Interstellar (2014)

Xenia93 wrote:

Erica Ambler wrote:

A huge fucking mess. Don't believe the hype. Interstellar is shit.

It even has a bug-eyed monster with a Hitler haircut.

Yeah, the more it sits in my head the more I realize just HOW messy it is. I mean, when I left the theater I was declaring the second half of it a mess (and the MASSIVE problems still lie in the second half) but the more I think about it the more the whole thing feels messy.

It is sloppy at its core. It was confused concerning its own themes. And that fucking score just pissed me off. Every decent cue ruined by piles of layering.

I agree, for the most part. It's definitely a mess, and Nolan was clearly trying to juggle too many ideas throughout. In a lot of ways, it has a lot of the same problems that many of his other films suffer from, specifically the pacing issues, clunky dialog and unfocused plotting. And contrary to what others are saying about McConaughey, I didn't really care for him here. Something about him in this just kind of fucking irritated me. I'll have to mull it over a bit still, but my gut instinct right now is telling me that this is Nolan's worst film so far.

All that being said, I still enjoyed it very much. Really loved the score and the visuals (excited for van Hoytema to photograph Bond!), and there was plenty of good moments to make it worthwhile.

v

It's Spielberg lite. Reminded me more of M. Night Shyamalan, i.e. SIGNS.

Watched it two days ago. This is definitely one of Nolan's weakest, but I wouldn't call it terrible. Would have preferred to see how Spielberg would have handled this as it's much more suited to his sensibilities. Nolan really undermines what he's going for when he has his characters always explaining what's going on, what the film is about, ect. Having McConaughey somehow figure out on the spot with no evidence that it was humans from the future that made the black hole/wormhole/fifth dimension is really stretching it. If he really wanted to evoke 2001, he should have left things in the air. McConaughey should have died after giving the morse code, so that his sacrifice would have given the film more impact. It might have been obvious to literally make him a "ghost", but I don't think Nolan really needed to go the route 3001: THE FINAL ODYSSEY took.

I saw it in 70MM IMAX. Regardless of how the film turned out, it's always great to see an IMAX film. It's too bad it had to be intercut with 35MM shot scenes, but I get that filming in IMAX is expensive.

Largo's Shark wrote:

It's Spielberg lite. Reminded me more of M. Night Shyamalan, i.e. SIGNS.

The film is so massive that I'm not sure whether I liked it or not. It literally will take another couple of viewings to comprehend the whole film.

I do think it may be the least best of Nolan's films, but it is still good.

I just have never cared for Matthew McConaughey as an actor, didn't care for the little girl (whom I thought was whiny and bratty and too sullen); I think the abandoned child angle of the film might've worked better had it stayed with the original script, where Murph was a boy.

I also thought the revelations involving Professor Brand and the dark turn Damon's character took were unnecessary. The bit where Jessica Chastain is looking at the book shelf, the watch, and Cooper is on the other side of the book shelf seemed to go on forever.

The movie covered thematic territory that I thought was covered as good, if not better, in books by Stephen Baxter:



and:

Saw this today. Thought it was excellent until Matt Damon was introduced. Then it just turned into a goofy, hokey mess.

The ending ... good grief. The definition of hokey. An awkward remnant of what Spielberg drew up, it seems, because Nolan can't properly handle that kind of thing.

Visuals were amazing, though, and the science was interesting. I'll give it that.

I liked it for the most part. Visually the most amazing film I've seen in yonks, despite my general dislike of heavy CGI.

Matt Damon slipped into the role of an irritating cunt quite easily.

You'd be surprised to find out how much of the f/x work was practical instead of CGI.

I suppose that would explain why Interstellar looked less cartoonish than contemporary action movies set on Planet Earth.

Jack Wade wrote:

Saw this today. Thought it was excellent until Matt Damon was introduced. Then it just turned into a goofy, hokey mess.

The ending ... good grief. The definition of hokey. An awkward remnant of what Spielberg drew up, it seems, because Nolan can't properly handle that kind of thing.

Visuals were amazing, though, and the science was interesting. I'll give it that.

I had the "ghost" angle figured out in the first 10-15 minutes. I assumed it was either Cooper or another astronaut trying to break through. I figured it out because I knew the movie wasn't about ghosts or poltergeists, so logically, if you know what he movie's subject matter is about, it wasn't a terribly hard logical leap to make. I saw it coming from a mile away.

The introduction of Matt Damon's character marks a shift in the film that I just thought didn't need to happen. I think it detracts from the overall theme of the movie and ultimately feels like time wasted. And the thing is, you get the sense very subtly from Nolan that something is off with Damon's character, so when the "twist" occurs, you're not really surprised and thus less impact is felt. Damon looks like he's getting on up in age. He may want to start hitting the gym if he's really going to do Bourne 4.

The film also feels like a mish-mash of other films. You get the vague sense that parts of other films were co-opted for this one: SIGNS, CONTACT, EVENT HORIZON.

The bit with Michael Caine revealing he lied....I'm like "Lied about what?" I never understood the promise he made to Cooper to begin with. I wasn't quite sure what the gravity problem was he was working on, so I'm left bewildered when Anne Hathway admits she was in on it (more or less). Caine's scenes, much like his scenes in THE DARK KNIGHT RISES, are blubbery and embarrassing. Dialogue for many of the characters seems to be mumbled.

I tend to think of myself as somewhat educated, and I just got lost in this film trying to understand what they were trying to do towards the end.

I had read Hathaway's character was a lesbian, so I kept waiting for that big reveal....and nothing. Didn't really buy her relationship with Matthew, so not sure I buy him getting back in a space pod and crossing the space-time continuum to go find her.

Looks like I'm the only one here who really loved Interstellar. I was literally blown away by it.

Sure, the first hour drags, but once the tidal wave scene kicks in, the film really gains momentum, and it felt like being on a roller coaster ride from there on in, something I haven't really experienced since Spielberg in his heyday.

I thought the storyline was great, the CGI effects spectacular, the acting strong enough to pull you in emotionally (particularly from McConaughey), and coming out of the film I felt drained.

I would say this was one of Nolan's best films, I even enjoyed it more than Inception.

I don't begrudge anyone who disliked this film, but I really dug Interstellar, warts and all.

A powerful, devastating film. So much so that it will be quite some time before I watch it again. Not the sort of picture one watches with a pitcher of Hawaiian Punch and a sack o' Funyuns.

I thought it was a film that displayed both Christopher Nolan's strengths and weaknesses as a filmmaker, in equal measure.

I watched this a few years back in spite of my dislike for Anne Hathaway, Matthew McConaughey and Chris Nolan.

I wish I didn't.