Jump to content

Interstellar (2014)


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 170
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Nope. No press screenings for me this year. Too much homework. I won't have many opening weekend reviews this year. My life is 8 hours of Day Job + 5 hours of MFA work almost every day.

Edited by Overstreet

P.S.  I COULD BE WRONG.

 

Takin' 'er easy for all you sinners at lookingcloser.org. Also abiding at Facebook and Twitter.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

A mix of first impressions from some of my go-to reviewers. I'm not favoring negative reviews, just reporting the reviews I've read from writers I often read:
 
David Ehrlich:

 

If Interstellar is Nolan’s most ambitious film, it’s not because of its cost or its intergalactic sweep, but rather because "love" is the most speculative and unscientific force that he’s ever tried to prove. When Nolan was recently quoted as saying that his new opus is about "What happens when scientists bump up against these things that defy easy characterisation and analysis — things like love", his comment engendered skepticism from people who haven’t become fetishistically submissive to their enthusiasm for upcoming event films. And while Interstellar throws itself on the sword of sentimentality almost every time it’s on the precipice of arriving at a moment of cinematic wonder, Nolan’s approach to love is ultimately as blunt and practical as we should expect from the man who reduced the human subconscious into a rigid ladder of colour-coded game worlds. Interstellar doesn’t just contend that love is real, the film argues that it’s downright Darwinian.

 

 

Josh Larsen (at Letterboxd): 

 

First Impression: The adage is "show, don't tell." Not show AND tell (and tell and tell and tell...)

 
Keith Uhlich:
 

Let's quickly dispense with Christopher Nolan's latest bit of bombastic tedium, Interstellar(opens Wednesday, November 5th). I find much black humor in the fact that this über-pedestrian visual stylist is currently our greatest advocate for shooting on celluloid. I don’t mean to suggest that his images lack for superficial size and scope. A large portion of this subpar space odyssey—about a ragtag group of astronauts searching for a new home for our ruined planet’s populace (so…Battlestar Galactica, basically)—was filmed on IMAX cameras that fill the floor-to-ceiling frame with vistas earthly and celestial. Yet nearly every composition lacks that certain something (let’s call it “magic,” since Nolan has spent his entire career breaking down anything mysterious into easily digestible component parts) that makes you feel as if you’re in the hands of a true visionary.

Of all the waste on display, nothing irritated me more than the Nolan house style’s neutering of cinematographer Hoyte van Hoytema, subbing for the director’s usual DP Wally Pfister who was off helming the inaptly named Transcendence (2014). Van Hoytema’s done marvelous work for Tomas Alfredson on the modern-day vampire story Let the Right One In (2008) and the moody, measured John le Carré spy thriller Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (2011). He also created a memorable candy-color-and-grit palette for Spike Jonze’s otherwise feeble-brained futurist romance Her (2013), though my favorite among his recent output is Mikael Marcimain’s period prostitution drama Call Girl (2012) with its alluringly sleazy, snuff-film textures.

Here, only two shots resonate ... 

...

For all the “fantastic” otherworlds—such as the tidal-wave planet where one hour is equivalent to seven earth years, or the topsy-turvy ice star where our heroes run into special guest cosmonaut Will Hunting—Nolan is loathe to let us take any of it in with genuine horror, wonder or awe. Not even a massive black hole nicknamed, in a very unobtanium-esque touch, “Gargantua” manages to put stars in the eyes. They sent a prosaic poseur to do a poet’s job.

P.S.  I COULD BE WRONG.

 

Takin' 'er easy for all you sinners at lookingcloser.org. Also abiding at Facebook and Twitter.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW, I sat through this movie last night while feeling like I was coming down with some sort of illness, left as soon as the credits started to roll, then slept on it and woke up in the light of a new day thinking much differently about the film .

"What matters are movies, not awards; experiences, not celebrations; the subjective power of individual critical points of view, not the declamatory compromises of consensus." - Richard Brody, "Godard's Surprise Win Is a Victory for Independent Cinema," The New Yorker

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm embargoed until tomorrow (which is weird, since the film opens to the public *tonight*), but it's interesting to see how some of Nolan's pet themes and images surface again here. As you can tell from the reviews already posted here, we have the time-shifting of Inception (an hour on one planet close to a black hole equals years everywhere else), but we also have a key plot twist from Memento (I'm being vague enough, I think, but I'll spoiler-tag that just to be safe), plus the whole "noble lie" theme that has run through most of Nolan's films. And, as whathisface noted on Twitter, we have the fourth dead wife in Nolan's filmography (or fifth, if we count Rachel Dawes from the Batman films).

 

And I totally agree with Denby about how hard it was to hear the dialogue at times in this film. I wondered if that was just the sound system in the IMAX theatre I was sitting in, but apparently not. Part of it is due to the sheer loudness of Hans Zimmer's score (which isn't Zimmer's fault; the sound mixers could have always adjusted that), but Matthew McConaughey can also be a bit of a mumbler at times. And let's not forget all the complaints about how hard it was to understand Tom Hardy in Nolan's *last* film. Still, I wonder if the IMAX-ness of it all was a factor. I wonder what the film would sound like in a regular theatre.

 

Incidentally, there's a cameo in this film that caught me *completely* by surprise... but now that I go back through this thread, I see that the actor's involvement was mentioned here over a year ago. (One of the reviews Jeff quotes alludes to this cameo, too, but uses the name of one of the actor's previous movie characters, rather than the name of the actor him/her self.) They've done a very, very good job of keeping that actor out of all the PR material, as far as I can tell.

Edited by Peter T Chattaway

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The IMAX presentation is deafening at points, but for once, that didn't bother me ... mostly. There were points where Zimmer's score started to grate, but maybe only one time where I thought the dialogue was (barely) drowned out. 


Also, I haven't read the full linked articles yet, but:

 

Tarantino says that "Interstellar," in spite of its galactic ambitions, is "actually old film-making craft," adding that "It’s been a while since somebody has come out with such a big vision... Even the elements, the fact that dust is everywhere, and they’re living in this dust bowl that is just completely enveloping this area of the world. That’s almost something you expect from Tarkovsky or Malick, not a science fiction adventure movie.”

Edited by Christian

"What matters are movies, not awards; experiences, not celebrations; the subjective power of individual critical points of view, not the declamatory compromises of consensus." - Richard Brody, "Godard's Surprise Win Is a Victory for Independent Cinema," The New Yorker

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a bizarre comment from Tarantino. The film's premise is essentially apocalyptic -- life on this planet will die within a few generations, so we have to find somewhere else to live -- so the dust storms and whatnot didn't seem particularly unusual at all.

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My embargo is lifted three hours earlier than Peter's embargobullhorn.gif

 

I was also a little curious that little to no thought was given to what–if any–parts of human culture are worth saving. A nod is given towards the biological necessity  for biodiversity, but other than some incessant parroting of Dylan Thomas no indication is given that either Plan A or Plan B for the survival of the human race entails any attempts to preserve knowledge of human history, art, or culture. Apparently we will take baseball, science, and “Do Not Go Gentle Into that Good Night” into the next phase of human evolution with us. 

 

 

Due respect for its visuals and performances, but if Interstellar's script (or large portions of it) had been penned by Jerry B. Jenkins and Tim LaHaye, it would have met howls of derision and Fred Clark would have spent two-three years documenting and descrying its poorly realized ideas. That's not to say that the two movies are of comparable quality; they're not. But we accept certain kinds of badness from certain quarters a lot more readily if they also give us *something* we want. 

Edited by kenmorefield
Link to post
Share on other sites

kenmorefield wrote:

: My embargo is lifted three hours earlier than Peter's embargo.

 

You east-coasters and your time-zone differences!!!

 

Still working on my review. Balancing parenting duties, catching up on stuff I missed while I was out of the country last week, and getting over jet-lag has slowed me down a bit. But I'm glad I managed to stay awake for the entire movie two nights ago, though (to say nothing of the drive home... in the rain...).

 

Just for the record, I haven't read any other people's reviews yet, because I'm still working on my own. But I can't escape the feeling that this is one badly written film. Like, I just didn't buy it. I didn't buy the premise (in a world of food shortages, people will decide they just don't have enough money for the military? really? everyone will live peacefully in separate parts of the world and try to grow their own food without any need to enforce law and order? huh?). I didn't buy the dialogue (especially those clunky transitions where characters start to justify following their feelings instead of their logic because, um, there is a logic to feelings, or, um...), and I certainly didn't buy the ending, on *multiple* levels.

 

I appreciate the *ambition* here, but Nolan falls on the sword of his own commitment to "realism" and "literalism". Where Stanley Kubrick aimed for poetry -- and wasn't afraid to introduce a metaphysical/mystical aspect right from the opening scenes with that monolith -- Nolan never gets past prose, which becomes a problem when his story enters what would normally be its "transcendent" phase.

 

: Due respect for its visuals and performances, but if Interstellar's script (or large portions of it) had been penned by Jerry B. Jenkins and Tim LaHaye, it would have met howls of derision and Fred Clark would have spent two-three years documenting and descrying its poorly realized ideas.

 

Here's the opening sentence of the current draft of my review: "I don’t know how else to say this, so I’ll just put it out there: Interstellar is the first film I’ve ever seen in which I actually found myself imagining what the ‘Honest Trailer’ would be like while I was watching the film."

Edited by Peter T Chattaway

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I appreciate the *ambition* here, but Nolan falls on the sword of his own commitment to "realism" and "literalism". Where Stanley Kubrick aimed for poetry -- and wasn't afraid to introduce a metaphysical/mystical aspect right from the opening scenes with that monolith -- Nolan never gets past prose, which becomes a problem when his story enters what would normally be its "transcendent" phase.

This.

 

In fact, the word "prose" echoes a comment I tweeted (subtweeted?) about Interstellar without naming the film: "Turns out, going PROSE PROSE PROSE PROSE PROSE never turns into poetry."

: Due respect for its visuals and performances, but if Interstellar's script (or large portions of it) had been penned by Jerry B. Jenkins and Tim LaHaye, it would have met howls of derision and Fred Clark would have spent two-three years documenting and descrying its poorly realized ideas.

 

Here's the opening sentence of the current draft of my review: "I don’t know how else to say this, so I’ll just put it out there: Interstellar is the first film I’ve ever seen in which I actually found myself imagining what the ‘Honest Trailer’ would be like while I was watching the film."

 

Oh, brilliant. Can't wait to read the rest!

“I write because I don’t know what I think until I read what I say.” — Flannery O'Connor

Writing at the new Decent Films | Follow me on Twitter and Facebook

Link to post
Share on other sites

 I can't escape the feeling that this is one badly written film. Like, I just didn't buy it. I didn't buy the premise (in a world of food shortages, people will decide they just don't have enough money for the military? really? everyone will live peacefully in separate parts of the world and try to grow their own food without any need to enforce law and order? huh?). I didn't buy the dialogue (especially those clunky transitions where characters start to justify following their feelings instead of their logic because, um, there is a logic to feelings, or, um...), and I certainly didn't buy the ending, on *multiple* levels.

 

: Due respect for its visuals and performances, but if Interstellar's script (or large portions of it) had been penned by Jerry B. Jenkins and Tim LaHaye, it would have met howls of derision and Fred Clark would have spent two-three years documenting and descrying its poorly realized ideas.

 

Here's the opening sentence of the current draft of my review: "I don’t know how else to say this, so I’ll just put it out there: Interstellar is the first film I’ve ever seen in which I actually found myself imagining what the ‘Honest Trailer’ would be like while I was watching the film."

Those are all fair points, but I just want to confirm that, for one of the most visually overwhelming films of the year, you're basically reviewing the script? That's fine. I don't have much argument with what you've written above. I just don't think it goes far enough. But I'm sure others will agree that dialogue/premise problems are more than enough to sink Interstellar.

 

And with that, my feeble, half-hearted defense of a Christopher Nolan movie begins. Will it build from here? Will I soon be suggesting I liked it much more than I did, simply because I disagree to some (major?) extent with the film's naysayers?

 

That's happened before.

"What matters are movies, not awards; experiences, not celebrations; the subjective power of individual critical points of view, not the declamatory compromises of consensus." - Richard Brody, "Godard's Surprise Win Is a Victory for Independent Cinema," The New Yorker

Link to post
Share on other sites

Christian wrote:
: Those are all fair points, but I just want to confirm that, for one of the most visually overwhelming films of the year, you're basically reviewing the script?

 

I guess eye candy only goes so far with me. If it's to reach the level of visual poetry, there has to be something *more*.

 

BTW, I'm assuming someone else out there has compared the robots to the monoliths from 2001: A Space Odyssey, yes? But has anyone else compared them to the robots from Disney's The Black Hole yet? Some of their banter reminded me of that. (And I guess the fact that there's a big fat black hole at the centre of this movie also helped me make that association.)

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess eye candy only goes so far with me. If it's to reach the level of visual poetry, there has to be something *more*

Fair enough. I'm at the other end of the spectrum: Don't care overly much about the script if the movie overpowers me in other ways.

"What matters are movies, not awards; experiences, not celebrations; the subjective power of individual critical points of view, not the declamatory compromises of consensus." - Richard Brody, "Godard's Surprise Win Is a Victory for Independent Cinema," The New Yorker

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I appreciate the *ambition* here, but Nolan falls on the sword of his own commitment to "realism" and "literalism". Where Stanley Kubrick aimed for poetry -- and wasn't afraid to introduce a metaphysical/mystical aspect right from the opening scenes with that monolith -- Nolan never gets past prose, which becomes a problem when his story enters what would normally be its "transcendent" phase.

This.

 

In fact, the word "prose" echoes a comment I tweeted (subtweeted?) about Interstellar without naming the film: "Turns out, going PROSE PROSE PROSE PROSE PROSE never turns into poetry."

 

 

So here's my question (for Peter or Steven). Is this a failure of talent or failure of nerve? Does Nolan *think* he's being poetic? Does he want to be poetic and simply not know how--so he keeps on trotting out references to other people's poetry?--or does he not trust the audience to embrace poetry/get what he is saying unless he breaks it down for them?

 

Those are all fair points, but I just want to confirm that, for one of the most visually overwhelming films of the year, you're basically reviewing the script? That's fine. I don't have much argument with what you've written above. I just don't think it goes far enough. But I'm sure others will agree that dialogue/premise problems are more than enough to sink Interstellar.

 

 

I don't think the writing sinks Interstellar; I just think it keeps if from being the grand achievement it wants to be.

Skimming back over this thread (which I have avoided before writing about the film), I find myself wanting to insist, too, that there is a difference between "scope" and "scale." I disagree with the the notion that there is something singular about the scope (or for that matter the scale) of Nolan's project. "Scope" to me suggests a grand tableau in which to develop ideas and counter ideas, to do world building, to tell a big story. "Scale" seems to me to be about how big you can frame a relatively simply story or idea, one that can be reduced to a sound bite, and write it LARGE. Lord of the Rings (the books and to a lesser extent the movies) have scope. Heck, I think even Harry Potter has some scope Godzilla has scale. The Avengers have scale. The Dark Knight Rises has scale. The Hobbit has scale. Avatar has scale. Hunger Games has scale. Noah (much as I didn't care for it) has some semblance of scope. So too Tree of Life (though again, I'm not a big Malick fan) Sound and the Fury was an ambitious movie in its attempt to capture scope. Fury was a self-contained story that was ambitious in its use of story to point to broader, deeper conflicts and ideas that the film invited us to wrestle with. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I guess eye candy only goes so far with me. If it's to reach the level of visual poetry, there has to be something *more*

Fair enough. I'm at the other end of the spectrum: Don't care overly much about the script if the movie overpowers me in other ways.

That was the way I felt about Gravity. And yet I would argue that Gravity was visually poetic, in a way Interstellar isn't. Its achievement lay not simply in the technical virtuosity of its visuals, but in the camerawork, most spectacularly in that amazing second shot I've praised in the past.

 

Somehow Gravity makes the Earth a more transcendent visual presence than Nolan is able to make a black hole, a wormhole or almost anything else we see -- though that said I do love the space-bending imagery of the wormhole and the two stark planetscapes of the two worlds we visit. His attempts to visualize five-dimensional space are also impressive, although he runs into narrative trouble there. 

BTW, I'm assuming someone else out there has compared the robots to the monoliths from 2001: A Space Odyssey, yes? But has anyone else compared them to the robots from Disney's The Black Hole yet? Some of their banter reminded me of that. (And I guess the fact that there's a big fat black hole at the centre of this movie also helped me make that association.)

Yes, MaryAnn Johanson, for one.

So here's my question (for Peter or Steven). Is this a failure of talent or failure of nerve? Does Nolan *think* he's being poetic? Does he want to be poetic and simply not know how--so he keeps on trotting out references to other people's poetry?--or does he not trust the audience to embrace poetry/get what he is saying unless he breaks it down for them?

 

I honestly don't know if poetry is something that clicks for Nolan.

 

Watching Interstellar, I think, somewhat unfairly I admit, of Kubrick's criticism of "the lumpen literati that is so dogmatically atheist and materialist and Earth-bound that it finds the grandeur of space and the myriad mysteries of cosmic intelligence anathema." 

It's unfair because Nolan is clearly impressed with the grandeur of space -- though he whiffs badly at the "myriad mysteries of cosmic intelligence."

At the end of the day, though, Interstellar seems to me to wrap around like a Mobius strip into another puzzle box of a movie, a hall of mirrors with no "there" there.

You could say the same about Inception, a movie that is all about the inner world, the dreamscape. It works for me there. But here we are crossing the universe. I was hoping for something more. 

“I write because I don’t know what I think until I read what I say.” — Flannery O'Connor

Writing at the new Decent Films | Follow me on Twitter and Facebook

Link to post
Share on other sites

kenmorefield wrote:

: I find myself wanting to insist, too, that there is a difference between "scope" and "scale."

 

An excellent distinction.

 

SDG wrote:
: Somehow Gravity makes the Earth a more transcendent visual presence than Nolan is able to make a black hole, a wormhole or almost anything else we see . . .

 

Good point! And I would argue that whatever Gravity's narrative limitations may have been, the film was at least more modest, and its reach did not exceed its grasp. (I don't know if I'd call the scene where Sandra Bullock "prays" transcendent, per se, but it at least suggested an openness to something transcendent that is missing from Nolan's film, "ghosts" and all.)

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
And yet I would argue that Gravity was visually poetic, in a way Interstellar isn't.

 

 

Uh-oh.

 

I can feel any interest I had in this film spluttering out like air through a broken balloon.

Edited by Overstreet

P.S.  I COULD BE WRONG.

 

Takin' 'er easy for all you sinners at lookingcloser.org. Also abiding at Facebook and Twitter.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ken's review and this conversation having been giving me very distinctive flashbacks to Gravity, which simultaneously heightens my anticipation and reduces it.
 

 

I guess eye candy only goes so far with me. If it's to reach the level of visual poetry, there has to be something *more*

Fair enough. I'm at the other end of the spectrum: Don't care overly much about the script if the movie overpowers me in other ways.

 

I can forgive a weak script if there's something else truly spectacular and nothing else that detracts. Ken's comment about Zimmer's score in his review has me slightly concerned that Interstellar could be a repeat of Gravity (I usually don't like Zimmer's scores).
 

I honestly don't know if poetry is something that clicks for Nolan.
 
Watching Interstellar, I think, somewhat unfairly I admit, of Kubrick's criticism of "the lumpen literati that is so dogmatically atheist and materialist and Earth-bound that it finds the grandeur of space and the myriad mysteries of cosmic intelligence anathema." 

It's unfair because Nolan is clearly impressed with the grandeur of space -- though he whiffs badly at the "myriad mysteries of cosmic intelligence."

At the end of the day, though, Interstellar seems to me to wrap around like a Mobius strip into another puzzle box of a movie, a hall of mirrors with no "there" there.

You could say the same about Inception, a movie that is all about the inner world, the dreamscape. It works for me there. But here we are crossing the universe. I was hoping for something more.

Nolan the poet has never been someone I've really admired, or, more accurately, Nolan's attempts at poetry (or insight/depth/profundity/whatever you want to call it) have never bothered me, but they've never moved me or been the main reason that I've liked his past films.
 
Nolan the puzzle maker, on the other hand, is someone whose twists and labyrinths I have always found thrilling, even if they are just a hall of mirrors with no "there" there. (However, for the record, I would argue Following, Memento, Insomnia, The Prestige, and Inception do have at least some "there" there.)  I do think Nolan's attempts at having a "there" are more successful the less effort he puts into them, or the more naturally the "there" flows from his twisted puzzle. And now that I think about it, I might argue each one of Nolan's films has slightly less "there" than its predecessor, with the possible exception of Following.

 

I'm hoping Interstellar will be a break in that trend.

Edited by Evan C

"Anyway, in general I love tragic artists, especially classical ones."

"Even the forms for expressing truth can be multiform, and this is indeed necessary for the transmission of the Gospel in its timeless meaning."

- Pope Francis, August 2013 interview with Antonio Spadaro

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Nolan the poet has never been someone I've really admired, or, more accurately, Nolan's attempts at poetry (or insight/depth/profundity/whatever you want to call it) have never bothered me, but they've never moved me or been the main reason that I've liked his past films.

 

Nolan the puzzle maker, on the other hand, is someone whose twists and labyrinths I have always found thrilling, even if they are just a hall of mirrors with no "there" there. (However, for the record, I would argue Following, Memento, Insomnia, The Prestige, and Inception do have at least some "there" there.)  I do think Nolan's attempts at having a "there" are more successful the less effort he puts into them, or the more naturally the "there" flows from his twisted puzzle. And now that I think about it, I might argue each one of Nolan's films has slightly less "there" than its predecessor, with the possible exception of Following.

 

I'm hoping Interstellar is break in that trend.

 

For me, Nolan is one of those "first viewing=best viewing" auteurs. This is the only film I've ever attended where I was glad the preview was in IMAX. I normally *hate* IMAX. But I did feel it enhanced the best elements of the film and made my "best viewing" the best possible version of the viewing I could get.

 

At the end of the day, though, Interstellar seems to me to wrap around like a Mobius strip into another puzzle box of a movie, a hall of mirrors with no "there" there.

 

 

That comment reminds me of my friend Neil Morris's observation that that the problem with the simultaneous climaxing of storylines in Inception, the Dark Knight, and Interstellar is that unlike a movie (like say, Return of the Jedi) where each thread is coordinated and necessary to the eventual outcome, they have one thread that matters and a bunch of others that are really subordinate to it but treated (through editing) as though they were of equal significance. (Here's a bunch of people trying to defuse an atom bomb, cut to Joseph Gordon-Leavitt ushering kids onto a bus...)

 

Which reminds me another movie I should have mentioned in my scale/scope tirade: Cloud Atlas. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can forgive a weak script if there's something else truly spectacular and nothing else that detracts. Ken's comment about Zimmer's score in his review has me slightly concerned that Interstellar could be a repeat of Gravity (I usually don't like Zimmer's scores). 

FWIW, Zimmer's score incresingly grated on me as the movie unspooled. I went from not really noticing it to thinking it was OK, then wanting it to be different and, finally, begging for it to STOP!

 

But again, it wasn't so great a negative that it made me dislike the movie.

"What matters are movies, not awards; experiences, not celebrations; the subjective power of individual critical points of view, not the declamatory compromises of consensus." - Richard Brody, "Godard's Surprise Win Is a Victory for Independent Cinema," The New Yorker

Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet I would argue that Gravity was visually poetic, in a way Interstellar isn't.

Uh-oh.

I can feel any interest I had in this film spluttering out like air through a broken balloon.

I didn't like Gravity, so that doesn't exactly fill me with enthusiasm, either. But I don't find it deflating. I wouldn't expect Nolan to deliver visual poetry. To the extent I enjoy Nolan, it's largely because of his structural/thematic gambits. They rarely pay off, but they're at least interesting.
Link to post
Share on other sites

One other parallel I've noticed: This film resembles Signs inasmuch as its protagonist is a widower who has left his original vocation (engineering rather than the priesthood in this case) to raise his son and daughter on a corn farm with the help of a male relative (his father rather than his brother in this case). And then the kids start noticing strange activity (in the bedroom rather than the corn field)...

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Was Lithgow McConaughey's father, or father-in-law?

 

Also, what did you make of Lithgow's comment about Cooper needing to repopulate the earth? It's not like he was some wayward bachelor, uninterested in children.

"What matters are movies, not awards; experiences, not celebrations; the subjective power of individual critical points of view, not the declamatory compromises of consensus." - Richard Brody, "Godard's Surprise Win Is a Victory for Independent Cinema," The New Yorker

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...