![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
longer review: interstellar
Nov. 16th, 2014 02:51 pmwe know precisely why we hate it so much: we're scientists. the more science you know, the more interstellar's awful science will bother you. you don't need to have a degree to be annoyed by the movie; just a solid nodding familiarity with any of the sciences will do, it's that bad. if you know how science is done, that gets you extra-special bonus frustration. (i shudder to think of the effect this movie would have on anybody who knows how real space missions are planned.)
i'm resisting the urge to rant about the science because i don't want the stupid to spread to you. you're happier not knowing. just avoid the movie and you'll be fine.
besides the science, the plot is a wreck. it seems chris nolan not only failed to murder his darlings, he nurtured them and fed them until they grew to define the entire movie. it really seems that lots of movie was constructed -- and i use that term in the sense that small children sometimes construct ramshackle towers out of random stuff lying around -- in order to show a few darling scenes.
if that isn't the explanation, the alternatives are far, far worse. for example, nolan's production got so bloated and over budget that the studio cut him off and had somebody else assemble the shot footage into something like a movie. (see my previous review of the lone ranger.)
edit: having now checked the IMDB trivia file for the movie, it appears that steven spielberg wrote the original treatment for the movie, which had a far simpler plotline. after he left the project, nolan combined that with an idea he was already working on. so, i think part of the problem is that interstellar consists of chris nolan's ideas badly grafted onto spielberg's, with lots of scar tissue scattered throughout the result. </edit>
there was some acting. unfortunately, it was done by a couple of minor characters i'll just refer to as "the only clear-eyed guy in the universe" and "captain terrell". captain terrell was also the only character to talk coherent (and even practical!) science for any length of time.
the sound mixing is wretched. we knew it was going to be loud and brought earplugs to compensate. for the really loud parts, sound-deadening earmuffs and earplugs would have been better. worse, the music and sound-effects tracks were louder than the dialog in places, so big hunks of some scenes were entirely lost in the noise. but from the dialog we did hear, we probably didn't miss much.
some scenes were very good, though, and in places, the SF/X were as good as promised. but, um, i could watch 2001, gravity, or even europa report and get that or better.
i'm watching inception in another window to try to drown out bad chris nolan and with good chris nolan. it's not working (yet), but it beats flogging this dead turkey any longer.
i'm resisting the urge to rant about the science because i don't want the stupid to spread to you. you're happier not knowing. just avoid the movie and you'll be fine.
besides the science, the plot is a wreck. it seems chris nolan not only failed to murder his darlings, he nurtured them and fed them until they grew to define the entire movie. it really seems that lots of movie was constructed -- and i use that term in the sense that small children sometimes construct ramshackle towers out of random stuff lying around -- in order to show a few darling scenes.
if that isn't the explanation, the alternatives are far, far worse. for example, nolan's production got so bloated and over budget that the studio cut him off and had somebody else assemble the shot footage into something like a movie. (see my previous review of the lone ranger.)
edit: having now checked the IMDB trivia file for the movie, it appears that steven spielberg wrote the original treatment for the movie, which had a far simpler plotline. after he left the project, nolan combined that with an idea he was already working on. so, i think part of the problem is that interstellar consists of chris nolan's ideas badly grafted onto spielberg's, with lots of scar tissue scattered throughout the result. </edit>
there was some acting. unfortunately, it was done by a couple of minor characters i'll just refer to as "the only clear-eyed guy in the universe" and "captain terrell". captain terrell was also the only character to talk coherent (and even practical!) science for any length of time.
the sound mixing is wretched. we knew it was going to be loud and brought earplugs to compensate. for the really loud parts, sound-deadening earmuffs and earplugs would have been better. worse, the music and sound-effects tracks were louder than the dialog in places, so big hunks of some scenes were entirely lost in the noise. but from the dialog we did hear, we probably didn't miss much.
some scenes were very good, though, and in places, the SF/X were as good as promised. but, um, i could watch 2001, gravity, or even europa report and get that or better.
i'm watching inception in another window to try to drown out bad chris nolan and with good chris nolan. it's not working (yet), but it beats flogging this dead turkey any longer.