Interstellar - Chris Nolan's new film

[KovalainenFanBoy]

This was a very entertaining film, but just as every Nolan film, it's just a time waster. It making no sense whatsoever and being just a (really entertaining) senseless fantasy and, above all, the way it tries to marry the enormous and ureachable misteries of quantum physics with the particular emotional bullshit of some single man's experience is just.. ugh, come on. It really prevents the film from being truly awe inspiring. No relevance whatsoever further than the 3 fun hours it provides. But then again, those 3 hours are great. Not once did I feel the film was running too long or it was starting to drag

 

The score was great too, Zimmer did good on this, and the visual effects are great too. I was expecting lusher sound effects for the first wormhole travel though; that was dissapointing. It sounded just like a storm, plus the *beep beep beep* of the ship. Not cool.

 

By the way, I don't know if it's because the film was dubbed or because the cinema's sound system is old, but the film sounded just like every other film. Dialogue was loud and clear and so was the music and sound effects. I didn't notice it sounding weird.

[Guest boo]

the elderly daughter stuff almost ruined this for me. it was just a bit awkward... I think more thought should have been put in to how the characters would react to that situation. It felt a bit like the actors were unsure and weirded out.

oh that and the matt damon fight scenes.. other than that this is a well lush film

[Guest boo]

haha actually,it's true that when you think back on Nolan films you start thinking of all these things you didn't like.. despite really enjoying it whilst watching. There's def some talent involved in whatever he does to achieve that. Probably better to just enjoy it but not think about it afterwards.

[Goiter Sanchez]

*sees thread about this film*

 

*expects to find a bunch of goddamn cry babies whining about it*

 

*watmm pro*

[Joyrex]

I think it's one of the best films I've ever seen. Not interested in discussing the wheres and why's, it's just a damn good film.

Agreed.

[baph]

lol @ early technomagical drone hack

[Guest trananhhung]

I think it's one of the worst films I've seen. :( I don't want to discuss the whys and wheres

[Guest WNS000]

One of the worst films I have seen in a long time.

 

I don't even know where to start.

 

Horrible plot, horrible acting full of cliché (I hated the smart-ass kid girl in a similar way I hated the smart-ass kid boy in a The Sixth Sense). The film was very inconsistent. It felt like multiple separate parts forced to one piece. The conspiracy themes and pseudo-science moments were laughable.

 

I am very sensitive to unbelievable, unrealistic, theatrical dialogues and straightforward motivations and behaviours of characters in movies (I could accept that in a comics, not a sci-fi that is compared to Kubrick's 2001). I also hated characters' emotional and personality inconsistency in the film. There was so much in this film that I consider wrong. Horrible, overrated film.

 

I was very surprised that Nolan managed to make a film of such a low quality because I very enjoyed some of his previous films (Memento, for example).

 

I don't understand the universal acclaim this film is receiving.

 

EDIT:

 

I also FUCKING HATED the "to save the world" phrase constantly repeated in a "deep" Hollywood style throughout the whole film. I could not believe it. I wasn't going to watch Armageddon bullshit. Fuck that.

[Capsaicin]

I liked the movie. It was a good movie.

[Guest trananhhung]

One of the worst films I have seen in a long time.

 

I don't even know where to start.

 

Horrible plot, horrible acting full of cliché (I hated the smart-ass kid girl in a similar way I hated the smart-ass kid boy in a The Sixth Sense). The film was very inconsistent. It felt like multiple separate parts forced to one piece. The conspiracy themes and pseudo-science moments were laughable.

 

I am very sensitive to unbelievable, unrealistic, theatrical dialogues and straightforward motivations and behaviours of characters in movies (I could accept that in a comics, not a sci-fi that is compared to Kubrick's 2001). I also hated characters' emotional and personality inconsistency in the film. There was so much in this film that I consider wrong. Horrible, overrated film.

 

I was very surprised that Nolan managed to make a film of such a low quality because I very enjoyed some of his previous films (Memento, for example).

 

I don't understand the universal acclaim this film is receiving.

 

EDIT:

 

I also FUCKING HATED the "to save the world" phrase constantly repeated in a "deep" Hollywood style throughout the whole film. I could not believe it. I wasn't going to watch Armageddon bullshit. Fuck that.

There's no universal acclaim at all. Only the Internet Nolan fans COD gamers. The film was fairly demolished by sight and sound and cahiers du cinema. To put this on the same line as 2001... I don't even...

[fenton]

I haven't read any good reviews on it tbh, obviously people have expressed their positive opinions, I too, had fun watching it but think the 6/10 I gave it was about right.

 

 

Why am I bothering to say this.

[entropi]

I'm with Siracusa on this:

 

I

[Guest]

ya.... Is Siracusa officially an celebrity now?

[entropi]

ya.... Is Siracusa officially an celebrity now?

nah, probably just among macnerds :)

[MassfreeKid]

 

I think it's one of the best films I've ever seen. Not interested in discussing the wheres and why's, it's just a damn good film.

Agreed.

 

 

Same here. It feels boring to discuss Nolan's movies with people who think he doesn't "make sense". Art is not a book you read to understand it, it's an experience that goes beyond reason. Since when a movie has the obligation to make perfect sense? :) Nolan is an artist, not a scientist. Movies are about the experience for me, that's all there is to it. Interstellar is an imaginary world, remember? Why don't you say that Star Trek, Star Wars and all Marvel movies are not plausible? Cause they are A LOT MORE impossible to conceive than anything Nolan ever did and yet, no one is complaining. How about Under The Skin? Is it plausible? No one comments on the plausibility of Under The Skin, they rather experience it as a piece of art. The Matrix? Apollo 18? The Last Days on Mars? I Origins? Guardians of the Galaxy? So these movies make perfect sense according to science? Of course not. This is science-fiction, people! :) If Nolan had made a documentary about black holes, it would be a different story. But that's definitely not what he made. He made a science-fiction movie.

[MassfreeKid]

 

There's no universal acclaim at all. Only the Internet Nolan fans COD gamers. The film was fairly demolished by sight and sound and cahiers du cinema. To put this on the same line as 2001... I don't even...

 

 

When 2001 was released in 1968, it received exactly the same type of reactions. Some people HATED it more than anything, said it was the worst science-fiction movie ever released, that it was a joke, that it would never be respected by serious moviegoers and world-acclaimed critics. Just for fun, I copied some examples from Wikipedia. All the sources are in the original page. My point is: give Interstellar a few decades. It's a huge movie.

 

Pauline Kael it was "a monumentally unimaginative movie, and Stanley Kauffmann of The New Republic called it "a film that is so dull, it even dulls our interest in the technical ingenuity for the sake of which Kubrick has allowed it to become dull."Renata Adler of The New York Times wrote that it was "somewhere between hypnotic and immensely boring." Variety's 'Robe' believed the film was a "Big, beautiful, but plodding sci-fi epic ... A major achievement in cinematography and special effects, 2001 lacks dramatic appeal to a large degree and only conveys suspense after the halfway mark." Andrew Sarris called it "one of the grimmest films I have ever seen in my life ...2001 is a disaster because it is much too abstract to make its abstract points." (Sarris reversed his opinion upon a second viewing of the film, and declared "2001 is indeed a major work by a major artist.^") John Simon felt it was "a regrettable failure, although not a total one. This film is fascinating when it concentrates on apes or machines ... and dreadful when it deals with the in-betweens: humans ...2001, for all its lively visual and mechanical spectacle, is a kind of space-Spartacus and, more pretentious still, a shaggy God story." Eminent historian Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. deemed the film "morally pretentious, intellectually obscure and inordinately long ... a film out of control" It has been noted that its slow pacing often alienates modern audiences more than it did upon its initial release.

 

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001:_A_Space_Odyssey_%28film%29#Release

[Perezvon]

Pauline Kael it was "a monumentally unimaginative movie, and Stanley Kauffmann of The New Republic called it "a film that is so dull, it even dulls our interest in the technical ingenuity for the sake of which Kubrick has allowed it to become dull."Renata Adler of The New York Times wrote that it was "somewhere between hypnotic and immensely boring." Variety's 'Robe' believed the film was a "Big, beautiful, but plodding sci-fi epic ... A major achievement in cinematography and special effects, 2001 lacks dramatic appeal to a large degree and only conveys suspense after the halfway mark." Andrew Sarris called it "one of the grimmest films I have ever seen in my life ...2001 is a disaster because it is much too abstract to make its abstract points." (Sarris reversed his opinion upon a second viewing of the film, and declared "2001 is indeed a major work by a major artist.^") John Simon felt it was "a regrettable failure, although not a total one. This film is fascinating when it concentrates on apes or machines ... and dreadful when it deals with the in-betweens: humans ...2001, for all its lively visual and mechanical spectacle, is a kind of space-Spartacus and, more pretentious still, a shaggy God story." Eminent historian Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. deemed the film "morally pretentious, intellectually obscure and inordinately long ... a film out of control" It has been noted that its slow pacing often alienates modern audiences more than it did upon its initial release.

lol

[o00o]

[Guest WNS000]

 

 

I think it's one of the best films I've ever seen. Not interested in discussing the wheres and why's, it's just a damn good film.

Agreed.

 

 

Same here. It feels boring to discuss Nolan's movies with people who think he doesn't "make sense". Art is not a book you read to understand it, it's an experience that goes beyond reason. Since when a movie has the obligation to make perfect sense? :) Nolan is an artist, not a scientist. Movies are about the experience for me, that's all there is to it. Interstellar is an imaginary world, remember? Why don't you say that Star Trek, Star Wars and all Marvel movies are not plausible? Cause they are A LOT MORE impossible to conceive than anything Nolan ever did and yet, no one is complaining. How about Under The Skin? Is it plausible? No one comments on the plausibility of Under The Skin, they rather experience it as a piece of art. The Matrix? Apollo 18? The Last Days on Mars? I Origins? Guardians of the Galaxy? So these movies make perfect sense according to science? Of course not. This is science-fiction, people! :) If Nolan had made a documentary about black holes, it would be a different story. But that's definitely not what he made. He made a science-fiction movie.

 

 

 

While there were non-sense, badly thought out stuff in the story that were plain laughable that wasn't my main concern. I had more problems with its production qualities (horrible dialogues, horribly written, inconsistent, unbelievable characters, bad hollywood-like acting and the story full of cliché and forced twists). There were some nice moments but otherwise it was just a poor film to me.

 

 

 

There's no universal acclaim at all. Only the Internet Nolan fans COD gamers. The film was fairly demolished by sight and sound and cahiers du cinema. To put this on the same line as 2001... I don't even...

 

 

When 2001 was released in 1968, it received exactly the same type of reactions. Some people HATED it more than anything, said it was the worst science-fiction movie ever released, that it was a joke, that it would never be respected by serious moviegoers and world-acclaimed critics. Just for fun, I copied some examples from Wikipedia. All the sources are in the original page. My point is: give Interstellar a few decades. It's a huge movie.

 

Pauline Kael it was "a monumentally unimaginative movie, and Stanley Kauffmann of The New Republic called it "a film that is so dull, it even dulls our interest in the technical ingenuity for the sake of which Kubrick has allowed it to become dull."Renata Adler of The New York Times wrote that it was "somewhere between hypnotic and immensely boring." Variety's 'Robe' believed the film was a "Big, beautiful, but plodding sci-fi epic ... A major achievement in cinematography and special effects, 2001 lacks dramatic appeal to a large degree and only conveys suspense after the halfway mark." Andrew Sarris called it "one of the grimmest films I have ever seen in my life ...2001 is a disaster because it is much too abstract to make its abstract points." (Sarris reversed his opinion upon a second viewing of the film, and declared "2001 is indeed a major work by a major artist.^") John Simon felt it was "a regrettable failure, although not a total one. This film is fascinating when it concentrates on apes or machines ... and dreadful when it deals with the in-betweens: humans ...2001, for all its lively visual and mechanical spectacle, is a kind of space-Spartacus and, more pretentious still, a shaggy God story." Eminent historian Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. deemed the film "morally pretentious, intellectually obscure and inordinately long ... a film out of control" It has been noted that its slow pacing often alienates modern audiences more than it did upon its initial release.

 

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001:_A_Space_Odyssey_%28film%29#Release

 

 

If I read those citations correctly they all seem to point out the film was boring and dragging. Might be, for some. Sure. But the acting was spot-on, the believability was spot-on, the amount of "good taste", if you like, was spot-on (nothing in-your-face stupid, questionable), the production qualities were spot-on. So yeah, might be a boring film for some people but its production qualities is something I don't see being criticized.

 

On the other hand, as I have already written, Interstelar was not only a non-sense in many ways but its production qualities were really poor. And that is my main problem with the Nolan's film. I can stand many questionable, full-of-paradox plots and mindsets but I cannot stand poor acting and other production qualities in a film. And I certainly wasn't expecting Nolan to release such a low quality.

[Dale]

the film has a powerful soundtrack

[Hugh Mughnus]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dI6tvCbPePg

[Braintree]

 

 

I think it's one of the best films I've ever seen. Not interested in discussing the wheres and why's, it's just a damn good film.

Agreed.

 

 

Same here. It feels boring to discuss Nolan's movies with people who think he doesn't "make sense". Art is not a book you read to understand it, it's an experience that goes beyond reason. Since when a movie has the obligation to make perfect sense? :) Nolan is an artist, not a scientist. Movies are about the experience for me, that's all there is to it. Interstellar is an imaginary world, remember? Why don't you say that Star Trek, Star Wars and all Marvel movies are not plausible? Cause they are A LOT MORE impossible to conceive than anything Nolan ever did and yet, no one is complaining. How about Under The Skin? Is it plausible? No one comments on the plausibility of Under The Skin, they rather experience it as a piece of art. The Matrix? Apollo 18? The Last Days on Mars? I Origins? Guardians of the Galaxy? So these movies make perfect sense according to science? Of course not. This is science-fiction, people! :) If Nolan had made a documentary about black holes, it would be a different story. But that's definitely not what he made. He made a science-fiction movie.

 

 

Star Trek, Star Wars, Under the Skin, Guardians of the Galaxy et al aren't based in science. Interstellar made a huge deal about being scientifically accurate and it wasn't. It wasn't even believable. It didn't make me have a suspension of disbelief because of the poor production qualities that Jev pointed out.

[o00o]

 

the film has a powerful soundtrack

 

Hans Zimmer is the Aphex Twin of soundtracks for me. Even movies that suck have a great soundtrack if done by him. Some stuff is cheesy yeah but the good tracks are really awesome. They both also use similar chords / keys

[TwiddleBot]

Loved 2001 when I saw it in like grade 1 (I still do), loved Interstellar, different movies. Wasn't surprised to find out Nolan was a fan of Jorge Luis Borges, the film felt like a love letter to Borges and all that awesome conceptual 50s-60s sci fi I used to read as a kid. When I left the theatre I had an urge to reread the garden of forking paths, the Aleph, Library of Babel, etc. Great soundtrack too.

[Guest WNS000]

Zimmer? The Thin Red Line soundtrack. Enough said.