In "
Interstellar" aliens or highly evolved beings (think the
Prophets from Star Trek)
create a wormhole in our solar system to help humanity escape as ecological
plague is destroying the Earth's ability to cultivate human life. Using NASA's last hail Mary pass a crew sets
out with an incubation system able to create hundreds of test tube babies on
one of the worlds beyond the wormhole. The
movie is dense with character and motivation.
You see why these scientists need to go on what could be a suicide
mission and I felt legitimately sad watching the hero,
Cooper drive away from
his home and family.
|
Also, I thought the score was great. |
In short it
was great. At no point did it feel its
length, I was engaged throughout. They
dole out information in small enough bites that I never felt overwhelmed, while
at the same time information is given out readily enough that I am never left
questioning what is going on (this might be a side effect of having seen so
many science fiction movies, read so many books, and so many comics, people
less immersed in the genre might find the information coming too fast or not
deep enough). I have heard the exact
same speech on how wormholes work in another movie ("Event Horizon")
and as a kid watching "
Star Trek Deep Space 9" I visualized how a
wormhole would look to a human eye, envisioning tunnels, disks, cubes, and
spheres. I like science (especially
astronomy) and "Interstellar" has lots of science.
Much like
"
Man of Steel" there is an environmental message and a commentary on
how the government lies to people to keep them from panicking, but that in turn
only halts efforts to turn back the apocalypse.
I love that this movie has a sly sense of humor, lots of wisecracks
especially from Case, one of the robots. The robot's design is a really cool concept,
maybe my favorite thing in the movie; an obvious homage to the Obelisk in
"2001: A Space Odyssey" but able to unfold and move and communicate
in such a way that makes them unique and full of character. The fact that the robots are treated like
members of the crew and people showing concern for them was great, serving to
illustrate how to correct one of my biggest issues with "
Prometheus"
(
which had a totally human android treated like dirt by crew members who acted less
like scientists and more like impetuous asshole children).
Scientists
act like scientists, using rational thought to come to rational solutions, but
at the same time they are people and they take actions out of love, madness,
fear, or hope and rationalize them the best they can even if their actions are
a huge danger to the mission. I have
heard people complain that the concept of capital 'L' Love being some kind of
cosmic force that guides people is too irrational for a character like
Anne Hathaway's, and that the idea is called back to in the climax betrays the hard
science the movie is going for. I
disagree.
Love is the
explanation that is given, but as an audience member you don't have to accept
it. The aliens are time travelers, you
can say that love is helping people navigate the time stream because love is so
strongly keyed to memory, but at the same time the aliens could be responding
to hormone levels that occur in a certain area.
Who knows? Who cares? It doesn't matter for the story it is just
about a father trying to help his family live thru the apocalypse and in doing
so becomes a ghost to them, vanishing from their lives when they felt all was
lost. But even if you take it as a
canonical fact that Love is real and it is some kind of psychic force in the
universe like gravity... Then that is just a sweet sentiment and the break with
reality that makes this science fiction movie more fantastical in tone. Why would that break the movie? Doesn't for me. (
Not like there isn't precedence of love reaching across time, more
if you include various
movies I did not watch).
The only
real issues I had was two distracting choices in casting, Topher Grace shows up
as a doctor in the third act, and Matt Damon as an astronaut with cabin fever
who acts as the movies' second act complication/tension heightening device
(like HAL in "2001"). Neither
does a bad job with their roles, but seeing big name actors show up out of
nowhere like that took me out of it a little.
But at the same time you need some big names because they are major
characters in those sections of the movies, especially Damon's role (maybe we
are supposed to act surprised to see Damon as the characters in the movie would
feel a sense of awe at meeting a very heroic astronaut/scientist). Not sure how to fix that complaint, but as I
wrote the last sentence the issue bothers me less.
|
Kind of like Buzz Aldrin would be hugely recognizable to astronauts, Damon is recognizable to movie goers. |
People also
seem to think "Interstellar" is too long, but like I said before it
doesn't feel its length to me. People
complain that they explain too much, especially Matt Damon, but considering his
character has been talking to himself for months and is a raving nut job I
can't see an issue there either. And
this is a movie about explaining things.
What did you expect? I think I
will have to play the 'Robots in Pacific Rim' card, you have to accept certain
things will happen in certain types of movies, you should have known that going
into the theater. Sure I heard a lot of
it before (almost verbatim) but not everyone has, and imagine being a kid in
the audience who has never heard a serious discussion on wormholes before, the
last few "Star Trek" movies and shows were
even less scientific than this movie.
I also
detect strange levels of
vitriol directed at Christopher Nolan, who I find to
be a fantastic filmmaker. I haven't
actively disliked any of his movies, and even his weakest ("The Dark
Knight Rises") only failed for its ambition. He has a distinct style, visuals, pacing, and
dialogue scheme. I found this movie to
be a bit outside his comfort zone with the dynamics of parenthood which he only
ever touched on in "Batman Begins" and as an afterthought in
"The Prestige", but it is good to grow as an artist and he did. Apparently "Interstellar" was
originally intended as a
Spielberg movie, and I can see it, but I am glad that
they gave it over to Nolan, changed up the feel of what might have been too
emotional a movie (Spielberg hits the parental issues a lot in his work....
almost all of it, "Minority Report", "Close Encounters",
"War of the Worlds", "Jurassic Park", at least half of the
Indiana Jones franchise, even in "Lincoln" there is a prevalent subplot about Lincoln's
son) This would have been another
Spielberg science fiction movie, instead it is a broadening of Nolan's pallet. That is good.
I am
actually liking the movie the more I think about it. Yeah there is some stuff in there, like no
one on the ship realizing how the time dilation would work on the first alien
planet, but I write it off that they were experiencing tunnel vision because of
the urgency of their mission. Or the
super nit picky: how in the world was that space craft able to go down to the
surface of a world with such high gravity and then make it back to the
ship? Hell the extra gravity should have
kept the landing gear from working, and landing in water would have caused them
to sink into the ground unless they had exceptionally wide feet on the landing
legs. Escaping Earth's gravity is the
big issue of the movie, let alone escaping the impossibly heavy gravity of
tidal wave world. Again: who cares?
I also want
to note this: it was better than "
2001: A Space Odyssey". "2001" is boring, soulless, and
revels in its own dated special effects under the guise of letting the audience
take it in. While I respect the visuals
(not really, the monkeys look fake even by the standards of the time, and the
light tunnel to a nice apartment is lame) "Interstellar" has broader
appeal, and is just as high minded without wasting my time staring at
things.
"Interstellar" is a movie. It has a lot of science, a good bit of adventure, some high minded
philosophizing about Love, and a very simple metaphor about how parents leave
children behind and how those children grow into adults.