Best movie of the year, - Interstellar or Gone Girl ?

[Axel]

Nolan made an embarrassingly pretentious movie with Interstellar, which imo renders all his not-below-IMAX attitude ridiculous.

 

The old films mentioned above may look outmoded in hindsight. But that wasn't the case at their time. It is my habit to try to relate to the contemporary audience's horizon and expectations. I am old enough to remember some of the first reactions to masterpieces first hand. And I think none of the nice and intelligent films of 2014 can claim to be in the same class. Sorry.

[hmcindie]

Am I the only one here who really enjoyed Interstellar? First half was excellent, five star material. Middle dipped down a bit and the end got strong again.

 

There were lots of issues here and there with dialogue mostly but I can let those issues go as it really does one thing well: Space. Space hasn't felt this big and dangerous in a long ass while. As a Kerbal player, the exploded docking scene was excellent. I'd give the film one thousand stars just for the launch / docking sequences.

 

Comparisons to 2001 are weird. 2001 is a slowly moving film that's loved by film criticis. But I tried to rewatch it some time ago and it's quite ... I don't want to use the word bad ... but it's not very good. 2001 has EXCELLENT scenes here and there but as a whole it leaves me cold. Interstellar is more like Contact anyways, atleast themes wise.

 

Gone Girl was really good but it was still quite basic. Lots of good stuff about marriage, media and who controls the Truth (and do we even care), but it was still a basic thriller. Interstellar aimed a lot higher and though it stumbled enough to be just a "good" film, that was enough for me. And the sound mix was crazy good! Atleast in the theater I went to.

 

But Nightcrawler, that film was excellent. It should especially fit into this board as it features videographers and psycopaths :)

[hmcindie]

Oh and one thing about sharpness, even though Hollywood types like to shoot 4k and beyond, they don't actually like sharpness. As quoted by this David Fincher DoP Jeff Cronenweth:

 

"I had never seen anything that clean and crisp and steady. I remember I told Harris that afterwards, and his response was: “I was afraid of that.â€

 

"I saw Gone Girl in 2K, and I was totally fine with it because you couldn’t see as many of the human flaws as you do in 4K."

 

"And it (film) was so remarkably soft. It was incredible to see the two side by side. What the standard was for us for the last 75 or 80 years looked so out of focus. But if you sat there for 20 minutes and watched it, you’d get into it, and you’d think it was beautiful, and you’d appreciate the nuances, and people look great. There you go."

 

Full article: http://filmmakermagazine.com/88054-cinematographer-jeff-cronenweth-on-gone-girl-digital-and-working-with-david-fincher/#.VG2-aIusV8F

[Axel]

Comparisons to 2001 are weird. 2001 is a slowly moving film that's loved by film criticis. But I tried to rewatch it some time ago and it's quite ... I don't want to use the word bad ... but it's not very good. 2001 has EXCELLENT scenes here and there but as a whole it leaves me cold. Interstellar is more like Contact anyways, atleast themes wise.

 

Different horizons. Despite all then-advanced special effects, Contact was a film made by down-to-earth americans, you could as well say bound to earth. And to 'slow moves' of the mainstream river, included some heartwarming human interest. It was spectacular only in the way fireworks are spectacular. It left little to the imagination, it was the equivalent to a diet coke and a cheeseburger, and nobody really felt the urge to talk about it, let alone think about it, any longer than ten minutes after leaving the cinema. In a way Gravity was the perfect film, not only the perfect science fiction film. It very convincingly altered the state (to quote an old movie). Of course it's filmic language was far more advanced than the point of view of the filmmaker: The end again was down-to-earth, literally.

 

But Nightcrawler, that film was excellent. It should especially fit into this board as it features videographers and psycopaths :)

 

It is no-nonsense storytelling. The plot is straight. I agree about the psychopaths. The film is meant to be read this way. It's quite clear for everyone who has made up his conscience according to political correctness of his time that one shouldn't go this path.

 

Yet there is a inherent mendaciousness (if that's the right word, I had to look it up in the dictionary, it should be stronger than hypocracy) in that. The film itself takes it's fascination from the very thing it claims to condemn. 

 

But all in all, a fine film, I agree.

[Bioskop.Inc]

You've now all put me off going to see 'Intersteller'!

Considering Nolan's previous films, he has made a few duds - 'The Prestige' being the worst of the bunch (read the book its sooo much better!). But his first film 'Following' is really worth a watch.

 

The problem is that you can't really compare big hollywood blockbusters (Intersteller etc...) and small Independant films (The Grand Budapest Hotel), as they are working for and on different levels for different audiences. 

Hollywood normally goes down the safest route, always trying to hit the middle ground in order to satisfy the greatest number of people to generate the biggest pot of gold, or just to get their money back.

Independant films have to try something a little bit more imaginative in order to get more people to watch it, but they don't have to get as many people into the cinemas to make their money back or make a profit.

 

I have tended to go less and less to the cinema recently (time, money, quality etc...), but I was quite impressed by the spectacle of the recent 'Dawn of the Planet of the Apes' film, it did exactly what was written on the tin - special effects, action etc... Its no masterpiece, but for a blockbuster it hit the middle ground running & never let up.

 

3 Films that have impressed me recently (might not have been made this year) are as follows & i'd highly recommend renting them out:

'Locke' - stars Tom Hardy & is based around a very smple premise, but really kept my attention the whole way through.

'The Strange Colour of your Body's Tears' - another homage to Italian Gialli films, beautifully shot, confusing & slightly disturbing.

'Her' - great concept made briliantly (acting, directing, colour, sets etc...).

[andy lee]

I did like Gone Girl .but the last 45 mins where not good plot wise too unbelievable

Camera by Jeff Crenenweth was very good , Im a big Fincher fan but its not his best film in my book!!

 

my fave film of 2014 is  A MOST WANTED MAN - by Anton Corbjin

a super John Le Carrie spy thriller with the late great Philip Seymour Hoffman who is amazing in this his last film before he died.

 

All shot by Benoit Delhomme on Arri Alexa with Zeiss Superspeed Lenses , alot of hand held camera like Bourne but without the crash zooms.

Superb Grade too the film looks very nice alot of night street suff etc

 

A great film go see!! 

[mtheory]

Yep, "Locke" is wonderful, the kinda movie you could shoot in one night with a 5D, a BMW X5 and...umm...Tom Hardy ofcourse. ;)

[animan]

Most entertaining/enjoyable movie of the year 'Wild Tales'.. You wont regret it!

 

(Also liked Locke and Under the Skin..)

[mtheory]

Oh and one thing about sharpness, even though Hollywood types like to shoot 4k and beyond, they don't actually like sharpness. As quoted by this David Fincher DoP Jeff Cronenweth:

 

"I had never seen anything that clean and crisp and steady. I remember I told Harris that afterwards, and his response was: “I was afraid of that.â€

 

"I saw Gone Girl in 2K, and I was totally fine with it because you couldn’t see as many of the human flaws as you do in 4K."

 

"And it (film) was so remarkably soft. It was incredible to see the two side by side. What the standard was for us for the last 75 or 80 years looked so out of focus. But if you sat there for 20 minutes and watched it, you’d get into it, and you’d think it was beautiful, and you’d appreciate the nuances, and people look great. There you go."

 

Full article: http://filmmakermagazine.com/88054-cinematographer-jeff-cronenweth-on-gone-girl-digital-and-working-with-david-fincher/#.VG2-aIusV8F

 

Great article, there is a fun bit there where he talks about how shooting with digital cameras at ISO 800 basically gives you too much light now compared to film, and you now have to have crews block street lights

 

"What happens at night is, in general, you end up having to take away a lot of light in order to still control your contrast and direction and everything. Street lights that used to be fantastic with 500 ASA or 400 ASA now are becoming problematic in lighting areas that you don’t want lit and washing out whole zones. If you want to continue to own all that, then what you give up in having to use huge sources you now either have to have rigging crews or Condors with you at all times and take out street lights and block out light and think about these places, because if you don’t, it very easily becomes a reality TV program where it looks like whatever is handed to you, and there’s no real concept or continuity to the images."

 

This is definitely something that happens with A7S in some night scenes at higher ISOs, - lights go supernova.

[maxotics]

You've now all put me off going to see 'Intersteller'!

Considering Nolan's previous films, he has made a few duds - 'The Prestige' being the worst of the bunch (read the book its sooo much better!). But his first film 'Following' is really worth a watch.

 

The problem is that you can't really compare big hollywood blockbusters (Intersteller etc...) and small Independant films (The Grand Budapest Hotel), as they are working for and on different levels for different audiences. 

 

I believe you can compare all films.  Agreed, Hollywood films and independents have different audiences, but they use the same material and devices and have the same goal of getting the viewer to say, "I trusted this person to entertain me and they did."

 

I don't get a lot of enjoyment from Wes Anderson's films.  I enjoyed Rushmore because I felt it was my life on screen, even my name! :)  However, I understand what he's trying to do and respect the film-making decisions he makes because they work great for my wife and kids.  They love his films, many of my friends do. If Hmcindie enjoyed Interstellar then who am I to knock it.  I'm glad he did.  Anyway, I can only criticize Wes Anderson about what I don't like, not about his fundamental film-making which is excellent.  Or put another way, I really appreciate Anderson as an artist even if it isn't my cup of tea.

 

The problem with Interstellar is that the director doesn't seem to make choices based on style, but on wrong-headed concepts of what makes a story emotional.  It isn't extremely shallow DOF, or a 3-hour running length, or a father who goes into space without a proper goodbye from his daughter.  As Bioskop said above, Nolan should have focused on what he's good at--the crazy science-fiction time travel stuff.  I wouldn't know how to write a better script than Nolan, but I know there are people out there who do know.  I do know enough about science to have improved the movie, but at my age this isn't bragging or ego.  I WANT to be blown away by mass-market science fiction movies.  My guess is that, despite all his fame and money, Nolan is too insecure to hire people more talented than him in their respective areas.

 

If the spacecraft in Interstellar are going to be able to land and take off from planets with 2-times Earth's gravity then DO NOT show them being put into space by an Apollo era rocket ship.  It's NOT necessary to anything in the movie.  Again, with Anderson, I might not like an effect, but I can't argue that the effect fits into his style.  

 

In the end, I enjoyed Grand Budapest, a type of film I don't normally like, a lot more than Interstellar which is a film I naturally enjoy (so I enjoyed Pacific Rim and didn't care how corny it was).

[utsira]

I watched a lot of things on planes this year. Dawn of the Planet of the Apes was great, and also enjoyed Edge of Tomorrow more than I thought I would (in Japan they stuck to the original, and way better title, All You Need is Kill).

 

I missed A Most Wanted Man, I really wanted to see that.

 

I enjoyed just how imperfect and photographic Interstellar looked when most films of that ilk are super sharp CG. There was some serious blurriness at the edge of the image (in IMAX anyway), even in the ensemble, medium-long dialogue shots, so that Casey Affleck is delivering a line, and his head is a blurry blob. Take that, corner-to-corner sharpness junkies!

[andy lee]

corner-to-corner sharpness junkies!    -   It doesn't matter does it !  exactly !! I do like that line haha

[jcs]

If a film is too sharp, you notice it- skin detail is too much. If a film is too soft, you notice it- not enough detail and you're wondering if the camera / projector are in focus. When it's just right, you don't notice or think about it and enjoy the movie.

 

Interstellar was a bit of a mess- low-dynamic range and crushed blacks, jumping between soft 70mm squarish IMAX to even softer 35mm wide aspect, and of course the muddy audio mix and excessive organ music. It's a good movie (around 2 stars out of 4) however it feels like software that bypassed QA and is full of easy-to-fix bugs.

 

I liked The Life Aqautic (absurdly funny), the Fantastic Mr. Fox (surprisingly good), and Moonrise Kindom (more absurd fun) without paying attention to who was directing the films. It wasn't until The Grand Budapest that I went back and found those were all Wes Anderson films.

[hmcindie]

If the spacecraft in Interstellar are going to be able to land and take off from planets with 2-times Earth's gravity then DO NOT show them being put into space by an Apollo era rocket ship.  It's NOT necessary to anything in the movie.  

 

Maybe the rocket ship was because of fuel? I don't know, it is out-of-place but I still love that taking off scene.

 

None of them had 2 times earth gravity? I thought the most was 30% more.

[hmcindie]

 There was some serious blurriness at the edge of the image (in IMAX anyway), even in the ensemble, medium-long dialogue shots, so that Casey Affleck is delivering a line, and his head is a blurry blob. Take that, corner-to-corner sharpness junkies!

 

Also a + : NO 3D GLASSES! YAY!

[mtheory]

What is odd about Interstellar's mess is that it fails precisely at Nolan brothers' proven strengths, - logic and realism. Following, Memento, Prestige, Batman and Inception all were extremely sober and logical, establishing rules and following them, respecting audience's intelligence. This is what is so baffling...

[Daniel Acuña]

Wow I am surprised so many people didn't really like Interstellar, it was really a great movie for me at least, I guess It's for a different generation I don't know...

 

My favorite movies this year where Mommy by Xavier Dolan (he is 25 years old and makes such amazing movies it's insane! that guy is a genius) I also liked Gone Girl, Locke, Under the skin, The Grand Budapest Hotel and Boyhood.

[maxotics]

Wow I am surprised so many people didn't really like Interstellar, it was really a great movie for me at least, I guess It's for a different generation I don't know...

In my 20s I would probably run people over in the street to make sure I got to a movie on time.  If I missed even 10 seconds it was totally ruined for me.  It would NEVER occur to me to leave a movie in the middle--I never did.  If people were talking I physically grabbed them and told them to shut up, no matter how many of them there were. Thirty years later and I can live with missing the beginning of the movie (though I try not to) and I now find it easy, not hard, to walk out of many movies.  As for people talking, ironically, I now often find their commentary a lot more entertaining :)

 

Daniel, the point of all my comments is that Interstellar could have been a lot better.  I didn't walk out of it.  It was watchable.  There were good ideas in it.  However, I believe that when YOU get a chance to watch more of the classics you will not only become inspired (again, don't have to go back far, GATTACA is already a classic, at least in my book), you will get more enjoyment from good films.  That is, when I saw GATTACA I was BLOWN AWAY.  It is a great feeling, when you've watched so many movies, to see something new and great.  I felt the same way watching "The Wire".   When I saw "Fifth Element" it got horrible reviews.  I thought it an instant classic.  I agreed with what the reviews said, but the cool way he brought fashion in Science Fiction was beautiful to behold.  Since that movie I have dreamed of a day stewardesses dress like that :)

 

That's why I ask about Interstellar.  Is there something in it that, in time, will be recognized as beautiful/interesting?  If I've missed something maybe I'll watch it again.

[Daniel Acuña]

In my 20s I would probably run people over in the street to make sure I got to a movie on time.  If I missed even 10 seconds it was totally ruined for me.  It would NEVER occur to me to leave a movie in the middle--I never did.  If people were talking I physically grabbed them and told them to shut up, no matter how many of them there were. Thirty years later and I can live with missing the beginning of the movie (though I try not to) and I now find it easy, not hard, to walk out of many movies.  As for people talking, ironically, I now often find their commentary a lot more entertaining :)

 

Daniel, the point of all my comments is that Interstellar could have been a lot better.  I didn't walk out of it.  It was watchable.  There were good ideas in it.  However, I believe that when YOU get a chance to watch more of the classics you will not only become inspired (again, don't have to go back far, GATTACA is already a classic, at least in my book), you will get more enjoyment from good films.  That is, when I saw GATTACA I was BLOWN AWAY.  It is a great feeling, when you've watched so many movies, to see something new and great.  I felt the same way watching "The Wire".   When I saw "Fifth Element" it got horrible reviews.  I thought it an instant classic.  I agreed with what the reviews said, but the cool way he brought fashion in Science Fiction was beautiful to behold.  Since that movie I have dreamed of a day stewardesses dress like that :)

 

That's why I ask about Interstellar.  Is there something in it that, in time, will be recognized as beautiful/interesting?  If I've missed something maybe I'll watch it again.

 

Yes I get your point ;)

 

I am a film student so I watch all kinds of movies and "old" classics are some of my favorites! I love Hitchcock, Stanley Kubrick is one of my favorite directors (the other one is Terrence Malick), Fellini, Bergman, Sergio Leone, David Lynch, Godard, Truffaut, De Sica, Orson Welles and so many others.

 

I guess one of the reasons I really liked Interstellar is the fact that I love space related stuff (space opera), I am also a big fan of 2001 : A Space Odyssey and I must say Interstellar is just something else compared to other blockbusters from Hollywood that we have today, you can feel the effort made by Nolan to make a Good original Blockbuster movie.

But that is just my point of view ;)

 

PS: Yes Gattaca is a great movie I love it! I just wish I could've watched all this classics movies on the big screen and not on Netflix or Blu-ray. That's one of my biggest regrets :)

[JohnVid]

http://www.interstellarmovie.com/formats/