Movie Review: Interstellar

Interstellar (2014)


A team of explorers travel through a wormhole in an attempt to find a potentially habitable planet that will sustain humanity.  Short synopsis of Interstellar taken from IMDb.com

Interstellar.  When I first saw the trailer awhile back, I thought...  "well that looks interesting."  But I didn't mentally note it down as a "must-see" film either.  I figured I'd catch it if it was any good, but I was in no hurry.  After all, Christopher Nolan has a talent for film making.  On the other hand, I'd say The Dark Knight Rises, though pretty good, proves he is certainly not infallible.

So it was a "why not?" moment, going to see Interstellar on my wedding anniversary with my sweetheart.  She said she had heard it was good, both from official critic-type sources, and from regular folks too.  And I thought to myself: "hey, my wife's opinion has been proven valid on at least two or three occasions.  Might as well go see it, since we have time."

So, having now spent eighteen bucks to see the movie in the regular big box theater, the question remains: was Interstellar worth that much money?

Well indulge me, gentle reader, on a few observations, and then I'll give my endorsement in the "yea" or "nay" area.  I promise, this won't be one of my sometimes long-winded reviews.  But I would like to make a few sayings, and then I'll deliver the verdict.

There was definitely a 2001: A Space Odyssey-vibe going on in Interstellar.  I'm sure it is no coincidence that Nolan was channeling Kubrick a fair amount.  Even much of the music cues rang in reminiscent tones.  But on that point, that was one small gripe I had.  There were times when the background sounds, be they what was going on, or the soundtrack itself, interfered with the dialogue.  I missed a few key phrases.  But that's movies these days.  So I can't hang it just around Interstellar's neck and send it off like a scapegoat, now can I? / Source: geekynerfherder.blogspot.com

Right up front, I must say that it's about time somebody made a science fiction film using what is often referred to as "hard" science fiction.  Or in other words, real science, or things based on science as we currently understand it.  Yes, 1960's Star Trek may have inspired people to reach for technological accomplishments that mankind could only dream up back then (and better we are for it, in many respects), but let's face facts.  The idea of warp drive is nifty, but also beyond anything we will be able to do for probably at least a hundred years, or more.  If you take into account that technology such as beyond-the-speed-of-light travel would be an undertaking that would cost more time and treasure than mankind is willing to spend just now.  And that is just one of the first hurdles to overcome.  Many, if not most, scholars believe that traveling faster than light is impossible.  So that's a big hurdle too, for sure.

But back on topic.  As for the film itself, I liked Interstellar.  It wasn't perfect in my eyes, but I did quite enjoy it.  And I thought that the film's strengths outweighed its weaknesses.

For instance, I liked that this was a film that took the time to tell an story of some depth and scope.  So many movies these days seem to be in such a rush to get it on the screen and then toss you back out in the street.  Interstellar took its time and truly embraced its subject matter.  This isn't Armageddon by any means (though I do enjoy that particular film, but as a fun romp and - yes, even a bit of a tear-jerker, though I know it is hokey and I know I am being emotionally manipulated).

I know it is completely moronic of me, but when Bruce Willis's character pushes Ben Affleck's character back into the elevator and sends him back to survive, while he stays on the asteroid to complete the mission...  I get a little lump in my throat.  Silly and sentimental as it is, most dads would do the same, if it was their daughter at stake.  Course, in real life, the asteroid would have hit Earth and so his sacrifice would have been for nothing.  But hey! - it's a movie. / Source: alicekay1007.wordpress.com

Having said this story takes time to tell a story, I feel I would be remiss if I didn't bother to explain in a bit more detail.  So here is a brief explanation on the film's plot: we have a world sometime in the future in which things have gone bad, but the filmmakers don't waste endless time going into the how and why.  They simply put it in the context of how it affects the principle characters, which is wise.  It makes us more invested in those characters, as an audience.

Then we get a Nolan-esque method of bringing our hero, played by Matthew McConaughey to the point where we discover that NASA is still around (thought extinct by most people) and has been working to save humanity.  See, there is this wormhole out by Saturn, and NASA has been sending manned missions through the wormhole to visit some potential habitable planets on the other side.  This wormhole links our solar system to another galaxy, by the way.  We're talking a LONG way off.

So our hero and a small team are sent through the wormhole with two missions.  They are attempting to either find a place where A.) humanity can be transported to as a way of colonization, or failing at that (because there is some heavy-duty physics to be overcome in order for scientists to get that many humans off our little blue planet)  there is B.) deliver a payload of a ton of fertilized embryos of mankind's best and brightest that will be raised on the most suitable planet found, allowing humanity to survive, albeit without most of Earth's population benefiting from that survival.  We still left on Earth are going to suffocate as the climate gets worse and worse, the film says.

It is funny to think that black holes were once only a mathematical speculation, though embraced readily by science fiction and the population in general.  There is evidence enough to suggest that these phenomena actually exist.  But what it would take to escape "spaghetification," the term devised to describe what would happen to a human being if they actually became trapped in the terminal gravity well of a black hole... well that is some next-level stuff. / Source: nytimes.com

Then there is a long section where our intrepid astronaut souls check out several of the best potential worlds, which leads to all sorts of problems.  As an example, one world is close enough to a black hole (called "Gargantua" in the film) that time on its surface is different than time for everyone else.  An hour there is calculated (incorrectly, it turns out) to be seven years of Earth time.  And some of our folks get stuck on this planet for awhile, resulting in McConaughey's daughter character both growing to adulthood and also giving up on her father's return.

Then there are other adventures had, including meeting one of the manned-mission survivors on another harsh icy world and discovering...  hmmmm....  I'm going to save that.  In fact, the rest of the plot I will save for those who wish to see the film.  It's worth the wait.  Just to say, there is a lot going on here, and while you don't have to keep both eyes open for every moment passing for fear you will miss something urgent, it certainly isn't the sort of film you can watch with just one eye and one ear while playing Candy Crush or one of its plethora of clones on your phone (not that I advocate that sort of behavior in a theater anyway!).

So where does that leave us?  Well, a couple more observations, both for good and for ill, and I'll be done.  I promised a short-eque review, didn't I?

Well, as I said, there is a lot going on.  This is nice, in that the film doesn't feel rushed, but on the other hand, this is a long movie.  My wife said she had to use the restroom for the last half-hour or so of it, and was hoping things would hurry up.  And even I thought to myself at a few points that I was wondering if they'd get to the end already. 

You'll need to actually click on the image in order to read the captions. They are fascinating.  If some benevolent alien society would drop a wormhole linking us to these worlds, we could go off and see if there are habitable planets in the universe, and if they are already... habitated.  Of course, that might not be such a good idea and all.  Maybe they wouldn't want us tromping on their lawn, so to speak.  It could be bad.  But like the saying goes: "Nothing ventured, nothing exterminated with extreme prejudice."  / Source: zmescience.com

Unlike say, the later The Lord of the Rings films, where at times you feel inundated with action sequences and so the movie feels long because you're eyes get tired of all the sword chopping, this film feels long because it takes time to deal with issues that no sword-chopping would solve.  There are scenes where people are debating important issues, and you feel the weight of the issues pressing.  Coincidentally, it seems as if the concept of relativity affects movie-goers in a like manner to those on a planet too close to a black hole.  Time flies when you're watching someone trying to escape from a giant oncoming wave of water, and crawls when they are discussing the possibilities of choosing one planet over another.

But here is the flip side to that length issue, and it is that my wife didn't leave, despite her discomfort, because the film held her in and wanting to know what happened next.  She didn't want to miss anything, and so she stuck with it.  And though I felt at times as though the movie was really going on and on, it was never boring.  So the small annoyance in the back of my mind at realizing that I'd been in the theater for some time was mitigated by the fact that the story was good enough to keep me engaged.  Not perfectly, mind you.  For a  couple of moments in the film, I caught myself outside of the experience, thinking "hmmmm... that was interesting," or "what is that person's motivation here," or "boy, Michael Caine likes working with Christopher Nolan, doesn't he?"  But it wasn't so jarring as to cause complete disconnect.  I was still invested in the film, to the point where outside distractions were mostly... well, outside.  Beyond my conscious mind, that is.

I can't think of anything else that significantly disturbed my enjoyment of Interstellar.  I did start to call "B.S." at the end, when something happens that made me think the filmmakers had decided to abandon "hard" sci-fi in favor of fantasy and give us a fairy-tale solution, but the movie has the good sense to put the deus ex machina moment in the realm of possibility.  It's supposed to be technology from a plausible future that saves one of our characters at a critical moment, and also answers some of the film's mysteries.  And yes, it can be seen as a bit of a stretch, especially if you start analyzing the temporal paradox involved, but I think, with my limited analytical skills, that they did a good job wrapping it up tightly enough to keep most viewers from being able to simply say "OK, that's just movie magic crossed with the gimmick they needed to solve the problem they wrote themselves into there."


I wondered how much of this film was done green/blue screen.  As I understand, much of Gravity was shot that way.  Sounds like Nolan did his best to avoid it, I suppose.  That's cool.  I suppose I could Google the budget for the movie, but I'd be nervous that it might break my computer, trying to digest a number that big.  Haha.  More realistically, I know it'd hurt my head to think of a number that size.

What else can I say?  I could probably go on for awhile, as Interstellar provides much food for thought, but I'll pack in up here and give you my final two cents on the matter.  In a day when money seems to be tighter than it has ever been, and the price of the big box theater seems out-of-proportion so often to what you get for your movie-going dollar, Interstellar was worth the price for this viewer.  I don't recommend it to just everyone though.  I heard one guy on his phone coming out who said something to the effect of: "The physics were cool, but I don't know what to think of the rest."  It isn't popcorn entertainment, by any means.  If your diet is more of the flavored heated corn type, then Interstellar may be a bit much.  If on the other hand, you would appreciate a film that apologetically goes to the n-th degree, and seems to have been well researched to back itself up, then Interstellar may be right up your alley.  For me, it was.  Worth the eighteen buck and probably near three hour running time.


The parting comment:

Sources: 3sisterschocolate.com (top) / nbcnews.com (middle) / weirdnews.about.com (bottom)

What do these three images have in common?  They are all extravagant uses of chocolate in this writer's opinion, that is; perhaps you live a life where chocolate shoes, statues of yourself and baths are quite normal (and good for you, I suppose).  And according to news sources, including The Smithsonian.com (see the link for the story), the world is consuming chocolate faster than it can be grown.  So not too long from now, the three images above will set you back a really pretty penny.  Of course, the Aztecs used cacao beans, from which chocolate is derived, as a form of money.  The drink made from these beans was only indulged in by the Aztec elite.  After all, you were literally drinking money.  Could the late twenty-first century see a similar state of affairs?  Only time will tell.