Tag Archives: explained

‘Interstellar’ Reaches for the Stars, Scratches Greatness

interstellar            In his first directorial effort since completing his Dark Knight trilogy, Christopher Nolan returns to the visually striking and mind-bending side of films with “Interstellar”.

Set in the future on a dying planet Earth, several astronauts (Matthew McConaughey, Anne Hathaway) set out into a wormhole near Saturn to try and find a new planet suitable for human life. Nolan favorite Michael Caine plays the intellectual head of the project and Jessica Chastain also stars.

Say what you will about Christopher Nolan films, but one thing that is undeniable is that every one of his movies has large scopes and ambitions. The problem most of his films not named “Inception” and “The Dark Knight” have are that the scope is often too big to fill. “Interstellar” sets the bar incredibly high (that bar being an entirely different galaxy) and for most of the film it appears like it will reach that bar and be something great; before the wheels come off in the final act.

The acting in the film is great across the board. McConaughey, fresh off his first Oscar for the superb “Dallas Buyers Club”, shows that his 2013 was no fluke. He plays a father who is conflicted with possibly saving the human race, but while leaving his children behind for years in the process. He still has his signature droll and charm, but this is a side of McConaughey we’ve never seen. My future wife Anne Hathaway is equally as solid as McConaughey’s fellow astronaut, a woman torn between morals and emotion.

The visuals in the film are striking and much like last year’s “Gravity” there are shots that show the pure magnitude of space that will leave you breathless. On numerous occasions the camera pulls up to show the small ship riding among the sea of stars in complete silence, and for a split second it puts everything in perspective.

Everything was going great with “Interstellar”, and for a moment I thought maybe this could be the next space classic a la “2001”, but then the final act happens. I obviously can’t say much of anything without spoiling it, but it is one of those moments that while you watch it transpire you just think, “Oh. Well. Um…ok. Sure, I guess.” I really think the studio gave Nolan complete control of this project, and that may have been a slip-up on their end.

There are also the classic (at this point cliché) “Nolan-isms”, such as underdeveloped side characters, plot holes and the aforementioned unfillable scope, but they aren’t as prevalent or glaring here as with his other projects.

“Interstellar” has no right being nearly three hours long, but there was not a second during it that I was bored. The performances are great, the visuals are outstanding and there are several very well-directed moments of tension, one of which had the entire audience gasp at the same time. “Interstellar” reaches for the stars and they just barely evade its grasp, but just because it is not a stellar movie (*snickers*) does not mean it is a trip you can afford not to take.

Critics Rating: 8/10

‘Gone Girl’ Powerfully Acted, Capably Executed Thriller

Gone_Girl_Poster                Do you smell that? It’s the smell of Oscar Season returning to grace us with its presence, and it is brought upon by director David Fincher’s newest film, “Gone Girl”.

On the morning of his fifth wedding anniversary, Nick (Ben Affleck) arrives home to find his house in shambles and his wife (Rosamund Pike) missing. When the media begins to put the spotlight on him, the police and American public start to wonder if Nick is an innocent victim, or a killer? Neil Patrick Harris and Tyler Perry also star.

It is hard to say why “Gone Girl” is a good film without spoiling anything. In fact it is hard to really talk at all about this film without giving away one of its many twists. But it’s my job, so here we go.

The always reliable David Fincher, who directed films ranging cult classics “Fight Club” and “Se7en” to the fantastic “Social Network” and American version of “Girl With the Dragon Tattoo”, directs “Gone Girl” in such a stepped-back, impartial way that at times you forget you are watching a movie. It is almost like you are simply watching events unfold, and you do not know who to trust.

Gillian Flynn, who wrote the novel on which the film is based, as well as penned the screenplay for the movie, has such a way with words that she is able to work in moments of dark humor that just feel natural. Sometimes in movies characters are deadly serious all the time and it almost takes you out of the film, but never with “Gone Girl”. It makes sure to have a little strategically placed bits of humor or lightheartedness just when a moment may be getting too serious or stale.

If you hear anything about the film, it will likely be one of two things: Rosamund Pike’s performance, or the twists. This film has more twists than a pastry from Cinnabon. At first they are small things, like the police finding a clue, but as the film goes on, they get more and more elaborate and hit harder and harder, until the ultimate punch to the stomach in the film’s final moments.

As for Pike, there is so much that could be said but I’ll keep it brief. As she narrates the film via her diary passages and flashbacks, we see at first the fairytale marriage that she and Affleck have, but then how they begin to become more and more distant, until finally she begins to fear her own husband. It is a multi-layered performance that is sure to earn her award talk.

Now as much as the film wants to front itself as a brilliant Oscar contender, there are some glaring flaws. The first act of the film, when police are collecting initial clues and samples and Affleck is doing interviews, can drag a little, as we aren’t really learning anything new or earth shattering, but still are sitting through it all. It is a little like watching a behind-the-scenes, paperwork-only edition of “Law and Order”, just with more awkward pacing. The film may also leave some viewers, including myself, craving a better delivery of the climax.

“Gone Girl” is a perfectly cast, capably directed film that just suffers from some narrative and pacing issues, as well as a possible weak finale. That being said, it is an engrossing, dark and intelligent, and may leave your brain hurting when the credits start to roll. Is “Gone Girl” as entertaining or memorable as it wants to be? No. But that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t come close.

Critics Rating: 7/10

‘Edge of Tomorrow’ Return to Form for Cruise

Edge_of_Tomorrow_PosterIf there was any doubt that Tom Cruise could still carry an action film, “Edge of Tomorrow” makes those doubts a thing of the past.

When Earth is invaded by aliens, a military officer (Cruise) finds himself repeating the same day over-and-over again every time he dies. The only person who believes him and knows how to use this as an advantage is a Special Forces solider, played by Emily Blunt. Doug Liman directs.

Tom Cruise is a movie star, and a dedicated one at that (even at age 51 he is still doing his own stunts), but he has been in some very average films the past few years (here’s looking at you, “Oblivion”). However, “Edge of Tomorrow” returns Cruise to his former glory, and does so in a very enjoyable way.

If you mix “Groundhog Day” with “Saving Private Ryan” and “Elysium”, that’s pretty much what you get with “Tomorrow”. At times the plot sags, but it never gets repetitive or boring, which is a high compliment about a movie that is essentially set in the same 24 hour period over-and-over. The film knows how to use the “live-die-repeat” premise to its advantage, and the audience gets a few chuckle moments thrown in every now and again.

As good as Cruise is, Emily Blunt holds her own, too. Walking into the film it may be hard to picture her as the deadliest killer mankind has to offer, however Blunt quickly sells you on the character, and that she isn’t to be messed with. Her and Cruise have solid chemistry, even if at times her hardened exterior may seem a bit unrealistic.

Most of the action is shot well. It is a PG-13 film, so there are obviously some shaky cam moments and some of the kills are a little too close up, but overall it is very solid direction and cinematography.

There really isn’t much “Edge of Tomorrow” does wrong. The ending may be a little cliché or blah for some people, and the alien’s invasion plot does resemble that of Hitler’s (first conquer France, then Europe, then the world), but in a world of remakes and over-the-top action films that are nothing but one-liners and explosions (*cough* Michael Bay), it is nice to watch something that is at least trying to be original.

If you can deal with the “every time the hero repeats the day he learns a little more” storyline, and especially if you enjoy the idea of Tom Cruise running around in a robot suit killing aliens that look like the robots from the Matrix, then “Edge of Tomorrow” is the film for you. If those things don’t appeal to you… then I think there’s some teenage rom-com about stars that is also playing.

Critics Rating: 7/10

‘Inside Llewyn Davis’ is Slow and Gloomy

Inside_Llewyn_Davis_Poster

There are some people in the movie industry whose films you just can never seem to like. There people like Adam Sandler who are understandably disliked because they are lazy and consistently put out subpar products. However for me, the person, or persons, whose films I can never seem to enjoy, no matter how hard I may try, are Joel and Ethan Coen. And their new film, “Inside Llewyn Davis” does not help change my opinion very much.

The film follows folk singer Llewyn Davis (Oscar Issac) and the struggles he faces as he tries to make it in 1961 New York City. Carrey Mulligan and Justin Timberlake also star. The Coens wrote the script and direct.

The movie is just about a lot of depressed, angry and/or confused people struggling to make it in the world. There is no real joy to be found, and by the end of the movie Llewyn is no better off than he was at the beginning of the film. If you are going to make a movie that follows one main character, some sort of development, characterization or at the very least resolution is expected. But instead the Coens just travel from scene to scene in an effort to include as many of their trademark abstract characters as they can.

That is one of the reasons I don’t like the Coens. With the exception of “No Country for Old Men”, every one of their movies is about characters who have these quirky or dark personalities, a lot of which are unlike any person you would find in the real world. I just have never been a fan of their awkward and dry humor.

Not everything about the movie is negative, however. The main actor, Oscar Issac, is great. He is the only reason the film is watchable, to be honest. We aren’t sure if we should be rooting for Llewyn or not, because for as sympathetic as we feel for him, we also come to realize he may have dug his hole for himself, but Issac has a sense of charisma that is just too much to overlook.

But my favorite part of the film is John Goodman. In his ten minutes of screen time he has some very funny lines of dialogue and when he showed up I thought maybe the movie would get better but nope. They just abandon him and move on with the film; literally.

The music in the movie is very good; I have to give them that credit. I’m not the biggest folk song fan in the world but my foot started tapping whenever a character would pick up a guitar and start to play. All but one of the songs was recorded and sung live (Les Mis style) and it showed; it didn’t feel forced or fake.

I really cannot recommend “Inside Llewyn Davis”. One great performance and some catchy songs were not enough to overcome a dull script and a plot that doesn’t go anywhere. The highlights of Oscar Issac’s performance will be all over the place come Oscar season and you can look up the songs on iTunes or YouTube, so there is really no reason to see the movie.

I wish the Coens had broken their form and made a coherent, enjoyable movie about music, and instead of this depressing and gloomy picture. There is the patented Coen ending that will leave you confused and rethinking the movie, but unlike their other films, you don’t care if you figure out what it all means.

Critics Rating: 5/10