Adventures in Cinematic Failure: Little Boy Makes Little Sense

A little over a year ago, I went to see a film called Winter's Tale, and published a review on this blog. Which is arguably the best thing I've ever written. Because as much as I love writing about good movies, it's a different variety of fun to write about bad movies. And not just any bad movie, I mean movies where something clearly went very wrong. Where you know there's no way those involved intended for the movie to turn out quite like this. It's a morbid fascination of mine, which I know many share. When I hear of a movie that's supposed to be good, my first thought is "I should see this." But if I hear of a movie that is spectacularly bad, my first thought is "I HAVE TO SEE THIS."

And then, a few months ago, I saw a trailer for a film called Little Boy. And it made me giddy. It looked so terrible, so overly saccharine and misguided, so nonsensical under the guise of whimsy, that the familiar feeling of "I HAVE TO SEE THIS" reared its ugly beautiful head. When the film was released, it was critically panned, receiving a 15% on Rotten Tomatoes, with only 6 positive reviews registered. The critical consensus reads "Well-meaning but manipulative on a horrifically misguided scale, Little Boy is the rare faith-based film that many viewers may find legitimately offensive." It looked like my instincts were right. I couldn't help but think "This is going to be the next Winter's Tale."

I have, of course, seen the film since. Like Winter's Tale, Little Boy is nonsensical, stupid, meandering, and terribly lacking in self-awareness. But Little Boy sets itself apart by being horribly racist as well. So buckle your seatbelts because we're going to go through this movie together and it's going to be great.

This is the little boy. He is not excited.

Although before we get into the review, I will say that despite how offensive almost everything about this film is, there are a few good things about this movie. The performances, for example, are decent. Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa is genuinely good, and actors like Emily Watson and Tom Wilkinson really try their best with completely useless and one-note roles. Even Kevin James is not terrible in it. He's not good, but he's not noticeably bad by any means. Although I do find it funny how much he appears on the film's promotional materials because he's hardly in the movie at all, and it's not like Kevin James is such a big get that they need to plaster his name everywhere. During the credits, it even says "with Kevin James" after everyone because apparently he's such a big deal. And his character has no reason to be in the film. He's completely superfluous. Which makes me think the following conversation must have happened.

Writer 1: Well, script's done!
Writer 2: WAIT! We just got a call. Kevin James has agreed to do the film!
Writer 1: Kevin James? THE Kevin James? No way!
Writer 2: I'm flipping out!
Writer 1: But who could he play? All the other roles are cast!
Writer 2: Well let's just write a character and put him in the film. We can't let the opportunity to add this film to Kevin James' golden resume slide!
Writer 1: Write a new role. Brilliant! And so cunning...like a fox!
Writer 2: That's what we'll call him! Fox!

This is why Kevin James' character is named Dr. Fox.

What does Paul Blart say?

But the standout is Jakob Salvati, the titular little boy who gives a performance that is actually rather engaging, and certainly very cute. I've spoken about how much of a champion I am for child actors, and with his performance he really does make a strong case for why. The film almost works because it is on his shoulders--his performance is so earnest and consistent. I hope he moves on to bigger and better things because he deserves to be in a better movie than this.

Seriously, look at this muppet!

Salvati plays Pepper Flynt Busbee. I can't decide whether I should say this sounds like a rejected Charles Dickens character, or a rejected character from the Harry Potter series, so I'll just say that it's a stupid name. I mean, really, Pepper Flynt Busbee. But because Pepper Flynt Busbee is short for his age, nobody really calls him this, they just call him Little Boy. Because the people in this movie aren't very bright.

I should mention that Salvati is not the only one who plays Pepper Flynt Busbee, because the movie also has voiceover narration from the grown-up Pepper Flynt Busbee. This narration has no business being here. He offers no particular insight, no reflection on the time. And he doesn't even serve any narrative function. His narration is pretty much to just say exactly what's happening on screen.When Pepper Flynt Busbee the younger is playing with his dad, the narrator says "We would play games." When Pepper Flynt Busbee is being taunted by bullies who call him "midget" the narrator says "The bullies would taunt me and call me midget." And having the narrator didn't make any sense. A narrator implies that things are taking place from the narrator's perspective, but there are a few scenes that Pepper Flynt Busbee could not have been aware of, so their inclusion goes completely against the fact that there's a narrator. And also the narrator isn't much of a presence. I'm not sure how many times the narrator has a monologue, because nothing about the narrator stands out in any way, but he couldn't have spoken more than four times in the entire movie. So I'm really not sure what that's about.

But the narrator is not the only unnecessary character. There's also absolutely no need for the character of Dr. Fox, played by the inestimable Kevin James. He serves no purpose, other than to measure Pepper Flynt Busbee a couple of times, and very creepily hit on Pepper Flynt Busbee's mother. He's seriously creepy, but also in a completely non-threatening way since he's not a very effective creeper and the mother never shows any interest in him. At the end she stands up to him and declines him which he's sad about but seems to get over it. It's supposed to be empowering, I think, but it's just kind of weird and forgettable. During that last scene she also says "You're a good man, Dr. Fox," but, no, he really isn't.

But let's forget about these non-characters and move onto the important people. It becomes immediately clear that this film is about a father/son relationship, which is usually my emotional Kryptonite but is so bland here that it is disastrously ineffective. The father (Michael Rapaport, in a dopey performance that is particularly subpar amidst the other competent performances) certainly loves his son, and Pepper Flynt Busbee clearly loves his father, but it's a bit worrying when he describes his father as his only friend. That's not exactly healthy. And sure enough, the two of them do lots of things that Pepper should be doing with his friends--like playing games together like cops and robbers and making blanket forts.

Michael Rapaport seriously wears this stupid expression on his face in pretty much every scene.

Pepper Flynt Busbee's mother (Emily Watson, who is too good of an actress to be in this movie) always stops these silly games, which makes Pepper Flynt Busbee pout, and makes Pepper's father give a reluctant shrug and make a face that says "What a bitch, am I right?" The movie seems to be going to great lengths to make the father likable. He's full of whimsy and energy, like a sort of manic pixie dream dad. But we don't actually know anything about him. Sure, he seems fun, but the relationship between the two of them never feels cemented. We only see them play, and never get to examine their relationship on more emotional or important moments. You know, moments where Pepper's dad actually has to act fatherly. Those are the sorts of moments that actually define the relationship between a parent and child, and are totally missing here. The attempts to establish him as a father are purely superficial. Sure, we know from the stupid narrator that Pepper looks up to his father and wants to be just like him, but that's kind of the norm for young boys and their fathers. And, honestly, the imagination games are so generic that they just don't come across as actually imaginative. Who actually pretends to be cops and robbers? Also, it's worth mentioning that in the cops and robbers situation, the two of them play the robbers. We also see imagination games where they play cowboy outlaws and pirates. So, the dad seems to be teaching his son to be a criminal.

But that's not the worst part of his fathering. There's also a scene where the two of them go to see a movie and watch one of those World War II propaganda cartoons with the incredibly offensive depictions of the Japanese. You know exactly the ones I'm talking about. The ones with the giant buck teeth and terribly offensive voices. The type of things that we watch now and cringe and just feel embarrassed. So, they watch one of those and Pepper Flynt Busbee and his dad are just enjoying the heck out of it. And I get that this film takes place during another era where these types of things were common, but it's nonetheless odd to see the protagonists of our story-- one being a small cute muppet child and the other being the person whose existence is meant to carry the entire emotional weight of this film-- reveling in the glory of old-timey racism. I couldn't believe what I was watching. But, of course, this is just the start of this film's racism against the Japanese. You have been warned, because I was really not prepared when watching the film and I wish I had been.

Outside of the racism and the generic imagination stuff, the film has no time to further develop this relationship because everything is about to change. Pepper has an older brother named London, played by David Henrie, possibly best known as Ted's future son on How I Met Your Mother. Can we talk about these names? Pepper and London? Where are these names coming from? Even more perplexing is the fact that their parents are named Emma and James, two perfectly upstanding but nonetheless common names. Unlike London and Pepper Flynt Busbee. Anyway, London discovers he has been rejected from the army because he has flat feet. And this means that his father has to go to war instead.

You may be reading that and thinking "That doesn't make sense. That's not how the draft worked." And you would be right. The draft was not like in Mulan where someone from each family had to go. But, no, because London is rejected, it is just sort of agreed that the father has to go instead. And it makes no fucking sense. Now, it may be that the father felt that someone from the family had to go to the war out of a sense of duty towards their country, but if that is what he felt, it's never stated. And even if that is what he felt, that's stupid. London tried to enlist and was rejected. The family tried. And there's no reason for the father to go to war and get killed out of some bizarre sense of unstated obligation.

But he does go and everyone is sad.

See? Sad.

Actually, I'm happy because Michael Rapaport is pretty much gone for the rest of the film now. But the saddest and strangest part of Pepper Flynt Busbee's father leaving is that everyone in the town seems to immediately assume that Pepper's dad is not going to make it back home. I get that it was a sad time and a lot of people did not come home, but give the guy a chance! Everyone's just immediately very bleak and convinced that there's no way an idiot like James Busbee is going to make it back alive. Back at home, London has taken over his father's auto-repair business, which seems to consist of London and only one other employee: a simple-minded man with one ear. This man is named Teacup because whoever wrote this seems to have pulled random names out of a dictionary. It's probably just a cruel nickname because his one ear looks like a teacup handle, but that's never explained and everyone calls him Teacup and no one says his real name. I can't imagine he likes being called Teacup. Also, what nerdy bully was like "haha you have one ear. I'm gonna call you teacup!" These are the same people who saw that Pepper Flynt Busbee was short and nicknamed him "Little Boy," so Teacup really is a reach. Anyway, Pepper asks London for some money, which I think is meant to be an allowance, and London is unhappy because the family is poor and they need to save, but ultimately gives in and gives Pepper a little bit of money. With this money, Pepper Flynt Busbee proceeds to buy a pair of cowboy boots and two tickets to see a magician named Ben Eagle.

A word on these boots: these were some boots that Pepper's father was shown looking at earlier in the film. During this scene, Pepper had asked him, "Will you buy them today, pop?!" and he says that he can't. And when Pepper Flynt Busbee does buy the boots for his father, the shopkeeper says, "Your father's been eyeing these for quite some time, hasn't he?" So, it's set up that these are some boots that Pepper's dad really wanted but could never afford, and it's very sweet that Pepper buys them as a gift for his father. But, remember, he buys them on what I can only assume is a meager allowance. And then after buying them he still has enough left over for two theater tickets. Maybe the family would be better off financially if they didn't give everything to their kid as an allowance.

Now it's time for the Ben Eagle show. Now I already said Ben Eagle is a magician, but the film would like us to believe that he's a really big deal. He doesn't just perform stage shows, he has a comic book series and a series of movies where he acts as a superhero (we see clips of these films and they are legitimately the best part of the movie). Also he has a cane with an eagle head on it. Because his last name is Eagle. Which poses the question of "Does he have that cane because his stage name is Eagle, or did he pick the stage name Eagle because he had a cane with an eagle's head on it?" Of course, it might not be a stage name at all, considering how bizarre all the names are in this movie.

Since Pepper Flynt Busbee's dad is not home yet, his brother London goes to the show with him. And this show is really weird. It starts with a movie and then halfway through it becomes a live show. Were these things that happened? Anyway, before the live show, London decides to leave the show and get drunk. It is at this point where we become aware that he's an alcoholic. The film will proceed to show us this by having him take a drink in almost every single scene that he's in for the rest of the film. As you will soon find out, London is kind of an asshole, but towards the end of the film he will become not an asshole and will magically be able to get over his alcoholism without it ever being addressed.

A flat-footed asshole

Because London leaves, he misses seeing his brother (named Pepper Flynt Busbee) get called up to participate in the show. The magician has him move a bottle with the power of his mind. At first the kids in the audience are all skeptical and start booing him and jeering at him because they are the absolute worst children in the world. But then, he does it and the crowd of kids fall into stunned silence and then burst into applause. Even though, as far as magic tricks go, this is a fairly unimpressive trick.

Now, Pepper Flynt Busbee moves that bottle by scrunching up his face and making loud groaning sounds. He will try to move other things later in the film and he always adopts this same strategy. And...I'm just going to say it. It looks like he's pooping. There's no way to say this more elegantly. He just...it looks like he's pooping. And it's uncomfortable pooping. Like, he's not having a good bowel movement. But he is DEFINITELY having a bowel movement. This observation that it looks like he's pooping is unfortunate because it makes every scene where he does this incredibly hilarious. And these are important moments in the film, but you can't take them seriously. Because he looks like he's pooping.

Pooping.

Still pooping.

Definitely pooping.

Constipation aside, Pepper Flynt Busbee becomes convinced that if he can move the bottle he can also somehow bring his dad home from the war. He is convinced of this by hearing a sermon delivered by a priest named Father Crispin who says that if you have faith the size of a mustardseed, you can move a mountain. This is an odd thing to say since nobody has ever compared anything to the size of a mustardseed. Mustardseeds are not a common product, and "the size of a mustardseed" is not a common expression. After this sermon, Father Crispin will disappear from the film and be replaced by Father Oliver, played by Tom Wilkinson. Once again, we have a totally extranneous character. there's no reason that Father Crispin had to be in the film and his one sermon easily could have just been given by Father Oliver. Regardless, after Father Crispin's sermon, Pepper Flynt Busbee steals a mustardseed from the grocery store because he's not very bright and takes things too literally. Upon seeing the mustardseed, Pepper Flynt Busbee realizes that "HEY! Mustardseeds are small! I can DEFINITELY bring my dad back!" But as he's leaving the store, he runs into a Japanese man named Hashimoto (Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa). Horrified, Pepper Flynt Busbee runs from the store and finds London who is, of course, drinking in the saloon. He tells his brother that he saw a Japanese man, prompting London and a gang of other drunks led by Sam (Ted Levine) to confront Hashimoto at the grocery store and say that the Japanese are not welcome in this town. Sure enough, the grocery store owner tries to deny Hashimoto from shopping at the store. Things get heated, until Father Oliver shows up and pays for Hashimoto's groceries, diffusing the tense situation.

Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa, wishing he were in a better movie.

But, again, this scene was just bizarre. It's weird seeing this little kid, who is the hero of the film, and who is otherwise portrayed as kind and wonderful, yelling racial slurs. And, again, I know this was another time and a lot of people in America were incredibly anti-Japanese after Pearl Harbor, but...this is our hero. And so just from a filmmaking standpoint, yelling racist slurs and showing hatred towards someone simply because of their ethnicity doesn't exactly make you root for the film's protagonist.

Not convinced that this scene is that bad? In the next scene, Pepper Flynt Busbee and London go to Hashimoto's house, throw rocks at it, break a window, and then attempt to set the house on fire. Literally, London tries to throw a flaming bottle of alcohol at the house. This is attempted arson. And our hero, the great Pepper Flynt Busbee, is cheering him on. London is, of course, drunk, as this was before his miraculous cure of alcoholism, and he trips and the flaming bottle only falls on Hashimoto's lawn (amazingly, the dry California grass does not burst into flames and the fire just kind of dies out). The narrator suddenly pops in and says, "I understood now why the army didn't accept people with flat feet." Now let's analyze that joke.

1) This doesn't make sense. Flat-footed people don't trip regularly. He missed because he was drunk.
2) The narrator makes this joke right after he tells the story about the time that he and his brother almost killed a guy. Hilarious! This is certainly a time for lightheartedness!!!!!!

This film is, in part, about tolerance. Of course, Pepper will eventually learn that his prejudices against the Japanese are unfounded and horrible, and he and Hashimoto will become friends. But, and I must make this point for a third time, it is incredibly disturbing seeing characters we are supposed to be rooting for behaving in such a violent and ugly way. These are not the heroes if it takes them a whole film to not be racist. And it should be noted that neither Pepper nor London apologize nor acknowledge how terrible this was. Pepper apologizes to Hashimoto, but it is not heartfelt and done for selfish reasons. He never actually makes a heartfelt apology or think back on this terrible moment. London absolutely never says anything to Hashimoto by way of an apology. What heroes.


London is sent to prison and Pepper Flynt Busbee goes to church to atone. He meets with Father Oliver and asks him about faith, asking if he can bring his father home if he has enough faith. He mentions Ben Eagle and how if Ben Eagle can do impossible things, so can he. He says "Ben Eagle can move a mountain! See?" and hands Father Oliver a Ben Eagle comic book where Ben Eagle is moving an elephant with his mind. Which...is certainly impressive but an elephant is not the same as a mountain. Father Oliver argues that God can make miraculous things happen, and will do so if Pepper can prove his faith. And the best way to prove his faith is by performing a series of tasks and if he does all of the tasks God will listen to him. These are the Works of Mercy. According to Father Oliver, Pepper must:

Feed the Hungry
Shelter the Homeless
Clothe the Naked
Visit the Sick
Visit the Imprisoned
and Bury the Dead

I looked up the Works of Mercy and you are also supposed to give water to the thirsty, but they couldn't figure out how to work it into the script so they just left that part out. But, maybe to take that one's place, Father Oliver gives him a new task, and tells him he has to become friends with Hashimoto. It's very shoehorned in there and INCREDIBLY manipulative on Father Oliver's part, but I'm all for there being less racism so go for it, Father Oliver.

Now scram, before I get rid of you like I got rid of Father Crispin.

Quick sidenote here, we later find out that Father Oliver and Hashimoto are friends. And not just friends, they're really good friends. They play poker together (with chestnuts instead of money because sure why not) and have long conversations about their differing ideologies (Hashimoto is an atheist). We know very little about Hashimoto, even though he is about to become a major character, and we never find out anything more. We never find out why he now lives in California instead of Japan. We never find out how long he has lived there; he seems to be a long-time resident but Pepper had apparently never seen him before. He's an older man and we never find out what he did with his life when he was young. We certainly don't find out where he gets groceries from since apparently he needs Tom Wilkinson to buy them for him. But the most baffling part of Hashimoto is why this Japanese atheist during World War II is best friends with a local priest. How did these guys meet? Certainly not in church. So, why do they know each other? Why? HOW? WHY IS THIS NEVER EXPLAINED?! THEY ARE A VERY ODD PAIR AND I HAVE SO MANY QUESTIONS!!!!!

Anyway, Pepper Flynt Busbee tries to befriend Hashimoto. He apologizes for trying to burn down his house, but only does so because he thinks it will bring his father back. But Hashimoto isn't receptive to Pepper's olive branches because, well, this is the kid who tried to burn down his house. But Father Oliver is like "come on, just do it," and since they're besties Hashimoto changes his mind and starts to "hang out" with Pepper. And I say "hang out" because that's the phrase the movie uses. Pepper Flynt Busbee asks Hashimoto if he'd like to "hang out" and Hashimoto says "let's hang out." The modern slang feels very out of place considering the era of the film and, sure enough, Google tells me that the phrase "hang out" did not come about until 1951, a few years after this film was made. After hanging out for a while where they do things like awkwardly eat ice cream, Hashimoto agrees to help Pepper Flynt Busbee with his list. As he looks at the list, he says "Visit the sick. I can help you with that."

"Sure, I love spending time with racist kids."

We then see Hashimoto and Pepper go to a hospital and I assumed that they were there to visit a family member of Hashimoto's who was sick. But, nope. Hashimoto is just there for a checkup and Pepper wanders into a random room where he meets a guy with bandages on his face. And...that's it. There's no meaningful exchange. Pepper Flynt Busbee learns nothing from this encounter. Also, Hashimoto did not help in any way. Hashimoto had no connection to the random bandaged guy. All he did was bring him to the hospital and even if Hashimoto had not been there, I'm pretty sure that even Pepper could have figured out that if he wanted to visit the sick the hospital might be a good place to start. But, anyway, that can be crossed off the list. Oh, and Pepper had earlier visited his brother who is still in prison. It was a similarly meaningless scene that served no purpose but to establish that London is racist which, yeah, really, I never would have guessed.

But he's a WORRIED racist.

Hashimoto looks at the list and decides that Pepper Flynt Busbee should house the homeless next. And luckily, Pepper Flynt Busbee happens to know a homeless person! Who? It's Teacup! The one-eared oaf who works in the family's garage. Apparently Teacup sleeps in the garage, which Hashimoto knows somehow. I'm not sure why, since if London didn't want him to buy groceries, I doubt the family ever repaired Hashimoto's car. Anyway, Hashimoto says that Pepper should invite Teacup to move into London's old bedroom since London is in prison. Luckily, Pepper's mom (who is still a character) is okay with this so Teacup moves in. This is the only reason that Teacup was in this movie and we don't see him again.

Teacup, we hardly knew ye

Of course, not long after this, London is released from prison after Dr. Fox pays his bail in an effort to get into their mother's pants. This is the only thing relevant to the plot that Dr. Fox does, and it's really good that he waits to pay London's bail until the point that it's the most dramatically convenient. Even though, how does the law work? Because bail is for when someone is waiting to be tried. So, either London has been waiting to be tried for arson for weeks before Dr. Fox pays the bail, or London is in jail because he was found guilty, only to be released from jail because Dr. Fox paid some money. That isn't bail, that's bribery and that's illegal. Regardless, we never find out what happens to Teacup once London returns home. I imagine London goes "This is my bed, get back in the garage where you belong."

Next, Hashimoto advises Pepper Flynt Busbee on how to clothe the naked. He tells Pepper to join a knitting group that exists even though we'd never heard of them until now. We don't get to know anything about this knitting group or why they exist, since they are only there so that Pepper can fulfill this list and are not important in any other way. Pepper Flynt Busbee knits a little sweater for an unborn child. Which...I don't know, I don't count this. Fetuses can't wear clothes, so I don't know if you can really call them naked. And if they wait until the baby is born, well, he hasn't really clothed any naked people yet, has he? He might be able to in a few months, but it's weird that he's willing to just wait that length of time since he wants his father home as soon as possible. Look, I know that the film was having a tough time fitting this one in, and didn't want to include nudity in what they desperately hope will be a family film, but if you have to resort to stupid roundabout loopholes like this then your movie idea is stupid.

Things are looking up for Pepper Flynt Busbee. With this series of tiny isolated scenes that have nothing to do with the rest of the movie, Pepper has already done five of the seven things on the list. But then he is attacked by bullies! Now, the bullies have been present throughout the entire film but I haven't talked about them yet because they are just so painfully uninteresting. Child bullies are often the worst characters in movies--they tend to be reduced to just kids who are mean for no reason, and that is certainly the case here. Every child except for Pepper Flynt Busbee is portrayed as a genuine horror, who seem to pick on no one except for Pepper. Because they find "he's short!" jokes endlessly funny. These jokes about Pepper are the height of humor to them. Did you get that pun? The HEIGHT of humor? Because Pepper's so short! Did you laugh at that pun? No? Well, these kids would have. By the way, the leader of these bullies is a horrible Augustus Gloop wannabee named Freddy, who happens to be Kevin James' son in the film. So, his name is Freddy Fox which is another really stupid name.

Anyway, the bullies confront Pepper Flynt Busbee and Feddy steals Pepper's list. Pepper is distraught. "I NEED THAT!" he cries. Dude, no you don't. The list has only seven things on it, and you've already done five of them. You can probably remember the other two since you've been obsessing over this for weeks now. You should definitely know this by now.

"Let's see, it'll be easy to remember the first five since I've done those already so I'll just ignore the other two for now. Memory is hard."

But since Pepper apparently doesn't have even the most basic memory retention skills, he needs the paper back but doesn't think he can stand up to the bullies. So Hashimoto trains him in...sigh...the way of the samurai. Because he's Japanese so he knows about martial arts. Although maybe he doesn't because he doesn't actually teach Pepper anything. Instead he just tells him a story (using a pop-up picture book he just happens to have lying around) about a guy who never used to fight, but then one day managed to beat a fearsome Mongol foe that no one else could beat by shooting him with a dart lined with scorpion poison instead of attacking with a sword. Hashimoto says he did it because he had the will of a warrior and so if you have that you can do anything. But...I think he did it because of the poison. His will would have meant shit without the poison. So, remember kids, it doesn't matter how small you are, you can take down stereotypical bullies using the power of scorpion poison!

"I'll have one bottle of Will of the Warrior, please."

After learning absolutely no skills from Hashimoto (who is presented as a wise mentor but has not actually done anything helpful this entire time, but he's still the best character in the film) Pepper confronts Freddy, who taunts Pepper by pulling out the list and saying "Looking for this?" because apparently Freddy keeps the list on his person at all times. Freddy then tears the paper in half and drops it to the ground and everyone laughs and chant's Freddy's name. Now, if I were Pepper, I would have just grabbed the two halves and run away, since he now has the list he apparently needs. But instead, he hits Freddy in the face with a metal lunchbox and Freddy falls to the ground like a sack of potatoes. We never see Freddy in this film ever again so we can assume the lunchbox was laced with scorpion poison and that Freddy is now dead. And while Pepper doesn't actually make any friends from this experience, the kids seem to stop taunting him and seem to fear him. Because he killed Freddy. This is all seen as a very good and triumphant thing, and Pepper faces no consequences, so remember kids, violence is the answer.

"Hashimoto is teaching you all the valuable life lessons that I didn't have time to."

Next on Pepper's list is feed the hungry. His mother suggests that if he brings a friend over for dinner, that would count. Even though that's more his mom feeding the hungry since Pepper doesn't do shit. He invites Hashimoto and the three have a lovely meal of hot dogs, until London comes home and, after seeing Hashimoto, looks angry and then wordlessly leaves. I thought in my head "that went better than I expected" but then London returns with a gun which he points at Hashimoto's head and threatens to kill him, because he's still an asshole. Hashimoto thanks Pepper's mom for the hot dogs and leaves. It still went better than I expected.

Later, Hashimoto and Pepper are walking around town when they are confronted by London and Sam. I only mentioned Sam briefly before, so as a reminder, he's the other drunk guy and is played by Ted Levine. If you thought the bullies were caricatures, they're nothing compared to Sam. Drunk and angry, the only thing we know about him is that his son was killed during the Pearl Harbor attack, and this tragic detail is, in the filmmaker's eyes, enough to deprive Sam of a personality. His only character trait is "racist." So, London and Sam tell Hashimoto to leave town, but Pepper stands up to him. London insists that Pepper's list won't work and dares him to "move a mountain" that happens to be near the town. So his goal is to humiliate Pepper in front of the whole town. And this is one of the scenes where London comes across slightly better.

But, Pepper makes his pooping face and...an earthquake happens! And it is implied that Pepper caused it. And everyone in town is amazed!

Pepper after moving the mountain. I like London's face in this because he's clearly thinking, "HE'S A WITCH! BURN HIM!"

To be fair, what actually happened is left up in the air, and the argument is made that the earthquake might have happened regardless and it was just a coincidence. But others in town believe that it couldn't have been a coincidence and Pepper did in fact cause it with his mind. While the film leaves it open-ended, they CLEARLY want us to believe that Pepper Flynt Busbee did it. That's what they really hope we take away. It's a very one-sided argument. The town certainly believes it, so Pepper Flynt Busbee becomes a local celebrity. With his now proven powers he focuses his attentions on ending the war so his father can come home, and after finding out which direction Japan is in from Hashimoto, he makes his pooping face towards Japan and hopes something will happen.

Making poop faces in the direction of Japan works better than Pepper's initial plan, which was making the poop faces at a picture of his dad. Which was a really stupid plan.

After he does this for a while, it looks like Pepper Flynt Busbee's work pays off, as one morning everyone starts to congratulate him because "he did it!" What do they mean? Well, the war is over because an atomic bomb is dropped on Hiroshima and the code name of that bomb was Little Boy so clearly Pepper did it and that's a very good thing and everyone celebrates and happy music plays.

Read that again.

READ THAT AGAIN.

BECAUSE HOLY SHIT THAT HAPPENS.

I promise you I'm not making this up, this is what actually happens. Our hero causes the atomic bomb to drop on Japan and everyone cheers.

You might be feeling incredibly angry right now, so, just, look at this muppet!

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is always going to be controversial. Some feel it is a stain on our nation's history, and some feel it was a necessary tactic that ultimately saved more lives than it cost. But even those who defend the use of the atomic bomb acknowledge the undeniable horror of the event which took hundreds of thousands of innocent lives. And here, it is a thing to celebrate. Pepper has a huge smile on his face and everyone is going "YOU DID IT!"

Remember the critical consensus from Rotten Tomatoes? The one that included the words "horrifically misguided" and "many viewers may find legitimately offensive?" Yeah this is what they're talking about because holy shit this is one of the worst things I've ever seen.

And this isn't just a detail. This is what the film has been leading up to. And I know this because this is, of course, why the film is called Little Boy. Because up until now there has been no reason for Pepper Flynt Busbee to be so short. Sure, it has added to his cuteness and made him more of an underdog but there has been no reason, plotwise, that he had to be short. So the only reason they made him so short had to be so that everyone would call him Little Boy and then could cause the atomic bomb. Like, this is the starting point for this film.

Writer 1: So, I was thinking. You know how the bomb dropped on Hiroshima is called Little Boy?
Writer 2: Yeah.
Writer 1: Well, what if that was because a little boy caused it by, like, wishing for it because he wanted his dad to come home?
Writer 2: A boy caused it?
Writer 1: Not just any boy. A little boy. As in a literally little boy. He's short.
Writer 2: So this would remove all of the complexities of war, all of the incredible nuance that went into this tragic event in history. All of the well-documented difficulty that President Harry Truman had making this decision, which weighed on his conscience for years, we can take all of that out and make it all about this little boy! That's brilliant!
Writer 1: I know!
Writer 2: Maybe we can get Kevin James to be in it!

I hope I don't need to explain any more why this is offensive. I hope that everyone read that this happened and just immediately felt angry and sad to their very core. And we're going to move on because the movie does not end there.

Even Pepper Flynt Busbee can't believe it's still going on.

After this horribly offensive thing that has just happened, Sam and London go to Hashimoto's house and destroy most of his possessions and beat him up, leaving him to bleed to death on the floor as they flee from their crimes.

God fucking dammit.

But on the plus side, things start to look up when, as they're running away, London suddenly feels remorse and says "We can't just leave him there to die." DUDE, WHERE IS THIS COMING FROM?! YOU POINTED A FUCKING GUN AT HIS HEAD AND TRIED TO BURN HIS HOUSE DOWN! YOU CLEARLY DO NOT CARE ABOUT HIM! But we're supposed to like London somehow so they need to make him be not racist in this moment. And, no, there was no scene where London realizes that his anger is misguided or how much Hashimoto means to his brother. London just suddenly has a reversal of personality without any prompting which goes completely unexplained. So, mere minutes after agreeing it's a great idea to break all of Hashimoto's possessions and that it would be great to beat him up, he has a change of heart and calls an ambulance so that Hashimoto can get help. London is arrested, although is later released as Hashimoto does not press charges and says that London saved his life. Yeah, but...he also could have saved your life by not trying to kill you in the first place. Sam meanwhile gets away and Hashimoto never presses any charges against him so he learns no lessons. Hashimoto is in bad shape--he's in the hospital and doctors are trying to help him recover. Pepper realizes that on his list, the only task he has not completed is "Bury the Dead." If he wants to see his father, Hashimoto has to die and Pepper has to bury him. But Pepper does not want literally his only friend in the world to die and is probably starting to feel like this whole Catholicism thing is inherently flawed.

But as this is happening, an army guy visits Pepper's mother and tells her that her husband died in the war. So after all of this, Pepper's father dies after all. And so as he crosses off the final entry on his list, it turns out that the dead Pepper buries is his own father. Hashimoto comes to the funeral, and Pepper is glad he is there. Their friendship was genuine, not just a ploy to get his father home. Everyone is sad. But ultimately it makes a strong statement about faith and how sometimes things are outside of our control. And sometimes things seem unfair, but we still must have belief in ourselves. The nuanced ending tells us that the final goal of getting what we want sometimes has consequences and that it is more important to do good things along the way.

HAHA, I'M JUST KIDDING! Pepper's father is alive of course and the whole thing was a mixup! The dead guy is just someone who stole Pepper's dad's shoes so he had the wrong identification on!!!!! His dad lives after all! London tells his brother "you did it!" even though no he really didn't and the whole family goes to see the father. But they are warned that Pepper's dad was very hurt in the explosion and might not be the same. His head is bandaged and, sure enough, when Pepper goes up to him, his dad clearly does not recognize him. Not reacting, Pepper tries to jog his father's memory, but it doesn't work. And Pepper realizes that war does not leave someone the same. His dad had his own difficult times that he went through. But Pepper knows that his father is still there and is still happy to have him home. And the Busbee family will help the father get back on his feet, a bittersweet ending to the film that doesn't reek of sentimentality.

HAHA, I GOT YOU AGAIN THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN! At first the dad doesn't recognize him, but then Pepper's like "It's me, dad" and the dad's like "Pepper!" and everyone hugs. Suddenly he's okay and everything is fine and happy and sunshine and rainbows except for all the people who have died and been hurt along the way.

with Kevin James as Dr. Fox

WHAT A PIECE OF SHIT.

This film is terrible. Terrible. I have never been in such a state of disbelief while watching a film before. Because it really is clear that they mean well. It's clear that those who made this film really did think that this was inspiring and beautiful and heartwarming. And it isn't. It's so clearly a bad idea that you would think that someone would have gone "are we sure about this?" But nobody did. It is so unbelievably misguided and so legitimately offensive I still can't believe half of the things that happen in this movie.

I struggle to really explain this film. The film critic in me wants to analyze it, and wants to really consider the message of the film--what it's saying about faith and what its earnest attempts at a statement of any kind amount to. I feel there is probably some grand metaphor between this movie and certain forms of religion. I feel like there is so much that could be said. And yet, it is impossible for me to consider this film any deeper than I already have. Because there really is nothing there. Any statements it makes are so watered down and broad that they are completely devoid of depth. On its surface, the movie is so simple and shallow that it really should be completely incapable of making any sort of impact. Except that by being so simple, it actually manages to be offensive, thus making the worst kind of impact possible. Its commentary on race relations is exactly the type of thing that racists think is not racist.

But offensiveness of message aside, it's simply a bad film. Winter's Tale is entertaining to watch because it is awful but in a goofy way. But Little Boy is really dreadful. Do not watch this movie. I suffered through it so you don't have to and I hope you are appreciate this. It has a terrible concept, a terrible script, and terrible characters. The only thing not terrible is the cast, led of course by the incomparable Kevin James.

Here's one last pooping face for the road.

Adventures in Cinematic Failure: Why Interstellar is a Mess of Cosmic Proportions

Author's Note: Here it is guys. My write-up for Interstellar. I've been promising this for months and have been writing bits and pieces of it every so often ever since I saw it several months ago. I am sorry it took so long but, as you can see, I had a lot to say on the matter. Considering how long it took me to write this, I apologize if it ever comes across as disjointed or rambly, but I hope you enjoy my thoughts on the film anyway. Here they are: my thoughts on Interstellar and why it is, no joke, my choice for the worst film of 2014.

This movie is not alright alright alright.

 
Before its release, it was already impossible to not be a little bit intrigued by Interstellar. Writer and director Christopher Nolan has a deserved reputation as one of the most innovative filmmakers working today. With his breakout hit Memento in 2000, Nolan cemented himself as a filmmaker with a unique vision and distinct visual style. His acclaimed Batman trilogy has its critics (I personally was really not a fan of The Dark Knight Rises in particular) but even its harshest detractors will admit that it is a solid series which completely redefined the genre (for better or for worse). And The Dark Knight is awesome. While the Batman trilogy was obviously based on previously existing source material, with Inception, Nolan proved that Memento was not a fluke--he was still full of interesting original ideas. Nolan is a master of scope and ambition--he attempts things that others would not. I would argue that this is probably his greatest skill as a director, and something that makes me admire his artistic voice. 

Even more than some of his other projects, Interstellar seemed like a very personal project for Nolan. This was a film that he so clearly wanted to make, and he had a $165 million dollar budget to make it. Tackling a subject as grand as the entire universe, Interstellar was one of the most highly anticipated films of the year. And when it came out, some really liked it. Many critics (mostly online critics) have hailed it as one of the best films of the year, and it appeared on its share of Top Ten Lists. But for the most part, the reviews were mixed. There were some positive reviews that were a bit more tepid, praising parts of the film while feeling it wasn't quite as good as it could have been. And then there was a section of viewers that were much harsher. They were a small group, but there were viewers who felt that Interstellar was a mess from beginning to end. That it was one of the stupidest films they'd seen in recent memory. Beyond that, they felt it was painful to watch. That every minute of watching the film felt like a terrible court-ordered prison sentence, as if all of the terrible things they'd done had brought them to this movie theater, and that having to endure the film before them was a punishment to atone for their horrible crimes.

Where did I line up on this spectrum of responses to Interstellar? Well, given the title of this post, no one will be surprised that I would place myself in the latter group.

This is McConaughey's "surprised face"

I hated this film. While there were certainly worse films made last year--the usual Michael Bay trash comes to mind--I don't seek those out, and can say with conviction that Interstellar was the absolute worst film I saw in 2014. Yes. That makes it worse than Winter's Tale in my eyes. Winter's Tale was terrible, but at least I enjoyed watching it. Interstellar made me wish I could remove my brain from my body.

Before I go any further, I do want to say that I don't mean to offend those who enjoyed Interstellar, as I know many did. The beauty of art is that it is subjective. There has never been any creative project that everyone has loved, and that's how art should be. I know that, as a film buff, there are plenty of acclaimed films that I am not necessarily a fan of. The one that comes to mind is the Martin Scorsese masterpiece Taxi Driver. Considered one of the best films ever made, I simply do not get its appeal or why it merits the reputation it has (which I mentioned in my review of Nightcrawler). And then, of course, there's another Scorsese film, The Wolf of Wall Street, which I have a well-known distaste for. But despite my personal feelings for these films, I understand why they are so well-regarded. I can see things in each film that people would respond to and enjoy. Most of the time when I'm in the minority in regards to a film (whether I like it when no one else does or I hate when no one else does) I can understand where the other side is coming from. And I am capable to separate my opinions from the film with its objective quality.

But Interstellar is different. I truly cannot understand how anyone could enjoy this film. When people--including people whose opinions I value and respect--have stated that they liked the movie, I am genuinely shocked. Because, for me, Interstellar's flaws actually make it objectively bad. It is not well written, it is not well made, it is simply not a good movie. And that's what I'd like to discuss in this post. I could ramble about how much I disliked Interstellar for pages and pages (regular readers of this blog or those who have ever had a conversation with me about anything know how wordy I often get) but I am going to try and not just point out the things that I didn't like, but the faults that I feel make it a textbook example of bad filmmaking. In other words, not just why I didn't like it, but why I think it's bad, which actually are different ideas. Just because it's based on 2001: A Space Odyssey doesn't make it 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Like this film? I'm afraid I can't do that, Dave.

First, I'd like to address one of the things that people talk about most when praising the film: its adherence to the rules of science. In a world where sci-fi seems to be delving into weirder and weirder synopses (Snowpiercer, my favorite sci-fi film of the year was about humans escaping an ice age by living on a train that comes complete with a rave room for no reason) the goal to strive for scientific accuracy is certainly an admirable one. And Interstellar does get space right, probably more than any other film to date. An authority no less than Neil DeGrasse Tyson gave it a scientific seal of approval. The film's attention to detail was so great that the filmmakers actually made a scientific discovery about black holes while doing research for the film. And this is one of the things that had me most excited about Interstellar going into it. So I was shocked by how the science was simply not explained or made accessible. In Snowpiercer, the premise might have been ridiculous, but it wasn't meant to be plausible. The rules of the world are well-explained to us and made accessible. Would it work in real life? No. But was I able to suspend my disbelief and accept the rules of the film? Absolutely. And once those rules were set up, the film stuck to them and had continuity within itself. I feel like Interstellar, on the other hand, might have chosen to rest on its laurels--by putting too much focus on the science itself, Nolan forgot that his audience are not rocket scientists. I don't care if it all scientifically made sense because I had absolutely no idea what was going on. And I don't think it's because of my own stupidity--it's not like the film provided an explanation that I just didn't understand. The film didn't even attempt to explain how certain crucial things were happening. When a morse code message is sent through time which saves the entire human race, the only explanation offered is "because gravity." Honestly, that explanation is used for various things throughout the film. If the film Gravity hadn't been released last year, I'm pretty sure that would have been this film's title.

And no matter how much of the space science is actually realistic, there is a gaping scientific inaccuracy in the film that I cannot believe no one is talking about. The film takes place at a time where Earth's climate does not allow crops to grow. Pretty much the only crop that has not died out is corn, which is why there are multiple shots of huge, expansive cornfields. But...those cornfields look really healthy. Even if corn is surviving, there's no way it would be thriving. And those cornstalks are HUGE. How? How is this one plant doing so well in a climate where no other flora can exist? I'd ordinarily be fine with accepting this, but when so much has been made about its scientific realism, I found it pretty distracting and am surprised the film hasn't been criticized more for this.

Murphy and Cooper stand in front of fields and fields of clearly dying plants.

How Nolan decides our society will react to this food shortage is also unrealistic. In an early scene, our main character Cooper (Matthew McConaughey) meets with his children's teachers. They imply that most everyone in this society becomes a farmer, the reasoning being that with the food shortage, farming was a priority. But this is, for some reason, given greater importance over being a scientist. When humanity is clearly on its last legs, why has the general public made its mind up to simply give up on science, the one field that might be able to find a solution to their problems long-term? Surely they can spare a few farmers for that. When McConaughey accidentally stumbles upon NASA's secret headquarters (which is really lucky for NASA, since before they were really in need of a pilot to command their giant rocket into space for their mission to save all of humankind and a guy with astronaut experience who knew the head of the program just sorta happened to kinda show up) he mentions he thought that NASA was defunct and it's revealed they've been operating in secret. How?! And why?! If you have a rocket that might be able to colonize in outer space and, again, SAVE ALL OF HUMANKIND, why are you keeping this secret? Certainly people would want to know about this? And perhaps you could find some talented people to help you work on this project. Maybe that way, society would actually encourage people to be scientists. But, even if I were to accept that this was the world's collective reaction to all of Earth's impending problems, the movie still falls apart. When Cooper meets with the teachers and they tell him that his son probably won't go to college since it's no longer necessary, Cooper gets really indignant. He shouldn't be surprised by this. The teachers make it sound like colleges as a concept don't really exist anymore except for a few. Nolan wants his audience to agree with Cooper. "Yeah, he's right," Nolan wants us to say. "His son should be able to go to college and learn things!" It's meant to be commentary, but this commentary isn't relevant to our society. We live in a time where education may be underfunded, but it's still encouraged. His critique is on a fictional society that he has created, and which are unrealistic. We don't need McConaughey as a rallying point. And so his indignation serves only to illuminate how unrealistic a world Nolan has set up, as his own main character finds the rules of the world ridiculous.

One of the teachers is played by David Oyelowo, who really deserves a better movie than this.

But that speaks to the broader problems that the film has. No matter how scientifically accurate, Interstellar's faults tend to be on the human level. If there is one criticism that I think is truly Interstellar's Achilles' Heel, it lies in the characters, and that's what I'm going to focus on for the majority of this review. These characters are simply not defined in any way. I did not care about a single one, and I cannot believe that anyone else did either.

Let's consider Cooper. He's our main character, but what do we actually know about him? That he's a loving father, that he's a brilliant pilot, that his wife died. These are all circumstances, they are facts, but they are not qualities of personality. This isn't entirely Matthew McConaughey's fault, it's simply how the character is written. There's a moment that really sums up McConaughey's performance for me. At one point, McConaughey watches some videos from home. 23 years have passed on Earth since Cooper has seen any of these videos (I'll explain why in a bit). He watches all of them in succession and, in doing so, watches his son and daughter grow up. Basically, he's watching Boyhood. He sees his son grow and get married and have a child of his own. He learns that John Lithgow died (oh yeah, John Lithgow is in this film as Cooper's father-in-law who provides absolutely nothing to the film's plot or development). And as he watches, tears stream down his face. It is what I consider the strongest moment in the film, and the time I came closest to feeling emotional involvement. But, why exactly was it emotional? Well, it was emotional because of circumstance. The idea of a father watching his son grow while he was away is a powerful one, and that provides an emotional connection. But the connection has nothing to do with the characters themselves. The son (played by Casey Affleck) is hardly a character at all and the bits of footage we see here show the typical milestones in his life, but reveal nothing about his character. Cooper watches as his son becomes a father, but is given nothing to indicate whether his son is a good father or not. McConaughey acts the hell out of this scene, tears stream down his face--it's raw and it's heartfelt. In this scene, and in the film as a whole, I give McConaughey an A for effort. He is acting so hard. But it's in the aid of superficial moments as opposed to great character building. When he cries watching the videos, I'm not sure why. Does he miss his children? Does he regret not being on Earth for this time? Is he proud of his son? Is he moved by the love shown in these videos? Is he simply overwhelmed by it all? Any of these could be a valid explanation for his tears. But none of these reasons are conveyed to us, either by the writing or by the performance. We never get a glimpse into Cooper's mind, and we never understand what really drives him. What makes this guy tick? What makes him interesting?

To backtrack a bit, despite him being a major character in the first third of the film, this was the only picture from the movie I could find with John Lithgow in it.

This is not new for a Nolan protagonist. His protagonists are almost all white guys with dead wives. Don't believe me? Memento is about a guy seeking revenge on the man who killed his wife. Inception is about a guy who struggles so much with the loss of his dead wife that her memory invades his dreams and tries to kill him. Even in the Batman series, which is adapted material, he kills off Batman's love interest in the second film. And, of course, in Interstellar Cooper's wife is dead. There are problems with this trend, but the biggest problem is that Nolan seems to think that having a dead wife is the same thing as having a personality. It obviously isn't. Nolan likes to give his characters tragic backstories because in his mind that will make us sympathize with them or make them more interesting, but his characters end up not being fully realized because backstory does not make the character. I love Inception but can you honestly say that Cobb is a good character? Memento and Interstellar succeed because of their premises, not because of their characters. There's a reason that the only truly standout performance in all of Nolan's filmography is Heath Ledger's Joker, a performance that can very much be attributed to Ledger's own brilliance, crafted outside of Nolan's influence.

Cooper's blandness extends to the rest of the cast. I already mentioned how John Lithgow had no reason to be in the film, but he's hardly the only one. Cooper's fellow astronauts hardly have character traits at all. With Cooper on his humanity-saving starship are Amelia (Anne Hathaway), Doyle (Wes Bentley), and Romilly (David Gyasi). From now on, I will refer to Doyle as "Wes Bentley" because I don't think anyone would have remembered that his name was Doyle after they left the theater. I will refer to Romilly as "the black guy" because his name is similarly forgettable, but David Gyasi is not as recognizable as an actor. Also, he really is "the black guy," because except for David Oyelowo's tiny part at the beginning, he's the only person of color in this incredibly white futuristic universe. Also on the ship is a robot named TARS, voiced by Bill Irwin. These should have been incredibly important characters. When these astronauts accept this mission, they know that it is possible that they might not return to Earth again. And if they do return, many years will have past, practically a lifetime. These four astronauts are the only other people that they will ever see, probably for the rest of their lives, or at least for most of the rest of their lives. And yet we never see them interact, save for sciencey and official discussions about their mission. Amelia and Cooper talk privately, but at no point do the four of them sit down and have a conversation. Not once do they simply talk. We never find out what they enjoy, what sets them off, what do they have in common. In every other space movie, this is standard, and with good reason. When a crew is in outer space, the relations between them are crucial. And those relations don't arise from how they interact as scientists, they arise from how they interact as people. One of the most famous movie scenes in sci-fi history is the dinner scene from Alien. Granted, it's famous because at the end an alien bursts out of John Hurt's chest (spoiler) but before that happens, it's just the crew sitting around and acting as a family. We see them converse and we see them joke. The chestburster would have been surprising no matter what, but what makes this scene so iconic is that just seconds before, everything was so relatable. They were acting as if they were just having a Sunday dinner. This act of simply letting the characters have a conversation is sci-fi 101. Hell, it's storytelling 101. And it's absolutely missing from the film. In an almost three hour film, surely there was time for a single conversation between these four people who have to live together for the rest of their lives.

Cooper, Amelia, and the black guy discuss something about space because they don't talk about anything else ever.

At one point the crew checks out a planet where, due to gravity (again, "because gravity" serves as the film's best explanation) one hour on the planet's surface is the same as seven years on Earth or on the ship. I'm convinced that this is a metaphor, since every hour of watching this film felt like it took seven years off my life. It is decided that Cooper, Amelia, and Wes Bentley will go to check out the planet. When they land, they discover the planet is inhospitably covered with water and Wes Bentley is killed by a giant tidal wave (that wave is the film's best of its Oscar-winning visual effects). Hardly any time is spent mourning Wes Bentley. Cooper and Amelia start bickering about what one of them did wrong, before finally making up and returning to the ship. When they arrive, the black guy looks mildly surprised to see them and informs them they have been gone for 23 years. After they talk for a little bit, he goes "Where's Wes Bentley?" and Amelia and Cooper just kinda shake their heads. No one cries for Wes Bentley's loss.

"Wait, is that Wes Bentley? What's he doing here? He's not in this film, is he?" --Anne Hathaway

These reactions are absurd. Wes Bentley is, again, one of only four people that any of them will ever see for the entirety of their lives. And his passing is hardly commented on at all. They're sad, sure, but they should be DEVASTATED. Imagine if one third of the people in your life were suddenly killed in front of your eyes. The characters in Interstellar recover from such a trauma with remarkable ease. And then there's the black guy. I want to know what he's been up to for 23 years! He has spent 23 years alone, waiting for people who he says he gave up on returning long ago. He should be completely insane by now. When they return, his reaction should not be faint shock. He should be rushing up to hug them. The person-to-person interactions were downright weird. They were unrealistic, they were off-putting, and they were absolutely not thought out. And when these things are not thought out, the characters suffer. And when the characters suffer, we cannot relate to them, and that is the easiest way to destroy a film's success in my eyes.

The other characters don't fare much better. We have the robot, TARS, who actually has a kind of cool design (other detractors of the film have criticized it, but at least it was original) but an interesting design is not what makes a robot character work. We don't love characters like C-3PO or R2-D2 because of their design, it's for their personalities. TARS is, I think meant to be comedic. But we never see him actually do anything. Much like the other astronauts, TARS is never part of a conversation with the rest of the crew. At no point do we see his relation to Cooper. Is TARS a presence he relies on? He's an empty character whose potential is never met.

TARS is the monolith thing on the right. Buy your action figures now, kids!

Back on Earth there's Cooper's children. I've already mentioned his son, Casey Affleck, who never really has a personality but seems to suddenly and inexplicably turn evil towards the end of the film? I'm not sure. And then there's Murphy, Cooper's daughter, who is CLEARLY his favorite child. Her name comes from Murphy's Law. and I want to nitpick here. At one point, the following conversation happens.

MURPHY: Dad, why did you and mom name me after something that's bad?
COOPER: Well, we didn't.
MURPHY: Murphy's law?
COOPER: Murphy's law doesn't mean that something bad will happen. It means that whatever can happen, will happen.

Okay, this is nitpicking, and I know I promised that I wouldn't nitpick and would stick to broader problems but...THAT IS NOT WHAT MURPHY'S LAW MEANS. Murphy's Law means that anything bad that can happen will. It is an incredible pessimistic outlook on life which basically says to never expect anything good because the worst possible outcomes are always inevitable. So, Murphy is right. Naming her after Murphy's Law is really poor parenting. It doesn't just mean that "whatever can happen, will happen." That is stupid. Sorry, I just had to say that because it really bothered me. Although it does sum up my thoughts on this film: everything that could go wrong did.

It's a shame that her character's name is so stupid because the child actress who plays Murphy, Mackenzie Foy, actually gives what I think is the best performance of the film. Score one for child actors! She's engaging and she displays actual emotion which rises convincingly from what her character is going through. The only believable character interactions in the film are those between Cooper and Young Murphy, and I think this is because of Foy. She clearly paints Murphy as an intelligent child who loves her father, and who feels realistically hurt and confused at his choice to, in her eyes, abandon her. Unfortunately, she grows into Jessica Chastain who gives an incredibly phoned in performance. There's no spark of intelligence that we saw in Foy. Her irritation at her father as an adult doesn't come across as vulnerable, it now comes across as petty. The now adult Murphy is meant to be a brilliant scientist, and is ultimately the one who saves all of humankind. But we only know this because we are told by the film how brilliant she is. A chief NASA scientist played by Michael Caine, and another scientist played inexplicably by Topher Grace, praise how smart she is and how important the work she's doing is, but that's the only indication we get. Once again, it's just Nolan throwing more exposition and background at us rather than writing anything to showcase Murphy's intellect for us to see.

Cooper talks to Murphy, back when she was a fully-realized character.

But the character who is most under-served by the script is Amelia. I'm a big fan of Anne Hathaway--I think she's incredibly talented and am always excited to see her work. I have never understood the odd hatred people supposedly have towards her. Anyway, that said, like with Matthew McConaughey, I give her an A for effort in this film. She tries. And, unlike with characters such as Wes Bentley and the black guy, the script tries with her too. She's given motivations and she's given characterization probably more than anyone else, including Cooper. But then she's given a big scene where she delivers a monologue about love and it is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard and completely ruins the character. It's one of the most polarizing moments in the films and of course I found it completely ridiculous; during the speech, Amelia blatantly states what I believe was one of Nolan's central theses for the film, that the undefinable quality of love transcends time and space and even if it cannot be quantified or understood it is still an integral part of what makes us human. But, immediately after her speech, the notion is dismissed by Cooper and, here's the worst part, Amelia backs down. She backs down! The once strong-willed character completely deflates. And so both the point Nolan was trying to make and the character of Amelia are completely undermined and forgotten by the film.

Anne Hathaway, in a better movie.

My point here is that Nolan does not actually care about his characters. In Interstellar the characters are there to serve his philosophical ramblings and his giant premise, but as characters themselves, are considered to be of secondary importance. And that right there is the essence of bad storytelling. No matter how good a premise, your story fails if you don't have strong characters to back it up. A few weeks after I saw Interstellar I saw the film Mr. Turner, which had absolutely no plot at all but succeeded entirely because of the character study which held the film together. Nolan does not care for such things. I maintain that in this film Nolan does not give his characters the respect they deserve. And to prove this point, I want to talk about one of the film's greatest technical flaws: its sound mixing.

I have previously ranted about how this film's sound mixing sucks. And I've spoken to people who have laughed at how angry I am at this film's sound mixing (which was INEXPLICABLY NOMINATED FOR AN OSCAR AND I'M STILL NOT OVER IT). But it's important to talk about because the use of sound can really make or break a film. When the film was presented in theaters, people began to complain because parts of the film felt too loud, and other parts were barely audible. During several scenes where rockets were taking off, or the ship was crashing into asteroids, the ambient noise was so loud that audience members could not hear the dialogue the actors were saying. It was so bad that movie theaters began checking their equipment to see if the fault lay with them. When they realized their equipment was fine, they checked with the distributor to see if they were sent an incorrect copy. They weren't. This is how Christopher Nolan wanted his sound to be. In what is probably the first time ever that a director has had to clarify that their sound mixing choices were not a mistake but were actually intentional, Nolan released a statement about what he was trying to accomplish. He wanted the sound to be ambient. He wanted it to create an experience.

Here's the thing...that's what GOOD SOUND MIXING DOES. One of the best uses of sound in film is in the classic war movie Apocalypse Now.

the helicopters in Apocalypse Now. Writing this keeps making me think of the many movies that are better than Interstellar. Like Citizen Kane, When Harry Met Sally, and Ishtar.

Upon its release, people in the theater were blown away by how realistic the sound was, to the point that they felt transported into the war themselves. When helicopters flew overhead, people felt like the helicopters were there, and that was due to sound mixing and sound editing. Sound, when used well, will be ambient. It will create an experience. What Nolan describes as being experimental is really just being sloppy. Because sound is mixed so well in Apocalypse Now, the softer moments are still audible. Because of how well the sound is mixed, if people are talking while planes are flying overhead, you can still hear what they're saying. Nolan seems to not care about that. And this isn't the first time he's had that problem--remember in The Dark Knight Rises when a majority of people complained they couldn't understand most of what Bane was saying? The truth is that they could have warped Tom Hardy's voice while still making his dialogue understandable, but Nolan chose not to. In Interstellar, the sound of the rockets could have been loud without drowning out the lines his characters are saying, but Nolan chose not to do this. To him, what the characters are not saying isn't important--all that's important is the atmosphere. And when your film relies entirely on mood and atmosphere to sustain it, that's a problem. Especially when it's a space movie where, by definition, there's no atmosphere. It's interesting, in his statement, Nolan talked about how proud he is of the sound in the movie. He says "We wanted to distinguish the worlds based on very intimate, recognizable sounds. The water planet was a lot of splashing. In contrast the ice planet had the crunch of the glaciers." That statement is laughable because that is the BASIC JOB OF SOUND DESIGN. Nothing about that concept is innovative. If you have a planet full of water, any sound team will put in sounds of splashing. What Nolan finds innovative is actually incredibly pedestrian. And what he finds powerful would have been more powerful even if it had been done well. I know that not everyone had as big of a problem with the sound mixing as I did. Some didn't notice a problem at all (I spoke to one person who said the sound didn't bother him, but after I mentioned the sound mixing to him watched it again and realized that, yeah, it's really bad once he actually paid attention to it) and others actually thought it was effective. Some really were swept up in the world of the film and attributed this to Nolan's, er, unconventional sound choices. Firstly, I would again argue that this same effect still could have been accomplished without covering up important dialogue, but even if not, that doesn't make the sound quality good. If this sound mixing was intentional, then that means it was Nolan's intention to have the mixing done poorly. As an artistic choice, then Nolan has a very flimsy and shaky leg to stand on. But as an objective piece of sound mixing, this film is a textbook example of what not to do.

If you still don't believe me, or don't understand what sound mixing is, watch this movie again and pay close attention to sound. Then watch Apocalypse Now and do the same thing. The difference should be clear.

Whew, that was a big chunk of text without any pictures. And about sound mixing which so few people care about. As a reward for reading all of that, here's Jessica Chastain about to set fire to some totally unhealthy corn fields!

I've already written over 5,000 words about this horrible movie, but I have one more bone to pick: the ending. Holy crap is this thing terrible. I was already bored and angry for most of the film, but this bizarre space epilogue was just jawdroppingly terrible. It was the most extraneous ending since endings 4-12 of Lord of the Rings. So, at one point, McConaughey and TARS (hey, remember TARS! What a thrilling and important character) go through a black hole which sends him into this weird land of time where he is able to send some sort of code to Murphy that will somehow save the Earth? How? I don't know, probably because of gravity. Once again, the movie doesn't bother to explain this to us at all, but Neil DeGrasse Tyson assures us it's fine. It has something to do with using time to fiddle the minute hand on her watch back and forth which somehow...I don't know. It makes no sense and it's not even the part I'm really cranky about. Anyway, he sends the message back, and with this information, is able to communicate with his daughter one last time. Murphy finally gives up her resentment and realizes her father cares for her and, with the data from his message, is able to save all of Earth! They'll be able to reverse the terrible disaster and grow crops again and the humans are saved! Murphy and the astronaut inexplicably played by Topher Grace end up together and everyone at the secret NASA lab is happy. Cooper, having completed his mission, floats out of the black hole and into space, seemingly dead, but a hero and a savior. The film made no sense, it was boring and preachy and too long and stupid, but ends on a solid ending--we know the world is safe, but Cooper's story is done. Nolan is the master of the ambiguous ending (Inception has a great one, of course) and I am sure that this is where our film is done. With our hero simply floating in space where he has called his home, content that he has finally done what he had to to keep his daughter safe.

But that is not the ending.

Because that is when Cooper wakes up on Saturn. Or a colony outside of Saturn. I'm not sure because I was too busy silently screaming.

Out of nowhere, Nolan decides to try and wrap everything up with a bow. Cooper was a character willing to do anything out of love for his daughter. He sacrificed himself...but by having him alive and safe, then he didn't actually sacrifice anything. Anyway, he wakes up and a scientist comes over and is like "Hey, you've been asleep a long time." It turns out that he is in this hospital where he has been rescued and, again, he's on Saturn or near Saturn or wherever. My main question is why. Why is he here? I thought that the message he sent in time to Murphy was meant to save Earth? If Earth is saved, why are they colonizing Saturn? And if Saturn (or something near Saturn) is able to sustain life, then WHY DID THEY HAVE TO GO TO OTHER GALAXIES?! The movie offers no explanation. It's too busy giving us the most absurd wrapped-up-in-a-bow ending I've ever seen. Murphy, who is still alive and now elderly but who is the most famous person on all of either Saturn or some colony near Saturn, meets with her father one last time, offering no real closure that was not already provided when her father sent her a message in his weird time-gravity-chamber thing. She has arranged for a scale replica of their old farm to be built. You know, the farm that Cooper HATED LIVING ON back when Earth was an apocalyptic dust desert? Why did she build this for him? Did she think it would comfort him? And then, here's the kicker, someone says "Oh, and we found this floating with you," and they point to a hunk of metal? What is it? It's TARS, of course! You know, TARS! That breakout character...the robot with no human features who did absolutely nothing and who never made an affect on us or Cooper. Why and how did TARS survive the black hole? Does Nolan think we have any attachment to this robot? Does Nolan think we have any attachment to any of these characters? If he does, he is severely misguided. The entire epilogue was pointless. This film already had a decent ending, and this other ending was just tacked on. It raised more questions than it answered, and felt like it was pandering to an audience that simply does not care about what Nolan thinks it does. All it did was add more time to a film that was already too long.

This is what I meant by "weird time-gravity-chamber thing." Granted, it was a semi-cool effect in the film, but once you have a chance to take it in...seriously wtf is this?

If people had an emotional reaction to this film, then I am honestly glad to hear it. And I truly do not mean to take away from your own enjoyment. But what I'm trying to outline here is not just what I didn't like about the film, but what I thought were instances of legitimately bad filmmaking. Despite my incredibly negative feelings towards this film, I am still a fan of Christopher Nolan, and will always be excited when he releases a film. Like I said, his ambition and sense of scope are admirable, and even in Interstellar, that is on display. With Nolan, when his films work, they work beautifully, and are truly miraculous and groundbreaking. But, the greater they are, the harder they fall, and so when Nolan fails like with Interstellar, the results are catastrophic. In being given free range to make his dream project, I believe Nolan got caught up in the idea of it all and lost track of the basics of story and characters. And that should never be encouraged.

I always welcome comments on anything that I write. And in this case especially, I want to hear from you. If you didn't like the film, tell me why! Was it for the reasons I brought up, or something else entirely (I didn't go into great detail about Matt Damon's character but I know many people other than myself found him pretty ludicrous)? If you liked the film, I want to hear from you too. What resonated with you? What am i missing? Are there points I made here that you find particularly invalid? Please comment away. But, before you do, check out a film called Moon. Released a few years ago with very little fanfare, it has since become a bit of a cult classic, and while most people still have not heard of it, I know it's gaining a decent fanbase who, like me, consider it one of the best sci-fi films ever made. Because in my eyes, Moon is Interstellar's polar opposite. Interstellar's budget was thirty-three times that of Moon's. Interstellar has an all-star cast and crew, while Moon was made by a completely unknown director (who, unrelatedly, is David Bowie's son) and pretty much the only cast member is Sam Rockwell, who is still an underrated actor but was even more unknown at the time. At only 97 minutes, Interstellar is more than an hour longer than Moon. And yet, even with so many disadvantages, Moon excels everywhere Interstellar does not. It tells a more complete story, and is filled with characters defined not by their given circumstances but by their actual personalities and emotions. It more ably creates a realistic sci-fi world, complete with a robot named GERTY (voiced by Kevin Spacey) who, unlike TARS, actually serves the plot and has a relationship with the human characters. It is an emotional film, one which has moments of humor and sadness, times of grief and empathy. It is a film everyone should see. And if you were a fan of Interstellar, watch Moon, and then watch Interstellar again. In my heart, I am confident that the difference will be clear.

A still-shot from a good science fiction film.