Interstellar - Part 8

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]488197[/split]

 

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]486901[/split]

 

[redhawk23]

The point is, it deserves being higher than garbage like Transformers and other movies. Unfortunately, people prefer dumb over substance.

What you seem to miss is that Interstellar is very much on the same end of the cinematic spectrum as the Transformers films.

Interstellar isn't an art film. Though released closer to the standard "important films" season, it is still a giant budget special effects driven film that has to hit as many demographics as possible in order to break even. Its a lot more well executed than a lot of similar films but I think people really need to stop trying to position Nolan and his films as some kind of "side" in an us vs them Cinematic Ragnorok.

 

[Black Narcissus]

Nolan's criminal brother is out of prison?

 

[Whiskey Tango]

dumb over substance.

I hate when you poke your head into a thread for the first time in forever and a truly terrible post like this is the very first thing you see.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

What you seem to miss is that Interstellar is very much on the same end of the cinematic spectrum as the Transformers films.

Interstellar isn't an art film. Though released closer to the standard "important films" season, it is still a giant budget special effects driven film that has to hit as many demographics as possible in order to break even. Its a lot more well executed than a lot of similar films but I think people really need to stop trying to position Nolan and his films as some kind of "side" in an us vs them Cinematic Ragnorok.

Nolan fanboys think the constant worship elevates them to some kind of lofty golden perch high above the rest of the simple-minded rabble.

 

[redhawk23]

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/weather/resources/askjack/2004-02-05-answers-frigid-clouds_x.htm

On why clouds don't freeze.

 

[kvz5]

I guess this was retitled to Gravity?

 

[jmc]

I was hoping to be able to see this today after work but sadly I won't get the chance until the weekend.

 

[redhawk23]

Nolan fanboys think the constant worship elevates them to some kind of lofty golden perch high above the rest of the simple-minded rabble.

What irks me the most is that I really don't think Nolan himself see his movies that way. He is operating on the biggest canvass possible trying to reach the most people possible. That is why I like his movies. He's one of only a handful that can try doing that while still having a point to make (and his lesser films are those that fail to do so).

 

[redhawk23]

Re-posting my review for the new thread. Its spoiler free but I'll put it in tags for length.

Spoiler

Caught Interstellar last night in 35mm.

I hold off on my full thoughts about the film and specific points until more people have gotten the chance to see it but I'll give my initial overall reactions for now.

I will start off by saying that I greatly enjoyed the film. It scratched a certain science fiction itch that I've had for a while and I was not disappointed in it. I got what I expected, which was a Chris Nolan with everything, for good or ill that that entails.

This movie is one of the best space adventure films that we've had in many, many years. For all of the comparisons to 2001, Apollo 13 or The Right Stuff are better comparisons in terms of tone and aesthetic.

The film feels like in taking on the project Nolan was really trying to push himself beyond his usual supposed emotional limitations. In some regards, I think he succeeds. The first half of the film, introducing McConaughey's character, his children and the central conflict of survival are very strong in this regard. Mostly this comes down to the interaction between McConaughey and young actress Mackenzie Foy, who plays Murph. Foy is damned great in this movie... and the movie loses a lot when it leaves her behind.

Jessica Chastain simply can't compete, and be it due to her acting or the writing in the later earth sequences, I couldn't help feel that with some re-arrangement, most of her scenes could have been easily jettisoned.

As the movie moves into its later half or so and into space it has a damned hard time with characters. Most of those involved in the space mission simply aren't. They aren't even given the bare personality afforded to the ancillary Inception crew. Hathaway's character has a bit more life to her but we aren't really given enough context or development for her character.

That stands for the humans at least. The robots, as odd as their design is, are damned great. It is so odd to see so much current discussion of Nolan's supposed humorlessness with these two in the film. I'll leave my comments on them to that.

While I do feel that my space exploration scratch has been itched, I really wish Nolan would take Eame's advice to Arthur in Inception. and not be afraid to "dream a little bigger." While the film has a lot of sections that don't really seem to add much to the film, or re-cover the same ground (there are 3 or 4 recitations of the same poem), the film doesn't seem to take enough time to let the audience really enjoy the outer space setting. I'm not saying I wanted Star Trek: The Motionless Pictures levels of majestic bloat but a bit more time just really establishing the setting would have been nice. Or if else instead of majestic beauty, Nolan feels that space is a place of darkness and death, well that wasn't really sold either.

If I have any disappointment with the film its that in a film where the plot and theme deal so much with the need to explore other planets, the planets they choose to show are pretty damned bland. A major reason for this is that I am bored to tears with Planet Iceland. After Prometheus, Oblivion and even Thor: The Dark World and Game of Thrones, I feel that the black rocks and icy crags of Iceland are played out as an alien environment. This film relies heavily upon them. Though we are shown other planets, the 2 main ones have the same icey grey aesthetic. One is indeed covered in water with mountain high waves, but much as the folding city in Inception, Nolan finds a way to make that all feel quite mundane. It doesn't help that with the dimensionless characters in the latter half the film, the drama presented by the waves is near nil.

The other planet, less watery, more fully Planet Iceland is none less similarly near grey-scale. In the context of this movie alone, and especially among the general cinematic landscape, this planet isn't particularly visually exciting.

I'll delve into more later but this movie has an odd problem where its most exciting set pieces scenes and even some of its most human-feeling characters are actually quite distracting from the main plot and take up precious time in a damned long movie. I don't mind them being there, as again they're some of the best this movie has to offer but as the film moves into its final third, it starts tying much more into to the earliest parts of the film and the ensuing gap between them might lessen the impact for some.

I think the film's endgame, the reveal, will be the most divisive part of this film. I will go on record saying that I really enjoyed it. It's the kind of semi-abstracted high-concept but emotion driven writing that I really enjoy from a lot of 70's science fiction stories and Grant Morrison's comicbooks. I think Nolan found an effective way of presenting his ideas on film He's more successful with his higher concepts in about 15 minutes than other filmmakers, say Aronofsky with The Fountain, have been in entire movies.

Overall, I enjoyed the movie a lot. The best way I can describe this movie is that it is filmmaking out loud. Nolan and co. have brought about and extremely well crafted and often emotionally moving adventure. The movie comes with a lot of Nolan's off cited faults, but also feels like him consciously moving past others. It is a trip worth taking on the biggest screen you can find.

7/10

 

[rashad]

@redhawk23 Glad you enjoyed it. Is it safe to say you will see the film again in the future? Interstellar seems like the kind of movie that lends itself to multiple viewings.

 

[IncognitoWalrus]

I guess this was retitled to Gravity?

That's pretty funny considering how

Spoiler

gravity is what saves the human race.

 

[Jumpman]

For those who have seen the film, what do you make of this editorial of the film?

http://badassdigest.com/2014/11/05/on-the-aggressively-masculine-perspective-of-interstellar/

I'm curious because it continues the mantra about Nolan and how he treats his women in his films. I'm genuinely curious about this because I've never seen it as a problem in his films but maybe I'm dumb....

 

[Mikelus]

I hate when you poke your head into a thread for the first time in forever and a truly terrible post like this is the very first thing you see.

Yeah, saying trash like the Transformers movies make more money because people have bad taste is terrible indeed.

 

[Donut]

Yeah, saying trash like the Transformers movies make more money because people have bad taste is terrible indeed.

Oh no people like movies that you dont. The world is coming 2 an end. Different opinions be damned *****es

 

[Motown Marvel]

Like i said before, my only real problem with the movie came at the climax...

Spoiler

when cooper is in the black hole, time is no longer relative. he is existing in a realm that is perfectly designed for him to resolve the plot, and an infinite amount of time and opportunity to do so. which makes a resolution inevitable. despite the fact that the film was written to make this perfectly possible, it feels like cheap writing and essentially a deus ex machina.

but i dont think theres anything really all that complex or divisive about the film. i dont get why people keep saying otherwise.

For those who have seen the film, what do you make of this editorial of the film?

http://badassdigest.com/2014/11/05/on-the-aggressively-masculine-perspective-of-interstellar/

I'm curious because it continues the mantra about Nolan and how he treats his women in his films. I'm genuinely curious about this because I've never seen it as a problem in his films but maybe I'm dumb....

i would actually say this editorial is misguided. it completely ignores, or at least greatly diminishes, Chastain's role. which is rather significant in the outcome of the film.

 

[childeroland]

For those who have seen the film, what do you make of this editorial of the film?

http://badassdigest.com/2014/11/05/on-the-aggressively-masculine-perspective-of-interstellar/

I'm curious because it continues the mantra about Nolan and how he treats his women in his films. I'm genuinely curious about this because I've never seen it as a problem in his films but maybe I'm dumb....

Haven't seen the film yet, but the ship is a space penis and the docking scene is space sex? I wouldn't worry about Nolan's "misogyny" here.

 

[TheNextNolan22]

Seeing this tonight! I am so excited for this!

 

[redhawk23]

Haven't seen the film yet, but the ship is a space penis and the docking scene is space sex? I wouldn't worry about Nolan's "misogyny" here.

Its a really forced metaphor here as the ships aren't particularly phallic.

Also she ignores that although Coop and even the film itself come off as dismissive of some of the other characters "driven by love mantra" in the end that's exactly what the film supports. Its the crux of the whole thing.

It does have a few gender related moments I'd take contention with though.

 

[DeadPresident]

What you seem to miss is that Interstellar is very much on the same end of the cinematic spectrum as the Transformers films.

Interstellar isn't an art film. Though released closer to the standard "important films" season, it is still a giant budget special effects driven film that has to hit as many demographics as possible in order to break even. Its a lot more well executed than a lot of similar films but I think people really need to stop trying to position Nolan and his films as some kind of "side" in an us vs them Cinematic Ragnorok.

Agreed. But to be fair that's like saying a 1964 Buick and a 2014 Cadillac are both cars. That's true, but the gulf in quality and sophistication is obvious. Thematically you can't get movies more different than Transformers and Interstellar, although they're both effects-driven spectacles.

 

[jmc]

For those who have seen the film, what do you make of this editorial of the film?

http://badassdigest.com/2014/11/05/on-the-aggressively-masculine-perspective-of-interstellar/

I'm curious because it continues the mantra about Nolan and how he treats his women in his films. I'm genuinely curious about this because I've never seen it as a problem in his films but maybe I'm dumb....

Am I missing something with regards this thing about how Nolan treats females on film badly?

 

[redhawk23]

@redhawk23 Glad you enjoyed it. Is it safe to say you will see the film again in the future? Interstellar seems like the kind of movie that lends itself to multiple viewings.

I'll probably catch it again in a digital IMAX showing in a week or two. I'm not as driven to see it again as I was with Inception.

While Interstellar is an enjoyable experience, I didn't leave with much of a feeling of "Wow what did I just watch." It was very much a movie where my fiance and I kind of shrugged at each other and then had a good laugh about the robot designs.

There have been other movies this year in which I have felt a lot more impacted walking out of the theater. Noah for instance was intense. Or just this week, walking out of a screening of Nightcrawler my head was spinning.

 

[Travesty]

Yeah man, Nightcrawler was amazing. I couldn't stop talking about it with my friend when we were leaving the theater. I really liked that movie.

 

[redhawk23]

Agreed. But to be fair that's like saying a 1964 Buick and a 2014 Cadillac are both cars. That's true, but the gulf in quality and sophistication is obvious. Thematically you can't get movies more different than Transformers and Interstellar, although they're both effects-driven spectacles.

No you're really not getting it. Calling a 64 buick and and the Cadillac both cars is like calling both Inception and Transformers "films." Its a matter of not are they both films, they are largely made for the same audience. Interstellar is many things but I'd hardly call it sophisticated. Both films are essentially minivans. One just has a motor that actually runs, a nicer interior and input from a fluid mechanics expert to make sure the cup-holders won't theoretically spill your coffee.

My point is that so many people want Interstellar and its ilk to be GREAT IMPORTANT FILMS when that's not even really what the people making them are going for.