EDIT: Removed
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Interstellar
Collapse
X
-
Interstellar
Huh, Nolan doesn't strike me as a particularly sentimental director - maybe a bit in Inception. Anyway, I'm looking forward to this but I didn't know anything about it until about a week ago, so I don't have much in the way of expectations.
Comment
-
Interstellar
Saw this on Wednesday (free ticket from a friend) and I'd say "great visual spectacle but intellectually shallow and overly sentimental" can't prepare you for how tedious, vacuous and mostly plain-looking it is. For three and a bit hours.
Mind you, the people I was with - who are more into his thing, and sci fi/geek films generally - really liked it. For background: I thought Inception was stupid, a James Bond film dressed as ideasy sci-fi, but I liked his Batman films (that stuff's more his speed, cause he's lost when it comes to ideas and characters - he had some ready-made to play with there, and as they were comic-book characters realism wasn't a concern). He really can't do 'deep' but won't stop trying. The climactic passage looks incredible, but it's so difficult to connect emotionally with the sort of committee-written bilge that can get made with such a big budget that it can't be anything more satisfying than a demo of nice cinematography.
Quote for the poster: "There's a cool bit about two and a half hours in, but then it gets boring again."
Comment
-
Interstellar
Actually, "sentimental" isn't a fair criticism. The crux of it is [or probably began as, before the whole thing became idea soup] finding a guiding force once you get beyond scientific knowledge, which is hardly Disney territory. Someone could have made a fine sci-fi film on that premise back in 1970s, but not in today's big-budget system.
One warning, though: Hathaway gives it some serious wuss-mouth.
Comment
-
Interstellar
She was cringey on Graham Norton last night, embarrassingly gushing all over McConaughey who was more subdued than normal because of it. Generally being over-attentiony in that dull way people like that usually are.
Outside of The Batman films I like Nolan's stuff so I'm still looking forward to it, just not as much after reading Lucia's thoughts though. Which is probably a good thing.
Comment
-
Interstellar
Lucia Lanigan wrote: She doesn't overact in this (everyone's very straight-faced throughout) she's just a wobbly lip kind of actor. Matt Damon plays Matt Damon in space, which is exactly like Matt Damon on earth. He just sort of stands there in films having a face.
Comment
-
Interstellar
Lucia Lanigan wrote: Saw this on Wednesday (free ticket from a friend) and I'd say "great visual spectacle but intellectually shallow and overly sentimental" can't prepare you for how tedious, vacuous and mostly plain-looking it is. For three and a bit hours.
Mind you, the people I was with - who are more into his thing, and sci fi/geek films generally - really liked it. For background: I thought Inception was stupid, a James Bond film dressed as ideasy sci-fi, but I liked his Batman films (that stuff's more his speed, cause he's lost when it comes to ideas and characters - he had some ready-made to play with there, and as they were comic-book characters realism wasn't a concern). He really can't do 'deep' but won't stop trying. The climactic passage looks incredible, but it's so difficult to connect emotionally with the sort of committee-written bilge that can get made with such a big budget that it can't be anything more satisfying than a demo of nice cinematography.
Quote for the poster: "There's a cool bit about two and a half hours in, but then it gets boring again."
Comment
-
Interstellar
stevue81 wrote: Have skipped the thread as I'm seeing the film on saturday, but I want to declare that I feel that Nolan is in no way overrated and is the one of the greatest living film-makers. Inception, Prestige and Memento are three of my favourite films of all time.
Comment
-
Interstellar
Ambient Moyes Levels wrote: Just a couple of things about Nolan:
A lot of what's been written about him has focussed on a perceived "lack of emotion" in his movies and his poor grasp of female characterisation. The second criticism is valid but I wonder about the relevance of the first. Kubrick, someone who Nolan is erroneously compared to on account of the superficial similarities between 2001 and Interstellar and a certain emotional detachment common to their work, famously just didn't "do" feelings at all.
His films are none the worse for this.
How do people measure a concept as nebulous as "emotion in a movie", anyway? How it makes you feel? How you think the director and writer feel about something? How well a movie can stimulate your feelings?
Comment
-
Interstellar
But Spielberg has turned into a saccharine hack who makes Ron Howard look dispassionate, George Lucas was ever thus and just happened to get lucky that he had 2 good ideas and some very good directors and script editors for Empire and Jedi, Cameron is a fucking moron who hasn't made a decent film since Aliens and as for Jackson. Well he started brightly, but has utterly disappeared up his own hole with these Hobbit films that are doing their best to undo the fairly good work he did on LoTR.
Nolan would have to be spectacularly shit to be as bad as that lot currently are.
Comment
-
Interstellar
[Kubrick] had a unique, dark take on the world and had a wicked sense of humour to boot, he revelled in portraying and capturing isolation, madness and alienation. Nolan's films are cold because he can't help it.
Comment
-
Interstellar
Memento may end up being one of the greatest classics of this generation. May even have a shot at Sight&Sound's Top 10 one of these years.
The remake of the Norwegian cop movie was also great. He got one of the greatest performances out of Robin Williams, which takes some doing. One of the more original takes on a killer. Pacino was also great in it.
I didn't like the Batmans as much, but loved Heath Ledger and the Scarecrow to death.
As far as Speilberg, I felt he got much better with age. Catch Me if You Can may be one of the more underrated movies over the past 20 years. One of those that's as fresh and watchable no matter what scene you catch. Schindler's List is still incredible. I would say the 1986-1994 was his talentless hack stage, but Amistad ? Munich ? ANIMANIACS ?!!!
Peter Jackson was always scattershot, even back to Meet the Feebles (really ugly and gross...even for when I was a Junior in High School) to Dead/Alive (really ugly and gross in a good way...even when I was a Freshman in college,) to Heavenly Creatures (Brilliant) to The Frighteners. I mean The Frighteners...FRIGHTENERS...was the last movie he did before Lord of the Rings, and I literally can't remember a movie that I was more disappointed with (I forced my girlfriend and her friend and my friend who we were trying to set up with my girlfriend's friend, and they hated the movie so much that it ruined their date and all future contact and ruined my reputation that was only avenged when my wife made me see Made of Honor.)
Comment
-
Interstellar
The remake of the Norwegian cop movie was also great. He got one of the greatest performances out of Robin Williams, which takes some doing. One of the more original takes on a killer. Pacino was also great in it.
This one, though: don't expect a thrill ride like Inception, or mindless sci-fi fun like someone else would make, or head-squeezing psychonausea like Memento or Insomnia. Interstellar is none of those things and less. For hours.
Comment
Comment