Saw this earlier today. Nolan's one of the few people who'll drag me into a cinema.

Defying the danger of sounding like a teenager, I've just one word for it - awesome.

R

Was fortunate enough to see this with an actual 70mm film projection. I feel extremely, extremely lucky to have done so.

I have nothing to add to R's one word review.

For gosh sakes, see this in theatre.

It both blew and twisted my mind.

Stunning visuals, and I knew I loved it when I bought the slightly silly ending.

I'm still thinking about this film. It's in my head, like a song that won't go away, in a good way though. Might have to go see it again, on one of those huge big fuck off IMAX thingies.

R

I saw it at the weekend and felt it had many many problems, particularly in terms of plot. I am definitely going to give it a second viewing before finalising my opinion but initial impressions were...well, less than impressed.

I love Nolan's work and still favour Memento followed by The Prestige over the rest. As it stands, this is well down the order.

Great visually with intriguing, challenging ideas but I think he over shot himself, took too much on. I defy anybody to grasp everything first time around unless astrophysics or quantum mechanics are your field of expertise and I like that it will take multiple viewing to truly understand the whole picture.

However, nothing is going to change the fact that the majority of the dialogue (and there is a lot of it) is telling telling telling...than some more explanation...Inception had that too but it felt more intrinsic to the story. It was conducted through Ellen Page, the new recruit who is essentially us the audience. Plus, it wasn't to the same degree as this.

I like how they went straight from Cooper leaving his family to lift off, we didn't need the generic training montage but then once we were on the ship, the crew proceeded to explain everything to him en route. It felt so clunky, painfully expository for the audience's benefit. Case in point: When they approached the wormhole near Saturn, its in sight and Romilly literally starts conducting a wormhole 101 crash-couse to Cooper right there and then. What? Would this, at the very least, have not been covered in the mission briefing? You're telling me, the dude flying this thing doesn't even know this much!?

Anyway, there are lots more instances of Cooper seemingly clueless about what's going, just so the characters can explain stuff to us. Yet the guy has been behind the wheel of this thing for months.

Of course, in the black hole sequence near the end, when its one "eureka" moment after the next, Cooper suddenly becomes an expert in analyzing data so he can pass it on to Murph. Just like that, he's the Kip Thorne mark II of the 5th dimension! I dunno, it felt like it was all fitted together without any regard for believability. Instead being more interested in saying "Look, aren't these effects cool or what? in the gravity-less/timeless environment.

The film spends so much time trying to justify what is happening and why that it feels like a science lesson via dramatic reconstruction w/ Hollywood a-listers...and even with all that said and done, the plot relies on massive leaps of faith and reinforced disbelief suspenders that, for me, became too much by the closing credits.

As with all Nolan films, I appreciate the ambition, the willingness to take on big themes. I even didn't mind the overwrought sentimentality with the daughter/father relationship (although what about poor Tom, he must feel really passed over. No wonder Casey Affleck had the beard, the glazed over eyes, the curt responses and dour demeanor; that's pure un-addressed abandonment issues right there ;)) but I would love to see Nolan scale things back a bit for his next film. Not be restricted by the requirements of such a large budget, the obligation to provide massive, widely palatable spectacle. Instead focusing on a tighter script. Simplify, simplify, simplify!

As I said, and this is my shameless disclaimer, I am definitely going to watch it again, hopefully in the cinema and I would love to have a eureka moment of my own. These were just some of my first viewing thoughts. A big let down.

Audio mix grievances:
http://www.bustle.com/articles/49453-christopher-nolan-addresses-interstellar-sound-issues-swears-he-meant-it-to-sound-like-that

When I went to see it the sound mix was also awesome.

R

p.s. It is worth seeing just for the robots.

Quoted from Colkurtz8 I love Nolan's work and still favour Memento followed by The Prestige over the rest.

You and I are the same my friend. I love Memento and liked The Prestige, didn't care for the Batman movies nor Inception too much.

Will have a look at Interstellar this week.

Saw this yesterday and I haven't quiet digested it yet. Part of me think that a second viewing well help shape my thoughts on this movie but I'm not sure when that'll happen. Anyway, here are my immediate thoughts on Interstellar.

I went into this movie with insane expectations, Nolan has continuously blown my mind ever since Memento so the bar was definitely high going into this movie.

It was a good movie, it looked amazing and sounded amazing. The acting was quite good all around and I liked the movie for what is was. But I didn't like it nearly as much as I had hoped I would. I've really been thinking a lot about why I feel this way about it, what it was exactly that didn't entirely work for me.

I think I finally figured it out. I thought it was, well, underwhelming. What I had prepared myself for, was something that was so grand and so inspiring that it would make me want to do something drastically with my life (yes, that is a little weird). What I got was a rather simple love-story between a father and a daughter wrapped in an almost contrived - yet visually stunning - save the mankind plot. Unfair as it is, I had just expected so much more. That is not to say that there aren't grand things in this movie, because there certainly are, but again they felt contrived to me.

Col bring up some excellent points about the exposition, which I agree with totally, but there also some story decisions that rubbed me the wrong way.

Other than being a blatant plot device to make sure Coop would sacrifice himself for Amelia, was the whole Matt Damon subplot really needed? It was soooooo obvious from the moment he said his walking Tetris block (those were cool by the way) couldn't distinguish between two elements on the periodic table that he was so full of shit.

Another thing, Plan A (which Coop buys into) calls for the evacuation of the entire human race...is that even remotely realistic? Even if we say that starvation and whatnot has killed off 99% of the world's population, that still leaves 70,000,000 people! How big is this space station? I know it's big enough to have a baseball pitch but c'mon!

Then there's the whole thing about "they" (the future 5D humans), the Tesseract and how it was constructed so that Coop can communicate with Murph....then we get it to the more sci-fi'ish elements (which I must admit I have a weakness for). It's very reminiscent of the type of paradox that is used in The Terminator, where you send somebody back in time to create the future so that he can be sent back in time to create the future he came from again and again, over and over. It's fun to think about but doesn't make a whole lot of sense because the Tesseract could never have been built unless Coop succeeded - unless of course Plan B worked, but if it did, why go back to Plan A?

Another thing, if these 5D beings could manipulate spacetime itself (which is rather impressive), surely they could have, I don't know, sent back a really big ship for the people of (present day) Earth - and instead of putting the wormhole at a place that takes 2 years to reach (!), maybe they could've put, you know, closer?

All in all, Interstellar is a gorgeous looking movie that tries a lot but doesn't quite get there.

Quoted from sniper His walking Tetris block.

-Ha, what a great description!

I felt when they reached the water planet and left the ship searching for Miller was a memorable scene, looked epic and all that, the first time we see one of these new planets first hand which may be possible to support life but when Brandt delayed coming back to the ship in order to collect Miller's stuff only for said "walking Tetris block" to pick her up and leg it back in record time I couldn't help thinking why didn't they just send it out in the first place to maintain complete safety of the crew? I know the tidal wave was an unforeseen complication but given how agile TARS was why didn't Brandt just say upon seeing the tidal wave, "Ok, robot, fetch Miller's gear, I'm going to head back to the ship right now cos of this increased gravity sh?t, maybe pick me up on your way if you can, cheers."

It just seemed like the mechanics of that scene were constructed to drum up unwarranted tension, kill off Doyle and create conflict between Brandt and Cooper but it totally sacrificed logic or common sense and made the crew look like ill-prepared amateurs. Of course, nobody brought up this misjudgment, instead just focusing on Brandt compromising of their safety for the sake of the mission. Brandt's character pretty much lost me after that. Rule no.1 in any Interstellar travel: Let the robot do the heavy lifting!

Quoted from sniper Another thing, Plan A (which Coop buys into) calls for the evacuation of the entire human race...is that even remotely realistic? Even if we say that starvation and whatnot has killed off 99% of the world's population, that still leaves 70,000,000 people! How big is this space station? I know it's big enough to have a baseball pitch but c'mon!.

- Totally agree, when the revelation occurred that this was indeed impossible I was like "Of course!" and trying to overcome the gravitational pull (which was cited as the primary obstacle) is only the start of your problems.

Quoted from sniper Then there's the whole thing about "they" (the future 5D humans), the Tesseract and how it was constructed so that Coop can communicate with Murph....then we get it to the more sci-fi'ish elements (which I must admit I have a weakness for). It's very reminiscent of the type of paradox that is used in The Terminator, where you send somebody back in time to create the future so that he can be sent back in time to create the future he came from again and again, over and over. It's fun to think about but doesn't make a whole lot of sense because the Tesseract could never have been built unless Coop succeeded - unless of course Plan B worked, but if it did, why go back to Plan A?!.

- You're totally right, but in its defense when you start tackling time travel in sci-fi it inherently throws up paradox after paradox. I'm reminded of that great Jeff Daniels' line in Looper "And all this time travel shit, just fries your brain like an egg." which basically says to me "Hush now, eat your greens, stop asking questions and just go with it.

Quoted from sniper Another thing, if these 5D beings could manipulate space-time itself (which is rather impressive), surely they could have, I don't know, sent back a really big ship for the people of (present day) Earth - and instead of putting the wormhole at a place that takes 2 years to reach (!), maybe they could've put, you know, closer?

- Big time. Just create the damn thing beside earth for fu?ks sake, why are you toying with us like this? Pesky 5D humans! Its almost like they're saying "We got the knowledge and we're giving you a dig out but nah ah ah, not so fast, you got to go all the way over here to access it. How do you like them apples!" Of course, its in their best interests to make it easier but then we wouldn't have had the exposition filled journey of getting there, no cool shots of Saturn, etc. Again, it was done for spectacle and convoluted plot reasons rather than adhering to logic. Miranda Tate's stupidly over complicated revenge plan in TDKR had a similar vibe to it. Made no sense but it allowed a more prominent character who insinuates her way into Wayne's life thus giving the big twist more impact.

Quoted from Colkurtz8 You're totally right, but in its defense when you start tackling time travel in sci-fi it inherently throws up paradox after paradox

So true - which is probably why time travel will never, ever, be possible, at least not in the typical Hollywood sense of the phrase. Theoretically, travelling forward in time is possible if you travel as close to the speed of light as humanly/technologically possible (which is exactly what Coop and Amelia do when they visit Miller's planet), but travelling backwards in time? No way.

Unless, of course, by traveling back you create or intersect an alternate timeline as in the Many-Worlds Theory. But if you do that, the "original" timeline isn't affected. Further, if you travel back from a timeline where this mission has already succeded - then what's the point?

Like I said, fun to talk about but it doesn't make much sense.

I remember seeing a show on NatGeo or Discovery where Stephen Hawking sent out an invitation to time travellers to meet him at a certain place at a certain time (the four needed dimensions). Guess what happened. Nobody showed up.

Quoted from sniper So true - which is probably why time travel will never, ever, be possible, at least not in the typical Hollywood sense of the phrase. Theoretically, travelling forward in time is possible if you travel as close to the speed of light as humanly/technologically possible (which is exactly what Coop and Amelia do when they visit Miller's planet), but travelling backwards in time? No way.

- Yeah its crazy to think about it. Even the idea (relativity) of time speeding up and slowing down such as 1 hour on the water planet equaling 23 years on earth, blows my little mind. Nolan utilized the same concept in the dream levels during Inception too.

Quoted from sniper Further, if you travel back from a timeline where this mission has already succeded - then what's the point?

Indeed. Some members of the "5D humans created the wormhole and that's plausible" camp posit that the Lazarus mission never existed in the original timeline but we found an alternative way to colonize another planet thus perpetuated our species so we could evolve to 5D beings later on. Hence, with out futuristic selves' foreknowledge, the wormhole creation is/was/will be in fact the "easier" way to achieve our salvation.

As far as I'm concerned, that's attempting to fill in way too much of a gap left in the narrative and still doesn't factor in that by going through the wormhole now changes everything in the future as its a new timeline. Also, as you're quote says, since we've evolved to that point, we've obviously succeeded in sticking around so why tinker with the past, just let it be.

And to reiterate, if our 5D cousins are so evolved and all knowing why be so cryptic and obtuse about their "gift" to us? Once again, leave the bloody wormhole within a manageable distance to earth and forward (or backward) an email with clear, unambiguous step-by-step instructions! Respectfully yours, the Current Human Race.

So yes, fries one's brain like an egg!

So Kip Thorne is way off?

Quoted from rendevous So Kip Thorne is way off?

Kip Thorne was consulted about the science of Interstellar travel, not future humans inexplicably and needlessly meddling with the past to help out our sorry as?es. That's the movies talking.

From my understanding, the Interstellar script is actually two scripts rewritten into one. The first written by Jonathan Nolan (with the help of Kip Thorn) when it was set up for Spielberg to direct, the second by Christopher Nolan. And, honestly, I think it shows.

Quoted from Colkurtz8 And to reiterate, if our 5D cousins are so evolved and all knowing why be so cryptic and obtuse about their "gift" to us? Once again, leave the bloody wormhole within a manageable distance to earth and forward (or backward) an email with clear, unambiguous step-by-step instructions! Respectfully yours, the Current Human Race.

Hehe - very valid point, Col, but I think they already made that movie. It's called Contact.

Absolutely love this movie, and I think it was Nolan that said it's best enjoyed if you let it wash over you. It was in my head for days afterwards and the second viewing solidified its many levels.

If you've done one viewing, and you're on the fence, I'd definitely recommend a second helping.

I watched this again last night.

The same problems persist as already stated and overall I think its a deeply flawed film.

However, I did enjoy the sheer experience of it more the second time around while being able to process what actually goes on story-wise a little better. I still don't fully get it which is partly down to my ignorance as well as undeniable oversights with the film's plot.

Also (and I know I said this already) it surprises me that amid the criticisms leveled at this film no one has talked about how imbalanced Coop's relationship is with Murph compared to Tom.

I understand that its primarily about a father/daughter relationship along with the the fact that she becomes a leading expert in quantum mechanics/physics and is the "chosen one" by our 5D future selves...while Tom is a mere, humble farmer...but it focuses so much on Coop's connection to Murph and how he abandoned HER instead of THEM that I thought it would've been better if Coop just had a daughter. His negligence of Tom just reflects badly on him as a character and father.

Except for a couple of video messages Coop watches of Tom when he and Brandt come back after 23 years on the water planet, its all Murph, Murph, Murph. In the black hole its all about Murph (which I get because of her involvement with the Lazarus missions and trans-dimensional significance!) but there is absolutely no excuse in the film's coda when Coop awakens in the space station near Saturn and waits for Murph to visit...not one reference to Tom is made. Murph never mentions him and Coop never asks. We actually don't find out if he's still alive or not and it appears father and daughter aren't too bothered either, hence, neither is the film.

Why write in that character if you're not going to follow through with him?

I know Murph goes back to the home place in the final act and has her eureka moment there but that could've easily been written the same without Tom. A relative, neighbor or friend of the family (complete with dusty lunged wife and son!) who are looking after the house and working the farm could've been slotted in there and it wouldn't have made a difference since we had no investment in Tom's character by then as he was so forgotten about and periphery.

Quoted from RayW Audio mix grievances: http://www.bustle.com/articles/49453-christopher-nolan-addresses-interstellar-sound-issues-swears-he-meant-it-to-sound-like-that

- Yeah, I found the score, although big and grandiose in the best possible way, drowned out the dialogue at certain times. I've watched it in two different cinemas in Taipei and felt the natives around me were getting every line via the subtitles while I was straining to hear.

Not a big problem for me though, it only happens a couple of times. I see where Nolan is coming from too in his rebuttal, its more about the visceral effect of the music/sound than being able to catch every single word spoken...Hell knows there's enough of that in there as it is!

Was fantastic when it was dealing with the space travel, then it fell off a cliff big time at the point it hit the Library. Tried a bit too hard to be a 2001 Space Odyssey type Masterpiece instead of sticking to what it was good at.

Broke a lot of its own internal logic regarding time as well....he should have been many millions, billions or even trillions of years in the future after going into the Black Hole.

Strange that it dwelled so long on exposition, when the exposition only really served to flag up major plot holes.

Still a very enjoyable experience.

Quoted from sniper So true - which is probably why time travel will never, ever, be possible, at least not in the typical Hollywood sense of the phrase. Theoretically, travelling forward in time is possible if you travel as close to the speed of light as humanly/technologically possible (which is exactly what Coop and Amelia do when they visit Miller's planet), but travelling backwards in time? No way. Unless, of course, by traveling back you create or intersect an alternate timeline as in the Many-Worlds Theory. But if you do that, the "original" timeline isn't affected. Further, if you travel back from a timeline where this mission has already succeded - then what's the point? Like I said, fun to talk about but it doesn't make much sense. I remember seeing a show on NatGeo or Discovery where Stephen Hawking sent out an invitation to time travellers to meet him at a certain place at a certain time (the four needed dimensions). Guess what happened. Nobody showed up.

I could make a very nasty joke based on what you've said at the end. (About Stephen not you), But I shan't.

I will merely express the opinion that perhaps a female pornstar made the appeal...there'd be more chance of people turning up. :P

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films Broke a lot of its own internal logic regarding time as well....he should have been many millions, billions or even trillions of years in the future after going into the Black Hole.

He never went into the black hole.

Quoted from Andrew He never went into the black hole.

OK. Where was he at the end then? I thought the reason they had to leave him behind was to stop the ship falling into the black hole?

And then he and Tars got sucked in?

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films I could make a very nasty joke based on what you've said at the end. (About Stephen not you), But I shan't. I will merely express the opinion that perhaps a female pornstar made the appeal...there'd be more chance of people turning up. :P

Hahahaha, best scientific argument ever, Rick.  :)

Funny though that we always expect time travellers to be men. As crazy and unbelievable as it sounds, it could actually be a woman. And women like smart men. Or so I'm told. True, Mr. Hawking will not exactly blow you away on the dance floor (or any other places for that matter), but still...

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films Where was he at the end then?

It is my understanding that he (and TARS) go into the "tesseract". And to me, that's really where the movie came apart. I was enjoying myself fine up until that point but then Nolan introduces this third act left turn and the FI in SCI-FI just took over completely. It just felt contrived to me and logic just went out the door.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films OK. Where was he at the end then? I thought the reason they had to leave him behind was to stop the ship falling into the black hole? And then he and Tars got sucked in?

He went into a tesseract that 'they' had built. There's no concept of time within the tesseract, and that's where we start talking fifth dimension and beyond. It is from here that he starts to manipulate gravitational waves (hence sending him to find NASA) and then send the coded messages to the daughter to save humanity.

This is where you get the Terminator John Connor / Kyle Reese question.

Interstellar (Digital IMAX) - Review

First things first, let’s get this out of the way. I am a HUGE Christopher Nolan fan. Everything he touches turns to gold. I have so far seen Doodlebug, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, Inception, and The Dark Knight Rises.

I finally saw Interstellar on Thursday, its last week in IMAX. Theaters in Oklahoma either opted not to show it on film, or were not capable. (There is an IMAX up in Tulsa that can project 15-perf/70mm. They played The Dark Knight Rises in this format, but apparently not Interstellar.) I had no IMAX 70mm, regular 70mm, or 35mm options in my area, so I settled for the best format available to me… Digital IMAX at the Warren.

The crowd was initially small, but more people came leading up to the sepia-toned Paramount, Warner, Legendary, and Syncopy logos. It was the last showing of the night. The Warren IMAX always plays “Also Sprach Zarathustra” just before the curtain opens to reveal the monolith-like screen. And it’s probably never been more appropriately used, given that the film is heavily inspired by 2001, and Nolan himself is influenced by Stanley Kubrick.



The theater announced a trailer for The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies, but nope. Instead we got trailers for Jupiter Ascending, Seventh Son, and The Avengers: Age of Ultron -- all of which were shot digitally, I might add.

Longtime Nolan collaborator Wally Pfister, ASC, is absent and is reportedly retiring from cinematography. His directorial debut, Transcendence, was released in April. Some people may have feared the worst: We saw what happened to John Carpenter when he split with longtime DP Dean Cundey. We also saw what happened when Cundey made his directorial debut with the straight-to-video Honey, We Shrunk Ourselves.



While Pfister’s Transcendence (a great film!) was ripped apart by critics and flopped at the box office, Nolan’s gamble -- hiring Hoyte Van Hoytema to shoot Interstellar -- paid off handsomely.

Christopher Nolan has done it again.  The image was striking, whether the shot was 35mm or IMAX 70mm (cropped to 1.9:1 from the full 1.43 IMAX aspect ratio). The visuals (most of the FX work is practical effects) were breathtaking. Van Hoytema didn’t miss a beat.

And speaking of beats, let’s move on to the audio. The sound effects were robust and loud. They gave the subwoofer quite a workout! Hans Zimmer has created another awesome score. Sometimes, the music would reference “Also Sprach Zarathustra,” but subtly.

Now moving on from the technical stuff to the stuff Joe Sixpack actually cares about -- the acting. Nolan has again assembled a powerful ensemble -- Matthew McConaughey, Anne Hathaway (The Dark Knight Rises), Mackenzie Foy, Jessica Chastain, longtime Nolan regular Michael Caine (Batman trilogy, The Prestige, Inception), Ellen Burstyn, Casey Affleck, and **** *****. Everyone brings their “A” game. Their A+ game, rather.

The story and writing were top-shelf. Of course, Joe Sixpack may get confused about the more technical/scientific things (especially the ********* in the third act), but I’m not exactly a Joe Sixpack and I could follow the plot with ease. If you can make it through Nolan’s masterpiece Inception, then you should have no problems here.

The Editing. Lee Smith does something that he didn’t do in the Dark Knight Trilogy or in Inception. He had several fades to (and from) black. Most Nolan movies have hard cuts all the way through.

Interstellar in IMAX (even if it’s Digital IMAX) is worth every penny. See it in the best format available to you.

My verdict: A+ (I could add infinite pluses. It was that good!)

^I really hope this dude is trolling.

I actually really liked this movie. However I think most of Nolan's films are overrated and overhyped initially by the media. Over time, Nolan's movies lose their impact. Take Inception for example. Does anyone still give two s hits about that movie?

That being said, I think the Dark Knight Trilogy above average at best. And surprisingly, I thought Interstellar was better than any of the Dark Knight movies. The acting was solid, the visuals were stunning, and the soundtrack was spot on. In fact, the soundtrack was probably my favorite part of the movie.

However, Interstellar has a ton of problems. It runs a bit too long, it's predictable, and the twists are lame. Furthermore, some of the characters are pointless and underdeveloped. I'm looking at you Casey Affleck.

I would go see it in theater just for the soundtrack alone. The film has some really moving scenes and I LOVED the bit about time and relativity. I just wish it focused more so on that than f ucking Matt Damon.