Interstellar; thoughts? *Can contain spoilers*

Yo,

Went to see Interstellar last night, and it was so boring, that I not only rushed out of the cinema when the first credits rolled, but also go to so depressed I had to buy myself bottle of wine and drink it all. I should have asked for a redound. There was a lot of people on that evening screening, and my god almost all of them where bored too! They would be yawning, talking, checking time on their phones, looking around the cinema. With exception of some visuals, which where nice, this movie is absolute trash, with it's chopped up and nonsensical story. And the messages I've got from it were really inconsistent. First with "Fuck the earth and leave" with this one having its half conclusion mid-film, with the scene on the frozen planet, where Mat said that he was not expecting that the earth might be actually so unique, which was cool, but then the earth go shafted anyway, and they ended up living on halo. It is very troubling to me because philosophy in movies is a reflection of a global view most of the time. And having a view like this, on our beautiful planet is hurting. We should explore the space but trough that exploration we should make our own home a healthy place, which it once was.

Haha at least now I know to avoid that movie. Sounds......really boring! I guess it must be one of those movies where they talk and talk, (based on the beliefs and views of the script writer), than add a little action just so that they have something exciting to put in the trailer. Haha I guess it isn't even worth downloading online?

Well it all depends what are you waiting from a movie. If you want to see a big blockbuster with robots fights and vfx and all. A no brain movie with just visuals then eventually it's not a good movie.

Actually I liked it. Because it was different from what is going on in the movies these times.

The only thing I didn't love acutally was music. Being a composer myself and seeing Hans Zimmer making hype of this movie telling it was his best soundtrack made me laugh. Because it was "bad" sound design and almost no theme. An omnipresent organ and some instruments that weren't intented to be there at certain moments. This broke some atmosphere moments.

Apart from that it was a good dystopian movie. Better than labyrinth. And the narrative style was quite interesting.

Actually after the movie I was depressed because I was born too soon and I will probably never see the alcubierre drive in action. Nor any other extraterrestial form of life.

I'm a big sci-fi fan so i thought i'd enjoy it more than i actually did. Whilst i did like it i thought it was way too drawn out (could have been edited to half the length) and tried too hard to be 2001 space odyssey.

Also don't know if it was the cinema or the film but a lot of the time i couldn't hear the dialogue for the music and main actor has a thick accent any way which made it harder.

Lastly i don't get why they had to actually leave the Earth, it's not like it was about to explode, they could have built sealed shelters or domes on the ground and controlled the environment the same as in a space station, instead they opted to settle on a world super close to giant blackhole because they couldn't figure out the formula to control gravity or something so they could get their ship off the ground.

Still better than the disappointing Prometheus and makes a change from a comic book movie.

Maybe hard to translate all the feelings during the movie into english, but Ill give it a try:

Wanted to go to the cinema on monday, not knowing what movies are in cinema the past days. So I dont knew what kind of movie it was at all, only "drama", from the maker of Inception and about ~190 minutes long.

I love things about (the) universe(s) and sci-fi stuff, if its not too far grabbed on our near future. The film was great, Ild even say that it hit my "top 10" movies list (which doesnt really exist, its just a point for my "how great it is/was" ranking to keep a balance ). I like the storyline, how it is shown and telled, duo to its rather long duration of about 186 minutes, the movie is more filled with details and aspects instead of action/ fight scenes/ explosions/ whatever. For me the film is much more a philosophical piece than an entertaining one. Story behind it and its scenery are more real in comparison to nearly all "things which currently happen" titles and the logic of the whole plot can (talking about dimensions) be fully doable.

I can imagine that you can not like it because of its style and art to "tell you things", but I loved it (in the hope of not have anything spoilered ).

Regardy,

Proxymity

i thoroughly enjoyed it. it did not even seem to be three hours long because i was engaged with it.

having said that, i can see how others would not like it, or have a taste for it. i don't have a taste for country music, but i don't believe it is inherently bad. but it pains me that some are simply saying they don't like it because that is the cool thing to say about a movie that is expected to do well. unfortunately, because of christopher nolan's past body of work, which i like, he attracts a considerable amount of fashionable hate.

i don't envy the position he has put himself in.

but i admire his courage.

he is attempting to make great films.

just because they are not received well, or understood, does not mean he has failed. were that the case, then many 'great' directors would not be considered such. Ethan, you say he tried too hard to be '2001'. that is funny because if we are to judge his movie by it's 'reception' than he has succeeded, because '2001' was all but panned for a number of reasons including scientific inaccuracy, when it was first viewed. it was not understood or even acknowledged for it's greatness until many years later.

but for those who truly and honestly dislike it, i have only one question. why chose this particular film to publicly voice your displeasure? have you done so with every movie you disliked this year? or is there a 'reason' you chose to express your opinion about this particular one?

ok, that was three questions, i apologize...lol.

hope this does not become an out of control flame thread.

harrio i didn't dislike it, just didn't like it as much as i thought i would. I guess my expectations were too high. It's the first time i've discussed the film here and i wasn't aware how others had received it or any negative press it might of gotten. Theres nothing wrong with a philosophical movie but for me it doesn't excuse fundamental plot flaws.

You might well think i'm missing the point of the movie but I try not to be so deep when thinking about them, generally after i've seen a movie i ask myself would i watch it again, the answer here is maybe, if it was on the tv one sunday night and i was flicking through the channels and it happened to be on.

Ethan,

i was not picking on you. i hope you did not think so. i was asking people to assess their own internal motives.

to answer your question, hopefully, they had to leave the earth because it could not produce food any more, so it could not sustain the population.

kind of like when large herbivores overgraze a patch of land. once they have depleted it faster than it can regrow, they have to move on to another patch of land. only in this case, the earth stopped replenishing. so the only place to go was to another planet capable of sustaining human life and growing food.

i hope that sorts it for you.

I watched Interstellar too and it wasn't that bad. I mean, yes, it was touted to be very big before it actually released, and I did think a lot of hard work has gone into it on the part of Christopher Nolan. But one major putting-off factor (not only for me but for many others) I feel was the huge amount of science incorporated into the movie, aspects and principles of physics and stuff. Agreed, the directors might have decided to make the events in the film seem as genuine as possible, but then, another way to look at it from the audience's point of view is this: A majority of us more often than not go to watch a movie for the purpose of getting entertained (at least I do). And so, I wouldn't like it much if I'm going for a movie to get myself perked up after a long and tiring day at work and I have to use my brains to dissect the facts in the movie itself. It should majorly be entertainment material, which doesn't require too much of thinking. Agree?

Jason234,

i agree with you that movies should be entertaining. i also agree that watching movies that do not require a lot of thinking are fun. like 'ace ventura' or 'the expendables'. but different people are entertained by different things. some people like to be challenged mentally by movies like 'primer' , 'dinner with andre' or 'time crimes'.

my point being, if you do not like mentally challenging movies, it is not hard to avoid them. especially when that it the sole type of movie that a particular director ever makes...like christopher nolan.

if you are 'put off' by science and such, then it stands to reason that you should avoid a christopher nolan movie, which includes science.

simply because his movies can be hard to understand for many, even without the presence of science.

[quote:1rv534sb]It should majorly be entertainment material, which doesn't require too much of thinking. Agree?

I don't agree. In my opinion even if a movie has bigger budged doesn't always have to mean that it is a no brainer and I'm happy that some movie makers take that risk. If this would never happen there would be even greater mono culture on movies.

I think this movie had it's Hollywood moments but, It wasn't so major that it would have spoiled it for me.

P.S. I also like movies like Bad taste for different reasons

I disliked the movie, and the more I think about it, the more I hate it.

It's a nonsensical movie from start to finish.

**SPOILERS BELOW**

• It starts with a "dustbowl" scenario for earth collapse (which is insane since lack of food is the least likely problem to wipe out the human race, and even if it were, there would be "bubble-cities" before talk of interplanetary travel), so negative points for lack of creativity and huge wasted opportunities.
• Then it moves on to a "society doesn't care about science anymore" plot that is presented as the reason for the earth being as shit as it is. I'm sorry I wasn't aware I was watching idiocracy.
• Then, a badly done "Saturn V launch scene" that they just ripped off from old NASA tapes. They could have CGI'd something way better, or even used
  Subscribe to Construct videos now
  . This is ultimately wasted anyways, as later in the movie it is revealed that their ship can "millenium-falcon takeoff" out of 130% gravity planets.
• A ton of wasted time with boring space scenes (could be enhanced by better music, cool interfaces, futuristic-looking docking mechanics). The CGI on those scenes reminds me of the 90's era (i.e. you can almost see the strings). Apollo 13 had not only more, but also better looking, space scenes.
• We are shown ridiculous-looking spacebots that are completely impractical (I admit that they are funny, though), and are clearly made to look like the 2001 obelisk. They are so ridiculous that they move by dragging themselves around, have a CRT-monitor displaying random bits of code, and when they speak you barely know it's the computer talking.
• The rest of the ship isn't much better. Looks like they recycled some old movie props that were lying around discarded:
  • The doors are impractical and we never get to see a full opening sequence (which are a staple in this genre). Even games routinely do better.
  • The cryopods, which could have looked cool, ended up looking like Ziploc bags for people
  • The ship controls are outdated, they look like old military hardware and game-console bits. There is no HUD to speak of.
  • The ship itself looks dumb for a sci-fi flick, appears to be based on lifting-body X-series SSTO craft of the early 90s (see the x-30)
• The black hole scene is cool up until they warp, then we get the worse "tunnel travel" CGI ever (even star wars did better). We would have been better served with winamp visualisations.
• Then the movie starts with the planets, which fly in the face of everything we know about exoplanets, with impossible geological formations that are never explained, such as this shit right here (but there are many other examples). Also a huge wasted opportunity, since we only get to see 3 barren planets in the entire movie, and we have impressive tools at our disposal, such as Terragen 3, that can render beautiful-looking planets on the cheap (seriously that tool is as easy to use as Construct 2).
• Then we get to the "meat" of the plot, which is the same tired hollywoodian "love overcomes all barriers" trope (warning: TVTropes link). I wasn't expecting this bullcrap in a "serious" scifi movie.
• After this, the movie starts rushing to the end blazing fast (probably because Nolan suddenly realized he couldn't make an 8-hour movie and he had already taken up 2 hours), ignoring plot points along the way and becoming a disjointed trainwreck, due to the director/writers desperately trying to introduce new elements but running out of time.

I can go on and on, but I'll stop now.

I seriously don't get how a movie like this can take more than $2mil to produce. This is serious garage quality. An indie studio could have done better, and for much less money.

Good point. But then, I'm not exactly 'put off' by science (I put it wrongly earlier); it's just that when it becomes too complicated to understand, then it becomes a bit of a bother. Also, I admit that the visuals and the trailer of the movie were too good to be missed and hence I wanted to go watch it

Good point. But then, I'm not exactly 'put off' by science (I put it wrongly earlier); it's just that when it becomes too complicated to understand, then it becomes a bit of a bother. Also, I admit that the visuals and the trailer of the movie were too good to be missed and hence I wanted to go watch it

Jason234,

that is totally understandable, especially since a lot of the science used is theoretical in nature, so it cannot be easily 'discounted' by haters per say. example being, in 'timecops' you cannot touch your past self or there will be a violent reaction of atoms/matter occupying the same space. yet, in looper, you can have a fight with your future past self and suffer the very same wounds you inflict.

different theories with different outcomes, and none can be 'dis-proven'.

i loved the trailer as well. i like how nolan creates interest without giving away the content of the film, like most movies do. the trailer for inception was completely mind-trippy, but it gave you no clue as to what the movie was about.

ultimately, i'm glad you enjoyed it.

You've hit the nail on the head. The trailer didn't reveal much about the content of the film and yet evoked a sense of interest strong enough to want to go and watch the movie. Wonder what marvel he'll be coming up with next.