Interstellar Review: Reach for the stars

Matthew McConaughey driving through farmland in Interstellar

Photo Credit: Paramount Pictures

Interstellar

A+

A review by Frederick Cholowski

Sometimes a film can transcend its flaws. Good storytelling mixed with some great elements can sometimes forgive the worst of sins. It’s hard not to watch Christopher Nolan’s latest film Interstellar and not be able to find flaws; some of the dialogue is strangely bad and sometimes the motivations of the characters are odd, but ultimately it doesn’t matter. Interstellar is a film that I left in awe of the overall achievement, a big, beautiful, and massively ambitious film that promotes the ideas of imagination and exploration in a time when they can often be forgotten. There are moments here and there that may not work as well but the since of awe that I left the theater with is unlike anything I've experienced in a theater.

Interstellar opens with a world in despair. The planet has become overpopulated and food is scares forcing the majority of the world to become farmers. The world also has seemed to lose most of its ambition, science has been put to the wayside and ambition and exploration seem to be ideas of the past. We are introduced to Cooper (Mathew McConaughey) a former pilot and engineer for NASA turned farmer and his two children, his eldest son Tom (played as a young boy by Timothee Chalament) and his younger daughter Murph (played as a young lady by Mackenzie Foy). Tom seems to be the successor to the farm while Murph is a child filled with wonder and after a sand storm her and Cooper find coordinates to a mysterious destination. Turns out it’s the underground base of NASA led by Professor Brand (Michael Cain) and his daughter Amelia (Anne Hathaway). Their mission is to find a new planet to settle the human race on as earth is becoming increasingly inhabitable and they need Cooper to pilot the ship. Cooper is forced to leave his family behind and set off on a near impossible mission.

The first half of Interstellar is one of the most fascinating cinematic experiences I’ve seen in a while. The film loops artfully from one moment to the next disregarding time and focusing on the big picture of what is happening to Cooper’s family as well as the world around him. It’s all done in one powerful sweeping tour de force, allowing the viewer to figure plot points out for themselves as well as giving the set up in a most interesting way. Particularly effective especially the material regarding the relationship between Cooper and his daughter Murph and just how much of an impact that the mission will have on her. By the time Cooper is set to lift off into space (in a great takeoff sequence) Nolan has done a fine job of making the mission and its ramifications into a big deal setting the stage for the adventures that come.

 
Once the characters blast off into space the visuals really begin to kick in. The space sequences are thrilling visual moments and continuously find unique ways to suck the viewer into the affairs. The film looks beautiful, especially in IMAX, and each sequence provides a new and creative visual element. Space, along with the planets that are visited feel like real characters in and amongst themselves as they each have their own unique elements and visual quirks. The visuals are ultimately awe inspiring and keep the film powerful and interesting even when the flaws begin to rear their ugly head.

That’s the thing with Interstellar, the film has flaws and they are not subtle either. Some of the dialogue in this film is head scratching especially with some of the female characters. There is one speech from the Anne Hathaway character in particular that is really cringe worthy and tough to sit through. Nolan has never been a real master of dialogue often overemphasizing emotions and not allowing scenes to speak and Interstellar often brings out the worst of that tendency.

The other thing that seems to happen is that many of the characters have some strange almost inexplicable motivations. Sometimes Interstellar overlooks or rushes through many of the idea of why certain characters do what they do leaving me often times either puzzled or just angry at how some character scenes are handled. The earlier Anne Hathaway character speech midway through the film also applies to this criticism, as it just kind of comes out of nowhere and doesn’t fit with anything that the character does before or since.

All that being said in the end those flaws really didn’t affect my enjoyment of Interstellar. As mentioned at the beginning of this review the film ultimately transcends its flaws with the power of its overall experience. Interstellar is a film that promotes the ideas of exploration, hope, and imagination. In more ways than one it attempts to reach for the stars, its ambition is so great, it attempts to go to places that a science fiction film hasn’t gone to in a while (of course the easy comparison is the Kubrick classic 2001) and for the most part it achieves what it sets out to do. Ultimately the feeling of awe that the film and its themes gave me triumphs over any potential flaws the film could have.

We have gone long enough without discussing some of the really good performances in this film. Mathew McConaughey is fantastic in this film. McConaughey brings such a warmth and humanity to Cooper and his interactions with his children. Mackenzie Foy who plays Murph as a child throughout the first hour of the film is also fantastic really selling the relationship that her and Cooper have as well as how big of an impact him leaving has on her. The rest of the performances work well here too, Anne Hathaway and Jessica Chastain (whom plays the adult version of Murph) work well considering the material they are given and Michael Cain is always reliably good.

Another quick note to make is in regards to the score and sound mixing. Hanz Zimmer’s score is very good as it adds a grand feel to big sequences. The main point of contention though is in the way it is used throughout the film. The score is pushed right into the forefront of big sequences pounding to the point it can almost be really overwhelming. Ultimately I didn’t mind the way in which the score is used and in fact in many moments I found it quite effective. It makes the big moments (like for example a liftoff) bigger and ultimately adds to what many of the sequences are trying to convey.  

Interstellar is a flawed masterpiece. It’s a film that has problems in certain areas, mostly in the character department, but ultimately the ambition, the visuals, and the since of awe the film left me with nearly make the flaws irrelevant. Interstellar is unlike anything I’ve seen in a theater in a long time and is one of the single best experiences of 2014.

Nightcrawler Review: Tough economic times

Lou Bloom looks at a wall of Media in Nightcrawler

Photo Credit: Elevation Pictures

 

Nightcrawler

A+

A review by Frederick Cholowski

The rags to riches story is getting darker and darker. Once upon a time it was a triumphant tale of a virtuous man or woman rising through a system that creates opportunity for good people to succeed. In 2014 we get Nightcrawler, a film that takes everything about that formula and dumps it on its head; Nightcrawler instead explores the idea of what if the rags to riches story is only achievable through despicable means. The result is a magnificent film one that ties so many strange elements together and turns them into something extraordinary.

When we first meet Lou Bloom (Jake Gyllenhaal) he’s stealing scrap metal from a chain link fence and selling it for very little. One night while driving to his tiny apartment he finds a “nightcrawler,” a camera man who takes footage of crimes as soon as they happen and then sells them to the local television news stations for a decent chunk of change. Bloom thinks that he can do it too so he buys himself a camera and a police scanner, hires a clueless assistant (Riz Ahmed), and begins selling exclusively to a ratings driven producer of the lowest rated LA channel Nina (Rene Russo). Of course Lou isn’t the let’s say “normal” type, and soon begins to do varying levels of illegal things (the example that is shown in the trailer is moving a body in order to get the perfect shot) in order to continue making more and more money and become a successful business owner.

Nightcrawler provides interesting commentary of two different areas of society. The first is a scathing satire of modern media. “If it bleeds it leads” is a line uttered early on in the film by fellow nightcrawler and Lou’s chief competition Joe (Bill Paxton) and it’s an idea that is explored throughout the film. In the world of Nightcrawler all that newscasts have become are a set of bloody events stitched together to garner ratings with zero intent to comply with journalistic ethics nor have any sort of moral compass. The terms “viewer discretion is advised” is not precautionary it’s in fact a source of intrigue for the viewer. Nina describes her newscast proudly as “a screaming woman running down the street with her throat cut.” Of course it is a little exaggerated (it is satire after all) but it does provide a thought provoking look on how society consumes news.

The other element, and most interesting subject of the film’s commentary is the look at the modern economic structure and what the American Dream has turned into. What means does a person have to go in order to achieve success? Does a person have to have morals while running a business or is making money enough? These are some of the questions that Nightcrawler asks as Lou continues to grow his business through less then acceptable means. As mentioned earlier Nightcrawler does follow a rags to riches storyline, but does it in a way that makes the viewer question the people that that story can create. Has money making really overtaking all other values in life? Nightcrawler provides a scary prospective on the society we live in and questions the moral code that it can potentially force.

The main reason why this commentary is so interesting is because of the character and performance at its centre. Jake Gyllenhaal delivers that best male performance of 2014 in this film as Lou adding a whole new world of depth to the character. All of Gyllenhaal’s small mannerisms from the wide eyes that never seem move while his eye lids are constantly twitching, to the chin that weavers when he speak help suck the audience into his character.  It’s hard sometimes to suspend disbelief enough to completely remove the actor from the character they are playing, but from the very first frame of Nightcrawler Jake Gyllenhaall is Lou Bloom. Through parts of the film it’s really easy to forget the actor completely, Gyllenhaall is that great (the comparison I made coming out of the theatre is Robert De Niro in Taxi Drive and while I don’t quite think Gyllenhaal is that great he sure comes close).

Gyllenhaal is so great that it’s hard to talk about any of the other performances. Rene Russo has the next most prominent role and she is very good here as her insanity increases after each passing moment she spends with Lou until she becomes more like him than originally imagined. Riz Ahmed does well as the clueless sidekick that gets to play off of Gyllenhaal for a lot of the film and by the end gets a few moments to shine. All the rest of the supporting performances are very solid and add to the world of the film (including Teddy Chowgugah (or at least the actor who plays him playing as close to modern Teddy as you can get)!!!!), but really this is the Jake Gyllenhaal show and the film is ultimately better for it.

On the technical side of things the film strides the line perfectly between being slick and cool without ever feeling like it’s glorifying anything that the awful Lou ends up doing. The film looks great from beginning to finish and really captures the creepy nature of the after dark business that is taking place before the viewer’s eyes. The score works nicely as well blending in a solid mix of techo and orchestral fare. It’s not as good as say a Cliff Martinez score might have been in this context but it does well for what it’s being asked to do.

Nightcrawler is a spectacular film from beginning to finish. Combining some great dual social commentary with a sleek feel and perhaps the best single performance of the year Nightcrawler ascends to superior status. Let’s just hope that in our near future our rags to riches films can become more optimistic (just for society’s sake) but for the age of cynicism that we live in Nightcrawler works perfectly.

Birdman Review: Misery as depicted in a single take

Micheal Keaton snaps his fingers in Birdman

Photo Credit: Fox Searchlight

Birdman

A

 A review by Frederick Cholowski

I’m a big sucker for long tracking shots. I’ve always loved the ability to linger on sequences and follow them without having to cut away. So imagine my glee watching Birdman (or the Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance), the latest film from director Alejandro González Iñárrit that attempts to replicate being shot as a single super long tracking shot. But Birdman ends up being so much more than that in fact it’s the film version of a tight rope act; a film with so many strange moving parts that at any point one can feel as though it could collapse at any moment. Some of the film’s elements, the stunt casting, the magical realism, the filmmaking style, or the in your face satire could cause the film to derail instantly; but ultimately it never does. Instead Birdman is one of the most engaging, exhilarating, and excellent films of the year.

Birdman transports the audience into the world of Riggan (Michael Keaton) a washed up actor and former star of the extremely popular Birdman franchise. Riggan wants to prove himself as an artist instead of being labeled a one pony and so in a huge stab at relevancy he adapts, directs, and stars in “What We Talk about When We Talk about Love” on Broadway. The film takes us through the previews of the shows and up to opening day as Riggan has to deal with a temperamental actor Mike (Edward Norton) who never ceases to do insane things, his formerly drug addicted daughter Sam (Emma Stone), his best friend/always panicking producer Jake (Zach Galifianakis), and his growing misery and insanity. Riggan struggles throughout the development of his play to prove his relevance and worth not only to everyone around him, but himself.

The best part about Riggan’s adventure is that it a tale full of sorrow, but it’s never one that dwells in it. The film mixes in a whole boatload of satire to offset the pure melancholy of Riggan’s life and it works extremely well. The film is very funny at points and while the satire isn’t necessary subtle it works for what it’s trying to do. The film’s satire is almost making fun of itself at points as a wink towards audience; sometimes being so obvious it seems it has to be self-parody. Again it works though as this could have been a drudgingly depressing film through and through (like some of Alejandro González Iñárritu’s previous efforts) but it manages to transcend that and remain consistently entertaining through the use of comedy.

It also helps that the character’s developed in the film all feel three dimensional and don’t end up being “Hollywood satire archetypes”. One of the best examples of these characters is Edward Norton’s magnificent Mike whom must have seemed like a terrible character on paper, but Edward Norton’s performance take the character into a galaxy all on its own. Sure the character is crazy but he has a heart too, he’s a man who can only display real emotions on stage and is seemingly flailing through life everywhere else. Edward Norton is the best he’s been in a long time really bringing a tour de force performance here. Emma Stone’s character could have been a disaster too but the film adds enough dimensions to make the character interesting. Sure Sam on the surface is a satire of Hollywood daughters but the material has enough heart that it works extraordinarily well.

The best character of them all though is the one at the film’s center. Could Michael Keaton be seen as pure stunt casting for this role, absolutely, but does it work, absolutely. This film is a showcase of just how great of an actor Michael Keaton really is as he handles so much strange and at times contrasting material with such grace and power. He transforms Riggan into a complex and tragic figure, one that is super compelling at that. Riggan is equal parts a figure who gets to wallow in sorrow as well as a figure whom the audience can get a good laugh out of and Keaton manages to balance these traits perfectly. Keaton balances on the tight rope with grace and skill and ultimately delivers one of the year’s most compelling performances.

Finally I cannot go on with this review any longer without getting in detail about the way this film is shot. As I mentioned off the top of the review, the film plays out as if it is one continuous tracking shot without cuts. Of course there are cuts in this film and they are obvious even if you don’t know that much about the language of filmmaking; but the cuts are disguised very well and didn’t break my suspension of disbelief even if I could see what parts the film where the edits occurred. But even if the filmmaking style worked on its own it actually has to work within the context of the film, which is achieved in Birdman. The filmmaking style adds energy to the proceedings as the camera weaves through hallways, spins around scenes and allowed to follow characters through routines for longer periods of time. One of the best shot sequences in the film involves the camera navigating Times Square as it follows nearly naked Riggan, after locking himself out of the theatre, on a desperate ploy to get to the stage in order not to miss his part in the final scene of the play. The camera weaving in and out of the crowd that forms around him adds to the energy and ultimate insanity of the sequence and is one of the many examples of the moving camera adding intrigue to sequences that might not feel as lifelike without it.

Movement along with the characters isn’t the only thing that the tracking shot format is able to achieve though; the method also allows the camera to linger on character moments and ultimately make them have more meaning and power. One of the best scenes in Birdman involves the camera simply lurking on Sam’s face after she delivers a speech to her father. Normally in film we’d cut from her speech to a reaction shot from her father, but instead the camera is forced to linger on Sam herself after the speech is delivered and the audience gets to watch her facial expressions change as she’s gripping on to different emotions before ultimately walking away. It seems so small but it adds so much to the scene. The audience probably could guess Riggan’s reaction but Sam’s is much more ambiguous and interesting. Because of the nature of a single take tracking shot, character moments like this are allowed to breathe as the camera really can’t move until the characters do, allowing for fascinatingly unique prospective on sequences.

Ultimately though it’s the sum of all of Birdman’s parts that make it such and intriguing film. The film’s ability to put all of its elements together is a true tight rope act that never weavers across its two hour running length. Birdman is a unique and fascinating filmmaking experience and one of the best films of 2014.