Interstellar

[Vraith]

I was thinking I might see this [even though Matthew McConaughey...not really a fan, though some stuff has been good work] cuz of the buzz on the tech-work going into it.
Then a reviewer said about it that it wasn't really a story it was
"three hours of exposition, and it went science, science, science, science, MAGIC!"
Which cracked me up. I might still go...just won't make it my first/next choice.
Anyone planning to see? Seen? feel free to recommend [or not] if you do.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

How can you not.

(<---------- Nolan fanboy)

[Zarathustra]

What's wrong with science, science, science ... MAGIC? Didn't Arthur C. Clarke have something to say along those lines?

I agree with Doc. Anything Nolan does, I'm watching. Hell of a lot better than the formulaic Hollywood crap we usually get.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

This might also be the one that I take the trouble to see on IMAX.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

This article is too good not to link here.

www.theguardian.com/film/2014/nov/04/-s ... lockbuster

[Vraith]

What's wrong with science, science, science ... MAGIC?

Well, it kinda depends. The implication [by the reviewer] was that the end violated the integrity/consistency of the story itself.

But Nolan is a bonus, no doubt. I think I've seen all his films except "Inception."...which I skipped cuz of Leonardo. He just makes me twitch in bad ways. Some actors just bug me, no matter what...and some I like no matter what. Leo is the former...and Matt. M. verges on it.

That is a good article Hex.

Y'all might have changed my mind right quick.
edited to fix coloring.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

Inception. I can't recommend it highly enough, if you can get past the DiCaprio thing. I think he works pretty well in the movie, but I can see how he can be an irritant at times. But I can't lie, I'm a fan. To me his movies are pretty bankable.

[dlbpharmd]

Interstellar is good, but it isn't great.

For one, the soundtrack is horrible. The music is so loud at times that we couldn't hear entire sentences. My wife and I agree that we want to re-watch the movie with subtitles.

Anyone even remotely familiar with physics and astronomy will call bullshit several times throughout the movie.

My dislike of Anna Hathaway and opinion of her overrated talent is reaffirmed.

McConaughey is miscast. He's best in True Detective, but he can't pull this role off.

[Zarathustra]

I read about bad sound, too. I have tinnitus. Bad soundtracks are the bane of my existence. Loud noises I can handle, since I take ear plugs with me to loud events. But if the clarity isn't there, it's miserable. [One of the reasons I'm such a stickler for high resolution sound.]

[I'm Murrin]

I really very much enjoyed this film. Yes, it's a complete work of fantasy, and not real science. I liked it anyway.

On the sound, it was very loud, and the music felt in the way sometimes. There was one line of dialogue I missed over the noise. It was pretty effective in other places though - it hit you with the bass hard during some scenes so you actually felt the turbulence on the lander.

[Morning]

10/10 for giving me kid-at-the-movies stack overflow. And DiCaprio redeemed himself long ago in Blood Diamond.

[Vraith]

And DiCaprio redeemed himself long ago in Blood Diamond.

That may well be.
And snails may really be a subtle and glorious food equivalent to Manna from Heaven with a glass of Ambrosia.
But I find them gross...so gross that everything else near them is rendered inedible by their presence.
He's my anti-Eastwood. Even though Clint [as he said about himself] only has two deliveries [[I try the first, if doesn't work, I use the other one]] I can watch him in anything.

Peeps may have persuaded me pretty easily to give Interstellar a chance...
I'm not sure anything [except maybe co-starring with Daniel Day Lewis] could convince me to watch L Di-C.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

So I take it you haven't seen Wolf of Wall Street either? Dear-oh-dear, what are we going to do with you, Vraith?

I make no bones about it: Inception and WoWS are two of the best movies of the past decade. In the opinion of your humble narrator.

[Zarathustra]

Wolf of Wall Street was good. I wouldn't call it one of the best of the decade, but damn good. I have no idea why people don't like DiCaprio. I haven't seen him give a bad performance.

Inception was one of the most original ideas I've ever seen put on screen. I think it has its flaws as a story, being a bit gimmicky. But very ambitious and creative. It's right up there with the first Matrix in terms of concept (though Matrix tops it in terms of story, character, and sheer style). Inception is far better than the next two Matrix movies, but reminds me of them in terms of collapsing of its own weight. But that's what happens sometimes when you try something really Big.

[Vraith]

Dear-oh-dear, what are we going to do with you, Vraith?

I guess just make me wait till there's a re-boot with someone else playing the part?
I think I saw everything he was in [but not because of him] up to and including "Gangs of New York."
Z said never saw him give a bad performance? I never saw one that didn't make me wish someone, ANYONE else was on the screen.
Objectively I think he is [was, I guess, since it's been a while, he may have acquired skills] a meh or worse actor. In addition, as a matter of taste, I can't take him.

[Zarathustra]

Looks like Doc deleted his post where he talks about Inception and asks if I ever did a review of it. Perhaps he found the original thread and saw our debates, maybe even reading through it, as I've just done (okay, I mainly read my own posts). I never did a review of it. But here's where I ended up, taken from a couple different posts:

It's more an idea than a story. Sure, there's a con/heist plot. But the characters are hardly more than their functions in the plot. Cobb is the only character that has a story, but unfortunately his story suffers the full burden of the plot's ambiguity. The relevance of him finding his kids depends entirely upon whether it was real--hence the significance and emotional payoff of his resolution is blurred by the very aspects which make the movie "intelligent."

It's the exact opposite of, for instance, Truman Show, where his entire character arc is resolved by ending the ambiguity of his existence, and making his life *more* real. That's not to say that you can't have a good character resolution with some ambiguity remaining ... the obvious example here being the Chronicles. But the ambiguity doesn't matter in Covenant's case because the things that really matter to him transcend the question of whether or not the Land is real. Cobb's kids don't transcend that question. It absolutely matters whether or not they are figments of his imagination, because if they are, presumably there are real children on the outside who don't have their father. This is one instance where the truth absolutely matters. But Nolan ignores that for an intellectual point.

I've come to doubt my own reasons for thinking it was all definitely a dream. But I think the ambiguity is still there. And if you view Cobb's problem as the opposite of Mal's, it's still quite an interesting interpretation and not merely watching someone jerk off. For instance, if her problem was that she couldn't accept reality as real, his problem could be viewed as the opposite case of not being able to accept a dream as fake. They are two sides of the same coin, two kinds of inauthenticity, two ends on the same spectrum of mind/reality. This spectrum contains all that is problematic with our own experience with reality--the apparent reality of dreams and the fallibility of our senses. Both are forms of evidence from either side of mind/reality divide that points out problems with naive realism (i.e. our typical way of viewing our existence in the world).

Reducing the movie--or our ontology--to either position is problematic.

Some of the points have to be read in context of the thread, since they were direct responses to things others had said (e.g. the "jerking off" comment).

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

Yep, I deleted it. You guys went way deeper than I ever have with it. It has been discussed exhaustively elsewhere.

[peter]

I asked a guy in the shop whose opinion I quite respect to give me his lowdown on the film so I could decide whether to spring the 'big screen' ticket price, or if I could reasonably [as a film buff] wait untill it came out on DVD. He came in today and said "I absolutely loved that film, I loved it!"
"Thats pretty good," I thought, and then he finished, "But my friends all hated it."

[Rod]

Wow!

Warner Bros. and Paramount.
(I'm sure that's the first time I've seen that)
With Legendary and Syncopy.

What's not to like.

[Cail]

Saw it on an IMAX screen last night. Like all of Nolan's films, it's a big-screen spectacle, but boy is it an empty vessel.

It's a rather flagrant melding of Solaris and 2001, but it lacks the intelligence or cohesiveness of either. This is typical of Nolan's films, as he thinks he's a lot smarter (or more clever if you prefer) than he actually is.