Interstellar (2014)

Interstellar (2014)

Director: Christopher Nolan

Cast: Matthew McConaughey, Anne Hathaway, Michael Cain, Jessica Chastain, Wes Bentley, John Lithgow, Ellen Burstyn 

I’ve always been interested in the far reaches of space, because to me, it’s out there where the greatest mysteries lie. Where does the universe end and what is out there in the vastness of space? And of course, the big one is: are we alone in the universe? I can go on and on formulating questions about space, because that’s all it is, one big question, one gigantic mystery. Which is why I love movies like Interstellar; they play with the idea that the universe begs to be explored. Why the hell isn’t an effort being made to truly explore the universe? Why isn’t a huge spaceship being built for humans to travel through space for long periods of time like in Star Trek or The Black Hole (1979)? I mean, I don’t think that idea is that farfetched. Instead, as of 2014, funding has been cut for NASA, so there’s less of an interest in space exploration, at least from the government’s point of view. Their logic is being that we have more pressing problems to deal with down here on earth; space exploration isn’t really a priority for the United States right now. Sigh. But anyways, at least we can toy with the idea through films like Interstellar.

On this film earth is being ravaged by dust, huge dust storms are engulfing the earth and its becoming mighty hard for humans to live here, everyone is getting sick, coughing, dying. But worry not! The scientists at NASA have discovered a black hole near Saturn. They've sent astronauts through it and discovered that said black hole can lead us to another part of the universe with 12 possibly habitable planets.  But all connection with these astronauts has been lost, and so NASA has decided to send a second mission to see if they can reconnect with these lost astronauts and at the same time explore the planets, to see if it is at all possible to start life in them. Their ultimate goal is to save the human race from extinction. Is this mission a one way ticket to hell? Or will the astronauts get to come back home to their families? Is humanity destined to disappear?

I’m a huge science fiction buff, and while watching Interstellar, I couldn’t help and notice how much the filmmakers borrowed from Arthur C. Clarke’s novels. You see, it just so happens that I’m a devout Arthur C. Clarke reader, I’ve read a lot of his work and well, I just couldn’t help seeing how the guys responsible for Interstellar borrowed heavily from Arthur C. Clarke’s 2001: A Space Odyssey, 2010: Odyssey Two, 2061: Odyssey Three and 3001: The Final Odyssey. They even borrowed a bit from the ‘Rendezvous with Rama’ novels, especially when it comes to a cylindrical spaceship that has an artificial sun and an entire community living in it. Landing on a planet made up of a gigantic ocean was seen in 2061: A Space Odyssey, the idea of a man from another era waking up years later to encounter an evolved humanity was swiped from 3001: The Final Odyssey. The robots in the film, which look like walking, talking monoliths are a big wink to fans of 2001; but this was all done purposely, it is quite obvious that Nolan has a hard on for Arthur C. Clarke and his works, so when you watch Interstellar, expect a film with Arthur C. Clarke’s DNA engraved deeply into it.

And it’s not just from Arthur C. Clarke’s books that Nolan borrowed heavily from, he also took a bit from  Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey (1969), both films are similar in structure. We have super intelligent computers able to think for themselves, we have astronauts going up into space to explore a mystery, we have that whole idea that we are going to be entering and exploring a place never before seen by humanity, “boldly going where no man has gone before”. We even get a scene like the scene in 2001 in which David Bowman goes inside The Monolith and the film turns into this visual trip. So yeah, both of these films share many similarities, there’s even some visual references to Kubrick’s film, but I’ll let you guys spot those.

The biggest mystery in Interstellar is of course, the black hole which the astronauts must traverse. Black holes have always been a mystery to me as well; at one point I started to ask myself, are these things real? I mean, sure we've all heard about black holes, and most of us believe they exist, but has anyone actually ever seen an actual black hole? No, we haven’t. We simply have an idea of what it could be. Much like in 2001: A Space Odyssey, where we have this strange and mysterious monolith floating up in space, we also have a strange space anomaly in Interstellar: the Black Hole. From what I hear, Nolan enlisted on the help of a physicist in order to get the whole concept of black holes and worm holes as accurate and scientifically correct as possible. From a visual angle, the whole black hole/worm hole thing looks fantastic, it is obviously a highlight of the film. On the other hand, when the film starts talking about fourth and fifth dimensions, relativity theory and multiverses, things might get a bit convoluted for some, but you won’t be able to deny that visually, it’s stunning. I did manage to hear an “I don’t get it” from the audience.

As far as entertainment value goes, well, there’s lots of spectacle here, but let me tell it to you straight, this films emphasis is on teasing your brain, it’s more of a cerebral picture, it likes to explore ideas hardly explored, it likes to go places we haven’t been before. I mean, sure we’ve seen movies that depict black holes before, for example The Black Hole (1979) and Event Horizon (1997), but none of these movies have shown us a scientifically accurate portrayal of one, and here we got Interstellar to do that. The movie is a love letter to Arthur C. Clarke, and really there’s no better sci-fi author that Nolan could be ripping off from. What I would like for Christopher Nolan to do, because it seems to me after seeing Interstellar that he’s one of the most qualified to do it, is direct a film based on Clarke’s Rama novels. Now those movies really do tackle the mysteries of the universe! A movie based on ‘Rendezvous with Rama’ has been planned for years now, but as I type this, it’s still in development hell. So anyhow, what we got here my friends is one of the best films of the year, if you enjoy films that dabble in philosophy and the mysteries of the universe. Me? I’m a sucker for the mysteries of the universe because if you ask me, it’s those big mysteries we should always aim to know more about. 

Rating: 5 out of 5

Les Miserables (2012)

Title: Les Miserables (2012)

Director:  Tom Hooper

Cast: Hugh Jackman, Anne Hathaway, Russell Crowe, Amanda Seyfried, Sacha Baron Cohen, Helena Bonham Carter

Review:

Poverty stricken times call forth films about poverty stricken people and no other film is more suitable for today’s borderline depression era days than Les Miserables, a film that truly explores the sadness and desperation that comes with being less fortunate, actually, to be more accurate it truly wallows in it. But I’m of the mind that even the sadder parts of life have to be explored, life is bitter sweet and to say that life is all peaches and cream simply isn’t true. There’s a lot of sadness out there in the world we live in and it is important we talk about these sad parts of life, it is important that we don’t ignore the darker issues, for how are things to get better if we ignore problems? Les Miserables focuses in on one of the saddest elements of society: extreme poverty.

On this one we meet Jean Valjean, an ex-con who went to jail for stealing bread. On the particular day we meet Valjean he is set free and tries looking for a regular job, but due to the fact that he’d been in jail, he gets rejected left and right. He soon ends up in a church, screaming at god in anger, asking God why his life so miserable. But then a twist of fate makes Valjean reconsider his life and so he decides to reinvent himself and a few years later, Valjean becomes the owner of a sewing factory. Unbeknownst to him, Fantine, one of his female employees gets fired for no good reason. Unable to care for her little baby child, Fantine ends up on the streets, selling her body in the seediest parts of town. It isn’t long before death comes knocking at Fantines door and Valjean, feeling guilty for her death swears to take care of Fantine’s little baby daughter,  Cosette. What happens when Cosette grows up and wants to live her life, apart from Valjean? 

Right away, from frame one you know this movie is epic; we see Jean Valjean and hundreds of other prisoners pulling a boat into shore with ropes as they sing, and I just knew this one was going to be special. First thing you notice when you see this film is that the actors are singing for real, the songs aren’t dubbed or pre-recorded, which takes a little getting used to because normally musicals pre-record every song and actors are simply lip-synching as they sing and dance, but not on Les Miserables; here the actors really sing on set, live and this is the way you’ll hear it. I was pretty blown away by Jackman and Hathaway specifically, but really, everybody does a bang up job here. Anne Hathaway sings a song that just might bring you to tears, and win her an Oscar. I’d say maybe Russell Crowe was the only one a little off at times, but even he did a commendable job. So be ready for a musical that feels just a little bit more realistic then others, every breath, every sob between songs is heard, the pain and the feeling in the performances is projected more efficiently because of this technique.

As I watched this version of Les Miserables, I noticed how similar the story is to films like Annie (1982) and Oliver! (1968). All of these films are musicals and all three are about little orphan kids living in poverty. All three films have kids living with horrible step parents who want to take advantage of the child, and in all three films, the child is rescued by a genuinely good person looking to give the child a chance at a better life. But I guess in scope and tone, Les Miserables is closest to Oliver! The only thing that makes Les Miserables a bit different then these other two films is the element of romance, a love triangle that developes and the French revolution! The people of France in Les Miserables are on the verge of rebellion and this theme of the oppressed being sick and tired of being treated like garbage is an important one on this film because the misery of the people is often simply a reflection of what’s going on with its government. Are people just gonna sit back and let their government trample them? Or are they willing to die fighting for their freedom? Interesting themes no doubt. I found the character of Javert, the policeman following Valjean interesting. He is torn between serving the government and doing what his human side is telling him is right. This character has an interesting duality there.

The Oscar nominations are in and both Hugh Jackman and Anne Hathaway have been nominated for their work on this film, which isn’t really a surprise. Les Miserables has also been nominated for Film of the Year, so this lets you know there is something special about this film. Plus with a cast like this one, wow, who wants to miss this show? Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonhan Carter who worked together previously in Tim Burton’s Sweeny Todd: the Demon Barber of Fleet Street (2007) reunite here with great comical effect, playing the evil step parents of poor little Collette. But screw the Oscars, The Film Connoisseur is telling you this one is awesome, a cinematic experience of the highest caliber; a film that will move you to tears. Not to be missed!

Rating: 5 out of 5

The Dark Knight Rises (2012)

Title: The Dark Knight Rises (2012)

Director: Christopher Nolan

Written By: Christopher and Jonathan Nolan

Cast: Christian Bale, Anne Hathaway, Marion Cotillard, Tom Hardy, Gary Oldman, Joseph Gordon Levitt, Morgan Freeman, Michael Caine, Matthew Modine, Cillian Murphy

Review:

The Dark Knight Rises is an event movie, the kind that comes along rarely, not only because of the excitement behind seeing this final installment of the film, but also because of the tragic events that surrounded the premiere of the film. As most of the world already knows, On July 20, 2012 in a Century 16 Cinema in Aurora Colorado, a psycho by the name of James Eagan Holmes entered a theater during the premiere of the film and while wearing a gas mask, threw a smoke bomb into the theater and started shooting randomly at people who where there simply to enjoy the latest installment of the Batman franchise. He managed to kill 12, and injure 58 others. What was he trying to say by doing this? What was his purpose? Did he hate movies or people going to see them in droves? Whatever was running around that guys head, he was seriously disturbed. Did he feel he was one of the villains in the Batman films? Did he not learn to differentiate between reality and fiction? Between entertainment and real life? Whatever the case, this disturbed individual probably had a half-baked idea of what he wanted to say swimming around his brains; all villains do.

James Eagan Holmes; getting what's coming to him

You see in films, the villain is commonly used as a way of pointing towards something that is seriously wrong in the world we live in, and the results that this ailment can bring upon society. Take for example ‘The Joker’ in Nolan’s The Dark Knight (2008). In that film the character was angry at the importance that the world gives to money, and how the society we live in revolves around it. One scene has the joker burning a mountain of money simply to show how little he cares for it; and he burns it with gasoline, just to be poetic and comment on how oil and money are entwined in the world we live in. The Joker pitted people of Gotham against each other just to show that humanity is selfish, that in the end, all we really care about is ourselves. Villanous? Sure, but you have to admit the character is making a point. This guy who killed 12 people in the theater, what point was he trying to make? By telling the police he was The Joker, he’s saying that he saw himself as a villain trying to make a point. Was he commenting on societies obsession with movies and entertainment? Was he saying films blind us from reality? That we are not living our lives and instead we are wasting it in a movie theater? 

If that was his point, then he was wrong. Sure Hollywood can be shallow and is often times filled with empty spectacles, but The Dark Knight Rises was not one of those films. This film had a lot to say, it is in my humble opinion a very important film. Same as The Dark Knight, The Dark Knight Rises says a lot about the way the world is NOW. Thematically speaking, The Dark Knight Rises is all about the class war, a very heated topic these days, considering how middle class in the world is quickly fading away. Currently, you are either ridiculously rich or obscenely poor and that’s the way the powerful like it. Through the dynamics between Batman and Bane the film speaks about the struggles of the working class, the oppressed and the ever going hatred for the dudes running Wall Street. The status quo of the world today shows us that it’s true, a part of humanity is selfish instead of giving. It thinks only of itself and not of the needy, the less fortunate. Sadly, the rich and powerful are not currently thinking about making this world a better place for everyone, they think about making it a better place for them, and how those who have less then them can serve them. These are the themes that The Dark Knight Rises tackles with great precision and assuredness. This film knows what it wants to talk about, and it says it very clearly, through its villain, Bane. So this isn’t just any stupid little comic book film, nope, this film is bombastic, epic; a mesmerizing film that  has important issues to adress.

Christopher Nolan in my opinion has made his best film to date with The Dark Knight Rises. Technically speaking, his films have always been top notch and this one is no exception, but what I loved the most about The Dark Knight Rises is how fleshed out the characters are. I was missing the time when great villains dominated a film, Jack Nicholson and Heath Ledger are good examples of the kind of performance I like to see from a villain in a film; and I have to thank Nolan for making that special effort to build these memorable villains. Case in point: Tom Hardy’s Bane can now proudly stand next all those great villains of cinematic history. We hardly see Tom Hardy’s face in this film, save for a small flashback scene, his face remains hidden behind a mask for 99% of the films running time, yet Hardy’s performance shines through none the less. The character itself is extremely fleshed out, his back story is a very satisfying one. As a comic book fan, I was particularly thrilled to see moments from the storylines Knightfall, Knights End and No Mans Land on the screen.

DC Comics Batman # 497, one of the comics that inspired the storyline for The Dark Knight Rises. 

This is the third time Christian Bale has played Batman, I enjoyed how this time around he is a beaten, reclusive character, hiding away from the world in his mansion, like Mr. Kane in Orson Welle’s Citizen Kane (1941), the rich old guy who doesn’t want to answer to the world outside. It was great of the filmmakers to use the Bruce Wayne character to criticize the rich and powerful. If you have so much power, so much money, why not do something worthwhile with it, something that will improve humanity and the world we live in? Loved it how the movie tackled those themes through Bruce Wayne. It was a very intelligent move on the filmmaker’s side to comment on classist issues with the character, considering how the rich are viewed by the working class that’s struggling to get by on a day to day basis in this greedy world we live in. Anne Hathaway as Catwoman was somewhere between sexy and deadly, but nothing as overtly sexualized as Michelle Pfeiffer’s take on the character in Batman Returns (1992). The rest of the amazing cast does an amazing job, Michael Caine turns in an emotional performance on this one.

On the fun side of things the film delivers in spades. It was great to see a film that balanced action set pieces with story development so well; this really is a well though out picture, Mr. Nolan went up a couple of notches in my book with this one. Where the first two Nolan Bat films seemed a little on the talky side, this one balances fleshing out its characters and wowing us with amazing action and visual effects to perfection; kudos to Nolan for achieving that so well. So that’s it ladies and gents, I say don’t let the whole shooting thing scare you from seeing this one. It truly is a great film that touches up on important themes. This is an event picture, the kind you want to go to the theater to celebrate the fun of watching movies; don’t let the isolated incident with the crazy kook scare you out of that my friends! There was a special kind of electricity in the theater before and after the film started, people were genuinely excited to see this one. From what I can gather and from the resounding round of applause that I heard after the film was over, this one has won audience approval. The momentum these films have captured since the first film premiered has exploded on the screen with The Dark Knight Rises, the final film in Christopher Nolan’s Bat Saga; don’t let what that psycho did in Colorado scare you away from enjoying this awesome film.

Rating: 5 out of 5 

Alice in Wonderland (2010)

Title: Alice in Wonderland (2010)

Director: Tim Burton

Stars: Johnny Depp, Helena Bonham Carter, Anne Hathaway, Crispin Glover and Alice Mia Wasikowska

Written by: Linda Woolverton based on Alice In Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Carroll

Review:

I miss the days when fantasy movies were real. I know that sounds like a contradiction of sorts, because by nature, fantasy is not real. It’s imagination running wild. What I’m referring to is that I miss the days when fantasy filmmakers actually went through the trouble of building sets to make their films, in this way making their fantasy world more tangible, and in a way real. I miss the days when to make whatever fantastical creature the script called for they would resort to puppets or animatronics. Even stop motion animation felt more tangible then computer generated images. But as they say, times are a changing; and I have to learn (reluctantly so) to adapt to that change. I guess. Plus, I’m sure studios are resorting to movies dominated by computer animation for monetary reasons. It must be a hell of a lot cheaper to build a set on a computer, than it is to build it for real. Still, I miss that level of “reality” in fantasy films. Films like Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland sometimes make me feel disconnected from them. But whatever, I’m not going to bitch and moan about that, because in a strange way, computer animation is a great way to go for films like this one. I just wish there was more of balance. Im of the mind that not every single little frame of the movie has to be computer animated! There should be a balance. My favorite fx movies are those that use computer animation only when its absolutely needed. Whenever its used excessively, it simply feels like lazy filmmaking to me.

In Alice in Wonderland everything save for the actors is completely computer animated, and it shows. Granted, there is artistry involved in the animation, the film and its visuals are filled in every corner with color and detail, and it is dazzling to look at (specially with those nifty 3-D glasses) but still, I couldn’t help the feeling of detachment from the film. This feeling I’m sure was not only due to the films computer animated nature. I’m thinking it also has to do with the way the story was told. Tim Burton has said that he didn’t want Alice in Wonderland to feel as if Alice was simply going from one weird character to the next. That he wanted to make a movie that we could connect with. Sadly, in my opinion, he did the exact opposite of that! The way I saw it, Burton made a very disjointed film. It did feel as if Alice was jumping from one weird character to the next, from one bizarre situation to the next, without a sense of cohesiveness to the proceedings. In my opinion, the movie didn’t flow. It felt to me like Alice just went from one crazy character through the next without any character development, without knowing exactly what makes her tick. It had a glimpse of character development in one scene where Alice realizes that she is dreaming, she knows this is all happening in her head, but that moment is brief. In my opinion, there should have been more introspective moments like that one in a movie that happens mostly inside of a characters mind.

I guess my main gripe with this movie was that it felt cold and detached. But did I enjoy any other aspects the film? Well, Tim Burton is an artist, and as such, he pays special attention to the artistic elements of the film, the visuals. Once you watch this movie you definitely feel like you are in Tim Burton territory. That gothic nature to Tim Burton’s films is there with the crooked trees and the strange dark characters, so I enjoyed that familiar Tim Burton Universe feel. I also dug Johnny Depp, who has become a permanent fixture in Burton’s cinematic escapades. Depp is known for playing quirky, off beat characters in Burton’s films and The Mad Hatter is a welcome addition to Depp’s weird characters file. He is the one thing that gives the film a bit of emotion. Helena Bonham Carter was perfectly cast as the Red Queen, she adds many funny moments to the movie specially whenever she screams “of with his head!”

This time around, Wonderland, or Underland as it is referred to on this movie is a bit darker then the one we might remember from previous Alice in Wonderland movies because this film shows us an underland that’s been ravaged by the evil government of the Red Queen. Everyone is poor, suffering, the houses are burned down and basically, Underland is falling apart. Except for the Red Queens castle of course which is filled with servants and luxuries. In this way, the film is actually very subversive in nature. I’m surprised at just how many subversively themed movies are coming out lately (check out my review of Shutter Island to see what I’m talking about) and Burtons Alice in Wonderland can be counted amongst those films that display a hatred for the government and the way things are being handled by it. Mad Hatter and his friends are all a gang of rebels who play at being mad, so the authorities won’t harm them. “Never mind him, he is mad” the Red Queen says at one point not realizing the Mad Hatter and his friends are the ones she should be fearing the most. It’s a common thing to show the subversive rebellious character as being “mad” and at the same time very sane…again, read my review for Scorcece’s Shutter Island (2010) or Falling Down (1993) to see what I mean.

The Mad Hatter, leader of the revolution

Also, there was a scene that I found pretty edgy thematically, and its one when The Mad Hatter actually suggests that Alice should kill the evil Red Queen. I thought that was a pretty bold statement from Burton right there. Kill the Queen, replace her with the good queen, and let the kingdom be happy and merry again. Normally, I warm up to films of this nature cause I like subversive films, the ones that go against “big brother” and all that. And I did enjoy the themes Alice in Wonderland was playing with, but I still couldn’t warm up to the film itself. Things got worse as the movie progressed into a predictable third act with Alice going up against the Red Queen and her evil dragon. I was kind of bored by this point. To me even though this movie was interesting visually, it was just a movie going by the numbers from one plot point to the next, without reaching out to the audience for some emotional connection. I didn’t really dig that. Movie directors need to remember that when a movie is on, they have the audience’s full attention and that this is the moment which they need to use to connect with them. I didn’t feel this so much with Alice in Wonderland.

One of the big questions with this movie is: Is it too scary for kids? Because after all, this is a Disney movie, and Lewis Carroll's book is a childrens book. My answer to that question is that Lewis Carroll's Wonderland stories were always dark and strange to begin with. They were trippy from the get go. So if you couldnt take Lewis Carroll's books, chances are, you'll probably find this one too scary for kids. Me? I thought it was weird and strange, but not all that scary. The one scene that I thought went a little too far for a childrens movie is one scene in which Alice has to cross a body of water to reach the Red Queen's castle, and the body of water is filled decapitated floating heads. Which Alice begins to walk on in order to get to the Queens castle. But again, Alice in Wonderland was always a surreal trippy experience and this film does hold true to the original book in that sense.

From a visual standpoint, the movie is pure eye candy. The whole 3-D experience has really taken off now. It’s making Hollywood more millions then ever this time around because they have actually perfected the whole 3-D thing. Many people out there think that 3-D is a gimmick, and it is, but I’m of the opinion that 3-D works wonders on certain kinds of films. Like fantasy films for example, or sci-fi, or simply films in which special effects take center stage. When Alice falls down the rabbit hole, it’s an experience. 3-D isn’t a new thing, it’s been around since 1890! It took off with horror films during the 50s, mainly Vincent Price horror movies like House of Wax. 3-D has always been around in one form or another, but only now has it reached its full potential in theaters. It doesn’t give you a headache, the glasses give the images a depth that you don’t get when you are watching a regular film and it’s a trippy fun experience. This is really the only way in which the film worked for me. Its not Burtons worst film (Planet of the Apes still holds that place, and I don’t think it will ever loose it) but it isn’t his best either.

Rating: 3 ½ out of 5