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 1 - 15 of 63

SpacedJ's avatar


Fun fact: Hans Zimmer composed the entire score while wearing a Phillip Glass mask tied on with elastic.
9 years 6 months ago
mathiasa's avatar


Some guys flying through a plot hole.
9 years 6 months ago
Jordan95's avatar


A great experience. Although it is Nolan's most ambitious film by a mile, it's not his best, as it suffers from the usual flaws found in every Nolan film, mainly clunky dialogue. However, that doesn't detract from the amazing concept and breathtaking visuals it consistently offers.

The emotional core of the film has already proven to be a divisive concept amongst critics and viewers, but I thought that for the most part, it worked perfectly, especially in a heartbreaking scene which I won't spoil here.

Matthew McConaughey, once more, proves himself as one of the great contemporary actors in Hollywood, giving Cooper a emotional character arc and making him believable at all times. The rest of the cast, although dealing with underdeveloped characters, do a great job.

The CGI is out of this world and proves it can make a greater impact on a film if it's used selectively as Nolan uses it here. The 169 minutes running time, despite a questionable plot-wise second act, keeps you glued to your seat. In my theater, there were only about 20 people, but a young couple next to me was already debating the film when it concluded. That proves that, whether you liked it or not, you will remember Interstellar, which I think is the greatest achievement that a film can accomplish.
9 years 6 months ago
sureup's avatar


Great visuals.
Good music.
Sub-par script.
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
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
airi86ja's avatar


Glorious. Missed that kind of film for a long time..
Great job, Ch. Nolan
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
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
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 1 month 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
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

Showing items 1 – 15 of 63

View comments