Interstellar

Directed by: Christopher Nolan

Written by: Jonathan Nolan, Christopher Nolan









A lot of digital ink has already been spilled over this movie, so I'll keep my review fairly short.

I didn't want to like it, and I'll probably spend most of my time here pulling apart the things I didn't like. That being said, I actually liked this movie despite myself.

Things I didn't like.
-- It was too long. It was too short. Either way, it wasn't the right length. At nearly three hours, it definitely tested my patience. But there was so much in the movie that didn't feel developed enough (such as when Topher Grace's character showed up out of nowhere). Each of the three acts - Earth, Travel, Tesseract - could have been a separate movie in-and-of-itself.
--It took itself so darn seriously. I could feel the science-y pretentiousness oozing out of several scenes. For a science-fiction movie, it didn't have enough fun. (Exception: the robots - see below.) I'm not saying it needed to be "campy," but it might have benefited from someone telling the Nolan brothers to get over themselves.

Things I liked.
--The robots were the most unique and original element of the film. Fascinating design and execution. Just when you think there's no new ideas about robots in science fiction, along comes CASE and TARS.
--The imagery and cinematography were top of the line. Each shot was gorgeous.
--Matt Damon was an genuine surprise to me. I'd managed to avoid all spoilers, so I was shocked when he showed up. I was even more shocked when his character started to develop, but I'll save that for another time.

Jonathan and Christopher Nolan deserve credit for developing an original science fiction movie (aside from a few nods to "2001" here and a wink at "Alien" there). Without trying to sound like a cranky old man, I feel that sci-fi movies tend to be sequels, rip-offs, re-boots, or just plain copy-cats of prior work. In most cases, the prior work was better, and only in rare cases - the recent "Planet of the Apes" films jump to mind - are the newer works anywhere in the same league as the originals. "Interstellar" manages to be new while maintaining the feel of a classic.

Another sign of quality in "Interstellar's" favor is that I keep coming back to it in my thoughts and conversation. I keep wanting to discuss it and dissect it (both the good and the bad) and, who knows - maybe I'll watch it again.

Rounders

Directed by: John Dahl

Written by: David Levein, Brian Koppelman










There was a point - namely, the late 1990s - when Matt Damon could basically do whatever he wanted and still be king of the hill.  "Rounders" comes out of that time period.

Mike (Damon) has traded in his poker chips for a girlfriend (Mol) and law school.  But when his best friend Worm (Norton) gets out of prison, the allure of the high stakes table draws him back in to the game.  But things go suddenly wrong, and the stakes become even higher, until he has to lay it all on the line and go all-in against notorious underground poker champ Teddy KGB (Malkovich).

(If anyone can fit in any more cliches into that summary, I'll be happy to add it in!)

There's not a whole lot wrong with this movie.  I'm not saying it's great, but it definitely wears its flaws well and plays to its strengths.  And its strengths are in its principle actors - Matt Damon and Edward Norton.  Damon gives his standard performance as the lovable sinner-with-the-heart-of-gold.  Norton shines as the aptly named Worm; he exudes his character's sliminess.  Even Malkovich does a fantastic job.  (The less we say about Gretchen Mol in this film, the better.  Her part was so small that it was almost negligible.  I'm not quite sure how she ended up on the poster.)

The movie had a few pacing issues, mostly occurring when the story turned back to Damon's personal life.  Those scenes just didn't have quite the tension or drama of the poker story line, nor did they really add to Damon's character in any meaningful way.  Also, the final poker game was a bit anti-climactic.  If you don't know how that game is going to turn out, you really haven't been watching the movie at all.

"Rounders" is entertaining, and a bit of a time piece.  It shows Matt Damon before he became a caricature of himself, Edward Norton at the top of his game, and poker when it was still a bit of underground novelty outside the Vegas city line.

Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back

Written and Directed by: Kevin Smith

At some point, writer / director Kevin Smith lost his interest in the View Askewniverse that he had created. But as one last hurrah he decided to give Jay and Silent Bob - previously only supporting characters - their own film. He also decided to cram as many inside jokes and geek references into the film as possible. The result: "Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back."

The film's plot is paper thin, but worth discussing. Jay and Silent Bob, who were influences for a comic book series (as seen in "Chasing Amy") find out that their comic book is being turned into a movie. They decide to head to Hollywood, but along the way they become scapegoats for a jewelry heist. The two continue on their way, encountering numerous celebrities (appearing both as themselves and sometimes as characters). Eventually, they're exonerated for their crime and get the money that started the whole fiasco.

Although the film originally received much criticism, I feel that it needs to be viewed with the same lens with which it was written and made - that of a love letter. Smith made this movie to be the glorious send off to his two most cherished characters, pulling no punches to make it the grande finale of the universe he created. As such, he succeeded.

Smith made the movie he wanted to make. It has characters returning from previous movies as well as repeated references to those films. It also has jokes based on the things he and his friends enjoy (or, at least, enjoyed at the time), and it doesn't matter if you don't understand them all - they're not for you. This movie wasn't necessarily intended for a vast audience to enjoy. It was more of a home-movie that teenagers make, writing it based on whatever they like and inviting all their friends to be in it, then showing it off whenever they get the chance to whoever will watch.

I definitely enjoyed all the random roles and cameos from celebrities and pseudo-celebrities. The scene when Ben Affleck and Matt Damon "prepare" for their roles is hilarious, and it was fun to see Jason Biggs and James Van Der Beek poke fun at their own limited roles. Carrie Fisher pops up as a nun who unintentionally spews innuendo. Even Mark Hamill - most famous for being Luke Skywalker - shows up as the super-villain in the "Bluntman and Chronic" movie-within-a-movie.

That being said, there is some room for criticism. At times it felt like the movie was too far-reaching and attempted to include every joke that could be made, rather than selecting only the best gags. As with most comedies, the story was convoluted and disjointed, so that by the end you had been distracted so many times that you had basically forgotten where they were going or why they were trying to get their.

To truly appreciate this movie, you have to remove the irony from your viewing. You must accept that this movie wasn't made for you, but that you are allowed to enjoy it. Once you get past that, you can see the heartwarming center of a writer / director saying good-by to his beloved universe. (But try not to think about how he brought it all back - one more time - for "Clerks II.")