#Movie #Review #ViolentNight Is Cartoonishly Violent Fun

A few weeks ago now, I saw Violent Night, a rather cartoonishly violent Christmas themed movie by director Tommy Wirkola.

It tells the unlikely tale of an elite team of mercenaries who break into a family compound on Christmas Eve, taking the wealthy family hostage inside. However, they aren't prepared for a surprise visitor: Santa Claus is on the grounds, and he's about to whip out the naughty list on the bad guys.

• David Harbour plays a respectable and oddly believable Santa, who says he has been in the role of the jolly old elf apparently since the time of the Vikings, when he wielded a hammer, not a bag of toys. And he has a long memory when it comes to violence.
• Actor/comedian John Leguizamo portays Scrooge, the leader of a violent gang attacking a wealthy family on Christmas Eve. And he does it with credibility. This film really is violent,  but it's not nasty. 
• Beverly D'Angelo is well cast as Gertrude Lightstone, the family's matriarch, whom her children and grandchildren are desperate to impress, because they believe their inheritance relies on it. And it does. 

She is rude and mean to staff and family alike, and early on, we are not impressed with her attitude towards others. So when her basement vault is threatened by the invaders, who clearly have had an insider feeding them information, we are not sympathetic to her. Nor are we meant to have any sympathy for this wealthy family.

But her son's little girl, who believes in Santa, is very frightened by what's going on in the house on Christmas Eve, is a sympathetic character, and her hope that her two separated parents reunite as a couple after Christmas seems  delightfully naive, but offers a hopeful note. 

It should be mentioned, however that the "Violent" in "Violent Night" is not inaccurate, and this is not a film for little children, although clearly scenes battling the intruders were inspired by the '90s film Home Alone, and characters reference the film by name. The violence is all very over the top and cartoonish. But also some of it is quite graphic.

Once Santa and the little girl get together, they hatch a plan to attack the bad guys, who are confronted by Santa and are informed that they are, and have in the past, been on the "naughty list."

This leads to the interesting conclusion that the bad guys all come to believe that this is actually Santa Claus. But somehow, they don't turn over a new leaf with this epiphany.

This is overall and interesting little movie, but is not quite a replacement for It's A Wonderful Life. It's got violent, fantasy, and sweet elements,  not quite sure which kind of film this is,  but it all kind of works.

#Movie #Review "Everything, Everywhere, All At Once"

The filmmaking duo Daniel "Dan" Kwan and Daniel Scheinert, collectively known as "Daniels,” have brought a unique film to the screen, “Everything, Everywhere, All at Once.”

To use the words “unique” and film in the same sentence these days seems almost impossible, since Hollywood loves to imitate rather than innovate. 

But this is no derivative sequel, it’s utterly unique and different. 

The elements it brings together, however, aren’t. In the same month that Marvel brought “Dr. Strange and the Multiverse of Madness” to the screens, and previously a cartoon version of Spider-Man, the concept of a multiverse has had some high-profile exposure to the public. 

The concept here shares some elements with those other films. Through an unknown force,  people are able to travel to other universes, created by choices they made in the past. Each path, every choice, creates a new universe. In this film, the lead character, Evelyn Wang (played by Michelle Yeoh) must rise to the challenge and defeat a super being (inhabiting her daughter, Joy (Stephanie Hsu) who has a secret that those in another universe fear. 

That other universe contacts Evelyn, who with her husband Waymond (Ke Huy Quan - who played "Short Round" in "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom") owns a laundromat, and is in trouble with the IRS. They contact her through a psychic link with her husband, who informs her that she can contact other universes to acquire skills (like martial arts) that will help her in her fight. 

The cast is rounded out by 93-year-old James Hong as Gong Gong, Evelyn’s father, who famously played Hannibal Chew, the eyeball-creating geneticist in Blade Runner and voiced Chi-Fu in "Mulan," and a stunning performance by Jamie Lee Curtis as Deirdre Beaubeirdra, the long-suffering IRS agent who transform into a vicious kung fu fighter - after hilarious interactions with Evelyn as she audits her messy laundry business records.

Despite its sci-fi elements, the film has some strong fantasy sequences, especially when the secret that Joy is working on is revealed. It’s very reminiscent of “Hitchhiker’s Guide To the Galaxy” in many respects, and if you enjoy absurdist humor (Joy’s bagel, the "talking rocks" universe, the multiple uses of Deirdre’s awards, and “Raccaccoonie”) you’ll love those parts of the film.

But it also strives to be more profound than all this. Hoping to transcend it’s sillier elements, it seeks, in the end, to make a serious statement about life and relationships.

I’m not sure its succeeds in that but it’s a very fun ride to take, and the effects in this admittedly low budget film (compared to Marvel’s films, anyway) are well done, and some are “practical effects,” done without green screens or computers, with only a handful of people.

The film clearly wants to be an international sensation. Parts of the early scenes are in Chinese, with English subtitles. Clearly, the Nearly all-Asian cast will play well in China – a significant market for films today – but some elements, like Joy’s girlfriend Becky, the raunchy sexual humor, and the history of Evelyn’s father rejecting her, in part because she’s female, will go against the grain of traditional Chinese values. 

Still, this is well worth seeing in the theaters. 

#Movie #Review Death On The Nile (2022): Death In The Theaters?

Based on the 1937 novel by Agatha Christie, “Death on the Nile,” the latest film directed by, and starring, Kenneth Branagh as the Belgian detective Hercule Poirot, takes viewers on a murder mystery tour down the Nile River in Egypt (which started out as a wedding party.) And if you think this is an Oscar-worthy film, just because of the lush CGI scenery, the chatty dialogue, or chic costumes, you’d be in serious DENile. 

This film clearly has Oscar pretentions. Too bad it has so many flaws. The aforementioned CGI pyramids and river do their best to distract from them, but they exist. But let’s start with the cast, itself. 

The leads, Armie Hammer as Simon Doyle and Gal Gadot as wife Linnet Ridgeway, play newlyweds who have invited friends on a cruise down the Nile in 1937. The two are seemingly happy, but Simon’s spurned lover, Jacqueline de Bellefort (played by Emma Mackey) has threateningly followed the group every step of the way and is now on the ship with them.

Poirot is asked by the couple to watch out for their safety.

The complicated back story of the couple and de Bellefort, told first in a jazzy night club years earlier where Simon first fell for Linnet, and a rather unnecessary flashback to World War One in which we learn why the good detective has such an outlandishly large moustache (to hide a war wound.) take up time and don’t pay off very well for the audience.

Other flaws include anachronisms and outlandish dialogue throughout the two hour and seven-minute film (which seems longer.) 

Anachronisms (things that don’t belong in the time period) abound. Climbing on the pyramids while flying a kite, Tom Bateman’s character Bouc, who appeared as the character in the much more commercially successful Branagh film “Murder on the Orient Express,” jokingly, but clearly, alludes to the famous line in the film Casablanca (“Of all the gin joints in all the world...”) when he notices Poirot watching below. But that’s a 1942 film, not yet released, since this film is set in 1937. 

The guitarist in the jazz club’s band is playing a Gibson hollow body electric guitar. Gibson didn't make hollow body electric guitar until 1958. (Not to mention the music, which seems later than 1937, but could have dated from that era.)

The dancing in the jazz club was NOT of the era, however. Miley Cyrus could have learned her twerking skills from what Simon and Jacqueline do on the dance floor. 

Another: Helium-filled balloons fly from the exterior of the ship, but inside, the balloons fall from the ceiling, apparently air-filled. 

And so on.

The dialogue is at times wooden and at other times ludicrous. One hilarious example is when Gal Gadot’s Linnet welcomes the guests to the ship, she exclaims, in an overly exaggerated and even campy tone, “We have the Karnak [the ship’s name] all to ourselves, a chef, and enough champagne to fill Nile!” She then exaggeratingly tosses the contents of her glass overboard into the river, as if to illustrate the point. 

To make things worse, she pronounces “champagne” as "SHIMPaine" unlike any American like her character would ever do. 

The scene has been the subject of ridicule in reviews and the video clip has become a meme on social media. Various media are panning her acting as evidence of her being a “terrible actress” a label she’s been carrying around since 2020’s Wonder Woman: 1984) One charitable Twitter user called her a "fascinatingly bad actor." And who can ever forget the “Imagine” YouTube video Gadot put together during the pandemic, which received endless ridicule? 

All of this is not great for the film's eventual box office take.

Poirot/Branagh himself has some ludicrous, overly dramatic lines, as well, among them being, “The crime is murder. The murderer is one of you. I have investigated many crimes, but this has altered the shape of my soul. I am detective Hercule Poirot, and I will deliver your killer.” Okay, then.

Speaking of not great, the film’s other star, Armie Hammer, has for months been mired in controversy, accused of raping and assaulting women and making strange comments to them implying he is a cannibal. The film was delayed for 18 months due to the pandemic, and he has not been part of a tour to promote the film’s release, but a weak $12 million opening weekend may be partly due to his involvement. 

The film has other elements, which are neither negative nor positive, but are transparently designed to get the film qualified for Oscar nominations. Namely, the inclusion of the black jazz performer (Letitia Wright) and her mother, who are portrayed UBER sympathetically (as wholly expected for a 21st Century film) and two other women who are, in the film (but NOT in Agatha Christie’s original book) exposed by the crafty detective as lesbian lovers. Such tokenism – sorry, "inclusion” - is required of ALL films to qualify for a nomination, however silly and anachronistic it may be in a film taking place in 1930s Egypt. 

That said, it’s neither here nor there to me, and doesn’t help or hurt the film, though it does distract from the slow boiling plot, which doesn’t start getting interesting until well past the half point, one hour in.

(It should be noted that Wright has faced controversy, too, for posting a YouTube video questioning the safety of COVID-19 vaccines - as has Brand - and allegedly making transphobic comments, two things that get you “cancelled” in liberal Hollywood these days.)

A barely recognizable Russell Brand (who puts in a good performance) also appears here, but you might not care about his character.

The murder itself (or series of them) is a true mystery and is resolved cleverly by Poirot. The murderer and accomplice get their just desserts in the end, but a less dramatic ending for them both would have worked just as well, as it did in the book.

While flawed, Death on the Nile is watchable, and tolerable. Wait to stream it, though. It will likely be online very soon.

#Movie #Review #TheEternals: A Flawed, Muddled Effort [Stephen Abbott's blog]

In Marvel's The Eternals, ancient alien beings who have been living on Earth in secret for thousands of years come out of the shadows to reunite against mankind's most ancient enemy, the Deviants.

In what sounds like a perfect setup for a Marvel film, it is ultimately ruined by a muddled plot, sloppy dialogue, and far too many characters to keep track of, or care for.

The film starts out as a fairly good origin story for nine eternal beings who come to Earth around 5000 BC to protect humanity from the Deviants, porcupine-like creatures that are hell-bent on destroying humanity in its infancy.

They accomplish this initial goal early on, but the characters are shown remaining on guard duty for humanity throughout history, often with the story jumping back and forth in time to the present day, then back to the 1500s, and earlier, which quickly got confusing with nine characters involved.

While much has been made of the "politically correct" nature of the film, in part because it features characters (and actors) of several different nationalities, and includes both a deaf and gay characters for the first time in Marvel history (as far as we know)  we have to remember that this film, like all films today, are not only produced, but also shown, worldwide, and will likely make more money in China and Europe than in the US.

Indeed, the film was directed by Chinese-born Chloé Zhao, the first time for her as a director in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and it will probably be her last.

(That said, the film has been banned in certain Arab countries because of the gay character, which features a minor, and brief, gay kiss between him and his husband that the directors would not cut from the film. Political Correctness is a double-edged sword in many parts of the world.)

Richard Madden plays Ikaris, who's who is prone to fly like Superman and even shoot lasers out of his eyes like Superman. Basically, he's Superman.

Adding some real star power to the film is Salma Hayek as Ajak who is ostensibly the leader of the group, and whose Secret knowledge of the mission they are undertaking on Earth is one of the true surprises of the film

Also, Angelina Jolie plays Athena, whom ancient peoples actually believe is the goddess of the same name. Jolene's character is haunted by a demon-like presence that makes her dangerous to the other eternals. While an interesting plot point, it kind of makes her character unreliable and sidelines her. 

With someone of that caliber playing a character in your film, you don't want something like this happening to her, making her basically a bit player.

Barry Keoghan is Druig, who is a sympathetic character, in that he wishes humanity would stop fighting one another. He wants to use his massive psychic abilities to control people's minds to make that instantly happen, worldwide, but is stopped by Ajak, who insists that they not interfere with humanity's progress.

Don Lee is Gilgamesh, who is a fearsome fighter, but seems to just rely on his brute strength here rather than any superpower.

All of these characters have something good to do, but as the film progresses, it is revealed that their mission is less than altruistic towards humanity. This moral ambiguity makes them less than heroes, which doesn't bode well for any sequel.

But the major problem with the film remains the characters' development. With nine new characters to introduce, there was always going to be a problem getting to know them all in an in-depth way, so that we cared about their mission and about them, personally. When main characters die here - and they do - many viewers are more likely to say, "Oh, well" rather than express shock.

The teenage-like chatter between some of the Eternals, akin to "Does he like me or not?" is childish and tedious, even if it's an on-again-off-again romance over 500 years and not over science class in a high School romance film.

Not content with this blizzard of characters in the film itself, the standard MCU post credits scenes (yes, there are two of them!) introduce three new characters to the Universe, although one of them appeared in the film posing as a human companion of one of the Eternals, hiding their superhero identity. 

A final twist in the end of the movie, in which three of the Eternals are abducted and taken somewhere off Earth, is meant to be dramatic, but is literally post-climactic, and it leaves audience members not really caring, even though it is likely the setup for an anticipated sequel.

It's doubtful such a sequel wilsl happen. Early Rotten Tomatoes numbers were terrible (now standing at 47% critics, 80% audience. 2017's Thor: Ragnarok was 93%/87% by comparison)

Fans of the comic book upon which this film was based are said to be unhappy with how the director interpreted the characters, some of which are said to bear little resemblance to the Eternals comic book series, and took liberties with the characters' traits.

Issues have been raised by the short character in the post-credit scene, but this is most evident in the Druig character, which in the comic books was portrayed as sadistic and evil, working undercover for the Soviet KGB as a torturer. In the film, as noted above, he sought universal peace.

Verdict: See this at a cheap matinee or when it streams.

#Movie #Review #Cruella

(Spoilers included!)

Disney's Cruella open to mixed reviews in late May, 2021, but it is well worth seeing and works as an Origin Story for this dastardly Disney character.

We first see her as Estella, a young girl who is born with her trademark black and white hair. From the beginning, she is a difficult child for her widowed mother, who puts her in a boarding school, where she is warned to be Estella, not a "Cruella."

She does not heed the advice, and gets in fights and causes other problems which results in her being expelled.

After her mother's death at the hands of a mysterious person living in a grand mansion, Estella ends up in 1970s London.

She quickly falls in with two young boys who earn their way in life as pickpockets and thieves. The two 12-year-old actors do an admirable job playing the Dickensian characters.

She stays with the young scamps over 10 years, and they become her surrogate family. But she wishes and hopes for more than the petty theft that keeps them alive, knowing that she has a great skill: designing clothing. One day, she's instantly hired by a designer, but is just put to work, Cinderella-like, scrubbing floors and toilets.

Frustrated, and in a drunken stupor (in a Disney film!) one evening after work, she re-does the front window of the fashion house's department store.

When the Baroness, who runs the fashion line "House of Liberty" (played by Emma Thompson) sees the dramatic window display the next day, she instantly hires Estella.

The relationship between the two Emma's is strained from the beginning. If anyone has seen The Devil Wears Prada, they will recognize the dynamic as one very similar to that between Anne Hathaway's Andrea and Meryl Streep's Miranda Priestly. But the difference here is that unlike Miranda Priestly, the Baroness has a grudging admiration for Estella's talent as a designer from the start. 

But the tide turns when Estella realizes that the Baroness is responsible for her mother's death, and later learns who she actually is.

Surprisingly perhaps, for a Disney film, there is amazing depth of character here in the two leads.

The baroness character is the villain in the piece, rather than Cruella, who comes across as conflicted and sympathetic.

This is a big change from previous incarnations of the character by Disney. In the 1961 animated film 101 Dalmatians, she is portrayed as evil incarnate, hell bent on turning dogs into a coat. 

The live-action film of the same name in 1996, starring Glenn Close, stayed true to the storyline of a maniacal woman who wanted to turn the dogs into coats. That film, unlike this recent one, was deliberately over the top in its character portrayals, basically making it a live-action cartoon. An interesting bit of trivia is that Glenn Close was an executive producer of Cruella, as was Emma Stone.

But this film, which should be seen more as a reboot than a sequel or prequel to the previous Disney efforts, has the lead character explicitly telling another character that she did not turn the Baroness's three Dalmatians into coats, despite wearing a suspiciously dotted coat during one of her fashion events.  In fact, the character loves dogs in this film, and even has one as a pet.

She chalked it up to a malicious rumor when asked about it, one no doubt she was promoting herself in order to boost her image as a ruthless designer.

That kind of sophisticated thought coming from a character in a Disney film isn't really expected. But because she actually didn't kill the dogs, or even attempt it, we are allowed to sympathize with her plight as an orphan who has been wronged.

No doubt adhering to new Oscar rules, the film includes a diverse cast, including Kirby Howell-Baptiste, as a starry eyed reporter who knew Estelle as a child, and John McCrae, who plays an effeminate second-hand clothing store owner who befriends Estelle, and later helps her when she becomes Cruella.

The film is a veritable linen closet of film tropes from the past. As mentioned above, the almost obvious nod to The Devil Wears Prada, but since this is an origin story of an orphan whose parent has been killed, one could also say Batman can be found here as well. And like Batman, and other superheroes, Cruella struggles internally here with hatred for her foe, a hatred that she knows is changing her.

Cruella is therefore a Scarlett O'Hara figure, who latches onto people and does what she needs to do to survive. Because she has not crossed the line and actually murdered her opponent, or the dogs, she can remain sympathetic to audiences.

I have to mention the wonderful soundtrack to this film, which takes place in the 1970s. One film reviewer noted, "A punk song in a Disney film! Punk is dead!" 

Artists included Queen, Supertramp, The Doors, Ike and Tina Turner, Blondie and The Clash. Actor John McCrae recorded a cover of The Stooge's raucous 1969 song, "I Want to be Your Dog," for the film's soundtrack.

Expect at least one sequel, which is already in development.

#FirstReformed #Movie #Review: Gloomy Film With #Environmental, #Theological Subtexts [Stephen Abbott's blog]

A review of "First Reformed," by Stephen Abbott

MILD SPOILERS - BUT NOT AS MANY AS ARE IN THE TRAILER!

Director Paul Schrader (who wrote the screenplays for “Taxi Driver,” “Raging Bull,” and “Last Temptation of Christ”) writes and directs “First Reformed,” the melancholy tale of Rev. Ernst Toller (Ethan Hawke) who lives an almost solitary life in a dying church in upstate New York. As he deals with great personal loss, and a loss of faith, his anguish bursts forth into ever-deepening despair.

While the film is already being discussed as an Oscar contender, and it has well-known stars - Cedric “the Entertainer” as a fundamentalist megachurch minister, Amanda Seyfried (“Mamma Mia”, “Veronica Mars,” “Big Love”) and Michael Gaston (“The Mentalist,” “Mad Men”) - it looks more like the Indie film it really is, with a lot of “mood-setting” and scenes that appear ad-libbed, but sadly, probably weren’t.

The long opening foreshadows Toller’s despair, featuring credits in an old-fashioned font, a long shot of the white wood-clad “First Reformed Church,” and overcast skies filled with snow seemingly about to burst forth from the clouds.

The mood, and the script, is assisted by Schrader’s Calvinist upbringing, and as a clergyman in the Reformed church in the film, Pastor Toller would be well acquainted with the dour view of human nature I think plays a part in his unraveling.

The story opens in the church, where Hawke’s Toller is going through the motions. The nearly-dead church is a 250-year-old relic about to be “re-consecrated” in a ceremony run by the building’s owners, a large fundamentalist megachurch down the street run by Cedric (Pastor Jeffers) who has brought Toller in to manage the church after Toller, a former military chaplain, suffered a tragedy and a divorce that’s sent him on a downward spiral of despair.

Toller has begun to write a year-long diary, a “form of prayer” he narrates for us throughout the film. This helps us focus on his mindset, and Schrader was right to include it, at the risk of accusations that he is plagiarizing earlier films using the same trope, because it's effective here.

The sparsely-attended, broken down Dutch Reformed Church – owned by, and serving as an appendage of, the megachurch down the road - serves as a painful and true-to-life reminder of many mainline churches that can’t keep their doors open due to dwindling membersship.  Again, Schrader nails this, because he likely lived it, first-hand, and I believe there’s no way this portrayal is accidental.

That even Toller can no longer bring himself to pray to God, and is losing faith in his bleak theology, is painfully portrayed in every frame of the film. It’s a crisis of faith in slow motion.

Toller offers to visit the fiancé of a parishioner who’s worried about her partner’s state of mind. The woman, Mary, is pregnant by the man, Michael (thank God, the character is not named Joseph!) before they have been married, but presumably after consummation.

Mary is disturbed by Michael’s growing environmental extremism. They meet, and Michael tells Toller of his obsession with the future of the planet, which he believes is doomed due to mankind’s destruction of the environment, a view encouraged when he looks up gloomy stats on websites and is reinforced by the photos of starving polar bears on the wall. He admits coyly to pressuring Mary to have an abortion, because he fears bringing a child into such a world.

Toller unconvincingly (and we know this, because of later events) encourages Michael not to give up on humanity, though his narration betrays his inner torment.

We see that Toller is the one convinced, however – rather quickly –  to take up Michael’s cause. And, after Michael is out of the picture (I’ll hide much of what’s to come from this point on) he toys with doing so in a rather radical way.

I’ll add here that as a mainline preacher, he would likely have already shared much of Michael’s environmental worldview, though it’s portrayed here as a new revelation, with Toller poring over conspiracy theory websites and papers, featuring ever more dire discoveries.

But scary rhetoric about a bleak future can backfire badly, and the film, perhaps unintentionally, shows that fear-based, alarmists tactics can lead to paranoia and extremism, rather than hope. Clearly, not what Schrader had in mind.

If there’s a religious subtext in the film, unintentional or not, it’s that mainline Christianity has, in some cases, substituted environmental activism in place of its negative theological worldview. In a real Reformed church, Michael would have been invited by Toller to teach a class or lead a church-wide protest march. But that would likely have saved Michael, and perhaps even have helped redeem Toller – an ending too positive for this film’s protagonist, and its theme.

Instead, the film’s third act is its most bleak, and most soul-crushing. The pace noticeably quickens, as Toller’s life unravels before our eyes, and his religious doubt turns to clarity in his new mission.

A fantasy "flying" scene at this point takes all reality out of the film, however, and reminds us that, “Yes, this is an Indie film.” It's a shame Schrader did this, just because he could. It adds little, and sacrifices much.

An all-too-convenient villain appears, which gives Toller the idea to perhaps become a martyr to his new environmental cause. But at the last minute, his plan changes, and in anguish, he graphically, pathetically, wraps himself in a mere symbol of martyrdom.

The film could have ended several different ways, and the ending Schrader chose is extremely hard to watch. He would have been forgiven for ending it with a fulfilled mission for Toller, perhaps with him first calling away the person he wished to save.

Or, if he had chosen to be heavy-handed, he could have had Toller resign, and announce that he’d spend the rest of his days fighting pollution. Instead, the “Sopranos-like” ending leaves audiences adrift, though the film really may have ended 30 seconds before it actually did.

My theory is that the "cup" did not pass from him, and the very last moments are a dream sequence. You’ll see what I mean.

#StarWars.... in 1701? Yes, sort of. [Stephen Abbott's blog]

Check out this passage from a 1701 magazine that uses rather modern language in places ("hold 'em"?) to criticize a treaty, but THEN goes on to suggest  that their crafty enemies MIGHT JUST COLONIZE OTHER PLANETS, if given the chance!

"They must be permitted to march through your Territories, you must furnish 'em with Provisions; nay, you must permit 'em to plunder too, if they have a mind to it; but the Enemy must not be suffer'd to touch an Ear of Corn, nor so much as to tread upon your Holy Ground,'tis a Breach of the Neutrality a Violation of Promise. The Refusal of the Investiture is a Crime that will never be forgotten, if France and Spain should prosper, which Heaven forbid. For then, this World would be too little to hold 'em — They wou!d be scaling the Moon, and storming all the Seven Planets to find out new Regions, and more Room for their Ambition." From "Historical and Political Monthly Mercury" for August, 1701, p.283.

#Review: Christopher Nolan's "Interstellar": Love is NOT the Answer (to Space Travel)

SPOILERS!!

I've been eagerly awaiting “Interstellar” for months and it really did live up to my expectations.

Christopher Nolan’s film, starring a stellar cast and breathtaking visuals, stands up very well as a Sci-Fi epic and is very entertaining. It will also make you question whether the human race is ready for interstellar travel, because these characters clearly are not. The film also enters some pretty strange realms of time, space and metaphysics, and even touches on that vast, unknowable emotion called love, and does all these things in an often clunky way.

The story (SPOILERS AHEAD, I meant it!) is this: in the near future (perhaps 25 years from now) humanity, presented here only by what’s going on in the USA, is suffering from massive droughts and dust bowl-like conditions that are causing all crops except corn to fail. And corn is about to fail, too. The population of the earth has fallen dramatically and the earth is basically dying. We need a new home out among the stars.

Matthew McConaughey is an engineer in a world where there is no need for engineers, so he’s a farmer dealing with all this misery. He has two kids. His son plays a minor role but his super-intelligent daughter plays a key role, and in fact, must be played by three actresses across generations.

And no, McConaughey does not drive a Lincoln in the film, as he does in his now-famous and extremely odd TV commercials. He drives a very old 2014 Dodge Ram pickup truck.

The film features the struggles on earth, intercut with danger and duplicity on distant planets, and the stars include an Affleck, a Damon, a Caine, and a former Spiderman, among many other big names rounded up by Nolan.

The first half of the movie basically sets all of this up, and it’s extremely bleak and horrifyingly believable. Leaving aside the CAUSE of all this misery – assumed to be a man-made event – the nation’s economic priorities have also changed. No more military (only because it’s no longer affordable) and no more space program. In fact, textbooks that are “government-corrected” – apparently by Oliver Stone – make it clear that we never even went to the moon, and that the faked lunar landings were only a ruse to bankrupt the Soviets.

But things get weird fast when a gravitational anomaly in his house leads McConaughey’s character to a secret government facility that turns out to be NASA’s new home. He’s quickly recruited to pilot a ship and crew, complete with robots, to a black hole/wormhole that’s mysteriously appeared near Saturn – put there by a “they” that is at first undefined.

I use the word “quickly” with great trepidation, because it takes these characters years to just get to Saturn in this film and it feels like it takes hours in the theater, too. WARNING: This film soars to nearly three hours in length. It feels like five. Discrete cutting could have brought it down to two, easily.

On the “other side” of the wormhole, they’re in another galaxy, and must explore three planets that have been deemed possibly inhabitable by humans – new homes for the starving millions, or (a Plan B) to repopulate with genetic material the astronauts brought with them.

For the sake of the audience, astronauts approaching the black hole are portrayed explaining how time can bend in an Einsteinian sense. This is something they surely would already know, and many other points seem pedantic and even silly. Some of the dialogue here seems like it could have been cut, leaving less-informed viewers to go to Wikipedia for scientific explanations.

2001: A Space Odyssey, to which this film could easily be compared in many respects (including some trippy wormhole scenes and the "HAL-like" robots, who luckily don't go insane) shows that constant chatter is unnecessary to show the majesty and vastness of space.

The remarkable Hans Zimmer's music added a lot to the effect of the film and gave it a “2001” feeling. He also composed music for Nolan’s “Inception,” which this film in some ways resembles. The musical score was too loud in places and covered some dialogue at the end.

Back to the plot, three explorers have managed to get messages out to earth, and exploring one of the planets – a water world (a type of planet which does exist and is extremely plausible) – that unfortunately lies too close to the black hole and causes time to run 1/7th slower. This has a devastating effect on the crew and incidentally demonstrates why such long-distance travel would be very difficult for humans.

Some ludicrous and unscientific points here include escaping the event horizon of a black hole by using rocket engines, and then “shedding the weight” of part of the ship. Huh? And the fact that “love” is the key to part of the solution, as elucidated by the love-addled Anne Hathaway, who is smitten with one of the male explorers who has gone to explore one of the promising planets. The idea that Love should color the decision to explore one planet instead of another is rightly shot down by McConauhey’s character. I immediately thought I was watching a sequel to “The Fifth Element.”

Instead, there are five dimensions here, and the final third of the film explores just how this can be and who is behind all of it, and it’s here that the film because incredibly surreal, and no description can be given without ruining the “surprise.” It IS science fiction, after all, and it lives up to the Fiction element as well as the Science portion.

Beautifully filmed, awesome in scope, I recommend Interstellar, but prepare for a long haul into these distant galaxies and back again.

Official movie site: https://interstellar.withgoogle.com/
This review on IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0816692/reviews-2399