There are a lot of things to say about "Interstellar," but the conversation probably needs to start at the point of acknowledging that, at the studio level, we haven’t seen a picture of this kind of ambition probably since, well, "Inception." Christopher Nolan‘s film mixes the themes, concerns and emotion of John Steinbeck, Steven Spielberg and Stanley Kubrick into a heady movie that attempts to intersect science and love. Basically, there are few $200 million movies that have as little explosions and toy selling opportunities as "Interstellar." And thus it’s not a surprise that Nolan has earned the appreciation of his colleagues.
Last month, during a talk at the New York Film Festival, Paul Thomas Anderson called Nolan’s film "beautiful," urging audiences to " go see it in IMAX." And now Quentin Tarantino has put his very vocal support behind the picture too.
“It’s been a while since somebody has come out with such a big vision to things,” Tarantino told The Guardian. “Even the elements, the fact that dust is everywhere, and they’re living in this dust bowl that is just completely enveloping this area of the world. That’s almost something you expect from Tarkovsky or Malick, not a science fiction adventure movie.”
For Nolan himself, he sees his movie as sharing elements with another, more unlikely, more contemporary filmmaker and film. "For me, the film is really about being a father. The sense of your life passing you by and your kids growing up before your eyes," the director explained. "Very much what I felt watching Richard Linklater’s ‘Boyhood,’ an extraordinary film, which is weirdly doing the same thing in a completely different way. We are all engaged in the biggest mystery of all, which is just living through time.”
Whether it’s Kubrick or Spielberg or even Linklater, the names being associated with "Interstellar" are unlike any that have greeted a Nolan picture in his career thus far (and be sure to read our retrospective). But has he made a movie that stands alongside the great pictures of all time? The filmmaker himself certainly isn’t going to make that claim, but admits he swung hard for the fences.
“I’ve always believed that if you want to really try and make a great film, not a good film, but a great film, you have to take a lot of risks,” Nolan said. “It was very clear to me that if you’re going to make a film called ‘Interstellar,’ it’s going to have to be something extremely ambitious. You push it in all the possible directions you can. Not for its own sake, but because you know that if you’re going to try to add something to the canon, besides fiction films and all the rest, and live up to the promise of that title and the scale of that title, you really have to go there.”
"Interstellar" opens on November 5th in select cinemas and November 7th everywhere. Check out some new featurettes and TV spots below, along with a video (via FilmDrunk) from AutoNation IMAX Theater Chief Projectionist Armando Mena, who explains the ins and outs of projecting "Interstellar" on 70mm. And yes, go see it in IMAX.
tarantino called DRIVE " a nice try "
even though the editing, cinematography, and dialogue was kinda shit when they weren\’t traveling through space, i liked the parable. Matt Damon as israel and Mcconaughey as Holy Russia.
The climax really disappointed me. The whole seriousness of interstellar travel was diluted. Plus the core of the movie shifted to something totally ridiculous. As for influences, they are evrywhere, primarily, Kubrick & Tarkovsky.He released the movie after two years of The Dark Knight Rises and that means not enough had been done on the part of Nolan.
Yes, Nolan is one of those few film makers who doesn\’t dumb down his projects to the slack jawed yokels who wouldn\’t pay to see it anyway… Glad he\’s around!
Well, for a director who doesn\’t think his audience is stupid he sure went overboard with making his characters explain way too much up to the point all the exposition kept the rambling story from being great. Nolan tried really hard to achieve Kubrick-status (or Malick for that matter) with this picture, but Interstellar, albeit a visual triumph, is far from succeeding.
Blame Obama!
Tarantino obviously did not compare Nolan to either Tarkovsky nor Malick, all he said was that he did not expect Tarkovsky/Malickian level of ambition in a Nolan flick. You click bait whore.
Why do we have alwasys to compare stuff ? Kubrick 2001 is a master piece of course , but i believe Interstellar is remarkable . And the theme of 2001 is very different from interstellar . Plz stop comparing
Richard Linklater\’s Boyhood says a lot more about the human condition, time, and the everyday life of ordinary people than Nolan\’s Interstellar and most contemporary American films.
Michael….A.Tarkowski meant that his SOLARIS was the worst. I see clear that 2001 Space O. remains in a materialistic level.
I watched the film last night and was expecting a lot, unfortunately it didn\’t hit home for me. While I admire the grand reach and how amazing it looked, the script was very clunky at times as well as cheesy. Even at times of the narrative it felt cliched.
"Little" explosions?
STANLEY KUBRICK is the real MASTER OF THE UNIVERSE 2001 Space Odysseee
I totally agree Fransisco. I mean, did Anybody even see "following?" We are dealing with a Total master of film making. He can make a bicycle out of a pair of glasses. In my opinion Tarantino aint got crap on him anyway.
Well, Tarantino didnt compare Nolan\’s work to Trakovskys of Mallicks, he said something about the dust. Thats all. That being said, i like the fact that Nolan is always trying to push the plot boundaries in a clever way. He doesnt thinks the audience is stupid, and that is something to be thankful (sadly).
Wait, he didn\’t really compare so much as said he hadn\’t seen films like those since Tarkovsky era. Besides Nolan and Tarkovsky in the same sentence? No way.