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

Boldly go where no prequel has gone before.

Summary: Instead of patronizing us with a film to placate the trekky hordes, this film completely revamps the Star Trek legacy, giving us grit, humanity, plot believability and fantasy in what used to be a one dimensional world of trek-dom; a triumph of what can be possible with a great filmmaker at the helm.

Review: Writing a new movie for a decades old iconic franchise is the pivotal "chance-of-a-lifetime" for any director. And few succeed. But JJ Abrams is no ordinary director. His prestine vision of the ultimate rebirth of the Star Trek universe infuses, above all, a powerful humanity into the long-loved science fiction yarn.

For over 40 years the legacy of Gene Roddenberry's story has conveyed many things- fantasy, fiction, technology, adventure, characature and time travel.  But rarely did you see much more than characature and stereotype in the development of the cast.  This may seem strange given the cast, but we found each member of the Enterprise to ultimately become one dimensional place holders that allowed for a plot driven TV show that lived on twists and technology to keep us interested.  Character development was never a strong suit of the franchise.  It was attempted moreso in the follow-on movies of the last 3 decades, but never ascended to become more than enhancements of the originals: an arrogant Kirk, calculating Spock, acerbic Bones and mindless Checkov (etc).  

Then comes this new Star Trek, told to us this time from the man who brought us the best movie of 2007 (Cloverfield)- a movie he shot (seemingly) entirely through a single camera- and pulls it off with flying colors.  Abrams is always reaching to pull in the viewer, making everything human, flesh-touchable, gritty.  He succeeds in Star Trek (2009).

Kirk becomes pretentious and arrogant, but fraught with that same guise as a mask to his own failure and pain. Bones is acerbic, for sure, but we gain a look at his real life that exposes those origins. Most of all, we see Spock.  A Spock that is far more human than he ever has been.  Strangely, this makes his Vulcan story seem far more believable.  You grasp his story, you believe it, and you love the ride it takes you on.  But let's be clear- this story is about the rise of James T. Kirk.  It's his human path to a starry, almost super-human stature as the pre-eminant character of science fiction lore.

It's perfectly done, very well acted, and a great adventure tale to boot.  There have been rumblings of "true trekkies" that have dissed the film.  I expected as much.  The vitality of the tales have never been more brilliant in this new film for Star Trek, but we have left behind the plastic, inhuman characters that the original series had given us.  A welcome change.  If you even remotely like sci-fi, this film will delight you.  See it in the theatres, as the shots and action are very engaging.

(I have to say it... even if Nemoy won't!)

Live long and prosper!

Amazon link: http://amzn.to/UvqQty

Review by Kim Gentes.