Interstellar (2014 film directed by Christopher Nolan)

[mrbellamy 6,272]

I don't even watch universally praised modern movies. The collective gushing makes me sick. I'd rather watch a line up of shitty shark movies from Asylum!

I know. Sometimes, things like that put you in a defensive mode. It's more about "what do you think about this highly regarded film", rather than "what do you think about this film". Some of the best cinema of past 15 years got mixed reviews. Eyes Wide Shut, Titus. In the case of Christopher Nolan - The Prestige.

Karol

Yeah, but -- and I can never quite tell if this place is being serious or not, so forgive me -- clearly to dismiss something entirely or get defensive because it's popular is total bullshit.

[crocodile 7,983]

I don't even watch universally praised modern movies. The collective gushing makes me sick. I'd rather watch a line up of shitty shark movies from Asylum!

I know. Sometimes, things like that put you in a defensive mode. It's more about "what do you think about this highly regarded film", rather than "what do you think about this film". Some of the best cinema of past 15 years got mixed reviews. Eyes Wide Shut, Titus. In the case of Christopher Nolan - The Prestige.

Karol

Yeah, but -- and I can never quite tell if this place is being serious or not, so forgive me -- clearly to dismiss something entirely or get defensive because it's popular is total bullshit.

Did I say that?

Karol

[mrbellamy 6,272]

Well, I don't know...things like what spur defensiveness, then? If not universal praise and collective gushing.

[crocodile 7,983]

High praise creates unrealistic expectations. In that sense, hype like this influences how you perceive it when you see it. When Inception was about to come out, one or two early reviews said it's like Blade Runner or Kubrick (something of that ilk). And it inspired this avalanche of backlash this film isn't as thought-provoking and that Nolan was over-reaching in his quest to be the next visionary (or whatever). The thing is, he never said such a thing. He wanted to do an homage to Bond and that's all this film was. But other viewers' reaction seemed to influence how other people started to approach it. That "it wasn't as visionary as it wants to be". Which was never the intetnion behind it anyway. Just a reaction to other people's reactions.

Besides, film that usually get a highest ratings are generally: old films reviewed years after, safe films (say, animated Pixars) that don't offend/perplex anyone, and few rare beasts like really good films that come out at the exactly right time (which doesn't happen all that often).

Before you jump on me for bashing Pixar (or Marvel, or other studio fare like this), let me point out: that's not my intention. It's just that critical reaction collected through tools like RT is a very slippery thing to interpret and doesn't really reflect what is (or isn't) great cinema in the end. It mostly reflects something at particular point in time. I'll give you an example: Revenge of the Sith currently holds 80% rating. Which is more than some really legendary films in cinema history. But that rating has more to do with the fact, the film was better than the two that preceded it (read: low expectations). If they were to do it from scratch today, few critics would rate is as highly.

Karol

[KK 3,307]

High praise creates unrealistic expectations. In that sense, hype like this influences how you perceive it when you see it. When Inception was about to come out, one or two early reviews said it's like Blade Runner or Kubrick (something of that ilk). And it inspired this avalanche of backlash this film isn't as thought-provoking and that Nolan was over-reaching in his quest to be the next visionary (or whatever). The thing is, he never said such a thing. He wanted to do an homage to Bond and that's all this film was. But other viewers' reaction seemed to influence how other people started to approach it. That "it wasn't as visionary as it wants to be". Which was never the intetnion behind it anyway. Just a reaction to other people's reactions.

This is exactly what happened to Gravity. Which is why baffles and frustrates me when people here thinks it sucks because it isn't the next 2001. It was never trying to be...

It's a stylish suspense thriller, set in space. And it's one that is very well made. It was never meant to be the grand space opera that some inattentive people like to pile it up with. That's why you can't compare it to Interstellar.

[A24 4,326]

2001: ASO isn't space opera, KK., Star Wars is space opera (and Flash Gordon, Buck Rogers)

[Dixon Hill 4,232]

Obviously some people had the wrong expectations, but I didn't like Gravity simply because I didn't like it. I had no expectations, but what it was wasn't interesting to me.

[crocodile 7,983]

High praise creates unrealistic expectations. In that sense, hype like this influences how you perceive it when you see it. When Inception was about to come out, one or two early reviews said it's like Blade Runner or Kubrick (something of that ilk). And it inspired this avalanche of backlash this film isn't as thought-provoking and that Nolan was over-reaching in his quest to be the next visionary (or whatever). The thing is, he never said such a thing. He wanted to do an homage to Bond and that's all this film was. But other viewers' reaction seemed to influence how other people started to approach it. That "it wasn't as visionary as it wants to be". Which was never the intetnion behind it anyway. Just a reaction to other people's reactions.

This is exactly what happened to Gravity. Which is why baffles and frustrates me when people here thinks it sucks because it isn't the next 2001. It was never trying to be...

It's a stylish suspense thriller, set in space. And it's one that is very well made. It was never meant to be the grand space opera that some inattentive people like to pile it up with. That's why you can't compare it to Interstellar.

The vibe I got from a trailer was that is was going to be a s-f film (or s film ). And it didn't really deliver.

Karol

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Gravity can only be compared to 2001: ASO visually. Since Cuaron employs a similar style of extremely long, slow moving shots. But beyond that it's a survival film rather then pure sci-fi.

Interstellar however is a pure sci-fi film, and parts of it are similar in style, content or both to Kubrick's masterpiece.

I have to say that while I reconize that Interstellar is by far the more ambitious of the two films, Gravity exited me on a visual level in a way that Interstellar didn't manage.

Nolan simply isnt the visual master that Kubrick, Scott, Spielberg, Cuaron, Cameron etc etc are.

Inception suffered from that too. Interstellar does so to a lesser degree, because it works better on an emotional level. But despite the perfect special effects, it's missing something visually.

[crocodile 7,983]

So, in short, did you like it?

I'm seeing it tomorrow noon in IMAX.

Karol

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

It has many of the usual Nolan foibles, but in a lesser degree then Inception.

I really liked it.

[KK 3,307]

It's a really good film Karol. Has a good deal of bumps, but an experience worth going through, far more than TDKR.

The heart of the film is Matthew McConaughey, who really is a beast. And that little kid who plays Murph. She was great!

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

The heart of the film is Matthew McConaughey, who really is a beast.

Yes, he really elevates the film, finally fulfilling the promise she showed many years ago. (not that True Detective didnt)

[KK 3,307]

What'd you think of the girl by the way? I was rather taken with her performance, more than Jessica Chastain's (who was pretty good too).

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Chastain was very good. Interesting that her character was a bit unlikable. But it made sense.

The girl was great.

Weird that the father/daughter relationship was so central while Cooper's relationship with his son is barely touched upon.

[KK 3,307]

Ha ha yeah, some of my friends and I wondered about that before we went in too.

But it makes sense. Cooper loves his son, but just relates more to his daughter, who he sees as a reflection of his own image.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

True. Cooper is a farmer because he needs to be. Not because he wants to. He's an astronaut and engineer first.

Love the parent/teacher meeting where he almost glows with pride because his kid didnt want to believe the bullshit about the moon landings being faked.

[mrbellamy 6,272]

High praise creates unrealistic expectations. In that sense, hype like this influences how you perceive it when you see it. When Inception was about to come out, one or two early reviews said it's like Blade Runner or Kubrick (something of that ilk). And it inspired this avalanche of backlash this film isn't as thought-provoking and that Nolan was over-reaching in his quest to be the next visionary (or whatever). The thing is, he never said such a thing. He wanted to do an homage to Bond and that's all this film was. But other viewers' reaction seemed to influence how other people started to approach it. That "it wasn't as visionary as it wants to be". Which was never the intetnion behind it anyway. Just a reaction to other people's reactions.

Besides, film that usually get a highest ratings are generally: old films reviewed years after, safe films (say, animated Pixars) that don't offend/perplex anyone, and few rare beasts like really good films that come out at the exactly right time (which doesn't happen all that often).

Before you jump on me for bashing Pixar (or Marvel, or other studio fare like this), let me point out: that's not my intention. It's just that critical reaction collected through tools like RT is a very slippery thing to interpret and doesn't really reflect what is (or isn't) great cinema in the end. It mostly reflects something at particular point in time. I'll give you an example: Revenge of the Sith currently holds 80% rating. Which is more than some really legendary films in cinema history. But that rating has more to do with the fact, the film was better than the two that preceded it (read: low expectations). If they were to do it from scratch today, few critics would rate is as highly.

Karol

Okay, but I still don't understand how you can say that it's rare for a movie to justifiably get great press and WOM in its own time. It happens constantly. Yes, there are examples of movies getting split reactions and bad box office and then are later revised to a higher status, but just because it happened to Hitchcock and Kubrick doesn't mean it's guaranteed to happen every time a movie hits 50% on the Tomato Meter. I mean, talking of 2001, it was the #1 movie of the year! Even if we were to agree that only a few universally-praised movies that come out each year are actually destined to become classics, nobody is ever going to agree on what these rare deserving films are. How do we know Gravity isn't one of those? Or 12 Years a Slave? Or American Hustle? Or Pixar or Marvel, for that matter? Are all of these products of hype and critical bandwagon jumping? Who's gonna make that call?

Anyway, what I was initially getting at in regards to all this is that I'm just interested in movies that get positive reactions out of people, whether they're universal or split down the middle. Pixar, Marvel, Malick, Nolan, Spielberg...if people walk out of something saying it's fun, interesting, challenging, or all of the above, then that's good news for everybody, isn't it? It means that whether or not we personally agree, there are discussions to be had and it's worth checking out for that reason alone. No need to begrudge something that's making people excited about movies.

High praise creates unrealistic expectations. In that sense, hype like this influences how you perceive it when you see it. When Inception was about to come out, one or two early reviews said it's like Blade Runner or Kubrick (something of that ilk). And it inspired this avalanche of backlash this film isn't as thought-provoking and that Nolan was over-reaching in his quest to be the next visionary (or whatever). The thing is, he never said such a thing. He wanted to do an homage to Bond and that's all this film was. But other viewers' reaction seemed to influence how other people started to approach it. That "it wasn't as visionary as it wants to be". Which was never the intetnion behind it anyway. Just a reaction to other people's reactions.

This is exactly what happened to Gravity. Which is why baffles and frustrates me when people here thinks it sucks because it isn't the next 2001. It was never trying to be...

It's a stylish suspense thriller, set in space. And it's one that is very well made. It was never meant to be the grand space opera that some inattentive people like to pile it up with. That's why you can't compare it to Interstellar.

The vibe I got from a trailer was that is was going to be a s-f film (or s film ). And it didn't really deliver.

Karol

I don't know about you but the trailers I saw were selling an action movie.

[crocodile 7,983]

Okay, but I still don't understand how you can say that it's rare for a movie to justifiably get great press and WOM in its own time. It happens constantly. Yes, there are examples of movies getting split reactions and bad box office and then are later revised to a higher status, but just because it happened to Hitchcock and Kubrick doesn't mean it's guaranteed to happen every time a movie hits 50% on the Tomato Meter. I mean, talking of 2001, it was the #1 movie of the year! Even if we were to agree that only a few universally-praised movies that come out each year are actually destined to become classics, nobody is ever going to agree on what these rare deserving films are. How do we know Gravity isn't one of those? Or 12 Years a Slave? Or American Hustle? Or Pixar or Marvel, for that matter? Are all of these products of hype and critical bandwagon jumping? Who's gonna make that call?

Anyway, what I was initially getting at in regards to all this is that I'm just interested in movies that get positive reactions out of people, whether they're universal or split down the middle. Pixar, Marvel, Malick, Nolan, Spielberg...if people walk out of something saying it's fun, interesting, challenging, or all of the above, then that's good news for everybody, isn't it? It means that whether or not we personally agree, there are discussions to be had and it's worth checking out for that reason alone. No need to begrudge something that's making people excited about movies.

2001 didn't get a great press. Many critics called it the biggest amateur film of all time and bashed him for cheap sentimental things like including his daughter in it. As for the box office: It had a great opening day but, as soon people realised it's not "an adventure for an entire family", it started to falter. They were about to pull the film from cinemas but then it started to attract a different sort of audience. And the rest is history.

I'm not making judgements or begrudging anything. Just pointing out it's not that relevant what kind of ratings they're getting. Because it can change. You're missing the point of what I'm sayng and twisting my words and then talking about something completely different. That's getting boring.

"Who's gonna make the call?" Fucking time will.

Karol

[mrbellamy 6,272]

Oy. You're right that this is getting boring and I'm kind of at a loss for words because I'm pretty sure we're both in agreement that basically everything should be judged on its own merits. I must not be expressing myself very well right now or coming off as too antagonistic or something so I'll just leave it at that!

[crocodile 7,983]

Sorry, just a bit tired. Had a long day.

But yes, that's all I'm saying. And sometimes it's probably better to read reviews, rather than look at some abstract percentage or "consensus". Because you'll learn more from this and things they can criticise might not be problems for you at all. I just don't really believe in diagrams and things like that when it comes to art.

And let's face it: there are imbeciles among critics as well. It's a percentage-guaranteed certainty. (just to contradict myself a little)

Obviously, I can't really talk about Interstellar in this context. Will see the film tomorrow and decide whether it's overreaching or not, whether it's human or not. Can't say yet. But give me a day to find out - 14 and a half hours to go.

Karol

[mrbellamy 6,272]

Sorry, just a bit tired. Had a long day.

Having one of those myself.

I'm with you on everything you just said, for sure. And yes, back to the topic of the thread, I'm excited as hell to see this thing eventually...not sure if I'll even be able to make it this weekend, though :/

[crocodile 7,983]

All I can say is that the stuff (or clips, rather) that I read about it can be different things for me. One person's cheesy moment is another one's genuine emotion.

Karol

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Stefan, how do you think Spielberg and Williams would have fared in comparison?

[Dixon Hill 4,232]

Who cares?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Thats a totally fair question.

Think it would have had an even stronger emotional core under Spielberg, would have relied less on exposition.

[A24 4,326]

"Who's gonna make the call?" Fucking time will.

Karol

I can no longer wait for time ...

No really, sometimes I wonder if today's movies will ever receive true and indisputable classic status. TV shows, definitely, history is being written as we speak. But movies? I dunno, they all seem to come and go very quickly these days.

Alex

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Apart from Breaking Bad and The Wire and True Detective, what show has reached a classic status?

[publicist 4,643]

What? Starting with SOPRANOS, i'd say at least a dozen more.

[A24 4,326]

Yes, there are so many in the last 15 years. TV is breaking new ground. Film seems to going backwards instead of forwards.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

What? Starting with SOPRANOS, i'd say at least a dozen more.

What? CSI: NY? NCIS: LA? 24? Lost?

[publicist 4,643]

Sopranos, The Shield, Six Feet Under, Sex and the City, Deadwood, Walking Dead, Mad Men...there must be more.

[A24 4,326]

Steef, you only just begun to discover the fruits of the last 15 years. You're only at the start of the journey.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Ive watched many that pub lists.

Many of those are good, but undeniable classics? The Walking Dead? Sex and the City?

[publicist 4,643]

I think many of these HBO/FX/AMC and so shows on arrived to audiences like a kiss on Sleeping Beauty awakening us for the possibilities of entertainment media that movies rarely did in the last 20 or so years.

The excitement was really tangible here in Germany after the mid-200's when this phenomenon really took hold. The dark ages of having to endure endless braindead blockbusters in cinema and on home video seemed overcome suddenly. People who i never saw talking about movies now mouthwatered at the prospect of a new episode of Deadwood or Mad Men.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

How is that different from people in the 80's raving about the "who shot JR Ewing" arc in Dallas?

Cable TV ensures that more swearing, violence and nudity is allowed. And adult themes can be handled in a more convincing manner. And with HD many TV shows certainly look more cinematic.

This just means that the possibility for quality TV is more fertile then it once was.

Mad Men is still just a soap, like Dallas or Dynasty, better looking, a bit more sophisticated, but just a soap nonetheless.

[publicist 4,643]

The difference, apart from your overt simplification of the changes in tone and content is simply that in 1983 features were generally not weaned toward 12 year olds. People would find a mix of Ewoks and Robert Altman movies - or even THE RIGHT STUFF - and the latter not be relegated to arthouse cinemas.

Nowadays a large percent of adult viewers just feels not compelled to come near a Multiplex that's playing GOTG, FATF 7 and another Chipmunks sequel.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I'm not disagreeing about cinema. I'm just saying that the Golden Age of TV isn't quite as brilliant as some are postulating.

Is Mad Men still as "good" as it was in the beginnings, btw? It's really fallen of the radar.

[Brónach 1,301]

Am I the only one who doesn't really care about many of those shows?

[publicist 4,643]

Course of times, yes. But that doesn't mean that in 200-7?8? when MM started there wasn't a huge percentage i think of especially mixed audiences, males, females, couples, that found it really enticing in what it did mix, the soap, the history, the concentration on characters.

I don't really enjoy ego-inflated american shows about oh-so important precious sensitivities of the average american bloke like Six Feet Under and the like but they sure hit a nerve. Brilliant it ain't but it sure hit a nerve.

[Brónach 1,301]

My mother was very much into Breaking Bad last summer and later The Wire, which I think she liked more.

[A24 4,326]

I'm just saying that the Golden Age of TV isn't quite as brilliant as some are postulating.

I'm not surprised. You seem to include the normal shows (NCIS, CSI, ...) to the total as well and you compare Man Men with Dynasty.

Am I the only one who doesn't really care about many of those shows?

No, there's also Joey. To be honest, my kid doesn't watch those shows either.

With a few exceptions of the past, TV has never been as good as it has been the last 15 years.

Alex

[King Mark 3,625]

yeah there's more movie stars on TV now. Before it used to be beneath them

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

The first paragraph of this review really illustrates for me what is often from Nolan's films.

Christopher Nolan’s "Interstellar," about astronauts traveling to the other end of the galaxy to find a new home to replace humanity’s despoiled home-world, is frantically busy and earsplittingly loud. It uses booming music to jack up the excitement level of scenes that might not otherwise excite. It features characters shoveling exposition at each other for almost three hours, and a few of those characters have no character to speak of: they’re mouthpieces for techno-babble and philosophical debate. And for all of the director’s activism on behalf of shooting on film, the tactile beauty of the movie’s 35mm and 65mm textures isn’t matched by a correspondingly rich sense of composition. The camera rarely tells the story in Nolan’s movies. More often it illustrates the screenplay, and there are points in this one where I felt as if I was watching the most expensive NBC pilot ever made.

http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/interstellar-2014

[Brónach 1,301]

" Every day, Christopher Nolan looks at his wife and thinks "I love you, but I would be so much more narratively compelling if you were dead." "

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I dont get it?

[A24 4,326]

I think apostle crocs is off to see Interstellar. Soon we will know how good it really is.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

You don't value my opinion?

[A24 4,326]

Well, you did miss a few 'other' correlations between 2001: ASO and Gravity, Steef!

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

What correlations? There really arent any, aprt from visually.