post

Out in Theaters: THE HUNGER GAMES: MOCKINGJAY – PART 1

KATNISS.jpg
From stadiums to tedium, the third entry in Lions Gate‘s multi-billion dollar franchise is decidedly half a story. Following up on what I like to call “Harry Potter Precedent”, The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1 takes us through the first half of Suzanne Collins‘ 390 page young adult dystopian fiction without ever getting to the fanfare of an actual conclusion. As point of comparison, “The Hunger Games” was 374 pages and “Catching Fire” was 391. So it’s no stretch to say that the material has been, er, stretched. However in that money-hustlin’ act of distention, something more singular and nuanced has taken shape. Mockingjay: Part 1 – though lax on events – rises up as easily the most thematically rich of the franchise, offering up characters actually worth exploring and a thoughtful meditation into the psychology of revolution. Those wanting explosions will undoubtedly be left cold as this quiet trek to the end is much more focused on emotional implosions.

Disbanded after the catastrophic conclusion of the Third Quarter Quell, Katniss is separated from Peeta and now takes refuge in the bombed out remains of District 13. While costumery, training and pageantry made up the bulk of the former chapters in Katniss’ previous stories, Mockingjay immediately unfurls a laundry list of political intrigue. Do not be mistaken, this is no longer a story about head-to-head combat, it’s one about sneaks in the shadows and stabs in the dark. As Peeta and Katniss drift further apart, a new rebel army must convince the population of Panem to band together and overthrow the tyranny of the Capitol and the serpentine President Snow. It’s an entirely new direction for the franchise, one unmistakably slower and more deliberate, that makes the absolute most of its substantially limited material.

The Hunger Games‘ central themes were rooted in power relationships, social class standing and public perception. Catching Fire‘s foot was placed firmly in the door of manipulation, loyalty and PDA. Mockingjay however is all about sacrifice; the sacrifice of life, self and artifice.

Coin__Heavensbee_in_Mockingjay.jpg

In a couple of visually powerful scenes, hordes of rebels bum-rush the Capitol Peacekeepers; men of violence in starched whites; faceless monkeys in sterilized jumpsuits popping off precise machine gun bursts like Call of Duty junkies. They are the Israeli tech to the Palestinian rocks. These troglodyte abandoning their lives in pursuit of the greater good, this is what the movie is about. If you need to put a face to the name of sacrifice, these be them. This proletariat working class rising against the elite bourgeoisie harkens back to Marxist theory and director Francis Lawrence knows it. And exploits it. He puffs Mockingjay‘s thematic elements into visually arresting kamikazes of epic scope. It makes for some potent scene work, conjuring up a science-fiction take on the French Revolution’s insurmountable odds and the death toll that accompanies such. It’s not quite peacocking but the man clearly knows what he is doing.

To a slightly more diminutive degree, Katniss too must sacrifice. But her loss is more emotional; more of a personal transformation (sans multiple fire-themed costume changes.) Her sense of self must be muted (though I’m not entirely convinced that she ever did have a very pronounced sense of self). At the behest of President Coin (Julianne Moore) and Plutarch Heavensbee (Phillip Seymour Hoffman) she must rise into an unwanted leadership position, at the risk of putting those she loves in increasingly tight spots. It becomes clear by this point that Katniss is but a kid. A pawn. A pretty face to rally around. It’s both demeaning and complimentary. Buck up kid.

Jennifer-Lawrence-In-The-Hunger-Games-Mockingjay-Part-1-Images.jpg

Her arc in this third chapter is about stepping into a role you don’t want; about being an emblem for something larger than yourself. Unlike Batman, she is the symbol that Panem needs and the one it wants. She pouts at first, and poorly acts her way through a to-be televised revolution campaign, but when the chips fall, she’s as game as the film’s namesake.

Another character – who from the get-go has hierarchically placed maintaining a sense of self above all else – bargains with losing his identity under untold torment. As Peeta, Josh Hutcherson is finally able to communicate something more than puppy dog devotion and his physical and emotional transformation is fittingly jarring. Pity the same can’t be said for pretty boy Liam Hemsworth.

In this whirlwind of sacrifice, even Effie Trinket (Elizabeth Banks) must deal with the stylistic hell of a drab jumpsuit. In Maslovian terms, some sacrifices are greater than others but all sacrifices take their toll. To go without fuchsia eyeliner may be as taxing to Effie as an enthusiastic throttling may be to Katniss. We all must take our punches and roll appropriately.

Though I found much to appreciate within the thematic elements of Mockingjay – Part 1, I cannot deny  that this first act is total foreplay. But it’s sweet, sexy foreplay. The kind of foreplay that seeks to remind you that sometimes the teasing is more gratifying than the climax. Sure, the next installment promises death and destruction and whiskers on kittens but there’s something sweetly satisfying about silent implosions in the eye of the storm.

Perhaps because Mockingjay – Part 1 marks the first time I’ve felt invested in Katniss’s many relationships, the performances shine more than ever. Jennifer Lawrence‘s Katniss is rounded out by attributes other than “hardened”, “resilient” and “badass.” Here she’s very much out of control – the antithesis of what the glorious icon the rebellion wants to present her as. For the first time, it feels like she actually gets to, you know, act.

15062502707_9803e33efb_o.jpg
A somber tribute to Phillip Seymour Hoffman denotes the end of the film and – not that it’s much of a surprise – his performance here is truly noteworthy. It won’t be remembered amongst his greatest but it’s a sweet, family-friendly reminder of what we’ve lost with his passing. Hoffman was able to communicate so much with so little; the sarcastic roll of an eye or a flick of the head that says, “Told you so” mean so much when rolled off Hoffman’s full shoulders.

As tensions mount in seat-hugging waves, a late-stage scene has President Snow transform into a full blown Star Fox villain. A bloated talking head grinning and cackling like a caricature, his white mane is that of a political tiger; his flesh-eating smile as poisonous as nightlock. It seems like the first time Donald Sutherland is actually chewing into the role.

But this is not a fun movie. Nor is it really geared towards kids. In the third outing of Hunger Games, you’re more likely to find subtext than battle. And yet Mockingjay – Part 1 is easily the most violent of the series. However, the violence isn’t physical so much as it is emotional; the taxing price of hope. This beginning of the closing chapter stomps out what it truly means to revolt; about the quiet minutia of a coup; the slogging footwork of a revolution. It’s not particularly eventful but it’s bloody well more interesting than more lathering, rinsing and repeating.

B-

Follow Silver Screen Riot on Facebook
Follow Silver Screen Riot on Twitter

post

Weekly Review 63: LATE, CHEERLEADERS, MOCKINGBIRD, DEN, BORDERLANDS, BANSHEE, WER, EXISTS

Weekly Review

The amount of films I’ve seen this week is sheer insanity. In the theater, I only had a screening of Dumb and Dumber To (one I seemed to cull more enjoyment from than many others) but the real work was put in at home. After digesting a viewing of The Graduate (one of my all time favorites), I continued to dive head first into dissecting the films of Ridley Scott. In my pursuit to see and revisit each and all of his films to produce a ranking prior to the release of Exodus: Gods and Kings, I tapped into a whopping six Scott flicks. Additionally, I did a little DIY horror marathon in anticipation of an end of year list that will now go unmentioned. As you can likely tell, it seemed like Halloween all over again the way the horror was a’flowin’. So strap in for a horror-y dose of Weekly Review.

LATE PHASES (2014)

LatePhases_Still01.jpg
A blind ex-military man is a fresh arrival at a retirement community spinning from a string of unexplained animal attacks. Werewolfness ensues. Late Phases premiered this year at SXSW (I missed it) to middling reviews as the first English language film from Spanish director Adrián García Bogliano is a little too jokey and yet not quite campy enough to really capture love from either side of the isle. Putting in an performance more devoted than the script deserves, Ethan Embry plays a hardened man who inexplicably puts the pieces to Phases‘ werewolf plot together like boxed cake. What rises above the paint-by-numbers kill-fest is Embry’s hard but tender relationship with his son, though that goes underdeveloped as well. The practical effects are appreciated, if not a touch juvenile, making this a mostly miffed effort. (C-)

ALL CHEERLEADERS DIE (2014)

all-cheerleaders-die.jpg
All Cheerleaders Die
is an interesting concept – a satirical supernatural battle of the sexes – but its choppy execution leaves it high and dry. A higher-budgeted remake of directors Lucky McKee and Chris Sivertson own 2001 film, Cheerleaders is an aggressively jarring film, offering scenes that are genuinely great and following them up with a bevy of truly embarrassing ones. Perhaps the most pronounced problem of the film is McKee and Sivertson’s apparent misunderstanding of satire, as their flick falls back on the very tropes it tries so openly to mock time and time again. (D+)

MOCKINGBIRD (2014)

mockingbird-22.jpg
Bryan Bertino
‘s long awaited follow up to The Strangers is desperately in need of a plot. Mockingbird follows three narratives – a couple, a young woman and a chubby social pariah made to dress up as a clown – as a mysterious and malicious group forces them to videotape their each and every move under threat of death. Mockingbird is great at building atmosphere but for all the building, there is no blueprint apparent. Rather, Bertino subjects us to one long-con that pays its tab in chump change, offering a “twist” surprise that wouldn’t look amiss in a Shamalayan film. Bertino’s proven his talent for conjuring moodiness, he now just needs to prove an ability to summon up an actual plot. (C-)

THE DEN (2014)

la-et-mn-den-movie-review-the-den-looks.jpg
Yet another found footage-based horror flick (with even more to come), The Den is an effectively told cautionary tale about online identity and personal security filled with just enough nasty scares and gruesome bits to legitimize a committed watch. In “The Den”, an online chatroulette-like social network, Liz witnesses what appears to be a real murder. Melanie Papalia stars as said young woman, a socialite with a hazy research grant that lands in her over her head amongst a group of nasty internet guerillas set on terrorizing her and those closest to her. First time director Zachary Donohue starts off a bit rocky but as the film moves into its second and third act, Donohue’s confidence and originality grows, making for a rather solid, if not entirely original, horror debut. (C+)

BANSHEE CHAPTER (2014)

10-Banshee-Chapter.jpg
Blair Erickson‘s film starts with actual news footage (one clip features President Bill Clinton) dishing the goods on the US government’s involvement with administering doses of highly effective mind-altering drugs on test subjects. From a historical perspective, it’s gnarly stuff. As a film, it works in fits and starts. Loosely based on H.P. Lovecraft’s 1920 short story “From Beyond,” Banshee Chapter stars Katia Winter as a journalist who teams up with a Hunter S. Thompson-esque character (Ted Levine), to uncover the mystery behind a formula known as DMT-19. Though the acting from Winter and Levine is sturdy, the plot feels oddly hollow, hitting familiar horror beats along the way. Adaptation or no, Erickson misses out on the novelty of telling a politically motivated tale within the horror genre. Shame. (C)

THE BORDERLANDS (2014)

The-Borderlands-014.jpg
Where The Den, Mockingbird and Exists all commit the cardinal sin of less-than-compelling characters, The Borderlands shines because director Elliot Gouldner rightly realizes that even in found footage movies, you need great characters. The Borderlands has plenty. Robin Hill and Gordon Kennedy star opposite each other as two Vatican investigators sussing out the legitimacy of a miracle claim and both bring life and complexity to their characters. Hill (who worked on other great horror flicks Kill List and Sightseers) is full of zingers while Kennedy brings a dark compassion to his bent-out-of-shape believer. Though the first couple acts feel a lot like just another haunting done found footage style, the claustrophobic last act is a thrill ride into hell itself. (B)

EXISTS (2014)

enter_exists-movie-review_1.jpg
A total jumbalaya of found footage cliches, Exists is a profoundly uninspired effort. Helmed by Eduardo Sánchez of Blair Witch Project fame and fortune, Exists follows a group of thoroughly uninteresting teenagers on your typical cabin in the woods venture when they come across Bigfoot. Chases and death follows. What Exists fails to understand is that in order for proceedings to be compelling, we have to at least have some semblance of connection to the characters or else their fate holds little to no value. As such, Sánchez squanders half-decent makeup and a chance to reclaim good standing in the horror film community with this tasteless dud of a risk-adverse experiment. (D)

WER (2014)

3-Wer.jpg
A surprisingly well-made foray into supernatural realism, Wer hues closer to reality than you would expect of your average werewolf saga. Partially thanks to the perfect casting of Brian Scott O’ConnorWilliam Brent Bell‘s fourth film is also likely his best. Where most werewolf flicks take a hairy wrong turn, Bell uses a human rights plot and minimal special effects to breathe new life into familar territory. Not scary so much as it is smart, Wer is a strong example of frugality done right. (B-)

Follow Silver Screen Riot on Facebook
Follow Silver Screen Riot on Twitter

post

Out in Theaters: DUMB AND DUMBER TO

Dumb and Dumberer To threatens – at multiple intersections – to sidestep its truly manic, childish comic sensibilities for a gargantuan black hole of doo-doo jokes. “Smell my finger” gags, “lock in the fart” physical comedy and even the dreaded diaper change all rear their ugly fecal heads throughout the film. It’s as if the Farrelly Brothers were contractually obligated (by Charmin perhaps?) to insert a poo-based beat every 20 minutes. Some of it is scoff-worthy, other segments, truly face-palming. But what is miraculous about this long-gestated Dumb and Dumber sequel is that between the farts (a sentence reserved only for the likes of this breed of low-brow comedy), there is comic gold. To borrow an age-old phrase, it totally redeems itself.   Read More

post

Out in Theaters: DUMB AND DUMBER TO

maxresdefault.jpg
Dumb and Dumberer To
threatens – at multiple intersections – to sidestep its truly manic, childish comic sensibilities for a gargantuan black hole of doo-doo jokes. “Smell my finger” gags, “lock in the fart” physical comedy and even the dreaded diaper change all rear their ugly fecal heads throughout the film. It’s as if the Farrelly Brothers were contractually obligated (by Charmin perhaps?) to insert a poo-based beat every 20 minutes. Some of it is scoff-worthy, other segments, truly face-palming. But what is miraculous about this long-gestated Dumb and Dumber sequel is that between the farts (a sentence reserved only for the likes of this breed of low-brow comedy), there is comic gold. To borrow an age-old phrase, it totally redeems itself.  

Coming a full two decades after the first installment, Dumb and Dumber To doesn’t miss a beat reestablishing its titular dullard duo. Having gone into a “full retard” coma after being turned down by the ravishingly ginger Mary Samsonite, Lloyd is a scraggly-haired (with frontal bowl cut still intact), diaper-clad, catheter-wearing potato. Harry, played by Emmy winner Jeff Daniels, makes routine visits to cheer the spirits of the now vegetablesque Lloyd.

If you’ve seen the trailer, you’ll know that his twenty year stay in a mental institute was all a gag to “get” Harry. Or at least that’s what Lloyd claims, shaking his head like a spring rider. But what make the first Dumb and Dumber stick is its venomous (and often under-appreciated) dark humor. In the first film, it wouldn’t be a far stretch to read Harry as a suicidal maniac on the brink of offing himself. If you wanted to, you could even make an argument that Lloyd (like Ferris Bueller) is little more than a figment of Harry’s crumbling imagination; a loony toon ghost of Christmas past (damn right the pun was intended). Taking this into account (the dark humor, not my baloney “Lloyd isn’t real” assertion), it could easily be understood that Lloyd did indeed suffer a mental break after his odds of being one in a million turned to dust in his palm. Grim, I know, but I think the idea that Lloyd is actually incarcerated at a mental institution adds weight to a story that often defies gravity and needs much more grounding. More likely, it’s just a comedy and I shouldn’t be thinking that hard about it.

Dumb-and-Dumber-To.jpg

When Dumb and Dumber struck theaters like a rubber chicken in the face, Jim Carrey was riding high on the success of Ace Ventura: Pet Detective and The Mask. He was the comedy “it” boy de jour; a new face of physical extremism; the harbinger of buckshot, go-for-broke, face-morphing farce. It would appear that he would do anything for a laugh. He was willing to make the most annoying sound in the world. Willing to speak out of his butt. In the years since, he’s produced a number of other comic gold standards amongst offering a surprising amount of adroit dramatic performances. To see him step into the shoes of a bonafide moron again though is something truly special. In that bowl cut and chipped front tooth, Carrey is home and he couldn’t be more committed.

Daniels continues to play second fiddle but he really is the true numb nuts of the two; the dumber of the dumb. Lloyd could almost be described as a sadomasochistic sociopath. After all, he did rat out Harry to Seabass with the loyalty of Benedict Arnold Palmer. With Harry, there’s none of the depth of intention. He’s a fly by the seat of his pants breed of stupid. A kind of stupid that’s quick to anger and even quicker to blame. Lloyd and Harry both need to nestle their emotions in a bottle. Make no mistake, these are dark characters. They just so happen to find solace in soiled drawers and funny suits.   

Where Dumb and Dumber To both succeeds and falls flat is in the script’s understanding of the true nature of their stupidity. When the dynamic two-o are by themselves, sharing a hotdog or explaining why Harry named his cat butthole (“Good name. Totally fits.”), they shine. When we move into the second act and more characters arrive that we’re supposed to care about, things become hairier and tend towards the hit-or-miss department. What makes Harry and Lloyd memorable is their general misunderstanding of the world around them – they’re more zoo animal than human – not their low IQ level and sexual misadventures.

dumb-and-dumber-to-jim-carrey-rachel-melvin.jpg

If there’s one complaint that cannot be lobbed at the screenwriter committee (there are six credited writers) it’s that they don’t hold anything back. From old ladies private parts to finagling free booze, they throw every strand of comedy spaghetti at the wall and see what will stick. As Dumb/Dumber Dos loses steam in the second half, you can taste the jokes souring in a haze of lazy and uninspired old farts. But that doesn’t overwhelm the fact that there are many things to cherish: Carrey going tête-à-tête with a barking German Shepard, Harry’s new astronaut roommate (a celebrity cameo you’ll likely miss), Lloyd’s obsession with a certain picture. Farrellys and Co. do manage to sneak in some of the subtle (pronounced sub-tull) humor of missed pronunciation and cultural ignorance. They also plant Easter Egg references to the original with the delicacy of a giant holiday bunny. But whatever, I still laughed.

Amongst the new additions to the cast include a fair number of faces you won’t recognize by name alone. Rob Riggles (Anchorman) all but steps in for an ulcer-pill swallowing Mike Starr while the gorgeous and fairly affable Rachel Melvin plays is-she-or-isn’t-she offspring of Harry. Laurie Holden (The Walking Dead‘s deceased Andrea) is the vixen foil, Steve Tom as the genius Dr. Pinchlow, her body-weathered mark. That Harry and Lloyd eventually end up with a mysterious package that they must deliver across the country could be interpreted as either a throwback or lazy carbon-copying. I’m willing to contend a little bit of both.

dum-dumber-to-new-photo.jpg

So was the wait worth it? Yes and no. Clearly Carrey and Daniels held the keys to ignition on this one and they waited until they had the means to hold up the laugh factory. Twenty years on though is a long time to wait and the field of comedy has changed a lot (for better or worse). And though it’s far from perfect, they have achieved their ultimate goal: to make us laugh. It takes a rapist wit to pull off a comedy so recklessly dumb, derivative, harebrained and ultimately inspired and yet the Farrelly’s, Carrey and Daniels do it, even when they have to kind of drag their asses over the finish line.

So long as you’re willing to turn off your mind, relax and float downstream, you’ll realize it’s not the comedy itself that’s dulled. Rather, those of us raised on Jim Carrey one-liners have grown old and tired. Armpit farts just aren’t funny anymore (though I’m not convinced they ever were…) But dumb is as dumb does and the Farrellys do dumb like dumb needs to be done (write that in a John Deere letter three times.) I’m not quite willing to say that “I like it a lot” but I cannot deny the truckload of laughs it had me bellowing.

If you appreciated the original (and still find that it holds up today), you’ll find a lot to love in this sequel. Dumb though it may be, and offensively stuffed with toilet humor, there’s enough wit, more than enough commitment on the part of the actors and just enough new one-liners to give the Farrelly’s, and Jim Carrey’s comedy career, a new lease on life.

C+

Follow Silver Screen Riot on Facebook
Follow Silver Screen Riot on Twitter

post

Out in Theaters: THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING

the-theory-of-everything-eddie-redmayne-2.jpg

To take a man’s life and dilute it down to a 123-minute biography might not be quite as daunting a task as coming up with a singular formula that describes and unites all things in the universe but it is not without its challenges. James Marsh takes on these theoretical hurdles with the problem-solving gusto of a seasoned mathematician. He attacks from all angles: emotional, intellectual, spiritual and metaphysical; delivering a film that not only gets to the core of who Stephen Hawking is but gives equal credence to the unsung plight of wife Jane Hawking. With Marsh working the material with the finesse of a Swedish masseuse – adapted from Jane’s 2008 memoirs “Travelling to Infinity: My Life with Stephen” – into something both uproariously funny and endlessly emotional, The Theory of Everything is, like its subject, a film that defies the constructs to which it ought adhere. Like Hawking, Marsh has created a film that rises above the expectations placed on it and outlives its macabre sentencing. It is quite simply an emotional powerhouse; a near flawless example of a fine-tuned biopic boasting a performance for the ages; a stunning tour de force that overcomes its crowd-pleasing elements with earnest wit and genuine, hard-won emotionality.

Behind his quirked smile and mop of ginger-brown hair, young Hawkings is a goon and Eddie Redmayne plays him with the breezy charm of a Powerpuff before his infamous affliction strikes. Aloof and smarmy, his performance is one of spot-on precision; a testament to Redmayne’s emerging talent and ability to replicate a character with physical and emotional exactitude. Hawking is a Type-A smarty pants who doesn’t study but still aces the tests and all Redmayne needs to do is cock a wormy grin to communicate the limitless knowledge trapped within that scrawny frame. Part-Goofy and part-Einstein, he’s a goober of a scholar with a heart of gold and aspirations over the moon. And there lies Jane Wilde, a wily co-ed softly won over by Hawking’s gun show of braininess and obsessively chartered persistence. After all, one can only be asked to croquette so many times before they finally submit.

x900-1.jpg

There’s a delightfully stagy homecoming ball that, while slightly hokey, showcases the humanity before the affliction; the affair preceding the infirmity; the courtship preceding all this trials and tribulations business. Hawking uneasily admitting he’s no dancer is both charming and heartbreaking – a winning equation graciously prescribed to most key junctions in the film. If Hawking’s arc is one into physical oblivion and intellectual transcendence, The Theory of Everything‘s is about overcoming hardship and finding peace in adversity.

But as the scene sets on Benoît Delhomme‘s magnificently sweltering starematography, Cinderella’s carriage turns to a pumpkin and Hawking is hit with the heavy news that he’s got less than two years to live. On the brink of his PhD and brimming with grand ideas screaming out to be proven, Hawking is a pitiable mark of the Maggie Fitzgerald degree. He’s a fighter with a flunkie body. Though Jane’s undying devotion to Hawking isn’t necessarily fleshed out in full pre-ALS diagnosis, Jane spends the rest of the movie convincing us of the earnestness of the near angelic gesture. This is after all a love story.

x900.jpg

As acclaimed physicist Stephen Hawking continues to hunt down his titular theory of everything, we’re given a glimpse into a kind of personal reactionary spiritualism that only peeks its head into the oeuvre of film every so often. There’s no “this is the way it is”, just a lot of “what ifs?” Hawking at first refutes the existence of God. At one point, he admits to Jane that He could be plausible. Later, he’s weary and generally indifferent. He’s a character who, though stubborn in his resolve and thrust for intellectual expansion, is never adamant about being “right.” And what could be a more important figure than a man willing to go to war with his own theories? In a time of steadfast absolutism, Hawking waged war with himself from an armchair. And then a wheelchair. A man both fundamentally hubristic and humbled, Hawking’s acute generosity of spirit paired with his occasional callousness towards those closest to him helps to make him such a scrumptiously compelling character.

It takes a skilled filmmaker to get the tear ducts working early and Marsh is so queued into fine tuning our emotional clock that he barely has to breathe to twist the knife in our side. Only thirty-odd minutes into the film, he pulls back the curtain on this whole diagnosis drama sans a lick of sentimentality and yet still beckons showers of sniffles. Hawking (understandably) throws a pity party, but Marsh never does. Flipping the formula on its head, he mines tragedy in humor, allowing the most heart-rending moments to play over beats drenched in legitimate dark comedy. Even past the ability to speak, Redmayne invites guffaws that you would never even expect to experience in a film about a handicapped physicist. This guy is going to sarcastically flip his head into an Academy Award nomination.

The performance really is next level. He’s so good, he’s gorilla glue. Taking your eyes off his work for even a moment is impossible. You might as well be eyelidless Alex, you’re watching him so hard. Confined to a wheelchair for the later half of the film, we nevertheless view him through the filter of abject understanding. Without words, he’s able to communicate novels. It’s a testament to both Redmayne’s mighty take and Marsh’s voyeuristically watchful eye that once Hawking’s words turn into blinks and eventually into robotic responses, we never lose a dollop of interest in him as a character. Nor does he lose his bite as a comedian.

the-theory-of-everything-image-eddie-redmayne.jpg

Matching Redmayne blow for blow is Felicity Jones, offering a performance that delivers nuance, pathos and barrels of complexity. Though no simple task to take on the mantle of Hawking, Redmayne’s task is clear cut. Jones on the other hand has an arguably more difficult mountain to climb; she must make Hawking’s counterpart as compelling and complex as a guy who wrote a best selling novel about f*cking time. I mean seriously, if the guy can make a theory about time (of all things) into a New York Times best seller, you better believe his woman is a certifiable magnet.

Each and every scene she flutters into and out of, Jones is a force to be reckoned with. She’s left to grapple with the plight of domesticity; to battle the oft ferocious tedium of raising a family single-handedly. Jones parries with Redmayne’s monstrous portrayal with bravado, providing a fulcrum point that grounds the extenuating circumstances of their extraordinary home life into something relatable and “normal.” He’s the scientist, she’s the soul. It’s her that makes everything relatable.

At one point, she explodes, “We’re not a normal family!” And while we know that she believes this sentiment to be true, her family – and her relationship with Stephen’s – was never defined by a conformity to society norms. From the get go, their romance was a harbinger of bucked normalcy. Not just anyone would marry a ticking time bomb. It’s upon her shoulders that the success of Theory rests and Jones handles her characters transformation with a kind of poetic ease that’s stoic and touching, motherly and equally sexual. She’s basically Imhotep the way she gains layers scene to scene. An Academy Award nomination is assuredly in store.

hawking_018.jpg
What’s possibly the biggest surprise of The Theory of Everything is just how winning every aspect of Marsh’s tale truly is. It functions on so many levels, attacking so many sectors of what we look for in a film. It’s futile to resist its supreme good taste.

Marsh spares us the gory details of how time actually works (new homework assignment: read “A (Brief) History of Time”) but thanks to adroit editing work from Jinx Godfrey, we’re never really worried about how it works. It just does. Add to that a nimble and whimsical score from Jóhann Jóhannsson (another nomination ought to be assured here) and nifty costume design from Steven Noble and you have a film whose technical aspects rival its visceral impact. There are bits and bobs that don’t measure up – grainy “camera footage”, underdeveloped secondary characters – but for a movie equally given to quirks, quacks and quarks, the bumbling never detracts from the charm. Marsh’s brief history of Hawkings is at once timely and timeless, matching intellect for emotion and absolutely thriving on two stunning performances. For all the accolades it’s destined to receive, The Theory of Everything is deserving.

A

Follow Silver Screen Riot on Facebook
Follow Silver Screen Riot on Twitter

post

Out in Theaters: ROSEWATER

Rosewater1.jpg

Jon Stewart‘s directorial cinematic debut is appropriately politically astute but throws his signature satirical edge out the window, resulting in a competently made, educationally sound – if not entirely entertaining – biopic. But such can be expected from a filmmaker who’s primary goal seems to be to shine a light into a dark place and report back on what he finds. That Rosewater lacks excitement in its followthrough is a misgiving worth forgiving in the face of strong performances and sound directorial spirit but you can’t help but wish the energy of the first half stretched through the later half’s long, tepid prison stay.

Longtime “The Daily Show” host Jon Stewart tells the true story of Iranian-Canandian Maziar Bahari, a Newsweek political reporter falsely incarcerated in Iran’s Evin Prison for 118 days under suspicion of espionage. The story is told with care and precision by Stewart, making for an all around safe debut from a “reporter” noted more for his bitingly satirical comedy than his on-the-nose reporting. In all accounts, Stewart edifies us, relishing the minute details of the story and blowing them up into elements of larger import, but the material from which he’s working makes that process of expansion akin to blowing a 4×6 into a poster. He shots for specificity but loses it amongst an almost cliche prison tale.

Cover3.jpg

The film opens on Bahari’s arrest, with a troop of Iranian policemen storming through his family house in Tehran and looting through his personal belongings like human paper shredders. From DVD bootlegs of The Sopranos to old Jazz records, these secretive Iranian officers are quick to label each and everything Bahari possesses as pornographic. When they discover a Maxim magazine, Bahari is willing to admit, “Ok, maybe that one is.” Soft chuckles ensue. The few instances of subtle humor are far from the side-splitting stuff of Stewart’s sharp “Daily Show” satire but even these moments are mistakenly few and far between. When held up against similar true life imprisonment stories, Rosewater can barely hold a candle to the type of enduring trauma of, say, Midnight Express and without a honed sense of political irony (perhaps Stewart’s most cherished aspect as a tv personality) it feels like it has too little of a personality of its own.

Going back in time to give more of an overview of the events that led to Bahari’s arrest, Stewart’s screenplay – based on Bahari’s memoirs “Then They Came for Me: A Family’s Story of Love, Captivity, and Survival” -introduces us to a small platter of supporting characters that will invite minor shifts in the narrative to come. Bahari’s traditionalist and seeming nihilist mother Moloojoon (Shohreh Aghdashloo), personal driver and underground political activist Davood (Dimitri Leonidas) and wife Paolo (Claire Foy) each provide a different fulcrum point upon which Bahari’s mental state will balance while jailed; each representing one of the three elements that his book is named after. We see the pull of love, of honor, of survival all play on Bahari’s mind and can’t help but retreat from him slightly when he makes what some would deem the “cowardly” choice.

zn9RGzJ.jpg

As a screenwriter and director, Stewart wastes little time getting into the politics of the piece, allowing Bahari’s coverage of the controversial 2009 presidential election between Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Mir-Hossein Mousavi to guide us towards a deeper understanding of an “old news” hot topic. Shortly after capturing stirring protest footage and releasing it to the world media under an anonymous title, Bahari is identified by the Iranian government and taken with extreme prejudice into the confides of military solitary confinement. It’s in this cell that we spend the later half of the film. While Bahari receives massive media coverage in the United States, with government officials as high up as then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton demanding Bahari’s just return, he festers in the concrete belly of an Iranian prison. It’s here that his soul is tested and the film stagnates.

As Bahari, Gael Garcia Bernal creates a character worth caring for. Stacked with charisma, charm and intelligence, Bahari’s imprisonment is unequivocally wrong but Stewart’s real interest lies not in condemning but quantifying the how of it all. In such, the intrigue of the film lies in how Stewart deals with the two sides of this coin. On the other side of the equation is a man known only as “The Specialist” (Kim Bodnia) – later nicknamed “Rosewater” – an Iranian interrogator with limited understanding outside the Muslim political state stuck on the notion Bahari is an American spy who’s infiltrated Iran and plans to disseminate disquieting information.

When Bahari finally counters with details of the “vices” of the Western world – particularly the many pleasures of the massage parlor – Bodnia’s taken aback reaction again taps into Stewart’s comedic sensibilities and the film thrives. When Stewart dips into the metaphysical level and Bahari’s deceased father makes a number of wisdom-laden appearances, the film suffers. As for the whole reporter/spy vs. specialist/massage parlor obsessive, the chemistry between these two inherently opposing forces at one point threatens to become uncommonly personal but still never reaches into a realm beyond that which we’ve seen a number of times before.

rosewater.jpg

Furthermore, the “brutality” to which Bahari is subjected isn’t a kind that necessarily works well on screen. His torture is one of relentless boredom and unfortunately, we laterally become a victim of this too. Seeing that Bahari’s incarceration and subsequent “brutal interrogation” falls squarely on the side of mental degradation and involves practically no physical harm makes for material that isn’t as necessarily as jarring or visceral as it seems to think it is. Please don’t take me incorrectly here, I have no doubt that rotting away in a jail cell for nearly four months would undoubtedly be torture. I just don’t find it necessarily compelling on film. You likely won’t either.

Thankfully, Bernal is up to the challenge and emotes wickedly even when blindfolded and pacing his calcified cage. Though Stewart’s screenplay often mistakes adversity for inherent drama, Bernal is there to make sure that his character’s arc is as rock solid as prison walls sealing him away from the world and his family. Though not the sinfully funny, culturally smarmy debut that one would hope for with Stewart mounting the director’s chair, Rosewater is a perfect History class film; an educational and well acted showcase of media tragedy ballooning into a thoughtful and humanizing story.

C

Follow Silver Screen Riot on Facebook
Follow Silver Screen Riot on Twitter

post

Weekly Review 62: DEVIL, EVERYONE, PHILIP, FORCE, LOW

Weekly Review

Another fairly lax week at the theater held screenings of Interstellar and Big Hero 6 – both of which I had high hopes for (the former far more than the later) and was fairly disappointed by both. At home, I had some time to catch up with a few new screeners (bringing my cume of 2014 films to a whopping 198), none of which impressed me more than the Swedish avalanche drama currently making the rounds in limited release. As far as films opening this week, it’d probably be the one I’d most recommend. Chris sat down with Michel Hazanavicius and Berenice Bejo to chat The Artist and their upcoming film The Search. It’s a great interview so be sure to give it a look. Otherwise, let’s boogie down with some Weekly Reviews.

DEVIL’S REJECTS (2005)

crimson_quill_rivers_of_grue-47.jpg
A mild improvement over Rob Zombie‘s debut effort House of 1,000 Corpses, The Devil’s Rejects is an unreservedly more cinematic sequel. Moving outside the circle of abject grossness stuffed in leaky caves and dark tool sheds, Zombie moves his marks into the desert to cook up some sun-baked horror the aesthetic likes of Natural Born Killers. There’s a semblance of social commentary churning within Devil’s Rejects but it’s too half-baked to ever truly make heads or tails of. Nevertheless, it signaled the development of a filmmaker that has since descended into lesser material. All in all though, an interesting, if repetitive, watch and one worthy of seeking out (next Halloween) for genre fans that have passed it over. (C+)

ME AND YOU AND EVERYONE WE KNOW (2005)

me-and-you-and-everyone-we-know.jpg
An oddball little indie film ensemble piece, Me and You and Everyone We Know is like a successful version of this year’s Men, Women and Children (overbearingly long title accounted for.) John Hawkes plays a shoe salesman whose wife has just flown the coup and is surrounded by a menagerie of strange cityfolk all with their own quirks, secrets and peculiarities. Miranda July‘s debut showcases comedy consistent in its gentle biting nature – more a thing of misunderstood awkwardness than anything – but it’s got a genial heart to match. July’s strange little piece packs an undeniable heartbeat and isn’t suffocated by its girthy cast of characters, even though it’s all rather weird. (B-)

LISTEN UP PHILIP (2014)

jason_dree.jpg
One of the more decisive films of 2014 (many loved it) is also one of the hardest to really feel anything towards. Jason Schwartzman plays a misanthropic writer who rages and alienates his way through New York City until he meets novelist idol Ike Zimmer (Jonathan Pryce). The two swirl in a whirlpool of self-pity, self-importance, intellectual superiority and ultimately regret, eventually driving one another towards that most extreme state of NYC misanthropy. Schwartzman’s Philip may be hard to care for because of how much of a douchebag he is but he’s also not a very interesting character. Wallowing arrogance is only arresting in short bursts and Philip long outstays his chilly welcome. (C)

FORCE MAJEURE (2014)

NEW_KEY_ImageVaultHandler-0-2000-0-1125-crop.jpg
To call Force Majeure a dramedy would be to misrepresent what it is, but I can’t think of another term to describe the hazy mixture of deeply uncomfortable comedy and shrill, sometimes even heart-breaking, dramatics. Ruben Östlund‘s Swedish vacation film follows a family of four as they holiday in the stunning French Alps until a life-threatening event changes the course of their vacation and their relationships. As the familial tension mounts, you’ll find yourself quietly cackling one moment and alarmingly affected the next. A great display of foreign cinema taking greater risks than we’re used to stateside, Force Majeure studies the effects of a near-miss on the rocky ethos of a nuclear family and does it all while threading a narrow thematic needle. (B)

LOW DOWN (2014)

wk-lowdown1107-1.jpg
John Hawkes
plays a talented jazz musician who moonlights as a heroine slinger and deadbeat Dad to competent daughter Amy-Jo (Elle Fanning). Like jazz, Low Down wanders almost aimlessly, riffing here and there on the strong father-daughter relationship at its center and amidst themes of the cyclical nature of co-dependence, but is still without a strong narrative center point. If Llewyn Davis is a tone poem about a time and a scene, Low Down is a k-hole of the destructive spiral of musicianship and drugs. Not entirely without worth (the acting from Fanning, Hawkes, Glenn Close and Lena Headey is rock solid), Jeff Preiss‘ biopic of esteemed pianist Joe Albany is a narrative desperately in need of a through line. (C-)

Follow Silver Screen Riot on Facebook
Follow Silver Screen Riot on Twitter

post

Out in Theaters: BIG HERO 6

yoepwnffrmzn10d3emv9.jpg
In the past, I’ve been something of a bitch when it comes to animated movies. The Pixar classics are notorious for beating down my manliness and summoning up the tears – Up, Toy Story 3, even f*cking Ratatouille all got me going. Something about the to-the-bone earnest family connection gets this child of divorce waterworking. It’s clockwork. Minute 82 and I’m Niagara. The last animated movie to move me: How to Train Your Dragon 2. The Mom stuff. The Dad stuff! Whew. Color me teary.

In Big Hero 6, the tragic beats are there – dead parents (c’mon, it’s not a Disney movie without dead rentals), another family member who bites the dust in a ghastly explosion and, yup, a close friend and confidante who also eats the proverbial bullet. The kids in my audience gulped palpably and cried out in waves of concern.

But where was the lump in my throat? Had I grown too cold and calloused to experience my fair share of emotional woes? I felt like Palahniuk’s narrator stuffed into Bob’s meaty bosoms, post-Marla. What the eff was going on?! And then I realized, the fundamental issue was this was more Marvel movie than animated flick. The deaths were without meaning. The sacrifices just temporarily absences; a normative formula via disappearing act that’s taken hold in sequel culture. The offings were like watching Agent Coulson die in The Avengers (spoiler, whoops) or Sam Fury die in Cap 2 (whoops, more spoilers). You just don’t really care. Worse yet, you don’t believe it. This symptom of emotional weightlessness is part and parcel of the pricklinesslessness (not a word) that is the Marvel-verse. Everyone is safe, everything works out. If I had a nicket for every faked death in the MMU, I would have like a full quarter. This consequencelessness (also, not a word) leaves me cold and indifferent. With Big Hero 6, I laughed heartily, I generally enjoyed myself, but I never felt a single thing. Nor did I ever feel a sense of danger.

o-BIG-HERO-6-TRAILER-facebook.jpg

And that’s why I’m struggling to conjure up words to properly describe my experience with Big Hero 6. It was pretty good. It made me smile. But that’s kinda all one can really say. It’s a hearty head shake; a smiling nod. You can recommend it to just about anyone and they wouldn’t be offended by what they’ve seen. They’ll likely enjoy it quite a bit. It’s got plenty of funny moments to boot, the actions sequences are beautifully realized and colorfully captivating and there is a heart to it, it’s just more robotic than of flesh and blood. But once it’s all over (and with an inevitable load of sequels on the way) there’s really nothing to talk about; nothing that sticks with you.

The latest from Disney is adapted from an under-sung Marvel comic created by Steven T. Seagle and Duncan Rouleau in 1998. The first collaboration between Marvel and Disney since Disney acquired Marvel almost five years back, Big Hero 6 tells the story of 13-year old Hiro Hamada (Ryan Potter), a robo-tech genius taken to back alley bot battles. After a narrow escape from one black-market moonlighting or other, Hiro is seduced by older bro Tadashi to go legit and enroll in a prestigious engineering program promising to hone his robotic skills. Decidedly won over by Tadashi’s classmates, his state-of-the-art workspace, his just-finished invention and the winning Professor Calahan (James Cromwell), Hiro decides to win the science fair and earn a place among these up-and-coming science wiz-kids.

Set in the hyper-futuristic San Fransokyo, the superhero saga sees Hiro team up with medic-bot Baymax (Scott Adsit) and fellow students Wasabi (Damon Wayans Jr.), Honey Lemon (Genesis Rodriguez), GoGo Tomago (Jamie Chung) and Fred (T.J. Miller) to take down a mysterious super-villain who’s stolen Hiro’s next-gen microbots and has nothing short of evil intentions for them.

big-hero-6-20.5_005.00_0025.jpg

The script has a massive nine credits (!!!) to its name, which accounts for the rigidly structured and carefully manicured movements of Big Hero 6, but co-directors Don Hall and Chris Williams find ample opportunities to let the jokes waft from the otherwise stenchy grasp of formulaic mediocrity. The humor flows liberally from the emotionally stinted Baymax, a plushy bot who’s more Wall-E than Vision. From fist bumps to mixed colloquialisms, Baymax’s journey to figure out the human world – and the associated emotions that come with it – is flooded with moments of laughter and genuine warmth. Of the seis big heros, he’s the only one anyone’s going to be talking about exiting the theater. Trouble is, outside of this smiley Stay Puft marshmallow man, the film is inflated with flat characters and narrative breadcrumbs all leading to an overdone and overblown ending you could see from miles away without a super scanner. So while it is paint-by-numbers, the colors used are at least rather pretty.

Big Hero 6 is like a Nilla Wafer; yummy going down but nothing to write home about. It’s funny and entertaining in a bland, gingerbread kind of way. It’s the taste of the scrumptious substancelessness (not a word) that defines the Marvel cinematic universe now bleeding into Disney. I don’t doubt that you’ll like it, maybe even love it, but I challenge you to remember this movie five years down the line. You know, once the Avengers 4 is out.

C+

Follow Silver Screen Riot on Facebook
Follow Silver Screen Riot on Twitter

post

Talking (in French) with Michel Hazanavicius & Berenice Bejo of THE ARTIST

The Artist was an unprecedented film. Movies don’t come in black and white anymore. And no one would think to make a silent black-and-white film in 2010.

When you chat with the brains behind the film, it makes sense. These are incredibly French, reserved folk who speak in hushed tones. I’ve spent a lot of time in France (my Grandma lives in Paris) and I’ve grown up all around their culture. For me, Paris is the Seattle of Europe: people are a little cold and abrasive, but witty and intelligent. The French tend to keep to themselves, but they’re warm at heart.

Michel Hazanavicius and Berenice Bejo started collaborating back in 2006 when she starred in Michel’s OSS 117: Cairo, Nest of Spies alongside Jean Dujardin. Since then, they’ve made three more films together and along the way won plenty of awards for their 2011 silent black-and-white The Artist — including Oscars for Best Feature and Best Director for Michel. Both are incredibly talented, humble, quiet and fairly unflappable — Michel wasn’t impressed at all when I told him that he went to school just 20 kilometers from my Grandma’s apartment. They’re married with two kids and the fame doesn’t seem to have gotten to their heads. I got a chance to chat with them both (in French) at SIFF Cinema about their lives after the Oscars, their upcoming film The Search (a remake of the 1948 movie about war-torn Chechnya), and their filmmaking progress. Read More

post

Out in Theaters: INTERSTELLAR

Interstellar-2014-Movie.jpg

Don’t be fooled, Interstellar is no blockbuster. Nor is it the critical darling think piece so many expected it to be. It seems crafted to engulf the minds of the critical community in nit-picky debates about minute details; destined to conjure up various theories and interpretations (a la Inception) but I don’t see that happening. For all its loopholes, space travel and time relativity, it’s relatively straightforward. Almost shockingly so. That’s not to say that it doesn’t aim for something more; for something meant to transcend your usual theatrical experience. Christopher Nolan reaches for the stars. He comes up short.

There’s no battles, no aliens, no ticking time bomb. Interstellar‘s a film about blackness and bleakness; dust storms and global scarcity; destiny and family. A gun doesn’t once appear on the screen. There’s not even really a villain so much as an antagonist with a competing view of the greater good and a finer tuned sense of self-preservation. The villain is in a sense time itself. And Planet Earth. And dust.

interstellar-01.jpg
At a critical juncture, Matthew McConaughey‘s Cooper convinces Anne Hathaway‘s Amelia that time is a precious resource. With a nearly three hour running time and a bulk of scenes this guy deems unnecessary, Nolan tends towards squandering said resource. Establishing shots are at first spent on Earth; Cooper’s a retired NASA pilot and now a farmer. His children Murph (Mackenzie Foy, later Jessica Chastain) and Tom (Timothée Chalamet, later Casey Affleck) have only known a world of ashes and dust. Crops around the world have become infected and extinct. Corn is the last consumable vestige of survival on Earth and its kernelly goodness is fast fading. But as time bends onward, the whole scarcity act is swallowed up by the impending doom of super blustery dust storms; the harbinger of phlegmy coughs; humankind’s asthmatic nemesis. The corn supply isn’t quite in top shape but there’s apparently enough to go around to serve meals of corn fritters, corn on the cob and corn bread. The classic corn triple play.

When a gravitational anomaly sends Cooper and Murph to a top secret NASA base, Cooper is recruited to man a mission into the intergalactic unknown in hopes of discovering new resources and, ultimately, salvation for humankind. About as little time is spent on the logistical rationale behind Cooper showing up and shipping off within what seems like a matter of days as it is on Professor Brand’s (Michael Caine) uncompromising over-reliance on this has-been pilot. It makes about as much sense as Rambo showing up on the White House’s doorstep and being asked to lead the president (who in this case is obviously 1997 Harrison Ford) to the front lines of an ISIS mass beheading assault. I mean it’d be cool and all but what?

Utterly enraptured by the poetry of Dylan Thomas, Brand is all about doing things the “ungentle” way. He’s so Thomas-esque, the man is basically rage against the machine. So after one (1) meeting with ol’ Cooper, Brand’s got him strapped into a (must have been) multi-billion dollar top-secret aircraft set on a world-saving mission. Because anything that’s roughly as logical as Armageddon is apparently good to go for screenwriter bros Christopher and Jonathan Nolan.

interstellar01.jpg
And this comes down to the main issue of Interstellar: the Nolan Bro’s screenplay. For a usually straight-laced, sober duo, their scribemanship here has a prevailing feeling of being one bong rip too deep. It’s hard – if not entirely impossible – to defend some of the Nolans’ more hokey moments – the “love connection” speech, obviously telegraphed dialogue, the debatable “fifth dimension” scene, that ending… –  and it all winds up feeling like a mixture of trying too hard and not trying hard enough. It’s at once Nolan’s most shamelessly sentimental film, but also his most emotionally honest. Only when it tips into a wholly saccharine realm, it turns entirely unbecoming. Once those thematically iffy moments bind themselves to the finale and become inextricably germane to the larger themes at play, Interstellar shows itself for being a half-baked, if fully beautiful, failed experiment in synthesizing the inimitable success of 2001: A Space Odyssey.

That’s because Interstellar is an exercise in blue balls. It keeps getting so close to giving us what we wants and then shies away at the last moment; revealing a much less sexy underbelly as it goes. It’s an intimate human voyage through time and space, beset with little to no set pieces and made picture perfect with a massive budget and technical wizards hammering out intergalactic spacescapes the likes of none other. The pieces are all right; the whole just doesn’t come together as it should. You can almost smell its desire to be something more. The sting of it letting you down is palpable as it closes up shop and that’s partially what makes it the laudable misfire it is.

Seeing the film in one of seventy-one 70mm IMAX screening around the world imbued me with a great sense of privilege until I saw the actual picture. On Earth, it’s dusty. Grainy. Sometimes inexplicably unfocused. In space, it’s unreal. Otherworldly. Wormholes have never looked so sexy. The one hour of full-blown, in-your-face, pants-pissin’ IMAX shots does come around to save the day – justifying the costly asking price – though Hans Zimmer‘s theater-rumbling score often crosses the threshold into full blown audio assault if experienced in the large-picture, super-duper loud format. His low throbbing Gothic bass notes declare all out war on your eardrums as they crescendo and decrescendo. Turned down a notch lower, it’s one of the finest aspects of the film (a film that is more often than not a visual treat.) But like candy, the FX-heavy landscape doesn’t nourish a greater sense of thought-provoking reflection so much as sheer awe; nonetheless, it’s a thing to enjoy in all its savory nutritionlessness.  

interstellar_a-1.jpg

Nolan swings for the rafters and ends up splicing it just at the perfect angle where you can’t quite tell if it’s gonna be a home run or a foul ball. You hang in anticipation. And right at that moment of truth – in that prevailing reverent silence – the ball disappears into a wormhole. It’s hard to confirm whether Nolan’s latest is really an instance of Casey at Bat or, like 2001, his sci-fi opus will take years to fully digest, appreciate and understand. But I would tend towards the later not being the case. It is just heady and barely open-ended enough to stomach an argument for the other side. Though I’d have to likely also be offered corn bread.

The success and/or failure of Interstellar is hard to quantify. It’s grand and self-aggrandizing. It’s often more numb than it is smart. It’s a visual feast to behold with the emotional stakes to match. The talent both in front of and behind the camera (visual effects teams in particular) is rapturous and almost entirely engrossing. Though the “who’s who” of talent doesn’t ever pretend that Interstellar is a true actor’s film, McConaughey has a few scene where he dusts off his Oscar and lets it all hang out. When he does, hearts will break. But like a kid who ate too much candy and puked on a Picasso, Interstellar is only truly beautiful once you wipe all the muck off.

One thing seems certain: this will likely be the last time the studio system cuts Nolan a blank check to do with as he will. His directorial carte blanche will expire when it inevitably disappoints at the international box office. His license to kill will all but be revoked. It’s almost tragic but, time being a flat circle and all, it’s also inevitable. If only the Nolans bros had let Rust Cohle free to wax on time and stuff when they do decide to unleash their philosophical digressions. Apparently that’s just too much to ask.

With Interstellar, Nolan rages against the dying of the light, but like a theater minor without the proper know-how, he rages just a little too hard.

C+

Follow Silver Screen Riot on Facebook
Follow Silver Screen Riot on Twitter