Kim Gentes

Interstellar - Christopher NolanTravel to where no man has gone before.. or has he?

Summary: Every story we tell, will always come back to the original one- where did we come from and where are we going to end up?

Full Review: For true modern sci-fi (not the 50s/60s comic/horror kind), everything begins and ends with 2001: A Space Odyssey. And every attempt at modern philosophical inquiry through the lens of science fiction has thus been held up to the standard that Kubrik brought us in his 1968 epic film.  Interstellar is the latest film to reach out of our realm and try to grapple with the real questions of humanity- our origins, our struggles and our destiny. 

Like recent touchpoint sci-fi contenders Terrence Malik's The Tree of Life, Josh Trank's Chronicle, and the Alien prequel Prometheus, Interstellar maps its path to deeper truth by unlocking some of the universe's secrets. At least that is what Christopher Nolan seems to be trying to portray as he unravels quantum physics in a bid to make his film plausible. Much of what is presented in the film is based on the premise of solving many current impossibilities regarding interstellar travel, and the writers try to achieve this by having humans contacted by a superior life form that has learned to exist and manipulate 5 dimensions. The mishmash of scientific jargon centered around relativity is less effective than I was hoping for. While the film employs a real scientific basis in its research (via theoretical physicist, Kip Thorne), aside from a few excellent graphical representations of worm holes and blackholes/neutron stars sucking in light from other cellestial objects, only a few keywords are echoed in the script. I suppose this is unavoidable, as a more indepth treatment in the film would have droned on enough to make most viewers fall into boredom (and, in any case, Thorne collects this information in an ebook spinoff The Science of Interstellar: Thorne/Nolan). That aside, little else in the film fails to lift itself out of earth's orbit. The direction is essentially focused, with Nolan undertaking the task of visualizing both a bleak earth homeworld and a transcendent star system as an explorable destination. 

But the framework of the movie is not the science fiction. Overall, the weakest part of the movie is the relational story between a father and daughter. It is kept terse with the intention of it being powerful- daughter is head strong; dad is explorer type. Dad flies off in spaceship to save the world. Girl is mad at dad. This plot feels thinner than you'd hope for, given the backdrop of human survival, but its theme is re-echoed no less than 4 times throughout the movie in various ways. The relational fabric of people's perceived connection seems to constantly get in the way of saving the human race.  It is an interesting approach and one that goes juxtaposition to Kubrick's 2001, which aims to pit humanity against the glorification of his own progress- machine.

I absolutely loved the imagery of the film. Top notch. The acting is also excellent. And while the story portends its conclusion several times it feels forgivable since humanity lies in the balance. The core story line of the movie is essential, but, in this reviewers opinion, childish. Despite this, this film crosses over the line of being gadgetry and tech sizzle into the philosophical questions we have long asked. It does not, however, answer any of these questions with the majestic power of 2001 or the raw focus of Tree of Life. In fact, Interstellar doesn't actually answer any questions about origins or destiny, except to keep alive the viceral reality that we are powerfully, humanly and wonderfully flawed. And it is at this point that Nolan seems to make the film triumph in ways that make it a strong addition to the modern science fiction art form.

Do not wait to see this film on DVD or Netflix. See it on the big screen. 169 minutes of absolute bliss to the eyes and ears. One of the best films of the year.

Amazon Link: http://amzn.to/1xes458

Review by Kim Gentes

 The hunt for UBL. Zero junk. Lots of dark controversy.

Summary: The hunt for Usama Bin Laden is the modern epitome of our hunt for evil. This is the Hollywood dramatization of that story. It is gritty, but not overplayed. It is political, but not harshly partisan. It's a very good film that stays, like the protagonist, in the hunt of its target.

Full Review: "The Hurt Locker" is one of the most intense modern war films of our era. It's director, Katherine Bigalow, is the director of "Zero Dark Thirty".  The movie is fine-tuned to present the lighting, action, and dialog of what real special ops missions are truly about. Add to that the CIA investigation and tracking of Usama bin Laden (labeled coldly as UBL throughout) and you have a convincing, engrossing and controversial movie.

I have to admit that I saw "Argo" recently and it was hard not to think in parallels of what was being attempted with this film. But in its sheer weight, action and story "Zero Dark Thirty" is a clear winner. While the plot of the movie culminates in 30 minutes of action, as the operation is engaged and UBL is hunted to his death, the main narrative centers around the character Maya. She is the CIA analyst who spends her entire career hunting down UBL from her desk and gathering evidence from interviews of others in the Al Qaeda terrorist organization. Maya becomes the hero in this film, though critics have notably downplayed the role of individuals, saying there was a huge network of information and work that made the hunt successful.

Like most based-on-reality films, "Zero Dark Thirty" is not a precise retrace of the exact story, but is supposedly very close to events. As a movie-goer, I am less interested in each and every detail of the hunt, but want to know the general storyline. Jessica Chastain (who plays Maya) is a unrelenting CIA agent, whose portrayal, while heroic, sometimes seems unbelievable in the professional/government world.  Her dialog with superiors feels unrealistic and might have well had her fired. Whether it is accurate to the word, I am doubtful. But the details of she helps to catches the mastermind terrorist and works to have action taken on the target- this feels vivid and real. The ensuing operation to finally take down Usama bin Laden also feels believable and is certainly engaging and human.

But, I am guessing the big "talking point" of this film be none of those things. Likely the big controversy will be over detainee torture methods, and the film's point of its effectiveness, will be the loud screaming topic from the follow-on conversation for this film. Even if just for that, it is an excellent film to see. You will likely not leave without an opinion.

For parents, this movie should be reserved for children that are 16 and over. While the action is haunting and violent (targets are shot to be killed, without being offering any surrender), it is the scenes of prisoner torture that are most gruesome and degrading. Parents should heed the movie's MPAA "R" rating. 

Amazon DVD Link: http://amzn.to/X226za

Review by Kim Gentes

Life. Death. Joy. Pain.

Summary: Most films have a specific plot. They develop tension through the story, hoping to surprise you a bit with the conclusion and warm or thrill you along the way. Very few films try to approach a topic as broad as "the meaning of life" or as grand as "what happens when we die". The film "The Tree of Life" climbs into the ring with the epic Stanley Kubrick film "2001: A Space Odyssey" and tries to give us answers to what our universe is about. It is to be heralded for its attempt, though it will feel like its wash of ubiquitous meanderings may well leave viewers so unsure of what they just saw, they won't feel inspired to believe its premise. Some will get it, others simply won't stay interested long enough to wait out the proposals that the film makes.

Full Review: First, let me say that if my summary seems languishing and uncertain, you have just felt what most people will feel seeing the film. This creation of art is a truly breath-taking journey from no less than the beginnings of the universe until the virtual end of time (at least for our central family on which the story will finally rest).  If you are considering watching "The Tree of Life", you need to know that this film is not meant to give you a sharp, well defined 90 minutes of story. Rather, the movie is meant to draw a visual understanding of the entire history of the universe, how we fit into that, where it might all be going and how an individual families story might make sense in that continuum.

If you think that goal is lofty, you apparently haven't met Terrence Malick, the writer and director of this movie.  His vision of reality is certainly enthralling, though ultimately unsurprising. From a philosophical standpoint there is nothing new with his presentation. He is not breaking any new genres in origins theory or developing new ideas about life after death. What Malick does, though, is merge a good many of those ideas into a visual timeline that threads the viewer into a world that transgresses barriers of reality- from the ephemeral , physical here and now, to the eternal, other-worldly cosmic hereafter. 

The problem with the film is that you can lose site of what he is doing, primarily because he does nothing to prime the audience where he is starting, where he is going and where you might be stopping along the way. One has to construct that by watching. For example, there is one segment in which he travels to the origins of time and takes literally 15 or more minutes without a word being spoken. You travel in and out of earth "space" and only hear fleeting words from the narrator, who ends up being a boy who is found on both sides of the alive and eternal spectrum. 

What you eventually find out is that this boy has a story, and this film lands, finally, on his life and that of his family. The story arc progresses nicely then, with brief detours into cosmically other realities. The goal is for you to begin to see how everything is knit together, and yet how grand and important each person's life can be, if but for one proposition.

I won't give the point of the movie away, but it is certainly an insightful one. Not original, but certainly in agreement with many who have spoken on this topic of our grand purpose.

While the movie does have this vast self interest, it nonetheless does bring you poignantly into the world of a 50's reality in which a man and his family struggle with real life issues. Eventually, you come to the point of a death of one of the children. All this is beginning to make sense and gives context as you are occasionally flashed forward into a future time as well.  Actors Brad Pitt, Sean Penn and Jessica Chastain become the fully embodied examples of humanity, life, joy, struggle and pain that we can see both on the screen and in ourselves.  Pitt and Chastain are the best, and more prominent. Penn is cast as a brooding, lost man, still broken from some past event. He does well but remains too undeveloped to engage the audience other than perhaps feel as unsettled as his character does.

People who want a quick movie for a romantic date should avoid this film. People who want a heartwarming story with endearing clichés will also want to pass here. Creationists and evolutionists will each be enthralled and ultimately disappointed at a film that leaves room for literally a thousand interpretations. And that, I think, is the point. Malick attempts to draw such a grand vision that he leaves us asking far more questions just about his film than we had before we went into the theatre. I felt like this was good, and an inspiring journey along the way. There is a strong moral lesson at the end and I also think it is good (that helps when one agrees with it).

But there is something about the film that I also felt was contrived, especially where he looks to include symbols and metaphors from literally dozens of schools of thought from religion to science to philosophy to psychology. At times, it seems too much for a single film and loses potency with the over-reaching.

That said, it was one of the best films I have seen this year. I would recommend it to anyone wishing to see an engaging spectacle of thoughtful film with grand aspirations.  You may not agree with Malick's perspective, but that may actually be the point of the film.

Amazon DVD Link: http://amzn.to/pBFvPm

Review by Kim Gentes.