Author Topic: Interstellar  (Read 11705 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

samsong

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1231
  • Respect: +230
    • http://www.dvdaficionado.com/dvds.html?cat=1&sub=All&id=samsong
Re: Interstellar
« Reply #45 on: November 07, 2014, 07:32:21 AM »
+3
people at the screening seemed to have a near religious experience with this movie.  heard a lot of people with post-sob sniffles as the credits rolled.  the exaltation among most of the audience was palpable. 

me, i thought it was pretty painfully stupid.

i think the projectionist may have fucked up because the print seemed less than pristine and uneven in quality.  considering trying to see this again in a different theater with a 70mm print but i don't see improved visuals sparing me all the eye-rolling i did this first time around.  asphyxia by narrative coddling, and nolan's continued ineptitude in his portrayal of women should comfort every other man on the planet that none of them will ever be as clueless when it comes to the fairer sex.  spectacle abounds and it's all very entertaining, but it's hardly his best work, let alone the genre/cinema at large.

tarantino compared it to malick and tarkovsky, which makes me think he's never actually seen a movie by either of them.  any reference to 2001 for any other reason than to say how far short Interstellar falls of it is misguided to say the least. 

Vari

  • The Call to Adventure
  • *
  • Posts: 1
  • Stroke Me Lady Fame
  • Respect: +2
Re: Interstellar
« Reply #46 on: November 08, 2014, 10:35:36 PM »
+2
I overall liked the film but I am also surprised at anyone mentioning tarkovsky anywhere near this film. It was beautiful to watch (in 70mm imax), and I found it fairly compelling but to compare it to other infinitely more cerebral experiences does no justice to any of the films involved.

I had story and script issues but the crux of what the movie was going for was successful. Not Nolan's best but I think it's an achievement of which he can be proud.

Lottery

  • The Return Threshold
  • ****
  • Posts: 971
  • You're Dead!
  • Respect: +461
Re: Interstellar
« Reply #47 on: November 08, 2014, 11:21:17 PM »
0
I have to admit, I was vaguely reminded of Solaris during a few moments. But it was mostly a superficial thing. As for 2001, the influence is there but this is far more Spielberg than it is Kubrick or anyone else. Spielberg would have made a considerably better 1st act though. This film comes from a lot of places but it certainly is put through the Nolan filter. Even then, this feels different to previous Nolan works.

Also, has anyone watched The Right Stuff? That was the film Nolan screened to the crew before starting.

SPOILER

Similarly, one of the trippier end moments is slightly reminiscent of The Aleph/The Library of Babel. At the very least, we know Nolan is no stranger to Borges. But there are probably more obvious (if unintentional) points of references to omni-dimensional beings.

picolas

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 1752
  • Respect: +103
Re: Interstellar
« Reply #48 on: November 09, 2014, 02:10:53 PM »
+3

i don't know how to summarize my feelings towards this. i'll have to go chapter by chapter.

MEGA SPOILERS

chapter 1: the first hour

pleasant, boring. mccons does a great job of keeping my attention with his glorious voice and face while the premise that the trailer explained in two minutes + some ghost stuff is stretched out over the course of an hour. i don't hate it, but nothing is really doing it for me. and i have serious doubts about a lot of the story (like mccons being on the mission). but i'll go with it. i'm treating it more like a myth or a fairy tale than a 'real' thing, even though that's at odds with the way nolan conveys stuff (ie. as realistically as possible).

chapter 2: space

wow. now the realism is interesting. we can hear the suits moving. we can't hear anything in space. and there's way less score than a typical nolan. the use of imax to accentuate the vastness of space is overwhelming. there's a delightful robot that feels as though he was written by different people. i would have loved this levity to be more spread out amongst the characters. why must it be assigned to the robot?

chapter 3: wormhole

YES YES YES. this was like a documentary of something we've never seen before. as though nolan snuck in real footage of travelling through a wormhole. SO REAL and yet so completely otherworldly. i was in AWE.

chapter 4: wave planet

one hour on this planet = many years??? OH JESUS. i've never experienced stakes like this before, outside of maybe homer's odyssey, but those guys didn't know about the time difference going in. the race against the clock is riveting, and it's really hard to take a side in the mccon vs. hathaway showdown.

chapter 5: return from wave planet

this is probably the best part of interstellar. we experience the time jump from mccon's perspective, and the swell of tragedy/wonder as he experiences his children grow before his eyes hit me like a rocket to the face, which is also what mccon's face looks like. simply STELLAR work from everyone involved. there's also something very emotional about the casting of the little girl vs. chastain. i didn't love the little girl as an actor, but chastain is so convincing as the older version of that kid, it's almost like nolan pulled a 'boyhood' on us.

chapter 6: planet decision time

hathaway has a monologue that ALMOST works really well, and gets to the heart of the themes of the movie, but then it goes a couple steps too far and i'm like 'uh-oh… you're spelling out all the themes. i can hear you doing it. noo...'

chapter 7: DAMON 1

holy fuck. i cannot believe they snuck in damon. his story is compelling as an idea, and i like the IDEA of his speech about how we haven't evolved far enough past our concern for a select group of people. we're too single-minded to think about, let alone SAVE, our entire world. good stuff, but once again i can feel the writing. then he has to deliver a monologue as mccon struggles for his life that REEKS of WRITING and EXPLAINING, when no human would keep talking to mccon. he's clearly not listening. i'm confused by damon's motivations. i love the idea that he took years to transform into the bad guy.

MEANWHILE, ON EARTH: affleck is being a weirdo and i don't understand how michael caine could've fooled so many smart people for so long, but he really does a great job of dying, even though he dies at a very convenient time (right after he's asked a very important yes or no question and he decides not to answer. classic stupid trope.)

chapter 8: DAMON 2

a great sequence partly because it involves some serious ingenuity on mccon's part, which is just as crazy as it is believable. and damon's death is great. he's about to deliver another expositional monologAND BOOM

chapter 9: mission to wha?

i was genuinely confused about what mccon and hath were doing at this point. one of the few times i needed more explanation. but i went with it.

chapter 10: BLACK HOLE

YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS. heavy shades of contact. diving into the unknown. fear and wonder and the ultra-real feeling of something extraordinary, like the worm hole, but still its own thing.

chapter 11: FURTHER DOWN THE BLACK HOLE

the audacity of this sequence is unlike anything i've ever seen. the way we experience this ROOM OF ROOMS feels like nolan isn't just speculating. he's sitting you down and explaining 'this is exactly what happens when someone does that.' it's a true meeting of the fantastic and the scientific, but i still can't decide if it's TOO MUCH. it's kind of hokey, but kind of BALLSY too. it's definitely poorly written, but i'm not sure how else one could write this aside from using a little more finesse with the explaining of mccon's thought process.

chapter 12: the new world

hmm… there's no way this would happen. it's almost on par with batman surviving the nuclear bomb as far as stupidly happy endings go. i'm still trying to see this story as a myth etc, but that's tough because it's so real! the idea of murphy seeing her dad exactly like when he left her is hugely moving, like getting to meet a REAL ghost. another incredible bridge between science and fantasy. i don't like how murphy ends the conversation and mccon just leaves. after all that. it feels flippant. stupid writing!

chapter 13: finding hathaway

sequel?



closing thoughts

writing is nolan's biggest enemy. i'm not convinced a movie is the right format for a story of this scale. a miniseries might've given the characters enough room to breathe. to show us rather than tell us. i cannot deny the power of many ideas contained within. i love that interstellar exists, but i want it to be better. but maybe it's enough. it's going to take time and views for me to really know where i stand. or i'll just always feel mixed about it. or i'll just watch the good parts.

wilder

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3705
  • Respect: +1764
Re: Interstellar
« Reply #49 on: November 12, 2014, 08:55:28 PM »
+1
I don't feel like writing a lot here, but I really dug this movie. Yeah it has narrative problems and blah blah blah but I didn't care. This was exactly the kind of thing I want out of a big budget film, and no matter how ridiculous or abrupt or out of left field any of the revelations are, I was in with the story's emotions almost the whole journey through. God it's beautiful looking. Kept thinking "oh yeah - this is how the movies are supposed to be...". My heart was practically beating in my ears during the wormhole scene -- that hasn't happened to me in well over a decade, probably since I saw Titanic or something (yeah fuck you all). This was the shit. A real movie. It's not Malick or Tarkovsky it's Spielberg. Conjured the same type of excitement I felt when watching things like Jurassic Park. Good on Nolan this time and thanks for reminding me that movies can be awe-inspiring again.

Cloudy

  • The Meeting with the Goddess
  • ***
  • Posts: 376
  • Respect: +270
Re: Interstellar
« Reply #50 on: November 12, 2014, 10:02:29 PM »
+1
^ I dig how much you love this movie, and the way you talk about its beauty resonates with me as well. I tried commenting earlier today, but the more I type out my thoughts the more it smacks me in the face how beyond uneven it was --/mattdamon\-- I haven't seen such an uneven movie in a really really long time. And uneven isn't the word. Just not rhythmic. Lacking dance skills. Lacking funny skills. Lacking an intuition for how movies move in a way Spielberg is a master at. That's a huge flaw. But somehow it barely covered all those flaws up with massive moments of intimate yet delicious power and beauty that took complete control over everything else, texturally, visually and sonorously. And for that alone, and for bringing back film the way it did, I'll probably see it again with another group of friends at home in IMAX 70mm this time instead of 35mm. What's interesting is that he made an intimate film, which made the 35mm projection with medium format photography weirdly fitting.

Remember when pt said a monkey could make 65mm look good? I still don't believe him, I think it was Hoyt VH. Also, I gotta see Matt Damon open his eyes from a deep annual slumber one more time, that was one of the funniest moments in the cinema in a while.

Anyway, thanks for saying that Wilder.

jenkins

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 2416
  • Respect: +1461
    • Neon Burrito
Re: Interstellar
« Reply #51 on: November 13, 2014, 12:14:33 AM »
0
i feel overall mellow about what's happening with this movie. i think it has strong cultural support. the biggest/baddest imax theater was installed at the chinese theater here in los angeles, prompted by the theater wanting to ready itself for interstellar. when the movie leaves that'll still be a dazzling theater, so thanks for that

i said before that my friends and i jazzed ourselves to see it. we hype talked ourselves into thinking we'd experience what wilder described. we simply didn't. we left cold. it's a bit our loss, isn't it. because i think if you liked the movie you liked the movie, and that's that. happy for the happy people, and i'm standing on the outside, butso i just wouldn't worry about me or anyone like me <3

samsong

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1231
  • Respect: +230
    • http://www.dvdaficionado.com/dvds.html?cat=1&sub=All&id=samsong
Re: Interstellar
« Reply #52 on: November 13, 2014, 12:16:37 AM »
0
god i wish spielberg made a movie with this premise instead of nolan.

even spielberg seems like a stretch.  maybe nolan's shit exposition was meant to mimic the uselessness of the first half hour of close encounters? spielberg's sense of wonder and pure cinematic bravura allowed him to get away with just about anything because on top of all the technical prowess and grandeur, there's a sense of wonder instilled in every goddamn frame.  there's love/warmth/humanity there, indicative of a sensibility that is as generous as they get, not just navel-gazing grandstanding.  spielberg invites audiences to escape with him.  nolan, especially with this and inception, is more about impressing people while not giving them the credit to understand things without hand holding. 

there are awe-inspiring sequences to be sure, and it isn't all a complete misfire but dammit if it wasn't a total dud for me.  i love big movies.

wilder

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3705
  • Respect: +1764
Re: Interstellar
« Reply #53 on: November 13, 2014, 12:22:00 AM »
+1
I had no expectations, not much interest even. Wasn't able to attend any of the 70mm screenings and thought I was just going to rent it down the line. But: was in a terrible state earlier this week and wanted to escape from everything, found a theater playing it in 35mm and ended up going on a whim. It did what movies are supposed to do and transported me. Pure entertainment. That's all I wanted and that's what I got. Guessing it helped that I didn't go in wanting more.

Cloudy

  • The Meeting with the Goddess
  • ***
  • Posts: 376
  • Respect: +270
Re: Interstellar
« Reply #54 on: November 13, 2014, 12:27:50 AM »
0
^That's me exactly, terrible state and all. Well said.

Jenkins, I have no clue how you managed to muster up high expectations going in....

Axolotl

  • Shoutbox Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 233
  • Respect: +314
Re: Interstellar
« Reply #55 on: November 13, 2014, 12:45:25 AM »
+1
Like wilder and cloudy I didn't have expectations of greatness from this. I was ready to hate this even, because of a really terrible line in the trailer and my general allergy to Nolan films.

I ended up enjoying it a lot even though (or because) it was such an easy to hate movie. Samsong could have written his review of the movie before he even saw it and he wouldn't have had to change a word after.

The key to appreciating this is to think of it as the most expensive Bollywood movie ever made.

jenkins

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 2416
  • Respect: +1461
    • Neon Burrito
Re: Interstellar
« Reply #56 on: November 13, 2014, 02:52:28 AM »
0
Jenkins, I have no clue how you managed to muster up high expectations going in....

we said things like we wanted to feel young and be kids and go like the space movie. it just didn't happen. sometimes it doesn't happen

samsong

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1231
  • Respect: +230
    • http://www.dvdaficionado.com/dvds.html?cat=1&sub=All&id=samsong
Re: Interstellar
« Reply #57 on: November 13, 2014, 05:52:45 AM »
+1
i didn't go in with dissimilar expectations than those who enjoyed it.  i went in pretty tepid and really just wanted to be taken in by a massive escapist  headtrip.  i remember seeing some sort of promotional bit wherein nolan promised an experiential kind of film, one that could be enjoyed outside of the limitations of narrative.  i suppose holding him to that is having expectations in and of itself but it gave me hope for its potential, that nolan was going to use his status and big studio carte blanche to make something akin to 2001, by his estimation.  still, went in wanting to like this and just have a good time.  scout's honor. 

can't say i understand the uber-positive contrarian route to enjoy a movie that's easy to hate.  usually movies are easy to hate because they, you know, suck.  how anyone can stick with this movie after hathaway's love monologue is beyond me.  but as jenkins has said, it would've been nice to see the movie that everyone enjoyed/is happy with. 

Axolotl

  • Shoutbox Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 233
  • Respect: +314
Re: Interstellar
« Reply #58 on: November 13, 2014, 07:34:20 AM »
+2
can't say i understand the uber-positive contrarian route to enjoy a movie that's easy to hate.  usually movies are easy to hate because they, you know, suck.  how anyone can stick with this movie after hathaway's love monologue is beyond me.
Not being contrarian, just trying to approach a movie on the movie's terms. That means not being preoccupied by issues everyone expects from a Nolan film, which issues are amplified here by the fact that this is him trying to throw everything he's got on the screen which puts both his strengths and weaknesses on full display. I'll take the melodrama and hackyness (reluctantly) if I can still watch the most awe-inspiring and goosebumps-inducing things I've seen in a blockbuster in recent memory.

modage

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 10799
  • Respect: +740
    • Floating Heads
Re: Interstellar
« Reply #59 on: November 13, 2014, 09:59:48 AM »
+1
I'll take the melodrama and hackyness (reluctantly) if I can still watch the most awe-inspiring and goosebumps-inducing things I've seen in a blockbuster in recent memory.

I'm a Nolan diehard (I will rep TDKR for life) and this definitely is his most uneven film since Insomnia. But as Axolotl says above, even with its problems it still easily eclipses anything else at the multiplex in terms of scale/spectacle/ambition/visual splendor/weighty action scenes, etc. which still puts it among my favorites this year.
Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.

 

DMCA & Copyright | Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy