Interstellar (Christopher Nolan) *SPOILERS FROM POST 458 ONWARDS*

Cantstandsya

ShetlandViking wrote: »

It wasn't

Fair enough, my bad. I'd watched the trailer right before going to the cinema so must have inserted that scene into my memory :-)

ShetlandViking

Cantstandsya wrote: »

Fair enough, my bad. I'd watched the trailer right before going to the cinema so must have inserted that scene into my memory :-)

You got "Incepted"!

ShetlandViking

Jumboman wrote: »

For anyone who has seen it can you tell me how it compares with inception ?

Cooper Station at the end of the film looks a lot like this poster http://www.impawards.com/2010/posters/inception_ver12_xlg.jpg

Cantstandsya

ShetlandViking wrote: »

You got "Incepted"!

Damn you Nolan!

AMKC

I went and seen this today. I can see why some people might think its a bit meh. Must say I enjoyed it.There is some really spectacular scenes in it and beautifull scenery. Some humour in it too. It does take a little while to get going. I thought the story was interesting and it is all very well acted. I barely noticed the time could not believe I had been sitting for over 3hours by the time the film ended. I highly recommend going to see it.

FortuneChip

Man's reach exceeds his grasp, fractionally.
Gotta admire Nolan's ambition. This will be more divisive than any of his previous work. Whether you love or loathe it, you have to admit he is unmatched when it comes to spectacle. A genuine cinematic blockbuster.
The sound was superb, and Zimmer's score didn't dictate mood as much as it might in previous movies. (Although at times I found it too loud, particularly in a scene near the end)

the_monkey

I need to process it more
At first I was disappointed with the final act
But the more I think about it the more I like it ,
But apart from that stunning stunning film
Not quite 10 like the prestige , but mighty close

LuckyLloyd

Bullet point review:

Take 2001, Gravity and Contact; stir / shake them all together; bake on a low temperature and this movie will be the result, arguably better than the sum of its parts. :pac:

Details:

First off, saw it in Cineworld IMAX and it was an immense viewing experience. This film (as you'd expect from a Nolan joint) looks and sounds amazing. Don't sell yourself short on that point.

There is lots to criticize here: the pacing drags a little at times; some of the devices to insert action or provide motive are clunky; the science of the movie (and my head is like a rock with this stuff) requires suspension of disbelief throughout; some of the faces don't have much dialogue / characterization to work with; and the film reaches for but doesn't quite hit a sweeping emotional punch.

However, despite all of that this is bold ambitious mesmerizing cinema. I was never bored or frustrated. I was frequently wowed and amazed. Lots of people are really going to hate it because it is sombre, serious and grand and takes huge chances in the final third. Fair enough, as it would be reasonable to accuse the movie of getting the balance wrong and being overly sentimental at times. Other people are going to hate it because they are going to want to dig into the nitty gritty of the science. And then some are going to champion it unnecessarily due to the fact it's a Christopher Nolan film.

I just wish big budgets were put to work like this more often in cinema. If we're going to spend a couple of hundred million dollars on a film why not try to be ambitious and try to tell a story about the edges of humanity and our place in the universe? I'd ultimately say to anyone that they should see it.

Almost as an aside because this film really isn't about individual performances; McConaughey suits the lead role really well.

Squeedily Spooch

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I just wish big budgets were put to work like this more often in cinema. If we're going to spend a couple of hundred million dollars on a film why not try to be ambitious and try to tell a story about the edges of humanity and our place in the universe? I'd ultimately say to anyone that they should see it.

Agree, while it's 2001 influences are heavy throughout it's a grandiose love letter to the idea that we used to pioneer space travel and look further than our little part of the galaxy.
It's not a dumbed down blockbuster and isn't selling toys or trying to hit specific demographics, it's a film for adults and has ideas worth pondering. It's far from a perfect film and isn't worthy of the impossible hype bestowed upon it, but it's definitely worth seeing on the biggest screen you can find. The scenes where there's not a word being said or note of music being played are the ones that hit me the hardest among the big setpieces.

bullvine

Thought hattaway was awful in it. Just did not care what she had to say and her character was just not warm at all.

johnny_ultimate

This is a film where I was left wondering whether its ambition and successes outweigh its problems. From scene to scene, and even from thought to thought after the credits roll, I'm jumping back and forth between them.

I've never found Nolan's penchant for exposition bombs particularly damaging to his films before this, but I think I found my personal line. The amount of ponderous monologues, expository dialogues and so on felt at times like I was watching 2001 with a commentary track. It's wholly admirable that some complex science is incorporated into the film (even if it stretches it in several fantastical and ultimately ludicrous directions) but this is a film that almost defiantly over-explains.

Like the absurd scene where we get a crash course in the logistics of wormholes - made particularly infuriating as you'd think that's the kind of important info our protagonist would be briefed on before setting off on a vitally important mission to safe mankind.

Not just the science, either: the film's themes and character motivations are articulated without a hint of subtlety at various junctures throughout the film, and potential nuances are undoubtedly lost in the process. Mal Reynold's final lines about love are some of the most expertly judged in modern sci-fi cinema - the Nolans' frequent explicit attempts at the same are not. If the magic of Kubrick's Space Odyssey was in the ambiguity, Nolan wants to reveal the magician's secrets, and during the film's fanciest of flights particularly the explanation - and explained it is, at great length - kills the trick.

The family melodrama is a mix of good and bad. When it works, it packs a hell of a punch -

the devastating impact of the time difference when they left the first planet

was easily a highlight of the film for me, turning the emotion up to 11 with powerful effect. Other times, I felt it over-relied on extreme acting and a surplus of dramatically teary scenes

(Caine's death bed scene was almost laughable)

. I love a good melodrama, and would cite many of cinema's great melodramas as among my all-time favourites, but this often went well past what I personally am willing to tolerate. Other times it was truly powerful, a dynamic mix of family drama and world saving stakes.

But then there were the moments when it worked wonderfully. The spectacle of space travel. Nolan's trademark frantic editing cross cutting with visceral force between characters and sequences, capably aided by a propulsive Hans Zimmer score (yes, it's sometimes deafening, but there are times when it needs to drown out the dialogue). Set pieces that are often ridiculous, but that's forgivable due to the sheer skill on display. It is undoubtedly the bravest, most ambitious blockbuster in years, and Nolan sometimes pulls it all together.

It's also a mess. A mess that infuriates as regularly as it stuns. Forgiving its sins only goes so far when there's yet another clunky info dump, leap of logic, or cheap attempt to pull on the heartstrings, even when we are willing to embrace the fact that it is pure, unapologetic space opera. It's the polar opposite of the ending of 2001 - a film that insists on telling you exactly what is happening, destroying the sense of mystery and discovery on more than one pivotal occasion. It doesn't help that much of it is complete nonsense, despite copious use of scientific terminology. Yet in lovingly moody, classical, cinematic (an adjective many Hollywood films struggle to earn these days) 35mm, it's the kind of mad spectacle that can be a joy to get lost in, a talented director totally crashing through the limits of what should be possible in a big budget science-fiction film. Interstellar can't help but shame 99% of other blockbusters, but sadly it doesn't manage it anywhere close to 99% of the time.

jcsoulinger

Was looking forward to this for a while and was not dissapointed, Really enjoyed it. The space scenes are very 2001 which is great, I wonder if the robots design was to resemble the black monuments in 2001. Was wary of Mccoughneys place in the Sifi genre but he really suited the role. It takes a while to get going and then rushes through some of the scenes in space, I suppose this is to get us more invested in the characters which is acceptable.

I felt they could have cut the scenes from the surfers paradise planet the didn't really add anything IMO.

What was the deal with Dr Mann was he just gonna head back to earth didn't really get that?

And who created the worm hole? If the beings that are guiding us from the fifth dimension evolved from us then humanity must have survived with out coops and murphs intervention, in order to create the wormhole?

leggo

I'm going to come out and say it: that was awful.

If you're going to take up three hours of my time, you better make sure you have a story to tell. Instead it meanders and gets caught up in plot points that I didn't care about for way too long, then just skips through what should be important plot points that it should take time to establish. Examples:

"Ah there y'are Cooper. Look, funny you should show up, we need someone to pilot this ship to save the planet. I know you've a family and all but...oh, you're in?! Brilliant!"

Science science science science. Then we get to the important bit about how he's going to teach his daughter to save the world AND...no science. But we're assured that since this crucial plot point (remember, Nolan pulls no punches and isn't afraid to tell the story he wants to tell while assuming the audience aren't idiots, he's beaten you over the head with science for 3 hours after all...but you probably wouldn't understand it if he tried to explain how she did it anyway so just trust me, she did it) is written in morse code, it's credible.

I'm no quantum physicist, but I'm pretty sure love has very little to do with it.

Gravity called and they want their A-list male actor is sacrificing himself to save the pretty female lead plot point back.

As someone has already said, we're supposed to buy that the long-awaited reunion with his daughter that he's waited for for 80 years lasts literally seconds in favour of him going off to save someone he had very little actual emotional connection with?

On the plus side, it looked impressive at times. I also liked the retro shots of them travelling to space that differentiated it from Gravity in that respect.

Look, I'm a Nolan fan. Loved Memento, the Dark Knight trilogy and Inception. But not every idea that comes into his head is a guaranteed winner. This was his shot at making his own 2001 flick - and the amount of nods to it make it obvious that that was a conscious goal - and he missed. It was a self-indulgent, vanity project that assumed that it would be successful because of Inception's success, but in that assumption he forgot to make it a story worth sitting through three hours for. It didn't even know if it wanted to be a hard-hitting, plot-based blockbuster or a meaningful reflection on life today through the lens of sci-fi. There was that little vision there at its core.

He's allowed a stinker, but lets make no mistake about it: this was a stinker. Nobody will talk about this in years to come when they can talk about Inception instead.

johnnysmack

What a big steaming pile of poo that was! I haven't had this horrible a time in the cinema in years.

mdwexford

Thought this might divide opion when I left the cinema tonight alright.

I thought it was mind blowing. Best cinematic experience I've had is my initial reaction. Time flew by and I really got lost in the beauty of it and the score.

Liam O

Better than Inception but still not perfect by any means imo. They could have cut out an entire chunk towards the end but it did get me emotionally invested and kept me thinking even with all the science stuff where it would have been easy to tune out. Visually fantastic, most films I've seen recently have been digital so took a whike to fully appreciate the film but some amazing visuals. On the mobile site so choosing my words but more coukd have been done between Hathaway and McConaughey early on and towards the end the macguffin was a bit lame considering who was playing the character. Could have cut out that whoke character and the film wouldn't have suffered.

Definitely worth seeing but not at the prestigious Prestige level of Nolan brilliance but not as hammy and reliant on the score for drama as Inception. Not to say Zimmer didn't do an amazing job again.

ZeitgeistGlee

One of those films I struggle to describe my feelings for. I came out of the cinema disappointed at the end product because there was a 2001-calibre movie in there that was let down by lazier/looser aspects in the editing/plot/characterisation/storytelling. I don't know if a better cut would improve it to that point but I'd certainly be interested to see one.

Weakest aspects of the movie for me were the human characters and their relationships. The

"reveal" regarding Mann was particularly poor IMO, I don't think there was a single person in the audience surprised and everything that went with it was fairly contrived for drama's sake.

Likewise the

"love has to mean something" speech from Hathaway's character was awful when it was said, especially given her character's repeated flashing of her physicist badge, and then made more awful when it proven correct.

It's actually kind of ironic that

TARS and CASE come across as much more rounded and human characters than any of their fleshy compatriots.

ktulu123

Really can't understand the hate this seems to be getting. I thought it was a fantastic cinematic experience. Definitely the best film I have seen in years. Finally a film that brings you back to the old days of the wonder of space travel. Can't wait to see it again!

the_monkey

Kermode has a review up

e_e

the_monkey wrote: »

Kermode has a review up

He's absolutely spot on too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czanl5Twq-8

I'd say this is a 7/10 movie as opposed to the 9s of Memento and Inception or the 8s of the Batman trilogy. Still very good of course and absolutely worth seeing.

errlloyd

I am definitely in two minds over this one, but I am going to go ahead and say I enjoyed it enough to recommend it, but I don't think it was mind blowing.

So firstly I thought it was beautifully shot. I thought McConnaughey was wonderful, and everyone else was grand. Some of the scenes were genuinely emotional, some where genuinely gripping however I felt every now and then a scene fell quite flat.

Bit I really enjoyed.

I enjoyed the scene where Cooper finds out he was betrayed back on earth, for some reason I enjoyed the acting, I enjoyed the morale dilemma, and I actually didn't quite predict it.

I enjoyed the docking scene, I thought it had plenty of suspense and drama and it was well worked, the same probably goes for the surfers paradise planet, although one poster complained about it, they did need a planet to go to to advance time 23 years or whatever.

On the flip side while I enjoyed the concept of Matt Damon's character, but I really felt this could have been done better. It starts with the debate over which planet to go to, Hatheway goes to town on this "love" aspect, but it was never convincing. Cooper stresses the idea that Dr Mann is the best bet because he is the best scientist. I felt they could have shot it better. I was somewhat surprised they didn't actually discuss the idea of false readings in desperation of being saved.

Then there are a number of things I found slightly weird about Dr Mann. Mainly he is now terrified of being alone, tortured by loneliness, yet he seems happy to kill the three living people he actually knows and fly to a plenty where he is obviously smart enough to realise the other guy is almonst definitely dead. He puts the mission in jeopardy because of his own selfish loneliness so I don't believe he changed that opinion. I think it almost would have been better if he had come clean and Cooper actually faced the "go home or go on" choice.

But I enjoyed it a lot, so no real complaints.

Falthyron

I saw Interstellar last night in Liffey Valley and I wanted some time to go over it in my head. As with most, if not all, of Nolan's films there are subtle themes at play throughout, and in many ways this is what I enjoy about his work.

Firstly, Cooper is Nolan and Nolan is Cooper. There is a line in the movie where Donald (the grandfather) says to Cooper: "You were born forty years before your time, or forty years after it", and I believe this is a reference to Nolan and his film-making. A few months ago, there were suggestions that Interstellar, as much as it is a movie about space exploration, is a movie about the current state of Hollywood. Nolan is highly critical of the use of green-screen, the lack of innovation in movie-making, and the switch to digital. The idea Earth(the movie industry) is dying, engineers, pioneers, explorers are of no use any more, and all that is needed to survive is the knowledge to grow the same crop over and over until complete exhaustion, is a good metaphor for how movies are being made today.

Secondly, Nolan is challenging mankind's recalcitrance with space exploration. Again, Anne Hathaway mentions how we have spent too much time on the theory and not enough with practice. Mankind has stopped trying to find out more and seems content to settle on Earth and not really question our origins or what else might be out there in the universe. This is an important trope as it suggests the reasons for the more complicated level of dialogue between the scientists on the ship, and the movie makes no apologies for not explaining itself. Nolan has no interest in pandering to the masses, he is seeking to challenge the audience, much like how the movie is challenging the industry and our lack of space travel innovation. As such this is not a movie for those who want to be spoon-fed; much like Inception. If you are not willing to investigate things like black-holes, or read up on travelling faster than the speed of light, this movie is not for you. Like with many of his movies, Nolan wants you to walk away questioning things, challenging our understanding, and most importantly, he is not going to give you all the answers.

Having said all that, I would consider Interstellar to be one of Nolan's greatest works. It is an excellent sci-fi movie that is visually and audibly riveting (particularly the sounds inside the ship as they pass through the black-hole), and I enjoyed every moment of it. If you didn't like Inception, don't go see this. If you want explosions, a simple script, and easy laughs, don't go see this. What I find to be the most significant thing about Nolan's Interstellar is that I can not recall the last 'blockbuster' release that explored other worlds/planets that didn't involve war/conflict.

9/10.

waffleman

Saw this last night - not perfect but some of the scenes were amazing

my favourite was

the spinning docking sequence

. Was just blown away by it - if anyone knows the score track for this scene please post - ive went through the soundtrack but cant find it

KilOit

Didn't want the film to end! loved every minute of it.
Saw it in IMAX.

Anyone struggling about the last 20 minutes and time in general should look up Dimensions on youtube, some videos explain it as best as possible, i thought Nolan did an amazing job on trying to show something thats near impossible for beings in 3rd dimension to comprehend

Fysh

It was visually and aurally great. I really liked the set designs, visuals and use of sound.

The more I think of it, though, the more the turd-like dialogue, clunky script and repeated over-egging-the-pudding moments put me off. It's not as bad as Prometheus in that regard, but it's not as good as say Sunshine in terms of characters who should bloody well know better talking complete bobbins goes.

Brand going on about "love has to mean something", despite there being no introduction of her relationship with Edmond and the conflict with her otherwise steely and rational disposition, was a particular low point, especially since it then led to the Dreamy White Male Lead explaining to her she's Letting Her Emotions Get In The Way Like A Silly Little Woman

. Similarly pretty much everything to do with

Dr Mann

felt like it was put in there because "we need some drama around now" rather than because it particularly made sense. And never have I wanted to punch someone in the nuts as much as I did Nolan for the repeated use of that bloody Dylan Thomas poem. It was like hearing bad teenage poetry about a dead family pet or something. Just cringe-inducing.

It's worth seeing at the cinema for the sound and visual aspects alone, but it's nowhere near as good as I'd hoped it might be in character terms. When the home release is out someone will cut chunks out of it and make a much better fanedited version of it, I expect.

Snake Plisken

the_monkey wrote: »

Kermode has a review up

I caught his review yesterday, he said that the film it reminded him most of is Contact, as at the core of the movie is the relationship between a father and daughter, which is fine by me as I love Contact!
I'm going to see it tomorrow so going in hoping I love it as much as the Batman trilogy, inception and the prestige.

PhiloCypher

An ambitious failure(to Launch :pac: ) for me . It has all the ingredients to be a great film, the score, the cinematography, great actors and lofty themes but it all hangs together kinda awkwardly for me , there is none of the "narrative rigor" as Kermode put it of Nolans earlier work . I suspect this is down to the fact they were adapting an existing script that had previously had Spielberg attatched as opposed to their(Nolan brothers) previous efforts which had either been written entirely by them or in the case of prestige in close collaboration with the author . In any case it feels like Nolan wasn't quite able to reconcile the their differing sensiblities .

And then there was the science ......

Ole Rodrigo

I really enjoyed it although the script was clunky and excessively sentimental at times. The science wasn't as accurate as I expected it to be. The visuals and audio were superb, great to see so much achieved without much cgi.

The complaints are minor, but I still feel some could have been corrected without much too much effort, but that it may have lost some of its audience.

A solid, enjoyable blockbuster that's well worth going to. In hindsight, it must be difficult to create a film like this without watering down the realities of physics and space travel. If we compare it to 2001, it assumed more of its audience.

PhiloCypher

ror_74 wrote: »

I really enjoyed it although the script was clunky and excessively sentimental at times. The science wasn't as accurate as I expected it to be. The visuals and audio were superb, great to see so much achieved without much cgi.

The complaints are minor, but I still feel some could have been corrected without much too much effort, but that it may have lost some of its audience.

A solid, enjoyable blockbuster that's well worth going to. In hindsight, it must be difficult to create a film like this without watering down the realities of physics and space travel. If we compare it to 2001, it assumed more of its audience.

Shades of the "what have the Romans ever done for us" skit from life of Brian here :pac:

"well apart from the over sentimentality , the clunky script , the dodgy science, the lack of subtlety in spelling everything out to the audience I thought it was a really good film"

Ageyev

Could someone explain the colonisation plan to me please? They had loads of frozen eggs onboard but only one person with a uterus. What detail did I miss here?