Good, But Not Stellar

Director Christopher Nolan has made several movies throughout his career, and has yet to make a bomb. Even his worst (Insomnia, in my book) still has impeccable style, and enough good elements to be worth watching. So whenever a new Nolan movie comes around, I don't need to be convinced. I'm fine with the vague teaser trailers that reveal nothing of the film within, because his name above the title is all I need to know.

Nolan's latest is Interstellar, a science fiction tale set in an apocalyptic future. For those who perhaps do need a little more to whet their interest than I did, the premise is quite simple: with the planet Earth losing the ability to sustain life, a pilot must leave his children behind and set out on an uncertain journey into space to find a new home for humanity.

Interstellar is epic in every sense of the world. It boasts a run time of nearly three hours. It features more scenes shot in the IMAX 70mm format than any of Nolan's previous film. And it wears proudly on its sleeve the influences of classic films -- most noticeably 2001: A Space Odyssey. (Though I definitely think Contact is another touchstone that I haven't heard Nolan specifically cite.) Certainly, the visuals are created with the 2001 sense of scale in mind (and many were made before filming began, so the actors could react to actual projections on set rather than imagine what would later replace a green screen).

The cast is extensive and talented. Matthew McConaughey plays the hero, Cooper, and while his trademark swagger and accent almost border self-parody at times, the emotional heft he brings (the same heft that won him an Oscar) is enough to overpower that. Anne Hathaway, Jessica Chastain, Wes Bentley, Casey Affleck, Matt Damon, Topher Grace, John Lithgow, and Nolan film veteran Michael Caine all help in grounding this galactic epic in personal terms.

Perhaps that's why, in my opinion, the film is at its best before it actually goes to space. The opening hour or so establishes the Earth of the future and the relationships of the characters, and effectively builds empathy and interest. And early on in the space adventure, the sense of wonder and the weight of the expectations on the characters more than sustains the story. But there comes a point where enough foreshadowing "Chekhov's guns" have been revealed that you know how it's all going to end, and that point unfortunately comes well before the movie is over.

I don't necessarily mean that you know exactly how the climactic scene is going to play. (Certainly, you don't know what it's going to look like.) But the major plot developments are obvious -- particularly if you keep the inspiration of 2001 in mind. And because Interstellar is not fundamentally a suspense movie, "waiting for the other shoe to drop" isn't enough to sustain that three-hour run time.

Mind you, I would still call Interstellar a good movie overall. Perhaps the opening is so strong that even in decline it stays at a high level. Perhaps the visual craftsmanship is enough to compensate for the predictability of the plot (though I'm not the sort of person who usually goes for that). Whatever it is, I would say Interstellar is worth seeing -- and certainly worth seeing in a theater if you do. But I think it resides closer in Nolan's resume to Insomnia that his other film triumphs. I give it a B+.