Interstellar

SF: I still don’t know if I liked this film. So far it feels like Nolan can do no wrong but then there are always bound to be hiccups and this I think is it. The film is far too long, while I enjoy character development the introduction and final 45 mins can all be condensed and have just as much impact. The other draw back is that the trailer gave away most of the plot highlights so I felt there were very little surprises left. The performances are fine enough but no one really stood out. The plot while being interesting seemed to have no pace and real drama. In fact most the film came across flat despite having a number of very intriguing scenes and elements to the story. On the hold the visuals might be worth a cinema trip but it wouldn’t be my first choice. 5/10

50Eggs: Here's my issue with this film. The poster says 'Experience it in IMAX' and in an interview, McConaughey said 'you need to watch this on the biggest screen you can find'. So you can forgive me for expecting this to be an eye-candy extravaganza, painting inspiring vistas of the cosmos and leaving me slack jawed. You can imagine my disappointment when the visuals turned out to be rather bland, and not even a patch on last years Gravity. That film, despite being set a lot closer to home, did a much better job in conveying the wonder of the universe and our place in it. Back to Interstellar the story and concept are good, and whilst I left the cinema in a bit of a mood, I will say that I have thought on the film a fair bit since and will definitely watch it again at some point. 7/10

DonkeyB: "Relatively inferior to Gravity" would be a good one line review for the poster. Its boring is the main problem, waaaaaaaay too long and stupider than it has any idea. Anne Hathaway's character would have spent 4 billion years inside an airlock if I was commander of the spaceship, but I did enjoy fat Matt Damon. I could come a cross as much harsher on this, its no Prometheus for example, much better than that, but it is much less than the sum of its parts and the ending is preposterous. 4/10

Overall: 5.3/10

Zero Dark Thirty

SF: This film is based on first hand accounts of how they found Osama Bin Laden. Surely the CIA would want this information locked away for years? Anyway the film itself is nothing short of brilliant. It never falls into sensationalism, everything is measured and understated in the right way. In some ways it has the same appeal as a documentary rather then entertainment, which is probably the right approach. I'm making an effort to leaves the politics out of my score. That said it is not a film that is enjoyable to watch and I'd never watch it again. Some bits were horrifying. However I could not think of a way that it could be improved. 9/10

50 Eggs: n/a

DonkeyB: My immediate thoughts about this film were that it was near flawless; it is very difficult to think of any way in which this film could be better. The first part is tense and interesting and dramatic; then the raid starts and its an action thriller which is near pitch perfect. In some ways similar to Apollo 13 in that we know the outcome from the start and yet the film grabs you from the start and never let's go, which means you don't have time to consider the fact you do know exactly where the film is going.

There has been a lot of controversy about whether the film promotes torture- and some people have said that it clearly doesn't- Catherine Bigelow and supporters of the film have defended themselves and the film of the charge by saying that depicting something is not the same as condoning it. They are undoubtedly correct in this assertion and I think it is fair to say the film does not explicitly endorse the torture it dipicts- it is also not the only Hollywood film to depict torture- I seem to remember Rendition and Syriana both deal with torture.

What I think troubles people about the film is that the politics of the film as a whole are very ambiguous. The film does endorse the "War on Terror", at least tacitly by making a major intelligence protagonist the hero of the film. The sexual politics of the film might be right on liberal- but there are plenty of liberals in Hollywood and elsewhere who are more than a little bit squeamish about extraordinary rendition, carpet bombing of countries America is supposed to be allied with or protecting, drone strikes on "high level targets", and extra-judicial killings of alleged terrorists. This is a morally complex aspect of 21st Century international politics and the film never really engages with the moral ambiguity of what is essentially a revenge plot.

Maybe this would have been different if real life hadn't intervened and Bin Laden hadn't been found and killed- there is a scene in the embassy in Pakistan when Chastain's character confronts Kyle Chandler's character (her boss), and the film does briefly engage with to topic of teh purpose of the "War on Terror", but the film takes a different direction and treats the scene as a straight power play between Chastain and her boss.

I think everyone should see the film, and I hope it makes everyone who sees it think, because they should, its a serious film, with a point of view that you might not agree with. 9.5/10

Overall: 9.25/10

Tree of Life

SF: I walked out after 90 mins. All I have to say - dinosaurs. 1/10
(If you are wondering what the one is for - cinematography was excellent, shame about everything else)

50 Eggs: More like Tree of Boring. Lifted slightly by some good performances from the kids. 3/10

DonkeyB: Dinosaurs? Really? I liked the family bits (liked is the wrong word, but I'm too lazy to think of the right one), but God it was pretentious, and that's me speaking. 3/10

Overall - 2.3/10