Order by:

Add your comment

Do you want to let us know what you think? Just login, after which you will be redirected back here and you can leave your comments.

Comments 46 - 60 of 63

The_Comatorium's avatar


Okay, I need to get this out of the way first. I saw this film almost three weeks ago. If you have not seen this film in a REAL IMAX theater with 70mm film, please do so. It will most likely be one of the last times you will seeing something this new be projected on film. The projectionist in me had a field day with this one. I was privileged to be able to see this at the Lincoln Center IMAX which is one of the largest screens in the country and most likely the world. Regardless of your opinion of the film, it’s something to be seen in 70mm before film goes the way of the 8 track and seatbeltless vehicles.

That being said, I didn’t particularly love this movie. I didn’t really hate it either. What I ultimately came to was a feeling of mild satisfaction mixed with utter bewilderment. I’ve been a fan of Nolan from the beginning. I generally believe The Dark Knight, Memento, and The Prestige to be some of the best films of the decade. Interstellar marks the second film in a row from Nolan that not only failed to meet my expectations but seemed to lack in the screenwriting that characterized his earlier films. This was just a mess story wise from beginning to end. In fact, parts of it nearly ruined the whole thing for me.There were instances in the film where decisions were made at the blink of an eye, huge decisions, LIFE ALTERING DECISIONS, MADE AFTER ABOUT TEN MINUTES OF THOUGHT. Seriously, Matthew McConaughey’s character Cooper is the worst father ever. What he does to his daughter in this film is just atrocious. I hated his character for like 40 minutes after this happened. There is also huge jumps in timeline. Basically Matthew McConaughey goes from farmer to in space in like three days. Sure, he was a NASA fighter pilot a long ass time ago, but you don’t get trained for space in three days. You just don’t do it.

The dialogue was also pretty bad. Anne Hathaway delivers a monologue in the middle of the film, about love, that nearly had me puking in the auditorium. It came off so cheesy and forced that I couldn’t stand it. A big character reveal in the middle of the film also progressed in a way that could be seen a mile away. This character also forgets who he is and ruins pretty much everything. The end of the film, which will be talked about for some time as it is very “2001”-esque, kind of muddles the entire thing for me. Like, I get where they were going with that. I get how unimaginable space can be an how it works, but to put it all together like that just seemed like Nolan was trying to be more profound than he needed to be. I don’t like throwing around the word pretentious often because I think that it insults creativity, but the end of this film teetered on being a bit pretentious. Also, the BIG emotional reunion end the end of the film, the one that the audience has been waiting for the entire three fucking hours, was over in like four sentences. Seriously, fuck Matthew McConaughey’s character in this movie. He’s the worst.

What did I like? First off the acting was pretty top notch. Matthew McConaughey was in full form as he has been for the past two years. There are a few scenes in this movie that really struck a chord with me emotionally and that was all on MM. Michael Caine continues to be sad Michael Caine and that’s okay because the man is a true legend and makes my eyes water every time he is sad. The voice acting from Bill Irwin, who voices the robot TARS, was a wonderful addition to the cast and might have been my favorite character. The robots were awesome by the way. At first I thought they were too weird but then I really got into the functionality of them. The action and space sequences were gorgeous to watch in 70mm. It made the effort to see this is IMAX all worth while. Also, Mackenzie Foy can act. That girl is going to be big if she continues acting.

Overall the film just wasn’t up to what I thought it was going to be. As far as space movies go, I enjoyed Sunshine and Solaris much more but there were definitely some great reasons to see the film. The camera work, the acting, the practical effects mixed in with CGI, all made this a film to see. It just happened to be a mess in the story telling department that may get better with a clearer viewing but I’m not holding my breath. Nolan gets points for doing it in film though. I’ll give him added points for that.


9 years 5 months ago
mfmopdenkamp's avatar


Terrible rip-off from 2001, but still enjoyable to watch. Incredible visuals, but some flews in acting and dialogue (Topher Grace was awfully misplaced, people had giggles in the theatre by just seeing him).

I was a little surprised Nolan wrote it himself, since the science-fictional part it still quite interesting, but definitely based on 2001. The thing they did right in 2001 was not trying to explain and leaving a lot to the imagination, while Interstellar tries to explain them. How cliché.

The difference of music in 2001 and Interstellar is a good resemblance of both movies. While 2001 was all about mankind and its epicness, Interstellar focused more on the emotions and excitement, which are in my opinion unnecessary and highly overrated needs of modern music and film.
9 years 6 months ago
TheOnlyRogueAngel's avatar


My attention span on average is about 70 minutes, 90 at a (big) push.. but this kept me gripped for the full 169 minutes.. Matthew McConaughey carries you along, often with a lump in your throat, and eyes welling up, as he sets off to save mankind, what's left of it, and his family... he totally rocks.! And the twist near the end is pretty spectacular. Another Nolan brothers hit.!
9 years 6 months ago
Gilles Debil's avatar

Gilles Debil

The only good thing about the film is the soundtrack
6 years 5 months ago
fonz's avatar


Is it worth seeing in 70mm IMAX? Sure, if only because Christopher Nolan is one of the few consistently entertaining filmmakers to still use that dirt--I mean film. If asked to sum up my thoughts on his latest in one word, I would use "underwhelming." This feeling is mostly a consequence of seeing nearly every film that this movie references. I can't speak for the rest of the near-capacity audience I shared my time and space with but I get a sense that they felt much the same. The usual clapping following a particularly riveting new release was not present and most left questioning whether the extra ticket cost was justified. Right around this time last year, I paid a similar price for another space set movie in IMAX 3D and there was no doubt in my mind that it was well worth the price of admission.

This movie doesn't feel as groundbreaking as it should be. Hans Zimmer has delivered a fantastic score and it definitely ranks among the best in his career but it all sounds far too familiar (yet I cannot, at this time, think of the names of the other scores). Christopher Nolan's favorite theme of time is ever so present but the first half it feels he is making a Spielberg flick before having his strings pulled by Kubrick's ghost (which makes complete sense since A.I. Artificial Intelligence was developed by Kubrick before eventually being made by Spielberg and this picture was initially being developed for Spielberg). But what happened to the guy who forced us to rethink our reality or the person we have to blame for making nearly all superhero movies "gritty"? There is little for the audience to chew on here that they haven't heard before. Is it really necessary to hear the same Dylan Thomas poem four times, three times coming from Michael Caine's mouth (it could be more, but I can only count to four)? I loved it the first time Rodney Dangerfield spoke those lines but every time after that has been meh. The divorce of Nolan and cinematographer, Wally Pfister, is noticeable as the photography was not as epic as Nolan's last three pictures. Hopefully they reconcile, otherwise we have more out-dated pseudo-science coming our way. As for the acting, well it's certainly not the worst according to what they are capable of and ranks about par for their potential but I feel that the robots out-did the humans here. I go from hating TARS to wanting to know who voiced him, that's a testament to good voice acting and good writing.

For those that were disappointed by Nolan's third Batman entry, this is his second dud in a row. But even Nolan's worst is still galaxies beyond many modern filmmaker's best. Worth a view on big screen but nothing to take home other than "love conquers all" and we need a balance between farmers and scientists.
9 years 6 months ago
frankqb's avatar


Intelligent, mature and emotional. As much a tribute to all other space sci-fi before it (i.e. 2001) as it is its own piece on love, family and the limits of our existence.

4 stars out of 4.
9 years 6 months ago
Earring72's avatar


Ambitious but flawed. Great special effects and emotional at times but after a slow beginning, a great middle half the movie crashes with a stupid finale. The book closet...really????!!!!???

Ok entertainment but falls short in the end due to the storytelling..

As usual the Honest trailer (only watch after seeing the movie) makes valid points.
8 years 2 months ago
senorroboto's avatar


The action scenes are gripping and tension is good, the actors do well, but the exposition is heavy handed and the obvious similarities to 2001 are done with less subtlety and wit than Kubrick. There's a great 120-minute movie in this good 170 minute movie, but when you spend all that money shooting scenes, I understand why it can be difficult to cut.
9 years 6 months ago
Zangin's avatar


I'm not a big fan of this film. Interstellar has often been compared to 2001: a Space Odyssey as they are both science fiction epics with a confusing ending. While I see the similarities between the two, it is the differences that really underscore my distaste for Interstellar. 2001's ending, on one hand, is kept metaphorical. It does not attempt to explain anything and so, it is kept open to the interpretation of the viewer. However, Interstellar's ending is explained as fact and simply makes no sense. This is a subtle but key difference that leads 2001 to being one of my favorite films while I find Interstellar to be completely unremarkable. It's not a bad movie though, the acting is good and it looks beautiful, as long as you don't care about a deep or well thought out plot.
9 years ago
moldypoldy's avatar


Just got back. Really long, and you felt every minute of it, but so worth it. Great film, intense from beginning to end.
9 years 6 months ago
bathkuyp's avatar


Good grace , build a greenhouse or something and be done with it.
9 years 4 months ago
airi86ja's avatar


Glorious. Missed that kind of film for a long time..
Great job, Ch. Nolan
9 years 6 months ago
IndianaJones's avatar


Tremendous visuals
Unfortunately the dialogue is getting worse the longer the movie goes.
Not a lot of plotholes but a lot of scientific stuff that is not quite accurate, but you gonna have a lot of fun if you can look beyond that.
9 years 6 months ago
dorkusmalorkus's avatar


Brilliant film. Contrary to many others, I thought the science was impressive--easily some of the best I've seen in a sci-fi movie in a long time. It deals with a lot of theoretical stuff, yeah, but that's the whole "fiction" part of science fiction.

Absolutely astounding visuals, including several things I've never seen before.

Long story short, Christopher Nolan does it again. :)
9 years 6 months ago
sureup's avatar


Great visuals.
Good music.
Sub-par script.
9 years 6 months ago

Showing items 46 – 60 of 63

View comments