Change Your Image
beeblebrocs
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Interstellar (2014)
Better than the IMDb ratings suggest
No, this is not a paid review and no, I didn't give it a 10 just to offset the know-nothing 1 star reviewers.
Many have written why this movie merits its rating. This is a majestic, epic story that literally transcends space and time. It is not without some minor flaws however.
That said, this is an SF film barely equaled in the genre. Some might compare this to "2001: A Space Odyssey" and Nolan certainly pays homage to that film. Interestingly, "Interstellar" is better than 2001 in several important ways. It has better acting, score, characters, and is simply more plausible. Plus, you don't have to be on LSD to appreciate the final act. Still, 2001 has that serious, speculative science fiction vibe and was ground-breaking in numerous ways in 1968.
Interstellar, like 2001, is a 3 act play. But where Kubrick's opening was plodding and it's last act was eye candy, Nolan's sticks with a quality storyline throughout. He does a nice job of framing the characters in a purposefully easy-going opening act. He hints at a looming apocalypse without venturing into alarmist global warming scenarios. This was refreshing.
As the story progresses, Cooper and his daughter Murph take a day-long drive to the mountains to pursue a mystery. Regarding this, Nolan is unfairly criticized as having placed NASA's compound conveniently close to Cooper's farm. But is it really? Cooper drives all day and into the night (800+ miles) which could easily take him from central Iowa to Colorado Springs. Reviewers need to grab a map.
The major complaint of the next two acts of the film is that there is too much "technobabble". These are the complaints of people who prefer dumbed-down space operas where there is no plausible way to explain what "science" would be involved to produce what we are seeing on screen. In "Guardians of the Galaxy" for example, is there any effort to explain how the tech works? No. It's completely implausible. And yet GotG rates an eyebrow raising 8.4 despite its ridiculous plot-line, dumb protagonist, and a hackneyed Farscape ripoff sensibility. It's fun but far inferior to better, but lower rated SF films.
In "Interstellar", the science is far from technobabble. Are the theories of physicist, Kip Thorne fictional? The fact that some movie-goers think so is kind of sad.
The film is also unfairly criticized for its presentation of anachronistic tech. People drive GM pickups for years while there apparently is an advanced space station in orbit, complete with AI robots. To this I simply state that a.) even today we have no idea of how advanced secret government tech may be and b.) we still see 1970 Volvos today don't we? In any case, I doubt this was an oversight on Nolan's part. Indeed, I think he is making a point that no new tech is being produced for the masses and that NASA has had to secretly spend $$ for years without Americans knowing about it.
As the story speeds up and events start to spiral out of control, our one living NASA test pilot is thrown into a situation that he and his crew never planned for. By the third act, the film has moved from easy character development to intrigue, action, suspense, and a magnificent Hans Zimmer soundtrack.
And let me say that although I preferred Zimmer's work in Nolan's instant classic, "Inception", this is still an awe-inspiring score and I appreciated it more on the second viewing of the film. It is subtle yet profound. While the use of low brass in the Inception score was genius, the use of pipe organ in Interstellar is likewise a brilliant use of a rarely heard soundtrack instrument.
Finally, I have to outright condemn the critics who have given this film 1 star. Such a rating is simply ludicrous for a host of reasons. I don't care if you think the film didn't hit the mark, or you thought is was too long, or boring, had too much "technobabble", or that Michael Caine was too old. These are petty criticisms and sure, knock off a point for a few of these.
Heck, I walked out of PotC: Dead Man's Chest, But I still gave it 5 stars. Why? Because it was a well edited, nice looking action piece that half-way achieved its goals. It's not like Pirates 2 was "Santa Claus Conquers the Martians" (IMDb rating 2.5) or the horrible "Gigli" (IMDb rating 2.3). No, it was better than either of those and better than probably 75% of all movies made. I still disliked it and marvel over those who gave it a 10 out of 10. So I gave it an honest 5.
Yet apparently, many people claim that Nolan's Interstellar is worse than even "Superbabies: Baby Geniuses 2" (IMDb rating 1.9!) Are you kidding me? There is no way that Interstellar rates below these films. I would suggest that even a person who hated this movie should appreciate the quality of direction, acting, and filmmaking.
This film may not be everyone's cup of tea but to get on IMDb and say, "I thought it was okay and would have given it a 5 or 6 but I wanted to offset all the 10 ratings so I gave it a 1", is an example of how dishonest people can be.
A movie that transcends your typical Hollywood syfy tripe, with an amazing score, phenomenal cinematography, great acting, and underpinned with well-researched science, is NOT a 1 star movie, no matter how bored you were by it.
SF story lovers should applaud any studio that risks funding and producing truly speculative science fiction. Childish ratings, especially by people who think Star Trek The Motion Picture is the pinnacle of science fiction or think "Lord of the Rings: FOTR" is a 1 star film, is laughable.
The Escape Artist (2013)
Stylish, well acted nonsense
I would not say this mini-series is awful. However, this is one of those "missed opportunities" that makes us sad because it could have been more.
There is no excuse for the lazy writing displayed in The Escape Artist. Others in this review thread have covered a lot of the problems with this screenplay but here are the ones that bugged me the most:
+++++SERIOUS SPOILERS BELOW +++++
First we have the script outline (the "high concept"):
1.) Legal Beagle gets an obvious murderer off on a technicality.
2.) Murderer kills wife of legal beagle.
3.) Murderer is tried and gets away scott-free, again through a technicality.
4.) Murderer is himself murdered.
5.) Legal beagle is arrested and tried for that murder.
6.) Legal beagle also gets off on a technicality.
7.) A character finally lays out how the legal beagle MAY have committed his "perfect crime".
This "high concept" has it's own problems but a skilled writer should be able to make these 7 points work right?
Wrong.
The set-up: The protagonist "legal beagle" (played by Tennant) gets an obvious murderer off on a technicality. I don't know enough about the English legal system to understand why this doesn't just result in a mistrial but I'm generous so I'll buy it.
Now the problems with the screenplay come fast and furious. The motive for the next murder is laughable. Yet for the story to unfold, a motive is certainly needed. Unfortunately the writer (David Wolstencroft) doesn't have an idea about how to make it believable so he takes the lazy way out.
Issue 1. Why does the psychopathic murderer kill the legal beagle's wife? This point is not part of the high concept so rather than come up with a plausible motive (and I can think of several that he could have used), Wolstencroft employs the ham-fisted "not shaking hands with the man who got him off" as the motive and leaves it at that. ("Hey, he's a psychopath so who knows what would motivate him?").
So the viewer is left to assume that he would commit this second murder for no real reason whatsoever. The psychopath also has to assume that his only way of getting away with this second murder is to HOPE that another grievous error will be made by the system.
Sure enough, Wolstencroft provides us with this grievous error (a storage unit is searched for a key bit of evidence without a warrant) and this error gets the murderer off on a technicality once again.
Point 2. Moving to the end, Wolstencroft's climactic expository scene where the competing defense attorney (Sophie Okonedo) confronts the legal beagle with her speculation of how he committed his perfect murder of the psychopath is completely implausible. Not what she lays out, but that she knows any of it in the first place.
Let's be honest here; Okonedo's character would have ZERO way of knowing anything about the murder of the psychopath except - wait for it - for a chance encounter she had earlier in the story where she shows up at the tail end of a meeting between the legal beagle and a local underworld "operator". This underworld operator evidently can provide background medical information on the psychopath - information that the legal beagle ostensibly uses to kill him later in the story.
Here's the problem... The legal beagle meets with this underworld operator at night on a deserted street nowhere close to where Okenedo's character would ever go at that time of night. Yet incredibly, just as this meeting finishes she just happens to walk up to the duo as they are finishing up their mysterious conversation.
THE SAME FREAKIN' MOMENT!!
For the viewer's benefit, she makes a point of mentioning that she recognizes this underworld dude so we have to assume that this bit of dialog is there for an important reason (otherwise, why shoe-horn this implausible situation into the story?)
Wolstencroft needs to have someone (in this case, Okonedo's competing attorney character) speak key expository dialog later but realizes that this dialog can't be spoken without a catalyzing scene earlier in the story.
Someone had to have asked Wolstencroft after they read the script, "wait a second, how does the competing attorney come to suspect the legal beagle in the first place in order for her to layout the exact method he used to kill his wife's murderer?"
Wolstencroft's answer: "You're right, that makes no sense
wait, I've got it! What if she just happens to walk in on a key meeting between the legal beagle and his conspirator planning the murder? That would explain it right?"
So of course, the climax of the story hinges on this chance meeting that would never have happened had the writer had any wits about him. This kind of maddening writing permeates this script. A script that could have been smart but ended up being the opposite.
Final thought. The screenplay is about how the guilty can get away with murder through technicalities. So why not make the psychopath's motive for his murders that he knows enough about the legal system to escape prosecution by gaming it? But this is never explored. So the psychopath is just lucky that the system was incompetent twice in a row rather than pursuing the angle that a serial murderer could pervert the system if he was smart enough to do so. Wolstencroft completely misses this story element - to the viewer's frustration.
I still recommend The Escape Artist for David Tennant fans as he is great as always.