Jason Bored

No.

Happy to take your word for it. I'll give it a miss.

 

Let me qualify that: we went to see it in the theatre as a compromise between Suicide Squad (too violent) and Jungle Cruise (too kiddie). Mrs.D is a sort of Matt Damon fan, and I've not seen anything of his I regretted, until now that is. OK, I sort of regretted Martian, but I also quite liked his role in Interstellar where he played against type. That was deffo unexpected, and cool.

As you probably know, this one is sort of based off a true story, that of Amanda Knox, who complained about how everyone is making money on her story, and the movie is basically untrue. I don't really care about that, but perhaps the publicists should have refrained from making the claim. I think it works better as fiction anyway, which I'm pretty sure it mostly is, unless you'd rather call it conjecture.

Suffice to say the movie's denouement is ridiculously implausible.

It proceeds as a whodunnit, that's its strength, and sort of holds it together for most of the duration.

Damon's performance, as scripted and directed (whatever) is its weakness. Well that, and aforementioned plot shenanigans.

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.


 

"In 2067, crop blights and dust storms threaten humanity's survival." (from Wikipedia)

Yeah we were all kind of hoping it would hold off for that long. Instead ...

This seems appropos ...
 
(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?

Both.

S'pose so

Oh, hang on  you mean Chris & Jonah's projects? The original Westworld movie was a belter (IMO) even if it's a different prospect altogether from the cable series by JN and LJ.
 

Mr Crichton isn't exactly famed as a director, but Westworld was spot on. I suppose his main skill was crystallising ideas that were floating around into money-making stories. But, hey, good for him. Loads of people who are famous in their fields were skilled in picking the sexy out of what everyone was talking about. 

And Stillwater, not so good.

I liked the movie ok, but I like the series, at least the first two seasons, better.