Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 29, 2024, 06:37:21 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Christopher Nolan’s Interstellar

Started by Johnny Textface, October 27, 2014, 03:56:08 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

George Oscar Bluth II

For everyone questioning the explanation of what the fifth dimensional beings are, and how time works, you're not paying enough attention to McConaughey:



I thought it was a mess, really. Some moments of stunning brilliance like:

- The bit of McConaughey watching the videos sent by his kids over the 20 years he'd been on the horrible water planet
- The bit when they get back to the orbiting ship and Black Doctor has been waiting for them for 20 years
- So much of the space visual stuff. Particularly when they zoom out and you see the tiny ship against the vastness of space
- Quite liked the timey wimey, spacey wacey bookcase bit, actually

But I have loads of problems including but not limited to:

- The fact that 2001 did basically all of it, better. Just needed McConaughey to say "my God, it's full of stars" and you'd have been halfway to a shitter remake
- The score. Like a shite takeoff of Philip Glass's Koyaanisqatsi
- We're supposed to believe that McConaughey and his daughter stumble into NASA and they just tell him to pilot the spaceship USS Mankind's Last Chance? Ludicrous, they can't even get a movie cliché right.
- The Matt Damon sequence just isn't really needed.
- The running time. Nolan has reached that point where no-one is willing or able to tell him to dial it down a bit, he's too powerful.
- As someone else said, I'm a bit confused about Plan B. Was Hathaway supposed to become a baby farm of some sort? Bit grim to send your daughter to do that.

mikeyg27

Quote from: Hank Venture on November 14, 2014, 02:09:32 PM
I liked the robots.

Me too. They were just monotone enough to prevent them being too LOLzwacky.

Basically, this film was Arthur C. Clarke's Greatest Hits. I felt slightly bad for it that it was released a year after Gravity, because although they are not similar films at all, the comparable space-peril stuff just wasn't on the same level in Interstellar.

Hank Venture

I kind of miss a voice that goes "why is it that important that humanity staggers on, really?" in these types of movies. They all seem to think that humanity is inherently important enough to not even raise the question of why bother. If there were no humans, no one would miss us.

George Oscar Bluth II

Quote from: Hank Venture on November 16, 2014, 01:31:45 PM
I kind of miss a voice that goes "why is it that important that humanity staggers on, really?" in these types of movies. They all seem to think that humanity is inherently important enough to not even raise the question of why bother. If there were no humans, no one would miss us.

Played by Jeff Goldblum.

He could have been sat in the corner of that ridiculous conference room which turned out, at the flick of a switch, to be RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO THE ROCKET LAUNCHPAD OR SOMETHING.

NASA, apparently now based on Tracy Island.

checkoutgirl

I'm actively reading spoilers now and I even watched some of the Kermode review. Sure signs that I've completely lost faith in it being worth a cinema visit or that it will be any good at all. I just hope some of the effects translate to the small screen when I torrent it pay full price to watch it online. You probably need a big screen to get the full effect but if I'd gone to see Gravity in the cinema I reckon I would have been embarrassed by the shitty dialogue and this film looks like it's got loads of problems as well.

phantom_power

They explain McConaughey's suitability in the film. There are no engineers or pilots any more as they need to concentrate all their effort on farming crops. He was the last person to fly a craft anywhere near space.

Paaaaul

Seeing Gravity or Interstellar on a small screen actively pushes you towards focusing on the dialogue and the plot. The cinematic experience is a lot more forgiving, and pretty much the only way to see films like these.
Seeing Gravity is one of the greatest experiences I've had in a cinema, but it's not a very good film. I probably enjoyed Interstellar a tad more than seeing The Prestige on a big screen, but The Prestige is a much better film.
If you want to see it, go and see it now. Don't complain it's crappy in six months time when you watch a DVD rip.

checkoutgirl

Quote from: Paaaaul on November 16, 2014, 02:50:16 PM
If you want to see it, go and see it now. Don't complain it's crappy in six months time when you watch a DVD rip.

I considered watching it last night in the cinema but I went for Mr Turner in the end. Stunning looking film is Mr Turner, by the way. Also if I go to the cinema again in the next week or two I'll opt for Nightcrawler. There's just a glut of good stuff in the cinema right now and Nolan won't get a look in as a result. Maybe Nolan released it now so it would have the best chance at the Oscars but he'll probably just get a best visual effects or best sound award if he's lucky.

El Unicornio, mang

I watched Gravity on telly and enjoyed it immensely. As long as you have a decent sized TV (or sit close to a smaller one), blu ray quality, turn the lights off and stick headphones on, you can get close enough to the same experience for it to be immersive.

Puce Moment

Quote from: Hank Venture on November 16, 2014, 01:31:45 PMI kind of miss a voice that goes "why is it that important that humanity staggers on, really?" in these types of movies. They all seem to think that humanity is inherently important enough to not even raise the question of why bother. If there were no humans, no one would miss us.

It is the big problem in most of these types of films. A strange arrogance that preserving and looking after the human race as a species which I don't think anyone would actually care about. By that, I mean I think most people's motivations are selfish and time, money and technology could have been spent making the lives of those living better, rather than trying to account for people not yet born. Helping the current population on earth survive is one of the themes of the film, but expecting us to give a toss about humans as a species is a stretch these days.

Mr_Simnock

 Just been to see it at a Sony 4k cinema plex (the nonce-sence they come up with these days). Not a bad film at all, a lot better than I imagined it might be. Yes I get the Arthur C Clark comparisons and having recently read quite a few of his short stories that thought did cross my mind a lot during the film. TBH I thought that was good, I hope more modern sci-fi films try a bit harder in the old plot line (even though this is hardly an original plot some of the key ideas haven't had too much of an airing recently). I liked the robots a lot, they grew on me as I watched. I thought they were something straight out of 'The Black Hole' or 'Silent Running', so glad they didn't opt for the boring choice of actor trying to be an android shtick. McConaugheys performance was quite good, helped raised the films gravitas so to speak. Caines performance was a bit clichéd, and another element that reminded me of Sci Fi cinema passed. All in all I do think it's worth a trip to see.

p.s the scene with the big wave was a bit scary

Paaaaul

Michael Caine seems to be in Nolan's films solely to dole out clanky exposition.

Custard

I did laugh at the Michael Caine of 23 years later looking exactly the same as the Michael Caine of 23 years earlier

Let out a chuckle about the black doctor bloke being similarly exactly the same as before, but with some bits of grey in the sides of his barnet

I too loved the big wave. Looked terrifying

I think I need a second watch to form a solid opinion on the film as a whole, though. Just so much to take in, in one bum-numbing watch

Unzipping a fresh Matt Damon took me completely out of the film, and the audience I was in actually went "ooooh". Far too big of a name for that role, I think

Really enjoyed most if it, though. Unashamed fan of Nolan, though he does have ridiculously OTT fan bois

#74
Quote from: Shameless Custard on November 16, 2014, 09:17:36 PM
I did laugh at the Michael Caine of 23 years later looking exactly the same as the Michael Caine of 23 years earlier

Same.

QuoteLet out a chuckle about the black doctor bloke being similarly exactly the same as before, but with some bits of grey in the sides of his barnet

He, at least, had an in-script explanation of why he hadn't aged THAT dramatically, or gone completely hatstand - he did "some spells" in cyro-sleep. From our perspective, it's possible he's only actually lived about 3-5 years. They're deliberately unspecific. If they'd outright said that he'd been awake the entire 23 years then I'd have been calling shenanigans on him being even vaguely human once they got back.

QuoteUnzipping a fresh Matt Damon took me completely out of the film, and the audience I was in actually went "ooooh". Far too big of a name for that role, I think

Same actually. Palpable surprise in the room to see Damon (even I was surprised), which is rare these days. But if you're not going to give him any meaningful plot development then what was point? Damon could have not been there at all and it's neither a better nor worse film. Worst possible criticism of an actor at all surely? "You were so immaterial as to be unnoticable".

QuoteReally enjoyed most if it, though. Unashamed fan of Nolan, though he does have ridiculously OTT fan bois

Same. Batman Begins is awful compared to The Dark Knight, as is Rises although less so. Inception is great but suffers from similar problems as this. I haven't seen his other films. Man Of Steel is gash but he gets a free pass on that, given it's technically Snyder (although Nolan obviously lended his colour correction engineer - BLUES AND GREYS PEOPLE, BLUES AND GREYS!). Overall though, he's the first director of my generation that I would even vaguely consider buying a Special Edition 4K Blu-Ray Set for. He makes great films, he's just not so hot on detail.

I mean really.. can you name a single film that takes Sci-Fi this seriously since 2001: A Space Odessey? it's an achievement just on that basis.

Good god I wish Nolan had got the Star Trek reboot contract.


Paaaaul

He can do detail, as he's shown in Following, Memento and The Prestige.

Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth

Quote from: The Region Legion on November 17, 2014, 03:03:36 AM
I mean really.. can you name a single film that takes Sci-Fi this seriously since 2001: A Space Odyssey?
Moon?[nb]That's not an invitation to get your bum out.[/nb]

I saw this earlier. It was alright I guess. It certainly had some thrilling moments, particularly the tidal wave bit (although it seems somehow wrong that, in a space film that involves travelling through a black hole, the deadliest threat they face is the sea). Plenty of naff bits, though: The power of love speech was just awful; Mann nutting Cooper during the fight looked goofy and I'm nitpicking, but those visors seemed a bit flimsy; I liked the robot design and characterisation, but they also looked silly at points, even after I was used to them; The older brother - Billy Joe, or whatever he was called - was so attached to the farm that he'd thump Topher Grace for suggesting they leave[nb]or maybe he just didn't like Spider-Man 3[/nb], but when Murphy burns it down and starts ranting about a magic watch, he's all ears?; 5th dimensional gravity communications I can go with, but the way it was shown in the film, with Cooper tapping on the wall looked kind of dumb, which wasn't helped by this http://i607.photobucket.com/albums/tt159/Comic_Book_Overdrive/725433-good4_super-1.jpg

Overall though, it wasn't bad. Certainly didn't feel like nearly three hours although a little brevity wouldn't have killed them either.

Something that confused me - were the wormhole and the black hole connected, or was that just a coincidence?

greenman

There have been a few more serious sci fi's recently, besides Moon there Jones Source Code, Children of Men and Sunshine although I think you could argue that none of those were really at the top end of the scale when it came to budget/promotion compared to interstellar so in that respect I think its a very welcome change from the typical Cruise end of the world sci fi actioner.

QuoteSomething that confused me - were the wormhole and the black hole connected, or was that just a coincidence?

The latter may have been used to create the former but the real plot point was...

Spoiler alert
The wormhole was created to give humans access to the black hole NOT the planets to potentially colonise. If you think about it the Aliens/Future humans really fucked up if they created the wormhole for colonisation of those worlds as none were suitable. The black hole on the other hand seems unique in that humans could survive entry into it and then pass the data back to earth with the Aliens help, thus allowing the tech advancement we see by the end of the film. I would imagine besides allowing giant space stations to take off control of gravity would also make harvesting resources from other planets/moons in the solar system a sustainable enterprise.
[close]

That actually ties in a bit to this guardian article which for me is rather harsh...

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/11/interstellar-insane-fantasy-abandoning-earth-political-defeatism

Caines "we weren't ment to save the world" line and the lack of climate change bein clearly mentioned as the cause of the crisis on earth were always going to get a response but I would argue that a lot of interstellar was actually actively built on undermining the idea of "leaving earth" as some kind of easy get out of jail free card. It focuses on just how harsh other planets are and just how impractical having to send everything into space via rocket really is. Perhaps also some defenciveness that the film could be viewed as an attack on the anti nuclear/GM viewpoint? although personally I would say it meshes much better with a pro nuclear fusion research viewpoint.

For me that does rather tie into why I felt Damon's character was needed for the story. Without him I just think the film becomes rather too one sided, the idea that rampant technological advancement as a negative that society and more specifically John Lithgow's character seems to have would have IMHO been dismissed a bit too easily. Damon's character presents someone from the "tech side" of this debate behaving in a selfish and cowardly fashion plus actually putting forward the idea that his fall was unavoidable.

Ant Farm Keyboard

#78
Quote from: The Region Legion on November 17, 2014, 03:03:36 AM
I mean really.. can you name a single film that takes Sci-Fi this seriously since 2001: A Space Odessey? it's an achievement just on that basis.

I can't name a single film, so I'll give you a few of them:

Tarkovsky's Solaris
Silent Running
Moon (as mentioned by others)
A.I.
Soderbergh's Solaris (whatever its flaws)
Blade Runner
Children of Men (as mentioned by greenman)
Tyler Perry's Madea Goes To Space, based on the novel Solaris by Stanislas Lem
Close Encounters of the Third Kind
Wiseau Films Presents Tommy Wiseau's Solaris

One thing that others have noticed: Cooper has a son, Tom (played by Casey Affleck). Tom has two kids, Jesse, who dies very young, and the second one is named Cooper as a tribute to his late grandfather.
So, given that Cooper was McConaughey's last name, the kid's name would actually be Cooper Cooper. Given that Tom gets the short shrift in the script, what was the actual point of spending so much time on the names with something confusing added to the mix (maybe Coop got his mother's last name?) instead of giving the character proper development?

phantom_power

I imagine he had the same first name as his grandfather so everyone called him Coop. I don't think that was his real name

Buttress

Agent Cooper! Agent Cooper!

I want to see Lynch do a sci-fi and shit all over these senti-mentalists

greenman

Quote from: Buttress on November 18, 2014, 08:21:49 AM
Agent Cooper! Agent Cooper!

I want to see Lynch do a sci-fi and shit all over these senti-mentalists

Didn't you watch Dune? good cast/sets and somehow he managed to get Toto(personally I think Eno did the lot of it) to make a good soundtrack but all over the place in terms of plot and strangely overly sentimental itself compared to the book.

Blumf

Dune had a strangely formulaic plot considering both the source material (which was at pains to avoid that plot) and Lynch (who does know better) were involved. I still love it though, visually and aurally it's perfect, it draws you in, rewatched it many, many times.

Could Eraserhead be considered Sci-FI?

Buttress

Quote from: greenman on November 18, 2014, 08:54:20 AM
Didn't you watch Dune? good cast/sets and somehow he managed to get Toto(personally I think Eno did the lot of it) to make a good soundtrack but all over the place in terms of plot and strangely overly sentimental itself compared to the book.

Hmm I forgot about Dune (selective memory), but tbh I didn't find it that bad of a flick. And didn't Lynch not have final cut or something?

Quote from: Blumf on November 18, 2014, 11:46:08 AM
Could Eraserhead be considered Sci-FI?
Lynch's stuff always builds up another 'world' so in that sense you could also call Twin Peaks and Mulholland Drive etc. sci-fi.

greenman

Quote from: Buttress on November 18, 2014, 12:10:29 PM
Hmm I forgot about Dune (selective memory), but tbh I didn't find it that bad of a flick. And didn't Lynch not have final cut or something?

He was certainly working with less creative control although realistically for a film with any kind of budget Lynch isn't going to be "let loose", especially today. It was the TV cut that Lynch had his name taken off of, a few interesting new scenes in it but generally really poorly done to the degree I can understand why he did.

I would certainly agree it has its merits, in certain respects I think its a fine piece of work but also obviously not without its faults nore as extreme as some of his other work due to the budget involved.

Speaking of Blade Runner earlier I'm guessing Hathaway is now top of the list if theres remake or a Rachael like character in a sequal, she seems to be top of the field in "puppy dog eyes showing infinite metaphysical sadness".

Blumf

Quote from: Buttress on November 18, 2014, 12:10:29 PM
Lynch's stuff always builds up another 'world' so in that sense you could also call Twin Peaks and Mulholland Drive etc. sci-fi.

Well, fantasy would fit and probably is correct for much of Lynch's stuff, but in Eraserhead's case I always got the impression that it was set in some kind of post-apocalypse/dystopia world which kinda suggests sci-fi.

Buttress

Quote from: Blumf on November 18, 2014, 12:52:15 PM
Well, fantasy would fit and probably is correct for much of Lynch's stuff, but in Eraserhead's case I always got the impression that it was set in some kind of post-apocalypse/dystopia world which kinda suggests sci-fi.

We can split hairs all day but one thing's for sure, at least this film will usher in more big budget space operas. Of which it would be amazing to see someone like Lynch be handed the keys to a few studios by Disney or something ludicrous like that. "Do anything you want David, the kids love extreme weird shit these days" - and it will be true

Puce Moment

I think they are more likely to give money to Oscar-bait Ron Howard shite with a clear three-act structure, emotional character motivation related to the loss of a child/parent/spouse, and the eventual overcoming of obstacles to reach their goal.

In space.

popcorn

The main thing that disappointed me about this film was its sentimentality. I don't object to sentimentality, but in a film of this scope and ambition, it's a cop-out.

What makes space exploration exciting - and space in general with its black holes and wormholes and impossible time dilation and mindbending physics - are the existential questions it asks. What does it mean to be alive in this universe? Are we alone? Does anything matter? Can we trust our perceptions? Those questions, explored properly, are properly spine-tingling. It's Douglas Adams's Total Perspective Vortex.

Space Odyssey does this. Contact does this. Brian Cox does it on the beeb. Interstellar talks the talk but when it comes to the crunch this is just another bloody story about being a dad, And Isn't That All That Matters in the End? Well, Spielberg already made that film 40 times. Space movies should invoke awe and terror and wonder. This just says everything's fine and don't worry about it.

Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth

Is this film even particularly ambitious? I'm having flashbacks to Prometheus. For all the talk of scientific accuracy, the there's nothing in the film that hasn't been done on some SyFy Channel schlock a million times. Is it not just a small story written with very large words?