He was good in Good Will Hunting (not brilliant but good). Excellent in the Talented Mr Ripley. Excellent in the Bourne Identity, good in the Bourne Supremacy and kind of OK but coasting in the others. I kind of feel he's coasting in most other things I've seen him in. Yeah, he was good in Interstellar but the film irritated the fuck out of me which didn't help.
I hated Interstellar, but he did a good turn playing to type until suddenly not, to stunning effect.
Yeah he's had a number of good roles, Ripley is right up there. I also like him in Departed and Brothers Grimm. I think he put in an effort for this one, but was miscast, and the whole project has shuddering defects from the get-go.
I was going to ask why you hated Interstellar, but the more I thought about it, the more good reasons emerged, not least the spurious claims that it was all very really and truly "scientific", when it was actually just horribly wrong at almost every turn. The killer for me was basically the ending, the very long and complicated ending, fashionably trying to explain elements from the beginning, which actually boiled down to a magic wand being waved and then it was all fine and dandy. Even the 7th Voyage of Sinbad had more respect for its magical logic than Interstellar, which was packed tight with unexplained and actually inexplicable garbage that Nolan hoped we wouldn't spot under the shiny smoke and mirrors of "THEN VERY ODD THINGS HAPPENED". I'd feel even more irritated by the multitude of blogs, articles, and videos purporting to explain the ending, were they not so pitiable.
I suppose there's a loose sort of comparison to be made with 2001, but I never much liked the ending of that either. Especially not the stupid rubber chicken baby.
This seems appropos ..
.
Quote:
one of those speculative fictions that are at once undernourished and overcooked. It makes no sense (despite all the explaining), but it draws you in with genre beats, pretty people and the professional polish of its machined parts. It’s shiny and pricey and looks good on the big screen
(for another Nolan project -- Christopher's brother Jonathan, who co-wrote Interstellar -- "Reminiscence"
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/19/movies/reminiscence-review-hugh-jackman.html )
Yeah, that's about it.
Been thinking about the 2001 comparison as per my last post etc. and wondering why I can stomach the cod-science/smoke & mirrors ending in that, but not in Interstellar. Apart from the fact that Kubrick was a far better director than Nolan and 2001 is a far better film, I think it's that in 2001 there isn't really any attempt to explain the ending or fool the audience that an explanation is present. There is an attempt to (sort of) depict Bowman's experience. I don't think it's done especially well, particularly in comparison to the stunning earlier parts (and the rubber baby is just awful in every possible way) but it isn't deceitful.
That NYT review also brings up "Westworld," which is another (part-) Jonathon Nolan project.
So far we have watched Seasons 1, 2, and most of 3 of that ... although it has similar defects, along with concessions to pop culture ("gunplay and hot women," as the review puts it), wears considerably better than the movie projects (IMO). Probably because the length (serialization) allows the story to develop in some, half-coherent fashion. There's cleverness in the way the 'what is reality' trope folds in on itself over and over in terms of character self-awareness, and how the characters use this awareness to level up and on to the next boss fight.
Continuing in this vein, the other thing that struck me about Westworld is that the sets, environments and NPCs are modeled on video games I have played, at least on a generic level (some are eerily close) -- this anchors the premise in some sort of relatable scenario (at least to me).
Keep meaning to watch Westworld.
But, I mean, which Nolan do I blame for Interstellar?