Before diving into my review of the long-awaited “Interstellar,” I want to briefly discuss a journey of my own. This past weekend I was in Anaheim, California for BlizzCon; a two day convention that celebrates all things Blizzard Entertainment, the video game company that makes “World of Warcraft” and several other award-winning, best-selling video game titles. I have been playing and have loved every product this company has released since before the the world starting worrying about Y2K.
A feature film, based upon Blizzard’s fantasy franchise “Warcraft” is currently in post-production and is set to open in March of 2016. Attendees at the convention were treated to a special first look of at the film, titled Warcraft,” even though the visual effects have yet to be completed. To any Blizzard fans reading this, trust me when I say, this movie looks incredible. The as-of-yet incomplete visual effects are already stunning and the production team has brought the world of Azeroth to life in a way that is both cinematically compelling and true to the origins of the games. I see a lot of movies, and am not sold easily; but I’m here to tell you that when March 2016 rolls around, “Warcraft” will be in the news.
• • •
For many movie fans, the wait for the next Christopher Nolan movie is much like my personal wait for the next Blizzard game. Like many of Nolan’s previous works, including “Inception,” “The Prestige,” and “Memento,” “Interstellar” is a mind-romp that will leave your thoughts battered and bruised for days to come. That’s a great trait. I have so much admiration for a director that sets out to challenge audiences, instead of spoon-feeding them.
The general structure of drama is broken down into three parts, beginning, middle and end. “Interstellar’s” greatest flaw is that it does that first part twice. The film begins, flounders for 20-25 minutes and then begins again. Once reborn, it takes on a new, much greater, life that, in this reviewer’s opinion, is little served by the initial false start.
“Interstellar” is the type of film that can be both commended and condemned based on its writing. In some ways, the writing is elegant – taking hard-to-understand scientific concepts and turning them into heart-wrench dramatic emotions. In other ways, the film’s end-game is so far reaching that it ends up shaking its own foundations.
It’s a fine line to walk. “Interstellar” should be commended for its efforts, which are scientific to the letter; however, the harmonious result to its gnarly equation may end up out of reach for some audiences. As a rule, people have limited resources and can only focus on so many things at a time. With many of Christopher Nolan’s movies, the vast majority of that energy is spent just trying to keep pace. That is not inherently a bad thing, but know I missed beats in “Interstellar” because I will still chewing on a particularly difficult bit of science.
The Matthew McConaughey-led cast performs their given rolls well; however, had some of the character development/writing stretched as far as the science had, then “Interstellar” could truly have been a film for the ages. Furthermore, the film’s transition of studying the nature of the universe to studying the nature of human nature is sometimes jarring. That dichotomy, which was obviously intentional, is not sewn together in a perfect pattern.
Don’t misunderstand, “Interstellar” is a great film, a bold film, and an important film. It’s not Nolan’s best, but it is a strong entry in a remarkable pedigree. The breadth and gravitas of the visual effects are astounding. If possible, this is a film to see in IMAX, and its a film that is not to be missed, period. Does “Interstellar” represent that grand unified theory of filmmaking? No. Is it an incredible journey that explores the depths of the universe and the depths of the human heart and mind? Absolutely.
5 of 6 stars