Reviews

With Midnight Special, Jeff Nichols enters the pantheon of those nostalgic American filmmakers armed with their lens flares, Pandora's boxes and deeply sentimental reasons, driven by a protective father figure and a maternal relationship to the plot itself.

Lately, Christopher Nolan's Interstellar walked on the same path, and in many ways Midnight Special strangely looks like Interstellar. There's always the same contrast between gigantic and local stakes/issues that can already be found in Spielberg's filmography : on one side, humanity's fate is at stake, supervised by an omnipotent government, and on the other side it is (and perhaps only) a "family affair".

David Wingo's soundtrack is electrifying, the script is intelligent enough for not telling us the whole plot and characters' background in a few lines of dialogue, and despite a half-hearted performance by Michael Shannon, who still shines in its restraint, and some facilities in scriptwriting approaching the end of the film, Midnight Special is so perfectly controlled that it would be difficult to get out of the theater unscathed.

The pitch of the film is not very complicated : a car chase in the desert.

The world in which George Miller takes us is a hostile world, a world that is no longer the world as we know it. And the film may lack some elements staging the madness of this world's individuals outside the action scenes : indeed, although they are visually impressive (we are finally getting rid of CGI for most of the film) we can not prevent this tendency of Fury Road to repeat itself in identical sets. We could almost be tempted to say that the film lacks madness ... And, finally, it should be noted that Max is not the main character of this film ; his character is always a witness of the scene in which he is located. And indeed, it is a bit all the approach taken in the film : the viewer is projected despite his will and his ideal in this world without landmarks, without sufficient reason, as Max is. Thus, the vision of Miller seems diminished since it never takes enough space in the narrative. But the film remains a very decent & entertaining piece of work and deserves the praise it gets.

Whiplash deserves all the good critics it received. How not to be carried away by the preposterous and unreasonable pace of Andrew's drum sticks, a young drummer of the Shaffer Conservatory, obsessed with the recognition of his talent ? The film's dynamism itself is designed as a hysterical sequence of notes; but the ensemble of notes is formed by a set of shades of the same notes, making the film panting, almost suffocating, and administering a dose of unsustainable adrenaline. Yet this is exactly what happens to Andrew in his relationship to Fletcher, prestigious professor at the Conservatory.

What is emerging is a constant struggle between these two entities: on one side, Andrew, tested, and on the other, Fletcher. The film takes its full extent in the many narrative and emotional breakdowns, because each rhythm set by the instrument immediately becomes a visual rhythm that almost forces the viewer into the torments of its characters. However, in the reflection of Andrew, what drives him, contrary to what we might think, is the break in the rhythm and in relationships. What drives him to play more intensely, until he even bleeds, is a break in the game between him and Fletcher, who encourages him for a while, then suddenly and sadistically discourages him. J.K Simmons plays the conductor, in that he carefully organizes these ruptures that eventually form the film's tempo and the determination of the unresolved Andrew to be unique.

Whiplash, tinged with a black humor partition and intense sequences, conducted by the stunning performances of Miles Teller & Simmons, clearly stands out in the Oscars race being already rewarded many times at the tempo of one instrument, almost too proud of itself, paradoxically exhausted by its inordinate ambition, as it demonstrates extreme measure.

The film begins by establishing at his own rhythm its ambitions: men overexploited land resources, which is why the only goal they have left is to survive. This life is not enough for Cooper, brilliantly played by McConaughey who gave body and soul to this character. But all of this wouldn't hold without the total control of Christopher Nolan, based on the languishing soundtrack by Hans Zimmer, the luminous and impenetrable photography of Hoyte Van Hoytema, and the sincerity of Nolan's directing. He manages to film the characters and to find the right cut at the right time, always in harmony with Hans Zimmer's soundtrack, to give the film an aspiring and inspiring dimension that went missing for many many years. Thus we are transported into the same cockpit that Cooper, we feel the same remorse that he can already feel, we feel the same gravity, and we feel the same fear of the unknown melted with the force of his will. All of this is brilliantly illustrated in a very simple directing choice, which from my point of view is the decisive impetus of the film: to directly jump from when Cooper leaves in his truck, leaving his family behind him, to Endurance taking off. This simple editing decision allows Nolan to give an original movement to his film, and the musical crescendo makes us physically feel the sentimental break between two parts of the film.

You don't necessarily have to understand it immediately : The film will raise questions in you, such as : what is it to be a human being, is there some physical limitations to our humanity, how far could we be willing to go to determine knowledge, is there other dimensions that we can not access to, and above all: what is the nature of this intact and immutable bond that unites us to others wherever we are in the universe ? Is this bond only intelligible, or is it also tangible ? All these questions resonate in harmony in Nolan's Interstellar.

Interstellar is itself a crescendo, increasing sensitivity and creativity. I use the term deliberately because it goes crescendo with the soundtrack by Hans Zimmer, which is one of the most beautiful music ever scored for a sci-fi movie. We are witnessing a perfect musical arrangement, a total symbiosis, a bit like the music of Gravity which had understood very well how to match the image and the rhythm of a sequence to its own musicality. Zimmer's crescendos are giving a new powerful breath to every new scene, whether it is in visually powerful & intense moments or in more intimate moments; it intrudes into our momentary feelings and sensations, and manages to extend them, sometimes almost to choking, before resting on the balance of the film frame along with our mind spell-bounded.

I have seen all the talent of the director that I knew he was outside the norm, but whom I did not know his capacity to reinvent itself. Because this is it: Interstellar is not an action movie, not really a blockbuster, and it goes not entirely but mostly again the expectations of common people. It's much more than that. This is much more than just a sci-fi movie. It is unlike any of his previous films. Some hoped to see Interstellar as Christopher Nolan's best film, and they were disappointed that this was not the case. And indeed, THIS IS NOT THE BEST FILM of Christopher Nolan. Because in a way, IT IS HIS FIRST FILM. I'm not saying that Interstellar is not as good as his other films, it goes beyond all of them. But to me Interstellar is the first film of a new stage in Nolan's filmography ; it is a masterpiece as it the beginning of a work ahead. Interstellar is the proof that Nolan has finally managed, despite all the expectations that were placed on him after the success of The Dark Knight, to move away from his own reputation to create a personal work, original, humble, sincere and deeply, meticulously, measured.

Now, in this third act of the film, it all comes to life with unparalleled strength. Nolan poses and answers questions that raise others. But he focuses his attention on the great mystery of love, that emotional bond that can unite men and sometimes separate them. But Nolan is the only one that can successfully speak of love from a being to another in a film that mainly takes place in a another galaxy. From my point of view, only Solaris by Steven Soderbergh (2002), unfortunately neglected by the audience, was able to accomplish that. Interstellar is based on a premise which is the following : from terrestrial dust to the depths of space and time, we can never be separated from who we are as individuals and as a species, as we always leave a part of ourselves "behind" us. In other words, I could say that this is a human story, and even if we go as far as we want to, if we travel through the universe believing that we can be detached of the one we are fond of, we will only get closer to them. Because the separation, and thus the distance and time, can only ultimately reinforce the relationship between the people who really love each other. Because it is going to the end of the world, when we reach the end of ourselves, that we reach the singularity of the "black hole beyond the horizon" * : it is our humanity. No, I wasn't been able to find any bad flaws in the film. Not one, and I'm still looking. After all, Interstellar is like gravity, "all it takes is a little push ! "

*you'll have to see the movie to figure that one out.

Félix Tardieu, November 1st, 2014

I wanted first of all to say that I absolutely loved this film.

I waited impatiently, and hearing some critics about it, I thought I was going to be disappointed. However, this was not the case at all, which is why I would like to clarify some points.

First, the criticism about weak dialogs are futile: the dialogs are not very developed, that's for sure, but after all, the entire film is about a community of apes just learning to speak and foremost to communicate, including gestures. Then you should not expect from them long speeches and rhetoric ! And about the humans, we must remember that their role is not central, they are not the heart of the analysis but instead they play more the role of a ratio (between man and animal, the reason and instinct), so that the weakness of their interactions is precisely encountered to highlight the progress of apes on men, such as newborns learning to speak for the first time. Thus, these critics seem to me unjustified.

It is true that the script is not really worked in depth, however we do not get bored, and some twists are very enjoyable. It is unfair to talk about a lack of creativity in the script and about the "hollywoodian" side of it, because on the contrary the heart of the film lies in the aesthetic movement, feelings, ie in the implementation and perspective on every gesture of the apes, (as opposed to humans) every glance, every feeling, every outstretched hand. From this point of view, the film is wonderful, and thanks to the excellent harmony among the team of WETA, the special effects coordinators, specialists of mimicry and simian language, and the 15,000 people needed for the total production of the film. Some say they were annoyed or have found the film ridiculous. Of course, the film is built on a few conventional bases (the main plot, the twists and the final stand), however this is more than offset by the completion of the film, based on the analysis and research on the close relationship between ape and man, between reason and animality, mixed by the tumultuous relationship between Caesar and men, torn between love and distrust.

In the end, the work is mastered, striking, and above all truthful about the heart of the film, that is the recognition of a species through the eyes of another.

It is usual to see Tom Cruise in the skin of such characters, sometimes too often, yet this time is not regrettable.

Indeed, if the film works, it is thanks to the writing of the film and its directing. Doug Liman has managed to increase the efficiency of a well-crafted script, in a first very well put, exciting and surprising hour and half.

Although we could figure out some bad points, for instance the extraterrestrial aspect of the movie (about the CGI, the origins, the story, etc), or the last thirty minutes of the films which tends to be much more closer to the classic narrative of the others summer blockbusters and focused on the "Tom Cruise's heroism", Edge Of Tomorrow remains a very nice surprise and an entertaining moment you'll enjoy to live, and to repeat.

Although Cronenberg does not transcend himself in his film as he could do brilliantly in "A History Of Violence" or "Cosmopolis" more recently, this film remains unique to the genre to which he devoted himself, that is to say, a cinema of the extremes and of the unconscious impulses.

Maps To The Stars is shaping a bit more Cronenberg's atmosphere, as a kind of metamorphosis of human nature, found in her most recognized disfigurement : the Hollywood sphere, a private sphere, where blends a thousand contradictions. This film is faithful to the cinema of David Cronenberg in his ironic and pessimistic format, even though it is not digging out a new point of view over the transformation of human nature, which nevertheless resonates in each of his films. That's what a true Cronenberg film is : a repressed drive.

Right now, I'm still trying really hard to find out one bad thing from the X-Men movie I've just seen:

The characters maybe ? No: every single character is perfectly represented,interpreted (in particularly with a stunning James McAvoy and an impressive Michael Fassbender) and useful to the story. Maybe the plot then ? No: you'll get easily into it, because it is very well written for the screen, meaning you will be transported as Bryan Singer seems to know perfectly how to put in place a very cinematic puzzle. Emotions ? You will get some, as long as you loved the original X-Men characters. The soundtrack ? It is spotless and superbly fitting. Visual Effects ? Always there when we want them to be, and not when it is unnecessary. Action scenes ? You'll be amazed, thrilled and captivated when you will realize that every single scene has a purpose, whether it has some action or simple emotions and character's development.

All these qualities put together are forming a very classical but excellent & accomplished movie, completed by a skilled sense of cinematic continuity that we didn't have since Singer left the franchise (at least until X-Men First Class). In other words, you should not be afraid to see this movie, because if you don't want to be disappointed, I can tell : you won't be.

But is the future of this X-Men movie truly set ? This is something you'll have to figure out by yourselves, and this until the very end of the credits...

Finally, here it is ! The most anticipated movie of the summer had a few premieres around the world, and I had the chance to assist to one of them : well, I was not disappointed. If you want to live a great movie experience, go see it in a good theater, large screen and good sound : you'll be astonished.

Indeed, CGI & sound effects are truly amazing, and "massive" (that is the good word), and no one will argue on that. Furthermore, all these shots featuring visual and sound effects are very well done by Gareth Edwards, when he seems to know how to suggest the presence of the beast and let your imagination be touched rather than putting it in the middle of the screen without any sense of perspective during the entire movie : yes, some will complain about his screen time, because they expected to see Pacific Rim, but no, it is never like it !

Edwards had the opportunity to put in place his own directing, and even though some parts of the movie are slowing it down (thinking about classic blockbusters scenes introducing a conventional plot or military quarters scenes), the movie remains original, fresh, epic, even if humans are not really our heroes on this one...