moment, is the unending spinning of the universe as Dr. Stone demonstrates the laws of physics in sickening fashion. The universe has never seemed so big as in the drawn out minutes that Stone spends alone spinning into space unable to stop herself. Kowalski is able to reach her after a time, but their nerve-shattering journey to survive has only begun. With oxygen depleting, Kowalski’s jetpack running out of fuel, and the orbit of the earth set to bring the debris hurtling back at them in 90 minutes it’s a race against time and space, (sorry, I couldn’t resist), to survive.

Cuaron has been working on Gravity for almost four years, since the release of his last tale of human survival, Children of Men. Clearly drawn to stories of perseverance, Gravity isn’t as poignant as he is likely aiming for, but is most definitely a standout survival film. Cuaron’s decision to use Bullock in a space-based thriller may not seem the likely choice, but she was clearly a great decision. Her character is given the entirety of the sentimentality of the film to carry, including some hackneyed and hokey dialogue. But Sandy B. is America’s Sweetheart for good reason. She’s just so easy to root for. Each line delivered with just enough of an emotional waver in her soft voice to pull at the heart. Clooney is equally as typecast with his easy confidence and dulcet-tones that could talk anyone to safety. So while neither actor may be doing anything entirely new in their careers, they certainly do what they do best.

Choreographed and staged with intricate detail, the film’s visuals are like nothing ever experienced before in film. Forget ‘edge of your seat’, Gravity has its audience clinging to their seats and leaving with a newfound appreciation of terra firma. Never has 90 minutes felt so long. Alfonso Cuaron’s breathtaking film puts every viewer up into space in a way never before possible. Though admittedly in a way that may make any future space travelers think twice. Gravity is a healthy reminder of human smallness in a vast universe, but also successfully demonstrates the phenomenal strength of the human spirit.

Full disclosure: I personally do not like 3D movies, I feel that they are distracting to the true art of filmmaking. That being said, I saw the advanced screening of Gravity in 3D, however, my review would likely be no different for its 2D counterpart.

Gravity brings the long awaited return of Children of Men director Alfonso Cuarón. Set almost entirely in space, this sci-fi thriller with a dash of humor has stunning special effects and dedicated 3D scenes. Actors George Clooney and Sandra Bullock play characters Commander Matt Kowalsky and Mission Specialist Dr. Ryan Stone. Within the first 15 minutes viewers are taken from a light-hearted and even slightly humorous conversation between three astronauts outside a shuttle to an adrenaline packed thrill ride. The focus then turns to Bullock’s character who must now overcome the cornucopia of challenges that comes with trying to get back on Earth when you’ve just been flung into empty space by a large cloud of increasingly speeding satellite debris (all caused by the Russians of course).

I wish I could tell you the rest, but I’m guessing you would not like the spoilers. Besides, I forgot it all within 2 minutes of leaving my seat. It’s just not that memorable. What I can tell you is that it’s filled with dazzling special effects and “3d-ness” that is sure to wow and perhaps even shock some audiences. However, I thought it was overkill. With such a small amount of dialogue, you have more time to focus on the scenes that often were tilted or flipped, but I was severely disappointed by the lack story development through the somewhat meager pace of the movie. Bullock’s character has an emotional back story but that emotion remains untapped for the most part. The storyline itself is decent, though Gravity certainly left me begging for more development in both the story and the characters.

The two redeeming qualities in my opinion are the fact that it’s set in space and that the sound score was decent. Something that seems to have become more popular, but does not entirely distract from the poor storyline development and what to me are overly done special effects. It is sure to win something for it’s massive technical feats. Warning – if you just happen to be an astrophysicist or a nerdy space geek, you will shudder at the sight some of the scenes, just keep in mind it’s purely science fiction.

Gravity premieres October 4th for its wide release. Despite what I mentioned above, I suggest you go see it in theaters…perhaps with an astronaut’s helmet on if your local theater permits such awesomeness (and if it does not, you may want to find another theater). If you do decide to see it, keep a lookout for Marvin the Martian’s cameo appearance.

Gravity trailer:

My previous day at TIFF was originally going to comprise of four films as well, but unfortunately I had to bail out of one film due to pure tiredness (I’ll keep the film’s title unnamed here, but if it wasn’t for my physical limitations I would have stayed since it was good from what I saw). Luckily, I was able to chug through my second four-film day without a hitch, but I’ve learned now that it’s not something I should try more than once.

Night Moves

I decided to start my big day with Night Moves, which turned out to be the worst possible film to choose as a starting point. I’ve been a fan of Kelly Reichardt’s work from what I’ve seen, and was excited to see her approach being used on a genre film. Three activists from different walks of life get together to pull off a dangerous act of ‘eco-terror’: They buy a boat and rig it with explosives, hoping to blow up a dam. Theoretically what Reichardt is attempting here is interesting in its own right. Her stripped down style getting applied to a thriller makes for some neat moments, and the way things unravel so the three characters become corrupted by the same selfish behavior they abhor is a nice development.

The only problem is that Reichardt’s approach is bone dry, sucking out all of the tension and forward momentum. Paradoxically, while the main group (played by Jesse Eisenberg, Dakota Fanning and Peter Sarsgaard who all do their best at understating as much as possible) feel well-defined and realistic as characters, the tone of the film is so distant it’s impossible to feel anything about them. The last time Reichardt took a crack at a genre film it was the western with Meek’s Cutoff, which worked wonderfully. This time I think she simply picked the wrong area to work with. Hopefully next time she’ll be successful again with whatever she chooses.

RATING: 5.9

Gravity

Next up was the film that I had been waiting for since it was announced back in July: Gravity. Alfonso Cuaron spent seven years developing his follow-up to the brilliant Children of Men, and it’s apparent from the start just how much effort went into this film. The special effects are incredible, and it will be impossible to watch this without wondering exactly how they pulled off some moments. So Gravity does deliver in the spectacle department, but that’s mostly it. Granted it’s really good at it, and it’s an easy recommendation, but this is far from the new classic that people have been going on about.

Gravity is merely a well-done thriller that never lets up pacing-wise. Starting right in space with Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock), a new astronaut, and a veteran on his last mission (George Clooney), it takes all but 10 minutes before debris from a satellite crash has Bullock and Clooney flying in opposite directions with nothing to hold on to. That’s merely the start of the many, many problems Bullock encounters while she frantically tries to make it back to Earth alive, and by the end the amount of near-death experiences become absurd (and it drew some laughter from the audience as well).

There really won’t be anything better this year on a technical level, but Gravity is far too basic to enjoy beyond the surface. Bullock and Clooney are terrific in their roles, making the most of the little material they’re given. Bullock is given some backstory to work with, but the film’s suffocating and repetitive pace drown out any emotional impact. I know that what I’m saying sounds very negative about the film, but it’s mostly because I came away disappointed that Gravity did not live up to my high expectations. There are some truly incredible sequences in here, and for a studio tentpole it’s quite original, but don’t expect a masterpiece.

RATING: 7

October November

Continuing my strange tonal shifts in films throughout the day, I went to check out October November. Gotz Spielmann’s last film Revanche blew me away when I saw it years ago, and at the beginning I was expecting more of the same riveting drama when an actress (Nora von Waldstätten) is confronted by the wife of a man she’s having an affair with. That scene turns out to be the only moment where fireworks go off, as the focus shifts to the actress’ sister (Ursula Strauss) who runs a small hotel in the countryside owned by her father.

The two sisters reunite when their father takes a heart attack, and the tensions between them form the basis for October November. Strauss is jealous of her sister leaving to be successful while she was forced to stay at home, and Waldstätten feels like she has no idea who she really is. It’s another existential European drama, and Spielmann really doesn’t seem to know how to get these issues across. The majority of October November is a no-stakes drama until the final act sees the two daughters waiting for their father to finally pass away. Despite being superbly shot and acted, there really is very little to get interested in. There’s no doubt that Spielmann is still a mature and terrific writer/director, but he seems to have invested in subject matter that returns very little.

RATING: 6

Under the Skin

I ended my day with Jonathan Glazer’s Under the Skin, and what a way to close off my long weekend at TIFF. I’m not over the moon like some people who have seen this, but I can’t blame them for being so ecstatic. Glazer is a master of style, and his 9 year absence seems to have made his images even more striking. The film’s first half, which simply follows Scarlett Johansson’s alien character around as she seduces men to a horrific fate, works as an excellent mood piece. Glazer has created some shots that will probably stick with me more than any other film I’ve seen here, and Micah Levi’s score is one of the best of the year by leaps and bounds.

It pained me a lot when Under the Skin didn’t coalesce into something wholly terrific for me. The second half of the film, in which Johansson gains human qualities and gets hunted down by her alien superiors, is a step down from the beautifully expressive and original first half. Glazer seems to have a hard time getting across what he wants to say at some points (his goal, to show Earth through an outsider’s perspective, wasn’t exactly successful in my eyes), and while Johansson is great her role is too enigmatic to make any of the final acts resonate. At times horrifying, beautiful and strange, Under the Skin is a classic case of a film not adding up to the sum of its parts.

RATING: 6.9

Next up:

Ben Wheatley’s hallucinogenic trip through A Field in England, and the best film I’ve seen at TIFF.