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

The Wolf of Wall Street (2013)

Title: The Wolf of Wall Street (2013)

Director: Martin Scorsese

Cast: Leonardo DiCaprio, Jonah Hill, Margot Robbie, Matthew McConaughey, Rob Reiner, Kyle Chandler, Jon Favreau  

                 

I went into The Wolf of Wall Street knowing very little about it; the only thing that pulled me in was knowing that DiCaprio and Scorsese were working together again, something they’ve been doing since they collaborated on Gangs of New York (2002). The Wolf of Wall Street marks their fifth collaboration! When these two get together they don’t disappoint. I mean, were talking about one of the greatest directors of our time, the guy who gave us Taxi Driver (1976), Raging Bull (1980), Goodfellas (1990) and Casino (1995), to name just a few of the many memorable films that Scorsese is responsible for. There’s a reason why he is a living legend in the world of cinema, he is a director that lives and breathes films. He’s the kind of director that makes films because it’s his art; it’s what he was born to do, it’s what he loves, rarely do directors understand the cinematic language and it’s many uses the way Scorsese does and in The Wolf of Wall Street he puts all the knowledge he’s accumulated through the years to good use, the results are nothing short of one of Scorsese’s most entertaining films in years.

The film is based on Jordan Belfort’s book of the same name. It tells the story of how Belfort became a stock broker extraordinaire by starting his own company. Belfort was a guy who started at the very bottom of the corporate ladder by working as a stockbroker on Wall Street;  as Belfort learned the tricks of the trade, he slowly but surely made his dreams a reality: he finally got what he always wanted, his own firm! It isn’t long before Belfort and his team make so much moolah, that they don’t know what the hell to do with it! They soon discover many mind expanding ways to spend their millions: lots of parties, lot’s of drugs and lot’s of sex! Will money and power corrupt these guys? Or will they learn to do things the right way; avoiding ugly confrontations with the I.R.S. or the F.B.I? Can they get away with it?

The Wolf of Wall Street was released on Christmas Day as a beautiful Christmas present from Martin Scorsese to movie goers everywhere; actually I’m being sarcastic; the movie has nothing to do with Christmas, or anything nice, in fact, it shows one of the ugliest sides of human nature: GREED. The Wolf of Wall Street’s release coincided with two other films dealing with similar subject matter: David O Russell’s American Hustle (2013) and Ridley Scott’s The Counselor (2013); these are all films depicting greedy people going the lengths to make as much money as they can, as quickly as they can, so they can live the quintessential ‘American Dream’; which in all three movies quickly degenerates into an American Nightmare. You watch these three films and you won’t see good wholesome people playing by the rules. Nope, in all three you’ll see a lot of people making desperate moves to get rich quick; which is never a good idea. There’s been some bad press for The Wolf of Wall Street saying things like it glorifies this sex, drugs and rock and roll lifestyle, but in reality, The Wolf of Wall Street is a morality tale, in the end, the one to break the law gets caught. Greed and excess in these films are portrayed as sins. By way of an example, the tagline for The Counselor is “Sin is a Choice”, hell one of the many promotional posters for The Wolf of Wall Street shows Leonardo DiCaprio posing for a mug shot, so no, I don’t agree with those that say this movie glorifies greed, in fact, on this film, greed gets you a warm bed in jail.

But then again, you can’t really blame a film for being truthful either; I mean, the film isn’t about glorifying greed or excess, it simply shows things the way they happened, that’s it and that’s all. If it all appears to be one big party, than that’s probably because that’s the way it happened. In the interest of authenticity, Belfort himself was onset as a consultant in order to make things as truthful as possible, which adds a level of credibility to the film. There’s a difference between glorifying a thing and being truthful people! But you wanna know what’s really weird about the film? It’s how these guys are all doing these awful things, yet it all comes off as incredibly funny. The real deal with The Wolf of Wall Street is that it may not look like a comedy, but in reality, the film is hilarious! I saw it with a packed audience, and they were cracking up every five minutes. Leonardo DiCaprio was nominated for a Golden Globe for this film in the “Best Actor in a Comedy” category, so that tells you a whole lot about the general aura of the film. Two elements dominate this film: comedy and schock value. I mean, these guys do some pretty horrible things on this movie, yet it’s all hilarious at the same time? DiCaprio plays Belfort with a snicker in his face the whole time, like he’s got it all covered and don’t you worry about a thing. Speaking of Dicaprio, the talented actor has been ignored by the Academy Awards for way too long, what gives? He keeps making excellent film after excellent film and they just keep on ignoring the guy. I was almost sure he’d win an Oscar for Django Unchained (2012), but no. Again he was denied! Hopefully the Academy will give him the recognition he deserves.

Oscar aspirations aside, I gotta remind you guys that this movie is crass, I mean, it doesn’t care one bit about being politically correct and I liked it! I mean, I’m getting pretty freaking tired with all these movies playing it safe and trying to be all polite and nice; leave it to Martin Scorsese, a cinematic child of the 70’s, to give us a movie with some big brass balls! This one is a hard R all the way! There’s a lot of shock value to this movie! When going to see this movie you have to ask yourself one question: are you ready to see Leonardo DiCaprio snorting cocaine out of some girls’ asshole? Well you better be, because that happens in the films first ten minutes, just to make sure you know what you’re getting yourself into! Final words on The Wolf of Wall Street is that it’s a jolt of electricity down your spine; the last time I remember getting that from a movie was with Tarantino’s Pulp Fiction (1994), so take that for what it’s worth. This is one of those epic movies that takes you down the life of a character from start to finish; from when they we’re nobodies, to when they become stock broking rock stars; you’ll go down the road with these guys as they get rich, party like animals, get corrupted and finally pay for all their excesses. Sure they all end up in jail doing time, but boy, what a ride eh?! Here I was thinking that Alfonso Cuaron’s Gravity (2013) was going to end up being my favorite film of 2013; guess what, things change, so The Wolf of Wall Street is now my official choice for best film of 2013! Go see it!

Rating:  5 out of 5 

Reign of Fire (2002)

Title: Reign of Fire (2002)

Director: David Bowman

Cast: Matthew McConaughey, Christian Bale, Gerard Butler, Izabella Scorupco

Review:

Dragon films are a rare bunch, and most of the time they are not taken very seriously. The big problem with dragon films is that same as werewolf movies, for some reason they are not very popular with the masses. It’s only when these films are prepackaged as family friendly fare that the make any bank, for example Rob Cohen’s Dragonheart (1996), a family friendly dragon film if there ever was any that went on to make a hefty intake at the box office. Taking in consideration how few good dragon movies get made, when a big budget dragon movie comes along, I always raise my hopes up, excited at the prospect of seeing these mythical creatures come to life on the silver screen.

The last time that a dragon film truly impressed me was with Matthew Robin’s Dragonslayer (1981). To date, and in my humble opinion, that is the best dragon film ever made. That film presented us with not only an awesome looking dragon, but also a very believable depiction of the Dark Ages. And again, it was a flop at the box office, which does not make it a bad film, it only affirms the fact that dragons aren’t all that popular with audiences. Other films have come close to being as good, but they’ve never surpassed the awesomeness that is ‘Vermithrax Pejorative’. When Reign of Fire came along, I was expecting something awesome. Why? Well, the creative team behind it was a good one, the cast was top notch…the posters promised chaos in the London skies. Plus, advancements in special effects technology had come to so far. I was expecting to feel the heat from the dragons breath, alas, this didn’t happen. Why did Reign of Fire disappoint?

In Reign of Fire, the world has been ravaged by fire breathing dragons. They’ve burned the earth to a crisp; you see in this film, these monsters live off of ashes! The governments of the world retaliated by trying to wipe these creatures out with nuclear weapons, but that plan failed. These creatures are impervious to even that! Unfortunately, the battle against the dragons has transformed the entire world into a post-apocalyptic wasteland. Human survivors are scarce. The film focuses on a group of survivors who live in an old castle in England. They strive for normalcy in the midst of the ashes. The leader of this group of people is Quinn, a man who tries desperately to give them peace and hope. One day, from out of the blue, a group of American dragon slayers led by a man called ‘Van Zan’, show up at the castle door steps. They claim to know the way to kill dragons; but are they to be trusted?   

The film does present us with an interesting premise, that of dragons taking over the world. Dragons have burned the earth to a crisp! Some time has elapsed since the dragons first appeared and humanity has now all but faded. This has made the creatures extremely hungry, which makes them all the more dangerous; in spite of this the film fails to make the dragons feel like a real threat, in fact, save for the finale, the dragons aren’t really seen all that much. What Dragonslayer did so right was transmit the idea that this evil creature was alive, the dragon never talked (they sometimes do in these movies) but you could almost hear the thoughts stirring in its head. Put plainly, the dragon in Dragonslayer had a freaking personality. In contrast, the dragons in Reign of Fire are lifeless, almost non existent. They aren’t characters. To be honest, these dragons felt like CGI background to me; as if the director was afraid or embarassed to be making a monster movie. In his own words Bowman says on the dvd that he couldnt believe he was here, making a monster movie. A B-movie. So he set out to make a b-movie with a-list production values.  Unfortunately, he decided not to focus on the creatures we are so eager to see; which in part is what brings the film down for me and one of the reasons why this film is a notch below Dragonslayer. The dragons simply didn’t feel tangible or organic, this my friends is a problem I have with many of today’s effects heavy films and it’s something I try and get adjusted to, but hell, its kind of hard to connect with something that is so obviously not there.

I don’t want to turn this review into another rant about the pitfalls of CGI, but I miss those days when I felt like the monsters where there. Still, I’m not saying that Reign of Fire is a complete throw away of a film because it isn’t. The cast is solid, we get to see Gerard Butler back in the days when his career was just getting started; McConaughey when his career still mattered and a pre Dark Knight Christian Bale. Oddly enough; it’s not Christian Bale who shines on this one but Matthew McConaughey with his ‘Van Zan’ character. Aside from having a cool ass name, his character’s just a kick ass mother. He’s intimidating, he chomps on cigars, he’s bald and he’s oh so American.  Van Zan and his group of dragon slayers suddenly invade the film. They present us with an interesting contrast to the colony Christian Bale is the leader of. You see, Quinn’s followers hide from the dragons and are waiting for them to die off on their own while Van Zan and his team take dragons head on. Van Zan has found a way to kill dragons! And I’m watching the film and thinking how this film would have been so much more exciting had it been told from Van Zan’s point of view. The story of Van Zan and his team of dragon slayers seemed more interesting to me then the one about Quinn running an orphanage. Van Zan’s team has this technique where they try and catch dragons with nets, by flying extreme hights on helicopter and then jumping off the choppers with parachutes and these giant nets. These scenes actually make up the most thrilling scenes on the film. Unfortunately, the film doesn’t focus so much on this new technique for killing dragons and you’re kind of left with the desire to see more of Van Zan and his ”angels”.

The dragons themselves leave a lot to be desired, you kind of want to see more of them. The film does this really lazy thing where it kind of shows us how the apocalypse began via a series of news paper articles and news footage. This is not what we want to see. What we want to see are dragons destroying London with the fire! We want to see dragons melting everything away and turning the world into ashes, but no, I guess the films budget wasn’t enough to show us this. A wasted opportunity if you ask me, it’s either they had no budget for it, or lazy filmmaking, you be the judge. Ultimately, for me, the film is very uneven. It had a lot of potential but failed to live up to it. It got somethings right and others completely wrong. This kind of film I judge on a different level then say 2019: After the Fall of New York (1983) because on those cheap Italian films it’s the other way around. They have no money, but the crazy ideas come out of the woodwork! But when a film like Reign of Fire comes along, with a decent budget, good actors and a competent director, yet still manages to disappoint, well, I just can’t forgive it. Still, Reign of Fire is watchable; it’s well shot, and looks appropriately bleak. Unfortunately, it might not live up to your expectations of what a good dragon film should be.  

Rating: 3 1/2 out of 5