Solid Snake

<iframe width="853" height="480" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/wn4zOZKKE4k" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

hanshotfirst1138

I got to see the IMAX projection booth through the glass after the movie, it is cool. That print is the size of a postcard. They spend all of the stuff before the movie projecting about the resolution and perforation of IMAX and singing the praises of analog and proper film projection resolution . They'll probably have the laser system by the beginning of next year, this is probably going to be it , but it was cool to see.

bluetoast

Pumped to see this on IMAX on Saturday. Show is already sold out, so I'm probably getting there 70 min early at least.

stvn1974

Didn't want to start a new thread so I will post this here.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/new...-disney-745963

RichC2

That was dumb. Most of those Disney movies are female centric, if Nolan made them, they'd be relegated to near wordless non-characters that drive the plots forward. Or their lines would simply be narrated by Michael Caine. I like the guy, he makes movies that stand out in a good way, but he can't figure out 1) emotions or 2) women.

Paul_SD

Since I'm not likely to be seeing this anytime soon- I have some questions about the premise and plot of the film for anyone who has seen it. Spoilers are fine for me, but just put them in the proper tags so no one who doesn't want to see them will.

Here's what I glean about the premise along with what I expect is the gist of the whole thing

The ad hoc crew journeys into space to find another planet to colonize because Earth is beyond repair.
To have this make any sense in terms of just how long it would take to
1) find something out in the infinite cosmos, let alone something that can support life
and
2) get back with the 'directions'
3) work out the insanely complex logistics of sending more people back to colonize they planet they found
they have to use magical (a wizard did it) wormholes that likely bend time and allow them to arrive back on earth before they actually leave, albeit in another dimensional plane that the daughter is cognizant of (poltergeist).

is that pretty much the gist of everything?
Where does all the sentimentality that some people were criticizing come into play- does his love somehow bridge the dimensions allowing him to contact his daughter because he can't actually get back?

How far off base is this?

Brack

Beg to differ. Most of his movies have prominent female characters. They may not be the lead, but so what? What was wrong with Anne Hathaway in The Dark Knight Rises? Or Marion Cotillard in that or Inception? Ellen Page wordless in Inception? Carrie Ann-Moss, Hilary Swank's characters weren't? No emotions in any of his movies? Almost all his characters in his movies are motivated by their emotions.

Anubis2005X

Agreed. It does seem like his movies have a somewhat cold vibe to them, but to say that emotions are not present or that women don't have prominent roles in the films is a bit of an unfair stereotype...

RichC2

Good point, he's just weak at characters in general. Great plots though.

Yeah it isn't a women thing, that was more a joke. His characters show emotions, there's just never any reason to buy into their plight. It's a matter of opinion, but there's a big difference between making the viewer feel for a character, and simply having a character cry. It's like Rachel being blown up in The Dark Knight. It moved the plot, didn't care at all that the character was gone.

A lot of reviews state there is a ton of crying in Interstellar, but apparently Nolan hasn't quite figured out to make the audience give a damn that the characters are crying. I always watch his movies like elaborate chess games, and I'm never disappointed, but I also don't care that the queen just got her head smashed in.

Solid Snake

I dunno. Maybe it's me but Michael Caine getting all emtional while bitching at Bruce was good work in the emotion. You bought that character's emotional investment. That... or It's Michael fucking Caine.

DaveyJoe

Yeah, that got me too.

RichC2

I'm going for Michael Caine being Michael Caine. He had the most gravitas of anyone in any of those movies. He also had some of the only scenes where the plot points slowed down enough for it. Seriously, Nolan crams plot into every square inch of every scene in his movies, I love and hate that about him. I want him to sit down, and direct himself a throwaway Terrence Malick style movie.

Which is odd, because I'm not too high on Malick.

Brack

I really felt for the Joker when no one blew each other up on those boats (my only real problem with TDK).

DaveyJoe

I really feel like TDKR would have benefited from being about 30 minutes longer.

Solid Snake

there are a good amount of scenes in TDKR. My problem with it mostly is that it feels like a string of moments missing scenes between. its very disconnected like that. i enjoyed it a lot though.

Spiderbite

So what's the thoughts of this movie for a 10 year old? My son has read all the Ender's Game books but I wouldn't say he is a huge sci-fi fan. 3 hours is a long time for any movie no matter how good it is and I didn't want to take him if he will be bored. What brings this up is all the comparisons to 2001 that I keep reading. He enjoys the Hobbit and LOTR movies with no problems with the length but I know he isn't ready to tackle something like 2001.

Any spoiler-free opinions?

Osiris3657

This is not a movie for children. Obviously I don't mean that in a "it's graphic" sense, but the dialogue and subject matter would go over their heads. They would get bored and fidgety. The movie has been described as more of a science report then a sci fi adventure movie.

Solid Snake

Yeah. This is a film for adults. It goes into 2001 territory at times. It's just adult drama that wouldn't capture a kid's attention unless he's open to it. It's not heavy into the 2001 but once it goes into it... A kid won't get it most likely. There's normal drama and then 2001. 2001 lite is still too much for most people.

I think I would be open to this film at 10 but just depends on the environment that kid is open to.

Troy Stiffler

Take him. He may get confused or restless. See if he gets anything out of it.

RichC2

I say take him, the first 30 minutes may be a chore for a kid, but if he made it through the first 40 minutes of FotR he should be fine. I would have loved it at his age.

Mabuse

Is there something wrong with 10 year olds today that I'm not aware of? I saw 2001 in 1985 when I was 7 and I liked it a lot. This has 1000x more action than that film. There's almost constantly something happening. Any 10 year old who is bored by this has something wrong with him.

Taking a 10 year old to see this (especially if it's in true IMAX) should rank among the greatest experiences of his life. It certainly would have been when I was 10.

Troy Stiffler

Yes. Youtube.

hanshotfirst1138

Just the Internet in general.

Solid Snake

Attention spans are shorter. Demographic associations in films tend to show that films that need to have their audience pay attention to dialogue sometimes isn't hot. Visually Interstellar might impress a kid but it's got drama that is more closely associated for or to adults than what a child today in his viewing market would expect from.

Let us make a comparison of sorts. TDK and Interstellar have a big gap in the style of dialogue flowing between them. TDK is simpler and unconfusing. Interstellar veers in scientific theories and elements that you have to pay attention for to follow its narrative. They're both literal in their word w/ no mystery in them though. The latter just asks more from its audience than the former.

Mabuse

Well 2001 asks a lot more than any other movie and I could handle it at 7. I didn't understand it, but I liked it. I think most 10 year old boys would have the same reaction.