Posted by: greercn | November 17, 2014


Oh dear. There is so much here that I want to love. It’s Christopher Nolan! Matthew McConaughey! Ann Hathaway! Michael Caine!

I got to see the European premiere, thanks to my wonderful friend Jason. He is a BAFTA member and I was with him, at the London screening for BAFTA members.

Truly, I have the best friends in the world. I am so lucky.

So, after seeing Michael Caine – shuffles unless a camera is on him and lights up when he’s photographed – and getting to see Christopher Nolan introduce the movie (touching anecdote about his dad taking him to see “2001 – A Space Odyssey” at BAFTA) I was all hepped up on celebrity and venue and company and longing to love all three hours of this Magnum Opus.

The trouble is it’s slightly too long and doesn’t quite work. So much is very lovely. Earth is dying. McConaughey goes into space. One planet is too cold and one is too hot and one – Goldilocks? – may be just right, if we are all very lucky.

The bits set in space are very lovely. It’s all visually beautiful, thanks to that gorgeous Christopher Nolan unique selling point. He makes pretty look stunning.

Jessica Chastain is wonderful. Mackenzie Foy is a talent to watch out for. David Gyasi and Ellen Burstyn shine.

But it’s all an attempt to out Kubrick the Kubrick and it falls flat by being more obscure than Kubrick. Still, it’s all very beautiful to look at. And the music is superb. And the visual values shine.

Dear Christopher Nolan, I love you, but I wish you would listen to those who are editors more than you are. Accept more editing, please. Your robots are great and your values are lovely. You just need a little more “whoa”. Please. from A Fan.



  1. What doesn’t work? How was he trying to out-Kubrick, Kubrick? As a Kubrick fanatic–and one who spotted the many obvious homages–I’m curious to know how that makes sense. It comes off like that other bogus line people use, “being weird just for the sake of being weird” (often applied to David Lynch). On the other hand, you used the word “lovely” so often, I’m surprised that you didn’t find the whole film lovely. ML

    • I see that there are lots of technical risks and innovations here, but I found the muffled sound and the impressionistic story rather distracting. For me, three hours is just too long, for this. It all looked gorgeous, and broke ground for its visual strengths. The innovative view of time and risky science ideas intrigued me. But it just never grabbed my whole heart and attention. And, yes, I accept Kubrick was a genius, but I feel the same lack of intensity about his films. Thanks for a thought-provoking comment!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: