Never has a more ambitious film been such a disappointment. Now, I'm not saying this was a bad film by any means. I've seen A LOT of bad movies, and most on purpose (for kicks). Anyways, I believe one of the two messages of this film is very important and conveyed perfectly in the first half and then muddled and essentially compromised towards the end.
The message (or 1st message in this case) is that humans are destined to conquer the stars and leave this rock we call Earth, especially when the planets forecast is not at all favorable. We have Matthew McConaughey's character blatantly state this and of course when he is chose to pilot a spaceship through a wormhole to another galaxy to explore potential habitable planets, he quickly says goodbye to his family. The relationship between himself and his two kids (daughter and son) is examined to give weight and then of course tested by his need to leave the Earth and perhaps never come back. This, of course, is the second message. Leaving family and loved ones is difficult.
Immediately, we are in space and follow McConaughey and company as they venture into the wormhole and how they plan to use their time to explore the planets surrounding a black hole (which, by the way, isn't possible). McConaughey attempts to use time sparingly as every hour on said planet will be the equivalent of 7 years in Earth's time. Relativity plays a large role with how it has kept those away from their loved ones for extended periods of time and this is when things begin to get muddled as I mentioned earlier.
So, how is it possible to promote the idea of humanity and its exploration of the stars when the central characters are obviously troubled with leaving in the first place? Love is even examined as a 'force' in this Sci-fi film. This is very aggravating. The climax of the film is slightly clever, but ultimately underwhelming. This leaves viewers confused. Is our protagonist questioning his decision to leave Earth? Then when 'other things' happen (I do not want to spoil anything) our hero immediately goes back to 'the mission'. It is this lack of focused message or tip-toeing that will leave some wondering why Nolan and his brother would write such a story. I know that such a decision is difficult but what is essentially important? You cannot put one foot on each side of your decision. Do we tie ourselves to this rock or examine the unknown as the Earth is in its final stages of supporting human life?
Outside of the muddled message and overall story, "Interstellar" does succeed on some levels. The dialogue was decent and the performances were all very strong. The special effects were great but not groundbreaking and the musical score from Hans Zimmer was surprisingly not epic in sound(repeating theme throughout entire movie). Cinematography was done by someone else because Wally Pfister was busy filming his own movie, the terribly reviewed "Transcendence". Pfister has worked on almost all of Nolan's previous films. The look of the film was not nearly as crisp as you'd expect or involving. The cinematography was more in the line of "Man of Steel" and recent Terrence Malick films. Unfocused (purposefully) at times to give it a more 'realistic' feel of a handheld camera, which just annoys me to no end. Also, there is a subplot involving a surprise cameo that does not progress the story in any way whatsoever, leaving you in the theater for an extra 25 mins. The total running time is 2 hours and 49 minutes.
"Interstellar" does make you think though. I'll give it that. I guess with an almost 3 hour run time, connecting the dots from the first 20 minutes of the film to the last ones did prove a little difficult. I appreciate the movie for what it is and that it even exists. It gets people talking and promotes the idea that exploration is absolutely necessary for our race to survive.
As a film, there are simply better provocative, space movies/TV series out there. See: "Sunshine", "Moon", "Battlestar Galactica"
Overall grade: C+
No comments:
Post a Comment