Interstellar

Are you one of those who wished Chris Nolan’s movies were not so (seemingly) free of emotions? Well, you know what they say ... Be careful what you wish for, it could come true. Because more than anything else, Interstellar acts as Nolan's sincere response to the above complaint. It's just an effort that is more wanted and forcibly pushed than naturally arising from the story and the characters. At the same time, for a long time (which, given the footage, really means for a very long time), nicely rational (and it is evident where this systematic analogy to Kubrick's 2001 comes from), but it turns into a variation on the Frequency viewed by Spielberg family perspective. However, if, after all, you really want to look for an analogy, then it clearly call for the Contact that also ruined its rational level at the end, although not as literal as Interstellar (what is strange is that on the one hand it is so cheaply literal and yet you can read between the lines, how and what was achieved for humanity during the ending scene). You either get over it or not. I did mainly thanks to the fact that the very first dialog of the daughter in the whole film will clearly determine where from and what point will follow. However, if nothing else, the once-in-a-lifetime audiovisual impression (especially in IMAX) of a pioneering journey into the unknown, which is breathtaking all the time, if not in terms of emotions than at least in terms of what the movie shows. In addition, it is one of the few orthodox big-budget science fiction, where during most of the footage the science, not the fiction is being emphasized, as we can typically see. And that means a lot, if on top of that it is quite likely that you will enjoy it even in terms of emotions. (06/11/2014)

The secret of Nolan’s success lies in his ability to disguise his inability to maintain the logical and emotional continuity of the narrative in parallel storylines in a disarming and, at the same time, overly dramatic manner. This weakness drags down the entire second half of Interstellar, which will drill such a hole in your head that you are forced to switch to the passive mode of “a great blockbuster experience” – without being bothered by the fact that the editor doesn't know what he’s doing. The movie is full of self-serving dramatic scenes that are of little relevance to the story as a whole, by which I mean the epic docking with the damaged rotating station and the burning cornfield with an angry Casey Affleck (WTF?) on the opposite side of the galaxy. And by dysfunctional logical and emotional continuity, I mean cutting from space to Earth (where we don’t know what’s going on and to which everyone is running), which unnecessarily draws attention away from the key twists of the cosmic plot. It looks so terribly EPIC and uses such magnificent music that Nolan surely knows what he’s doing here...right? No, in my opinion, he does not. ___ But let’s talk about the first half of Interstellar, which seems to be a different film entirely – it is smooth, deliberate and sensitively edited, outlining beautiful thoughts about TIME (which, along with health, is the most valuable thing we have). Because of that, this half of the film is the most elaborate and magical sci-fi revelation in many years. I fell in love with Interstellar in the scene involving greetings after returning from the watery planet, which is something I don’t think I have ever written about any film before. And there it should have ended, and Nolan and his people should have made a completely rewritten sequel a decade later, after they’ve grown up and learned to perceive things in context, together with proper editing. Then, ideally by dividing it into two sensitively linked films, one of which would take place in space and the other on Earth, they could have made Interstellar into a milestone in the history of the science fiction genre, a dignified successor to Kubrick. (05/11/2014)

There is power in simplicity, even if the monstrous epic tempts many viewers to seek complex interpretations. The power of Nolan's narrative lies in confronting the fundamental life decisions of a handful of people about the future of homo sapiens at the expense of personal interests and desires. Let us take those scientific lessons, limited to the described tables, which we do not understand anyway, as a glittering decoy toward a dead end. The sweeping cinematography and roaring music are meant to give the impression of a major space adventure, and yet, thanks mainly to the terrific cast, it's really one big cliché about a father-daughter relationship where the question is whether the journey through the wormhole will help them see each other again. I really didn't expect myself to be so sensitive and that at the end of it, I would cheer for it wholeheartedly. It was actually nice to get something completely different in the movie theater than I originally expected and that the whole colossus worked. This is particularly true when I sat in front of the screen with a certain amount of skepticism thanks to the diametrically opposed responses. [But I don't deny that everything negative you read about the film is true. And yet so are the positives.] (21/11/2014)

An attempt at metaphysical art for 165 million, which tells the story of the fate and the essence of humanity, and humanity as such... and as a result falters due to its strongly rhetorical nature, and the fact that Nolan once again pulls his characters like automatons in a precisely constructed mechanism. With the exception of McConaughey, who, in his current form, could find emotion even in a piece of plastic, this is an astronomical clock of talking schemes and dialectic hangers (the marching suits feel a much more human than all the often crying characters). I don't want to be fully on the side of the haters - Interstellar has many. I enjoy a number of things in this authorial vision - the contemporary "pre-apo" skepticism balanced by idealism, a raw view of interstellar flights as a traumatic phenomenon, and work with space and the elements. It is also unbelievable how Hoyte Van Hoytema got moving the once immobile IMAX camera into a flexible multi-string instrument that evokes in some places the inner filming of Emmanuel Lubezki. Paradoxically, the height and width of the frame are used to create an intimate impression, perhaps even more often than to achieve a wow effect from the wholes. A faded look at a dusty future, a meditation on parents becoming the spirits of the future of their offspring at the time of their offspring's birth, and a few other things touched me. But as a whole, Interstellar reminds me of a combination of spectacular themes and motifs that fails to create what is not directly stated at the same time. And this is a bit of a problem for a film that deals with phenomena on the periphery of our rational perception of the world. For me, it's simply the type of spectacle for which the truly captivating part will be the bonuses from the production. [70%] (06/11/2014)

I'm pretty confused about this one. He could easily have made a great movie, but they'd have to cut the minutes a bit and somehow get more suspense in there. The emotions aren't evenly distributed here at all. One minute you're bored and the next you can't wipe away the tears. On top of that, the feelings are fleeting and don't stick around long. If they had concentrated more on the film itself and not built it on dialogue that forces the viewer a bit too much into how to perceive the whole thing, it would definitely have added to the value of this piece. A weaker 4 stars. (02/11/2015)