Just got back from a midnight showing. And aw, geez, I hate to say it but... Thumbs down. Too long. Too much of daddy issues. WAY too overbearing a musical score (though it's possible that was a problem with the theater I saw it in). Way too New Age-y "love (literally) transcends time and space" theme. Way too offbeat third act that feels like it belongs in a different film. Way too "out there" resolution that is either a deus ex machina or completely nonsensical. For a film that boasts about its science credentials, there were a great many scientific and technical faux pas. Just a few I can remember: The film is certainly ambitious in its reach, but it ultimately falls short. Still, I recommend you see it simply because the stuff that's good about it is really really good: stunning visuals, good performances, and some nice plot developments. There's also a surprise appearance by someone in a very significant role.
I really really wanted to like Interstellar, but after a night to sleep on it I just don't feel any urge to see it again. Self indulgent and schitzophrenic, it has the ingredients for three great movies in it but they are mixed together in just the wrong way. The special effects are amazing and worth the cost of admission, the shot of the ship passing by Saturn in particular was awe-inspiring, definitely glad I saw this on an IMAX sized screen. I checked out of taking the movie seriously after they . I'll be back later with my thoughts on the plot, but that moment shattered the illusion of the movie for me.
I have been waiting for this since I first heard about it like two years ago. Will watch on Tuesday. In an IMAX theater. And I better like it very, very much
That totally slipped by me but, of course, you're absolutely right. And a healthy dollop of 2001: A Space Odyssey as well.
Going to see it in a couple of hours...I hope this is one of those cases where I think everyone else is a moron and I love the movie
Well I enjoyed it well enough, but I don't go to the movies expecting documentaries. I honestly don't know why the people looking for that still go to movies and complain about it, they are virtually NEVER happy. It did feature a little heavier on the metaphysical side than I expected, I can actually see that kinda hurting the movie from people expecting more straight up tech based sci fi.
I think that was an attempt to illustrate how the people of the time had so acquiesced to their dismal situation--and given up courage, intrepidity, and the will to reach for the stars--that they'd taken to denying that things had ever been different. And the film seemed to suggest that the people in charge--like the school administrator--were not only aware of this, but encouraged it in order to keep regular folk focused on toiling away in the here and now rather than aspiring for some grander future (hence, Coop's son not getting into college).
Agree with all of the above. The movie's science is fatally flawed. Still I liked it and was glad to have paid my $12.00 to see in IMAX. And I got a cool poster handed to everyone on the way out to put on my bedroom wall. Recommend seeing it. Just don't think too hard.
Apparently they got more science right than I gave them credit for. The penrose process goes a long way to explaining item 2. Item 3 may have been related in an emotional way. Still they didn't do a good job of relaying this information to the lay movie goer. Bailey's point had an easy fix. Just ax the booster and go with Star Wars tech. Wonder why they didn't
ok just ignore me and the penrose process in post above yours. It's only a Stanford astrophysicist and an article titled: Extraction of Energy from a Black Hole In 1971, Roger Penrose proposed a way in which to extract energy from a black hole by other means. [7] Unlike the Blandford-Znajek process which relied on magnetism, the Penrose process relied on conservation of momentum. The premise is that if an object in a certain area around a black hole called the ergosphere but not at the event horizon broke apart, with one piece heading towards the center of the black hole and the other piece heading out, the piece that left the black hole would emerge with more energy than it would have entered with.
Ok here's a more popular pundit: Neil deGrasse Tyson weighs in... "They explore a planet near a Black Hole. Personally, I’d stay as far the hell away from BlackHoles as I can"
Agree with much of whats been said. It's not a bad film. It's just very, very disappointing because it's an average film and comfortably Nolan's worst. I was expecting an uncompromising existential mindfuck, but the central reveal of the plot is unforgivably retarded. It begun with Hathaways cringeworthy new age speech about how love transcends space and time, and culminated in the inside of a black hole being a portal to a childs bedroom. If you go anywhere near a black hole and spend even a few minutes there, then you're going to experience way more than a few decades of time distortion. You certainly can't transit to other singularities, get out alive, or even transmit data out. Still, some of the visuals are good, some of the music is good. The father/daughter stuff did get me at times. It's admirable that they approached the topic of relativistic time-dilation at all. But I hope Nolan goes back to something more grounded for his next movie.
On this... I don't think that's all they were doing. The "weight" was exerting thrust. Newtons third law and that.
Well, what to say. I've had a few days to let it sink in. It's by no means a bad film. Yet I guess if you're the average Jane or Joe, the really juicy parts go straight over your head. What's left without all the very nice fringe physics is pure kitsch with an outcome I saw the first time the word 'ghosts' was mentioned. I just knew. They did the same thing on FUTURAMA of all things. And on RED DWARF. And probably in countless others. T'was a little letdown. Movie could also profit from some trim. 15 minutes less would make it a more rounded experience. It's hypnotic and time does fly yet the Nolans take their sweet time establishing things that could be established within a throwaway sentence. I did not get the whole 2001 vibe. Nope, sorry. 2001 lives off interpretation, this one can be explained if you have a clue about the kind of physics involved. Gravity spanning dimensions? Yea, baby, I heard that one in like three of the existing 10 or so string theories Even film critics fell for some of the more extreme stuff btw. That's understandable on the one hand but awkward on the other - you can't simply write 'that is bad because I totally fail to read up on the basics of what the movie is about'. I'd say STFU or go for technical filmmaking merits alone if you are too lazy to read up. This movie is way, WAY beyond what you learned in high school in 1965. This one is hard to judge. I'll give it a solid 8/10 because overall, I liked it but I'd probably loved it if not for the glacial pace and the big reveal that wasn't.
^I agree with much of that. The film could've been trimmed significantly in the first act without losing anything important. I, too, knew who the "ghost" was, although I'm a little confused about who sent what. My memory is a little fuzzy as I was watching a midnight showing... I really didn't mind the sappy "love transcends time and space" theme--and I think people who criticize Anne Hathaway's acting in that scene where she gives that speech really have a problem with her character--but when love LITERALLY transcended time and space, that was a bit too heavy-handed for me. The movie's ending reminded me mostly of The Abyss, with the aliens-ex-machina resolution. I still chuckle when I think of
Maybe I was really dragging that night, because it wasn't clear to me at all. Maybe. But I would think once you've gone into a black hole--willingly!--you'd be way past holding out hope for an out.
Adam Savage, of Mythbusters fame, spoiler-laden review. BTW, if you're "friends" with Stephen Hawking on Facebook, you'll know that Kip Thorne, who advised on the movie, is friends with him. Neil deGrasse-Tyson's take on the film. Phil Plait, AKA the Bad Astronomer, has admitted that some of the science in the film which he thought was wrong, is actually right.
I just got back from this and I have to disagree with everyone else, I thought the movie was phenomenal. I don't care about the science, I thought it was great. I loved the wonder of it all. I loved the visuals, I loved the plot, I loved the music and I loved the acting. This moving kept me wondering what's going to happen at every twist and turn. I liked this better than Inception and I love Inception. Christopher Nolan has done it again as far as I'm concerned.
Wow, did you miss a HUGE point of the plot. Yes, there's some new wavey stuff in there instead of hard science, but there's no expectation that if you go into a black hole you'll ever get out again if there aren't some pretty specific conditioins in place. If you don't like it wasn't hard science, that's fine, but Clarke's Law kicks in and is explicitly credited for that plot point. You might remember something about books and gravity around that point.
Personally I enjoyed the hell out of it. Though it would have been a far better stage if it was done as a miniseries or series of movies. There was too much there that should have been given its own story. For example, imagine a subset of it done through Dr. Mann's POV and how that would have made for a more gripping narrative. The science was OK. It was fairly good up until the Clarke's Law invocation, though you'd think that the first thing you'd say about a planet near the event horizon of a black hole would be HELL NO. That part was a bit odd for me, but I understood how it underscored the central emotional narrative and that drove the characterization. But in comparison to 2001, there's a much larger invocation of Clarke's Law there, yet we've had time to explore that narrative and everyone is fine with it now. Space Baby? C'mon. I thought it worked well emotionally, narratively, the science was OK, the visuals were fantastic and I thought the gas planet with the frozen clouds was a fascinating idea. There was some really good moments in there.
I came across this last night. It's pretty much how I feel. http://qz.com/299334/shut-up-about-the-inaccuracies-of-interstellar/
Space baby in 2001 was the Star Child, the next stage of existence for Bowman after the monolith visited him the final time in the hotel room and transfigured him. At the end he gazed upon the earth and wondered, "What next?" Very literal and a strong parallel to Interstellar (birth canal, rebirth).
I have a question: If you can transmit data about a black hole in Morse code using the second hand of a watch, why can't you also send a "Don't trust the douchebag you thaw out on the planet" warning?
Maybe he didn't have much time. No pun intended. I mean, it seems like as soon as he completed his task of sending the message, he's whisked away pretty quickley. It's kind of like in Quantum Leap when Sam does what he needs to do to leap, but wants to do one more thing, but ends up leaping in mid sentence. Maybe the aliens/ humans weren't concerned about douchebag Damon, but making sure the message is sent.
