Interstellar

"Nibbles" (nibbles)
12/03/2014 at 08:55 • Filed to: movie time with nibbles

Watched it last night in IMAX. The visuals were nothing short of breathtaking, the outer shots of equipment were definitely done with miniatures - a plus in my book - and the story was well engaging. I couldn't help but think though that this was little more than 2001: A Space Odyssey for the Post Kubrick cum ADHD crowd.

For a movie clocking in at over two and a half hours, many times it just felt rushed. The visual sequences such as docking, long shots of traveling through space and the like were, to me, a direct ripoff/homage to Stanley Kubrick's epic but it seems fewer and fewer people would understand that. The overreaching plot device did get me in a "huh!" moment but it didn't last long enough to make a solid impression. I don't say this often but this should have been a two- or three- movie epic. The extra time would have given The Brothers Nolan a better chance to flesh out their characters (and not just feel like basic plot movers for the protagonist) and those of us who remember 2001 would probably see less of it, in this.

My wife, who has not seen 2001 , compared it more favorably to the premise of Star Trek . She felt that the use of theoretical physics, combined with a pre-apocalyptic situation that could be quite feasible, made the movie more engaging. She enjoyed the idea that this was something that could happen and that, give our species' ability to come up with dumb shit that works, the technology in the movie could very well be in our future as well.

All in all, I would recommend watching it. If 2001: A Space Odyssey is something you remember dearly, watch this on video. If not, see it in theatres. Without thoughts of Kubrick dancing in your head, the movie would be a wonderful spectacle.

DISCUSSION (18)

ACESandEIGHTS > Nibbles
12/03/2014 at 08:56

I want to see this on 70mm celluloid. Looks like a sweet movie.

Sweet Trav > Nibbles
12/03/2014 at 08:57

I thought it was Contact 2.0.

Pretty, but meh.

Nibbles > ACESandEIGHTS
12/03/2014 at 08:58

It was pretty beautiful

Nibbles > Sweet Trav
12/03/2014 at 08:59

LOL Contact left such an impression on me that I barely remember watching it at all :)

ACESandEIGHTS > Nibbles
12/03/2014 at 09:02

For a movie clocking in at over two and a half hours, many times it just felt rushed.

This is how Tombstone felt, and No Country for Old Men too. Why remove/compress scenes and screw with timing?

Last big-movie spectacle I remember having to see in 70mm was Kill Bill . They don't make them like that any more.

Nibbles > ACESandEIGHTS
12/03/2014 at 09:03

I wouldn't have wanted it to be compressed, I wanted it to be longer - or split into multiples - because I never felt attachment to any character.

area man > Nibbles
12/03/2014 at 09:10

I agree it's a hell of a spectacle, although all that stuff at the end didn't have me nearly as awed as 2001.

Fed(oo=[][]=oo)uken > Nibbles
12/03/2014 at 09:11

Absolutely agree with you, great take. And this is coming from a 2001 nerd. Much of the movie seemed derivative, and it did seem like the secondary characters only existed to push the protagonist through.

At some point, I feel like they should have just let go and gone full 2001, and stopped trying to hamfistedly explain complicated ideas of theoretical physics with dialog.

Absolutely mind-blowing visuals however.

Nibbles > area man
12/03/2014 at 09:11

The first words out of my mouth after the credits rolled:

"I... I just wasn't awed"

(The wife didn't understand)

jariten1781 > Nibbles
12/03/2014 at 09:14

My wife's quote: "that was like 2001, but actually entertaining".

2001 is one of my top 10ish movies and quite possibly the only movie that engenders true hatred from my wife. No clue why.

Personally I thought Interstellar was very pretty, but I never really got invested in the plot. I loved that they used minatures, models, and even puppeteers for the robot guys that had 1980s CRT screens for no particular reason. The technical aspects were very good.

I don't regret seeing it, but it won't go into my blu-ray purchase queue.

RockThrillz89 > Nibbles
12/03/2014 at 09:23

I can see what you mean by it being rush in places, but I don't think splitting it up would have solved that problem. You would end up with another Kill Bill in theater scenario ("Yeah, first one was fracking awesome, but the second one was just talk, ergo not as good." I know that problem isn't as bad at home when you can watch both back to back). Audiences don't like sitting through movies more than 2 hours, much less 2' 50"; people start getting restless and need a piss. Therefore, filmmakers have to start cutting parts whether they want to or not, which results in a slight uneven flow for the movie.

I think to fix it they should have bulked it out a little more, and added an intermission, vis-a-vis Ben-Hur (Heston version).

Also, I'd put this movie in my top two or three I've ever seen. It just worked for me. Plus seeing it in 35mm celluloid gave me a nostalgia boner, so that probably contributed to my personal ranking.

Nibbles > RockThrillz89
12/03/2014 at 09:39

Like I said, it's not something I say often. The Hobbit shouldn't have been three movies, but there it is. Avatar, for all its misgivings, adequately fleshed out the characters in its allotted time. I mulled over the movie all night trying to find some sort of compromise, but the only thing coming to mind was to make it two part.

It's not like the second would be all talk, the latter half of Interstellar was arguably more interesting than the former. Therein lies my problem.

SPOILER ALERT FOR ANYONE READING

How is it that, in the span of five minutes, NASA went from "WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU" to "Hey come fly our ship!"?

Young daughter actress was bland. Older daughter actress was much better. What about anything that happened in those 23 years? The five minute "kids videos" spot we got didn't give anything.

Speaking of kids videos, young son. (This is another thing, I can hardly recall the names of the secondary characters.) Went from kid to farmer, okay that was a given. Has a child, then what happened to child? Then another child? Obs named after Coop because some reason . Nothing fleshing out their bits until he punches Forman (which I did enjoy).

Basically I would have sucked some dick for earlier development that helped me to care about any of the characters. I couldn't really even feel for Coop, despite McConaughey's excellent performance

titsinmymitts > Nibbles
12/03/2014 at 09:47

NASA knew who he was, but Hathaway's character did not.

Hathaway's father had worked with Coop in the past. Coop flew a training mission of some shuttle-like vehicle in the past, but it went awry.

I agree that the premise of him just flying out with the crew the next day is flawed, but it's not completely unbelievable.

titsinmymitts > Nibbles
12/03/2014 at 09:48

I loved this movie. Loved it. I think any parallels to 2001 are supposed to be in homage, not a ripoff.

I haven't seen 2001 in a long time, so I'll need to review it.

Nibbles > titsinmymitts
12/03/2014 at 09:51

I watched 2001 just a couple weeks ago; it tends to get in my rotation pretty frequently. Maybe that helped to add to the allusion. For people who haven't seen 2001 (or haven't seen it recently [or don't particularly remember it {or weren't particularly fond of it}]) I would imagine Interstellar is one hell of a ride :)

RockThrillz89 > Nibbles
12/03/2014 at 10:29

The only explanation for lack of background on Earth-bound characters that I can think of would be that Cooper didn't know what happened to them, and Nolan wanted the audience to be in his shoes. The little bit of info we do get is incidental to the lead up to Murph's future accomplishments. Nonetheless, I agree more background would have been nice for some characters, if only to help me give more of a shit about them.

And from what I recall, most of the big dicks at NASA already knew Coop, so they made the call on picking him. Remember, he was around before the Blight, or at least before it decimated Earth. He had actual time in a cockpit and with certain NASA/military hardware. No one else involved had the experience he had.

As for the young brother, his lack of back-story I would attribute again to the fact that Coop didn't know about it either. Plus, as the children got older, they grew apart. The two story lines in the movie are Coop's story and Murph's story. Murph knew less about her brother as they grew apart, and therefore, the audience pretty much learned less about him as she knew him less.

Also, remember I'm not trying to argue with any of your points. I agree with you in everything but splitting it up, as I just can't see how it would be as effective in two parts. But I fully understand your reasons for saying it needs to be split up. I'm just trying to offer some possible explanations, and try to figure out more myself. Then again, I've had more time to think about it and piece it together in my mind since I saw it opening weekend.

MarquetteLa > Nibbles
12/03/2014 at 10:58

I love 2001 . It's in my top three favorite films. I also loved seeing Interstellar in 70mm. While the two films certainly share common themes, I don't think it's fair to call Interstellar a modern 2001 . They could only be more dissimilar if they weren't in the same space opera genre.

Saracen > Nibbles
12/04/2014 at 13:43

I'm a big sci-fi buff. I loved 2001 . I loved this too.

The only real tech in the movie that's implausible are the robots. The spacecraft are nothing we can't do.

We just need to find a wormhole in our solar system =P