This is topic Interstellar in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=002081
Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 11-06-2014, 07:12 PM:
 
United Artists Colorado Center Stadium 9 IMAX (15/70)
11/5/14 7pm

I liked it but didn't love it. Lots of cool stuff. Lots of interesting stuff. But dramatically and emotionally it should have been stronger. I wasn't ever really engaged the way I was in The Dark Knight. It reminded me a lot of Inception, though liked Interstellar more.

I loved seeing it in 70MM. The image was beautifully detailed and as steady as any digital presentation. I've never had a problem with aspect ratio changes - I generally find them to be effective, but I found myself not noticing every change during Interstellar.

Overall, I was very happy with the audio. It went from booming to dead silent and I never had trouble understanding dialog.

I sat in the center on the fourth row.

I'm picky, but there are others pickier than me who might find more faults with the Colorado Center's presentation. But from comments I overheard afterwards, others in the crowd seemed very happy with the picture and audio as well. (They also seemed to like the film more than me.)

HOWEVER, there were problems. Below is what I submitted at http://www.interstellarmovie.com/quality.

quote:
Picture/ Other:
Way too much ambient light on the screen from exit lighting. Distracted terribly in dark scenes, incl. space. Please have them mask it. Looked great otherwise - thanks for offering hi-res film in CO.
quote:
Audio/ Other:
Sound was great except for a semi-regular popping sound. Please have them address this.
The ambient light issue seemed new. I do not remember noticing that at my last three visits (TDK, Avatar, TDKR). And can anyone explain a likely cause for the popping?

I will let you know what Christopher says when he gets back to me about my feedback.
 
Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 11-06-2014, 07:52 PM:
 
I plan to see INTERSELLAR this weekend but there are only three formats I can see it in here in Honolulu. 35mm at a Consolidated theatre, Digital IMAX or RPX in 2K with Dolby Atmos or in 4K digital at the Dole Cannery Regal Theatre.

Picture quality is more important to me than sound and I probably will see it in 4K digital. Is there a big difference between 35mm film and digital 4K with INTERSTELLAR?

-Claude
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-06-2014, 09:59 PM:
 
Geoff:
The ambient lighting will not change, it's Regal policy. They're trying to avoid being sued by people falling all over themselves and blaming the lack of light. The presentation quality is secondary. The giant silver screen with the awful hot spot will also not be fixed.
 
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 11-07-2014, 01:32 AM:
 
quote: Geoff Jones
I loved seeing it in 70MM. The image was beautifully detailed and as steady as any digital presentation. I've never had a problem with aspect ratio changes - I generally find them to be effective, but I found myself not noticing every change during Interstellar.
Did you get the eerie feeling that this might just be the last time you will ever see 15/70?
 
Posted by Jason Burroughs (Member # 68) on 11-09-2014, 01:04 AM:
 
Theater: Studio Movie Grill Dallas
Auditorium: 8
Format 70/5

Presentation issues: Absolutely none. Not a speck of dirt. Picture was extremely bright. Previews were in Digital, so there was a good back-to-back comparison. Film was noticeably brighter and more pleasant to the eye. Perfectly smooth transition from digital previews/theater snipes to 70mm presentation.

Sound was awesome. Dialogue was clear. Loud scenes were at the perfect point between loud and too loud. The mix was good and I'm sure the amps were getting a work out. No distortion in the sound was detectable.

The acting was OK, but stiff in places. Overall the plot was predictable. Kind of 2001 meets Contact meets The Black Hole.

That being said this movie is 169 minutes of eye candy. Visually, one of the most remarkable movies I've seen in a while.
 
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 11-10-2014, 10:42 PM:
 
This is not a very good movie. And the overly loud harsh sound at the local Regal IMAX did not help (and I'm the guy who likes this type of movie played LOUD). I wish I'd seen it in a "regular" theater. That might have made the movie barely passable for me.

Overall I think it's an ambitious fail.

Oh yeah this IMAX has far too much light from the front side wall light sconces spilling on the screen. A baffle on the screen side of the front sconces would mostly solve the problem and not create a safety hazard.
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-14-2014, 09:35 AM:
 
Screening #1
Cinema: LOOK Cinemas, Dallas
Screen: #1, Evolution
Format: 5-perf 70mm, Datasat Digital Sound
Presentation Quality
-----Projection: Flawless
-----Sound: Good, but could have been louder
Screening #2
Cinema: Bullock History of Texas Museum IMAX, Austin
Format: 15-perf 70mm, True IMAX
Presentation Quality
-----Projection: Flawless
-----Sound: Dymamic but with over-driven sub-bass
Rating: 3 stars out of 4

This review is about a week late. Didn't have enough time to write/post it during this past weekend.

I really wanted to like Interstellar more, and I'm kind of reaching to give it 3 stars instead of 2.5 or 2.75. 70mm was the big selling point for me not only to see it in the theater, but drive a considerable distance to see it in 70mm equipped theaters. Sadly, this movie may be one of the last movies to be commercially shown in 70mm -a morbid selling point. If Interstellar had been a DCP-only release there's a good chance I might have just waited to see it on Blu-ray.

Anyone interested in this movie already knows the basic story premise. The movie sort of gets going in fits and starts, but gets bogged down at times by lengthy dialog and forced melodrama. Anne Hathaway's character hits crew members with a speech about trusting love that came totally out of nowhere and still makes no sense to me after seeing it twice. There's other things that don't make sense or are flat out implausible. You basically have to unplug your brain and simply enjoy the spectacle.

Christopher Nolan deserves praise for pushing 15/70mm film and 5/70mm film. How many movie releases have done 15/70mm and 5/70mm in the original release? I can't think of any others.

While Interstellar provided at least some hype to 70mm, the movie's cinematography (by Hoyte Van Hoytema) could have been better. That's unfortunate considering this movie is supposed to hype spectacle and 70mm film. When I think of material best to hype 70mm I think of bright footage with deeply saturated color, tack sharp detail and very fine grain. Nolan muted the color palette even in settings where it didn't need to be greatly muted. A lot of sets were lit in a dark, depressing manner. I can understand the need to shoot many of the IMAX scenes with very shallow depth of field (opening the aperture to get in as much light as possible). I don't think they needed to do that with 35mm. Deeper focus might have prevented what I feel are some goofs that occurred with the 'scope footage. There's one scene of Cooper reacting to 20 years worth of video messages. It's meant to be a big emotional scene, but I was distracted by bad it looked.

Plenty has been said about the sound mix, mainly to do with dialog obscured by other sounds or the music score. The mix had some good qualities, but we more often tend to notice things that are wrong rather than right with a sound mix.

Random Observations:

Spoiler Alert - Click to Toggle
Hans Zimmer's score was overbearing at times. The pipe organ stuff had me thinking about the end of Akira. Not many memorable melodies either. I liked the music that was on the 4th movie trailer, which turned out to be an instrumental called "Final Frontier" by Thomas Bergersen. Too bad that wasn't in the movie.

The changeover at Reel 8A sounded a bit like a jump cut in the 5/70 print. The same spot of the movie sounded fine in IMAX, but there might not have been at a reel change at that point of the movie on the IMAX print.

The end credits were composed in a different way in the IMAX version, using the entire frame. The credits appeared sharper than they did in 5/70. This is despite the fact the 5/70 setup at LOOK was focused properly. BTW, I have seen a lot soft/crappy looking end credit runs in 2K and 4K. I suspect some odd standards of practice at work in post production. With certain digital shows I also suspect people farting with the focus knob to hide the pixel grid (it's either that or they have a soft projection lens).
 
Posted by Marco Giustini (Member # 4544) on 11-14-2014, 04:53 PM:
 
quote: Geoff Jones
I loved seeing it in 70MM. The image was beautifully detailed and as steady as any digital presentation. I've never had a problem with aspect ratio changes - I generally find them to be effective, but I found myself not noticing every change during Interstellar.
Aspect ratio changes? I've seen the 70mm version and did not see any changes... what have I missed?
 
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 11-14-2014, 05:20 PM:
 
There are no aspect ratio changes in either the standard DCP release or the 35mm and 5/70mm releases. There are aspect ratio changes in both the Digital and 70mm IMAX releases. The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises had the same thing going.

Personally, I hate those switches. In my opinion, a movie should be in exactly ONE aspect ratio and the screen should be properly masked to exactly match that aspect ratio.

I've seen the movie about 2.5 times now and although it's not bad, most things said about it are probably true, it's most probably not Nolan's strongest movie. It's a rather predictable story with some rather gaping plot holes, questionable science, a boring, unbelievable and overly melodramatic love story and a weak sound mix.

The visuals are mostly great, but are lacking in vibrancy. I liked how they made gravimetric lensing look believable for once. Going trough a worm-hole without big lens flares and space tunnelly stuff was a good thing for once.

quote: Bobby Henderson
Hans Zimmer's score was overbearing at times. The pipe organ stuff had me thinking about the end of Akira. Not many memorable melodies either. I liked the music that was on the 4th movie trailer, which turned out to be an instrumental called "Final Frontier" by Thomas Bergersen. Too bad that wasn't in the movie.
With Nolan it's always Two Steps From Hell in the trailers and Hans Zimmer in the end result. Thomas Bergersen & co. have been in a lot of trailers, but their music is just a bit too bombastic for broad use in features. Then again, I hate the modern trend not to put the actual score in the final trailers...

For me, it was rather hard to connect with Hans Zimmer's score on this one. A failed attempt to do away the bombastic strings and deep notes of the previous Nolan collaborations. In some ways this score reminded me too much of the original soundtrack of Moon (2009) by Clint Mansell. The heavier parts felt like going to church...
 
Posted by Marco Giustini (Member # 4544) on 11-14-2014, 05:49 PM:
 
ok.

It makes sense in Imax IMHO. The screen is not scope and what would have you done? The film has IMAX scenes, so that has to stay full screen. Would have you zoomed the scope scenes? Some pan and scan maybe? [Smile]
 
Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 11-14-2014, 05:53 PM:
 
Marcel, do the aspect ratio changes bug you in films like The Horse Whisperer, Galaxy Quest, Superman, and The Road Warrior?

I'm just curious - I certainly understand the objection. I just don't feel it myself.

I had hoped to see Interstellar in 5 perf/ 70MM in Minnesota while on business, but Frontier screwed up and we were 2 hours late...
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-14-2014, 08:23 PM:
 
The aspect ratio in Horse Whisperer was stupid and had no point. It didn't happen at the city/country change. It happened literally at the reel change.

The aspect ratio in Galaxy Quest worked perfectly because it kept getting bigger.

The only movie I can think of where the aspect ratio changing where it got SMALLER that worked was Brainstorm. However in all fairness it's moreso the HEIGHT of the image changing that causes distractions.
 
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 11-15-2014, 12:48 AM:
 
quote: Geoff Jones[/quote
Marcel, do the aspect ratio changes bug you in films like The Horse Whisperer, Galaxy Quest, Superman, and The Road Warrior?
You can add The Grand Budapest Hotel to that list, too. What is particularly annoying is that the entire movie is in 1.37 apart from two very brief bookend scenes totaling 2-3 minutes, which are letterboxed 'scope. The entire DCP is in a 1.85 container, meaning that no shot in the entire movie fills the entire screen area as masked.

As for Interstellar as a movie, Hoyte van Hoytema's cinematography pulled off some memorable visuals which more than justified the large format film. I remember thinking after Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy that he could well be the next Roger Deakins or John Alonzo, and this movie bore that hunch out. He can light a medium long shot in a way that has you picking the character out in the frame and concentrating on him/her, and not many cinematographers can do that.

The problem is that it that the movie has does not have much of a story (apart from one that preaches a political message that I'd have to violate the forum rules to give my thoughts on), and the performance of the leads and the direction are very competent, but in ten years' time I won't be remembering this movie for anything apart from the much-hyped release on film.

Furthermore, having seen the AFI previews of Selma and American Sniper earlier this week, they both blow this pic to smithereens for script, acting and direction (Selma, in particular, was a very, very strong feature directing debut - she can pace big crowd scenes and tension/confrontation scenes between two or three characters, and there are many Hollywood directors with 10-15 features under their belt who have trouble doing both). I suspect that when they're released, Interstellar will quickly be forgotten except by film technology enthusiasts.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-15-2014, 06:46 PM:
 
Another movie with multiple aspect ratio changes was More American Graffiti. At least they made sense in that movie.
 
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 11-16-2014, 05:04 PM:
 
I guess I do have to agree with Brad. Probably due to the simple fact how our vision works, the change in height is far more visible and distracting than the change in width. And that's what happening in IMAX. Every time you switch back from the massive (overly high) IMAX frame to the cramped (at least in those presentations) scope frame, it's like a message: You can go to sleep now, everything that follows now is sub-par and not worthy of expensive 65mm film.

quote: Geoff Jones
Marcel, do the aspect ratio changes bug you in films like The Horse Whisperer, Galaxy Quest, Superman, and The Road Warrior?
The Horse Whisperer is a perfect example of a movie where it bugged the hell out of me... because, what's the point? I've almost forgotten about Galaxy Quest, but that one I can forgive. It was used as some kind of gimmick in an already wacky movie. I don't know what Superman movie you're referring to, the "original" one back from 1978? I may need to refresh my memory on that one. And The Road Warrior, as far as I remember, only had one change. It began with a piece of news coverage, which would not be shot at an extreme wide angle. Such things I can gladly forgive. A more recent example is The Wolf of Wall Street, which opens with an advertorial video shot in something close to 1.77.

quote: Leo Enticknap
You can add The Grand Budapest Hotel to that list, too. What is particularly annoying is that the entire movie is in 1.37 apart from two very brief bookend scenes totaling 2-3 minutes, which are letterboxed 'scope. The entire DCP is in a 1.85 container, meaning that no shot in the entire movie fills the entire screen area as masked.
Wes Anderson sure is a strange fellow. His previous movie was shot in 16mm or post-processed to something made to look like 16mm none the less. Still, this aspect ratio switcheroo being some kind of weirdo artistic choice didn't really bug me as much as it does in other movies, probably because it's part of the concept of being weird and non-standard. I was about the only one on the floor laughing when I first saw that movie, the weirdness doesn't seem to work equally effective on all sheeple.

Another one for the list is Life of Pi. The DCP is in flat and most of the movie is too. But there are scenes in there, letter boxed in scope and even 2.0 or pillar boxed to 1.33. This movie is also pushing for 3D, making the changes even more evident. The aspect ratio changes in this movie really freaked me out.

My conception is that the presentation itself should distract as little as possible from the actual movie. The primary purpose is still to convey a story from the big screen to the viewer. I don't see just any added gadgetry as an automatic improvement, technology should be used to increase immersion (that word again), and not to create additional distractions.

So, yeah, I do still think a movie should just choose the most appropriate aspect ratio, one that best matches the visuals of the movie, works within the given budget and just stick with that from the beginning to the very end. Stuff like news footage might be forgiven, but this usually only lasts a few seconds. The same for artistic weirdness, although this trick gets old really fast, so please don't overuse it.
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-16-2014, 07:58 PM:
 
I think I figured out this movie!

Spoiler Alert - Click to Toggle

 
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 11-17-2014, 10:32 PM:
 
I officially retract my comment inferring the local Regal IMAX was at fault for how this sounded. Chris Nolan has taken the credit and blame for that.
 
Posted by Sammy Ross (Member # 8284) on 11-18-2014, 02:28 AM:
 
Watched Interstellar last week and really liked the movie. However, I have to admit that some of the scientific jargon and concepts of physics were beyond my understanding. Looking at it from a common man's point of view (who doesn't come from a science background), maybe it wasn't that easy a watch. The visuals more than made up for this though, they were amazing.
 
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 11-18-2014, 09:07 AM:
 
Some of the science in this movie is valid, although someone with a mere high school level of understanding of science can already point out the many deficiencies. For example, time passes more slowly compared to the outside world, if you're inside a gravity well, like they were near the black hole. You get the same problem with time dilation at extreme speeds. Time dilation as a result of the laws of relativity was quite realistically portrayed in this movie.

The way a black hole actually looks also was quite realistically portrayed.

A worm hole is still a theoretical concept, but the visual depiction was kept within the realm of the plausible.

I appreciated both the looks of the worm hole and the black hole. They really put a lot of efforts into making it look real.

* I guess most have seen it by now, but yet again, possible spoilers ahead *

There are also some big problems with the science in this movie though. Some of the most striking are:

- They needed a big rocket to get from earth to orbit. But to get from a planet with stronger gravity than earth (the water planet), a mere "lander" was apparently sufficient. Why not use this same kind of craft to get from earth to orbit? It looks a lot more practical than a conventional, massive multi-stage rocket.
- Creating a form of propulsion that's sufficiently strong to escape the gravity well of a massive black hole is quite doubtful.
- They needed about two years to get from earth to the wormhole, which, given some advanced near future propulsion technology, still feels plausible. Yet again, at the end of the movie, they fly from this icy planet into the black hole in a matter of minutes or hours (maybe some of the scenes were left out, but it was not meant to be weeks, months or even years). The distance between this planet might not be as large as between the earth and Saturn, but it should still take weeks at best.
- While there are theories about planets with stable orbits around super massive black holes, flying into a black hole, past the event horizon and telling a tale about it... I don't think so.

You could also ask yourself if a planet with knee-high water can produce waves as high as mountains, but maybe there are workable models for this and they just happened to land on some kind of plateau.

Whatever happens after Cooper and his robot enter the black hole is pure fiction, science has left the building at this point. The tesseract (multi-dimensional cube) is used to depict a place where time is another dimension, which can be as easily traversed (back and forth) like the three dimensions we're capable of perceiving. Apparently you can also manipulate gravity from inside this place, as it is one of the few things that isn't bound by other dimensions... just like love or something. Gravity is being used to send messages, by throwing books, creating dust bar codes and by manipulating hands on a watch. Personally, this was absolutely the weakest part of the movie.

Just like our laws of physics potentially collapse at the center of a black hole, the movie's plot collapsed likewise at that point...
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-18-2014, 11:27 AM:
 
This is why I said, on the previous page, you sort of need to "unplug your brain" and just enjoy the spectacle.

I read something about black holes a long time ago, I think in some science class text book, stating the gravity level in a black hole is so strong it could crush the Earth down to the size of a ping pong ball or even smaller than that. Nothing living is going to survive in a black hole. A spacecraft might be torn to pieces before it even passes the event horizon. Any object falling into a black hole is going to be pulled apart (the "noodle effect") as it draws closer to the gravitational singularity in the center of the black hole.

Science fiction fans like to point to theories how space-time is distorted within a black hole and that certain kinds of black holes could function as a worm hole to another universe. If someone were try to fly through a black hole as if it was a doorway the only thing that would come shitting out of the other side might be a few sub-atomic particles.
 
Posted by Jim Bedford (Member # 4) on 11-18-2014, 01:14 PM:
 
I give it about 42% on the 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY scale.

When you go to a movie like this you're not supposed to wonder about this and that, you're just supposed to have a sense of wonder. I wondered way too much.
 
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 11-19-2014, 01:13 AM:
 
quote: Bobby Henderson
This is why I said, on the previous page, you sort of need to "unplug your brain" and just enjoy the spectacle.
I guess Jim nailed it. If it's hard for you to go in "unplugged" mode, there is probably something wrong with the story.

Also, this movie takes itself way to serious to disable essential brain functions. I didn't have any such problems while watching Guardians of the Galaxy for example.

quote: Bobby Henderson
Science fiction fans like to point to theories how space-time is distorted within a black hole and that certain kinds of black holes could function as a worm hole to another universe. If someone were try to fly through a black hole as if it was a doorway the only thing that would come shitting out of the other side might be a few sub-atomic particles.
There are some more or less scientific theories that the black hole itself could represent its own universe beyond the event horizon. Since we will probably never be able to see beyond this point and our human conception of how the universe works seems to pretty much go south beyond that point, there could be anything behind there. Maybe it's a 'place' filled with unicorns and rainbows.

The problem with the concept of a black hole as some kind of worm hole is that, even if you could somehow survive entering it in on one side, the other side would also be a black hole I suppose? How are you supposed to escape from there?
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-19-2014, 03:34 PM:
 
Also, why are the ice clouds still floating? Has the writer never heard of hail? Or gravity? Clouds don't even need to freeze before they begin falling. Or was there some explanation I missed? Judging by the ease in which the spacecraft glides through the atmosphere when landing and taking off from this world, there doesn't seem to be any mid-atmosphere gravity anomalies. The ice clouds also don't seem to be very far above the surface they're walking around on (lower than Earth clouds). Nobody else has ever mentioned anything about this that I've seen. I can't be the only one who caught it. Surely others HAD to have thought about this when watching the movie.

For a movie that brags about getting science right and the visuals of the black hole right, etc etc (and they did do this), this is a big fail.
 
Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 11-19-2014, 04:05 PM:
 
Guys, it's still just a movie! When you start picking, you will never stop. This is not special in SciFi flics. The issue is just that a good movie pulls you in so much that at least you don't think about these things while watching the movie. Afterwards, your mind is free.

A dozend Picassos drowned with the Titanic in 'Titanic'.
How did they all reappear in museums and galleries around the world later in the 20th century? 'Well baby, I went down and got them for you'.'Oh, you shouldn't have!'

A friend of mine told me this ruined the whole movie for him. Oh well... he also complained Céline Dion couldn't carry a tune throughout the song.
Get a life!

- Carsten
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-19-2014, 04:34 PM:
 
It's all about two things: suspension of disbelief and audience expectation.

Interstellar was marketed as a movie steeped much more in the area of plausible futurism rather than implausible fantasy. Yet the movie crosses many boundaries into fantasy to move the story in certain directions and plot conclusions. Unfortunately it does so in manner where it tries to cling to the "this is plausible" theme. It can't take the fantasy side of this genre and run with it. The end result is a movie that's boring for a lot of people.

The Star Wars movies have all sorts of impossible, implausible shit in them in all range of categories. Viewers go along with it anyway since it is a fantasy story. So they don't mind the story being riddled with impossible concepts, like light sabers, spacecraft dog-fighting like airplanes, fiery explosions in outer space making Earth-bound explosion noises, etc.

There's nothing completely wrong with throwing certain things on the screen just because they look cool. The visuals still have to be supported to at least some degree to allow the audience to suspend their disbelief. The director has a hell of a lot of work to do in that regard if he's going to sell the story more as science fact rather than science fiction.
 
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 11-19-2014, 06:00 PM:
 
quote: Joe Redifer
Also, why are the ice clouds still floating? Has the writer never heard of hail? Or gravity? Clouds don't even need to freeze before they begin falling. Or was there some explanation I missed? Judging by the ease in which the spacecraft glides through the atmosphere when landing and taking off from this world, there doesn't seem to be any mid-atmosphere gravity anomalies. The ice clouds also don't seem to be very far above the surface they're walking around on (lower than Earth clouds). Nobody else has ever mentioned anything about this that I've seen. I can't be the only one who caught it. Surely others HAD to have thought about this when watching the movie.
Yeah, I was thinking the same. Then again, the whole planet didn't make too much sense, some of those mountains look like they almost extend over their heads. It reminded me about this other movie that did not make too much sense: Upside Down. Maybe frozen clouds could work on a planet with very low gravity, but they mention something about this planet having about 80% of the gravity of Earth...

quote:
Get a life!
Sounds great. Can I you tell us where to get one? And are they expensive? [Wink]

quote:
A dozend Picassos drowned with the Titanic in 'Titanic'.
How did they all reappear in museums and galleries around the world later in the 20th century? 'Well baby, I went down and got them for you'.'Oh, you shouldn't have!'
What are you trying to prove here? Cameron made a mistake?! Those paintings in those museums are obviously fake!

And Celine Dion didn't really sing during the movie, that was reserved for the credits [Wink]

quote: Carsten Kurz
Guys, it's still just a movie! When you start picking, you will never stop.
We also picked on Gravity. I really like that movie, although a lot of the plot relies on flaky science.

I agree with Bobby and Joe here. This is no Star Wars. This movie was dead serious. They hired a bunch of scientists and also bragged about their realistic depiction of science. During an intermission, I even had a discussion with somebody who claimed everything that happens in the movie was scientifically proven...
 
Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 11-19-2014, 09:48 PM:
 
quote: Jim Bedford
I give it about 42% on the 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY scale.
Christopher Nolan clearly has seen 2001: A Space Odyssey many times, but has never figured out what makes it the greatest science fiction movie ever made. 2001 runs 148 minutes, but there is barely 10 minutes worth of dialog in the whole picture. In Interstellar, people never ever shut the f*ck up ever, with all their explanations, exposition, overused Dylan Thomas quotes and wooden acting. The difference is that Kubrick had enough faith in his audience that by not explaining everything he could leave them with both a sense of wonder and something to rattle around in their heads besides their eyeballs. Nolan does not have this faith, he feels that everything has to be explained down to the tiniest degree, and it’s ultimately a drag on the picture.

Take the penultimate scene where Cooper travels through the black hole and winds up in the space/time room, a scene OBVIOUSLY based on the part of 2001 where Bowman goes through the stargate and winds up in the drawing room. In 2001, there is no dialog whatever, the audience is left to piece it out by themselves. In this picture, Nolan has so little respect for his audience’s intelligence that they wind up resurrecting a should-be-trashed robot for him to blather the explanation for what is happening, he is literally acting as his own narrator and it is totally unnecessary. The scene would have worked as well with no dialog at all. How would the aforementioned scene in 2001 have played if HAL had somehow shown up and was all “So, Dave, the aliens made this room so you would feel comfortable, because you are going to live out the rest of your life here, after which the monolith you saw will appear again to transmogrify you into a giant fetus thing and send you back to Earth as their representative, because they were just waiting for humans to become advanced enough to . . . “. Just show me what’s going on and let me work it out for myself, for chrissake. It’s fine to want a scientifically accurate picture, but if the science that is integral to the story is so dense that it requires a de-facto physics lecture, then perhaps you’ve overthought things.

*****

There’s something else to be said about Interstellar. For all of Nolan’s furious “I shoot FILM” chest-pounding, it’s not that good looking a picture. Some of the IMAX footage is very well done, but frankly the 35mm photography ranges from OK to horrible. I saw the 70mm print that is playing the Ziegfeld in New York City, and I saw most of the film again in a pristine 4K DCP at a suburban multiplex. Both times I noticed very dense blacks with little to no shadow detail in some scenes, optical enlargements with huge grain, considerable scene-to-scene variations in sharpness, and a couple of shots that were demonstrably out of focus (the reverse shot of Ellen Burstyn on the hospital bed being one of them). THIS is what he considers so superior to digital?
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-19-2014, 10:21 PM:
 
I agree with Bobby and Marcel's follow-up. This movie practically shouts at you how plausible it tries to be. Suspension of disbelief in a movie that does this is very hard. That's why it doesn't work. That's why things like this bother me as I'm watching the movie. No one ever wondered why the Death Star blows up all at once (in a split second) with little to no debris in Star Wars. They didn't need to. People know that it's just a movie. But Interstellar doesn't know what it is. Even at 80% Earth gravity, an ice cloud nearly the size of a mountain is gonna weigh enough to make it sink to the ground in a very fast and violent fashion.
 
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 11-19-2014, 10:22 PM:
 
quote: Jim Bedford
I give it about 42% on the 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY scale.
So to get full marks, do you need some audience participation?
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-19-2014, 10:33 PM:
 
What the hell happened there? Looks like they're just shining the xenon onto the screen. That poor lens!
 
Posted by Paul H. Rayton (Member # 1817) on 11-20-2014, 06:53 PM:
 
There is no curtain at the Egyptian. The house lights, such as they are, are in two parts: some illumination aimed at the historic ceiling and walls, and also -- what you see happening here -- some white floodlights that aim toward the front of the house, including the screen. The projector lamp was not what you see, just about 500W X 6 (if they're all working) of quartz flood lamps on a white surface.
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-22-2014, 10:18 AM:
 
quote: Mark Ogden
There’s something else to be said about Interstellar. For all of Nolan’s furious “I shoot FILM” chest-pounding, it’s not that good looking a picture. Some of the IMAX footage is very well done, but frankly the 35mm photography ranges from OK to horrible. I saw the 70mm print that is playing the Ziegfeld in New York City, and I saw most of the film again in a pristine 4K DCP at a suburban multiplex. Both times I noticed very dense blacks with little to no shadow detail in some scenes, optical enlargements with huge grain, considerable scene-to-scene variations in sharpness, and a couple of shots that were demonstrably out of focus (the reverse shot of Ellen Burstyn on the hospital bed being one of them). THIS is what he considers so superior to digital?
Bad cinematography is just bad cinematography. It doesn't matter if it's shot on film or video. But I'm sure some of the fans of digital will be blaming film rather than the questionable artistic & technical choices made in shooting Interstellar.

I've seen 70mm look absolutely fantastic and far better than any digital show I've seen, both in 5/70mm and 15/70mm. But that 70mm footage had things that really let 70mm show off its capabilities. Interstellar didn't do that. And I'm afraid Quentin Tarantino's upcoming 70mm extravagazna isn't going to show off the best capabilities of 70mm either.

To provide a digital example of bad cinematography, I thought the cinematography in X-Men: Days of Future Past was pretty bad. Some of the imagery suffered from the same problems I saw with Interstellar (Bad lighting, soft imagery, missed focus, etc). I've seen a lot movies made using the Arri Alexa, but this was one of the worst examples. I don't know what they did between lens choices, camera settings and work done in "film look" processing and color grading. Whatever it was it didn't work well. The camera's video DNA was screaming out VIDEO just as badly as some early digital productions. I was surprised to see that going on in 2014.
 
Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 11-22-2014, 01:54 PM:
 
I'm not really taking about the relative merits of this film or others, cinematography-wise, be they film or digital. I'm talking about Nolan's arrogance.

I don't follow the X-Men films, so I'll take your word that the last one looked bad. But I thought Guardians of The Galaxy looked terrific, as did Rise of The Planet of The Apes. I thought Gone Girl looked great too, but truth be told that is an example of a movie that I felt would have worked better had it been shot on film. As far as 35mm goes, I thought that Interstellar was unimpressive, but that The Grand Budapest Hotel was beautifully shot.

There are a number of recent movies that originated on 35mm, among them: Tammy, Edge of Tomorrow, Magic in The Moonlight, Foxcatcher, St. Vincent, Booyhood, The Hundred-Foot Journey, Snowpiercer, Dracula Untold, The Judge, and many others. I don't recall the directors of those films making the kind of sweeping, grandiose statements about shooting film that Nolan does, the pompous, this-is-what-the-cool-guys-do elitism. It's nauseating, really. And then after all that, he comes up with this mediocre looking picture and insists on 70mm distribution for it. In one fell swoop, he not only manages to make himself look like a fool, but he also weakens his own position on the subject and diminishes the craft of film cinematography as a whole (and let's be clear: hitting focus is pretty goddamned elementary). Possibly this was all the fault of his cinematographer, but his statements about film being superior to digital are his and he must now account for what he has wrought.
 
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 11-22-2014, 02:59 PM:
 
quote: Mark Ogden
I don't recall the directors of those films making the kind of sweeping, grandiose statements about shooting film that Nolan does, the pompous, this-is-what-the-cool-guys-do elitism. It's nauseating, really. And then after all that, he comes up with this mediocre looking picture and insists on 70mm distribution for it.
I do understand what you are saying and I too was a little underwhelmed at the IMAX presentation after there was all this hype about the movie being filmed and presented the way Nolan intended it to be. I know a few people who went to see the movie in 15/70 (and it was their first IMAX movie) and they were left a little underwhelmed. But I also think that over time people will come to appreciate this movie for what it is, I am starting to feel this way myself and I think (and hope) there will be a longer directors version on DVD and Bluray, I think this movie warrants it. I also think the movie will play in the museums IMAX locations for a long while, perhaps it will become standard fare.

I don't think the cinematography was bad or poor in any way. I think we might just see a nomination for cinematography when the Oscar season comes along. I think the expectation of some super incredible high resolution picture blurs things a little.

For the other movies you mentioned, Christopher Nolan is really the only director that has been able to create a loyal following with his "film elitism" push. But one has to remember that his appeal (and box office numbers) are far wider than some of the other movies you mentioned, I cannot even tell you who directed those movies. Nolan often talks about how he uses film, shoots special effects scenes within the camera, uses real props and sets etc etc. He uses all this including his "I don't have an email" thing to create his following, and overall he has a huge following.

Overall the general public seem to be liking this movie. The movie is doing record numbers in IMAX locations and the movie is tracking ahead of Inception and Gravity for worldwide box office numbers. The domestic numbers are where the movie is lagging, I still think there is some backlash to the whole (see it in 70mm/35mm) in that people just will not want to see it in digital, the 70mm 5perf numbers are not encouraging and I wonder why some even bothered. The movie should finish somewhere near $600 million worldwide which is not bad considering it a sci-fi movie that is not a sequel.

Finally, the fact that everyone is still talking about the movie makes me think that this movie is doing what is was intended to do.
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-22-2014, 03:17 PM:
 
quote: Mark Ogden
I'm not really taking about the relative merits of this film or others, cinematography-wise, be they film or digital. I'm talking about Nolan's arrogance.
The term "arrogance" might be a bit much in describing Nolan's attitude with using an all film work flow. At the very least he has put a certain amount of hubris and bluster behind the effort. Other movies are still being shot on film. But hardly any of them are using an old-school film-in/film-out work flow. They're scanning film elements and then processing them in digital intermediate. And then some of those movies shot on film aren't being output on film at all (unless you count a safety 35mm archival print).

Obviously some of that film first attitude was needed in order to convince Warner Bros. and Paramount to order an inventory of 4/35mm, 5/70mm and 15/70mm film prints -particularly after Paramount had previously ended 35mm film print orders on its movie releases. If I'm correct, I think this is the only feature film to support 4/35, 5/70 and 15/70 in its original release. I don't think any movie has ever done that before. The movie distributors weren't going to order those prints without some vocal theatrics on the part of Nolan. Shooting in real IMAX film format would have been an absolute waste of time and money if Interstellar had been distributed only in digital format.

Unfortunately with all the hype built up around the film-based DNA of Interstellar it raised expectations for those of us who give a damn about film and its potential. Many of us, myself included, were disappointed. The production crew should have done a much better job lighting and shooting this movie.

I still wonder if the film crew had its hands tied in some respects to how much lighting they could use on set, or even how sharp they could shoot an image. In a conversation with an experienced ASC-member DP on Facebook I learned there is a certain amount of pressure from actors to not light sets so bright. If the camera can shoot in dimmer conditions then by all means let's light the set less. Let's see if we can shoot by candlelight just like in Barry Lyndon!. And then there's also the fact that actors are age conscious. The star of Interstellar is in his 40's. I wonder if he and other actors pushed for softer focus. Even with shots missing focus I could see that dude is developing some serious "turkey neck."

quote: Mark Ogden
I don't follow the X-Men films, so I'll take your word that the last one looked bad. But I thought Guardians of The Galaxy looked terrific, as did Rise of The Planet of The Apes. I thought Gone Girl looked great too, but truth be told that is an example of a movie that I felt would have worked better had it been shot on film.
Captain America: The Winter Soldier was the Marvel movie that directly preceded X-Men: Days of Future Past. Both movies were shot with the Alexa, but the Captain America movie looked a whole lot better, and that's even despite the use of anamorphic lenses. If anything I would have expected the X-Men movie to look sharper and have better depth of field. There was a lot of instances where the X-Men movie looked like it had been shot with a cheap video camera. The footage had me thinking about old analog tube-based cameras.

Gone Girl might have been better shot on film, but its imagery (shot in 6K with the Red Epic Dragon) was heavily processed in post production. I watched a couple featurettes produced by Adobe about the post production of Gone Girl. One thing the crew did frequently was compose loosely shooting in 6K and then crop inward where they wanted before down-sampling to 4K. Obviously they wanted a lot of flexibility in tweaking shots in post production. They might not have had so much flexibility if dealing with film-based sources. However, 5/65mm can provide one hell of a high quality source.

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
I don't think the cinematography was bad or poor in any way. I think we might just see a nomination for cinematography when the Oscar season comes along.
IIRC The Dark Knight didn't get any Oscar nominations for cinematography. And it looked quite a bit better in every respect than Interstellar. Both the 35mm 'scope footage and IMAX 15/65mm footage in TDK was shot better.
 
Posted by Bill Brandenstein (Member # 7758) on 11-22-2014, 03:38 PM:
 
quote: Mark Ogden
There are a number of recent movies that originated on 35mm, among them: Tammy, Edge of Tomorrow, Magic in The Moonlight, Foxcatcher, St. Vincent, Booyhood, The Hundred-Foot Journey, Snowpiercer, Dracula Untold, The Judge, and many others.
quote: Bobby Henderson
Other movies are still being shot on film. But hardly any of them are using an old-school film-in/film-out work flow. They're scanning film elements and then processing them in digital intermediate.
If "Hundred-Foot" is any measure of the state of affairs, it's a sad one. I thought the look of the movie was ruined by too much contrast and color palette enhancement, presumably with post-production to blame, and was rather detail-dull. Soft and unnatural. Tell me if you saw otherwise, but if that's the best we can get for shooting on film, we're in trouble. Fact is, we all know it doesn't have to be that way. At least Nolan gets credit for preserving an all-analog image workflow whenever possible.
 
Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 11-23-2014, 11:16 AM:
 
The presentation at the Henry Ford Museum Imax in 15/70 was near perfect in every way! I will likely go for that 2 hour plus drive again.
I loved the movie and teared up several times.
The 15/70 photography was not as impressive overall compared to The Dark Knight Rises but fit the film well. I understood the dialogue just fine and thought the sound mix was very good.
Quite the ambitious story!
Can't wait to see it again! [Smile]
 
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 11-23-2014, 12:33 PM:
 
Glad you liked it, I think the Henry Ford is about the same size as Scotiabank and it was build shorty after. What did you think of the 35mm footage?
 
Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 11-23-2014, 01:43 PM:
 
The 35mm footage looked mostly great for Imax blowup. It had the look of anamorphic lenses being used. I think the transfer of 35mm to 15/70 is comparable or better than 80s blowups to 5/70.
Was it the sharpest 35mm anamorphic footage ever shot? No but I felt it worked well with the film as a whole.
I was a little worried by the 15/70 mission launch near the beginning as it was grainy and murky as if it were stock footage.
The 15/70 photography looked better after that scene and I breathed normally after that.
I just took it in like I didn't know who Chris Nolan even was...I really loved the film and have thought about it constantly since viewing it.
 
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 11-24-2014, 12:03 AM:
 
quote: Victor Liorentas
I really loved the film and have thought about it constantly since viewing it.
I too have been thinking about it more and more since I saw it. At first I was a bit underwhelmed but as time passes I have been appreciating the movie more and more. There is a $52 hardcover book that explains a lot of the movie and how they made it. One thing I found interesting is that Gargantua was created using correct mathematical equations (or something along those lines) for bending of light and the overall creation and physicists were able to do this for the first time ever as Paramount laid out a lot of money (from the budget) so that a proprietary software could be made.

Other things such as techniques from the filming of 2001 were used, an 80x300 foot wall for the space landscapes and a tesseract was created were pretty cool. It also talks about how 70% of the IMAX footage was hand-held which was a first for the cameras. There are other things in there as well.
 
Posted by Bill Brandenstein (Member # 7758) on 12-01-2014, 08:01 PM:
 
Interstellar screening, Black Friday, Nov. 28, 2014 (3:20pm)
Location: UA Colorado Center 9, Denver
Format paid for via online ticketing: 15/70 film
Actual screening format: 2K LieMax
Seats: row 6, center (just perfect). Sold-out show, quiet and good audience (except for the guy in front of my nephew who clearly smelled in need of a shower)
Distance driven with relatives to see this show: 150 miles
Auditorium grade: A
Audio grade: A
Picture grade: A- (relative to digital projection), due to hot-spotting
C+ (relative to ultimate potential)

First off, I must compliment the manager on duty, Leonard Gomez, who was working as hard or harder than any of his employees in many capacities while handling large crowds. Then, in hearing our plight, he offered to refund our ticket price if we didn't like the show AND give passes. All things considered, the obvious pixelization on the screen and silver-screen hotspot didn't wreck the experience. In order of priority you need it 1) big with 2) loud and clean audio and 3) Imax film. As much as I hate to admit it, 2 out of 3 still works, though my relatives had little idea what they were missing by not seeing the film version.

Anyway, we liked the show well enough, and the manager gave us passes anyway. He also expressed his frustration with Imax Corporation technical support, explaining that the sound "computer" (that's what he called it) wouldn't track with the film and was the reason for switching to digital, a situation that had been unresolved for days. He also mentioned how tough it had been to get film equipment running that's been sitting around for years unused, and I thanked him for making the effort.

As for the show, the aisle lights were extremely dim, the popping noises were gone, the image was acceptably bright, and the sound was awesomely powerful and extremely clean, plus the room is unusually dead and well-baffled. Seldom have I heard anything played that loud and not be strident, and it wasn't. The bass was in the range of 110dB at peaks and never felt strained - that's impressive. Now, there were two places in the movie where what was spoken wasn't intelligible to my ears (but younger ears could've coped fine, I think), and so it was no great loss.

Was it a good movie? Well, I can't add anything to what's already been said, but it was an experience everyone in my party was glad to have had, and the presentation was effective and free of significant distractions.

One final comment, concerning origination on 35mm anamorphic film: even in only 2K, the difference between fuzzy cornfields and full-frame 15/70 capture wasn't subtle. That's just wrong. Those cornfields shouldn't have ever looked fuzzy, as some of you've already noted.
 
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 12-01-2014, 09:03 PM:
 
Bill, thanks for sharing. Not sure how good your memory might be, but was there a very short 3 second "IMAX Is Believing" snipe before the feature? Or was it the full IMAX countdown?
 
Posted by Bill Brandenstein (Member # 7758) on 12-01-2014, 09:36 PM:
 
It was the full one, and the only preliminary to the feature. Oddly enough, it appeared to be projected in 3D (the final logo was like seeing double) but only one projector was on for the feature.
 
Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 12-02-2014, 09:33 AM:
 
Shouldn't both projectors have been running for the feature?
 
Posted by Bill Brandenstein (Member # 7758) on 12-02-2014, 10:27 AM:
 
That would be a good question for someone who works in a facility with Imax digital to answer - is it typical to run both projectors for a 2D presentation for extra brightness? Some of the first scenes in Interstellar are dim enough that I thought running both would've looked better, but later on didn't think so.

In this case, there were alignment / calibration screens being flashed before and after our show, so it's entirely possible 2 projectors were intended but alignment wasn't correct.
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-02-2014, 12:27 PM:
 
quote: Bill Brandenstein
That would be a good question for someone who works in a facility with Imax digital to answer - is it typical to run both projectors for a 2D presentation for extra brightness? Some of the first scenes in Interstellar are dim enough that I thought running both would've looked better, but later on didn't think so.
In an IMAX Digital house both projectors are supposed to be running regardless if it's a 2D or 3D show. The 2nd projector in a 2D show is supposed to improve image brightness. It's also aligned so the 2nd projected image can try to hide any visible jaggies from the pixel grid.

Obviously the projectors have to be properly focused for the pixel grid to be visible anyway. I've only seen big yet somewhat soft and slightly out of focus images in the IMAX Digital shows I've seen.

Regarding the cornfield imagery in Interstellar, some of the shots were sharp and highly detailed. But it really depended on the shot. A lot of that stuff was filmed in IMAX, but the depth of field varied from deep to very narrow.

IMHO, IMAX Digital theaters in their current 2K configuration aren't capable of showing tack sharp imagery. They just don't have enough pixels to manage it. 2K can look tack sharp on a small to modest sized theater screen, along with a significant viewing distance. 2K will never look sharp on a giant sized screen, at least not without making the pixel grid highly visible and creating an arguably worse problem.
 
Posted by Bill Brandenstein (Member # 7758) on 12-02-2014, 03:12 PM:
 
This is the only Imax 2D-digital screening I've been to, thus no point of comparison. So thank you, Bobby, for confirming that.

In this case the pixel grid was noticeable - obvious to me, perceivable to my relatives when pointing it out to them during the credits - so the image was focused very well. I looked at the booth window a few times later in the show and always saw just one projector on.

Also, while I have only agreement with Bobby's observations on clarity, it was surprising to me that the scope-ratio wide shots (made in 35) never seemed to have the sharpness that full-image wide shots (made in 15/70) had, even with only 2K pixels on hand.
 
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 12-02-2014, 03:15 PM:
 
Bill, how exactly did you determine that the screening you saw was digital? Other than some manger telling you he was frustrated with IMAX corp.
 
Posted by Bill Brandenstein (Member # 7758) on 12-02-2014, 11:55 PM:
 
Digital projectors obviously visible through booth glass, video calibration pattern flashing on screen as we walked in, and it went downhill from there. Had I not seen either of those things, once the movie got underway the coarse presence of the pixel grid and lack of shutter would've confirmed it.
 
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 12-03-2014, 01:14 AM:
 
Thanks Bill.
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-03-2014, 02:08 PM:
 
Hey Bill, so are they charging IMAX 70mm film prices and showing Imax Digital at the Regal Colorado Center 9? This is what I gathered from your post. I noticed the price at the Regal Colorado Center 9 70mm IMAX was higher than, say the Regal Colorado Mills Digital IMAX when the movie opened.
 
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 12-04-2014, 03:05 AM:
 
It's rather hard NOT to spot the difference between Digital IMAX and IMAX film... Even a layman will instantly notice it, when he/she's made aware of the differences.

Everywhere you read and hear about broken down 15/70 shows... So, this is it then? The end of IMAX film?
 
Posted by Bill Brandenstein (Member # 7758) on 12-04-2014, 12:25 PM:
 
Joe, yes, that appears to be correct. We paid $18 per ticket. My guess is that each theater sets its own pricing, and even now our local digital Liemaxes are more expensive than say, Universal Citywalk AMC Imax 70mm, which offers a $14 first show of the day. Have a look at Fandango's Imax thater list and it's easy to see that Liemax is often more expensive than film, as disgusting as that is.

Marcel, we all know that Imax is doing everything it can to get away from film, but let's not assume Interstellar is its death knell. Bear in mind that for every film breakdown reported here and elsewhere, there are many successful film showings where everything worked.

By the way, a week later both Regal's and Fandango's websites still show UA Colorado Center 9's Imax screenings of Interstellar as digital. Too bad.
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-04-2014, 01:06 PM:
 
quote: Bill Brandenstein
Joe, yes, that appears to be correct. We paid $18 per ticket. My guess is that each theater sets its own pricing, and even now our local digital Liemaxes are more expensive than say, Universal Citywalk AMC Imax 70mm, which offers a $14 first show of the day. Have a look at Fandango's Imax thater list and it's easy to see that Liemax is often more expensive than film, as disgusting as that is.
I paid only $5 per ticket to see Interstellar in 5-perf 70mm at LOOK Cinemas in Dallas (early show special).
[Razz] [evil]

Down in Austin the tickets for the 15/70mm IMAX show were around $13 each.
 
Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 12-04-2014, 04:15 PM:
 
An adult ticket at the TCL Chinese IMAX in L.A. goes for $19.95. ($19.00 for seniors and $18.00 for children.)
 
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 12-05-2014, 12:54 PM:
 
IMAX 15/70 is $19.99 around here, digital IMAX is a little less.
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-05-2014, 06:10 PM:
 
Who prices tickets at .95 and .99 increments? I have two theories for this. Nobody wants to be the first place to charge $20 proper for a ticket and figure that people are too stupid to think that they're actually only saving 5 cents. The other theory is that the Chinese desperately needs the extra 95 cents per-person since most people hang out by the handprints instead of actually going inside to see a movie. Is it still the world's worst-sounding auditorium? Does it still have that ridiculous center aisle? Also sad to hear that The Learning Channel now owns the Chinese.

quote: Bill Brandenstein
By the way, a week later both Regal's and Fandango's websites still show UA Colorado Center 9's Imax screenings of Interstellar as digital. Too bad.
Well at least they're not advertising it as film.
 
Posted by Bill Brandenstein (Member # 7758) on 12-13-2014, 11:15 PM:
 
Interstellar screening 12/13/2014, 3:15pm
Location: Universal CityWalk Imax, North Hollywood, CA
Screening format: 15/70 Imax
Seats: row G, center
Audience about 1/4 full
Auditorium grade: A
Audio grade: A- (room should be deader, EQ could be smoother, but is decent)
Picture grade: A+

Today may be the second-to-last day film is ever seen in that theater. Let's hope not, but the staff thinks so. Hats off to Keith in the booth and any others involved for a visually stunning and nearly flawless presentation on a print run about 200 times. Just wow. Bright, huge contrast, clean, better color, steady, and sharp (except, as noted, when it's not. [Wink] )

If you haven't seen Interstellar in 15/70, you haven't SEEN it (although I'd love to compare it in 5/70). The visuals make so much more sense. Some of them are so beautiful or arresting I wanted to hit pause or reverse! And my son and I were very pleased at how well the movie played for us the second time, thinking we enjoyed it all the more. There was increased intrigue to the plot because so many more details fell in place. Visually it was an absolute treat, and we do wish some of the non-15/70 scenes had been shot in Imax.

This is a movie that has stuck with us in the form of things to think about and parts of the experience played over and over in the mind in the intervening weeks. On first viewing I wasn't sure just how much I liked it, but there is greatness in anything that sticks with you in this manner. After today's viewing I'm now convinced this is a 4/4 star movie. Stop comparing it to "2001" - they work in very different ways with a different purpose, in spite of some similarities. It definitely makes some intellectual as well as emotional demands, which explains why Americans, accustomed as we are to checking the brains at the door when we want entertainment, didn't make a massive hit out of it. There's just way too much to keep track of and ponder. The scientific knowledge behind it runs deeper than first expected also. Perhaps "Interstellar" is the biggest 2D import in history to China and South Korea because of a higher national average IQ in those countries?

If this is the end of the film era, it's a very sad thing indeed. That the public doesn't know the difference is sadder yet. It was great ride. We'll miss you, film! Thanks for the memories.

I hesitated to take my 11-year-old youngest child to this movie, but she's glad she went, and my fears of her emotional trauma seem unrealized. So as we left, we stuck our head into the adjacent digital shoebox screen (#18) showing "Interstellar." She walked out soon, saying, "That looks AWFUL."

That's my girl! [Wink]
 
Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 12-14-2014, 04:10 PM:
 
If you can make it over to the Egyptian in Hollywood, they'll be running a 570 print shortly...
 
Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 12-14-2014, 08:15 PM:
 
I love your review Bill! and I agree. [Smile]
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-14-2014, 09:13 PM:
 
We watched Interstellar last night and while I can't say I didn't like it, I didn't love it like I thought I would. It has a lot of plot holes and inconsistencies and a lot of incomprehensible (for me anyway) scenarios. I thought the first 2/3 of the movie was amazing, but the last 1/3 was where things went adrift and it just got too long.

I thought it was kind of weird that a movie that touts its "scientific accuracy" uses the notion that the Apollo moon landings were faked as a plot point. That sort of undermined the whole basis of the movie for me.

The movie also suffers from the very common sci-fi movie malady that I call "ridiculously indestructible equipment." In the real world a single piece of missing heat shield can bring down a space vehicle. In this movie it doesn't matter if the ship runs into icebergs, gets its engines waterlogged, or has part of itself blown off...the brave crew just soldiers on.

Oh well. Focusing on the good stuff...I loved the visuals, and the sound was out of this world. It really gave our wood floor a good shaking. I loved listening to it. There were a few spots where dialog was hard to get, but they were obviously not important plot points.

It was fun to watch but definitely won't be on my Blu-Ray buy list.

2.5 out of 5 for me.
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-14-2014, 11:24 PM:
 
quote: Mike Blakesley
I thought it was kind of weird that a movie that touts its "scientific accuracy" uses the notion that the Apollo moon landings were faked as a plot point. That sort of undermined the whole basis of the movie for me.
I thought that "the Apollo moon landings were faked" thing was a bit of phony propaganda the schools were feeding to the kids.

Back during the Thanksgiving holiday my girlfriend's family and I visited Johnson Space Center near Houston. They have a Saturn 5 rocket (used for the Apollo moon landing missions) on display in a gigantic hangar. That rocket is GIGANTIC. I knew it was pretty big, but it was significantly larger than I thought it would be. It must have been something for the astronauts to sit on top of that "candle" when it was lit.
[Eek!]
 
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 12-15-2014, 02:00 AM:
 
Interestingly I thought about the same regarding the "water intake issue" and the "iceberg collision". But I had bigger problems with the whole concept of frozen clouds [Wink] .

Then again, I gladly forgive those things, since this is *the future*. We're apparently able to fly trough worm holes, so it's likely their space ships are built from materials far stronger than we have today.

Compare modern cruise ships with the Titanic for example, a modern cruise ship will probably survive the impact with a similarly sized iceberg today. (Although the Costa Concordia incident clearly showed they're all but unsinkable.)

I don't think the movie tried to push the idea of the moon landings being fake, quite the contrary. The idea was to enforce the concept of humans not "looking up" anymore, because they're locked into big troubles on earth. The moon landings were deemed propaganda, because it would give people the feeling we have the capabilities to flee earth and would therefore just distract from facing the problems on earth. That's also what this whole discussion is all about: Earth needs farmers, not scientists.

It was clear that Cooper was all but amused with where this conversation was heading, he was rather proud of his daughter and subsequently invited her to a baseball game (the one with popcorn and no hotdogs), just like he promised in the preceding discussion with the school officials.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-15-2014, 10:59 PM:
 
quote: Marcel Birgelen
I don't think the movie tried to push the idea of the moon landings being fake, quite the contrary. The idea was to enforce the concept of humans not "looking up" anymore, because they're locked into big troubles on earth. The moon landings were deemed propaganda, because it would give people the feeling we have the capabilities to flee earth and would therefore just distract from facing the problems on earth.
I'm sure you and Bobby are both right about this, but it still stretched the credibility limits with me. It just seemed like too much of a stretch that the schools (and by extension the government) would try to "revise" history that way, especially regarding an event that huge.

(I know, I know, there is a whole other debate about how accurate history books really are these days.)
 
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 12-16-2014, 02:05 AM:
 
My father worked in aerospace research for many years, as a kid he regularly took me to his work (which actually included work for NASA, ESA, etc.). This left a deep impression on little me and probably also inspired my general interest in technical stuff for years to come. Also, having seen just a tiny bit of what kind of efforts go into those kind of projects I've developed quite an allergy for fake moon landing theories trough the years.

So, when I saw the movie the first time, this whole scene also had me on my back, until I realized where it was going.

Personally, I think it's a missed opportunity for a movie which clocks in on an already hefty runtime of 169 min. couldn't give us a little more backstory on how what remains of planet Earth is supposed to work.
 
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 12-16-2014, 11:42 AM:
 
quote: Marcel Birgelen
I don't think the movie tried to push the idea of the moon landings being fake, quite the contrary. The idea was to enforce the concept of humans not "looking up" anymore, because they're locked into big troubles on earth. The moon landings were deemed propaganda, because it would give people the feeling we have the capabilities to flee earth and would therefore just distract from facing the problems on earth. That's also what this whole discussion is all about: Earth needs farmers, not scientists.
Marcel is spot on about this, NASA did go to the moon in the movie, it just that the new government (I think they called it Federation) does not what they new generation knowing the real truth.

In the Interstellar future, MRI machines also do not exist anymore, science and tech is not as important as basic concepts like farming etc.
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-17-2014, 03:05 PM:
 
I was just blown away by the fact that Matthew Mcwhatshisname had NO IDEA about the revised history.
 
Posted by Allan Young (Member # 6332) on 12-19-2014, 05:27 AM:
 
quote: Bobby Henderson
Back during the Thanksgiving holiday my girlfriend's family and I visited Johnson Space Center near Houston. They have a Saturn 5 rocket (used for the Apollo moon landing missions) on display in a gigantic hangar.
Glad to hear they're now treating the Saturn 5 with a bit of respect. When I visited, it was lying outdoors and in a really sorry state.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-19-2014, 10:47 AM:
 
There is one on display at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida, too. It is uber-impressive.
 
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 02-23-2015, 01:01 AM:
 
It was really great to see Interstellar get recognized for its visual effects. Glad to see that the CGI films were overlooked for a film that relied less on computers and more on miniatures and real sets. I was kinda hoping for the Hans Zimmers score to get the best score award but it was not meant to be.
 
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 02-23-2015, 02:11 AM:
 
Even this movie contained plenty of CGI. But, why should it matter how those special effects were created? Isn't it the end effect that counts?

Many people have the conception realistically looking CGI effects are easy with the latest barrage of CGI super-tech, but as a matter of fact, they still aren't.

As for Hans Zimmer's score... Yeah, it was different. A wall of electronic pipe organs. Unfortunately, different isn't always better.
 




Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2