miw-3

There is science fiction, there is space opera, there is science fantasy, and there are superhero stories. The reader or the viewer needs to make a judgement about what kind of story they are in and dial the suspension of disbelief to a level that works. Is this 2001, or is this Star Wars? Once I know what kind of universe I am in I am cool and set my expectations accordingly. Interstellar tries to be at the science fiction end of the spectrum and fails miserably. It's like watching the 1960s TV show "Lost in Space" except that the protagonists are idiots this time. That is my major beef with this movie. A more minor issue is that rather than letting the camera tell the story, Chris Nolan subjects us to what seems like days of exposition which turns out to be meaningless science babble anyhow. The soundtrack is impressive only for its dynamic range. The film was shot and edited so that it only really works visually in IMAX. Good for 70mm film activism, but bad for Cinema. (The last film that touted 70mm as a selling point was "Far and Away". 'nuff said.) Aside from that, Matthew McConaughey does a great job as Cooper and Anne Hathaway is more than convincing as Brand. If you can get over your anger at the first two and a quarter hours, the last 35 minutes is actually pretty good and satisfying. There are a couple of very good ideas in this film and they come to the fore at the end. I am a huge fan of Christopher Nolan as a director. Other than "Batman Begins" and "Inception" all of his other films that I have seen are outstanding, and "Inception" is more than good. "Memento" is a masterpiece. This movie is Nolan's "Waterworld." BTW "Waterworld" wasn't nearly as bad as everyone seems to say.

This movie is the poster child for the case that a film can have great production values and still not be any good. The cinematography and art design of this film are superb and very atmospheric. Problem is, there is no plot, a terrible screenplay and no good acting. (mind you, given "Red Hill"'s screenplay, it would be hard for any actor to look good.)

A couple of the scenes were obviously setup in the way that they were only because the cinematographer thought it would look great. Admittedly, it did look great but it also detracted from the film by making it seem even more cartoonish. There is some humour to be had from this film, but it is mostly unintentional.

I rarely write reviews here because I think that in general there are a bunch of people out there doing a very good job and I am not sure I have something to add. So I was amazed when I started reading the reviews for "Inception". Comparing Nolan with Stanley Kubrick, Andrei Tarkovsky and Alfred Hitchcock? C'mon! And a solid stream of 10/10s for a movie that is admittedly very innovative, but misses the mark in several key places? What? Then I changed the sorting to "prolific reviewers" and then I saw it. People who watch and review a lot of films have a much more nuanced and diverse set of views about this film, which is what you would expect for a movie that genuinely tried to do something different. Obviously the marketing budget for this film extended to a big effort to pervert the integrity of IMDb.

And my view on the film? Acting - great! CGI and general cinematography - excellent. Soundscape - better than average. General ability of a thriller's storyline to create and build tension and then release it quickly at the end - tick! Where this movie failed for me is in the storyline. Nolan should have spent another ten years on this one, because it fails to work on many, many levels. For a start, I didn't recognise many of the real qualities of dreams in the dream sequences. Not convincing from that point of view. Second, there are holes in the plot line you could drive a truck through, and for this kind of film I expect the storyline to be very, very tight and stand up to multiple viewings.

This film is a worthy offering in the line of "Memento" and "Mulholland Drive", but Nolan didn't quite pull this one off and it cannot be rated in the same class as those two movies.

For heaven's sake don't let this review stop you from watching this film. 7/10 from me means that it is definitely worth paying real money to go and see, and it is one of the better movies of 2010, make no mistake about that. It's also a thriller that keeps you thinking throughout, and that is uncommon in a summer blockbuster.