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

Aliens, borders and human smuggling - a new kind of monster.

Summary: Are the monsters we create sci-fi movies about really Freudian projections from our minds? This movie about that and much more. Follow a couple finding themselves while trying to sneak past aliens and get into America!

Full Review: Imagine earth has been infected by alien life forms. For the time being it seems we have quarantined the aliens to a containment area in northern Mexico that we call the infected zone. The United States builds a massive wall along its border, hoping to keep the aliens out. Both Mexico and the US regularly deploy military operations against the infected zone, trying to eradicate the aliens. Against this backdrop, two people become stranded and are forced to try to make their way through the zone any way possible, trying to get back home to America.

Scoot McNairy stars as Andrew Calder, an American photographer who works for a popular magazine/publisher (we are never told the name of the publication). Whatever the name, the CEO of that company has a daughter who has been trapped in central Mexico by an attack caused by the aliens. She, Samantha Wynden (played by Whitney Able) is not badly hurt but is now in need of help to get her back to the US. Her father instructs Calder to escort her in the journey back to the US. What begins as a simple transportation task turns into an odyssey as the characters encounter constant detours (literally and metaphorically). The last reasonable option they have devolves into the most dangerous situation.

I won't tell you how they fair in reaching their destination. The movie is too good to give it away in a review. But the plot of this movie is, perhaps, the lesser of all its strong points. First, this is a low budget sci-fi. Because of that, the effects and visuals of the alien creatures seem almost 70s nostalgic in application. They keep the audience just on the edge of going "that kinda looks corny". But it is the avoidance of high-end effects that makes the viewing of aliens and visual displays return to a minimalist approach. And this actually works.

The subplot surrounds the relationship of the two characters, that grows throughout the film. As the viewer grows in knowledge of the world in which the film is set, parallels are constantly being alluded to regarding relationship (traveling/migration patterns of the aliens, mating rituals etc). Again, all this is just happening as the film unfolds and you don't catch it the first time through, but the subplot turns slowly towards the real intent of the film, not as a sci-fi, but as an emotional drama without the sappy discourse. I later learned that the co-stars of this film married due to their relationship that developed while filming this movie. It truly feels like you are catching that kind of chemistry as the film unfolds.

There are other obvious narratives that the writer/producers are trying to communicate with this film. Not the least of which is the building of a massive border wall, the military actions to secure the border, the labeling of the aliens as an "infection", the banter of the characters about what it feels like trying to get into America from the outside, and even the bribery and hiring of a crew of smugglers to try to get the main characters into America. This none-to-subtle allusion to US immigration policy seems obvious to me, but perhaps I am over thinking it. Maybe aliens are just aliens. I leave that to you.

The best part of this film is the pacing and the uncompromising acting by these two co-stars. You feel like the movie is too real, perhaps too plodding at times. But this is just how it should feel, I would guess. The mundane breakdown of equipment, the conniving deciept of the smuggler/dealers, the in-your-bones frightening scenes that turn out to just be nervousness, the terrible reality of a single dead human being- all of these things are in stark contrast to overwrought, flying, super 3D, city-destroying alien movies we've become used to.  Here, the film makes you feel like you have to take it personally. And that is it's power.

It's been out for 3 years now, but for the thoughtful movie-goer, it is an excellent movie for your Netflix, Amazon Instant or rental queue.  The director is already working on a sequel, and this is a film that could become one of those indie legends as the story unfolds. See it now, before the second film makes it a main stream Hollywood hit and you can say you found it before the crowd. I found this film on the recommendation of a friend. You should too. I'm your friend. Go rent or see it. Now.

Amazon DVD (or Instant) Link: http://amzn.to/14X81uz

Review by Kim Gentes

The day the earth waited in line for stale popcorn.

In the manner of "The Happening", the latest world catastrophe movie "The Day The Earth Stood Still" becomes an afterthought to geopolitical campaigning, and removes from the equation of science fiction both science and fiction. With a mildly likable character from Jennifer Connelly, this film tried to find a center but feels like no one really steps to the plate. "The Day The Earth Stood Still" is a post-modern remake of the 1951 film with the same name.

The film has relatively unimpressive acting from everyone including Keanu Reeves who adds another deific character to his resume in the human embodied alien of "Klaatu". Cast in the emotionless alien role, Reeves forms a hesitant proxy to which Connelly's character pleads for mercy for the fate of humankind. The story is worthwhile, but after 110 minutes of cliche and vacant stares of emotionless setup for the plot, there is no tension left, nothing to resolve. Just a bit of a pseudo-science conclusion that seems uncontrived, while still being unconvincing.

For those 50's buffs, you will like the retro renderings of special effects, but after that, its just a long series of gun magazines being loaded and stereo-typical stupid leadership decisions being made. It's always nice to watch a movie that shows political figures as even more inanely foolish than their real life counterparts. Thank God we can all recognize Hollywood's relentlessly stupid political bashing, so while its annoying, at least it doesn't completely destroy the movie. But for its part, not much is there to destroy.

As far as content, there is no violence, language, or sexual content that would offend anyone over 11 or 12. The PG-13 rating is a bit cautious in my view, but there may be 8-10 year olds that will find momentary scenes to startle them and stick in their memory. Beyond that, not much is shocking, surprising or even interesting. Likely the biggest draw of this film is its nostalgic connection to sci-fi films golden era. If you can make it that long, at least make sure to get a hot bag of newly popped popcorn before entering the theater. That way at least something will be fresh about your experience.

Amazon Link: http://amzn.to/TUBmN5

Review by Kim Gentes

It was good, until the movie started.

You ever get the feeling that someone handed a great idea over to a bunch of 7th graders? If so, you have probably seen Jumper.  This is the action/sci-fi/adaptation gone awry from author Steven Gould.  The screenplay underwent a couple of revisions and direction landed with Doug Linman.  Perhaps another couple script revisions were in order here.  Jumper has a fun premise- teleportation.  Certainly people are gifted genetically to teleport, or so the story goes.  David Rice (played by Hayden Christensen) is one of those people.  The story follows David as he grows from adolesence to adulthood, though he remains selfishly focused throughout.  The story has a few plot twists, but nothing teleports the audience to a believable or even enjoyable place.  Ultimately, the film ends with less pizzazz than it starts and the audience is left wondering how such a cool idea was maimed into the resulting film.  There are touches of interesting action, but the plot and the characters remain undeveloped.  Christensen has even less acting presence in this film than he did in the Star Wars episodes where we played Anakin Skywalker. In fact, he still continues to brood of seemingly nothing in this film, leaving me to believe that he has about 3 poses and about zero acting ability.

The film would have been a good rental or netflix download, but paying full price was probably leaving us all feeling like someone just teleported off with our hard-earned money.

Amazon Link: http://amzn.to/S2Xnsz
 

Review by Kim Gentes

Far and away, the best movie of 2007.

Cloverfield is the story of an attack on New York City.  I won't spoil the movie for you, and if you haven't seen or read other reviews, then GET THE MOVIE. Don't try to find out what happens in this movie before you see it.  You will enjoy the movie way more if you discover the story the way it was intended.  The gimmick here is the "Blair Witch" style handicam filming that is the movie goers eyes through which the events unfold.  Directed by Matt Reeves, (and produced by JJ Abrams) the story flows through the camera, instead of forcing the camera to see what will neatly present his storyboard.  It's brilliant.  You come in, remain and leave the story like the characters- uninformed, fearful, occasionally heroic and ultimately human.  The same super-realism photo-imagery that was used in Collateral (Tom Cruise/Jamie Foxx) impacts you here, but with a sledgehammer to the head.

The characters are unquestionably just like us- self-centered and unprepared for much more than living their American lives. Part of the grip of this film is its tanacity to reality, while being a wildly science-fiction yarn.  There is one small hickup in the storyline, in which a military trooper sends civilians back into harms way. Without that I would have given this film perfect marks on all fronts.  But this plot twist does propel the story to its effective conclusion and forces the camera back to document this happening.

If you haven't seen this in the theatres, get going before its done its run. Again, this is easily the best film of 2007.  If you don't get the word on Cloverfield quick enough to see it on the big screen, you will want to rent this in HD and see it on the biggest screen you have access to.  Swimming in the visual experience is part of the plummet/rise rollercoaster you take with the characters, and you really don't want to miss that effect.

No child under 15 should see this movie, in my opinion.  Far too much realism and imagery, along with language to keep the kids sleeping soundly after watching this one.

Amazon Link: http://amzn.to/RZfiSH

Review by Kim Gentes