INTERSTELLAR Official Discussion, Review & Spoiler Thread

[FlyRy]

I feel we reached a point where reviewers try to seem like they know more about movie making then the actual directors.

this.

i've yet to meet anyone in person who didnt enjoy it.. it got mostly positive reviews, but the uber nerd sites are the ones with all the complaints

i loved it.. though from my avy i may be biased

 

[Bigbigguy]

The 3rd act almost ruined this movie for me

 

[TheGodling]

Nolan the Gawd did it though. Made an intelligent, emotionally charged film that I felt didn't dumb down for the audience. An original film not based upon a comic book or novel

lol, Nolan is the ultimate smart dumb director. He just coats all his dumbing down with big words so it looks smart.

Matt McConaughey: "The wormhole is a sphere?"
The black guy: "Well of course? You didn't think it would be an actual hole?" *insert Nolan self-congratulatory smirk*
The black guy: "Let me explain to you exactly why it is a sphere utilizing this piece of paper like we're in class."

Matt Damon: "You've literally risen me from the dead."
Matt McConaughey (all but looking directly at the viewer): "Lazarus!"

Matt McConaughey in the fifth dimension: "Don't you get it, TARS?"
*explains everything going on in smart dumb terms*

2 minutes later...

Matt McConaughey in the fifth dimension: "Don't you get it?!"
*explains everything going on in smart dumb terms*

2 minutes later...

Matt McConaughey in the fifth dimension: "DON'T YOU GET IT?!"
*explains everything going on in smart dumb terms*
TARS: "The bulk creatures are collapsing the tesseract. Their bush robots activated a boom tube that's driven by unparticle physics. I'm just throwing random science/scifi related terms at you now."

 

[CM_Burns]

this.

i've yet to meet anyone in person who didnt enjoy it.. it got mostly positive reviews, but the uber nerd sites are the ones with all the complaints

i loved it.. though from my avy i may be biased

I liked it, but let's not act like this is a universally lovable movie.

I loved the first couple hours, I started liking it less when they had what seemed like sudden "turns" of Michael Caine and Damon, complete with ominous musical cues, to create some drama and bad guys. The pace noticeably got so much more intense in the last hour too, and it didn't feel like it was because they were racing against time.

Overall I liked it a lot though, great visuals, great first couple hours, interesting concepts even if there's some smart dumb takes on them.

 

[sun raw]

Okay I liked Interstellar but here's my issue: Nolan strikes me as a director that is much less concerned with emotion and more with the actions that come about as a result of those emotions. His movies are like someone studying insects under a microscope. Or like an alien who has an understanding of what emotions are but approaches them from an analytical point. I can't help but feel that all the overly sentimental stuff that he's done with Interstellar, Inception and The Dark Knight Rises are either insincere or him trying to make up for how detached his earlier work was. I can't find it now but some review of Interstellar mentioned how the last crop left on Earth was corn and that was proof that either Nolan was playing around or he has absolutely no self-awareness.

This also extends to how sexless his movies are, which is fine because I can't imagine Nolan handling sex in a way that isn't awkward as fukk. This is a movie where one of the goals is continuing the existence of the human race but sex never comes into that equation, it's all science.

The comparisons to 2001: A Space Odyssey are inevitable but Interstellar only makes references to that movie while being nothing like it. Consider how quickly the wormhole trip is taken care of, immediately cutting to Murphy in a hospital room, where 2001 takes an entire segment to get through the same thing so that the viewer actually feels it. To keep talking about 2001, one popular view of that movie is that it's a religious movie. Not in the sense that it's preaching Christianity but that it's concerned about man's role in the universe. It's a spiritual film and ultimately a very optimistic one. Interstellar is trying to do say something about religion as well (they go up into space believing that some higher extraterrestrial being is pulling the strings only it turns out that it was us all along) but it lacks the same sense of spirituality as 2001.

Anyways that's a lot of words that don't really say too much.

Also it didn't need to be as long as it was, fukk all these long-ass movies man

 

[TheGodling]

This also extends to how sexless his movies are, which is fine because I can't imagine Nolan handling sex in a way that isn't awkward as fukk. This is a movie where one of the goals is continuing the existence of the human race but sex never comes into that equation, it's all science.

Only thing came close was Lithgow telling McConaughey that Murph's teacher was single and he should start putting in work to repopulate the earth, but I'm pretty sure that was Jonathan Nolan's writing. But yeah, Nolan is probably the most asexual film maker since George Lucas.

 

[gluvnast]

Okay I liked Interstellar but here's my issue: Nolan strikes me as a director that is much less concerned with emotion and more with the actions that come about as a result of those emotions. His movies are like someone studying insects under a microscope. Or like an alien who has an understanding of what emotions are but approaches them from an analytical point. I can't help but feel that all the overly sentimental stuff that he's done with Interstellar, Inception and The Dark Knight Rises are either insincere or him trying to make up for how detached his earlier work was. I can't find it now but some review of Interstellar mentioned how the last crop left on Earth was corn and that was proof that either Nolan was playing around or he has absolutely no self-awareness.

This also extends to how sexless his movies are, which is fine because I can't imagine Nolan handling sex in a way that isn't awkward as fukk. This is a movie where one of the goals is continuing the existence of the human race but sex never comes into that equation, it's all science.

The comparisons to 2001: A Space Odyssey are inevitable but Interstellar only makes references to that movie while being nothing like it. Consider how quickly the wormhole trip is taken care of, immediately cutting to Murphy in a hospital room, where 2001 takes an entire segment to get through the same thing so that the viewer actually feels it. To keep talking about 2001, one popular view of that movie is that it's a religious movie. Not in the sense that it's preaching Christianity but that it's concerned about man's role in the universe. It's a spiritual film and ultimately a very optimistic one. Interstellar is trying to do say something about religion as well (they go up into space believing that some higher extraterrestrial being is pulling the strings only it turns out that it was us all along) but it lacks the same sense of spirituality as 2001.

Anyways that's a lot of words that don't really say too much.

Also it didn't need to be as long as it was, fukk all these long-ass movies man

2001 is just as much a flawed film with many issues and problems in it itself. We should give it praise for its ambition, but if you want to talk about long-ass movies that don't need to be long, especially when it's virtually a silent film, this is it. Space Odyssey is JUST AS long as Interstellar only just a few minutes shorter (which Interstellar credits is a couple minutes longer).That entire film could of been condensed into an hour and a half and arguably have a BIGGER effect than it did.

I will agree that people would automatically compare these two films, but it's the fact that these are two completely different styled directors. Nolan DOESN'T want to be that cold director without displaying emotion in his films like he 1st started off ass. He's evolving to something more than while still maintaining his initial style of directing. Interstellar, to me and many others I conversed to, FELT the emotional core in this particular film. I nearly teared up a couple times which is rare for me, and that's because my connection I have with my own daughter and the pain of a superbly acted McC as he is grieving over his loss and distance and disconnect with his own children. It may not worked with you, which is cool, not ALL movies are going to pull people emotionally the same, but it definitely affected me. Also, the screenshots of this film were indeed beautiful, but arguably condensed due to it being already a long film. I feel like they cut a lot of fat as they could with this film and I cannot see anything else that should be left on the slab.

As for the spirituality comparisons.... This is where I beg to differ the most and my biggest issue with 2001. When you watch 2001, you are left completely confused because nothing is explained. Dammit you are FORCED to read the book JUST to get a small understanding of the film. Because of that it strips away the spirituality aspect of it. It is there,but it is hard to appreciate the spiritual evolution of man if you not exactly understanding what was doing on along with the boring, slowly and poorly paced film. Whereas with Interstellar, which BIGGEST gripe itself is that it informs you TOO much, you at least KNOW there are higher dimensions controlling and mastering the universe. The reinforcement of the term love (love = God) and how that emotional connection transcends through time and space has a bigger, yet simpler, relevance to people than the master mind fukk that had ZERO emotion that Space Odyssey had. What makes something of a spiritual nature IS its emotional core to it. This was Nolan was delving for and what Kubrick completely dismissed. In fact, Kubrick was showing how robotic man become which was brilliant to showcase in some regards but in retrospect really didn't make sense in context to the movie, especially with HAL which supposedly be more "human". I say this because it is making it look as though "man" is completely innocent and naive in what it do and their own means to evolve is through the monolith. It never explains the consequences of man and the flawed actions of mankind. Interstellar is all about the conflicts and consequences of all humanity and our emotional connections and disconnect that we have with each other. I feel that it is more of a spiritual film than 2001 TRIED to be in that regard. You have to have that emotional charged and challenges of humanity with it.

 

[gluvnast]

Only thing came close was Lithgow telling McConaughey that Murph's teacher was single and he should start putting in work to repopulate the earth, but I'm pretty sure that was Jonathan Nolan's writing. But yeah, Nolan is probably the most asexual film maker since George Lucas.

One thing I love about Nolan is that he DOESN'T try to make cliche romantic films, and even the ones that do have a love interest, it's not what the film is surrounded on and he typically uses it as a conflict or a crutch to the story. Which is why most of his films typically have the female love interest be killed or already dead. Plus, in a society and especially with film where SEX is exploited, it is pleasing to have movies where it doesn't necessary revolve around any sexual aspects.

With that SAID, I do wish there was more of a romantic connection that evolved between Cooper and Amelia. But I understand that it'll take away from her sole desire and connection to her boyfriend and that message of love transcends as an example.

 

[sun raw]

Only thing came close was Lithgow telling McConaughey that Murph's teacher was single and he should start putting in work to repopulate the earth, but I'm pretty sure that was Jonathan Nolan's writing. But yeah, Nolan is probably the most asexual film maker since George Lucas.

Exactly. And at the same time, even Lucas still has Leia in the metal bikini, which can't even be dismissed as exploitation because the entire thing is made more complex when she's turned into the visual plaything of an entertainment-hungry viewer (hint hint).

2001 is just as much a flawed film with many issues and problems in it itself. We should give it praise for its ambition, but if you want to talk about long-ass movies that don't need to be long, especially when it's virtually a silent film, this is it. Space Odyssey is JUST AS long as Interstellar only just a few minutes shorter (which Interstellar credits is a couple minutes longer).That entire film could of been condensed into an hour and a half and arguably have a BIGGER effect than it did.

I will agree that people would automatically compare these two films, but it's the fact that these are two completely different styled directors. Nolan DOESN'T want to be that cold director without displaying emotion in his films like he 1st started off ass. He's evolving to something more than while still maintaining his initial style of directing. Interstellar, to me and many others I conversed to, FELT the emotional core in this particular film. I nearly teared up a couple times which is rare for me, and that's because my connection I have with my own daughter and the pain of a superbly acted McC as he is grieving over his loss and distance and disconnect with his own children. It may not worked with you, which is cool, not ALL movies are going to pull people emotionally the same, but it definitely affected me. Also, the screenshots of this film were indeed beautiful, but arguably condensed due to it being already a long film. I feel like they cut a lot of fat as they could with this film and I cannot see anything else that should be left on the slab.

As for the spirituality comparisons.... This is where I beg to differ the most and my biggest issue with 2001. When you watch 2001, you are left completely confused because nothing is explained. Dammit you are FORCED to read the book JUST to get a small understanding of the film. Because of that it strips away the spirituality aspect of it. It is there,but it is hard to appreciate the spiritual evolution of man if you not exactly understanding what was doing on along with the boring, slowly and poorly paced film. Whereas with Interstellar, which BIGGEST gripe itself is that it informs you TOO much, you at least KNOW there are higher dimensions controlling and mastering the universe. The reinforcement of the term love (love = God) and how that emotional connection transcends through time and space has a bigger, yet simpler, relevance to people than the master mind fukk that had ZERO emotion that Space Odyssey had. What makes something of a spiritual nature IS its emotional core to it. This was Nolan was delving for and what Kubrick completely dismissed. In fact, Kubrick was showing how robotic man become which was brilliant to showcase in some regards but in retrospect really didn't make sense in context to the movie, especially with HAL which supposedly be more "human". I say this because it is making it look as though "man" is completely innocent and naive in what it do and their own means to evolve is through the monolith. It never explains the consequences of man and the flawed actions of mankind. Interstellar is all about the conflicts and consequences of all humanity and our emotional connections and disconnect that we have with each other. I feel that it is more of a spiritual film than 2001 TRIED to be in that regard. You have to have that emotional charged and challenges of humanity with it.

2001 is one of my favorite movies and one of the greatest works of art ever made so I'm biased but it's also one of those movies that totally earns its length. Bowman's trip through hyperspace or whatever is so long that it never seems to end. You completely understand just the sheer magnitude of what the fukk is going on. I had the feeling that they had cut down Interstellar as much as they could but even at its current length, individual scenes are tightly edited and more compressed, there's no breathing room to register the visceral impact of everything, or at the very least, it's not as effective as it definitely could be, especially when everything starts getting more tense towards the end. Think about how 2001 maintains the same pace even when Bowman confronts HAL.

And Interstellar is very emotional, I'm not going to claim that I was bored through the entire thing. But when the movie's visual references are Field of Dreams and Matt McC wakes up in a future that resembles 1950s America, I have to question just how sincere Nolan is being with it.

2001 is better for choosing to not explain everything. I've never read the book because I don't need to understand who created the monolith or anything. Confusing the viewer is a perfectly valid thing to do and I don't think it takes away from the spiritualism of the film. Imagine if Tree of Life had felt the need to explain every aspect of its spirituality. We don't see the aliens who create the monolith because we aren't supposed to be able to conceptualize them. If God exists, we can't ever possibly hope to understand Him. Like the aliens/God exist so far beyond the limits of our imagination, not even film can properly portray them. Holy shyt how crazy is that?

And I disagree that there's no emotion to 2001. The humans are emotionless to a degree, for sure, but even something like HAL's shutdown is supposed to be tragic because this perfect being is revealed as all too human and flawed. It's not presented as a good thing and if I'll go as far to claim that we're supposed to think of it as a crucifixion. I do agree that Bowman's evolution comes about not as a result of his actions but because it was pre-determined, because of destiny. I don't see this as a pessimistic thing (one of the biggest debates about the movie is whether it's pessimistic or optimistic) but once we start getting into that domain, so much of it becomes subjective. I know that whenever I watch the movie, I come out blown away, really hopeful. Interstellar is pretty hopeful too, the difference is that Nolan may be influenced by Kubrick but he doesn't know how to do majestic like Kubrick did.

 

[TheGodling]

One thing I love about Nolan is that he DOESN'T try to make cliche romantic films, and even the ones that do have a love interest, it's not what the film is surrounded on and he typically uses it as a conflict or a crutch to the story. Which is why most of his films typically have the female love interest be killed or already dead. Plus, in a society and especially with film where SEX is exploited, it is pleasing to have movies where it doesn't necessary revolve around any sexual aspects.

With that SAID, I do wish there was more of a romantic connection that evolved between Cooper and Amelia. But I understand that it'll take away from her sole desire and connection to her boyfriend and that message of love transcends as an example.

And yet TDKR has one of the most forced 'pairings' in recent movie history when Bruce, after retiring for eight years because the love of his life died, doesn't hesitate to bust nuts in Miranda (Talia) within days of returning to society.

 

[FlyRy]

I liked it, but let's not act like this is a universally lovable movie.

I loved the first couple hours, I started liking it less when they had what seemed like sudden "turns" of Michael Caine and Damon, complete with ominous musical cues, to create some drama and bad guys. The pace noticeably got so much more intense in the last hour too, and it didn't feel like it was because they were racing against time.

Overall I liked it a lot though, great visuals, great first couple hours, interesting concepts even if there's some smart dumb takes on them.

it's not, but one of the negative reviews said it was a "preposterious epic, but an epic nonetheless" and like i said every review and podcast that didnt like it so much still recommended going to see it

 

[FlyRy]

Only thing came close was Lithgow telling McConaughey that Murph's teacher was single and he should start putting in work to repopulate the earth, but I'm pretty sure that was Jonathan Nolan's writing. But yeah, Nolan is probably the most asexual film maker since George Lucas.

he's probably even more asexual than lucas

 

[TheGodling]

he's probably even more asexual than lucas

He really is, like dude said above, at least Lucas gave us Leia in the slave outfit.

Nolan on the other hand featured Scarlett Johannson, Piper Perabo and Rebecca Hall in a movie, yet somehow the closest thing to sexual tension was between Christian Bale and Hugh Jackman.

 

[FlyRy]

He really is, like dude said above, at least Lucas gave us Leia in the slave outfit.

Nolan on the other hand featured Scarlett Johannson, Piper Perabo and Rebecca Hall in a movie, yet somehow the closest thing to sexual tension was between Christian Bale and Hugh Jackman.

lucas also gave us a bit of incest

 

[MartyMcFly]

it's not, but one of the negative reviews said it was a "preposterious epic, but an epic nonetheless" and like i said every review and podcast that didnt like it so much still recommended going to see it

two of my homies didn't like it breh and they're far from pretentious or uber nerd lol. One of them said it bored him to death because he didn't care about any of the characters and the other is a very analytical guy so he just didn't buy the fiction aspect of the science fiction (which is always his problem unless we're talking Star Wars) he didn't like the whole

Spoiler: spoiler

"I can survive a black hole" thing

nor did he like the fact that he didn't care about person in the movie.

I don't think it's a bad movie by any means, but I like characters in my movie and it just seemed to lack it. When your two robots are more developed than their human counterparts, I think that's a problem.