Interstellar - TBA

[unicron73]

i loved INTERSTELLAR,loved all 3 batman films but hated INCEPTION...

[Impossible]

I loved Prestige and his Dark Knight trilogy, pretty much everything else leaves me cold. Even Memento wouldn't have been any good without it's 'gimmick'.

I think Nolan, Jackson and Raami are the 3 most overrated directors in the history of cinema.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by Impossible

I loved Prestige and his Dark Knight trilogy, pretty much everything else leaves me cold. Even Memento wouldn't have been any good without it's 'gimmick'.

I think Nolan, Jackson and Raami are the 3 most overrated directors in the history of cinema.

Jackson and Rami were gold before they went legit blockbuster

[mat562]

Just got back from seeing this at my local cinema.

Hmm. All a bit of a curate's egg, really. Some stunning visuals, and a beautiful looking film, but didn't really wow me as I thought it would/should.

[Show spoiler]A lot of the exposition for the ecological situation was missing, or at least wasn't really properly fleshed out, and I didn't really 'get' how McConaughey's character went from test pilot/ace astronaut to farmer and then back to the driving seat of an epic mission into space after pretty much just wandering in off the street. I mean, it's truly a stroke of luck, but just about believable, when the best pilot NASA have ever had turns up one night in a pick-up (as well as a real mystery how he lost his job in the first place), but for the bigwigs to then say 'Okay, this bloke who's just wandered up to the gate and been tasered by the robot night watchman now goes straight to the top of the list for a make-or-break mission that's been years in the making and which will decide the future of humanity' is stretching it a bit.

I enjoyed it, but it wasn't truly must-see sci-fi as I thought it may very well have been in the weeks leading up to sitting down and watching it.

[rapta]

Originally Posted by Impossible

I think Nolan, Jackson and Raami are the 3 most overrated directors in the history of cinema.

They're all hit-and-miss if you ask me. Nolan films are at least beautifully filmed and well cast and acted. I dunno if I'd bunch them with the other two, who have succumbed to a much more commercial/CGI-heavy aesthetic in their later career (which is a shame). Saying that, Raimi did release Drag Me To Hell which was a return to form for him...but then went and made Oz the Great and Powerful.

Still not sure when I'm gonna see this. Nobody I know seems to be gagging to see it, but I will try and see it in IMAX.

[Impossible]

Originally Posted by rapta

They're all hit-and-miss if you ask me. Nolan films are at least beautifully filmed and well cast and acted. I dunno if I'd bunch them with the other two, who have succumbed to a much more commercial/CGI-heavy aesthetic in their later career (which is a shame). Saying that, Raimi did release Drag Me To Hell which was a return to form for him...but then went and made Oz the Great and Powerful.

Still not sure when I'm gonna see this. Nobody I know seems to be gagging to see it, but I will try and see it in IMAX.

I'm happy to admit I just don't 'get' Jackson and Raimi's early stuff. I don't really like extreme gore, so I don't see the attraction to any of them. Plus I don't like 'horror/comedies' as I think they negate each other as genres, so I just don't 'get' them or find them even remotely entertaining.

I never got the Evil Dead thing and never made it past 10 minutes of Part 2. I even went to see the musical in Vegas last year and walked out at intermission after spending the whole time wanting to kill everyone in the audience every time they fake laughed at something that was supposedly 'reductive'.

Simple Plan is the only Raimi I like and Heavenly Creatures is the only Jackson film I really rate. The Middle Earth 'project' is entertaining muck, but I don't think any of them are really great films aside from the obviously brilliant technical achievements that they are.

I think Spiderman 3, Oz the Great and Powerful and Lovely Bones are 3 of the worst films ever made by big directors. King Kong is pretty terrible as well, but I can kind of forgive him for that as there is a brilliant 90 minute film in there somewhere dying to get out, if only he knew how to edit.

Nolan is a class above both of them obviously, but his smug arrogance and the fact every time he opens his mouth with his next 'saviour of modern cinema' quote I wanna rip all of his teeth out one by one and it turns me off anything that may be good about him.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by rapta

They're all hit-and-miss if you ask me. Nolan films are at least beautifully filmed and well cast and acted. I dunno if I'd bunch them with the other two, who have succumbed to a much more commercial/CGI-heavy aesthetic in their later career (which is a shame). Saying that, Raimi did release Drag Me To Hell which was a return to form for him...but then went and made Oz the Great and Powerful.

Still not sure when I'm gonna see this. Nobody I know seems to be gagging to see it, but I will try and see it in IMAX.

If you like purple and odd focus issues

[rapta]

Originally Posted by Impossible

I'm happy to admit I just don't 'get' Jackson and Raimi's early stuff. I don't really like extreme gore, so I don't see the attraction to any of them. Plus I don't like 'horror/comedies' as I think they negate each other as genres, so I just don't 'get' them or find them even remotely entertaining.

I never got the Evil Dead thing and never made it past 10 minutes of Part 2. I even went to see the musical in Vegas last year and walked out at intermission after spending the whole time wanting to kill everyone in the audience every time they fake laughed at something that was supposedly 'reductive'.

Simple Plan is the only Raimi I like and Heavenly Creatures is the only Jackson film I really rate. The Middle Earth 'project' is entertaining muck, but I don't think any of them are really great films aside from the obviously brilliant technical achievements that they are.

I think Spiderman 3, Oz the Great and Powerful and Lovely Bones are 3 of the worst films ever made by big directors. King Kong is pretty terrible as well, but I can kind of forgive him for that as there is a brilliant 90 minute film in there somewhere dying to get out, if only he knew how to edit.

Nolan is a class above both of them obviously, but his smug arrogance and the fact every time he opens his mouth with his next 'saviour of modern cinema' quote I wanna rip all of his teeth out one by one and it turns me off anything that may be good about him.

Haha fair enough! I think I got into Raimi through The Evil Dead (the first of which I think is brilliant, though I think the sequels are largely overrated) but not really any of his other stuff aside from Drag Me To Hell which was essentially his return to Evil Dead 2-style silliness (again, if you're game...by the way I've not seen Simple Plan). Jackson similarly - I went back and saw Braindead and The Frighteners after the first Tolkien films came out but I've not seen anything else of his. I'm definitely not feeling The Hobbit films very much...I like parts (for example Martin Freeman as Bilbo) but the CGI and the way they're filmed frustrates me.

Of his films, I'd like to see Heavenly Creatures but haven't wanted to enough to actually pick it up - as you said The Lovely Bones is awful...of course I can't compare yet but he's obviously trying to return to the kind of film he made with Heavenly Creatures but from it looks like turns into What Dreams May Come gone even wronger. I agree that King Kong was dodgy...it seemed to go on forever and I hated the central performances. A trim could have helped a little but it was still completely overcooked.

As for Nolan I don't really care if he's smug - most people with as much influence as him probably act similarly. I'd advise you to just not watch his interviews and if it really becomes a problem just ignore his films too! I only really do that for a select few filmmakers - Lars Von Trier most notably, but there are probably a couple of others. There are filmmakers it does take some effort to 'get into' though, I think we can agree on that - in those cases it'd take time and attention, but only if you wanted to. It sounds like you've run out of patience with all three!

[Monkeyspoons Revenge]

This is one of those films that you have to be pretty intellegent to appreciate. There is lots of science involved that may go over a lot of people's heads. Those looking for a blockbuster popcorn flick may come away disappointed.

One thing I hated about the film was the sound. Why did the music have to be so loud and block out some dialogue. The music isn't even that good just a constant drone.

[Sky_Captain]

Originally Posted by Monkeyspoons Revenge

This is one of those films that you have to be pretty intellegent to appreciate.

It's something that Sun readers can see and claim to have seen something intelligent, except that it's not intelligent whatsover. Try explaining the actual plot to someone and you'd sound like a f***ing mad person. It's bat-shit daft. Like Inception, it appears to have bamboozled people with low attention spans.

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by Sky_Captain

It's something that Sun readers can see and claim to have seen something intelligent, except that it's not intelligent whatsover. Try explaining the actual plot to someone and you'd sound like a f***ing mad person. It's bat-shit daft. Like Inception, it appears to have bamboozled people with low attention spans.

You might find you explain most plots of films to people you come across as a crazy person.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by Sky_Captain

It's something that Sun readers can see and claim to have seen something intelligent, except that it's not intelligent whatsover. Try explaining the actual plot to someone and you'd sound like a f***ing mad person. It's bat-shit daft. Like Inception, it appears to have bamboozled people with low attention spans.

Yep, its cod psychological cod intellectual nonsense for the blockbuster crowd to feel smart about as they understand a few words

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Sky_Captain

It's something that Sun readers can see and claim to have seen something intelligent, except that it's not intelligent whatsover.

Yup. All the concentrating on the sciencey stuff totally misses the point.

[Invid Ninja]

As far as I am concerned, Interstellar is Nolan's best film. Haters be damned, it might even by my favourite movie of the year alongside The Wind Rises, Inside Llewyn Davis and The Raid 2; a tall order considering I feel 2014 has been the best post-2000 year for film for awhile.

[JimDiGriz]

Its certainly got holes. And maybe its a bit bloated too. But damn its epic and Ill certainly be buying this on blu-ray. Easy 9/10 for me.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by JimDiGriz

Its certainly got holes. And maybe its a bit bloated too. But damn its epic and Ill certainly be buying this on blu-ray. Easy 9/10 for me.

?

[Impossible]

Originally Posted by Sky_Captain

It's something that Sun readers can see and claim to have seen something intelligent, except that it's not intelligent whatsover. Try explaining the actual plot to someone and you'd sound like a f***ing mad person. It's bat-shit daft. Like Inception, it appears to have bamboozled people with low attention spans.

The problem with Inception was that it took an hour for it to tell us, then show us, then tell us again, then show us again (incase we didn't get it the second, third or fourth time it relayed the same information to us) and then after all the buildup presented us with 3 REALLY boring dream sequences ripped off from other films we'd seen done better a million times before.

The fact that the whole film was basically one rich ******** trying to rip off another rich ******** through an elaborate scheme made it even more polarizing for me. Who gives a shit what rich psychopaths do amuse themselves!

And don't even start me on the ****ing wife cliche clumsily inserted so the bored girlfriends of Nolan stanboys had something to keep them 'entertained'......

Overcooked, terribly written MESS!

[levcore]

Originally Posted by dvdmike

?

It would be insane to judge a Michael Bay movie and a Christopher Nolan movie by the same criteria.

[Impossible]

Originally Posted by levcore

It would be insane to judge a Michael Bay movie and a Christopher Nolan movie by the same criteria.

Not really, they both make terribly written popcorn movies for the masses. Only one pretends (and fails) to be more intellectual......

[levcore]

Originally Posted by Impossible

Not really, they both make terribly written popcorn movies for the masses. Only one pretends (and fails) to be more intellectual......

This is the crucial difference, they are not aiming for the same crowd or audience.