Interstellar Gravity

This is being written on a phone so the Formatting won't allow me to see what I'm typing.  This will probably end horribly garbled but I might just leave it that way, forever a sign of how far we still have to go in terms of phone UI design.

Anyway, I watched 2 movies today, Interstellar and Gravity.

Both are surprisingly good films in their own way, but both suffered from not knowing how to end.  Either film could win worst ending oscar, should that become an award in the future.

So I watched Interstellar first, but let's start with Gravity.

From the way it is filmed I guessed it was a late 3D offering and upon post viewing research I was right.  There are a lot of shots of things flying towards the camera and objects careening past in the foreground, middle and background.  Every 3D film ever made has the same effects, and it's this chronic lack of imagination that caused the doom of 3D cinema.  Anyway, I remember the effects being heralded as revolutionary back when this came out.

They are.  But only in one sense.  For the past decade and a half filmmakers have been obsessed with Blair Witch style shaky cam, the vomit inducing action camera that's supposed to mimic the action of a real head reacting to the scene in front of him, or at the very least a camera down in the dirt where the real stuff is happening.

It's a stupid premise that doesn't work and always requires an even greater effort of suspension of disbelief because the accompanying motions aren't there (shaking seat, craning neck etc) and the screen isn't all encompassing, so only a part of your vision is experiencing the effect.  It is always stupid nd very rarely works.

Stop it.  Directors, stop it.

Anyway, this is an action film with very little shaky cam.  Maybe the tides are turning?  I fear it's just the space setting as there are dozens of shots where the view is as it would be were the viewer the actor (sandra bullock?  She looked familiar).

Also there is a warning at the beginning that sound does not travel in space which is so pathetic and. pandering it was almost a deal breaker.  I nearly turned it off at this point.  I wonder if my version was just the american releasd and all non-american versions did away with that part.

The galling, fucking ridiculous part was that after 5 minutes the debris i space WAS MAKING NOISE AS IT WHIPPED PAST.

For fucks sake the director is an idiot.

Also, 95pc of the film is CG, from the stations to the actors bodids whenever they're suited up.  After only 2 years it already looks bad.  One of the indoor scenes looked like they lifted it out of a demo for unreal engine 4.

The negatives aside , and don't get me wrong, those negatives are glaring whwn I write them down, it's still a good film worth watching.  The actors do their jobs, the pacing keeps motivation up and its incredible brevity mean nothing outstays any welcomes.  You can turn it off 10 minutes before the finish, end on a cliffhanger and actully give yourself a better overall experience.  When they remember their ow in universe rules the sound is superb, the visuals of earth as seen from space gave me the chills I get from NASA pictures and there are several scenes where insignificance comes into play like no other film.

Interstellar is a completely different fish.  It's a much better film and almost competes as a spectacle too.  The problems come when you look at the chronic lack of science that went into this thing.  And the ending.  For Christs sake the ending.

When you talk about a future where Earth is no longer habitable it's always somehow man-caused volcanoes or man-made ice ages but this film steers clear of that by suggesting massive desertification of the american corn belt, and by extension the food producing regions of the world.  Okay movie maker man, one point there because that's something that's demonstrably happening now.

They also cite virulent blights, presumably from intensive single strain farming.  Fine, disease is a constant threat in modern literature.

Then they describe all the major crops simply ceasing to grow.  Erm.

Okay?  If this is what gets us into space then fine.

But then over the course of 2 further hours and several tangents the dxplanations start rolling in.

And then minus 90 million billion minus points.  No.  Black holes do not work like that.  Fine, if you want a convenient device for doing things then have a hole in space, just don't invoke black hole.  Call it something else.  Anything else.  By the ending my brain was bleeding out of my ears from the stupidity.

Look, I get it.  This isn't actually a sciemce fiction film.  I understand that it's just a meditation on family, how relationships change awgrowes older and our responsibilities shaping who we are and become - but if that's your thinly veiled premise then don't dress something up in the realm of science when it's actually mysticism. When you have a population that needs reminding that there is no air in space then I wonder how much the science matters in the first place.  Make it batshit crazy with giant robots, or keep a grounding in reality.  This half and half, increasingly ridiculous universe is so contrived it's painful.

That aside, some surprisingly well acted child characters top off a great cast.  It's a top notch production in that regard.

The sound is superb.  The soundtrack is also excellent.

The effects are good, the space scenes echo gravity in a way that makes me think the director liked it.  There's a new bar for representing space, these films are currently top notch in that regard.

The secret show stealers are the robots.  They're horribly designed in a modern take on the old immobile droids from years past (think r2, or c3po, or even the daleks) but they have so much personality.  The human ability to ascribe meaning and emotion to objects is incredible, and the form of these guys plays into that brilliantly.  They are menacing, endearing, bold and subtle all at once.  And horribly ill conceived for actual spaceflight.

I love it when a director tinkers with expectations, and these droids provide all kinds of tension throughout.

The ending is inexcusable.  From the fake spiritualism (why change tone fully 5/6ths of the way in?) to the ridiculous and sappy ending.  Pathetic.

The symbolism of him forging his own path in the face of familial responsibilities, and him rediscovering himself and his meaning is cool I guess?

No, that's a lie .  The final 20 minutes or so are some of the worst in cinematic history.  The gulf between highs and lows are so monumental it boggles the mind to think that anyone let the final scenes out of the door.

Despite that I still recommend it.  Both of them in fact.  Go watch them!

My whole body hurts from typing this out on a phone.  I dare not go back and read it all.

Somewhat Busy, but not Too Much So...

I've nothing to write about really, other than the film I recently watched and fell in love with all over again.

The director; Danny Boyle, preluded the film with an introduction commenting on the general process involved in making 'Sunshine.'  He likened the process to a more realistic take on science fiction, akin to the original Aliens, and I would draw a direct comparison with 'Event Horizon,' one of my favourite films.  The premise is that the sun is dying and a crew of eight are shepherding a small planetoid sized bomb to the sun, in order to get the old girl started again.

Where this film immediately differs from contemporary sci-fi, is the non-reliance on lengthy, drawn out scenes upon which premises are built.  The opening scene establishes all that need be known about the film, without a single line of dialogue.  Ultimately, the film is as much a cabin-fever story set in space, as a race to restart the sun.  As with all films set in tight quarters, the cast do not so much create the atmosphere through which the film runs; they are the atmosphere, and the tension, and everything between.  As such, the cast excel in all areas.  I particularly enjoyed the lead, acted by the exceptional main man in '28 Days Later,' Cillian Murphy (another exceptional film by the same director, and an actor/director partnership of significance) but I also enjoyed the earthmother character, Michelle Yeoh (real name Yang Zi Chong) who also performed in 'Far North.'  The characters were poles apart (sic) and yet similar in their protective roles.  She is responsible for ensuring crew survival by keeping a botanical section thriving, keeping oxygen supplies refreshed.  In Far North her role is mentor, protector and leader of a two woman tribe in the snowy wastes.  Indeed, her final act as Corazon is to craddle a new shoot, grown from the ashes and ruins of her botanical bay.  The symbolic significance is obvious, but her significance throughout is the very thing that means I've not seen her mentioned anywhere else:  Her lack of imposition within each scene.  She represents humanity and ultimately life, and her disappearing into the shadows mirrors the crews' demise.


The deeper the crew fall, the further away she seems.  Only when balance is restored, is her screen time and ultimately, her significance restored.


Another standout performance that's not been recognised (as far as I can tell) is that of the ships' counselor.  Unfortunately he dies quite early, however his job is shown to be exceptionally complicated after afray on the flight deck.  His character is akin to Icarus; he flies dangerously close to the feverish insanity that's prevalent in these conditions, and overcomes problems by confronting them with his own feverish mentality.


Cliff Curtis is the actor who performs the maniacal balancing act, threading between sanity and insanity.


The clever use of CGI ensures this film won't age like 'Avatar,' or other special effects laden nonsense; because the special effects are used in a minimalistic way that never impose, and will never be subject to full scrutiny by the viewer.


Overall, this film is on-par with Event Horizon, and scores 9.5 out of a possible 9.5.