Interstellar - Christopher Nolan

Very true but two of three planets weren't immediately habitable just as Mars wasn't either and, with Mars being closer to Earth, it might take a wee bit less time to start the terraforming. In 26 years they could at least start the process and make it work.

 

It was a film about survival. That's all, and it was a very good depiction of it.

 

He also explained (in the Truffaut interviews) that if you lose probability, you ruin the film.

 

Watching gumby bot race out to rescue hapless Anne Hathaway made me think: why the f**k didn't they send gumby bot out in the first place, if it's so fast and strong, instead of puny humans struggling to walk because of the increased gravity, especially when every second counts?

--Geoff

 

Exactly, another howling plot error which illustrates what a bad movie this is. I love far-out science fiction but this just seemed to make things up in order to create cinematic thrills. I was confused watching it. During the first hour or so I wasn't sure if I was liking it or disliking it. Something just seemed wrong.
The meeting with Nasa was so clumsily handled, for example. Just flat. Then "Your the best pilot we ever had" and all that. Just dumb.
In a way I liked the way the pace sped along at times. There were no scenes before the take off with the actors looking up in awe, no dramatic build up, it was just cut to blast off and there we were in space. It didn't over-play the technology which I thought was nice. I was "entertained" by many scenes but on the whole this is a lavish cluncker.

 

I think the implication was, they WERE looking for a planet that WAS immediately habitable. The third one was (Edmunds' planet) -- we see

Spoiler

Hathaway breathing without a helmet at the end, after having buried Edmunds, so evidently the air is breathable and the climate is bearable

. The first two

Spoiler

were not, but that was because they were gambling on the first one (they had insufficient data due to the crashed spacecraft) and, for Matt Damon's planet, the data had been deliberately falsified.

 

Maybe she radioed back to earth. They were able to send messages back.

 

I'm just a movie fan, although I don't go to movies as often as I did years ago due to the lack of movies being made that I want to see, so I just go to be entertained and not delve into plot errors and so forth and Interstellar did entertain me. I got my money's worth.

 

*I* GREATLY enjoyed it..! Gravity meets 2001: A Space Oddessy.

 

I liked this movie. I'm not a Nolan "Fanboy" holding a sign proclaiming him the genius director of a generation, but I did like Momento, the TDK trilogy, and Inception.

I used to be the person who would go into movies and try and figure out the MacGuffin as early as possible, but then I started to not like movies as much. I've stopped doing that and I'm much happier for that. I turn the brain off and try to get enveloped in the movie as much as possible.

Yes, this movie's pacing could've been tightened up, yes a reasonable human will figure out the Ghost early, yes there are a couple plot holes, but honestly name a Science Fiction movie that doesn't have one. My take is that the Plan B (with Brand) are the future humans, but again, that's my take. That's also what I like about the movie, there are multiple possibilites and you can choose one that fits your acceptability levels.

I liked, as Neil deGrasse Tyson mentioned, they got most of the science right. I also like that it's been a week, and I'm still thinking about it. Is it a masterwork? No, but it's certainly a flawed gem of journey and thought, and not a Michael Bay - roll eyes-explode-a-thon.

 

You know, they spent dozens of millions of dollars on this film and it just kind of bugs me that they couldn't have, among all the key grips and third assistant TARS animators, they couldn't have hired one outside person to come in at an early point, look at the storyboards, walk through the movie and point out all of the unnecessary and avoidable plot holes, continuity gaps and head scratchers. I'm willing to suspend disbelief and roll with a paradox if its necessary to advance the fillm, but not when I'm just distracted by sloppiness.

 

Yeah, agreed. An outside pair of eyes would've been nice. Still liked it, even if it was a bit muddy at times.

 

Both good points. Still, I kind of agree with De Grassi's observations (I wouldn't call it a criticism) plus the fact they didn't scan them from orbit so they would know what to expect. I would also point out that in Nolan's world I think that NASA would have been criticized for going to Mars in this film because they lacked any credibility given that it had referred to an anti-science conspiracy driven culture in response to what had happened. Regardless, I don't consider these major flaws and it's and an entertaining flick. I applaud ANY science fiction movie that is ambitious beyond being an action flick. Whateve flaws exist within the film are far outweighed by Nolan's artistic goal.

 

I went to see it yesterday (Friday) night and I was bored to death. I think it's pretentious, I didn't like 2001esque photography and silent outer space shots and music (never been a fan of Hans Zimmer) and in my opinion the script doesn't give for a 2 hour plus movie. Just my 0.02 $.

 

Trying to do too much on too many levels.
2001 is far more satisfying to me.
And if you think there are some funny 2001 parodies, just think of what they'll be parodying about MCoughnauhey messing with the space-time continuem in a black hole.

 

Precisely what I liked about it. It may not do them all well but it is, overall, quite successful. It is certainly flawed for example, I don't think that Nolan's more clinical removed style necessarily meshes well with the emotional core but when it does work, its impressive. It reminded me of Spielbeg's "A.I." Which wasa curious but interesting collision ofKubrick and Spielberg.

 

What's often seen a slot holes are often questions or situations that either aren't answered or aren't seen as necessary to advance the narrative. As what Hitchcock called an "icebox movie" it works well engendering debate. Some questions that aren't answered re just unimportant and you can assume or reason out answers.

Interesting response from Nolan:
http://screenrant.com/interstellar-movie-plot-holes-science-christopher-nolan/

Nolan remains a director who is more Tinman than Scarecrow but "Interstellar" does demonstrate a director aware of his limitations and trying to overcome them.

http://screenrant.com/christopher-nolan-movies-best-worst-critics/

 

Looks like it's going to pull in $28 million domestic in week 2 for a 3rd place finish, it will be very hard pressed to hit $200 M domestic. After two weeks it sits at $75M.

 

Just saw it an it was a great experience. There were some questionable stuff here and there (hardly a spoiler: someone arrives a a secret NASA-base by (sort of) accident and in a matter of what seems like days is recruited to go on a mission...) but the storytelling was great and the sights and sounds spectactular! On par with Gravity!

 

That was bizarre. Surely there could have been a better way to involve him in the mission.

 

Luckily I don't care too much about 'hype' and settle for 'interesting' and even more for 'exciting'. Just with the more exhilarating movies of Steven Spielberg; there are questionable moments, the odd vague plot or whatever but for me it's the feeling I leave the cinema with that counts and in that respect Nolan normally doesn't fail ("The Dark Knight Rises" was a doubtful case, to be honest). He's had a nice run from The Following onwards; 9 movies that were sometimes flawed, sparked some debate and got me to the cinema!

 

Spoiler

One of the most hilarious howlers was the final reunion with his daughter. The whole axe, the whole raison d'être of the film his desire and spiritual instinct to get back to his daughter. She went through hell, longing to see him again. At the end of all the dramas, they chat for about a minte and she says "You can go now, my family is here"! WTF?! I know she was pissed but this was completely nuts in relation to the rest of the film.
All they had to do was have her say "Here, meet my family, your family..." and roll into a scene of him in tears and hugging everyone. This is one dumb film-maker.

 

I saw it this evening and thoroughly enjoyed it. I haven't had a movie experience like that in a long time. Icing on the cake. My two daughters, both Tweens, loved it. They were gabbing with their friends about the science side of it after the movie.

 

We went to see it at the imax this afternoon and we both liked it a lot. I didn't go in looking for obvious flaws in the plot and all that stuff, I just wanted it to be a good entertaining sci-fi film. I was worried at the length of the film as I usually walk away from a long movie thinking there was a lot of room for trimming, but this one didn't bother me in that way at all. Keeping Matt Damon's screen time to a minimum helped for me too.

 

I agree. There's plot holes necessary to drive the narrative and provide cinematic thrills, which I can accept and enjoy, but this should not be at the expense of what we know about the characters and their situation.

All the wormhole nauts are highly trained scientists and engineers, at least one of them should have thought "Hey, this planet is made of water and is really close to a black hole so the gravitational forces affecting that water must be astronomical, and the planet spins on its axis really quickly so high tide must come around like, every hour or so. Let's just land and not give that a second thought"; or "Every hour spent on Waterworld is is equivalent to seven years on Earth, so let's use the slowest, clumsiest method of locating a submerged beacon". Instead, the characters develop collective amnesia just so the director can get them into a situation that enables some cool CGI.

--Geoff