Interstellar (2014)

2/5

Christopher Nolan's overindulgent Interstellar is a pretentious pile of crap. It will draw instant comparisons to Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey, mostly because it's overlong and cerebral, but it doesn't achieve nearly the same success as its predecessor in the field of art or entertainment. The plot is the least important part of the movie, but Nolan spends an exorbitant amount of time and effort explaining all its inane details. Whereas 2001 contained groundbreaking universal ideas, Interstellar contains unexciting characters performing specific tasks in a fictitious world. Nolan adds in an emotional tug that was absent in 2001, but it almost serves as the antithesis of the existential crisis at the core of both sci-fi films. I never felt myself pulled in by the relationship between Matthew McConaughey and his daughter (it felt inauthentic) or by Anne Hathaway's silly monologue about believing in love over science.

But my biggest problem with the film is that everything is wrapped up too neatly. I normally enjoy circular stories--where the end brings everything back to the beginning--but here it feels so written, so planned, so deceptive. The movie is too tidy for the big ideas it presents. Nolan tries to lecture and explain instead of let the film exist as a jumping off point. He wants to control the discussion instead of letting the discussion occur organically. Perhaps 2001's greatest strength is that it was so unexplained, so open to interpretation. Interstellar doesn't have that, and it leaves the movie flat. Despite the gorgeous visuals, spot-on acting, and surprise cameo, the movie just doesn't do it for me.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0816692

W. (2008)

2/5

Oliver Stone's W. claims to be an honest representation of the former President in the hopes of dismantling years of misconceptions, both positive and negative, but is instead a ludicrous farce filled with exaggerations and caricatures. The movie goes back and forth between history and the present, starting with his time in office and intercutting with past events that led him there (including random, unrelated ones). I can imagine this was done for no other reason than to make up for lacking transitions and storyline inconsistencies. There is no progression or escalation, merely event after event after event, which makes the 2 hour runtime laboriously slow. (I thought it was nearing the end before 90 minutes in.) And each vignette is only hinted at, nothing is fleshed out, so we are left with a frustratingly inadequate and incomplete picture of a man nobody really cares about anymore. Not only that, but the rest of the screen is filled with people who are more focused on their horrific accents than their characters, which turn out to be flatter than their real counterparts (and those I've only seen in stilted TV announcements).

The one redeeming factor is the humor that is infused in this film, although I'm not sure it was all intentional. Because everything is so extreme, it is also preposterous to the point of comedy. The movie cannot be taken seriously anymore. Dick Cheney is a raving, power-hungry, egomaniacal lunatic--weren't we trying to dispel myths and prejudices? Condoleezza Rice is, for some bizarre reason, an uglier, female version of Neil Goldman from Family Guy. Below I have included a clip with Neil Goldman; as you watch it, just imagine Thandie Newton in disfiguring makeup prosthetics talking to Bush, and you have the movie W. Don't watch this movie; it's a waste of time.



IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1175491/

The Fountain (2006)

4.9/5

The Fountain is first and foremost a journey, intellectually, emotionally, and thematically. There is a surprisingly seamless quality to the film, as every scene and setting shares the same hues and composition. And the compositions (basically every single shot) are absolutely breathtaking in beauty. Aronofsky has created an amazing theoretical experience, one that is difficult to comprehend. Despite that, it is extremely confident in itself--it does not dumb itself down for the audience to better understand. This confidence carries the movie; if made by a weaker director, it wouldn't have worked. He gives it some unknown, ethereal quality that makes me love it. Hugh Jackman's acting was powerfully real and heartfelt, made stronger by the emotive music.

The problems arose as a result of some of the best aspects of the movie. Its abstract nature and faith in the audience's intellect made any possibility of immediate understanding difficult. It will take a lot of time and thought to perform even a partial analysis. The beautiful shot compositions were a bit jarring, because Aronofsky didn't take into account transitional shots that would smooth out the flow. These weren't necessary evils; they could have easily been prevented had Aronofsky simply thought about them. Even so, these faults were relatively small.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0414993/