Interstellar

http://t.co/LbRgdZxvLz

I'd seen it last night also. Not wanting to give too much away I thought it was a little long with the ending being too hokey for my tastes. Matthew McConaughey was excellent. But it is a rare movie that retains the services of Kip Thorne and appears to have advanced the frontiers of human knowledge in its rendering of a black hole:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yxaUi8LIzE

I also saw this film, yesterday.

I tried hard not to have too high expectations for the film but I failed miserably. With director Nolan's incredible portfolio and my love for scifi, my expectations were too high and that can only lead to disappointment...

....only it didnt!

I will humbly say this was the greatest piece of transcendental hardcore science fiction cinema I have experienced in a long time, perhaps ever in my personal cinema going life if I exclude cinema re-releases of Blade Runner and 2001 (never saw them on their original release) and giving that i see 80-100 films a year at the cinema, I never miss a Sci Fi movie good or bad and this one towers above all of them.

At least that's how I felt as I came out of the cinema. But its how I feel then is what matters most. When I see it again next week, its possible I may not feel the same way or I may love it more. It depends on how much more of the story I can grasp because to be honest, I didnt actually get a quarter of whats going on which I will explain why later. Yet, the film still blew me away and I think its largely down to its epic scope and masterful narrative.

In all honesty, in the first quarter of the movie, I got angry. The film was taking absurd directions with logic and sensibility in its plausibility (in the context of what I thought this movie will be about). There was even something about the moon that made me so mad. At this point I actually thought of what Brian, Mike and Andy will make out of it...Brian, especially, you I thought you might annihilate this, lol. I too kept thinking what the hell is this film doing, this is not what I was expecting but I went with the flow and resigned myself to just enjoy the journey and let it roll with whatever it has to deliver. There are some truly exotic theoretical science going on throughout the film as well as some absurd "anomalies".

And then came the last act which truly blew my mind as everything I criticised about its narrative during my viewing was suddenly justified. This is the Nolan Brothers writing at their grandest and boldly ambitious.

I will say nothing about the story, I will even assume you never even watch the trailers. That's what I do. I avoid all trailers for movies. However, I have now seen the trailers for this film and I can happily say there is much more to the film than what the trailers show. Although, I would like to champion the habit of not watching trailers. Taking this as an example, many elements that the trailer showed came as a wonderful giddying surprise to me. Even mediocre films can be enjoyed so much more.

There is a clear emulation of Kubrick's 2001:A Space Odyssey in terms of ambience right down to some very obvious nods in the soundtrack, visuals and props...not so subtle, in fact I dare say very arrogant. (again Brian, I wondered what you would have made out of that) There are just so many parallels I can draw between the two films. However, this film has a far more broader audience appeal. Ignoring its auteuristic position in the all time greats, 2001 A Space Odyssey is a very acquired taste and while Nolan has an equally "cold" style of film making, he does inject more humour and audience pleasing character play in this film, moreso than Kubrick's very precise mechanical approach (masterful though Kubrick's style is).

The soundtrack was superb although once again as with every bloody Nolan film, they dont get the sound mix right and it sometimes drowns the dialogue and this is the flipping reason why I think I missed a chunk of plot. Its bloody amazing I still enjoyed the film as much as I did, I guess that reinforces the mark of a great script. Quite often the base tones are really heavy, inducing so much vibrations that I thought I mistakenly sat in one of my screen's D-Box chair (a hydraulics chair many cinemas have installed). If this film actually does utilise D-box, then I can imagine it will be a helluva ride. But I loved the base and the soundtrack, its fantastic, adds to the cinematic experience...if only it didnt bloody rob me off hearing a lot of the dialogue. Especially Matthew McConaughey's (lead actor) who once again drawls at such a low frequency and strong southern accent, I depended on facial expressions and other characters' reactions to try get a gist of what the bloody hell he was mumbling. I must add however, that when watching Nolan movies on Blu ray, I do not have anywhere as much difficulty. The problem is simply accentuated with most cinemas' acoustics.

Another thing about the soundtrack is that its part the usual Nolan/Zimmer collaboration and er, part Space Odyssey cd ripping! Blasphemous, huh Brian? But hey I am in the cinema to enjoy an experience so I'll let Nolan do what the hell he likes as he earned my trust to entertain me, I just think he should have let the Strauss thing go but at least it was used in the right places and I actually really dug it at the time. Just be prepared for some of those large "nods" to 2001, and try enjoy those moments rather than criticise its extensiveness (justifiable though it maybe to do so!).

VIsually, the cinematogrphy is breathtaking....but actually the visual effects were surprisingly reigned in. This is not as visually bombastic as its potential holds. Much like Inception, Nolan doesnt seem to take advantage of the potential his high concept movies can be in the visual stakes. Its probably an artistic deliberation to avoid too much grandeur and keeping plausible "reality" in check as much as possible and I appreciate that. Its just I found that a shame in the excellent Inception and I find it a shame here too. That's not to say there isnt any grand visual moments, there were, I just think there could have been more oomph to it but nevertheless that misgiving I have about the visuals is more than compensated by the majestic narrative drive which make those visuals effective enough to have my heart pounding.

The excellent cast perform well but no one is particularly outstanding as they all simply serve the narrative which is the real star of the show that truly makes this great cinema.

This is hardcore thought provoking sci fi with minimal action although it has more action than Kubick's 2001 but they're not really that substantial.

As for the the Science and plausibility in fictional context. I'll be honest, I have never been that fussed with scientific plausibilities as I always believe liberties have to be taken to serve a great narrative but there must always be a reasonable balance. However, now that I am regularly in the midst of you very clever astronomers/enthuiasts I cannot help your natural inclination to scrutinise science in fiction rubbing off on me! As a result, I have been tut tutting on some obviously fanciful science babble (at least the parts I can bloody hear) that I know I wouldnt have been doing before I joined this society 😉 But I am at heart a movie fan that enjoys whatever positives a film has to offer, even the worst ones. On the other hand, there are some lovely proper theoretical physics talk going on although sometimes a little too obviously lectured to us, the audience.

Which brings me to a conclusion that this film is part transcendent scifi and part B-Movie for all that extremely exotic theoretical physics. Its also quite emotional which is quite surprising coming from a Nolan movie who normally strikes me as a "cold" director.

Yes, this film has plentiful flaws yet its spectacle, emotional impact and epic canvas far far outweighs its arrogance in its science plot and blatant "tributes" to Kubrick's 2001. I am still bouncing with joy from it. It was for me personally, a truly magnificent ride and cant wait to see it again next week.

Just a thought, perhaps we can rename this thread "Hollywood Astronomy" or something like that, so we can make it a dedicated astronomy movie thread?

Just a thought.

the greatest piece of transcendental hardcore science fiction cinema

Wow! Okay, I'll go and see it. The trailers were putting me off, big time. Also, I read the review by Deborah Ross in The Spectator in which she said: "This is a dumb film with an even dumber film trying to get out."

And then she wrote: ‘For God’s sake,’ I often found myself thinking during this film, ‘let the obliteration begin so we can all go home.’ (She is very funny. I love her film reviews.)

I remember seeing 2001 when it came out. It made no sense to me (I was about 9) but I was determined that one day it would. I'm not sure I've achieved that yet but I still love the film - though its perfection for me is ever so slightly marred by the presence of Leonard Rossiter (I can't bear The Fall and Rise of Reginald Perrin or Rising Damp).

But I would no sooner judge any sci fi film against the standard of 2001 than judge a romcom against Woody Allen's Manhattan. So okay - I'll go and see it.

Andy, do lower your expectations! It all depends on how much the flaws affect your enjoyment of everything else it delivers as this is the type of film that can divide opinion drastically. But either way, its a must see and a worthy experience even if only to come back talk about it, shredding its logic into pieces 🙂

Well, I'm going to see it this morning at the Curzon in Canterbury, so I'll report back later!

Try not to break the arms of the seats by gripping them so tightly in frustration! 😉

Well, I have to say, I thoroughly enjoyed that. I had also read the Deborah Ross review, so my expectations were very low. However, it's one of those films that I just had to see... fully expecting to come out of the cinema saying "well that's 3 hours I'll never get back".

However, I wasn't disappointed at all. I thought it was a very entertaining film.

Yes, there are holes in the plot big enough for a supermassive black hole to go through. The "science" is laughable in places. It ain't a new 2001, that's for sure. However, it was great fun to watch, and I'd happily go and watch it again (which is normally a sign that I've been to a good film).

Feeling quite pleased now, after seeing two good films in a week (the other being Mr Turner... but I don't think I can review that on an astronomy forum!).

I'd recommend anyone to go along.

Forgot to mention... yes, the sound mix is really poor in places, and you had to really concentrate on what some of the characters were saying.

I think I was lucky to be in a very modern cinema, but in a screen with only about 50 seats. In a large cinema, I can imagine that much of the dialogue would be lost, which would be a terrible shame.

But it is a rare movie that retains the services of Kip Thorne and appears to have advanced the frontiers of human knowledge in its rendering of a black hole

Just had a look at this clip, Dave. Fascinating stuff. It's great that the film-makers may have advanced our knowledge of what a black hole would actually look like. Interesting that a scientific paper may come out of this as well.

Forgot to mention… yes, the sound mix is really poor in places, and you had to really concentrate on what some of the characters were saying. I think I was lucky to be in a very modern cinema, but in a screen with only about 50 seats. In a large cinema, I can imagine that much of the dialogue would be lost, which would be a terrible shame.

Unfortunately I was in a 700 seat cinema in the O2 the auditorium was cavernous.  I think this is what marred my enjoyment of the film.  I think I need to see the film again with better sound quality.

http://www.youtube.com/attribution_link?a=qJYDnRhzjJY&u=/watch_videos?video_ids%3DnuehGjp9H_A%252CpisdiqVasyw%252CRV5WqRnFejI%252CHFkOPgumyyo%26no_autoplay%3D1%26feature%3Dem-subs_digest%26title%3DLatest%2Bvideos%2Bfrom%2BNerdist%2Bfor%2B10%2BNov%2B2014 . Interesting but..........

Spoiler alert - in case you miss it in the link!!!