Interstellar Review

In late 2013 we saw teasers for Christopher Nolan's latest film, Interstellar. Throughout 2014 it was among the most anticipated films of the year. So many people were predicting Interstellar to be the 2001: A Space Odyssey this century. That's a bold expectation and is no doubt a high complement to Nolan's movie directing skills. While Interstellar is an intriguing film, it's less "2001: A Space Odyssey" and more "2014: A Space Exposition."

In the near future, the entire Earth has been devastated by drought and famine, causing scarcity in food and extreme changes in climate. When humanity is facing extinction, a mysterious rip in the space-time continuum is discovered, giving mankind the opportunity to widen its lifespan. A group of explorers use this wormhole to travel far beyond our solar system in search of a planet that can sustain life. The crew of The Endurance is required to think bigger and go further than any human in history as they embark on an interstellar voyage into the unknown. Pilot Cooper (Matthew McConaughey) is torn between seeing his children again and the future of the human race. He reluctantly joins biologist Amelia (Anne Hathaway), physicist Romilly (David Gayasi), geographer Doyle (Wes Bentley), and robots TARS (voiced by Bill Irwin) and CASE (voiced by Josh Stewart) as they search for a new home for humanity.

Christopher Nolan has earned the respect of audiences with some outstanding films such as Inception,  The Dark Knight trilogy, Memento, and others. His stories generally revolve around a character who has been wronged and wants to make it right, forcing him to fights against a universe that insists that things must ramain as they are. That makes for some fascinating stories and dynamic, interesting characters. In Interstellar, the universe dictates that mankind has reached the end of its existence. However, there are a handful who refuse to accept that fate, and they fight against the literal universe so that mankind can continue to thrive and exist. This had a lot of potential to get into some deep philosophical concepts and show us some fascinating struggles.

There are some complex struggles that the characters are faced with, but they aren't as deep as they could have been. Most of the problems that the characters in space are faced with involve managing time and resources. Einstein's theories of relativity are incorporated in Interstellar in ways that most sci-fi stories gloss over. There's still some aspects of "fantasy" science, but a lot of it is based on hard science. At one point they must decide whether or not to visit a planet which is near enough to a black hole that time bends with the gravitational pull, causing one hour on the planet to be close to seven years further away from it.

The story is episodic in nature; it's basically a tour of alien worlds with unusual climates. This kind of story lends itself a magnificent display of visual effects, but not a terribly interesting storyline. There is a great deal of dialogue explaining things as they go along. It makes sense because apart from Cooper, most of the characters are scientists and feel a need to explain things as they go. This results in a very verbose story in a visually based medium. Dialogue is important but a good piece of writing should show, not tell, us what is happening and why. More so in movies. Inception had a lot of exposition in it, too, but it was done in small increments between tense moments of action while still showing us examples as new information was presented. In Interstellar there was a lot of sitting around discussing science, relativity, and exchanges of feelings and doubts. It was good and well written dialogue, but made the movie feel slow at times. I still yearned to be shown these things rather than told. Possibly my favorite segment of dialogue was when Hathaway's character is speculating about love being a scientific force of nature, like gravity, that we haven't had the forethought to incorporate into our views of science. I'm unconvinced of that idea, but it was a good bit of dialogue.

Without the very important relationship between Cooper and his daughter, Murphy, Interstellar would have been much weaker and nothing more than a tour of alien planets. Generally I don't like having major child characters only because children don't tend to be good actors. Mackenzie Foy was highly impressive for a child actress; she and McConaughey had some outstanding and emotional moments together and father and daughter. I'm very much impressed with her, and look forward to seeing how she fares further on in her career as an actress.

It's hard not to hold 2001: A Space Odyssey up to Interstellar. Both are about space exploration, have "movie epic" lengths (a run time that exceeds two hours), and comment about man's place in the universe. I think comparing the two is like comparing apples to oranges. While I'm not the biggest fan of 2001, it is a masterpiece of cinema art, full of elaborate camera work, complex symbolism and theme, and mind-blowing abstract concepts. Interstellar is basically a gorgeous display of visual effects and a few touching family moments. It was lacking in symbolism, had a good but straightforward theme, and didn't feel nearly as profound as 2001. Similar to 2001, the last thirty minutes of Interstellar does some far out, even trippy things while tying the story together for its conclusion. As was the case with Inception, you may need to watch the last bit a few times before you are able to piece it together in your mind. Also, it's hard to ignore the similarities between 2001's monoliths and Interstellar's robots.

Overall, I did enjoy Interstellar, but it took me a while to decide that I did. It had some great visuals and camera work, several good characters that I could relate to, and some great bits of dialogue. Since it was so dependent upon these great bits of dialogue, the story feels slow from time to time, and it lacks the symbolism and thematic complexity that many of us where hoping for when we saw the trailer. Admittedly it was a bit foolhardy of us to expect another 2001: A Space Odyssey, but Christopher Nolan has given us reason to expect Kubrick-level cinema art from him, and I don't doubt that he is capable of that in the future. It simply wasn't accomplished on this occasion. If you value special effects and graphics in movies then Interstellar is worth catching in theaters. If you are like me and value characters, story, and theme above all else you're better off waiting for this on home video. I wouldn't mind seeing it a second time, but I didn't love it enough to get my own copy.

What did you think of Interstellar? Did you like it? Was it a disappointment? Do you have mixed feelings about it? Comment below and let me know! (But please avoid spoilers)

Gravity Movie Review

Back in elementary school we were asked, "What would you like to be when you grow up?" There was always at least one kid who would emphatically declare "astronaut" as their career choice, never mind that they will probably all end up working in cubicles. For the kids who said they wanted to be an astronaut comes Gravity (2013), which will likely make anyone set on remaining earthbound.

Dr. Ryan Stone  (Sandra Bullock) is a brilliant medical engineer on her first shuttle mission, with veteran astronaut Matt Kowalsky (George Clooney) in command of his last flight before retiring. During a spacewalk to service the Hubble Space Telescope, Mission Control in Houston warns the team about a Russian missile strike on a defunct satellite, which has caused a chain reaction forming a cloud of high speed space debris. The shuttle is destroyed, leaving Stone and Kowalsky completely alone - tethered to nothing but each other and spiraling out into the blackness.

We are reminded at the beginning of the movie that living in space is impossible, with the extreme temperature fluctuations, lack of atmosphere, oxygen, or anything that could carry sound. The movie goes on to prove all of these things--he lack of sound most specifically. The sound was amazing in Gravity. Horrible catastrophes go on around the characters but we hear no explosions, scraping metal, or anything. The sound effects we hear are the slightly muffled sound of objects that are picked up and manipulated by the astronauts, which they would probably hear through their oxygen filled suits. Even when an alarm is going off in a shuttle, we begin to hear it gradually as the chamber fills with air and then at full force once the chamber is safe to breath in. That was a really neat detail that I was highly impressed with.

Another fascinating aspect about Gravity is that is basically runs in real time. There's no real scene changes that suggest a passage of time ("The next day..." or "several hours later"). We are lead to believe that all this is happening in one continuous stretch of time. To be fair, trying to get from the crash site in orbit to a distant space station is probably going to take quite a bit longer than what the hour and a half film implies. Still, we're experiencing every moment of the story, along with the characters since we never leave them and it gives the movie this quality of truthfulness that I don't recall experiencing in a movie before.

The camera work is amazing. The opening sequence in particular is absolutely incredible! It is one long continuous shot that lasts for thirteen minutes, making it one of the longest "tracking shots" in Hollywood history. It introduces the characters, how they work as astronauts, shows us the crisis, the shuttle being wrecked, and Stone being hurled off into space. The camera snakes in and out the shuttle, wreckage, and into space suits to give us a first person look at what it looks like to be spinning around without a stable point of reference in sight. The thought of drifting off aimlessly into oblivion with no chance of stopping or slowing down is terrifying, and Gravity captures that feel beautifully. Cinephiles will absolutely drool over this trailblazing bit of cinematography and everyone will be on the edge of their seat by the time it's over.

There are other calmer scenes that defy imagination. The story takes place in space and of course there is no gravity in space. There were many scenes that I cannot tell how they were filmed. There is so much movement and flailing around that hanging the actors on the end of suspension cords and harnesses simply wouldn't have been possible. It's not like they could actually film in outer space, but you never would have guessed it.

Several people insisted that I watch Gravity in 3D, and I'm glad I did! I haven't seen 3D effects quite that detailed and believable since I saw Avatar. A majority of the movie was filmed in 3D, which gives it outstanding detail and even subtlety in the 3D visuals. Having objects and debris float around in zero gravity was excellently rendered in 3D, including a pen floating toward the screen in a nod to 2001: A Space Odyssey. This is a rare case where I think the 3D truly enhances the movie and makes it better.

Gravity was amazing to say the least. The acting was great, the story was tense, the visual effects were second to none and draw you in quickly. It's not so much of an action film as it is a disaster/survival sort of story. There's no antagonist apart from Murphy's Law. It's a story about psychological change and resilience in the aftermath of a catastrophe and the will to survive in the face of inevitable death as well as the futility of rescue. It's exciting, thought provoking, and beautifully filmed. I think this is a must see movie, catch this in theaters if you still can, preferably in 3D. This is also one to watch for on Blu-Ray 3D once it's available.

Can you think of another "tracking shot" that you were particularly impressed by? I mentioned a really good one in The Avengers. What are some others? Comment below and tell me all about it!

Iron Sky Movie Review

If memory serves me right, I saw the trailer for Iron Sky (2012) on  YouTube.com a few months before it's actual release. It looked hilarious and fun and I put it on my movie list right away. That was the last I heard about it until it appeared on NetFlix Instant Play some time later. At first I couldn't figure out how I'd missed what I thought would be a blockbuster of some sort, but it turns out that it was a Finnish-German-Australian foreign film and hadn't had a very wide release in the US. No wonder I missed it.

In the last moments of World War II, a secret Nazi space program evaded destruction by fleeing to the Dark Side of the Moon. During seventy years of utter secrecy, the Nazis construct a gigantic space fortress with a massive armada of flying saucers. When American astronaut James Washington (Christopher Kirby) puts down his Lunar Lander a bit too close to the secret Nazi base, the Moon Führer Wolfgang Kortzfleisch (Udo Kier) decides the glorious moment of retaking the Earth has arrived sooner than expected. Two Nazi officers, ruthless Klaus Adler (Götz Otto) and idealistic Renate Richter (Julia Dietze), travel to Earth to prepare the invasion and meet with the United States President (Stephanie Paul). As the Nazis ready the Earth for invasion, the Moon Nazi UFO armada darkens the skies ready to strike at the unprepared Earth.

Iron Sky was much more bizarre than I expected. I wanted to see a silly action movie with a ridiculous and funny set of villains. While invading Moon Nazis are certainly silly enough to make even the nations they are targeting laugh, the humor was fairly intelligently written and well executed. There are three things that stood out most to me about Iron Sky; the references to other movies, the CGI effects, and the political mocking of the US.

Iron Sky referenced several other Nazi films and some sci-fi films. 2001: A Space Odyssey and Independence Day come to mind. There is a scene where The President's assistant yells at her subordinates in nearly a shot-for-shot reference to the scene in Downfall that became a hugely popular online meme involving a re-dub of Hitler ranting at his key officers. There's also a reference to Dr. Strangelove where James Washington is wheeled out in a wheelchair and tries to keep himself from saluting the Führer. Some of the movies referenced are foreign films making the reference and humor the scene is striving for may be lost on some American viewers who haven't seen them.

While I do enjoy foreign films, I haven't come across many that had particularly good CGI effects. Even though I loved Pan's Labyrinth, some of the CGI was subpar. The space battles in Iron Sky were impressive. The space ships were detailed and looked great. Scenes on the moon involved a lot of green screen with CGI rendered backgrounds. The camera work intentionally tried to captivate the old filming style that was used in during World War II. While you could endlessly argue about the physics behind several scenes, it's the detail of the scenes that makes them pretty solid. Just forget the physics and enjoy the fun action sequences!

Iron Sky is a sci-fi political comedy. How often to do see that genre mash up? Interesting were the numerous political jokes about The United States from the perspective of other countries. It's not just making fun of republicans or democrats; it's making fun of American politics on the whole. The unnamed President of the United States is an amalgamation of several US political figures. She has the Texas drawl of President W. Bush, the campaign slogan and posters of President Obama, the appearance and ditzy mannerisms of Governor Sara Palin, along with several negative American stereotypes. Of course Madam President is thrilled by the Moon Nazi invasion because "Presidents who start wars always get reelected. I thought I was going to have to bomb Australia or something." The movie overtly suggests that Americans have been guilty of the Nazi-like notion of taking over other countries by force for the sake of making said countries better. I didn't particularly like that suggestion, but I honestly can't think of a good argument against it. Iron Sky takes many jabs at American politics, but does so with witty and intelligent humor.

Iron Sky is full of some good and bad qualities. The story was full of holes, but it doesn't take itself so seriously that it's a problem; the acting was pretty bad in some parts, but the depiction of the Nazis is admirable; a good portion of the script was unimpressive, but it had some fairly intelligent humor and satire incorporated into it; the ending was pretty weak, but still remained fun. The humor is pretty dark at times, but still funny. I'd compare the humor style to that of  Dr. Strangelove. The concept is great, the movie is just okay, and the humor pretty good. There's a notable amount of profanity and F-bombs which I didn't appreciate, it seemed to be there only to earn a higher movie rating. If you can ignore the profanity, it's a great political satire that is worth seeing, but not quite good enough to own a copy for multiple viewings unless you really get a kick out of the idea of Moon Nazis.

Here's the trailer for Iron Sky. Don't tell me that doesn't look at least a little bit fun.

What's your favorite fictional group of Nazis? Space Nazis? Zombie Nazis? HYDRA from Captain America?  I've seen a couple different rendition of the go-to villain organization. Which one is your favorite? Comment below and tell me why!

Color Me Kubrick Movie Review

Foreign films rarely seem to get a lot of publicity in the US. It’s a shame, really. The US hardly has a monopoly on movies. True, not all foreign films are all that great, but then not all American films are good either. I discovered Color Me Kubrick (2006) while rummaging around in a used DVD bin at my local Blockbuster. What drew me to it was the fact that John Malkovich looks nothing like Stanley Kubrick. I figured this was a sure indicator of a lousy film, or at best lousy casting. But I watched it anyway and I was pleasantly surprised.

Set in London in 1990’s, a balding alcoholic with an unsteady American accent introduces himself in pubs and other social setting as Stanley Kubrick. Drinks and meals are suddenly on the house or paid for by an admiring person who finds Stanley fascinating. But this man is not Stanley Kubrick. He’s an Englishman by the name of Alan Conway (John Malkovich). He has conned many people into believing that he is the reclusive American director, despite the fact that Conway is openly gay, bares no physical resemblance to Kubrick, and knows little about the director’s work. The clever conman scrounges drinks, cash, and sexual favors from an array of unsuspecting victims ranging from heavy metal bands to wine bar owner (Richard E. Grant) to a British lounge singer (Jim Davidson). All are awestruck by his alleged fame and fortune, and overlook Conway’s genuinely bizarre behavior in hopes of impressing the great director. But when he tries to fool New York Times theater critic Frank Rich (William Hootkins), Conway’s act begins to unravel.

You could call Color Me Kubrick a kind of satire of celebrity worship. The people Conway interacts with are instantly star struck and are willing to bend over backwards to impress this person who claims to be a famous movie director. Few people even bother to think that in no way does Conway resemble Kubrick. Sure, his ruse is caught by a few people, but most of the characters simply worship Conway for no reason other than he says he’s famous. We really do often give unmerited glory and honor to people of a celebrity status simply because they are famous. Color Me Kubrick kind of shows us how we get so caught up in that fanaticism that we could easily be taken advantage of. What’s scary is this movie is based on true events.

Conway’s character was brilliantly acted. Conway doesn’t seem to have any idea who Stanley Kubrick is and puts on different personas with each con job. Sometimes acting like an English gentleman, other times acting like a flamboyant Jewish stereotype. We don’t seem to see enough of Conway’s real self, which makes the character a bit difficult to relate to, but that fits into the story. No one seems to know who this man really is, and neither do we. Malkovich did a great job with all the “Kubrick” masks he wears.

One of the really neat parts of Color Me Kubrick was periodic homage to Kubrick’s films. In fact, the opening scene is a direct homage to A Clockwork Orange, in which we see the after-effects of Conway’s minor cons. Two thugs are sent to collect a bar bill that Conway has generated by impersonating Kubrick. Conway had provided the address of an elderly couple as Kubrick’s home address. Of course the elderly couple has no idea who Conway is nor do they know Stanley Kubrick. The two thugs (one wearing a bowler hat) try to force their way into the couple’s home and get arrested for causing a ruckus. This wasn’t part of Conway’s design, just a very clever artistic license taken by the director.

The movie also uses classical music pieces that were famously used in Kubrick films. Some of the songs include The Blue Danube Waltz by Johann Strauss, as used in the docking scene in 2001: A Space Odyssey. It also used Henry Purcell’s Funeral of Queen Mary and Gioachino Rossini’s William Tell Overture as they each appear in A Clockwork Orange. The film isn’t trying to imitate Kubrick’s directing style, and the Kubrick homage isn’t terribly overt. You probably wouldn’t even recognize them if you hadn’t seen some of Kubrick’s well known films.

The movie does become repetitive since it is mostly a series of anecdotes about Conway swindling people. It still remains amusing to watch nonetheless. The film is not rated, and even though sexual themes are alluded to, there’s nothing I could see offending anyone. It does use some language, though; F-bombs are frequently used by some of the Heavy Metal band characters and a few others. I thought it was an okay movie. I’m glad I saw it. I recommend seeing it if you have seen several Kubrick films, otherwise you probably won’t appreciate it that much.

What is your favorite Stanly Kubrick film? Comment below and tell me why!