 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
74.93.8.198
I've read the criticisms. pro and con, but have to say that it is one of the best sci-fi's ever.
And I took detailed note of the shortcomings. All included, this was one of the greats, addressing at once the greatest sadness on our horizon, as well as our most uplifting attributes. This is an epic story. Epics always leave you wanting more.
The overall storyline was of such magnitude that the start and ending glitches were sailed over, as viewed from my chair. Nolan had to get this thing jumpstarted, off the ground and rolling, so the early buildup had to be fast tracked, leaving some story holes of improbability for the viewers to backfill in their own minds. I get that. The story demanded a looping conclusion, so loose ends needed tidying and tying up. But we're dealing with spacetime and black holes here; no one knows how they work. Anything can be expected except logical sequencing, which is what we need to follow along. It wasn't there/couldn't be there; fine, I get that also. It wasn't very tidy, but got done to fit the story.
Some folks thought it was too long. But the tension and suspense was kept beautifully. That rubber band was stretched to the max without breaking, and I argue again that the story demanded that eventful time and suspension. Nolan felt that also, but did not give in to the bean counters and naysayers about time limits. He stayed the course on this.
And I agree that many character slots were miscast, but again, the characters portrayed overcame the characteristics of the players. McConahey-hey doesn't come to mind as a first choice, with his soft Texas mumbling, looking too laid back as always, but he portrayed a rock solid dude with little wavering, which is the character needed for such a role. Hathaway? Not a favorite of mine, but not detrimental to the character. I think that role could have been filled by most any credible actress. No loss/no gain there. For once I'd like to see her without that bright red lipstick that says, hi, I'm Anne Hathaway. Damon as the bad guy was perfect, giving a super slick, insincere delivery characteristic of sneaky bastards everywhere. The best actor in the film was John Lithgow, delivering a very realistic performance. Michael Caine is always Michael Caine, no matter where you put him. In this film, he was Michael Caine. No plus or minus there.
There was a bit of a cheesy ending, with McConahey going solo, but this appeared to be a sequel tie-in. In all, forget the shortcomings; they wash out. This is an epic. Concentrate on the big picture and enjoy one of the best sci-fi's I've seen.
Follow Ups:
... but sorry, this was just gawdawful, IMO:
of Dave doing so in 2001. NO comparison. One is ultra-realistic, the other looks faked.
The light show sequence in 2001 similarly was superior. As were the scenes of space, the ships, etc. You cannot beat real items w/today's special effects. Kubrick and his cinematographer were geniuses. Nolan and his? Just Star Trek schlock peddlers.
and also impossibly slow.
...every possible place you can find, make me think you are very insecure about your opinion and trying to convince yourself rather than others.
Otherwise one or two would have done the job...
d
...better to spend more of your internet time in self-reflection.
I believe the Bored noted your toxicity a month ago.
Just sayin...
his explanatory book.
Of course, when a film takes its science SO seriously so that it can be seen as extremely rigorous in that sense, what can a viewer make of such a ridiculous human story? Or the larger objective silliness regarding science in general portrayed in the film?
Is Interstellar a crash-bang-boom popcorn flick, an emotional roller coaster or serious science? You're flip flopping all over the place on this one.
the ridiculous objections that my link mentioned in the final paragraph.
It is a popcorn film, though a very noisy and pretentious one.
The Nolans hardly are "intellectual" film maker, now. They began as such, but sold out to blockbuster mentality years ago.
How you can equate them to Kubrick is amazing. Absolutely boggling. You'd have more cred if you'd compare Ridley Scott to him, but that also would be a stretch.
You know what's crazy, really crazy about "Interstellar?"
The noise.
As everyone knows, there is no sound in space.
Not to everyone's liking, but everyone mentions the loudness. Very aggressive, used to heighten the excitement and carry the tension of various scenes. Most all movies have music (Hurt Locker didn't) to accentuate and shape emotional content, but this is the first time I'm aware of that it is such a major tool of influence; intentionally made equal to the visuals. Maybe more than equal?
----------------------
"E Burres Stigano"
instead of being the show, itself, about which humans merely orbit.
"The Host" is by the same director and the finest modern "monster" film. Again, characters take center stage.
..
----------------------
"E Burres Stigano"
I recently revisited the Runner... it is pure fantasy, no sci in it.
In a faint hope of finding some sci I am now watching Apollo 18. Too early to say anything yet. I am staggering it with Borgia episodes.
with some interesting space/time/gravity lessons..
.
Edits: 02/27/18
Above all, I like that films such as Prometheus and Interstellar cast the scientists' motives as self-serving and opposite the greater good, in contrast to sci fi of yesteryear. I think that takes guts and brings new life to a genre that had become too formulaic and tiresome.
It seems the American sci-fi movies have developed (some might say - degraded...) into silly monster flicks. A competition for the most revolting monster... with plenty of bodily fluids, ugly overbite and great survival skills.
I have not seen any "sci-" part in a long, long, long time...
I recently had rather dubious pleasure of watching the Prometheus and Event Horizon - both pretty much belong in that category.
Besides the endless parade of unpleasant, flesh-devouring space rats - is there anything out there worth watching in that genre? I hate to have to go back to the 2001 and Solaris times...
What might be the most literate SciFi entry of all times was a mid-50s entry called 'Forbidden Planet'.
Based on Shakespeares 'The Tempest', it features what can only be described as a 'stellar' cast with a great plot and motivation.
…..
Too much is never enough
One more rude comment, wisenheim, and Delaware will be my new home.
grew up in the GameBoy era: non-stop action! Big noises! Bigger is Better!
Of course a film should show concepts and not expend time with nerdy sci-babble.
The problem with Interstellar is that it's a REALLY corny film when you strip away the BOOM!
It's really a parental love story, but it has no time to develop that aspect. So what is it?
It's a superficial vehicle for people mesmerized by bright lights and BIG noises to become neurally short-circuited. The complexity of the story is to give them cover to claim it's "deep."
behind the story arc and imagery. I have not adopted a juvenile attitude about films, so your comments, as usual, are really weird.
in a deafening, repetitive, and non-original format.
I stand by my comparison. Jazz isn't about sledgehammering the audience into submission. Metal is. Interstellar is. 2001 isn't.
That was special. One of the loud music periods.
Spaceship mama... here I come!Maybe I should see it... after all.
Edits: 11/18/14
. . . that the beautiful Natalya Bondarchuk must now be a babushka.
Then... and now.
Edits: 11/18/14
Man, she's hideous now...
-RW-
Below is her husband... 14 years her younger.
Edits: 11/18/14
Mrs. Moby Dick?
-RW-
Not. :-)
Post a Followup:
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
