Interstellar (2014) – Review

Review: Interstellar is magnificent – a marvelous display of technical and aesthetic splendor on a massive scale built around the deeply moving and emotional story of a father and daughter.

The film takes place in the not too far away future. The Earth’s crops have begun to die out, leaving the world in a state of hunger, humanity’s population gravely thinning out. The environment too has become more severe, dust storms engulfing towns and cities, resembling the Dust Bowl crisis during the Great Depression. Man’s time on Earth has come to an end. Meanwhile, former NASA pilot Cooper has become a farmer (as Earth needs food, not pilots), raising his young son, Tom, and daughter, Murph, after his wife passed away. Mankind has become a race of farmers and caretakers, desperately trying to cling to what the Earth has left, giving up what they now believe to be the wasteful and childish ideas of exploration and discovery. Cooper still believes in progress, however, as an engineer. He raises his children to think critically and not be content with their place (putting him and them at odds with the general population). Tom, however, is content to be a farmer when he grows up, but it is clear that Murph has the spirit and imagination of an explorer and/or scientist. She discovers a gravitational anomaly that leads her and Cooper to a secret NASA base (they have gone underground due to their public unpopularity). Cooper learns that NASA is working on a last ditch effort to save humanity (certain that Earth’s last substantial crop, corn, will too soon die out). A mission through a newly discovered wormhole (which appeared around the same time as many other strange gravitational anomalies across our solar system) to search three potential habitual planets in a new galaxy that would otherwise be outside the reach of mankind. If one of these planets can support life, maybe mankind has a chance. Cooper agrees to go on the mission, piloting the spacecraft, knowing that he will likely never see his family again, leaving his daughter Murph heartbroken. Cooper feels he must go. He along with three other astronauts are humanity’s last, best chance (and Cooper’s only chance to save his family). Like any review, there are going to be some spoilers in the discussion of the film. Be warned.

Interstellar begins on Earth, which has become an almost uninhabitable planet, slowly killing off mankind as crops are one-by-one overtaken by blight. Writer-director Christopher Nolan (who co-wrote the film with his brother Jonathan Nolan) takes something very much rooted in reality – the fact that humans are devastatingly altering the Earth’s environment – and projects it forward to an apocalyptic climax. People living in this wasteland talk about the past (our present) with distain – our greed and carelessness put us on the path to our own destruction. There is also a clever nod to the idea that seems to be popular today that space exploration is a waste of our resources. In Interstellar’s grim future, people believe that space exploration was all an elaborate scam, perpetrated to bankrupt the Cold War era Soviet Union, as they tried to match the U.S. bomb for bomb and beat them to the Moon (and beyond). It was a waste of resources, exemplifying the decadence of the past. Their textbooks have been altered to teach this to students, now believed to be the truth.

Nolan, with Interstellar, seems to be trying to once again spark interest in space exploration, in discovery – something that was very much a part of our culture (at least for those alive during the U.S.’s NASA missions). Growing up in the 1960s-1980s, every child dreamed of being an astronaut, exploring the wonders of space, leading to the overwhelming popularity of science fiction (films like 2001: A Space Odyssey, Close Encounters of the Third Kind and Star Wars – all of which are big influences on Interstellar). But something changed within our culture, within us. We no longer look up to the stars and dream. Technologically speaking, this is a grave tragedy, as NASA’s scientists greatly pushed technological advancement forward as they frantically worked to conquer the great unknown. The majesty, grandness and beauty of Interstellar will hopefully reignite our imaginations, our drive to explore (something that seemingly has always been a part of what makes us human, but has somehow been lost) and our willingness to take risks – to make our dreams into reality. Nolan screened The Right Stuff to invigorate his crew with this spirit of discovery.

Technically and aesthetically, the film is utterly spellbinding. The visuals are unlike anything else in modern cinema (greatly trumping last year’s Gravity by comparison, which I thought was fantastic as well on a visual level, but this film is on an entirely different level of beauty and grandeur). I highly recommend seeing it in IMAX, as the film has over an hour of footage that takes advantage of the formats expansive 70mm film stock (here is a list of IMAX theaters, for real IMAX look for theaters with the 15/70mm screens). Interstellar is a marvel alone for its technical and aesthetic achievements (most of which were created in camera – which is very uncommon today).

Yet, to sustain the audience for the film’s long runtime, there must also be substance. Many have accused Nolan’s work of lacking emotion in the past (something I do not agree with, but it seems to be the general consensus among critics). Interstellar is different. It is Nolan’s most emotional film. The story is very simple. It is about the relationship between Cooper and Murph. She feels betrayed when he leaves. He has left her to grow up without parents, abandoned to die on the Earth while he potentially restarts humanity on a new planet. Nolan mines this relationship for all its dramatic emotion. Due to relativity caused by a black hole called Gargantua, Cooper loses twenty three years in only a few hours, watching his children grow up through a series of video messages, unable to send return messages. This scene is tragic, as Cooper realizes what he is giving up. His motivation is to get back to his children, but visiting each of these potential planets advances time greatly for Earth relative to the short amount of time he has spent on the planets. Cooper realizes that he may not be able to see his children again, which crushes him.

Nolan’s character development is very good as well. The first act stage setting, detailing the relationships between the characters, goes a long way, paying off profoundly as Cooper and Murph’s relationship develops. We understand why Cooper must go, but also the loss felt by Murph. Seeing Cooper’s children age (and grow up without him) and his devastation at the very real realization that he will likely never see them again also crushes us as well.

Cooper and Murph are also mirrored by Dr. Amelia Brand and her father Professor Brand. Amelia leaves on the mission while her father stays behind working on a solution to save the people on Earth. There is a plan A and plan B. Plan A sees humanity rocket off the Earth on a massive space station (Professor Brand just has not solved the equation allowing it to be possible, but he is confident he will), while Plan B sees Cooper, Amelia and the two other astronauts repopulate humanity on a new planet with hundreds of embryos that they have brought along. Murph is devastated by her father leaving and Amelia is also devastated when she learns the truth that plan A is a lie, enacted to bring people together, to work together supporting plan B. Professor Brand had already solved his equation long ago, but it was a dead-end. It was his intention all along for plan B to be humanity’s salvation. Amelia cannot believe that her father would betray her by lying to her and Murph, learning the truth as well, is consumed by the idea that her father knew and left her to die on Earth. Here again, Nolan achieves real emotional resonance, drawing the audience further in. Seeing Murph’s anger towards Cooper is heartbreaking for us as well. We care deeply about these characters. We want to see them succeed. Thus, the action plays on a much more emotional level for us. We are completely engrossed.

The action is thrilling. Interstellar has a number of grand action sequences that are very entertaining, both on a visual and dramatic level. Nolan is a master of building tension; and this film has a number of agonizingly tense moments that grab you and do not let go. The film also uses the idea of evil very well. The film postulates that there is no evil in nature, only in what humans bring with them. Thus, in a new galaxy, untouched by mankind, the only evil is that of man. This plays out wonderfully through the character of Dr. Mann. He is described by the crew as “the best of all of us”. Dr. Mann is one of the twelve scientists who left ten years prior to Cooper’s mission to scout potential planets and relay the data that they find. Dr. Mann has sent back his data with the message that his planet has incredible potential. Yet, things are not as they appear on his planet when Cooper and Amelia arrive. Dr. Mann is overcome by his own mortality, prioritizing his own survival over anything else. He falsified his data so that the team would come to his planet to save him. Nolan again does a great job of creating characters that seem to mirror each other. Both Cooper and Dr. Mann are presented as heroes who sacrifice everything to save humanity; however, when everything is on the line, their true natures take over. Cooper proves himself to be selfless while Dr. Mann is selfish. Mankind’s drive to survive makes him able to be either selfless or selfish, good or evil, hero or villain, brave or cowardly (and sometimes both). Dr. Mann is the film’s villain, but he is not really a villain in the classical sense. More so, he is just a man who has given in to his own weakness.

Getting back to the narrative, Nolan is well known for his plot twists. Interstellar, as said above, tells a very simple story on a massively grand scale. While it does contain a number of plot twists, they are not the point of the story, and honestly they are not really big twists to those paying attention (as well as those with an understanding of film structure – or those who have just seen a lot of movies). Everything is clearly telegraphed to the audience (generally a staple of good storytelling). Again, Nolan has created a film that seems to transcend what we typically think of as a blockbuster. While it does have similar elements (big action sequences, plot twists and a grand scale/scope), Nolan seems to have a much higher ambition. He wants to make a sci-fi epic that is visually compelling, emotionally engaging and thought provoking, along the lines of classics like 2001: A Space Odyssey (which he fantastically pays homage to through some great tongue-and-cheek dialog from the astronauts' robot companion TARS) and Close Encounters of the Third Kind. These types of films are almost completely non-existent in today’s cinema (which is sad). I think Nolan succeeds in his ambition.

The science of the film is also a big element in its construction. The Nolan Brothers worked closely with physicist Kip Thorne (who serves as an executive producer) on the script, the feasibility and look of the film. Interstellar relies on the audience’s understanding of wormholes, black holes, relativity, and other scientific principles and theories. It sounds like a tall order to get all this information across without the film being bogged down in its science. Nolan, here, succeeds spectacularly as well. The film is paced wonderfully to keep things moving. The exposition and science are woven expertly into the dialogue, leaving the audience informed and never bored (something Nolan probably learned writing and making Inception, a film in which he creates the character of Ariadne just so everything can be explained to the audience). Everything is also shown visually as well, taking advantage of the majesty of the film’s beautiful imagery.

Interstellar, however, is also a film that is likely to prove to be somewhat decisive for viewers. There are elements that can potentially feel very hokey (mostly stemming from Murph’s ghost and the twist involving what it actually is). It is again a film about a father and daughter; thus, its resolution is going to be about these characters, their relationship. The film takes such big risks with its narrative in the third act that they are not going to work for everyone. Yet, it is these risks that also create the film’s most emotionally captivating and powerful moments. Thus, if they do feel overly hokey, the film will possibly leave you disappointed; but, if they engage you on the intended emotional level, the film works beautifully.

Nolan is an optimist. While the film begins with the potential end of humanity, it ends with hope, a confidence that we can be better, that we can once again reach for the stars. It is Nolan’s most beautiful and touching film. Interstellar is grandiose due to its striking imagery and ambition; but it is a film that exceeds its blockbuster label, resonating on a much more emotional level, getting at the core of what makes us human – our ability to love, to endure and to look up at the stars, imagining our place among them, seeking out the unknown.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Christopher Nolan has now made nine feature films. Nolan began his career with the micro budget (a sparse $6,000) crime drama mystery/thriller Following. Despite the small budget, the film foreshadows the narrative themes and storytelling style that Nolan is now famous for. He then made his breakthrough film, Memento, a mystery thriller that stormed the world of independent film and made Nolan a star overnight. He came to Hollywood, first making Insomnia and following it up with his brilliant The Dark Knight trilogy (Batman Begins, The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises), representing the heights to which genre (superhero/comic book) filmmaking can achieve. Between his Batman films, he made a wonderful film about dueling magicians, The Prestige, and a massive action thriller that assumes that the audience is actively engaged and not just a passive, distracted observer waiting to be cheaply entertained with Inception. That brings us to Interstellar. Nolan’s films have operated on a massive scale (especially the last three), both narratively and physically – Nolan integrating more and more IMAX footage with each film. He is a director who makes spectacles in the classical sense – grand epics that thrill us while also challenging us dramatically and emotionally. He is an auteur in the truest sense of the word; and yet unlike most other auteurs working today, he makes films intended to be blockbusters. He does it better than anyone else right now. It is his gift to take on such an immense scale and scope with his films and not lose their dramatic and emotional cores. While his films are blockbusters, his characters are just as rich and well developed as any in cinema. Interstellar is both his most ambitious and his most personal (shooting under the title Flora’s Letter, named for his daughter). It is also maybe Nolan’s most polarizing film, stemming from the narrative risks he takes. I think Interstellar is a masterful work, daring to be a blockbuster that aspires to be original and thought provoking (similar to the grand epics of the past, like Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey) when Hollywood cinema has become reductive, constantly recycling the same ideas over and over, afraid to take risks because missteps today are too costly. Nolan worked his way up with his marvelous films, Inception probably being the key stepping stone, allowing him to aim high and swing big. I, for one, am glad he did. Interstellar is an incredible cinematic experience.

As stated many times above, Interstellar is a wonder of aesthetic and technical majesty. Composer Hans Zimmer’s score is breathtaking (it very well might have been my favorite part of the film). It is different than anything else found in other current blockbusters. Zimmer’s music is grand and beautiful, completely emotionally engulfing the viewer (here is the main theme). It resonates incredibly well with the striking visuals, creating a full emotional experience (I wish I could go back and see it again for the first time and hear the music again for the first time). Filling in for Wally Pfister (Interstellar is only Nolan’s second film not shot by Pfister, the other is Following), cinematographer Hoyte Van Hoytema delivers stunning work. The photography in the film is astounding, arresting and wondrous. Nolan’s characters and their emotional journey are the core of the film, but Hoytema’s photography is just as big a part of Interstellar’s power and grandeur. Production designer Nathan Crowley does a wonderful job as well. Although the film does take place in the future, his work feels very much rooted in the past, representing a society that has suffered a grave setback. His spacecraft designs are very utilitarian, looking like they were put together in a hodgepodge fashion using many eras of technology (with digital and analog options). Earth does not look very futurist either (matching the idea that humanity is on the decline), as if technological advancement came to a halt and maybe even regressed.

The cast of Interstellar is very good. John Lithgow, Ellen Burstyn, Casey Affleck, and Wes Bentley are good in small supporting roles. David Gyasi plays Romilly, one of the four astronauts on the mission. His role is fairly small, but Gyasi does a lot with it, showing the emotional and physical toll that the mission takes on his character. He is excellent in the film. Bill Irwin plays TARS one of the robots that accompanies the astronauts on their mission. Irwin gives TARS a wonderfully sly wit, providing the film's best comedic moments. Michael Caine plays Professor Brand (possibly a surrogate for Kip Thorne), the principal scientist at NASA and the chief engineer behind the mission to save humanity. Caine brings a weighted gravity to his performance that is very effective. The reveal of his grand lie is one of the more powerful moments in the film. Matt Damon plays Dr. Mann, an astronaut/scientist who puts himself ahead of mankind’s survival. Damon does not often get to play the villain, but he is very good at it. Dr. Mann does terrible and cowardly things. Damon is so good at being overly self-justified and sleazy, creating a great character in Dr. Mann. Mackenzie Foy plays Young Murph. She is very good, showcasing Murph’s intelligence, wonder and absolute devastation when her father leaves her. Foy sets the stage for Jessica Chastain who plays the character grown up. Chastain plays Murph as a character who has been hurt. She is still haunted by the decision her father made, unable to forgive him. Yet, it also makes her determined to do her part in saving humanity, as she works with Professor Brand on his equation and preparing for plan A’s success. Chastain’s best moments come when she discovers that plan A is a lie, reigniting the heartbreak she felt when her father left, but also strengthen her resolve to find a way to save humanity even more. Anne Hathaway plays Dr. Amelia Brand, also one of the astronauts. Hathaway plays Amelia with a certain naivety that when crushed opens her up to becoming stronger as a person (to some extend mirroring Murph’s resolve in the face of plan A being revealed as a lie). Hathaway is very good, transitioning from her naivety to real strength. Matthew McConaughey plays Cooper, taking on the responsibility of being the audience’s surrogate in the narrative (their way into the story). It is very difficult to play the everyman and still create a full character. McConaughey does this particularly well (he is having a fantastic year – winning an Oscar, giving what might be the year’s best performance in HBO’s True Detective and now delivering yet another fine performance in this). He is likable, yet does not pander. He is a rebel in the classical sense, yearning for something more than being a farmer. He gets his wish, but at a great cost. The audience feels for him, cares about him and wants to see him succeed – all key elements to the film working. His performance achieves all these things and more.

Summary & score: Interstellar is a monumental achievement of acting, aesthetic and technical triumphs. It is a blockbuster that dares to be so much more, filled with rich characters, moving drama and real emotional resonance. 10/10

LeapBackBlog 2012 Film Awards – Part 2: Supporting Performances

Film in 2012 may not have been quite as strong overall as 2011, but right at the top there were a lot of good and very entertaining films. 2012 also featured many wonderful performances, particularly among men (many great performances that would have made my lists in past years were sadly left off). The LeapBackBlog Film Awards are comprised of what I think were the best and most interesting films, the strongest performances (taking into consideration who the actor is and what else they have done), the narrative style that drew me in (best directing), and exquisite craftsmanship (best technical achievements). But really, these are lists of my favorites from the year.

Part 1: Technical Achievements

Part 3: Directors

Part 4: Leading Performances

Part 5: Films

Amy Adams – The Master

Playing Peggy, Amy Adams at first seems to be a quiet doting wife to Lancaster Dodd, kind and gentle, but as the film progresses it becomes clear that she is really the one with the control and power behind The Cause. Adams’s work in The Master is therefore sort of misleading. She does not seem to have much dramatic work, and yet is a commanding presence in many of the scenes (most of which she is just sitting and watching – it is only near the end of the film where is vocally asserts her true authority). And thus, her performance is a key component to the film. It is one of the year’s more difficult subtle performances (and best).

Javier Bardem – Skyfall

Villains seem to make up a lot of 2012’s best supporting work, and Javier Bardem’s Silva in Skyfall is maybe the best of the lot. James Bond villains have always been amplified and sort of comically evil (and we love them for that reason). Bardem captures the essence of the typical Bond villain but also does something new. Silva actually makes Bond uncomfortable (as well as the audience to some extent), because he is much more than Bond’s equal. He is a real threat to Bond, more so than any villain in the franchise’s history. The performance is completely magnetic – the scene in which Bond and Silva first meet is among the year’s best.

Alison Brie – The Five-Year Engagement

Alison Brie is hysterical in The Five-Year Engagement playing the sister (Suzie) of one of the film’s leads (Violet). Along with Chris Pratt (who is also killer in support), she delivers much of the film’s funniest moments (as the leads are given most of the drama). Brie is particularly fantastic giving a speech at her sister’s engagement part, on the verge of tears, and giving her sister a pep talk later in the film in an Elmo voice (maybe the film’s best scene). Comedy is always overlooked, but Brie just radiates too brightly to be ignored.

Leonardo DiCaprio – Django Unchained

Django Unchained is full of great and fun performances. Jamie Foxx is at his best in the lead as Django and Christoph Waltz (who very easily could have made this list, and would have in most years) is top-notch in support. But, it is Leonardo DiCaprio who shines the brightest. He is thoroughly insane as Calvin Candie, a cruel plantation owner. While Waltz is funny and engaging, DiCaprio is forcibly dynamic as he seemingly by sheer will takes over every scene commanding the attention of the audience (and the other characters). He is the focus of all his scenes. Villains often have the latitude to go big with their performances, and DiCaprio goes huge. He is an absolute blast to watch.

Tom Hardy – The Dark Knight Rises

Tom Hardy had the impossible task of following Heath Ledger’s Joker in The Dark Knight playing Bane in The Dark Knight Rises. The role is also particularly challenging as Hardy’s face is almost altogether obstructed by a mask. Yet, he is brilliant. Using his body language and the way he moves, along with his menacing eyes, Hardy constructs Batman’s most brutal foe. Bane also very much lives in the gypsy voice that Hardy gives him – his line delivery (though, it does take some getting used to – but it does become easily understandable eventually) is playful and authoritative, an odd combination but it completely works. Every scene that Hardy is in is a pleasure to watch. He certainly lives up to Ledger’s Joker.

Anne Hathaway – Les Miserables

After seeing The Dark Knight Rises, Anne Hathaway seemed destined to make this list for her fantastic work as Selina Kyle (essentially giving the definitive performance as the character). However, her work in Les Miserables as Fantine is even better. She is heartbreaking, leaving every viewer emotionally touched. Her rendition of I Dreamed a Dream is magnificent, perfectly capturing the dismal low that Fantine finds herself in, having lost everything. The viewer forgets that they are watching an actress and a performance. It is probably the best performance of the year (at least in support).

Philip Seymour Hoffman – The Master

Philip Seymour Hoffman’s work in The Master is among his best. As Lancaster Dodd, the man at the head of The Cause, he has a wonderful duality to his performance. He is completely infatuated with himself and utterly oozing with confidence, and yet he also seems completely lost and alone, shackled in solitude by the farce he has created around himself. Whenever Hoffman is on screen, he demands the attention of the audience, as the center of it all – and the audience completely obliges him as they cannot look away. His work is just too compelling. The scenes between Hoffman and lead Joaquin Phoenix are especially electric.

Ezra Miller – The Perks of Being a Wallflower

Following up on his brilliant work in We Need to Talk About Kevin, Ezra Miller turns in another phenomenal performance in The Perks of Being a Wallflower as Patrick. Miller has so much energy and intensity in the film that he pulls the audience’s attention towards him in every scene (which is the mark of truly great work – the viewer cannot look away). Patrick burns almost too brightly, that when he gets low there almost seems to be a lull or void, and Miller is able to capture these darker emotions of sadness and loneness incredibly well. While 2012 was full of great supporting work by male actors, Miller might just turn in the year’s best performance in the category (a performance that has been shamefully overlooked).

Kelly Reilly – Flight

Flight has a number of wonderful supporting performances in it – namely from John Goodman, James Badge Dale, and Kelly Reilly – however, it is Reilly that serves as the film’s heart playing Nicole, a vital role given Whip’s fall (the film’s lead character). Her work in the film needed to be strong, as she allows the audience to get behind Whip, even despite himself and his vices, because she believes in him and is behind him. Reilly is also a ray of hope in Whip’s life as she too is an addict, but a recovering one who is determined to start her life anew. As good as Denzel Washington is in Flight, the film would just not be the same emotionally without Reilly’s excellent supporting work.

Emma Watson – The Perks of Being a Wallflower

Emma Watson grew up before the eyes of cinemagoers playing Hermione Granger for over a decade in the Harry Potter franchise. Starting as a newcomer to acting, she got better with each film devolving into one of Hollywood’s great young stars (her work in the Deathly Hallows Parts 1 and 2 is especially strong). In The Perks of Being a Wallflower, Watson has the difficult role of playing both the ‘dream girl’ and a well-drawn realistic character as Sam, and she pulls it off beautifully. She wins the audience and Charlie over with her charms, but is not without flaws and struggles – once again presenting young women with a female character they can relate to and care about (when Hollywood seldom offers good female characters).

Les Miserables (2012) – Review

Review: Les Miserables is highly ambitious and surely to be loved by diehard fans, but as a film its utterly tedious, agonizingly so, and overlong. The film is about the convict Jean Valjean who breaks his patrol and spends his life in hiding from a determined police inspector Javert. A kind Bishop saves Valjean and he devotes his life (while still in hiding) to making amends. After Fantine, a former employee of Valjean’s, is unknowingly fired and left in destitution, he makes her a promise on her deathbed to care for her young daughter Cosette. In the meantime years after the French Revolution, the poor of France still find themselves in harsh conditions. A few revolutions plan to insight another revolution. One of these revolutionaries, Marius, falls in love with a now grownup Cosette. All the characters’ paths converge in Paris on the brink of revolution.

Director Tom Hooper seems to have firstly set out to make a very literal adaptation of the stage musical. The results are both wonderfully grand and disastrous. The film is an epic, as Hooper takes on the visuals on a massive scale (which he sets the tone for with the film’s first images). The sets, costumes, performances, musical numbers and their choreography, everything is big. Hooper also recorded all the singing live on set, which pays off. The overall production is very impressive.

Hooper plays the musical as if it were on the stage, with all the musical numbers included as well as the dialog sung (for the most part), yet stages the film within the real world. On stage this works because everything is very theatrical and the audience can suspend their disbelief given the atmosphere of the medium in which they are viewing the play. However, in cinema, this results in many moments feeling incredibly strange (particularly when conversational dialog is sung) and even silly, taking the audience out of the film and the drama, making the whole artifice more apparent (which is not what Hooper was going for).

Hooper also has the actors engage the camera often breaking the fourth wall, which is strange as the film seems to be mostly firmly rooted in reality (as much as it can be with characters perpetually singing). It is as if Hooper wants his characters’ dramatic moments to be even more impactful for the audience (as if the great performance on top of the singing about said emotions was not enough – the audience must be jarred out of their apathy).

Cinema as a medium is built on close-ups on star actors – their performances mostly coming from their ability to emote with their faces and eyes. The problem with doing a literal rendition of a stage musical (in which most audience members cannot see the faces of the actors and thusly must be told their emotions) is that having musical numbers on top of sung dialog about emotions (and even mundane less important details) becomes overly redundant and in the case of this film tedious to a fault because the audience is already getting all the emotion from the actors’ faces and performances. The best films are told visually and economically through character moments. With this film, the actors tell the audience what they are feeling with their faces (as Hooper uses a ton of close-ups to great effect) but then decay the emotion into meaningless tedium by also singing about it at length. It just burns out the audience, because they understand what the characters are feeling through the performances and visuals, the continuous singing ever expanding on those feelings becomes too much and boring taking the audience out of the film (but again, diehard fans will probably love how true the film is to the source material because they love the music and every word of every song and piece of sung dialog).

The film probably would have worked better and been just as, if not more, powerful if it was adapted to a more film-friendly narrative form. Really, just be having the conversational dialog spoken as opposed to sung would have helped tremendously (as this is the biggest culprit in diminishing the dramatic returns). Also, using the best musical numbers to reinforce the characters and dramatic moments of the narrative would have given particular character moments and key narrative moments much more power and resonance. This could have (and should have) been told in much more economical way.

That is not to say that the film did not have any great moments, it does. Fantine’s dismal reflection of her current place after she gives in and takes money for sex is incredibly moving and dynamic. It is a showstopper (hear it here). There are also many other great visual and musical moments, but again as the film goes on the tedium only grows which renders many of these moments only brief bright spots in an ultimately tiring endeavor.

Getting back to film as an economically told narrative medium. This film is overly long (at 157 minutes it’s runtime is not ridiculously long, especially since it is an epic) due again to the laborious nature of this adaptation and the pacing is also slow. The narrative probably could have benefited from lesser musical numbers and characters being trimmed. But, the main issue really resides with Hooper’s adaptation not translating to the medium well as it is.

Les Miserables will likely please its fans (those that adore the musical), but ultimately is an arduous cinema experience despite all its fantastic elements.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Tom Hooper is a great director (as can be seen with his very good film The King’s Speech), but Les Miserables is almost a complete failure as a film. Well, maybe failure is not the right word as Hooper’s visuals are wonderful and iconic in many ways. He is able to get great performances from his cast. His blocking and use of a kinetic camera are also fantastic. However, the film and all this good work are completely destroyed by Hooper’s decision to literally adapt the musical. It simply just does not work in this medium. Being a slave source material is most often not a good thing, as the source is created and perfected for a different medium and thus when translated to a new medium changes need to be made for it to best play in that new medium. For example Joe Wright’s adaptation of Anna Karenina from earlier this year – (Whether or not it worked) Wright has taken the classic novel and turned it into something completely different – a visceral visual experience. He took the story and made something new for the different medium. It is ambitious and refreshing. The same can be said for Robert Wise’s The Sound of Music (which was also a very successful stage musical first). Wise made possibly the greatest film musical of all time by taking the stage play and making it something different, a wonderfully visual experience taking full advantage of what film offers as a medium. In both these cases, the directors took the source material and made changes to take advantage of what cinema offers as a storytelling medium. Hooper tries to make a film that is the stage musical first and also a grand visual experience second, and I think it failed. I do look forward to what Hooper does next, but I found Les Miserables very disappointing.

Danny Cohen’s cinematography is for the most part wonderful, as he showcases the bleak reality of both the film’s narrative and the literal world in which the character reside. There is also a beauty to his lighting; particularly in the way he is able to capture the face of the actors. Their faces are lite allowing the audience to fully capture their emotions even when (as they often are) shrouded in darkness. However, Cohen and Hooper also have some awkward framing in a few shots that is noticeable (again taking the audience out of the experience). It is minor and only happens a few times, but still feels strange (most notably is the framing of Valjean taking with Marius after Marius has recovered – right as the scene begins the frame is tilted to the right for seemingly no reason). Eve Stewart’s production design is maybe the best aspect of the film (though, Fantine singing I Dreamed a Dream is right there too). Her sets are grand in scale, but also seem to feel very intimate. Her work fits the overall tone of the film very well.

The performances are strong throughout the film, however that said some of the singing leaves a little to be desired. None of the singing is bad, but some of the actors are noticeable stronger leading one to question why all the main parts were not cast with strong singers. In smaller roles, Aaron Tveit, Samantha Barks, Daniel Huttlestone, Colm Wilkinson, and Isabelle Allen (who is adorable) are brilliant and mostly outshine the leads. Anne Hathaway steals the entire film as Fantine. Her singing, as stated a couple times above is magnificent. However, as good as her singing is, it is her heartbreaking performance that resonates the most. She just goes to a different level. Eddie Redmayne, Amanda Seyfried and Russell Crowe are good dramatically, but their singing is greatly overshadowed by others. Hugh Jackman is powerful and entirely dramatically engaging as Valjean (despite the fact that he practically looks like Andre the Giant in The Princess Bride near the end of the film). However, his performance is destroyed completely by the tedious nature of the film, so much so that it almost becomes laughable, which is really too bad as it is among his best work.

Summary & score: In many ways Les Miserables is a great film, but in more ways it does not work. 6/10

The Dark Knight Rises (2012) – Review

Review: The Dark Knight Rises is an utterly and brilliantly satisfying conclusion to The Dark Knight Trilogy. The film finds Bruce Wayne and Gotham City eight years removed from the events of The Dark Knight – Wayne has retired from being Batman and has locked himself away in his mansion, while Commissioner Gordon has cleaned up the streets. However, something devious is brewing, as the mysterious terrorist Bane plots to bring about both the destruction of Gotham and the end of Batman. Writer-director Christopher Nolan has done an excellent job in crafting this trilogy; from Batman Begins showcasing how the anger filled Bruce Wayne channeled his fear and rage into a way to save Gotham to The Dark Knight addressing the sacrifices that Wayne must endure to keep the city safe. With The Dark Knight Rises, Nolan tells the personal story of Wayne finally overcoming his fear while also aggrandizing the franchise, as this is an immense production feeling more extravagant (like the epics of classic Hollywood – similar to Gone with the Wind and Lawrence of Arabia) than the past two films. There are a lot of characters, interweaving storylines, big set pieces, and locations. Plus, the film has just a grand visual style and tone to it (especially when viewed as intended in real IMAX). Right from the start, the audience feels like they are experiencing something different and special (again, similar to how audiences must have felt watching the epics of the past on the big screen). It is a very visceral experience, as the visuals, score and sound design work together. Under less capable hands, the sheer amount of material (being enormous) that Nolan needs to get through in under three hours while still having enough action would have found the film collapsing under itself. Nolan, however, skillfully composes the film to flow beautifully and efficiently. If nothing else, this can be remembered (as well as the first two films) as the work of a master storyteller. Nolan gives Bruce Wayne the typical three act hero’s arc, but also incorporates five other principle characters that each has their own story arc, both intersecting and separate to Wayne’s. Nolan’s structure for the overall film builds upon Wayne’s arc, divulging story and character information for each of the main players. The film never feels slow or disjointed, because everything is building towards the end. While the characters all have their own motivations and arcs, all their stories come together in the end. Nolan also does a fantastic job of giving all his characters dramatic moments allowing them to shine, and thus the audience understands them, and can relate and be invested in them (which is key to any film working on a deeper emotional level). Yes, this is a spectacle film – there are huge action set pieces and thrilling moments, but they are not the point. The characters are the point, and why this film (and Nolan’s other Batman films) work so well. The audience wants to see Batman (Wayne) triumph – they genuinely care. This is particularly the case with this film (and is part of the reason I think it might be the most engaging of the series – though this only based on one viewing), as Nolan gives much more of an emphasis to Bruce Wayne than Batman. Before, Batman was the main character and Wayne was just the mask that he wore (to some extent). But with The Dark Knight Rises, it is Wayne’s story and internal struggle that drives the dramatic and emotional elements of the film, building on elements from the series (like the loss of Rachel). More so than the first two films, the audience cares about Wayne more than Batman. Nolan’s choice of villain in Bane also directly ties into this internal struggle for Wayne. Bane is both mentally and physically menacing and (maybe even) superior to Batman, and thus it is Wayne and not Batman that must find the will to defeat him. In many ways, this film (and the series) works as a character drama (both for Wayne and the other main characters). Nolan gives them so much depth (especially when compared to most genre filmmaking) and they are so well drawn and developed. But again, The Dark Knight Rises is also a great action adventure, full of brilliantly executed set pieces. It also has the expected one-liners and banter between the heroes and villains. Nolan does infuse some humor and lighter moments that relieve the tension (if only briefly). Nolan’s Dark Knight Trilogy has been to an extent based in reality (there have not been aliens or monsters), but it is still an exaggerated reality. This film sees the technology that Wayne has access to pushed a little further as well. But it works, because the overall tone is still grounded. Tonally, overall, the film has a very bleak and constricting feel to it. Unlike most superhero films, the audience is not actually sure if Batman will live through the end. Nolan does almost too good a job with the tension, which is tired to how relevant the film feels to today's world (maybe especially America) with the social and economic unrest. The film is completely gripping and engaging on both a dramatic level and on a visual one – and this again goes back to Nolan’s care and skill in presenting and fleshing out his characters and giving this film (in particular) an epic grandiose visual style and scale. The Dark Knight Rises is not only one of the greatest comic-book films ever made (if not the greatest), but also a masterwork of genre filmmaking (and filmmaking in general as well). It is the new bar to which all other spectacle films must now be judged.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Christopher Nolan, now eight films in, can altogether be called the best Hollywood filmmaker both right now and of his generation (and one of the five best auteurs across all of film right now). With Inception and The Dark Knight Rises, Nolan has perfected a style of filmmaking that is both on the highest ends of spectacle and drama from a quality standpoint. His event filmmaking has transcended pure entertainment or extravagance by giving even more care to story and characters. More so than any other filmmaker right now, his name brings with it the promise of not only a fantastic film but also something to wonder at and be amazed by. And more so than any other filmmaker right now, I look very much forward to what he does next. Hans Zimmer gives the film one of his most thrilling and epic scores (and this from a man who has built his career on composing excellent music for action films). The score enhances the enormous scale and grand feel of the film, completely complementing it. It is not only one of Zimmer’s best (maybe even his best), but the best film score of the year so far (here is a piece I particularly like). Plus, his Batman theme is wonderful. Wally Pfister’s cinematography is also wonderfully brilliant. The film has a dark yet crisp look to it. Gotham is visually presented as being both gritty and elegant – like any of the great cities of the world. And, Pfister’s camera works with Nolan to present this as being a massive event film. Visually, it is magnificent, impressive and colossal in its scope and scale. It truly feels like an epic in the best sense. Nathan Crowley and Kevin Kavanaugh’s production design accomplishes many of the same things – it is grand in its scale and showcases both the gritty reality and elegance of the city and its landmarks (or differing sets). But Crowley and Kavanaugh’s work also has an aesthetic artistic appeal to it (especially the pit prison). Technically and aesthetically, the work from Zimmer, Pfister, Crowley, Kavanaugh, Nolan, and everyone else involved in the making of the film is top notch and without equal so far this year. The film also features exceptional performances. There are a ton of cameos in the film (at least for those that watch a lot of TV, as many familiar faces pop up in small roles). Juno Temple and Ben Mendelsohn are great in small supporting roles. Morgan Freeman plays Fox with his typical coolness and seemingly moral absoluteness. Fox and Alfred seem to very much take up the mantel of Wayne’s surrogate father figure. Michael Caine as Alfred is given more weighty drama to play in this film versus the past two, and he is fantastic in it. His emotional scenes with Wayne very much drive Wayne’s internal struggle, and thus Caine’s ability to be great in them is key (and he is great in them). Gary Oldman is also given some dramatic heavy lifting (much like the end of The Dark Knight), and he is very good (as usual). Oldman plays Gordon to be very conflicted. He has done a lot of good for the city, but at what cost (especially if you harken back to the scene in Batman Begins when he refuses to take a piece of the payoff – wanting to keep his hands and conscious clean). Marion Cotillard plays her Wayne Enterprises board-member character Miranda to be almost the perfect match to Bruce Wayne. She is lovely, caring and intelligent. And yet, there is something more to her. To say the least, she is very good. Joseph Gordon-Levitt is almost emotionless and hardened on the exterior, but there is a lot of pain behind his eyes. Much like the other characters in the narrative, his role as Blake and performance fits perfectly with Bruce Wayne’s own internal struggle. Anne Hathaway is brilliant as Selina Kyle. She is not there just to serve as eye candy or a mere love interest; rather she is a full and complicated character. Hathaway plays her to be very feminine in the way she moves, but also with an edge. She is not to be trifled with, as she can handle herself. Tom Hardy is wonderful as Bane. Many complain about his voice (and have since it first appeared in the prologue ahead of Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol), but I contend that it is an absolutely essential and genius aspect to his character. Hardy plays Bane with so much power, just in the way he carries himself and in the way he speaks. He is truly formidable. In the wake of Heath Ledger’s outstanding performances as the Joker in The Dark Knight, many wondered if any actor(s) could portray a villain (or main character other than Batman) to the same level in this film. Hathaway and Hardy are both equal to the task and bring forth different, but equally engaging and interesting characters. Christian Bale has been very good throughout the films. In The Dark Knight Rises, he gets a chance to really dramatically shine, and he is again astonishing. Bale’s Wayne is almost a tragic figure that is so vulnerable, but there is such a will to him as well. While with Batman, Bales play him to be a force of controlled rage. Being that this is a genre film, his work will mostly go unnoticed, but it is standout work nonetheless.

Summary & score: The Dark Knight Rises is the epitome of epic (event) filmmaking, being both of the highest quality in terms of entertainment spectacle and dramatic resonance. 10/10