Something epic this way comes... but fails to arrive.

Rating: 8/10 (12 November 2014)

I managed to catch the 70mm IMAX version of this yesterday. I went not expecting much, since I really didn't like Inception, and although I felt that TDKR had some good moments it mainly served to highlight that when directors are given a free-reign by studios it typically only enables them to slide into self/over-indulgence and start repeating bad tricks and habits ad nauseam.
Although I really liked Nolan's first few films, it now just feels like I pretty much know exactly what Nolan is going to serve up and how he's going to serve it. There will be much portent, followed by tonnes of exposition delivered-very-quickly-to-cover-the-fact-it- doesn't-really-hold-up-to-scrutiny People will soliloquize Scenes will be rapidly edited to the point where the geography of locations becomes impossible to decipher Cross-cutting will increase in regularity to the point of bewilderment New concepts and mini- plots will continue to be introduced on top of each other until we build up to some kind of big reveal, which will feel a bit forced and not that interesting. And if you didn't catch any of this, Hans Zimmer will be there hammering out another sonic masterpiece which will be mixed WAY TOO LOUDLY into the soundtrack to basically do Nolan's job for him. Finally, the whole film will be tied up neatly with a montage.
And so it was little surprise to find all these things present in Interstellar – which I actually enjoyed a bit more than I was expecting. Perhaps the lowing of expectations helped, but despite the presence of all the expected Nolanisms Interstellar somehow held my attention better than Inception or TDKR did – though it was probably the subject matter more than anything. If like me, you're a big sci- fi fan, then a film like this is always going to hold your attention – since no matter how bad it may turn out to be, you're willing to hold out for some new image or concept you haven't seen before. Sadly Interstellar is a little short on originality. It feels cobbled together from about twenty better sci-fi movies and doesn't really have much of an identity of its own. And while I remained interested for most of the film, by the time the big reveal came, it was so obvious, underwhelming and frankly nonsensical that it left me with a very deflated feeling as the credits rolled. Without revealing too much, anyone with any sci-fi leanings is bound to guess the twist in the opening scene – literally. I hoped and prayed it was going to turn out to be more interesting than I feared but it wasn't.
There were a few very nice images in the film – the journey through the wormhole probably the best of them and represented something new (though it was unfortunately very short lived!). The other two major visual cues were effectively rehashes of things Nolan used in Inception, and on the whole I was underwhelmed with the space footage. The exterior shots of the various spaceships are usually dull, repetitive and often look surprisingly shabby. This is not an effects extravaganza. The robots were nicely designed and realised, however.
The acting was pretty strong, and despite McConaughey's mumbling (which is becoming very grating) he never outright annoyed me. Sadly, the actors were in many cases given characters whose motivations and actions were nonsensical (a lot like Prometheus!), meaning the actors are left shouldering blame for bad writing. The anger and resentment Murph has towards her father makes very little sense once she's grown up, and the whole subplot involving Dr Mann was an absolute mess (and not the fault of the actor!). The general planning and plotting of the NASA team was also poorly explained and ridiculously convoluted. All the various missions seemed contrived to fit in with the path for the script rather than coming out of any logical reasoning.
Hans Zimmer's music was great. I'm a huge Zimmer fan, and it was nice to see him depart from his comfort zone for this. Unfortunately, as is now usual for a Nolan film, it was mixed in the soundtrack far too loudly and I feel Zimmer will catch a lot of flack for bad sound mixing which isn't his fault. Unfortunately, as with Nolan's last few films Zimmer's music just felt bigger, stronger and more imaginative than the film itself.
A lot of people have been comparing Interstellar to Contact, but having re-watched the latter recently it's no real comparison – Contact is a much better film. Signs? Sure, there are some comparisons, but despite Signs failings and contrivances, it still felt fresher and more interesting than this. 2001? Come on!!! Quite honestly, I'd say Interstellar probably has most in common with Mission to Mars as far as quality and content goes.
I imagine those who are ranting about Interstellar being some kind of masterpiece are either people who've never seen a sci-fi film in their lives, or young male Nolan obsessives blinded by devotion to a director who's become increasingly predictable and irritating. That said, it's far from the worst film in the world and worth a look for sci-fi fans. But I very much doubt it will change your life, and I'm not sure I'd bother busting a nut to get to a 70mm IMAX unless it's convenient (I found watching an digital 3D IMAX presentation of Gravity a far more visually stimulating experience).