Interstellar

Lisez ce commentaire seulement après avoir regardé le film, dans le cadre de la confrontation avec votre propre opinion ! ___ Le tour de force du succès de Nolan réside dans sa capacité à dissimuler son incapacité à maintenir la continuité logique et émotionnelle de la narration dans les lignes parallèles de l'histoire, en utilisant une forme désarmante et une pression dramatique dénuée de but. C'est dans cette faiblesse que réside toute la seconde moitié d'Interstellar, qui vous frappe violemment la tête, vous obligeant à passer en mode passif "une expérience unique d'un grand spectacle de blockbuster" - sans que cela ne vous dérange que le monteur ne sache pas ce qu'il fait. Par des scènes dramatiques dénuées de sens pour l'ensemble de l'histoire, je pense à la connexion épique avec la station endommagée en rotation, ou bien à un champ de maïs en feu dans une galaxie lointaine avec Casey Affleck en colère (WTF ?). Par une continuité logique et émotionnelle qui ne fonctionne pas, je parle de la coupe de l'espace vers la Terre (où nous ne savons pas ce qui se passe, où tout le monde fuit), ce qui détourne inutilement l'attention des revirements clés de l'intrigue spatiale. Cela a l'air tellement ÉPIQUE et la musique est tellement grandiose que Nolan sait certainement ce qu'il fait... Non, de mon point de vue, IL NE SAIT PAS. ___ Mais parlons de la première moitié d'Interstellar, qui est comme un tout autre film - fluide, prudemment et sensiblement monté, esquissant de belles idées sur le TEMPS (qui, avec la santé, est la chose la plus précieuse que nous ayons - ceux qui le réalisent ne fixent pas l'écran mais voyagent, etc.). Parce que cette moitié du film est la révélation de science-fiction la plus complète et la plus magique depuis de nombreuses années. Lors de la scène où les salutations sont suivies après le retour de la planète d'eau, je suis tombé amoureux d'Interstellar, ce que je pense ne jamais avoir écrit sur aucun autre film. Et cela aurait dû se terminer là, et sa suite aurait dû être réalisée par les Nolan dans dix ans, lorsqu'ils auraient mûri et seraient capables de percevoir les choses dans leur contexte, de les réécrire et de les remonter complètement. Ensuite, idéalement, en divisant le film en deux parties soigneusement liées, l'une se déroulant dans l'espace et l'autre sur Terre, Interstellar aurait pu devenir un jalon dans l'histoire du genre de la science-fiction, une mise à niveau digne du sceau de Kubrick. (05/11/2014)

It's always been like that. Always. For every film that has (re)defined the sci-fi genre, there have been widely conflicting responses; only time, the fairest judge, has helped resolve the dilemma of a work' immortality. This applied even to Kubrick's Odyssey, which was loved in its time by hippie circles but reviled by critics and mainstream audiences. But Nolan is like expensive wine, if you like it and you know that it makes you feel good, you will forgive it a little bit of tartness and you will be happy to come back to it. He’s not the cheap swill that delight the bums at the train station, but a proper vintage Bordeaux. Cheap swill are most of today’s movies, especially the innumerable comic book adaptations that have already bored the gourmands. Nolan can still surprise, and as he gets older, his films become more epic, more narratively sweeping, in short, more cinematically ambitious, while focusing more on the visceral feelings of individuals, bringing the simple human dimension to the fore in a Spielbergian way (see the third Batman). But I still wasn't prepared for what was coming. Interstellar is so ambitious and bold in its message, in its rarely seen narrative structure, that it will either hit you like a ton of bricks or, on the contrary, make you feel uplifted. It depends on your nature. And I could go on with superlatives, such as the original and unprecedented concept of the gradual destruction of our ecosystem, all from the point of view of one family (similar to Spielberg's War of the Worlds or Close Encounters of the Third Kind), breathtaking space compositions, while maintaining a serious scientific dimension and the laws of physics (though this is for a longer discussion), and all that while keeping the narrative intimate and thought-provoking. Nolan is a man with a big heart, and those who are afraid of honestly conveyed emotions, thoughts revolving around the fate of the family and the weight of the responsibility to bring a child into the world, may not appreciate this. But would it be presumptuous of me to say that at least half of the positive impression of the film in my eyes was made by Matthew McConaughey himself? An actor so malleable, with such a breadth of emotions, it's breathtaking. Matthew, if I see you one more time showing your six-pack in the company of some second rate bird like in one of those forgotten comedies you (thankfully) have left behind, I’ll smack you in the head with one of your surf boards. (10/11/2014)

I strongly believe that when I watch Interstellar a second time, free of any of the hype, I will be able to enjoy this professionally made and above-average sci-fi movie enough to give it four stars… but I’d be lying to myself if I didn’t admit that it was quite a big disappointment. And I’m really sorry about it, because there wasn’t any other film this year that I was more excited about. The biggest problem was the last half-hour, it wanted to be smart and ambitious, but I thought it was actually dull and banal. Really, all that exposition in the middle wasn’t original at all. If only the characters stopped talking so much and let the viewers figure things out for themselves, it would have been very successful and literally, and surprisingly, emotionally cold (the emotional peak comes undoubtedly somewhere around the middle, when they watch the messages). On top of that, there are some weird decisions and logically contradictory moments, which really harms such an ambitious film like this (after realising that time passes more slowly in the first planet due to its proximity to a black hole, these leading scientist really didn’t think of the consequences that it could have on what Dr Miller was supposed to do, etc.?). But Interstellar has many things that I liked. There are scenes that made me hold my breath or that captivated me. Excellent music, great Matthew. But from the whole, I’m still undecided, sigh! (10/11/2014)

There is power in simplicity, even if the monstrous epic tempts many viewers to seek complex interpretations. The power of Nolan's narrative lies in confronting the fundamental life decisions of a handful of people about the future of homo sapiens at the expense of personal interests and desires. Let us take those scientific lessons, limited to the described tables, which we do not understand anyway, as a glittering decoy toward a dead end. The sweeping cinematography and roaring music are meant to give the impression of a major space adventure, and yet, thanks mainly to the terrific cast, it's really one big cliché about a father-daughter relationship where the question is whether the journey through the wormhole will help them see each other again. I really didn't expect myself to be so sensitive and that at the end of it, I would cheer for it wholeheartedly. It was actually nice to get something completely different in the movie theater than I originally expected and that the whole colossus worked. This is particularly true when I sat in front of the screen with a certain amount of skepticism thanks to the diametrically opposed responses. [But I don't deny that everything negative you read about the film is true. And yet so are the positives.] (21/11/2014)

This movie is as if Nikola Tesla opened up one of his Pandora boxes. I wouldn’t have understood a single thing, but I would have been absolutely fascinated by it. And now if you excuse me, I think I may have to spend the rest of my life studying all available theories about the universe, black holes and fifth dimensions. (06/11/2014)

An attempt at metaphysical art for 165 million, which tells the story of the fate and the essence of humanity, and humanity as such... and as a result falters due to its strongly rhetorical nature, and the fact that Nolan once again pulls his characters like automatons in a precisely constructed mechanism. With the exception of McConaughey, who, in his current form, could find emotion even in a piece of plastic, this is an astronomical clock of talking schemes and dialectic hangers (the marching suits feel a much more human than all the often crying characters). I don't want to be fully on the side of the haters - Interstellar has many. I enjoy a number of things in this authorial vision - the contemporary "pre-apo" skepticism balanced by idealism, a raw view of interstellar flights as a traumatic phenomenon, and work with space and the elements. It is also unbelievable how Hoyte Van Hoytema got moving the once immobile IMAX camera into a flexible multi-string instrument that evokes in some places the inner filming of Emmanuel Lubezki. Paradoxically, the height and width of the frame are used to create an intimate impression, perhaps even more often than to achieve a wow effect from the wholes. A faded look at a dusty future, a meditation on parents becoming the spirits of the future of their offspring at the time of their offspring's birth, and a few other things touched me. But as a whole, Interstellar reminds me of a combination of spectacular themes and motifs that fails to create what is not directly stated at the same time. And this is a bit of a problem for a film that deals with phenomena on the periphery of our rational perception of the world. For me, it's simply the type of spectacle for which the truly captivating part will be the bonuses from the production. [70%] (06/11/2014)

Are you one of those who wished Chris Nolan’s movies were not so (seemingly) free of emotions? Well, you know what they say ... Be careful what you wish for, it could come true. Because more than anything else, Interstellar acts as Nolan's sincere response to the above complaint. It's just an effort that is more wanted and forcibly pushed than naturally arising from the story and the characters. At the same time, for a long time (which, given the footage, really means for a very long time), nicely rational (and it is evident where this systematic analogy to Kubrick's 2001 comes from), but it turns into a variation on the Frequency viewed by Spielberg family perspective. However, if, after all, you really want to look for an analogy, then it clearly call for the Contact that also ruined its rational level at the end, although not as literal as Interstellar (what is strange is that on the one hand it is so cheaply literal and yet you can read between the lines, how and what was achieved for humanity during the ending scene). You either get over it or not. I did mainly thanks to the fact that the very first dialog of the daughter in the whole film will clearly determine where from and what point will follow. However, if nothing else, the once-in-a-lifetime audiovisual impression (especially in IMAX) of a pioneering journey into the unknown, which is breathtaking all the time, if not in terms of emotions than at least in terms of what the movie shows. In addition, it is one of the few orthodox big-budget science fiction, where during most of the footage the science, not the fiction is being emphasized, as we can typically see. And that means a lot, if on top of that it is quite likely that you will enjoy it even in terms of emotions. (06/11/2014)

As if Christopher Nolan was filming more from himself than ever before. He was already indulging in the smartest twists and tricks in the plot and narrative with The Prestige or Inception, but here he genuinely experiences his omnipresent fear for his family every minute, engraving it into every passionate monologue by Matthew McConaughey and building all the twists around it. It is not easy to accept that this time, too, the driving force behind the universe (occasionally even literally) are his own desires and regrets. But thanks to that, Interstellar soars through drama, ecology, wormholes, water, and ice with Hans Zimmer's organs on its back, aiming for a subjectively absolute rating that has no equal. Because I now have greater respect for distant stars than ever before and at the same time, I would give anything to be even a step closer to them. (06/11/2014)

I'm pretty confused about this one. He could easily have made a great movie, but they'd have to cut the minutes a bit and somehow get more suspense in there. The emotions aren't evenly distributed here at all. One minute you're bored and the next you can't wipe away the tears. On top of that, the feelings are fleeting and don't stick around long. If they had concentrated more on the film itself and not built it on dialogue that forces the viewer a bit too much into how to perceive the whole thing, it would definitely have added to the value of this piece. A weaker 4 stars. (02/11/2015)

Recently, I visited a bookstore and after some hesitant wandering between the shelves, I surprised the staff with a question about the sci-fi section of books. They directed me to shelves that were abundantly filled with titles and images full of magic, dragons, witches, and vampires. This is a logical consequence of long-term development, where the interest of readers and viewers has shifted in favor of fantasy, which doesn't burden the brain as much and is usually more entertaining. Fairy tales have always been popular. Sci-fi titles are produced very rarely, and the sci-fi genre is usually just a disguise for horror, western, or comedy set in a sci-fi backdrop. Thanks to Interstellar, I got the feeling of a genre renaissance because we finally got a pure sci-fi spectacle without magic, mysticism, and mythology. Simply science fiction as traditionally understood. Science, the struggle with nature and oneself, and humans relying on technology. Moreover, in the case of Interstellar, the film is a typical blockbuster where a large budget allows for a grand spectacle with top-notch special effects and a star-studded cast. Not only sci-fi fans can experience large doses of emotions during the journey through a black hole, landing on alien planets, and traveling through interstellar space. The film can be considered a kind of continuation of Stanley Kubrick's legacy, with a touch of Steven Spielberg. Personally, I was bothered by a certain amount of unnecessary pathos and emotional manipulation of the viewer, as well as the overly contrived positive ending, because for me, the story could have ended 20 minutes earlier. Yet despite all my reservations, I don't have anything to compare it to, or which film to use as an example for Nolan. This simply stands out in a very obvious way over the last decade. It is one of the few cases where a blockbuster produced by a major studio breaks free from the traditional pattern of fairy tale storytelling for a family audience and becomes an adult film. Overall impression: 90%. (17/11/2014)

Beautiful. An incredible tribute to Arthur C. Clarke. An intimate and unexpectedly complex story on a huge scale that has inspired me again to revisit space travel and the cosmos. This time Nolan (as screenwriter) wrote another classic for Spielberg with a sci-fi core with an emphasis on family, a call to for all researchers and a huge tribute to the genre and its legends. Spielberg abandoned the project and maybe that’s good (even though I wonder what Janusz would do with the visual side) because Nolan (as director) opened the way to approaching the entire adventure more gloomily. Fascination mixes with powerlessness and an emotional ride. Of course, leaving the family behind is moving, but those who didn’t almost shed a tear when they saw the beauty of Saturn or the curved horizon of events must have a heart of stone or the intelligence of a minced cow. An adventure with human interest where in places you doubt whether human kind is worth saving at all and the revelation of the inner logic of the picture is purely the art of filmmaking that few master on such a scale. The conclusion is for those who didn’t comprehend 2001: A Space Odyssey, maybe it’s too heavy-handed, but I understand the Nolan brothers’ intention: they want all people to comprehend at last. Some see a missed chance here, while I see a movie theme used to the very last drop, that entertains and fascinates. Inception the other way round. (08/11/2014)

Metamorphic art that wants to say everything and yet says almost nothing. Or rather, it is so robust, broad and patterned, that it cannot be read and it cannot even entertain the pragmatic viewer. So many equations, parallel worlds, and various references that it would make even NASA scientists dizzy. I understand enthusiasts who see metaphors and various comparisons and cunningly rejoice in something "more" than their scientific minds can grasp, but if this earns a fortune in the USA with an audience of fat guys with hamburgers, then I will kneel down and beg for forgiveness. An insanely bloated thing, with a few visual gems (those in the trailer) and one or two excellent scenes – the opening space shuttle launch and the complex maneuvering in space. Otherwise, it felt empty to me, and Nolan exaggerates with all that philosophy. Inception, which upside-down buildings was better, it was a popcorn movie with balls. This is a nonstop teary-eyed space odyssey. Over time, this opus has matured like wine. (11/11/2014)

Contradictory. On the one hand, great space scenes, a feast for the eyes, on the other at times a very futile "are you serious?" scenario that spoils moments of impressive emotion with moments of laughter. I admit that I probably didn't understand a lot of things, because the film threw so much information at me at several moments that I simply couldn't take it all in, let alone think about it. Maybe the second time will be better. Of course, the second time will be on DVD, not in IMAX as I originally planned. (08/11/2014)

Nolan missed the target this time. Formally, Interstellar looks amazing, features a cast of time-honoured Hollywood safe bets, and has a stunning, emotionally disarming, sensitively captured "Earth" intro that, by accurately depicting human cohesion, grandly sets the stage for the anticipated Save-the Earth-Mission to follow. But the second half feels like a different film, furiously edited, rather superficially pushing through wannabe poignant and fateful scenes (the burning cornfield) at the expense of maintaining the build-up and, especially, the logical continuity of the story. Nolan wanted so badly to create a modern Space Odyssey, but he stumbles with both excessive literalism, which only unnecessarily stretches the story at the end, and a surprising inability to keep the full attention of the audience with the visuals of his space setting alone (the visit to the ice planet is the first movie sequence I ever slept through in the cinema). Kubrick's Odyssey was sincere and supersensual, mainly because it left everyone to interpret everything entirely on their own; Interstellar forces the audience into something they may not like at all, plus it wants to have them shed streams of tears and applaud enthusiastically at the end. Sometimes less is a lot more. (27/08/2015)

A monument to humility. It rolls almost everything (including Kubrick) onto the field of exploratory sci-fi. For us cosmophobes, moreover, a unbearably intense experience that can only be finished from the corner of the seat. (06/11/2014)

It didn't hit me as much as "Inception," but it's definitely another great film that Christopher Nolan released. In his case, I feel like the incredible finances go towards something that makes sense, something you can watch, and something that gives you more than just entertainment. It's a smart, emotional sci-fi that stumbles a bit in its plot twist revealed by Murph, but you still can't resist the strong emotions, whether it's fear or touching moments. Fantastic. (10/11/2014)

An aesthetic orgasm. In this case Nolan has played extremely respectably with the poetry of space, and I would put his Interstellar up there with 2001: A Space Odyssey and Contact among the very best that have come out on the subject of "discovering new worlds" (whether or not we want to, or have to, discover those worlds). Matthew McConaughey was obviously a safe bet given his huge popularity at present, yet the role really suited him like the ass on a toilet. Plus Anne Hathaway, once again, who I've never considered a standout actress and I'm awfully glad I’ve been able to revise my opinion of her so significantly since The Dark Knight Rises. The film itself is a typical Nolan trademark of recent years, a very complex piece of work with a dense plot on multiple levels, virtuoso direction, and a characteristically brilliant Hans Zimmer soundtrack. Of course, it’s not as fundamental or groundbreaking as Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey, but Nolan can be credited with bringing a human dimension to the whole story and, in certain moments (the messages from Earth), undeniable emotional devastation. Given the genre, it may be hard even to acknowledge this, but as with Inception (which also had a lot of people who didn't see it or didn't want to see it), this in essence is a very personal work where the fulfillment of the main character's destiny is directly tied to the resolution of some personal issues or even emotional trauma. And Nolan's main point here is that basically the key to everything is love, so that's a sure thing. :)))) (18/01/2015)

A phenomenal, brilliant and incredibly captivating sci-fi blast. Nolan did it again, redefining the space genre as such. The special effects are completely absorbing, but by no means is the movie filled with green screened scenes. The effects are applied exactly where they should be, and you will enjoy them the way you’re supposed to (Jackson with his Hobbit could learn a lot from this). A special mention definitely goes to Hans Zimmer. Some people consider his music to be getting a little old, but what he shows here is beyond genius, and memories of flying through wormholes accompanied by stunning organ music give me goosebumps. The story is excellent, and I enjoyed every minute and every twist. Surprisingly, a lot of it is about emotions and love which transcends the dimensions of time and space. This works well with its tense atmosphere. I could feel the emotions stirring in me long after the final credits. McConaughey, Hathaway, Chastain, all of them were absolutely great and even Damon in an unconventional role was excellent. The first time I saw this at the cinema was a great mixture of emotions and stunning effects. Each time I watch it again, I have to admit that few films have had such an overwhelming emotional impact on me, which gives me an almost naively optimistic view of humanity. Humanity that can sacrifice itself, never gives up, keeps fighting at all costs and ends up victorious. (14/11/2014)