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.

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 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.

Sure, just tell Sony you want to play html5 games with webgl, from an open marketplace.

lol...i love that answer.

—,

well i'm no expert, but i could definitely give you some of my thoughts on how to improve/polish it.

i really played it a lot when you first put it on the arcade; trying to beat it and figure out the strategies of playing it well. but it also has enough depth to be fun and strategic.

i will take the time to spell out my thoughts once i organize them.

i would really love to see this on as many store fronts as possible, and there is no reason why it should not be possible. multiplayer would be awesome with this as well, but you would need someone else to help you with that.