BurtReynolds wrote:True, its tricky to mix a sense of awe and wonder with intensity or danger (hence why Horror movies are seldom full of wonderment), but I think the balance is hit very well here. The frightening aspects don't overwhelm the brighter aspects. Where people draw the line is purely subjective, but again, you are dismissing the film because it doesn't conform to what you think a movie should promote. You demand some sort of blind optimism, and are disappointed when the director has no intention of giving it to you. Go watch another movie instead of dismissing this as poorly done. You are conflating two different things.
1. I said cynicism and pessimism, not intensity and danger. Those are very different things. Awe and wonder can certainly coexist with intensity and danger, though - see everything I said about
Godzilla already. But like you said, we just subjectively disagree on how well
Interstellar hits that blend. Personally, I never felt the awe and wonder because Nolan’s cinematic language never spoke to me.
2. Has it occurred to you that perhaps a big part of why you like this more than I do is BECAUSE we have differing worldviews? You admit to being on “Team Cynicism,” and the way you add “blind” before “optimism” says a lot about our differing views, haha. So I think it makes total sense that you don’t have a problem with a lot of things I do in the film; we’re coming from fundamentally opposed perspectives.
But that doesn’t mean I can’t criticize the movie because I have a problem with its worldview. You have to understand that I find the brand of cynicism/pessimism in this movie to be inherently juvenile and callow, so when it is applied to things like the future of humanity and the vastness of space, the stupidity of it all becomes insufferably amplified. It explodes into pretentious ridiculousness.
BurtReynolds wrote:I disagree that it always chooses to believe the worst of mankind, but so what if it does? Perfectly acceptable area of exploration for a film, and plenty of real world instances validate the events of the film. And for the love of God, stay away from Lars von Trier.
Again, different viewpoints. I don’t find that an interesting area for a film to explore at all; I find it empty and dull, and I never bought the way
Interstellar goes about exploring it. It came off as silly and ridiculous.
And, oh, don’t worry - I already hate Lars Von Trier.
- Spoiler: show
BurtReynolds wrote:After years of isolation on desolate hellholes or dying planets? You really expect a lot from people! i didn't find their actions petty at all. Selfish I suppose, but Jesus Christ, have some pity! The Matt Damon scene was fine, silly man.
Okay, so he’s been isolated on a lonely planet. He was also in hyper-sleep for much of that time. But regardless, this guy is a trained professional who willingly volunteered to take part in a mission that he was fully aware could very well end in his death. But he did so selflessly, nobly, recognizing that the future of mankind was much more important than his own survival as an individual.
But now that he’s been up there for a while and undergoes some hardship, he decides, “Fuck it. I don’t wanna die. Fuck the human race; I don’t care if they all die as long as I get to go home. So now I‘m going to straight-up murder my colleagues.”
Bullshit. Fucking bullshit. That is merely shallow cynicism, something that is all the rage in modern film and TV. The concepts of true courage, selflessness, and nobility seem unfathomable to Nolan; in the end, everyone is selfish. Everyone lies. Everyone chooses themselves over others. Again I say: bullshit. We’re dealing with intergalactic exploration and the future of the entire human race, here. I don’t buy for one second that our astronauts and scientists would behave so childishly.
BurtReynolds wrote:ugh again with the demands of responsibility. shove your "worthy causes" in film, or better yet, make your own.
I didn’t demand any responsibility here. In fact, I made it very clear talking about
Gone Girl that I never demand responsibility from anyone. All I was saying that Nolan’s constant refrains about how humans weren’t meant to die on Earth and the way the film sets up space exploration as the salvation of human civilization is pretty clearly making a contemporary point. And that’s great; I am all for that point. But, again, the way he actually makes the point undermines it.
Also, the "Why don't you just make your own movie?" tactic is such a worthless straw-man argument that I can't believe someone is actually trying to employ it. That has precisely zero bearing on anything we're talking about.
- Spoiler: show
BurtReynolds wrote:agree to disagree. The movie is dark sometimes, sure but it didnt overwhelm it. The realization that the mountains were not mountains was cool! I thought Brand's death was... weird and confusing. Its hard to even blame Hathaway's character. He just didnt get in the ship! Not a great scene for sure, but it didn't hurt the imagery of the planet at all for me.
God I would have loved to have had some more time to absorb that planet. It was such a cool concept and it had the potential to be really beautiful.
BurtReynolds wrote:Its also absurdly hopeful, fun, beautiful and tense at times. You missed those
I found its hopefulness disingenuous and platitudinous. Again, all the cynicism and pessimism undermined it. “Fun, beautiful, and tense” is subjective, and I disagree on all counts. I didn’t “miss” them - I just didn’t experience the same emotions you did while watching it.