(Interstellar) Today I finally understood the charm of film....

legrevedotcom

legrevedotcom

Veteran
So I just saw Interstellar today, which was shot on Imax, and I hands down have to say that it had one of the most pleasing looks.

I didn't notice it in Dark Knight or Inception, but Interstellar really had a nice organic feel to it, where exces sharpness didn't distract your from the story of the movie.
It's just another world, and I don't care what Filmconvert or anyone else says, that look is not yet made in digital!!

Also I can shortly say that Interstellar is a freaking amazing movie... I mean, it's really really amazing. First time I've dropped a 10 on IMDB.
 
legrevedotcom said:
Also I can shortly say that Interstellar is a freaking amazing movie... I mean, it's really really amazing. First time I've dropped a 10 on IMDB.
Click to expand...

...I am wondering if I am going to be able to buy the science behind this film. ( it becomes a fantasy film to me if the science is wonky )
 
legrevedotcom said:
So I just saw Interstellar today, which was shot on Imax, and I hands down have to say that it had one of the most pleasing looks.

I didn't notice it in Dark Knight or Inception, but Interstellar really had a nice organic feel to it, where exces sharpness didn't distract your from the story of the movie.
It's just another world, and I don't care what Filmconvert or anyone else says, that look is not yet made in digital!!

Also I can shortly say that Interstellar is a freaking amazing movie... I mean, it's really really amazing. First time I've dropped a 10 on IMDB.
Click to expand...


+1

really appreciate the artistry and integrity of Nolan and Kodak
 
Hopefully it will not be the last film shot on film.

Kodak has laid off 80 workers from Rochester and made a 40% loss this year.
 
I just saw it also in 70mm IMAX and the look was very pleasing ... the audio people really did their work well..and i have to admit the way he played with the aspect ratio was affective for me ...and as far as the science goes ...let yourself go for a few hour's ... it can be a lot of fun ... and feels great
 
Ending didn't feel rushed at all to me.

The cinematography in the film was fantastic, and the way they showed the black hole. I felt like I was experiencing it myself in the cinema with the loud audio they intentionally made for the film. It really helped that I watched it at an odd time so there weren't any teenagers talking in the room. I was really transported in to the journey with the crew.

And that 5D tesseract. Wow, mind blowing stuff.

Movies like this deserve my money. Other films I can wait until a blu ray release.
 
eddavid said:
film is dead - so lets figure out how to make digital look as good.
Click to expand...

They already have... All the Digital FX match the film flawlessly. Industrial Light and Magic has been matching film for a very long time. Now if the trickle down will work it's way to smaller budget projects.
 
Nolan has also repeatedly said that they used NO green screens on the film. I'm thinking the rear screen projections used instead may have helped that blending of film and digital too.
 
TheDingo said:
...I am wondering if I am going to be able to buy the science behind this film. ( it becomes a fantasy film to me if the science is wonky )
Click to expand...

Some of the science utilised in the movie is pretty advanced but it is all interpreted visually. Therefore if you know little of the science it will probably see it as fantasy. If you have a basic insight into the science you can appreciate the artistic interpretation. Perhaps, if you have actual qualifications or know more than me (and many will) than it might all be hokum. They raise a number of things that the layman physics fan should be able to touch base with but there are no convoluted scientific exposition. It tied in sufficiently to my physics-fanboy Brian Greene level interpretations of the physics to not bother me. Apart from anything else much of the science we are talking about is far from settled anyway.

But this is an emotional-metaphysical movie, any hard science is in the background rather than the foreground, plenty for those looking but not in your face for those not into that. It is like 2001 only with an emotional core rather than a procedural one. And with answers by the end. Not sure if I needed the final sequence (although it did function as a reveal for the last remaining easter eggs from the first act) but I still think this movie was excellent, top ten. I cannot recommend seeing this movie enough. And if possible see it at IMAX.

I fully expect to uncover gaping plot holes and science issues on repeated watching but I can say I have rarely been as physiologically affected by a movie as this. I came out of Gravity shaking and unable to speak for the shear rush of it's rollercoaster ride. I came out of this the same but instead of the rush coming from the physical headlong rush (and satisfied by the thematic element of rebirth), in Interstellar the rush is from the cerebral, ethical and emotional rollercoaster rather than the physical dangers. It is constantly turns expectations inside out in unexpected ways. Unlike Gravity this movie's themes are more central to the subject of the movie rather than an envelope to contain what is otherwise a straight action-adventure disaster movie.

On a side note, Nolan has turned multiple aspect ratios into an artform. The way he edited the transitions together, using shadows to obfuscate the frame to seamlessly sneak an aspect ratio shift by the audience. And the fact it's not a gimmick but actually serves a function (in this case making outer space bigger)...it's nice to see there are still simple obvious tricks to be discovered and developed after more than a century of cinema.

And when did McConaughy become an actor?
 
I loved the film. Saw it in imax, and I'd put it up alongside The Prestige as one of my favourite Nolan films. That said, I was kinda shocked at the decision to shoot with wide-open apertures and razor thin DoF on 15-perf 65mm... what's the point of having all that incredible resolution and detail at your fingertips and then wasting 90% of it on creamy bokeh? Rather defeats the purpose I think.

And Egg Born Son, have you never seen 'A Time To Kill'? He could always act... just had a slow start to the new millenium!
 
Grug said:
I loved the film. Saw it in imax, and I'd put it up alongside The Prestige as one of my favourite Nolan films. That said, I was kinda shocked at the decision to shoot with wide-open apertures and razor thin DoF on 15-perf 65mm... what's the point of having all that incredible resolution and detail at your fingertips and then wasting 90% of it on creamy bokeh? Rather defeats the purpose I think.
Click to expand...
Simple. Texture and gradients.
 
JonsMovies said:
Nolan has also repeatedly said that they used NO green screens on the film. I'm thinking the rear screen projections used instead may have helped that blending of film and digital too.
Click to expand...

Green screen just makes it easier to do VFX work on, doesn't mean it hasn't had a **** tonne of VFX done on it. There's maybe a handful of scenes in the film that used rear-projection, I doubt you could tell the difference between them and the CG ones.
 
I had the opposite reaction. I saw it in a true IMAX theater as well and I wasn't impressed. All the 35mm footage looked really grainy and a lot of those scenes were out of focus. The IMAX footage looked better, but not all that much better than anything else out there, just bigger. It actully made me realize that film is kind of pointless these days and I'm not the type to want to admit that.

As for the story, it was ok. I love a good cerebral sci-fi flick. I guess I was expecting something deeper. But I give it kudos for not being some totally depressing cerebral sci-fi movie. I hate those, even if they are well made. I go to movies to escape, not to get all depressed.

Now that it's been a little while since I've seen it, I'm starting to soften my view on it. I remember coming out of the theater and saying "it was alright but I don't think I'd ever watch it again." I'm willing to give it another go though.
 
anamorphic lens wide open ...that's why out of focus on some shots...it was great though! I'd love to do a film on 70mm kodak..!
 
I had intended to watch this in IMAX. But timing didn't permit. My bothers wanted to see it, so I went with them 2days ago, but it was 4K digital. What I realized, was that film look added to the heritage feeling. The same feeling I get from 24p. That feeling of, ok, you are watching a movie now, settle in.


About two nights prior to that, I watched HFR Hobbit in 3D. I liked that too, but it took almost 80% of the film before I adjusted to the HFR. HFR is more critical on the Costumes and physics (like people jumping and moving naturally), so the same techniques in a 24p celluloid film won't always translate over into HFR. I think costuming was the major flaw of the Hobbit HFR series. If they looked more convincing, and less like wigs and makeup, I would have been less bothered by the HFR.


I say all that to contrast with the look of Interstellar. Interstellar, other than the handheld look, and lens flares, felt very nostalgic with out being retro. I would have loved to see it in the jittery film running through sprockets vibe, rather than the motion stabilized 4K digital projection, but there was still a distinct film origination feel to the footage and the way light was initially captured. dark milky shadows and forgiving highlights. I've only shot film in still photography, and I really never had a desire to shoot with it, but I do enjoy it in the movie theater and in other peoples work.

Also, after watching the Exodus and the Hobbit, the plot holes in Interstellar did not bother me. Haha. Though, there was about twice that the focus agitated me (which also showed just how amazing the 1stAC was, I saw more missed marks in The Hook, than Interstellar.). But the lens flares on the wide shots in space bothered me as much or more. An optical flare is good, but those lens flares just made me think of how ridiculous it would be for a camera op to be in deep space going "mmm, love that flare as the 'Sun' comes around that planet". Just takes me out of the film, it is a visual Effect, give us a more moderate flare that mimics the eyeball, not some favorite holy grail of lens flares.
 
Last edited:
Yep, i'm going to have to do it.

Hated the movie, and i'm not talking about anything imagery/camera/etc... related.

Story was thin and holey, suspense of disbelief was for me not even close to passable.

All in all, it's a movie that tried really, really hard to be "deep" and to me came off as not even remotely.
 
Darren Levine said:
Yep, i'm going to have to do it.

Hated the movie, and i'm not talking about anything imagery/camera/etc... related.

Story was thin and holey, suspense of disbelief was for me not even close to passable.

All in all, it's a movie that tried really, really hard to be "deep" and to me came off as not even remotely.
Click to expand...
Sounds like almost every serious movie.

Also, going into it, I had no idea that the film was going to be dealing with such theoretical concepts, so, once I realized that, I stopped caring if things were realistic, and just more about how they felt. It is a film, like all the others. A fantasy. Complete fiction. But going into it, I had assumed they were staying to closer to reality, but quickly realized it was conceptual fantasy, as is Christopher Nolan's typical fare. Something he can do in a film, but not in reality. It is fun. It is dreamy. It is not the History channel, it is taking us out of reality, and letting us dream, and making us feel a little.

As a movie, I felt the flow of the film was more emotional and organic than many of the other 'big' films I saw this year.
 
Last edited:
As with all other Nolan movies theres this cerebral clockwork coldness that bothered me. The expository lines (like the bit about a sphere in 3D becomes a circle in 2D) were cringe making. I think Nolan would benefit from writing with someone other than his brother.

Damons character was interesting but ultimately unconvincing.

But overall I found it more emotionally authentic than Memento and inception, less like a chess game. Wonder if you all agree? For me this had to do with the plausibility of the science (or pseudoscience) and the near conceivable future. The tsunami planet relative time segment actually touched me, not only when the characters and I realized decades had passed on earth, but when I was told the first lander had only just died minutes ago on tsunami planet time (but years ago on earth time). That almost but absoluteness of division between life/death and dimensions (barely transcended at the end) was poignant and devastating.

In terms of doing something new with well worn scifi themes, I liked that this "rationalizes" ghosts/metaphysical sixth sense stuff and also time travel. It promised to do more with the genre and delivered.


The staircase visualization of 5 dimensions I thought was elegant and restrained, not wowzee like the flipping city stuff in Inception.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top