Before "Gravity" occupies the black screen with the same ominous effect than TV series' title "Lost", you have this superposed text about the temperature and pressure in space making life impossible. When I saw this, my immediate reaction was "duh? really?", how about telling me something I don't know.

I don't mean to be sarcastic but it doesn't take a scientific degree to be aware that life in space is impossible, that space couldn't carry sound and air. So, I was questioning the inclusion of this disclaimer. Surely, Cuaron trusts enough the intensity of his material not to need to amplify the menace that will pend over the heroine, so why the thought-challenging director of "Children of Men" would state the obvious?

Because he treats a very basic premise in the most basic way, taking for granted that just because it is a story of survival, we will relate to it. It just works on a primal level and Sandra Bullock manages to elevate the material to the required emotional level. I was touched by her struggles to get to Earth, but the film didn't make me care for how good she was, it wasn't a 'stranded' performance in the same level than Tom Hanks in "Cast Away", but it's not Bullock's to blame, but the wrong approach.

Indeed, we understand it's a race around the clock, so how about keeping this in subtext and try to enrich the film a little bit? We have woman stranded alone in the most hostile place and deprived of the most basic aspect of humanity, which is standing and walking, yet still using the one human strength still able to work: intelligence, that was the heart of the film and it worked for the most part. But let's not pretend that the triumph of "intelligence" is enough to make a whole film, especially after "Apollo 13". Ridley Scott's "The Martian" dealt with a similar situation but the film spanned a longer amount of time.

You can't make a journey when the run-time is one hour and half, but I guess it was the longest such a thin premise could be sustained: one hour and half rightfully divided into three half-an- hours. First, she still benefits from the advice and company of wisecracking George Clooney, half-an hour of loneliness, and half-an hour of a climax, and some existential and emotional undertones. It works for the most part and again, the performance of Sandra Bullock strikes the right emotional chord, but there are many moments that can only feel as fillers and you know "Gravity" only shines through its first and third act, but is rather unsatisfying in the middle.

I feel a bit guilty to criticize the story when there's so much to praise on the special effects, but the effects are just vehicles for the story. In "Gravity", you feel like the opposite is happening. And when she gets home, she's triumphant and we're happy for her, but for some reason, I expected that to happen and I wasn't as emotionally overwhelmed as I expected. I didn't know what exactly was lacking in the film, to be honest, so I wondered whether it was one that could only benefit from a big screen viewing, and there's would be no comparison with a TV or DVD experience.

I don't think a film can be so spectacular to lose its entertaining value on smaller screen and actually, it's thanks to the very DVD of the film that I could pinpoint the problem, or let's just say, the wasted opportunity. When I saw the bonus features and the documentary about the Kessler syndrome, I was mesmerized and I enjoyed that half-an-hour more than the film itself. That was something I didn't know. I didn't know space has turned to a real junkyard ever since the conquest of the air by the irresponsibility of men, and the risk of collision between satellites is increasing and might provoke damage of exponentially spectacular effects, each collision creating debris increasing the likelihood of bigger collisions, hence making in the short term, all the satellite useless, and God knows how satellites have became indispensable in our technology-driven era.

Now, that would have made one hell of a disclaimer because this is exactly what takes off the action, and this is something that could scare us more than anything. We relate to Stone as humans, but we all directly relate to the satellite issue. Even more, why the hell did they choose as a cause like a Russian satellite destroyed, how about a collision between satellites to emphasize the tragic randomness of these disasters? "Gravity" should have raised this awareness not diminish its impact by choosing an accidental cause. Now, I don't know how the collision case could have been handled within Stone's misadventure but it could have worked nonetheless, since space is such a "crowded" place.

Cuaron had a lot of material to work on, but he picked the easy choice and seemed in a rush to conclude the film. Maybe the effects were too big to maintain them for two hours, but still, it didn't give him time to work on some little flaws such as Clooney's performance or the timing of the oxygen level. These moments felt so 'cinematic' in a film that tries to border on realism and the one moment that felt realistic was the communication with that Eskimo father, but then again, it took me the DVD features to understand what was going on. Would have showing the Eskimos ruined the premise of the film? I respect the choice of Cuaron but in the end, the story suffers a bit from a rushed directing.

And what stays in the film is the excellence of the special effects, so the flaws of the story are no 'gravity' case, but the film isn't a masterpiece for all that.