Interstellar - Christopher Nolan

It looks stunning in IMAX but I doubt it will change your opinion that much.

 

this is new - the unlimited ticket (Paramount / AMC)

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/paramount-amc-theatres-partner-unlimited-749512

 

This is extremely insulting and demeaning. We're talking about a film here - entertainment. Some were entertained, some were not. This is not an IQ test.

Do people ever think before they post anymore?

 

Yes and to the guy who said I was the only one who used the word ignorant or something like that, well, I was referring to the guy who mentioned Dunning-Kruger.

 

I already saw it IMAX - the question is whether I want to see it IMAX again!

 

Ah, misunderstood. It did look spectacular in IMAX. I will watch it again. I had some issues with the structure and felt that the emotional core of the film was incomplete and unconvincing at times. Nolan's infamous detachment as a director is overplayed by many but he doesn't always connect with the emotional core of the story with the exception of the Dark Knight films.

 

Your points are taken but I still think you're giving Mr. Nolan too much latitude. I was an attentive viewer, and certainly wanted to be entertained, if not edified. The fact that was was thinking'wait a minute' for reservations I mentioned (and other things I didn't) indicates the film just did not fully engage me. Any fan of the film can rely on conditionalities like " whoever created the tesseract exists in a relationship with space/time that prevents them from interacting the way Cooper does..." I can't dispute or argue with that: the real problem is I don't even care. I can see where someone might and has bought into Nolan's vision, and credit his ambitions which are at least partially realized - despite what I think in retrospect are serious flaws - the film is worth seeing. I'm dissapointed he was playing fast and loose with science at the end. Or seemed to be relying on poorly articulated concepts. If the latter, he failed as a director to communicate the soundness of the conclusion. And he had 249 exposition heavy minutes and final edit.

 

Oh, that kind of thing never happens here about music, TV shows, movies, or novels...

We are on the internet, right?

 

Went and saw this on Monday at the Chinese Theatre in Hollywood.

Overall I thought it was a very good movie that with a little more script tweaking could have been a great movie. I felt like it lost some of the emotional thread during the final section and thus didn't have quite the emotional impact that Nolan was most likely going for. Still, it's miles better than most tentpole films and is the rare case of a major Hollywood film that doesn't assume most of the audience has a 2-digit IQ. Even though there is no danger of it replacing 2001: A Space Odyssey (or Solaris) I'm happy that Nolan at least attempted to aim for that ballpark.

It wasn't boring at all. It wasn't too long.
I had no problem understanding all of the dialogue. My only sound complaint was the LFE was a little exaggerated at times.

It was most definitely not "ponderous man...PONDEROUS".

P.S. - I am not a Nolan fanboy, I like some of his films and dislike others.

 

I liked it.

 

Saw it yesterday after dinner and I loved it. IMHO, it was well-paced, engaging storyline, visually stunning, some very good acting, etc. On the way home, me, my wife and my son had a spirited discussion about black holes, physics, etc My son is a physics major and he tried to watch it critically for the science but the story drew him in and he skipped that. It's not often that I see a movie that makes you think.

 

Saw it last night and I really enjoyed it. The plot holes that seemed glaring to many here didn't affect me. One criticism (and its been brought up by others here): I would think that space and cornfields would be quite places, but Zimmer's soundtrack was way loud and made it difficult for me to hear some dialogue. The movie was brickwalled!

I have no problems with a movie not wrapping everything up for me in a nice box with a pretty bow; I don't mind leaving a movie thinking and asking questions. I was entertained, and that's really the point, isn't it?

 

Chad Kroeger appreciates that fact!

 

quiet places, der.

 

I saw it for a second time, on IMAX (Providence Place RI) this time. Walking in with the mindset of ignoring all the narrative problems and " just going with it" and being enveloped by that imagery on the huge arced screen and a perfectly tuned, powerful sound system cranked to exactly the right excess, well it was a hell of a ride. #thatsentertainment

 

Are we on Twitter?

 

I see on Box Office Mojo it's up to $594 million worldwide which should definitely put it into the black. And I'm happy to see that because, despite its shortcomings, I thought it was a damn good flick!

True, it had flaws, the worst of them being the sound level of the dialogue. And strangely enough, I could pretty much make out what they were saying over the sound effects and the strident soundtrack music (way too loud!) but, for instance, when Michael Caine makes the big reveal on his deathbed, the whole audience was straining to hear what he was saying. It wouldn't have killed Nolan to bring that up a few dbs. I mean, yeah, he was a weak old man, but this is a movie, after all. For those of us that hadn't already figured it out, this was a major plot point and it would have been nice to hear it clearly.

Still, I thought he did a great job of combining a bunch of science fiction tropes into a (semi) coherent whole. My wife disagrees somewhat. She was ready to leave at the two hour point, but, bless her heart, she saw that I was enjoying it and stayed the course. And she agrees that the last 45 minutes was worth it.

I'm rooting for the movie because I'd like to see someone try to top it. Sure it retreads wormholes, time travel, black holes, etc. but it puts them together in a intriguing combination. I mean Kubrick was praised for 2001 but he sorta finked out on the ending. Star babies? What the hell? Overall, Nolan did a very good job and if it shows that there's a audience for sci-fi without monsters and space wars, I'm all for it.

 

I saw this recently and agree with what a lot of people have said. I applaud Nolan for reaching for something bigger and more intelligent (even if he did not fully succeed) than what most other sci-fi movie do these days. The attention to detail of this movie reminded me of 2001. To me this is a movie that will be more appreciated more on repeat viewings over time and will likely be thought of as one of the top 20 or so best sci-fi movies. It is however a little too much to fully absorb on your first viewing in a theater, but I guess the same can be said about the other movies you always hear about in people's top sci fi pics (i.e. 2001, Solaris, Blade Runner, etc.) that are thought of as sci-fi classics now, but did not gain the success they have now when first released. I think it's amazing this movie has grossed as much as it has worldwide gieven it's such a complex subject matter with huge scope and scale.

 

I saw it tonight and found it entertaining for the most part, though it does fall apart at the end. The fact that I wasn't bored for the entire 3 hours speaks well for the visual storytelling and the pacing. There is, however, a lot of nonsense, and there are lots of plot contrivances/cliches that exist simply to create drama. The production gloss obscures most of that; Nolan is a talented filmmaker, but the scripts of his last few films have been a mess. I told the friend I saw it with that it's 2001-lite. Looks good, but don't think too hard about it.

 

Echoed my thoughts almost exactly.

 

I do not see a lot of movies in the theater any more, however, I did see the IMAX 70mm version at the Buford Mall of GA outside of Atlanta. When I heard of the various release formats, I made sure to even stop in and talk with the theater to confirm that they would in fact be playing the projected film version of Interstellar! I got tickets for the first weekend after release and the theater was packed. I enjoyed the film.

For me, the largest takeaway when I left was that I felt that I justified my spending of $20 ($40 for wife and I) per ticket. I don't think I have ever honestly said that about seeing a movie in the theater. (Maybe the last one was Children of Men??? - but a cheaper ticket - 7 bucks or something...) With the cost of tickets I wanted to ensure that I got the biggest bang for the buck and I was very satisfied! You could actually tell that Nolan and crew put thought into sound design / practical effects / details / etc. Both my wife and I commented on the recording quality of the soundtrack and it's realism during the film. The large format film was of course glorious and as a bonus you could even hear the projector ticking away in the background, something I haven't heard since childhood.

 

Now that the heat and debate has died down, I would like to see this in 70mm Imax. I bet it looks wonderful.

 

Chances are the print would still be in pretty good shape. I saw it in Montreal in its third week and the print was so clean I thought I could see tiny dust spots trapped in the light trap as very tiny black specks once or twice as the film dragged it down out of the visible image. There were no scratches of any kind. However the DMR conversion of the 35mm material wasn't too great for some close-ups and darker scenes, as the image looked overly sharpened, which is a funny thing to see for film, but maybe too typical for IMAX conversions.

My own impression was that the film was okay, but I had actually an issue with the emotionality of the script. I actually wasn't moved by those scenes, which could be the film bringing out the Kubrickian in me. As well, Hans Zimmer's score using a particular "riff" as a motif (anyone who watched this knows which one) bordered between heavy-handed and 'cute' but wasn't effective.
What worked for me, as with "Gravity," was getting the harsh light in space just right. The physics seemed right as well, though maybe not the causality at least as far as time is concerned (not the dilation part). The politics of the catastrophe on Earth was also felt overly generalized as if to avoid offense; again, I'll note that for a film such as "Children of Men" this vagueness as to cause didn't bother me although that may come down to the fact that it wasn't harped on as much (maybe). As these might still be spoilers I'll leave it at that.

 

I enjoyed this short film a lot more than Interstellar >>>

 

The conceit that the earth becomes uninhabitable to humans due to atmospheric reactions arising from a naturally-occurring crop blight struck me as pretty irresponsible, in this era where humans are doing a perfectly good job making the earth uninhabitable all by themselves.