Jump to content

Interstellar (2014 film directed by Christopher Nolan)


JoeinAR

Recommended Posts

I bet you haven't seen the film Alex, yet you quote essays on it

but it's right, some of the 2014 tech in this film makes no sense compared to how advanced they are in other fields.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I totally forgot to mention something about this film until now;

When I saw it in IMAX, one thing was SUPER distracting: The shifting aspect ratio!

It can't cost THAT much more to just film the ENTIRE movie with IMAX cameras, can it? What the heck?

Seriously, where were you in the past six years? It's the third Nolan film in which this happens.

Anyway, them not shooting it entirely in IMAX format had more to do with practicalities - Nolan likes on-set dialogue revordings and these things are noisy and heavy. Besides, they better used when showing off grand pictures. Unless you're a purely visual filmmakers. People like Terrence Malick should be using it, it's virtually made for him.

But, to be honest, their use of this format was more impressive in TDKR. It showed the scope and size of the city.

Karol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not that distracting if you think about it. It can be compared to using different framing methods in a movie where the aspect ratio doesn't change.Here the changing ratio can be viewed as an effect in itself

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only movie where it was kind of distracting was The Dark Knight. And maybe just a little bit in TDKR. But didn't notice it this time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh. Really? Must have missed that.

In any case, I was paying particular attention to IMAX footage this time. Good god, now this is a way to watch movies. The clarity, vibrancy, scope, spectacle of the format. You can see how even 35 mm does look sort of lame next to it. I wish the entire film could be done like that.

Karol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yea, I really loved hte IMAX footage too. IMAX is cool!

And yea, should have just spent the $$ to shoot the entire movie in IMAX.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not a question of money Jay, but of the limits on runtime that IMAX imposes, and more so the loudness of the cameras which make them impractical for any scenes where on-set sound is actually important. Considering the largely unscored, natural sound, documentary approach of so much of the film, it would have made no sense to shoot those scenes in IMAX.

I hear that this weekend is the last for this film in IMAX. Get it while you still can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've watched the film for the fourth time (and second time in IMAX) yesterday. There were no "issues" with sound this time.

You watched it four times at the cinema already?! So it's your new favorite movie now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depends. Various social engagements have required me to watch some films a couple of times, just because it happens to be the movie everyone wants to see.

Personally, because I don't have the time to go the cinema as often as I'd like, I try and make the most of it by watching as many different movies on my trips as I can. But there are certain movies that require multiple viewings, and Interstellar is one of them. Still haven't seen it a second time yet though...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depends. Various social engagements have required me to watch some films a couple of times, just because it happens to be the movie everyone wants to see.

Yes, situations like these make you see a movie twice but it's still a far cry from what crocs is doing. I would pay money not to have to see most movies 4 times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw it three times when it first opened. Probably in the first four days or so. It took me a month to watch it again. And I'm done with my Interstellar run. The last one had more to do with cinema than it did with this film.

Karol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's nit really about that. It's just the kind of think one should watch on biggest screen possible. I doubt it would be much of an experience on Blu-ray.

The Hobbit, on the other hand looks cheap and it wouldn't matter.

Karol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It means it doesn't look the production of its scale and effects are not convincing.

Karol

If you mean convincing as in photo-realistic, then I agree. But that was never the point of these films anyway.

Esthetically TBOTFA does more for me though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's an entertaining film, much better in that respect than previous two. But I wish there was a bit more verisimilitude to it. You know, real locations and sets. It's too... prequelish.

Karol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No but there was enough "real" stuff to balance it all out. It doesn't help that half of this latest film is virtually all animated. Just can't get excited by it.

Karol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess Nolan's extreme fetishism for realism never really worked for me. It's a valid approach for something like Batman. But high concept sci-fi or fantasy like Interstellar or Inception? No I want something with a big more texture and imagination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.