Gravity: Here it is: your motion picture experience of the fall. Or is it just a really, really well-wrought space-disaster thriller? Every step of waiting for Alfonso Cuaron’s follow-up to Children of Men has been such an epically slow drag: first there were a few silent years post-Men as he weighed his options; then there was an endless pre-production phase where a variety of actors cycled in and out; then there was the production itself, which apparently wrapped a solid two years ago; then the movie was pushed out of 2012 and into 2013 as the post-production work continued; then the movie screened at a bunch of film festivals what now seems like months ago; now, finally, it’s actually for-real opening in movie theaters, just shy of seven years after Children of Men did. Just as a point of reference: Terrence Malick’s last two movies (both of which have come out since Children of Men!) took less time to come out than this one. With such build-up, and with Children of Men held in such high esteem, disappointment in Gravity is probably inevitable. After all, it’s not really sci-fi; more of a woman-versus-nature survival-or-not story. It stars Sandra Bullock rather than Clive Owen. With its big stars and marketing campaign and 3D effects, it’s the cool-weather version of a big summer movie. Note: I’ve just said all that mainly to keep myself from losing my mind with anticipation for seeing Gravity in glorious IMAX and maybe-glorious 3D. I really, really want to see this movie.