by Trevor Kirkendall
★★½
And that’s a good thing, by and large. It’s always a good
thing when an auteur such as Nolan is allowed to thrive without too much studio
interference. If this were anyone else, the studio would have demanded cuts to
drop its 170-minute runtime down to a more acceptable two-hours. They would
have also demanded the scientific/technical jargon be completely cut out since
you – as an audience in the opinion of a studio – are too dumb to figure
complex language and plot devices out for yourself. Studios think so little of
their audiences today.
We’ve been on the lookout for “the next Spielberg” for a
long time now. A filmmaker who is just as much of a draw to moviegoers as the A-list
actors at the top of the poster. Let’s face it; people aren’t going to see this
film because two Oscar winning actors have their names at the top of the
poster. They’re going because it’s a film by Christopher Nolan. So if anyone is
still looking for “the next Spielberg,” I say look no further. But even the
great Spielberg can’t always crank out winners every time. While “Interstellar”
is by no means a dud, it’s one of the weaker films Nolan has put together.
“Interstellar” begins at some undisclosed time in the
future. The world is falling apart thanks to all the food supplies dying out.
We meet Cooper (Matthew McConaughey), a former NASAS pilot turned farmer and widowered
father of two. Corn is about the only crop that can still be grown on the dusty
planet earth. But some mysterious circumstances around the house lead Cooper to
Professor Brand (Michael Caine) and his daughter Amelia (Anne Hatahway). They
help make up what’s left of NASA and are attempting to come up with a plan to
save the people of earth.
Over 10 years ago, NASA sent a team of explorers out to
travel through a newly found wormhole and see if they can find other planets capable
of supporting life in different galaxies. They think they have three promising
possibilities. They are asking Cooper to pilot a mission out there with Amelia
and a crew of two others. The duration of their flight: unknown. Much to the
dismay of Coopers daughter Murph (Mackenzie Foy), Cooper reluctantly goes.
Much like any other Nolan film, you’re expected to pay
attention because the script is packed with many different twists wrapped
inside a complex story structure. There’s no denying Nolan and his writing partner/brother
Jonathan are gifted screenwriters. After all, they’ve been able to make films
with complex plots that leave their audiences with a desire to see it again and
again to catch the things they’ve missed.
That being said, their screenplay for “Interstellar” is a
bit overinflated. It takes almost an hour for us to get into space, yet the
setup of the characters and the initial plot points are rushed through. Cooper
is determined to take on the mission, but there’s not a whole lot given in his
development that would lead us to believe he’s the kind of person to give up
everything that a bunch of strangers tell him. Sure, the script provides all
sorts of explanations as to why, but they’re not satisfactory answers.
“Interstellar” is a visually stunning film, there’s no
denying that. It looks great on the large format IMAX screens. Nolan has always
been one to use more practical effects in his films rather than relying on CGI
like some of his contemporaries. But for the first time in his career, Nolan
has relied on the effects – both practical and CGI – to be the focal point of
his film. With “Inception,” the effects were eye-popping, but they were
secondary. The story was the star. Here, it’s the other way around.
And with a lack of attention on the humans, I find my
willingness to care about them greatly diminished. Cooper wants nothing more
than to get back home and see his kids again. He continues to see them in video
messages from earth even as time moves a bit faster there than it does in the
deep reaches of space. Soon, his kids become grown adults (Jessica Chastain and
Casey Affleck). Cooper, of course, hates that he’s missing their lives and
McConaughey portrays this misery well, but it just doesn’t have the emotional
impact it probably could have. The further along the movie got, the less I
started to care whether or not he gets to see his kids again.
Much like last year’s “Gravity,” “Interstellar” is all about
the experience and I think most people who will watch this movie will enjoy it
immensely. It’s just a flawed film from a storytelling standpoint. Like every
other Nolan film, a repeat viewing might be necessary. However, I’m inclined to
think that there might not be much more to get out of it, especially on my home
TV where the magnificent effects might not look nearly as amazing. At least
it’ll be quieter. For crying out loud, this movie’s sound is mixed way too damn
high! And Hans Zimmer’s score is so overpowering that it’s almost unbearable. I
swear I had to strain to hear what these characters were saying to one another during
the action sequences.
Many people will love this film, but I wonder if they would
still love it if it were directed by a lesser know – yet still relatively
proficient – filmmaker. Will all the
love be because Nolan’s name is on the screen, or will people love it just
because it’s something grand and extravagant? I may seem to be bashing this
movie a little bit, but I did like it. I just expected more out of Nolan given
his sensational history. But this film is by no means a new “2001” for this
generation, as I’ve heard a few people call it. “Interstellar” is good in its
own right, but it is nowhere near the level of mastery of “2001.” And it’s
certainly one of the weaker films Christopher Nolan has put out.
No comments:
Post a Comment