Films/DVD Asylum

SPOILERS: "Interstellar." Films should be about a lot of showing and a little telling. At least,

98.232.224.41

This Post Has Been Edited by the Author

Hollywood spectaculars should be.
This one has the usual convoluted plot that is meant to convey gravitas: this IS NOT a delivery vehicle for "wow!" FX!
But it is, isn't it? They're wonderful, perhaps worth the money (though perhaps not the 3 hours….).
I won't bother to get into all the plot inconsistencies, though there are plenty. Or the slightly ridiculous coincidences, i.e. a brilliant scientist (he alone gets to do all that--- there are no others to curb his secrets?) has a brilliant helper that happens to be the daughter of earth's greatest pilot? And on and on…
Matt Damon is the worst casting mistake. He doesn't convey malice very well and, unfortunately, the first thing that springs to mind is, "Bourne!"
Anyhow, no matter the 130-decibel soundtrack, the well-spaced FX fireworks, the "what the hell does that mean?" plot convolutions--- I eventually became bored.
Ghosts in the bookcase. Watches that were so prominently featured in the earlier part that a 7-year old knew would become a key.
Complexity doesn't equal depth.
Is it a good popcorn film?
I'd say so-so. It's length and over-the-top FX repetitions eventually exhaust. There was little suspense, no true villain, nothing really to take away.
Some here and elsewhere are comparing this to "2001."
Please.
I won't dishonor the memory of Kubrick by taking the time to discuss that silliness.
This doesn't bear comparison to "Prometheus," either.
One image that reoccurs does have meaning: this film is corny.

Follow Ups: