Not Quite Stellar, But Still Pretty Fantastic

In the weeks leading up to Christopher Nolan’s sci-fi epic, “Interstellar,” a lot of critics had a lot different things to say about the film. Even the positive reviews seemed slightly back-handed. It seems to me that Nolan’s film about the power of love as it relates to time has been scrutized more than any sci-fi film in decades. Why is that?

First thing’s first. This is not a review of “Interstellar.” Go to any number of film websites for their reviews of the film; or don’t. I would say outright that “Interstellar” is a film that you should see, and something you should see so you can be part of the conversation, however, I wouldn’t say that it’s a must see and that is the problem. “Interstellar” is a fantastic film though. It’s visually epic, includes a stand-out performance by Matthew McConaughey and is one of the most theme rich sci-fi films in recent memory, so why is it not a must see? It’s the last point that I’m the most interested in; theme. In “Interstellar,” Nolan uses these themes as a narrative force, and one in particular that he highlights is that of Love. Love is made into a science in Nolan’s film. Love is the thing that will save the people of Earth. It’s very apparent to me that Nolan wanted to make a love story and house it within a complex sci-fi epic, however, the balance between the two was no easy task, and sometimes falls short on either side. When it worked tho, it was some of the most powerful cinema Nolan has done thus far in his impressive filmography. When it didn’t work, it was just kind of silly.

Of course, the more I think about the film, the more I think it is a must see. There aren’t many love stories set in outer space after all, and I think “Interstellar” has the bad luck of being released in 2014. Why? Because we’ve seen “2001: A Space Oddyssey.” We’ve seen “Solaris.” Most of us anyways. However, I think it’s unfair to compare “Interstellar” to those films. Stanley Kubrick and Andrei Tarkovsky, the directors of those respective films, are nothing short of cinematic geniuses; Nolan has a long ways to go be held in the same regard. But “Interstellar” can be the gateway to those filmmakers and others like them, or “Interstellar,” at the very least, can echo their spirit for people that have little to no cinematic language; and I think that’s good enough.

I think I’m more satisfied with the idea of “Interstellar” being made within the modern day studio system, than with the actual film. Hopefully more filmmakers are going to be given more funds to make genre films that don’t involve transforming robots or superheroes; not that there’s anything wrong with those films, it’s just a nice change to see something original as both a screenwriter and a film historian/nerd.