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

This Is 40 (2012)

3/5

Judd Apatow's This Is 40 is the coyly self-proclaimed "sort-of sequel" to Knocked Up. Except the two main characters of that movie can't seem to find the time to even make a cameo here (despite its 135 minute runtime). Instead we get to see the unhappily-married life of Pete (Rudd) and Debbie (Mann) as they approach middle age.

The movie wasn't bad so much as it was overlong. I know it wasn't as long as the Lord of the Rings trilogy, but it certainly felt that way. It had a meandering plot that rotated around both funny and unfunny subplots instead of having a real story arc to propel it forward. The humor it contained was surprisingly topical and observational, kind of like an updated version of Seinfeld for married life, but not as timeless and not as hilarious. It was just kind of there. It was clearly a project that Judd Apatow wanted to do more than one audiences wanted to see.

What makes the movie even more frustrating is that the story starts to spin out of control and--instead of tying up loose ends, or even attempting to--it just ends in a musical rainbow of blah. What? Does Apatow think people don't need resolution any more? We're okay with movies just stopping when the writers don't have any good ideas anymore? Honestly, I left the movie about the same as when I came in, except with a lower credit balance and a half-eaten bucket of popcorn. Trust the "mixed" reviews: this movie is mediocre.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1758830/

Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011)

4/5

Rise of the Planet of the Apes is a prequel to the original Planet of the Apes. It tells the affecting story of young scientist Will Rodman (Franco), who is researching a novel medication to cure his father (Lithgow) from Alzheimer's. They start testing the brain booster on lab monkeys, but the operation is shut down after one monkey escapes and shows signs of aggression. Rodman is forced to take care of that monkey's baby, Caesar, which he manages to accomplish with the help of veterinarian Aranha (Pinto). As Caesar ages, the newly-formed family grows quite close, in heartwarming, Disney-esque montages. But Caesar quickly learns that not all humans are fond of apes or Disney montages.

The story has considerable range for what I'm sure everybody was expecting to be a simple action flick. The action itself comes in spurts, giving the overall movie a realistically tense and unpredictable atmosphere. The CGI was pretty close to perfect--it was so good that I actually had no idea it was CGI and kept wondering how they filmed the movie. But the picture is not all rosy. The acting was mediocre at best, forgettable at worst. The dialogue was equally bland and unremarkable. The characters were flat archetypes, and Pinto's veterinarian character was the worst offender. She was worthless, serving as nothing more than a pretty face in an otherwise drab, hairy film. But these niggles are minor complaints in the grand scheme of things, especially in the vanishingly rare genre of action movies that are actually good.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1318514/