Flawed, but magnificently ambitious and awe-inspiring

Rating: Null/10 (12 November 2014)

I have a very weird relationship with Christopher Nolan's films. On first viewing, I've been in love with mostly all of them, in particular The Dark Knight and Inception. He's the only filmmaker that I can say whose films just suffer so much in retrospect, and so trying to gather up my thoughts on any future film of his would always be tricky. What I can say is that his films have always been visually superb. Wally Pfister's absence is sorely missed here. The visual effects may be amazing, but the film doesn't have the same fantastic camera-work his other films have.
Nolan gets complaints about being "emotionally cold". I've never really seen him in that way, I just think that much of the fluidity in all of his films after Memento are really hectic. His films' editing and pacing are sometimes just way too rushed, going from scene to scene without really lingering on each individual scene's effects, and diminishing a lot of their power. In that way, they feel methodical, not exactly cold. But that systematic pacing is probably a big reason as to why it's harder to really gain more from his films on rewatches, certainly because they feel too jam-packed with action. What I can say about Interstellar is that the film certainly feels different in that respect. It may not be particularly slow-paced, but that hectic and kinetic style isn't present for most of the film, certainly not in the way that I've come to expect from him. I think it shows an improvement on his part, but I also think it stems from the film not feeling as technically-refined as his others, not feeling as mechanical and thus, individual scenes work in a way none of his other films have. The reason for this is that this is definitely his most emotional film ever. The scenes right after they escape Miller's planet, where 23 years have gone by and Cooper sees the videos from Affleck and Chastain... Boy, I was in the theater and I forced myself to not shed any tears because those few minutes are among the best Nolan has ever done. They felt earned, and totally satisfying. Of course, for scenes like this and the wormhole entrance, we have scenes like the cross cutting between the silly Matt Damon fight and the even more ridiculous Earth scenes, with Casey Affleck all of a sudden turning into this violent, crazed maniac unwilling to save his family. Okay, we get it, you were hurt by your dad... but the writing for him before this, for their whole family dynamic, doesn't shine through very realistically, not nearly well enough for this to not feel like anything other than forced conflict. Those several minutes are down there with some of the worst things Nolan has ever done. Those last 15 minutes are also super conflicting. I love the emotionality of it all, but I really don't understand too much of it. The real problem is the fact that, once again, some of the scenes on Earth come off incredibly cheesy. Chastain running around, throwing papers to the air out of happiness, kissing that-one-dude-from-That 70s Show?
And that's basically how the whole film is structured. It feels more like a series of episodic events and scenes that sometimes work very well, sometimes not as well, sometimes not at all. I certainly never found Inception (a film I think is borderline mediocre now) to be very flawed on my first viewing, so what does that say about how this film will fare with me? Even worse? I'm actually optimistic, just because even on first viewing this seems like a different sort of film for Nolan. It's sort of messier, sort of problematic, but its themes and its ambitions are at a level I had never seen Nolan work in. It feels like it was done with more, pardon me, love. Like it was something Nolan had wanted to make for a while, something deeply personal to him, a piece of artistic vision that we should feel privileged to have been a part of. Before today, I always rolled my eyes at all of the comparisons to 2001: A Space Odyssey (my favorite film ever). But... now I get it. It has the same aura. At its best, it has the same majestic, magical feeling that 2001 had, the same feeling of awe. And while I certainly think it's very flawed, I do think Nolan was able to hit intellectual grasps I don't think he ever really aimed for before, certainly not in this way. For that, I'm actually surprised, and so while I can't predict my future overall feelings on the quality of the film (certainly not with how my opinions change with Nolan's films), I do think this film represents a turning point in his mainstream career as far as his ambitions go. I'll take it.
And, contrary to what I expected, I didn't find the dialogue very distracting. I actually prefer the "cornier", more sentimental dialogue here than just the empty corniness and exposition of many of his other films. And yeah, the sound mixing needed work. The score is played way too loud in some scenes at Earth. However, the score as it is, it absolutely phenomenal, Zimmer's best work with Nolan to this point.
As for the acting, Hathaway has her off moments here and there, but is mostly effective. So is Chastain, who makes even more impact in her fewer scenes. However, the film absolutely belongs to Matthew McConaughey. If he hadn't just won the Oscar, maybe he'd be in the conversation for an Oscar nomination. He'd deserve it, carries the film tremendously and this is right up there with his True Detective/Dallas Buyers Club work. Incredibly effecting in his emotional scenes.