Best Picture Binge 2018

It’s a very odd thing to have a blog that you only post once a year on. This is 98% due to laziness and lack of inspiration and about 2% convincing myself that I have this neat little niche.

Nevertheless, here we are again, it’s the morning of the 90^th Oscars and I’m just getting this thing started. I watched six of the Best Picture Nominees pretty much in a row, during an actual binge over a period of a few days. That was a month or so ago. I hope I can remember enough about them to give any of you a meaningful insight to each of them.

I think 2017 was a lot like 2015 in that we may have a lot of great film in contention this season. Last year we had a few gems and even more duds, including the one that stole the award itself. This year we have two possible stories that I think are superior to Moonlight in many ways, but we’ll get to that soon enough.

Dunkirk: 9/10

Nominated for: Best Picture, Directing, Cinematography, Film Editing, Sound Editing, Sound Mixing, Production Design, Original Score

I think you will either love this movie or think it’s boring. If you’re part of the latter group, I’m truly sorry for your inability to appreciate true art.

Dunkirk should be taught to film students who are studying the importance of conveying emotion and substance without words. Christopher Nolan has woven together a three-part story that slowly comes together as the film progresses and inevitably intertwines the three main characters of the action in three different facets of the evacuation.

Dunkirk gives us a very minute glimpse at the intensity and importance of the evacuation of more than 300,000 British and French soldiers off the beaches and across the English Channel. If this operation had failed, Britain would have lost almost all of its land military power and would not have been able to fend off the German advance. While this is a relatively little known instance in World War II, it defined what Winston Churchill’s ministry would be and gave England the morale it needed to jump start fending off the Axis.

The film itself follows a young lad as he tries to successfully get off the beach and weaves his story into the story of a man and his son who set out from England as part of the civilian rescue operation. As the story of the young and the old unfold, we catch glimpses of a third player, a flyboy and his two fellow pilots who are the only hope the evacuees have regarding air support.

Fionn Whitehead, Mark Rylance and Tom Hardy are the major players here with smaller roles and appearances from Cillian Murphy and Kenneth Branagh, who steps back into the camera’s eye from being the one behind it in recent years.

While conversations take place the most between Rylance’s character and his son as well as Hardy and his wingmen, there is very little dialogue in this film as a whole. This is why Dunkirk triumphs at telling this story with just imagery and sound. Hans Zimmer strikes again as he sets the tone and adds a major character role to the film with his outstandingly anxiety-inducing and tense score. I have not seen Baby Driver or some of the other nominees for Sound Design and Mixing, but Dunkirk absolutely deserves the awards for this. The sound editing in general was incredible. This is the first Christopher Nolan film since he started putting his works in IMAX that I did not get to see in theaters. I will always regret this now. I’m kicking myself for not treating myself to this masterpiece of sound.

When I was writing my notes on these films, the only note that I wrote down for Dunkirk? “Masterpiece.” While that may be a bit of an exaggeration, the argument is there for sure. This film is a remarkable treat to both our eyes and ears.

I’ll always give movies about World War II a chance because my grandfather fought in it and it has a special place in my heart because of that. When I see it portrayed as raw and unforgiving as Dunkirk does this year and Hacksaw Ridge did last year, I’m grateful. It’s a reminder to all of us that our grandparents truly were part of the Greatest Generation for having to endure what they did.

Dunkirk is a nail-biting, intense, rollercoaster the entire way through. Even though it doesn’t seem like much is happening, Nolan has masterfully given us that sense of impending doom and hopelessness throughout the whole film.

Phantom Thread: 6.5/10

Nominated for: Best Picture, Actor in a Leading Role, Actress in a Supporting Role, Costume Design, Directing, Original Score

Right off the bat I will say that I think Daniel Day-Lewis is probably the best actor we’ve seen in a long time. Sure we have a plethora of talented people who put up marvelous performances year in and year out but no one does so like Day-Lewis.

We talk about Leonardo DiCaprio, the late Heath Ledger, Joaquin Phoenix and others being method actors to a fault at times, but we all know that the king of method is Day-Lewis. Who learns to build a log cabin, demands to be addressed as “Mr. President” on-set, becomes adept at throwing knives or learns how to make dresses, box, or function with just the use of their feet just for a role? No one but Daniel Day-Lewis, that’s who.

He doesn’t just play people on the silver screen. He BECOMES them. If you watched Lincoln, you could have sworn they somehow resurrected him to play himself. When you see the actor in interviews or accepting an award, you see this genuine, kind, amazing man who couldn’t possibly be the same guy that played Bill “The Butcher” or Daniel Plainfield right? When you talk about range as an actor, I don’t think even Tom Hanks has as much as Daniel does.

Phantom Thread is no different. He becomes and embodies this fashion designer (Reynolds Woodcock) in 1950s France so well you forget again that this guy is just playing a part.

For the second time, he has teamed up with Paul Thomas Anderson and this film, while it is no There Will Be Blood, I think it carries that signature pacing and tone from an Anderson film. Like Day-Lewis, I really have no interest in fashion design or anything like that, even as an artist, but the character is so compelling that it drives the whole film.

There are a lot of layers to this story as well. The relationship he begins and develops with Alma (Vicky Krieps) throughout the film is not unlike many other love story arcs and not even really that different from some that we’ve seen in the other nominated pictures. But there is a distinct polarizing dance of diplomacy that goes on between Alma and Reynolds that you never really know until the end how they’re going to end up or how the story is going to unfold.

Lesley Manville, who is up for a Supporting Actress nod, plays the mostly cold and stern Cylia, Reynolds sister. I do feel like if she’s getting a nomination for Supporting, then Krieps probably should’ve been nominated for a leading role performance that was good enough to play back and forth with Day-Lewis’ ferocity.

Alright, enough about the performances. This film also has a very string-heavy score, which bites you to the core at a lot of places and moments, subtly, but enough to feel the tone of the scenes they match. As per any Paul Thomas Anderson film, you’re going to get a lot of long, tracking shots and one particular one I noticed was during the opening sequence involving moving down the hall of Reynolds’ home and moving up to follow the flight of stairs. This is the kind of slow, methodically paced photography that you’re going to get out of Anderson and his DPs and it works wonders.

You may be wondering why I gave this a 6.5 with all the blabbering on I’m doing about it and it ultimately comes down to the core of why we watch movies. While this is a well-made, brilliantly acted film, I just had a hard time keeping myself interested in the subject matter. There are times of brilliance, confusion and even concern throughout that culminates in the final act, but overall, I’m wondering if this film is a nominee based on the names of Anderson and Day-Lewis alone.

If you do like fashion and your typical “artsy” period piece, then definitely check it out. I did not mind it by any means and enjoyed many aspects of it.

The Post: 6/10

Nominated for: Best Picture, Actress in a Leading Role

So, I really did enjoy this film. To an extent. I liked Hanks and some of the other ensemble members’ performances. I liked the idea of it and I feel like it is this year’s Spotlight film.

The Post chronicles the events that led up to the Watergate scandal in that it follows the then younger Washington Post in its decision to continue publishing the leaked Pentagon Papers despite the fact that the Nixon Administration had barred the New York Times from doing so under penalty of perjury and even treason.

Unfortunately, I don’t think it packed the punch that Spotlight had, even with a great cast and performances. Spielberg tried something here and it somewhat worked, but the more I think about it, the less I’m sure this one was Oscar-worthy. Maybe it’s more Hidden Figures than Spotlight where it is a good movie, but just didn’t pack that Oscar punch.

The subject matter is timely and poignant for sure, and this may be what drove Spielberg to make this one, but there always seems to be a nominee that reflects real life in the now and this is definitely one of them.

The Shape of Water: 7/10

Nominated for: Best Picture, Actress in a Leading Role, Actor in a Supporting Role, Actress in a Supporting Role, Cinematography, Costume Design, Directing, Film Editing, Original Score, Production Design, Sound Editing, Sound Mixing, Original Screenplay.

There’s always one every year. This year it’s The Shape of Water. 13 Nominations for the Guillermo del Toro signature piece. I mean, can we all agree that the Amphibian Man is probably related to the fish dude from Hellboy? I mean, come on.

Anyway, this movie made me literally type “what the fuck” in my notes as I was watching it. This isn’t always a bad thing, of course, as we have another very WTF movie in the club this year as well.

Let’s get the negatives out of the way. Octavia Spencer has really become an Oscar regular in recent years, with Hidden Figures, The Help, and now this. However, I don’t really think her character was Oscar worthy. Sure, she provided some good comedy relief and had enough screen time and even played a role in the end, but was it enough? I’m not so sure. Not when there are probably other performances that were left out from other films.

Sally Hawkins on the other hand, was superb. I spoke earlier about being able to convey emotion and tell the story without words and this definitely qualifies. Elisa is mute and lives with Giles (Richard Jenkins), a struggling painter. I really enjoyed Jenkins in this role as well. Michael Shannon I think kind of channeled his General Zod anger and doubled it for this, which was great and tragic at the same time. Here’s a God-fearing man with a typical ‘60s family at home and he’s just this incredibly vile creature. And that’s kind of the point.

This is kind of like Frankenstein where the monster wasn’t really the monster. Then you throw in a love story that kind of reminds you of the kindred connection between Anne Darrow and King Kong and then Belle and Adam in Beast mode and you’re not sure if you should be okay with this or just roll with it.

In fact, like Beauty and the Beast, where Belle is captivated by this Beast and ends up falling for him and by doing so breaks his curse, turning him back into Prince Adam we see a similar thing happen near the end of this one.

I won’t say this is not an odd movie. It definitely is and I’m still not sure what to think of it. But what you can’t argue about is the quality of the filmmaking here. Del Toro reached back to his Pan’s Labyrinth quality and brought that sound, surrealism and fantastical story and somehow made it believable as if it were practical.

I think The Shape of Water will come away with some awards tonight, but I don’t think it will be strong enough to beat some of the bigger contenders in certain categories.

Lady Bird: 6/10

Nominated for: Best Picture, Actress in a Leading Role, Actress in a Supporting Role, Directing, Original Screenplay

Lady Bird was touted as having the highest ever recorded rating on Rotten Tomatoes when it came out. That’s neat. Let me tell you right now what I think of Rotten Tomatoes. That site is just like its namesake and is ruining movies. I always tell people, even with my own reviews, do not listen to the critics and go see for yourselves and make your own judgement. Rotten Tomatoes is the Bane of Hollywood’s Existence.

This is one such case. While I think Lady Bird was a well done film, the accolades it received by sites like that basically ruin the experience. This is by no means the greatest film ever made or even close to it. But for some reason, people were making it out to seem that way. Lady Bird is simply this year’s biggest “coming of age” film. We have one almost every year. Last year it was the overhyped and overrated Moonlight. Before that it was the generically written Boyhood. This year we have this and Call Me By Your Name, which, incidentally both feature Timothee Chalamet.

So I say all that to get that out of the way. Lady Bird, unlike the other two I mentioned from previous years, is actually good, makes sense and follows a concise story that a lot of us can relate to. She’s a senior in high school and she comes from a modest family but she’s trying to get into bigger universities than her mother thinks she’s going to be able to. There’s the classic mother/daughter dynamic which Ronin and Metcalf enact wonderfully. I really think Metcalf might be able to come away with the Supporting Actress award tonight. Now sure, Boyhood was pretty straightforward, but it was no more innovative than this outside of literally taking 12 years to make.

Saoirse Ronin has become a force in Hollywood. This is her third Oscar nomination and it really should be her fourth because she was also fantastic in The Lovely Bones. I liked her performance in this one better than I did in Brooklyn. They’re not really similar films at all, but Lady Bird is a bit more relatable. I thought the film did a great job of depicting the world post-9/11 where we were still in the midst of it in the spring of 2002.

Of course, she meets a boy and falls for him and goes through that whole deal for the first time and then she has to deal with the results of that. I also think Beanie Feldstein probably deserved a nomination over say, Spencer as I mentioned before. She also did a fantastic job portraying the best friend who goes through similar changes, issues and heartache etc.

There’s not a whole lot that can be said about these movies though. We see one at least every year, just like our yearly war movies and so forth. It’s all in how they’re made though. I get what Moonlight tried to do last year. I get that people loved it and thought it was innovative. I just think it failed. Lady Bird’s sequence of events actually makes sense and the story flows much better as well. Should I even be comparing the two? Probably not, but I feel they have similar overarching goals regarding watching an adolescent grow up and try to determine who they’re going to be.

In fact, we have another one of those this year so why don’t we just hop right on over to Italy and talk about that one?

Call Me By Your Name: 5/10

Nominated for: Best Picture, Actor in a Leading Role, Original Song, Adapted Screenplay

I think many people who have read my reviews in the past or know me in person know by now that I am VERY harsh on movies. I didn’t really dislike this movie, but I really don’t see the big deal about it. I get it, it’s a love story, it’s the Forbidden Fruit story again (they even go out of their way to talk about fruit and show a close-up of Elio picking an apricot from the tree). We won’t get into what else happens with the fruit in the movie, but other than the fact that it discusses a topic that seems to turn heads and get a lot of attention in Hollywood every time (Moonlight, Brokeback Mountain etc.) I just don’t see how this movie is any different than any other love story. Is that a good thing? I’m not sure.

Timothee Chalamet and Armie Hammer are brilliant in this though. The writing was superb and the photography was incredible. Pacing, though necessarily slow really annoyed me. Nothing really happens for the first hour or so of the film. I get it. You have to build up the tension and the character arcs and so forth, but man did they just drudge along for most of it. At the same time, this is a film that is set in the summer in the 1980s in Italy and I feel like they captured the idea that there’s no real rush and that just relaxing, having fun with friends, eating outside and talking philosophy and love are just something you probably do in the middle of an Italian summer.

I don’t really have a whole lot else to say about this, even though I just watched it. The sound editing was also very well done as well. The cinematographer really used the sun a lot to frame shots and the movie as a whole was very bright. Of course, this is on purpose and I thought it kind of wrote the signature look of the film throughout.

By no means should you skip this one, especially if you like this type of film, which is a little more on the independent and artsy side. If you can’t handle long movies that take a while to develop though, you might have a bad time. I will say though, that the talk at the end of the movie between Elio and his father is just spectacular writing and really did a great job wrapping up the end of the film.

Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri: 7.5/10

Nominated for: Best Picture, Actress in a Leading Role, Actor in a Supporting Role, Actor in a Supporting Role, Film Editing, Original Score, Original Screenplay

This movie is just weird. I enjoyed it a lot and this is mostly due to the performances. There’s a reason there are three acting nominations for this thing.

McDormand’s intensity never stops throughout this whole film. Harrelson plays the role of the guy who is just stuck in the middle of the whole thing so well. Meanwhile, there’s Sam Rockwell. Holy Hell did Rockwell crush this thing. His character is such an arrogant, ignorant ass and he plays him perfectly.

Mildred’s daughter is brutally murdered and the local police didn’t do enough to find her killer in Mildred’s eyes. So she takes out advertising space on three old, unused billboards to pose a pointed question toward Harrelson’s character specifically. Calling out the police for not doing enough apparently doesn’t go over to well with them or some of the town folk and Mildred starts taking heat. Her son, played by the up and coming Luke Hedges (also in Lady Bird and last year’s Manchester By The Sea) also has do deal with the aftermath, as he starts having a rough time at school.

Rockwell’s character apparently caused the film a lot of backlash, but guess what? This is a movie with fictional characters in it that are supposed to emulate real people. There are bad and ignorant people in the world. Rockwell is simply playing a character…in this case, he does a superb job and I might be surprised if he doesn’t take home the Oscar for it tonight.

I don’t know what else to say about this thing other than probably give it a shot if you like that Coen Brothers style. They didn’t do this one, but it definitely feels like them.

Get Out: 8.5/10

Nominated for: Best Picture, Actor in a Leading Role, Directing, Original Screenplay

I’m so mad that I waited so long to watch this one. This was so well done. Coming from Jordan Peele, this is nothing you would expect at all. We’re used to the hilarious Key and Peele skits, or the ridiculous story about a cat etc. Then we get punched right in the face with Get Out. What!?

It’s a very Stir of Echoes vibe, with the whole hypnosis idea, and the thriller/suspense/horror aspect of it all. What makes Get Out so unique though is that while it kind of paints itself as a commentary on modern racism (especially the subtle kind where people might be in denial about it) it’s really not about racism at all. At least to me, it was a sub-plot at the very least.

I think Get Out is more about facing your personal demons and dealing with them in your own way. Feeling trapped inside yourself and not being able to scream for help or even know who to trust or who to turn to.

Chris (Daniel Kaluuya) and Rose (Allison Williams) have been dating for a few months and it’s time to meet the parents. Chris is naturally uneasy about this as Rose has yet to mention to her parents that she’s dating a black guy.

Immediately things seem a little off as they arrive and Chris notices that her parents have a black groundskeeper and housekeeper. Now, this might not seem like a big deal, rich people hire help all the time even these days. But the vibes and mannerisms that Chris gets from the two are unsettling at best.

It becomes clear very quickly that these two have been hypnotized and may not be there willingly. From the trailer we know that the film is kind of about hypnotism but it doesn’t give us much else outside of that. Rose’s mother (Catherine Keener) is a hypnotherapist and her father (Bradley Whitford) is a neurosurgeon. So it’s easy to see why they have a large estate and home. What you don’t really realize right away is that it quite literally is a plantation style home and property.

Jordan Peele has carefully crafted these subtle things into the story as they play out, and like Keener’s character, hypnotizes us into going along with it like nothing is amiss.

The reason I say that it’s not so much about racism as it is about personal demons and shortcomings is because there are a few points throughout the film where it is suggested that the type of person is more important than the color of their skin and without going into too much detail and spoiling things, that’s all I can really say.

Regardless though, this one played out so much differently than I was expecting and I was pleasantly surprised and left feeling like Chris in the end. Betrayed, mishandled and relieved.

I think Peele has a real shot at picking up some of the bigger awards for this one and I wouldn’t be opposed to that at all.

Darkest Hour: 9/10

Nominated for: Best Picture, Actor in a Leading Role, Cinematography, Costume Design, Makeup and Hairstyling, Production Design

We began with my favorite film out of the nine, so it’s only fitting that we end with my second favorite. Although after having seen Get Out yesterday, it’s kind of a close race.

Darkest Hour actually plays right alongside Dunkirk, albeit unknowingly and by accident. It tells the story of the events leading up to the Dunkirk evacuation and how Winston Churchill handled the whole situation after he was elected Prime Minister. He had a lot of opponents right away and even throughout his ministry, and definitely after the war, but no one can say that he didn’t handle the war brilliantly. The Dunkirk evacuation helped solidify him as a force to be reckoned with among the Allied leaders.

Gary Oldman is absolutely brilliant here. If he doesn’t win Best Actor I might throw a soft object at my television. There were times where I could just glimpse Gary inside the makeup and suit, but did he ever play this role to the bone. He simply was Winston Churchill in much the same way that Daniel Day-Lewis was Abraham Lincoln.

Oldman’s performance is what the Oscars is all about, which is celebrating the very best of the best. Well, at least it should be. We all know it’s more of a popularity contest much like the Pro Bowl, but that’s for another time.

Ben Mendelsohn is also very good as King George VI, even down to the speech impediment that he always struggled with.

The cinematography was another thing that stood out to me and I enjoyed it so much. Bruno Delbonnel has a knack for long and steady tracking shots as well and they work so well throughout this film. The score is equally moving and flows well with the direction this story weaves.

After having watched and enjoyed Dunkirk, I was ecstatic that Darkest Hour accidentally ended up as a sort of companion piece by telling the other side of the story from the top down rather than from the bottom.

If you are a fan of period pieces, war movies or biopics, then Darkest Hour is perfect for you.
Overall I think we have a better class of BPNs than we did last year and I don’t think there’s any one film that I would be completely upset about winning over another.

I hope you all have your Oscar brackets filled out, so to speak because tonight is the big night and I’m ready to see some self-patting on the back, jokes about Matt Damon and a whole slew of politically charged speeches and comments as are par for the course these days for the Oscars.

Interstellar

Alright, alright, alright.

 

I have been waiting to see this film since I first heard of its announcement and saw the teaser posters.  I think it ought to be noted that over recent years and due to his fantastic care taking of my most favorite comic book hero, Christopher Nolan has emerged as one of my favorite directors.  In between filming The Dark Knight trilogy, Nolan also put out two other wonderful pieces of film in The Prestige and Inception. Both of those films were fantastic on their own and somehow Nolan found the time to string together five movies that helped raise the bar in Hollywood over a short period of time.

Now, enter Interstellar.  The story is quite simple really.  It’s not even a newcomer to the silver screen.  The film is set in a future that could be not too distant, or maybe even 100 years from now, but the idea is that mankind has used up the Earth’s resources, or at least some of them.  It is implied that there is very little rain or water available to water crops, which are being killed off in droves by some blight or other.  The only thing mankind has left seems to be corn, but the clock is ticking there too.  Essentially, we’re starving, and we’re suffocating and although slowly for now, the end is near and time is running out.

Throughout much of the first act of this film, the relationship between Cooper (Matthew McConaughey) and his ten-year old daughter, Murphy is much of the focus.  Here is a small hint at what is to come.  Murphy is played by Mackenzie Foy, Jessica Chastain and Ellen Burstyn.  Cooper also has an older son played by Timothee Chalamet and Casey Affleck.  It is implied but never really explained that the mother/wife figure has passed away sometime earlier. We’ve seen that plot device before, but we can deal with it here. Her role is filled in by John Lithgow, who portrays her father and he lives with them in their beat up, dusty farmhouse.

In another career, in a different time, Cooper had been a brilliant engineer and pilot who worked for NASA, but due to the changing state of the world, he becomes a corn farmer like everyone else.  Murphy (or Murph, as she is affectionately called) still has some of her father’s appetite for exploration within her and at the same time, feels that she has been continuously visited by some unseen “ghost” or paranormal activity.  A small discussion over breakfast revolves around said “ghost” and its likelihood of existence and Murph is told to weigh the evidence against science and come up with an educated reason behind why random books keep falling out of her bookshelf.  It is this continuous occurrence coupled with a gigantic dust storm that propels Cooper into finally listening and investigating his daughter’s “ghost.”

What they find is a journey that leads them to a military installation in the mountains that Nolan wastes no time in identifying as what is left of NASA, or at least a re-invention of it.  It is led by Professor Brand (Michael Caine), a group of similarly brilliant minds and his daughter, Amelia (Anne Hathaway).  At this point we also get introduced to another amazing advancement in technology in the first appearance of a handful of differently functioning artificial intelligence entities that look like next generation automatic teller machines that are mobile and vocal.  Two such entities are simply known as T.A.R.S. and C.A.S.E.  They will later become very valuable shipmates and travel companions.

Professor Brand wastes little time in attempting to convince Cooper to captain their upcoming mission.  It is heavily implied that the two gentlemen have a past.  I’m guessing Brand was one of Cooper’s professors while he was in college, or maybe they worked at NASA together before.  We really don’t need to know that, I suppose, but it is a nice little addition to the character development that the brothers Nolan did such a wonderful job at developing throughout this film.

I think the character development is one of the main reasons this film is so powerful.  There is little time wasted before one begins to feel affection toward everyone in the movie and the seed of hope is planted early, perhaps nestled in between the stalks of corn that are struggling to survive the constant barrage of dust.  Watching this film as a father was especially difficult because I felt like I was the one leaving my children to go on this timeless, endless journey and no one in the film or watching it has any idea whether success will come.  It is with that heavy notion that Cooper and his crew (including Amelia Brand) blast off in search of a new home for all of us.

Once the crew is in space, and on their way to Saturn, which is where they hope to find a wormhole that mysteriously appeared there approximately 50 years prior.  Throughout much of the interactions between Cooper and the Brands and the others at NASA, it is learned that they have already sent several astronauts on loner missions through the wormhole to attempt to find a new home for humanity.  They have received promising data transmissions back from a few of the astronauts on a few of the worlds and so, they set off to investigate.

Now, I must say, if by this point in the film you have not noticed the beautiful cinematography captured by Hoyte Van Hoytema, then you have missed a lot of the feeling behind this film.  Hoytema has excelled before in the photography in Her (which I really would like to review also, but have not found the time to do it justice) and The Fighter.  Here, in another one of Nolan’s universes (surprisingly not shot by Wally Pfister this time), Hoytema captures the desolation and desperation of those left on Earth with the warm, monotone sepia filters.  The basic idea:  there is a LOT of dirt and dust and very little green left.  There is wonderful juxtaposition between the scenes shot on Earth and those shot in space or on the other worlds.  On one world the warm filters continue, but this time in a blue monochrome because the entire surface is water and as much as I would like to talk about the events that occur there, I will leave that spoiler out.  The next planet, where a great deal of the next act of the story resides is more monotony but this time we’re greeted with bright whites and grays because most of the world is ice and snow and not much else.  This is the world that they think may have the most promise.  This is also the first world where we encounter one of the astronauts sent before our crew.

Matt Damon!  It’s Matt Damon who plays Doctor Mann, one of their more brilliant scientists or “the best of us all” according to Amelia Brand.  The next few scenes and sequences are some heavy stuff and you will really want to pay attention to what is happening, what is being discussed and what some possible underlying symbolism might be.  Before too long, it might be understood that Dr. Mann literally symbolizes man as a whole.  The best evidence for this theory is that of Mann’s actions while they are on this giant ball of ice.  Since there are many plot advancements that occur with Dr. Mann’s character, I won’t say much, but I really hope that audiences will get the message.  The struggle of man, the always-present desire to survive and succeed and explore and continue on as a species and as individuals.  This is where some of the strong character development from earlier really starts to come out and shine.  Cooper’s desire to get back home to Murph is palpable.  So much so that you can feel it as you watch the film progress.  In the dialogue, in the actions of his character, in the visuals and in the music, you can feel how strongly Cooper wants to succeed on this mission.

I will always say that a movie is made or broken on the merits of the music that accompanies it.  Interstellar is a perfect example.  I have read that there were many audience complaints about how the music, most notably the pipe organ tended to drown out dialogue and other sounds throughout the movie.  I did not find this to be a problem.  While that is true, I feel like without the way they handled the score, without the overbearing pipe organ, we as an audience would miss out on much of the emotion and tone that the characters were going through.  Think about how quiet and soundless it must be while you’re floating through space.  Think about how loud the thoughts in your head have to seem in that environment.  This is what the score does.  It brings out the turmoil and the love and the strife and any other emotion our characters might be feeling in a given scene and Zimmer and Nolan have pieced it together well.   When the music gets so loud and almost unbearable, perhaps at that moment, if you were in their shoes in space, your own thoughts or situation might seem unbearable, inescapable or too strong to focus and survive.

I haven’t written this extensive a review in some time, and perhaps I dwelt a little much on the plot near the beginning but I think this film is worth it.  There are  so many aspects to this film that could fill pages of discussion and I have skipped over some.  I forgot to mention how awestruck and giddy and overwhelmed I felt when Saturn appeared on the five-story IMAX screen.  My favorite planet.  There he was in all of his glory.  I know it was CGI, but it seemed like I was watching images sent straight back in high-definition from Cassini.  The browns and the blacks and the muddy gaseous face of Saturn and the shadows and the rings…breathtaking.  As if that weren’t cool enough, later when we first see the stellar mass black hole that the main  three planets they choose to explore orbit around…just wow.  It’s not much, as far as visual effects difficulty goes, but it just looks so cool and so ominous and frightening.  Just this giant blackness with small flickers of light glowing around its edges and also creating a kind of Saturn-like look.  That could not have been accidental given the significance of Saturn and the worm hole just outside its orbit that leads to the galaxy where this black hole resides.

I have said a lot of things about this film and yet I know I have left so much out.  I know this film won’t be for everyone, and I know there’s already a critical divide among critics and audiences, but if you really like space and Nolan’s films and movies that make you think, then this one will be wonderful.  For those of you that really enjoyed Danny Boyle’s Sunshine, this movie is very similar in tone and photography and pace, but I think this movie is exactly what Sunshine was attempting to do but failed at the end (hint, I did not like said movie due to most of the second act and its ending).  For those of you that are really into the science behind film or things in general, I believe this film did its homework, and Nolan and company really tried hard to do their due diligence in at least making a plausible story that involves Einstein’s Theory of Relativity.  Not only does it include said theory, but I think it does a great job of explaining it and showing its key points first hand regarding black holes and time dilation and the bending of space.  There are so many layers to this film because of these aspects.  I won’t even discuss the final act of the film, but does it ever provide a really awesome scenario for what black holes COULD possibly have in store for us if we every do end up figuring them out.

If you love good storytelling, great character development, cinematography, scoring and directing, please check out Interstellar.  If you are a space and science buff, go check it out and weigh it against what you know.  Obviously it’s a work of fiction, and takes those liberties, but you may be surprised.  As I’m closing up this review, I’m sitting here listening to Hans Zimmer’s brilliantly heavy and ominous score for the film and I find myself wanting to watch it again, or wanting to drag my telescope out and look up into the stars (if it weren’t so bloody cold outside).  I think I appreciate this film because I appreciate that Nolan told a very real and raw story, kept it human and focused and didn’t need a bunch of action or explosions or aliens to carry out the weight and the gravity of the film.  With that, I leave you with a final clue as to what else becomes a large part of the focus of the film.

 

Go bloody see Interstellar!