Review: Interstellar

by Trevor Kirkendall

★★½

If Christopher Nolan didn’t direct it, would there still be all this mass praise for “Interstellar?” Or would we just be discrediting it and not paying any attention to it like almost every other original sci-fi film released by Hollywood? Don’t get me wrong, I do love it when an original film from the Hollywood studios gets release and people actually go see it. People always seem to be interested in a movie when Nolan is involved.

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.

Review: Man of Steel

by Trevor Kirkendall
★★★½

Superman has always proven to be one of the trickier superheroes to put on the big screen. We’ve seen a few good shows on television that have helped keep the character alive in the public’s eye for many years. But when it comes to film, Richard Donner’s 1978 version with Christopher Reeve is still the favorite among fans. The subsequent sequels, followed by Bryan Singer’s 2006 abomination “Superman Returns” ran the franchise into the ground. Today, with Marvel’s Cinematic Universe ruling the box office every year, and with the conclusion of their most recent Batman franchise, DC Comics was in need of something big that would bolster their standing. With the new Superman reboot, “Man of Steel,” they may have just struck gold.

“Man of Steel” serves as another origin story for the famous character. The planet Krypton is in disarray, and the world will soon come to an end. Fearing this, Krypton’s biggest scientist Jor-El (Russell Crowe) sends his only son, Kal-El, away from the dying planet and straight to Earth. In the spacecraft, Jor-El includes information that could one day help to repopulate the people of Krypton on another world. A sinister military commander of Krypton, General Zod (Michael Shannon) knows what Jor-El has done and vows to find Kal-El.

Thirty-three years later, we find Kal-El (Henry Cavill) living amongst the humans attempting the keep a low profile. He works odd jobs here and there but his special abilities keep showing up under different circumstances, causing him to move on to a new place. Flashback sequences also describe his troubled up bringing in Smallville, raised by Jonathan and Martha Kent (Kevin Costner and Diane Lane) who found baby Kal-El in the crashed spacecraft.

Elsewhere, Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Lois Lane (Amy Adams) has discovered this mysterious man and begins to track him down. Once she finds him in his hometown, she discovers his apprehension about going public with his abilities. After all, he was raised to keep his abilities a secret.

This is also about the time General Zod shows up to Earth looking for Kal-El and demands that Earth cooperate with him or he’ll destroy the planet. Kal-El must now choose between helping to save the planet and the humans, or staying in seclusion.

Most origin stories can be plenty boring because the audience is already aware of the backstory, such as the case with a character as popular as Superman. But “Man of Steel” works on many different levels without boring the audience to tears. The nonstop action and breathtaking synergy between live action and CGI keeps the film on a very quick pace. Before you know it, sixty minutes have gone by. Then ninety. Then two hours. Then its done. “Man of Steel” is the fastest moving two-and-a-half hour film since “The Dark Knight.”

Director Zack Snyder (“Dawn of the Dead” and “Watchmen”) has once again proven himself to be a highly skilled filmmaker when it comes to constructing high-octane action sequences. The seamless interweaving of CGI on top of the live action is also a high point. Sure, you know what’s being done on screen isn’t possible and that its got to be computers making this come to life, but the realism on display here is exceptional. I’m not sure if Snyder will ever direct something that’s not action packed or heavy on the effects, and that’s okay. If he wants to direct every other action movie that came out, I’d be more than okay with that.

Christopher Nolan’s presence here is a welcomed asset that really helps elevate this film beyond that of other superhero films. Along with David S. Goyer, who is also credited with developing the story that made up all three films in Nolan’s “Dark Knight” trilogy, Nolan was able to craft a story that doesn’t seem like something that is utterly fantastical. Sure there are space aliens, rocket ships and a man who can fly, but the world where all this occurs is utterly real.

“The Dark Knight” trilogy worked in the same way. Gotham City is a fictitious place, and there aren’t any egomaniacal billionaires running around fighting crime (although Sergey Brin running around in his stupid Google Glass glasses could be a possible contender – but I digress). But everything felt real and genuine. “Man of Steel” as that same feel of authenticity.

Cavill and Adams worked well on screen together. Cavill’s portrayal of the man confused and ashamed of his abilities is performed with great empathy. Adams recognizes that she’s the first person he’s trusted and doesn’t hesitate to step up and make this journey with him.

Then there’s Shannon’s Zod, who not surprisingly steals the show as the films villain. Anyone familiar with this brilliant actor already knows about his intense portrayals from other works such as “Take Shelter,” “Revolutionary Road” or HBO’s “Boardwalk Empire.” He’s evil as Zod, and you can see it in his eyes. He’s the perfect villain for the origin story, rather than starting with someone who might be better known to casual fans (Mr. Luthor, perhaps?).

“Man of Steel” is an exhilarating and unrelenting action film. Its a film that fits nicely into the typical “summer movie” mold, but I don’t think we should limit it as such. This is truly one of the more exceptional films of this style to come out in recent memory. I remember feeling the same way after seeing Nolan’s “Batman Begins” in 2005. We all knew we were in for a much different story of the Batman saga after that movie came out, and I think the same thing will apply here.

With a sequel already in the works (summer 2015), its safe to say that the Superman franchise finally has the film it deserves. Both Snyder and Goyer will return in their roles and Nolan will most certainly be around to lend his brainpower to the creative process. As much as I enjoyed “Man of Steel,” I’m more excited about all the possibilities this franchise has. DC Comics needed a winner, and they got it. They couldn’t sit idly by and watch Marvel have all the fun.