Interstellar
Interstellar
Regie:
Christopher NolanKamera:
Hoyte van HoytemaMusik:
Hans ZimmerBesetzung:
Matthew McConaughey, Anne Hathaway, Jessica Chastain, Matt Damon, Mackenzie Foy, Wes Bentley, David Gyasi, Michael Caine, Casey Affleck, John Lithgow (mehr)Streaming (6)
Inhalte(1)
Der Klimawandel gefährdet das Fortbestehen der Menschheit. Der ehemalige NASA-Pilot Cooper schlägt sich mit seinen beiden Kindern als Farmer durchs Leben. Rätselhafte Phänomene führen ihn eines Tages in ein geheimes Sperrgebiet der Regierung, wo Prof. Brand das Lazarus-Programm leitet. Auf der Suche nach bewohnbaren Planeten sind drei Teams durch ein Wurmloch in ferne Galaxien vorgestoßen. Der Kontakt zu ihnen ist jedoch abgebrochen. Trotz des schweren Abschieds von seiner zehnjährigen Tochter Murph startet Cooper mit seiner Kollegin Amelia und zwei Wissenschaftlern zu einer interstellaren Mission. (ORF)
(mehr)Kritiken (19)
Bevor Sie diese Rezension lesen, sehen Sie sich den Film an, damit eine Konfrontation mit Ihrer eigenen Meinung möglich ist! __ Der Trick von Nolans Erfolg besteht darin, dass er mit einer entwaffnenden Form und einem dramatischen Selbstzweckdruck seine Unfähigkeit verdecken kann, sich an die logische und emotionale Kontinuität des Erzählens in den parallelen Linien der Geschichte zu halten. Dieser Schwachpunkt hat eine negative Auswirkung auf die ganze zweite Hälfte von Interstellar, die Ihnen so ein Loch in den Kopf macht, dass man gezwungen ist, in den passiven Modus "ein einzigartiges Erlebnis von einem Blockbuster-Hit“ umzuschalten. Und es ist egal, dass der Cutter nicht weiß, was er machen soll. Mit den dramatischen Selbstzweckszenen, die für die Geschichte als Ganzes keine adäquate Bedeutung haben, meine ich die epische Verbindung mit der rotierenden beschädigten Station oder das auf der anderen Seite der Galaxie brennende Maisfeld mit dem verärgerten Casey Affleck (WTF?). Und mit der nicht funktionierenden logischen und emotionalen Kontinuität meine ich den Wechsel aus dem Weltall auf die Erde (wir wissen nicht, was passiert, wo alle hinrennen), der überflüssig von den Schlüsselwenden des Weltall-Plots ablenkt. Es sieht doch so EPIC aus und der Film hat so eine famose Musik, dass Nolan doch bestimmt wissen muss, was er da macht… Nein, meines Erachtens weiß er das NICHT. ___ Aber sehen wir uns mal die erste Hälfte von Interstellar an, die wie ein ganz anderer Film aussieht – zügig, mit einem überlegten und gefühlvollen Schnitt, mit schönen Gedanken über die ZEIT (die zusammen mit der Gesundheit das Wertvollste ist, was wir haben – wer sich dessen bewusst ist, gammelt nicht vor dem Fernseher herum, sondern reist usw.). Diese Hälfte des Films ist die inhaltsreichste und dank ihrer Stimmung die magischste Science-Fiction-Erscheinung seit vielen Jahren. Bei der Begrüßungsszene nach der Rückkehr von der Wasserwelt habe ich mich in Interstellar verliebt, was ich meiner Meinung nach noch über keinen Film geschrieben habe. Dort sollte er enden. Seine Fortsetzung sollten die Nolans zehn Jahre später, wenn sie reifer sind und Sachen in Zusammenhängen wahrnehmen können, umschreiben und den kompletten Schnitt ändern. Dann, idealerweise durch die Spaltung in zwei sensibel verbundene Filme, von denen einer im Weltall und der andere auf der Erde spielen würde, könnte aus Interstellar ein Meilenstein in der Geschichte des Science-Fiction-Genres werden, der eines Upgrades mit Kubricks Unterschrift würdig wäre.
()
It's always been like that. Always. For every film that has (re)defined the sci-fi genre, there have been widely conflicting responses; only time, the fairest judge, has helped resolve the dilemma of a work' immortality. This applied even to Kubrick's Odyssey, which was loved in its time by hippie circles but reviled by critics and mainstream audiences. But Nolan is like expensive wine, if you like it and you know that it makes you feel good, you will forgive it a little bit of tartness and you will be happy to come back to it. He’s not the cheap swill that delight the bums at the train station, but a proper vintage Bordeaux. Cheap swill are most of today’s movies, especially the innumerable comic book adaptations that have already bored the gourmands. Nolan can still surprise, and as he gets older, his films become more epic, more narratively sweeping, in short, more cinematically ambitious, while focusing more on the visceral feelings of individuals, bringing the simple human dimension to the fore in a Spielbergian way (see the third Batman). But I still wasn't prepared for what was coming. Interstellar is so ambitious and bold in its message, in its rarely seen narrative structure, that it will either hit you like a ton of bricks or, on the contrary, make you feel uplifted. It depends on your nature. And I could go on with superlatives, such as the original and unprecedented concept of the gradual destruction of our ecosystem, all from the point of view of one family (similar to Spielberg's War of the Worlds or Close Encounters of the Third Kind), breathtaking space compositions, while maintaining a serious scientific dimension and the laws of physics (though this is for a longer discussion), and all that while keeping the narrative intimate and thought-provoking. Nolan is a man with a big heart, and those who are afraid of honestly conveyed emotions, thoughts revolving around the fate of the family and the weight of the responsibility to bring a child into the world, may not appreciate this. But would it be presumptuous of me to say that at least half of the positive impression of the film in my eyes was made by Matthew McConaughey himself? An actor so malleable, with such a breadth of emotions, it's breathtaking. Matthew, if I see you one more time showing your six-pack in the company of some second rate bird like in one of those forgotten comedies you (thankfully) have left behind, I’ll smack you in the head with one of your surf boards.
()
Spoilers ahead. McConaughey’s cowboy longing to discover the unknown heads out into space not only to gain knowledge (mainly of himself), but also in pursuit of the same goal that the first American settlers (and protagonists of the first sci-fi movies) had – to uncover the unknown and to colonise distant lands. Interstellar dusts off Americans’ mythological presentation of themselves as those who bring their enterprising spirit and common sense to bear in establishing civilisational order wherever there are acceptable conditions for such an endeavour. Here the crossing of frontiers (and horizons) is far more spectacular than in westerns, because instead of nature, one has to contend with technology and space (this is foreshadowed in the exposition, when the characters corral an out-of-control drone instead of wild horses). Victory is not a matter of one side defeating the other, but of establishing a harmonious union between man and space. ___ If the transfer of the founding American mythology into interstellar space offers a broad range of interpretations with respect to the current state of America’s self-confidence as a nation, the narrative enhancement inspires both awe and embarrassment. The complicated narrative structure involves a rather simple story in which everything is carefully told and fully explained (unlike the less materialistic films of Tarkovsky and Malick, which remain broadly open to interpretation). The excessive complexity of the ways in which the characters are led to their goal and the ways that they are given information creates a false impression of sophistication. The complexity of the form is somewhat counterproductive in light of the parallel effort to achieve maximum clarity and comprehensibility. The film devotes too much space to explaining itself to us. The Nolan brothers’ primary interest in structure has the consequences of clumsily written characters and their utilitarian usage. They are merely pieces of a bigger puzzle. They do not exist outside of their place in the structure. ___ But as a dispassionate designer who masterfully uses motifs from myriad sci-fi movies and books (Armageddon, Contact, The Abyss, Close Encounters of the Third Kind), Nolan has few equals. When he begins to build one of the major scenes, subtly at first and gradually with more and more intensity, it is like listening to a symphony with perfectly tuned and orchestrated instruments. He doesn’t need to resort to his favourite parallel montage technique – on the watery planet, the ticking of the watch incorporated into the music is enough to connect the two storylines. This scene develops the central motif of time, most strikingly illustrated by the mother ship Endurance, whose circular structure with twelve capsules is reminiscent of an analogue clock. The concept of time itself determines the direction and dynamics of the narrative. Time is a source of most of the narrative conflicts. It serves as a substitute for “evil” in a more tangible form, which is what a more conventionally structured narrative would fall back on. The good characters struggle with it; the bad ones succumb to it (Dr. Mann goes mad). Only bringing time under control brings victory in the end. ___ However breathtaking the long build-up to the climax and its slow subsidence may be, we are presented with the question of whether it justifies the complicated narrative structure with the dilation of time, wormholes and black holes. Because the film cannot conceal the fact that Nolan designed everything in relation to this connecting sequence. Not because of grand ideas and carefully depicted characters, but only for the joy of engineering it. The great films of world cinema that we now consider classics offer more than just perfect structure. 85%
()
(weniger)
(mehr)
I strongly believe that when I watch Interstellar a second time, free of any of the hype, I will be able to enjoy this professionally made and above-average sci-fi movie enough to give it four stars… but I’d be lying to myself if I didn’t admit that it was quite a big disappointment. And I’m really sorry about it, because there wasn’t any other film this year that I was more excited about. The biggest problem was the last half-hour, it wanted to be smart and ambitious, but I thought it was actually dull and banal. Really, all that exposition in the middle wasn’t original at all. If only the characters stopped talking so much and let the viewers figure things out for themselves, it would have been very successful and literally, and surprisingly, emotionally cold (the emotional peak comes undoubtedly somewhere around the middle, when they watch the messages). On top of that, there are some weird decisions and logically contradictory moments, which really harms such an ambitious film like this (after realising that time passes more slowly in the first planet due to its proximity to a black hole, these leading scientist really didn’t think of the consequences that it could have on what Dr Miller was supposed to do, etc.?). But Interstellar has many things that I liked. There are scenes that made me hold my breath or that captivated me. Excellent music, great Matthew. But from the whole, I’m still undecided, sigh!
()
There is power in simplicity, even if the monstrous epic tempts many viewers to seek complex interpretations. The power of Nolan's narrative lies in confronting the fundamental life decisions of a handful of people about the future of homo sapiens at the expense of personal interests and desires. Let us take those scientific lessons, limited to the described tables, which we do not understand anyway, as a glittering decoy toward a dead end. The sweeping cinematography and roaring music are meant to give the impression of a major space adventure, and yet, thanks mainly to the terrific cast, it's really one big cliché about a father-daughter relationship where the question is whether the journey through the wormhole will help them see each other again. I really didn't expect myself to be so sensitive and that at the end of it, I would cheer for it wholeheartedly. It was actually nice to get something completely different in the movie theater than I originally expected and that the whole colossus worked. This is particularly true when I sat in front of the screen with a certain amount of skepticism thanks to the diametrically opposed responses. [But I don't deny that everything negative you read about the film is true. And yet so are the positives.]
()
This movie is as if Nikola Tesla opened up one of his Pandora boxes. I wouldn’t have understood a single thing, but I would have been absolutely fascinated by it. And now if you excuse me, I think I may have to spend the rest of my life studying all available theories about the universe, black holes and fifth dimensions.
()
Es ist der Versuch um einen metaphysischen Artfilm für 165 Riesen, der über das Schicksal der Menschheit und den wesentlichen Aspekten der Menschheit und Menschheit erzählt ... und infolgedessen leidet er am stark rhetorischen Charakter sowie daran, dass Nolan seine Charaktere abermals wie automatisiertes etwas in einem exakt zusammengefügten Mechanismus bewegt, ins Schwanken kommt. Mit Ausnahme von McConaughey, der gegeben durch seine jetzige Form Emotionen selbst in einem Stück Plastik finden würde, macht all dies den Eindruck einer astronomische Uhr aus Sprechschemata und sprichwörtlichen dialektischen Kleiderbügeln (die Marschblöcke erwecken einen viel menschlicheren Eindruck als alle oftmals weinenden Figuren). Ich möchte mich jedoch nicht vollends auf die Haterseite stellen, von denen Interstellar etliche heraufbeschworen hat. An dieser Autorenvision genieße ich etliche Dinge -die zeitgenössische "Pre-Apo" -Skepsis, welche durch Idealismus ausgewogen wird, eine raue Betrachtung interstellarer Flüge als traumatisches Phänomen, Arbeit mit dem Raum und den Elementen. Es ist außerdem unglaublich, wie es Hoyte Van Hoytema gelungen ist, die einst schwer zu bewegenden mobile Imax-Kameras wie ein flexibles mehrsaitiges Instrument zu bespielen, welches an einigen Stellen an die Abbildung des Inneren Emmanuel Lubezkis erinnert. Paradoxerweise werden hier sowohl die Rahmenhöhe als auch -breite verwendet, um einen Kammeränhlichen Eindruck hervorzurufen, vielleicht sogar noch häufiger, als um einen Wow-Effekt anhand der Einheiten zu erzielen. Ein verblasster Blick auf eine staubige Zukunft, eine Meditation darüber, dass die Eltern zum Zeitpunkt der Geburt ihrer Nachkommen die Geister ihrer Zukunft werden, und noch ein paar andere Dinge berührten mich. Insgesamt erinnert mich Interstellar an eine Kombination groß aufgefasster Themen sowie Motive, bei welchen es der Streifen nicht vermag, zu materialisieren, was nicht direkt gesagt wird. Und gerade das ist bei einem Film, der sich mit Phänomenen am Rande unserer rationalen Wahrnehmung der Welt befasst, ein Problem. Meiner Ansicht nach ist dies schlichtweg jene Art an Spektakel, bei dem erst die entprechenden Bonussznen packend sein werden. [70%]
()
Are you one of those who wished Chris Nolan’s movies were not so (seemingly) free of emotions? Well, you know what they say ... Be careful what you wish for, it could come true. Because more than anything else, Interstellar acts as Nolan's sincere response to the above complaint. It's just an effort that is more wanted and forcibly pushed than naturally arising from the story and the characters. At the same time, for a long time (which, given the footage, really means for a very long time), nicely rational (and it is evident where this systematic analogy to Kubrick's 2001 comes from), but it turns into a variation on the Frequency viewed by Spielberg family perspective. However, if, after all, you really want to look for an analogy, then it clearly call for the Contact that also ruined its rational level at the end, although not as literal as Interstellar (what is strange is that on the one hand it is so cheaply literal and yet you can read between the lines, how and what was achieved for humanity during the ending scene). You either get over it or not. I did mainly thanks to the fact that the very first dialog of the daughter in the whole film will clearly determine where from and what point will follow. However, if nothing else, the once-in-a-lifetime audiovisual impression (especially in IMAX) of a pioneering journey into the unknown, which is breathtaking all the time, if not in terms of emotions than at least in terms of what the movie shows. In addition, it is one of the few orthodox big-budget science fiction, where during most of the footage the science, not the fiction is being emphasized, as we can typically see. And that means a lot, if on top of that it is quite likely that you will enjoy it even in terms of emotions.
()
As if Christopher Nolan was filming more from himself than ever before. He was already indulging in the smartest twists and tricks in the plot and narrative with The Prestige or Inception, but here he genuinely experiences his omnipresent fear for his family every minute, engraving it into every passionate monologue by Matthew McConaughey and building all the twists around it. It is not easy to accept that this time, too, the driving force behind the universe (occasionally even literally) are his own desires and regrets. But thanks to that, Interstellar soars through drama, ecology, wormholes, water, and ice with Hans Zimmer's organs on its back, aiming for a subjectively absolute rating that has no equal. Because I now have greater respect for distant stars than ever before and at the same time, I would give anything to be even a step closer to them.
()
I'm pretty confused about this one. He could easily have made a great movie, but they'd have to cut the minutes a bit and somehow get more suspense in there. The emotions aren't evenly distributed here at all. One minute you're bored and the next you can't wipe away the tears. On top of that, the feelings are fleeting and don't stick around long. If they had concentrated more on the film itself and not built it on dialogue that forces the viewer a bit too much into how to perceive the whole thing, it would definitely have added to the value of this piece. A weaker 4 stars.
()
Recently, I visited a bookstore and after some hesitant wandering between the shelves, I surprised the staff with a question about the sci-fi section of books. They directed me to shelves that were abundantly filled with titles and images full of magic, dragons, witches, and vampires. This is a logical consequence of long-term development, where the interest of readers and viewers has shifted in favor of fantasy, which doesn't burden the brain as much and is usually more entertaining. Fairy tales have always been popular. Sci-fi titles are produced very rarely, and the sci-fi genre is usually just a disguise for horror, western, or comedy set in a sci-fi backdrop. Thanks to Interstellar, I got the feeling of a genre renaissance because we finally got a pure sci-fi spectacle without magic, mysticism, and mythology. Simply science fiction as traditionally understood. Science, the struggle with nature and oneself, and humans relying on technology. Moreover, in the case of Interstellar, the film is a typical blockbuster where a large budget allows for a grand spectacle with top-notch special effects and a star-studded cast. Not only sci-fi fans can experience large doses of emotions during the journey through a black hole, landing on alien planets, and traveling through interstellar space. The film can be considered a kind of continuation of Stanley Kubrick's legacy, with a touch of Steven Spielberg. Personally, I was bothered by a certain amount of unnecessary pathos and emotional manipulation of the viewer, as well as the overly contrived positive ending, because for me, the story could have ended 20 minutes earlier. Yet despite all my reservations, I don't have anything to compare it to, or which film to use as an example for Nolan. This simply stands out in a very obvious way over the last decade. It is one of the few cases where a blockbuster produced by a major studio breaks free from the traditional pattern of fairy tale storytelling for a family audience and becomes an adult film. Overall impression: 90%.
()
Beautiful. An incredible tribute to Arthur C. Clarke. An intimate and unexpectedly complex story on a huge scale that has inspired me again to revisit space travel and the cosmos. This time Nolan (as screenwriter) wrote another classic for Spielberg with a sci-fi core with an emphasis on family, a call to for all researchers and a huge tribute to the genre and its legends. Spielberg abandoned the project and maybe that’s good (even though I wonder what Janusz would do with the visual side) because Nolan (as director) opened the way to approaching the entire adventure more gloomily. Fascination mixes with powerlessness and an emotional ride. Of course, leaving the family behind is moving, but those who didn’t almost shed a tear when they saw the beauty of Saturn or the curved horizon of events must have a heart of stone or the intelligence of a minced cow. An adventure with human interest where in places you doubt whether human kind is worth saving at all and the revelation of the inner logic of the picture is purely the art of filmmaking that few master on such a scale. The conclusion is for those who didn’t comprehend 2001: A Space Odyssey, maybe it’s too heavy-handed, but I understand the Nolan brothers’ intention: they want all people to comprehend at last. Some see a missed chance here, while I see a movie theme used to the very last drop, that entertains and fascinates. Inception the other way round.
()
Metamorphic art that wants to say everything and yet says almost nothing. Or rather, it is so robust, broad and patterned, that it cannot be read and it cannot even entertain the pragmatic viewer. So many equations, parallel worlds, and various references that it would make even NASA scientists dizzy. I understand enthusiasts who see metaphors and various comparisons and cunningly rejoice in something "more" than their scientific minds can grasp, but if this earns a fortune in the USA with an audience of fat guys with hamburgers, then I will kneel down and beg for forgiveness. An insanely bloated thing, with a few visual gems (those in the trailer) and one or two excellent scenes – the opening space shuttle launch and the complex maneuvering in space. Otherwise, it felt empty to me, and Nolan exaggerates with all that philosophy. Inception, which upside-down buildings was better, it was a popcorn movie with balls. This is a nonstop teary-eyed space odyssey. Over time, this opus has matured like wine.
()
Widerspruchsvoll. Einerseits gibt es im Film tolle Weltraumszenen, eine Augenweide, andererseits ist das Drehbuch manchmal sehr leer, es enthält Ist-Das-Ihr-Ernst?-Momente und macht rührende Stellen durch lustige Momente kaputt. Ich muss zugeben, dass ich einige Dinge wahrscheinlich nicht verstanden habe, weil mich der Film manchmal mit so vielen Informationen überflutet hat, dass ich es nicht geschafft habe, sie wahrzunehmen, geschweige denn über sie nachzudenken. Vielleicht wird es beim zweiten Mal besser werden. Da werde ich mir den Film aber auf einer DVD anschauen, kein IMAX, wie ich ursprünglich geplant habe.
()
Nolan missed the target this time. Formally, Interstellar looks amazing, features a cast of time-honoured Hollywood safe bets, and has a stunning, emotionally disarming, sensitively captured "Earth" intro that, by accurately depicting human cohesion, grandly sets the stage for the anticipated Save-the Earth-Mission to follow. But the second half feels like a different film, furiously edited, rather superficially pushing through wannabe poignant and fateful scenes (the burning cornfield) at the expense of maintaining the build-up and, especially, the logical continuity of the story. Nolan wanted so badly to create a modern Space Odyssey, but he stumbles with both excessive literalism, which only unnecessarily stretches the story at the end, and a surprising inability to keep the full attention of the audience with the visuals of his space setting alone (the visit to the ice planet is the first movie sequence I ever slept through in the cinema). Kubrick's Odyssey was sincere and supersensual, mainly because it left everyone to interpret everything entirely on their own; Interstellar forces the audience into something they may not like at all, plus it wants to have them shed streams of tears and applaud enthusiastically at the end. Sometimes less is a lot more.
()
A monument to humility. It rolls almost everything (including Kubrick) onto the field of exploratory sci-fi. For us cosmophobes, moreover, a unbearably intense experience that can only be finished from the corner of the seat.
()
It didn't hit me as much as "Inception," but it's definitely another great film that Christopher Nolan released. In his case, I feel like the incredible finances go towards something that makes sense, something you can watch, and something that gives you more than just entertainment. It's a smart, emotional sci-fi that stumbles a bit in its plot twist revealed by Murph, but you still can't resist the strong emotions, whether it's fear or touching moments. Fantastic.
()
An aesthetic orgasm. In this case Nolan has played extremely respectably with the poetry of space, and I would put his Interstellar up there with 2001: A Space Odyssey and Contact among the very best that have come out on the subject of "discovering new worlds" (whether or not we want to, or have to, discover those worlds). Matthew McConaughey was obviously a safe bet given his huge popularity at present, yet the role really suited him like the ass on a toilet. Plus Anne Hathaway, once again, who I've never considered a standout actress and I'm awfully glad I’ve been able to revise my opinion of her so significantly since The Dark Knight Rises. The film itself is a typical Nolan trademark of recent years, a very complex piece of work with a dense plot on multiple levels, virtuoso direction, and a characteristically brilliant Hans Zimmer soundtrack. Of course, it’s not as fundamental or groundbreaking as Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey, but Nolan can be credited with bringing a human dimension to the whole story and, in certain moments (the messages from Earth), undeniable emotional devastation. Given the genre, it may be hard even to acknowledge this, but as with Inception (which also had a lot of people who didn't see it or didn't want to see it), this in essence is a very personal work where the fulfillment of the main character's destiny is directly tied to the resolution of some personal issues or even emotional trauma. And Nolan's main point here is that basically the key to everything is love, so that's a sure thing. :))))
()
A phenomenal, brilliant and incredibly captivating sci-fi blast. Nolan did it again, redefining the space genre as such. The special effects are completely absorbing, but by no means is the movie filled with green screened scenes. The effects are applied exactly where they should be, and you will enjoy them the way you’re supposed to (Jackson with his Hobbit could learn a lot from this). A special mention definitely goes to Hans Zimmer. Some people consider his music to be getting a little old, but what he shows here is beyond genius, and memories of flying through wormholes accompanied by stunning organ music give me goosebumps. The story is excellent, and I enjoyed every minute and every twist. Surprisingly, a lot of it is about emotions and love which transcends the dimensions of time and space. This works well with its tense atmosphere. I could feel the emotions stirring in me long after the final credits. McConaughey, Hathaway, Chastain, all of them were absolutely great and even Damon in an unconventional role was excellent. The first time I saw this at the cinema was a great mixture of emotions and stunning effects. Each time I watch it again, I have to admit that few films have had such an overwhelming emotional impact on me, which gives me an almost naively optimistic view of humanity. Humanity that can sacrifice itself, never gives up, keeps fighting at all costs and ends up victorious.
()
Verwandte News
Matthew McConaughey - Kampf mit dem Feuer
Vor zehn Jahren war Matthew McConaughey auf seinem absoluten Höhepunkt. Er spielte in einem Nolan-Film mit, der einer der besten Science-Fiction-Filme des letzten Jahrzehnts ist. Er hat DiCaprio den… (mehr)
Oppenheimer mit außerordentlichem Rekord
Vielleicht muss das gar nicht erwähnen, aber wenn Sie zufällig noch nicht im Kino waren, um Christopher Nolans (Inception) neuesten Film Oppenheimer zu sehen, sollten Sie unbedingt vorbeischauen. Es… (mehr)
Nolan schließt mögliche Dreharbeiten zu einem Star-Wars-Film nicht aus
Im Laufe der Jahre hat sich Regisseur Christopher Nolan in Hollywood den Ruf eines Filmemachers erarbeitet, der eine feste Vision hat, der genau weiß, was er erreichen will und wie er es erreichen… (mehr)
Oppenheimer und der dritte Streifen der Guardians werden lang
Der Trend, dass die Filme immer länger werden, setzt sich auch dieses Jahr fort, und nach dem 169 Minuten langen John Wick 4 können sich die Zuschauer langsam aber sicher schon mal auf weitere lange… (mehr)