I Loved "Interstellar." Keep Reading to Find Out Why.

Interstellar

Interstellar is a rare film for writer/director Christopher Nolan (The Dark Knight trilogy, Inception).  His films are notoriously cold and technical, though they excel when it comes to scope and visual beauty.  Emotion is usually quite lacking in his films.  This is not to say that there is no drama in a Nolan film.  There is emotional drama in everything he has done, but, at least for me, it has never been this effective.  Surprisingly, Nolan has found true emotion in a film that takes place largely in deep space, the loneliest possible environment. 

Interstellar is essentially a father-daughter story about a pilot/engineer (Matthew McConaughey) who missed his chance to go to outer space and his daughter (Mackenzie Foy), who feels abandoned by him when he does get the chance to leave.  McConaughey’s reason for leaving is pretty justifiable, though: he’s going to look for a new planet for the human race.  There are same vague comments about what has happened to Earth in this film (world wars over food, for one), but the real problems are just beginning with a blight that has wiped out most of our food supply except for corn, but corn might not be safe for long.  The film certainly makes Earth look miserable, though it’s done on a small scale.  We never get the broad view of what the world is like.  In fact, there are really only two locations for the film on Earth: a farm and a hidden NASA compound.  While a larger explanation of the status of the entire planet would be interesting on its own, it is not the point.  The film is called Interstellar after all.  You know McConaughey is going to leave; the question of the film is, how long will he be gone?

Leaving a child behind for an uncertain amount of time is emotionally charged already, but when the science of gravity and black holes is added, it becomes downright devastating.  Apparently, gravity near a black can mess with time.  An hour on, say, a planet near a black hole, could last years elsewhere.  (For the record, I have no idea why that is, but scientists claim this is true.)  This possible problem coupled with the fact that McConaughey and his fellow astronauts cannot send messages (they can only receive them) back to Earth makes his absence that much more heartbreaking.  This film, though very much science-fiction, is actually a love letter to Nolan’s daughter (the working title was Flora’s Letter), and you get the impression that going off to make these giant movies might be his version of leaving Earth while his daughter grows up.  It is quite clear that Nolan wanted to tug at the heartstrings with this one and, for me, at least, he accomplished his goal.  How else can you explain why a review of a science-fiction film written by an admitted dork has gone three paragraphs without gushing about visual effects and cool, weird robots? 

The emotional impact of the film was surprising, and it made me care about the characters in a Nolan film more than ever before.  It was truly unexpected.  The great visual effects and general cinematic excellence of the film?  That was expected.  This is what has been troubling me when it comes to reviewing Interstellar.  My first attempt ended up being a bit of a rant about why people should appreciate the movie (read it here if you want), and I explained how annoyed I was with people (critics and film buffs alike) calling the film “ambitious” in both negative and positive terms.  “Ambitious” is far too loaded of a word to use to describe any film (and I will attempt to stop using that word in my reviews from here on out).  It only implies that someone tried to do something.  Well, of course they did.  Interstellar is not an example of someone “trying.”  It is an example of Christopher Nolan and the rest of the filmmakers doing exactly what they set out to do: create an entertaining science-fiction film that adheres to reality as much as possible while also engaging the viewer on an emotional level.  And yes, it all looks great and should be seen on the biggest screen available (full disclosure: I saw it on a regular-sized screen at Tell City and still loved it).  My point is that it has become moot to discuss the technical brilliance of a Nolan film.  Let’s just assume the brilliance and move on.

Interstellar is much more interesting thematically, anyway.  The possibilities of life after Earth stayed with me, and I found, upon reflection, that the film was deeper than I initially thought.  It can be seen as a father-daughter love story, a save-the-Earth space thriller, a plea to stick with film instead of going digital, etc.  Any story that can be viewed symbolically always gets a few extra points from me.  The literal story of the film is more than enough, though.  Exploring deep space has always been more interesting to me on the human loneliness level than the visual level.  Normally, films in which characters are so far out in space are set in a distant future or world in which it is normal to be out there (like Star Wars or Guardians of the Galaxy).  This film keeps it grounded, so to speak, in reality.  Characters have to deal with being away from their loved ones.  This is rarely the focus in such films, and it is refreshing to see here. 

There's quite a bit of this.

Because of the focus on love and loneliness, the cast of Interstellar had a tough task.  They had to cry quite a bit and make the audience care about why they were crying.  To top it off, their characters were slightly one-dimensional in that everyone is simply trying to accomplish the goal of sustaining the human race.  Some would see this as a flaw, but I imagine (or hope) that people tasked with saving all of us would be singularly focused with the task at hand.  Because of this, there’s nothing terribly memorable about each character.  It’s up to the actors to bring their natural charisma to the role to make you care about them.  That said, Interstellar has an amazing cast.  McConaughey, Anne Hathaway, Jessica Chastain, Michael Caine, and everyone involved gets the job done. 

This review has been a long time coming because I loved the film on so many levels, and I wanted to see if that wore off a few days after watching it.  It didn’t, but I have still put off writing this in fear of not mentioning everything that was great about it.  Which reminds me: there are these amazing (and hilarious) robots in the film that look like the monolith from 2001.  The main robot, TARS, is actually my favorite character, now that I think about.  I’m sure I’m forgetting some other things, and I know I’m ignoring a lot of issues others have with the film (I will concede that McConaughey’s character definitely showed favoritism to his daughter and largely ignored his son, and that was never acknowledged in a fulfilling way).  It can’t be helped, though.  Interstellar is just such an awesome science-fiction film, and I am an unabashed fan of anything sci-fi.  I’m still trying to digest all of it (obviously), but it’s certainly going to be one of my favorite films of the year, and it’s definitely going to be a film I revisit over and over again.

Interstellar receives a:

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

"C'mon, TARS, let's go bust up the robot mafia."

I can't wait for the sequel in which McConaughey and his robot buddy, TARS, travel through the galaxy fighting crime.

Everyone seemed very much okay with Wes Bentley dying, didn't they?

Some have complained about the exposition in this film (and all of Nolan's films), but I like it. Is it weak storytelling?  Oftentimes exposition is, but here I don't think so.  I like that the characters explained the science and their plans every now and thing because that's how the world works.  How often do you do a job in which the manager/planner/whatever simply assumes you know what's going on?  Life deserves explanation sometimes.  Sometimes, it does not.  

Which brings me to all of these 2001 comparisons.  Who said that this was supposed to be just like 2001?  I never assumed that.  And I certainly didn't assume Nolan was trying to be Kubrick here, but many people have.  I suppose that's due to their nature of picking up on implications rather than looking at objective facts.  Nolan is not Kubrick and is not trying to be.  Interstellar is not 2001 and is not trying to be.  We can enjoy both of these directors/movies, by the way.  Just don't bring the same expectations to both.  If I went in to Interstellar wanting everything left to interpretation, I would leave extremely disappointed, and vice versa.  I'll never understand why some people who love one movie in a genre take up some unwarranted fight to crap all over anything else that comes after.  I just really like movies.  I guess I'm simple that way.  This doesn't mean I don't hate some movies, by the way.  Stay tuned for my Dumb and Dumber To review for proof...

"The Dark Knight Rises"

Directed by Christopher Nolan, written by Nolan, Jonathan Nolan, and David S. Goyer, starring Christian Bale, Tom Hardy, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Gary Oldman, Anne Hathaway, Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, and Marion Cotillard - Rated PG-13

"When Gotham is...ashes, then you have my permission to die."

There has already been way too much online controversy concerning The Dark Knight Rises (hereafter just Rises) after the first few negative reviews came out.  I don’t want to get into a whole film criticism in an internet age debate, but I will say that having a different opinion is not a big deal.  It makes no sense for people to freak out about a bad review, especially if they haven’t seen the movie yet.  When I heard about a handful of negative reviews, I had a little impulse to get defensive as well because I am a Batman fan.  I didn’t freak out and write a threatening letter or anything, but I did start to think, “What a bunch of crap! They just want to be different.”  Maybe that actually is true (there are certainly people out there who only want to be contrary to get a reaction), but odds are there are people who honestly won’t like Rises. 

I bring all of the critic backlash stuff up because Rises is destined to be a victim of hype and that is certainly why “fans” are defending a film they haven’t seen.  I also think that some critics (or people like me, who are not “professional” critics) will be negative because their lofty expectations were not met.  That is an unfortunate way to judge a film (and I am guilty of doing it from time to time).  The Dark Knight did not face this same fate because people were pleased with Batman Begins but did not freak out about it.  Heath Ledger as the Joker got people hyped up for the film and most people were blown away.  That’s a hard act to follow and it’s easy for someone to be disappointed if the exact same type of film is made for the sequel.  I am not one of those people.  I loved the newest Batman film and I think director Christopher Nolan has delivered an amazing endpoint to a great trilogy.

Rises is closure in the best sense of the word.  Batman Begins was all about Gotham City and whether or not it deserved to be saved.  Bruce Wayne/Batman (Christian Bale) lives only to save his city.  In The Dark Knight that idea seemed to be focused more on the people rather than the city itself.  Batman wasn’t trying to save the physical city; he was trying to save the soul of the city.  In Rises, the city itself is up for grabs.  In fact, nearly everything is up in the air in this film.  All of the buildup has led to this giant film about the fate of a troubled city.

Gotham has never felt more real.  There has always been a personality to Gotham City in these films, but it’s been a growing process.  Gotham just feels like more of a character in this film than the others.  That is immensely important since the whole point of the film is whether or not the city survives.

Of course, the main reason to watch the film is to see the people fighting for the city, and there are a lot of them.  There’s the usual crew of Batman, Alfred (Michael Caine), Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman), and Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman).  Added to the lot are young cop John Blake (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), philanthropist Miranda Tate (Marion Cotillard), and veteran officer Foley (Matthew Modine).  Then there’s Selina Kyle, a.k.a. Catwoman (Anne Hathaway), who plays both sides to her advantage.  And finally, there’s Bane (Tom Hardy), the masked mercenary who wants to destroy Gotham and make Batman suffer immeasurably. 

Sounds like a busy film, right?  It is.  In fact, when I first heard about the extended cast I started to worry if this film would make the same mistakes that so many sequels do: overstuffing to try and please everyone.  I was surprised by how well it all tied together.  Sure, some might complain that some characters do not get enough attention (Batman, for instance, feels nearly like a supporting player rather than the hero), but I thought the film was perfectly balanced.  In fact, the lack of focus on one individual adds to the point of the film: Batman is not meant to be an unmasked hero, but a persona that anyone can step into to do good.  Who said the Dark Knight had to be Batman or Bruce Wayne, anyway? 

This brings me to why this trilogy has been so special in the first place: themes.  Sure, themes can be applied to all films, but there’s something about Christopher Nolan’s trilogy that always makes me think a bit more than other superhero films like, say, The Avengers.  Perhaps it’s Batman’s constant preaching about what Gotham needs, but I always find myself thinking about what it means to be “good” in society and when, or if, it is ever okay to lie a little to protect a lot.  No matter, these films have a self-importance to them that doesn’t come across as pretentious but rather makes everything happening onscreen that much more compelling.

Thankfully, what’s happening onscreen is also pretty awesome.  Nolan has always been able to bring the goods when it comes to cinematic set pieces and he keeps it going with Rises.  I don’t want to go into specifics, but what impressed me the most was the transformation of Gotham.  Aside from that, just know that you get to see every dollar that was spent on this movie.

The characters of the Batman world have always been the real appeal, though.  No offense to Mr. Wayne, but as a character, both he and Batman have grown a bit less interesting with age.  This went unnoticed in The Dark Knight because everyone loved the villain so much.  But is Bane an interesting enough villain to keep things fresh?  I say yes.  The mask and the physicality of Tom Hardy make Bane an imposing villain already, but the boldness of his actions and his words make him interesting.  I still like the Joker more, but Bane is right up there with him.  As for the whole voice controversy, I did have trouble understanding him here and there and the sound of the voice is kind of jarring at first because it seems too loud, but I got used to it and, after a second viewing, really liked it. 

The other big addition that had everyone talking was Catwoman.  (To be clear, she is never really called Catwoman, but it’s easier to refer to her that way.)  I have never been a fan of the character so I was very skeptical about her inclusion, but I was dead wrong.  This is mainly thanks to Hathaway’s performance (and her physicality doesn’t hurt, either).  She does a great job of playing the victim, then quickly reverting back to her natural survivalist state.  She definitely livened up the screen when Bane was away. 

Gordon-Levitt was a bit of a shot in the arm for the franchise, as well.  He seemed like a pointless addition when I heard about it months ago, but once again, I was wrong.  His do-gooder cop works well with Oldman as he keeps things moving in the film when they would otherwise come to a crawl.

The rest of the actors do their usual fine job as their characters haven’t changed very much.  I will point out that Bale was a bit better this time as Batman.  His growling has been toned down a bit and didn’t sound as ridiculous as it did in The Dark Knight.  I also liked his portrayal of Bruce Wayne as a broken man.  This may be the best performance he has given in the trilogy.  

The Dark Knight Rises simply delivered everything I wanted in a final chapter to my favorite superhero franchise.  This is not a perfect film or anything, though.  But I’ll ask what I always ask: is there such a thing as a “perfect” film?  Many have written articles about the faults of the film and, to be honest, I agree with a few of them.  But I did not really notice any problems while I watched it.  I just loved it because I am a dorky fanboy and if I get to see Bane and Batman throw down, I can ignore some logic problems with the story.  And I write this having seen the film a second time and still not having major issues with it.  So this makes Rises one of the best films of the year for me and a more enjoyable film than The Avengers.  But the larger question remains: does it live up to the hype?  In other words, is this better than The Dark Knight?  Well, time will tell on that one.  But why even separate the films?  The first time I watched Rises was as part of a marathon screening of all three films (I mentioned I was a dork, right?), and it felt like one long story with a couple of intermissions.  So is it better?  I don’t know.  I do know that it is part of the greatest comic book storyline of all time and a fitting end to a great trilogy.

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

I think I ended up absolutely loving this film because I realized how engrossed I was in it.  I've read where people were spotting the twist that Miranda Tate was actually Talia al Ghul very early on but it was completely lost on me.  This is ridiculous because I'm normally focused on predicting the ending or the twist of a film and this one is pretty easy to spot, especially when you pay attention and you know who Talia is before watching the film (and I was aware of the character before the film came out).  Even after seeing the child escape the Pit I didn't put it together.  I wondered how the child escaping could be Bane since it didn't have a mask on, but I was so into the movie that I didn't realize that it had to have been someone else.  When a movie gets me like that, then it's good enough for me.

I also liked where this leaves the franchise.  I was recently extremely disappointed with the decision to reboot the Spider-Man franchise so quickly and I was already bracing myself for the Batman reboot sure to come in less than a decade.  But since Blake was left the keys to the castle, so to speak, the films could continue on with him as Batman.  Nolan is done, but at least the films can go on without rebooting it and giving yet another origin story.  Of course, they'll probably completely reboot it anyway.

Bane and Batman duking it out was great.  I loved their first encounter and it was awesome to see Bane "break" Batman. 

There was a Joker in this movie.  Matthew Modine was Joker in Full Metal Jacket.  Does that count?

The happy ending was a little cheesy, but I'm okay with it.  Doesn't Bruce Wayne deserve a little happiness?  Initially, I wanted Batman to die, but I can accept a fake death.

It was great to see the Scarecrow back in action as a judge.  I really wish he had gotten more screen time throughout the trilogy. 

It was refreshing for the mob bosses to be out of the picture.  It made this seem more realistic (even though this is arguably the least realistic film in the series what with the whole Escape from Gotham scenario).  Let's face it: Batman facing off against mobsters seems a bit anachronistic.