Review: Interstellar

     Here's a funny anecdote from my film-going experience. When I was waiting in line for this film, with my popcorn, and my nuggets.I was about to take out my ticket, to show to get in. However, I found that I didn't have it on me! I was completely stressed that they may not let me in. Luckily, the couple for me vouched that I had been there the entire time, and I was able to get in. My faith in humanity has been restored. And that's really it for the introduction. Okay, let... Alright fine, I'll give you more. Science fiction is my favorite genre, and recently, it has been growing in popularity. Superhero films are being churned out on a regular basis, and films like Avatar, and (much to my dismay) the Transformers films have grossed millions of dollar. However, with the new fame, comes the inevitable realization that perhaps a genre has become overwrought with cliches, and perhaps, it has become too oversaturated in the media. So, when Interstellar was announced, I was really excited. Sure, I'm not a Nolan fan, but I saw as a sort of a 2001 for the modern era. When 2001 came in 1968, science fiction films were largely crude productions, known for their absurdity. 2001, a film which deployed subtlety and imagery, helped influence science fiction pictures which are generally considered better. Now, as science fiction is going through a similar phase (albeit with science fiction becoming little more than "Fast and Furious" style masculine pandering), Interstellar, I assume, would be a return to cerebral, intelligent science fiction. And it is a story promoting Space exploration, which has gone stagnant over the past few years, particularly in the US. Here was a film telling us to explore and seek, which would help the people on Earth. I was very hyped. Then the reviews came in, and said that the film was visually impressive, but lackluster in narrative. And when I saw it, the movie sort of fit that mold, and kinda didn't... Full disclosure, I liked the picture. I didn't love it. I wasn't disappointed with this film the same as Gone Girl, but I didn't get the film I was hoping for several months ago.
     The story is set in the not-too distant future. Cooper (I don't think he was given a first name)(Matthew McConaughy) is a former astronaut test pilot turned farmer living in rural America. The world has been rocked for many years by ecological disaster, which has caused crops to slowly die out, adding to the fact that the large population simply cannot be fed . Cooper lives with his father Donald (John Lithgow, of all people), and his children Tom and Murph. Murph reports having a ghost in her room. After initially dismissing it, Cooper finds that this supposed ghost is actually a gravitational anomaly, which is stating a set of coordinates in binary. The coordinates send him to a secret instellation, which is the remnants of NASA, now forced underground to undertake a secret mission. A wormhole had been discovered near Saturn, leading into another galaxy and several team were sent into it to find habitable worlds (why they didn't send robots first to investigate first is not answered). Some of the teams were to send signals indicating if the planet was habitable. Then, two courses of action were taken. Either they begin colonization with the humans on Earth, or they send in eggs to be fertilized. Professor Brand (Michael Caine) an old teacher of Cooper, encourages Cooper to take up the mission. Cooper reluctantly accepts, forcing him to leave behind his children. Murph, in particular, is great dismayed by this.  Cooper and his crew, including Brand's daughter, Amelia Brand( Anne Hathaway) , launch, and after two years in cryogenic sleep, arrive in Saturn orbit (sound familiar?). The wormhole takes them to several planets orbiting a massive black hole, where the three remaining signals are coming from. After the first signals turns up a dead signal on a water world, Cooper and Brand return to find that, due to the time dilation on the planet, coming from it orbiting a black hole, 23 years have passed on Earth. In those years, Murph (Jessica Chastain) is now a NASA scientist working with the dying Brand on a gravitational equation that would get the entire population off Planet. However, Brand reveals on his deathbed, that his equation revealed that there needed to be the singularity of a black hole to solve it. This meant that he abandoned getting humans off the dying Earth, and was hoping to use the embryos to save humanity. With this knowledge, Cooper and Amelia must find a new home, before they run of time (literally), whilst Murph continues to work on Brand's equation. However, soon, things get complicated.
        There is a lot of very good things in the film. The special effects are magnificent, the best I have seen all year (including Planet of the Apes). The worlds they create just pop into life, and are just so extensive. The black hole they explore is simply gorgeous to look at. Similarly, the world-building is great. The way that they establish that exploration is discouraged by teaching the Apollo hoax was interesting, as was the Dust Bowl-inspired setting. The worlds that they explore are also very interesting. Additionally, as an aficionado of hard science fiction, the technical and scientific jargon was a treat, and gave the world more depth. I particularly liked how, in the scenes actually in space, there is no sound. The acting is good (surprising for a Nolan picture), as is the score by Hans Zimmer. All these elements allow for a good first hour, and a solid last 30 minutes.
         You know, if I wanted to watch 2001, I have it on DVD. I would watch it, if I wanted to. I say this because many of the elements in this film are taken from 2001. From the scenes on the ship, to the views of Space, to the wormhole and black hole sequences (Star-Child, anyone?). Seriously, when the ship is leaving Earth orbit, I started whistling "Blue Danube" Also a ship with cryogenically stored astronauts leaving for Saturn? Haven't seen that before. I only bring this up, because the film obviously seeks to homage that movie. However, when I watch these homages, all I could think about is how much more subtle and interesting 2001 was, and how I wanted to watch that. However, if that were the only flaw, I would forgive it. If only. The second third of this film is terrible. The twist that Brand wasn't going to save the people on Earth is simply stupid, and serves merely to give more drama to a story that should already have drama. It's like Little Shop of Horrors, where they just added needless elements, when a guy buying a man-eating flytrap is a good enough story. The story, as it stands, already has drama, as Cooper is leaving his family, and potentially risking his life, all whilst time moves on Earth. We do not need this twist. And character begin acting irrationally, for no reason other than the plot said so. For instance, the grown Tom is refusing to move his family, even as the dust destroys their lungs, and becomes aggressive, once again, because the plot said so. And the story just grows so convoluted, it gets very hard to follow, what is even going on. I would give more detail, but frankly, I don't want to go into it.

          This is one good opening and ending, with a terrible middle sandwiched in there. Despite that, the opening and ending are good enough for me to recommend this. It might even get nominated for an Oscar. If you like Nolan, you're probably going to watch this, regardless of what I say. If you want a good science fiction film, I say watch this, if only for the world building and the scientific accuracy. If you want to just watch a film out of boredom, well, probably watch it, but you'll have sit in the theater in 3 hours. Overall, the film earns a 60%. Oh, and another thing, if you will watch it, watch it in IMAX. Yes, the sound occasionally makes dialogue unlistenable, but it does pop, and the sound is quite extensive. 

Movie Reviews: Man of Steel.

(Note: this will contain moderate spoilers)
         Superheroes have become sort of a modern mythology. Beings with powers beyond that of ordinary man has been a staple of mythology since the beginning of civilizations. Now, instead of god with awesome and reality changing powers, or heroes out on quests to vanquish monsters or the like, we instead get the costumed hero, battling to save the pedestrian populace from various evils, ranging from petty criminals, corrupt businesses and business people, and murderers, to alien conquerers, evil sorcerers, cosmic beings, and mad scientists. These adventures of superhumans and their adventures are essentially no different from the fantastic mythologies of Greece or Norway or India. And, like the myths of old, which were depicted in various pieces of art ranging from the medieval times to the Victorian period, and later in books, movies, and video games in the modern age, various heroes are open to new interpretations, and new stories are born as a result. This is particularly true for superhero movies. From the 1940's onward, film adaptations showing various interpretation of superheroes have been made. Some of the traits created in these film can enter into the heroes regular continuity. However, recently, superhero movies have become not only more culturally  predominant, but also very profitable. This is shown in two franchises, the Dark Knight Trilogy and Marvel's Avengers films. These two franchises have made billions of dollars in box office revenue, putting them amongst the highest grossing films of all time, catapulted the characters into national attention, and created parodies and pop culture references the world over. The result: a resurgence in the popularity of comic book movies and heroes. Heroes like Spider-man are given new life on film, and more obscure properties like Guardians of the Galaxy and Ant-Man also have film adaptations in the works. Who better to ride this wave of popularity amongst comic heroes, than the original comic book superhero (I'm going to be a pedantic nerd here, but the first being considered a fictional superhero was a somewhat obscure French character, whose super powers essentially amounted to being able to see in the dark, but I'm not talking about that.) I'm talking about Superman. Superman has become the archetype of a superhero. A being wearing tights, spandex and a cape, possessing amazing powers normal humans do not, fighting crime as a moral duty to society. Superman has been, and is the quintessential american superhero, as well as an American icon. He has been depicted and re-depicted ever since his first appearance in 1938. From radio to Television to books to his native comic books, he has always fought crime and corruption "in a never ending struggle for truth, justice, and the American way." What better superhero to star in a film at height of the superhero craze. So, to achieve such, Warner Brothers and DC comics brought in Zack Synder (300, Watchmen) as director, and visionary Christopher Nolan (Inception, The Dark Knight trilogy) to create Man of Steel, another version of the Superman story. Does it manage to achieve the high quality of the Avenger films and the Dark Knight trilogy, whilst also maintaining the essentially good-natured spirit of Superman. Well..., let's just take look at it.
     Based on the character published by DC comics, and created by Jerry Siegal and Joe Shuster, Man of Steel follows the story of Kal-El, an infant on the planet Krypton. His father, scientist Jor-El (Russel Crowe), has deduced the planet will eventually self-destruct, killing all who live on it. As such, he tries to convince the high council to try to evacuate the citizens. However, the Council is briefly overthrown by General Zod (Michael Shannon), who proceeds to try to capture Jor-El for a device called the Codex, which contains the genetic code for all of the citizens of Krypton. To save both the race and his son, he infuses the code into his son's body, and sends him on a rocket into space. Zod, in a fit of rage, kills Jor-El. However, the Council defeats Zod's forces, and they subsequently punish Zod and his loyal followers by exiling them to the mysterious Phantom Zone. Meanwhile, Kal lands on the planet Earth in Kansas, where he is found and cared for by farmers Martha (Diane Lane) and Jonathan Kent (Kevin Costner.) They decide to name him Clark. Young Clark has enhanced capabilities such as X-ray vision, super strength, Heat ray vision and flight. At first, these abilities cause him trouble, as he struggles to both control his abilities, and conceal them. However, he slowly begins to control and use his powers for the greater good. This brings the ire of his father, who feels he shouldn't do so at such a young age. At one point, Jonathan decides to show Clark the spaceship he landed in, and also a mysterious object with symbol resembling an S. One day, whilst getting into argument with his father over his use of his powers, a tornado arrives. Whilst the family flees, the family dog is left in the car. Clark's father goes to rescue the dog, but as a result, is unable to escape the tornado. Just as Clark goes to save him, Jonathan refuses help, and is killed as a result. Flash forward 20 or so years, and we see the now adult Clark Kent ( Henry Cavill) as a bearded vagabond, travelling around doing good deeds. His travels bring him to a defunct Kryptonian ship in the Artic, where he learns his origin as well as the origin of his people from the "consciousness" of Jor-El, and acquires a suit with the S symbol (revealed to be the symbol of his house, which means hope.) In the ship, he also meets reporter Lois Lane (Amy Adams). She is there to write on the military installations surrounding the Kryptonian ship, and stumbled upon it. Lois, intrigued by her mysterious savior, decides to investigate his origin. Meanwhile, Clark returns to his widowed mother, now confident about his origin. However, soon a threat arrives that threatens the Earth. General Zod and his minions have escaped the Phantom Zone, and is now trying to reestablish the lost Kryptonian species. He is brought to Earth by the distress signal brought by the Artic ship when Clark activated it. Zod intents to terraform Earth to make it more like Krypton, and use the genetic code infused in Clark body to repopulate it with Genetically engineered Kryptonians, all the while eradicating the human population. Can Superman stop Zod from enacting his plans, killing his adopted people in the process?
    What I will say in this movie's defense, is that many of the concepts it introduced are quite fascinating. The design of Krypton at the beginning is very interesting, and creative. The society it introduces is also somewhat interesting. The idea that Superman's powers caused him trouble when he was young, and he had to master them has potential. Finally, Zod's plan to turn the earth into Krypton is a legitimately good idea in and of itself. Overall, it has some nice concepts behind it...
    But it has a number of problems. First, and definately foremost is WHY DOES THE "S" ON SUPERMAN'S HAVE TO BE A SYMBOL? I'm serious, the whole "the S-shaped symbol around Superman is actually a Kryptonian symbol of hope" really bothered me throughout the feature. Why is this needed? This is not Batman. Batman's symbol, the bat, makes sense, it's meant to strike fear into the heart of the criminal element. Superman's S is a purely aesthetic choice, just meant to indicate it's Superman (or Bizarro).  Is it really necessary to make the S a symbol of hope? I mean, why not just make it an S, you know, for Superman. And as for the whole, "well, it's meant to show that Superman's suit comes from Krypton," Well, why couldn't he just sew the S on to the costume? The more you think about it, the less sense it makes. Alright, let's move away from that for the moment.  Let's go to the other pieces. First, the acting is soulless. It's almost like a Shaymalam film, where most of the acting has no emotion to it. Every actor doesn't emote very well, and what we get is a cast full of bland actors. And I know many of them can act (I know that Amy Adams has more charisma in her acting then what is displayed here.) The plot is okay, though I did have a problem with them basically redoing Batman Begins with Superman. Except that Superman and Batman are fundamentally differing personalities. Superman is driven by his morals, the ideals his adopted parents installed into him when he was growing up. He uses his powers to do good, because his adopted parents taught him to do that with his powers, and he wants to help people as a result. Batman is driven by his anger. He wants revenge on the system that allowed his parents to be murdered in front of him. So, he takes it upon himself to wage a personal war against crime in his parents honor, and prevent what happened to his parents happen again. Turning Superman into Batman in a Superman costume does not work, because the two heroes are fundamentally different. Also, just a pet peeve, but why does it not go into chronological order regarding the flashback. Why not go the "Batman Begins" route (Yeah, yeah, I know I just said that this film was very similar to that one, but not in this sense.), and just put the flashbacks in order. You know, so that we could see the character grow, see him  slowly develop his skills, and eventually become Superman. It has worked before. It worked in the 90's animated series, where the chronology followed that exact pattern. Moving away from the plot, the dark tone does not work well with Superman. Now, don't get me wrong, it is possible to juxtapose a dark tone with Superman.  However, this seems too dark a tone to go with in a Superman movie. The tone almost reminds me of... hey, wait! Look, the dark tone may have worked for the Dark Knight trilogy, but that doesn't mean it could work for a Superman film. Especially since Superman is such as optimistic and light-hearted series. Whilst that explanation doesn't mean that Superman can't have drama or complex characterization, that sort of style is integral to Superman, and is the reason for his continued success. Another thing that is wrong with this is the very fact that it is a tone from the Dark Knight. It doesn't change. You could try a different approach with this film, but instead, they decided to recycle the tone of the Dark Knight, and expects it to work here, even though this is not a Batman movie.
    Alright, so Man of Steel isn't necessarily a great film. Is it the worst? No. I have seen far, far worst films than this, just browsing the episode guide of Mystery Science Theater 3000. However, it suffers from a number of flaws and faults that prevent it from attaining greatness. It has some good ideas that could have worked. However, the combination of bad acting and an attempt to replicate the Dark Knight with Superman bogs it down severely. My score is a 40%, has some good ideas, but isn't overall good. Who would I recommend it to? Well, I can't really recommend it to anyone. If you like the Dark Knight Trilogy, and feel you could tolerate it's repetition, than I suppose you would enjoy this film. Otherwise, for Zack Synder fans, it doesn't have any of his trademarks, for action fans, the action is more loud and bombastic than enjoyable (at least in my opinion.), and overall, it doesn't really have much of the spirit or charm of Superman to recommend it to fans of the character. However, this is only my opinion. If you enjoyed the film, fine, I respect that, you have your tastes. However, if you disagree with me, and want to express it in the comments, just try to be respectful of my opinion. Thank you for reading, and have a nice day.