Movie review: 'Interstellar'
'Interstellar' is really smart. It presents to you some of the most complex physics theories known to man and simplifies them just enough to make the average audience understand them
Starring: Matthew McConaughey, Anne Hathaway, Wes Bentley, Jessica Chastain, Michael Caine, Mackenzie Foy
Director: Christopher Nolan
Matthew McConaughey in 'Interstellar'. Pic/Santa Banta
You don't need to read a review of a Christopher Nolan movie to decide whether you should watch it or not. That decision has already been taken by everyone. It's never about 'if' someone would watch a Nolan movie, it's about 'when'. With the increasing scale of every subsequent movie, it's definitely a matter of concern whether Nolan would some day bite more than he can chew off. Is 'Interstellar' the movie that finally claims that crossroad in his career? The answer is both a yes and a no.
1) Some of 'Interstellar' is really smart. It presents to you some of the most complex physics theories known to man and simplifies them just enough to make the average audience understand them.
2) The implementation of said theories into the plot is really cool. When our heroes venture into another planet, every hour they spend there costs seven years back on Earth. The implications of which are quite devastating, and the film really milks the concept to great results.
3) Every second of the space segment in the film is thrilling, and also valuable. There's not a moment where you feel any extraneous material could be chopped off from the outer space travel.
4) On IMAX the imagery really is incredible to behold. It really does feel like an 'event film', and the added touch of indulgence only makes the film better, especially given the commercial space that it releases it. More commercial audience members need to be exposed to different style of cinema than the Transformers rubbish, so Interstellar is a good start.
5) The film's themes about morality play, ethics and the futility of falling in love are excellent to not just watch during the movie, but also for a post movie discussion.
6) The extraneous stuff, unfortunately, exists in the story set back on Earth. The film keeps jumping back and forth between the sky and the Earth, and the transition is quite jarring. No element of the Earth story makes any convincing argument or attempts at keeping things smart.
7) There are, of course, a ton of plot holes in the film. They will have you scratching your head in disbelief because they exist in a $200 million movie featuring some of the smartest people on the planet. Sometimes it becomes Prometheus all over again.
8) Some of the action is restrictive, and feels sort of like a cheat. There are three space vehicles in the film but it's never clear which space ship is which. It's because the camera is fit on the wing of the crafts, and a lot of the navigation is from the POV of that particular camera. That results in not giving us the proper geography of the place or the objects, rendering us unfamiliar with the crafts.
9) The restrictive action gives the filmmaker a chance to focus tightly on the faces of the actors, who are pretending to see something incredible happening in front of their eyes. That's Nolan trying to emulate the Spielberg Face, and it doesn't always work. Ironically Spielberg, who was supposed to make the movie earlier would have been perfect for this film.
10) There are one too many homages to '2001: A Space Odyssey', and too many reminders from other modern science fiction movies. Originality was what separated Nolan from the rest, and it's certainly a downer for a rabid sci fi fan to see stuff in this film that he's already seen. Surely this film has a lot of flaws, but it surely is impossible to look away from.