Saturday, November 8, 2014

A Negative Review: Interstellar Sucks

You don't say...

In yet another installment of Nolan's trite, pretentious glob, people and magazines and web sites have already found much more interesting adjectives to use about the former's most recent movie, though obviously, theirs are notably and profoundly positive; the movie in question: Interstellar. I've stopped becoming surprised by this point when this happens, because if there's one thing Nolan knows how to do, it's how to market his material. And let me tell you: I couldn't watch more than 5 minutes of television or browse some form of social media without running into either a trailer or some type of discussion. In any case, as is the usual, the prevailing term is "insanely brilliant" and "Kubrick-esque." Oh dear.

So: the plot centers around the idea of a dying Earth (if you've never seen this tired, tired cliché before, then you can probably count the number of movies you've seen on one hand). Nolan and his writers recently read The Grapes of Wrath, so in this iteration, it's death by dust – dust storms, dying crops, difficulty breathing as a result of the dusty air... it's nothing original. Enter Matthew McMconaughey: he's a farmer (and also a scientist and an engineer, as he'll proudly tell you), but understands that there's no future for it – in the coming generation, conditions on Earth will deteriorate to such an extent that those who haven't starved to death will suffocate from the dust. Cue plot contrivance: McMconaughey mysteriously acquires coordinates to the secret, recommissioned decommissioned NASA facility, tasked with sending humanity's last, best hope into space, to enter a wormhole and pursue colonization efforts on planets previously surveilled by lone astronauts, who are now waiting in cryostasis for secondary contact. Actually, that's two contrivances: the wormhole, as we're told, was benevolently placed by an unknown alien entity, with the seeming intent of rescuing humanity – only through this wormhole can humanity realistically hope to reach habitable planets through manned space missions. Anyway, there's some trouble along the way, some people you don't care about die completely preventable deaths, but then it hits you:

This whole movie could have been over in 5 minutes. When McMconaughey makes it to the end, we discover it was him along along who was sending the mysterious plot contrivances from before – as Interstellar would have you believe, gravity and time can be transmitted across dimensions (oh, also love, apparently, but that's only brought up once and then never mentioned again), and after becoming armed with this knowledge, McMconaughey transmits the data necessary to save humanity back to his daughter, through time, after entering a black hole. Furthermore, we learn that it's future-humanity, apparently, that placed the wormhole for past-humanity to discover and save itself through; this begs the question: why the fuck didn't future-humanity place the wormhole closer to Earth? Why does past-humanity need black hole data to create a space station orbiting Jupiter? Tangentially, how does one space station realistically fit the entirety of Earth's population, given that McMconaughey's whole schtick was about leaving no one behind? Or, supposing there are multiple stations, from where are the materials harvested? It goes on (I'm not even going to touch on the mockery this movie makes of the laws of physics). Perhaps the stupidest illogicality that we're expected to believe, though, is that after McMconaughey's daughter picks up the wristwatch she's using to receive daddy's data, said data is unaffected by the movement even though it's reception hinges on precise, undisturbed, gravitational transmission; that is, if it's not really gravity that's affecting the watch (she picks it up and it doesn't interrupt the process), but some other kind of bullshit contrivance, couldn't McMconaughey have found a better way to transmit his data? Surely he'd have found something that would spare his daughter the 25 years the movie states it takes to decipher everything. And of course, all the while, despite the years and years that have passed, the dust-apocalypse is put on hold because its only purpose is in the exposition, to give the movie a tone and then not be followed through upon.

Speaking of which: Nolan's movies are always big on spoon-feeding the audience exposition through dialogue that no one would realistically be having. Consider, for instance, why Michael Caine wastes McMconaughey's time explaining to him that the Earth is dying, or, later, why one of the generic astronauts has to explain to McMconaughey about the basic workings of a wormhole – isn't McMconaughey supposed to be the brightest pilot NASA has had? Certainly, Nolan is aware of what it means to cut out unnecessary fluff – we miss out on McMconaughey's training prior to launch, but when it comes to having hands held... well, suffice it to say you'll really feel the nearly 3-hour running time.

Incidentally: isn't it interesting how McMconaughey ignores future-McMconaughey's message to "stay," but follows the other breadcrumbs, like the coordinates? I guess it didn't occur to future-McMconaughey to write out "IT'S YOU, FROM THE FUTURE." I probably wouldn't have written that either; if I was able to communicate with my past self, I would have spelled out "DON'T WATCH."


  1. You improperly used the phrase "beg the question". Instead, try saying " it raises the question".

    1. No, this is not correct. You are thinking of "begging the question" as it pertains to logic, but the term can also be literal, as it's used here. For reference, here is what Google returns when you look up the term:
      You are likely thinking of the second definition, where I am using the first.

      In context, "obvious question that should be raised" or "the question begged" is "why didn't future-humanity place the wormhole closer to Earth."

    2. Shit, man. I was polite to you in my correction. I'm sorry that you were wrong, but... is that any way to speak to someone?

    3. Why bother being polite to people like this? It's because of these idiots that terrible movies like this get made.

  2. Thank heavens there's at least one more person on this planet who agrees with my views on this film. This is the point of time in man's existence when Kubrick would have been like, "LOL".

    1. You are not alone.That was some of the worst shit i have ever had the misfortune to see.And the horrible clichès....just wow!

  3. Nice review. I wonder why it's even named interstellar since they don't travel from one star to another. They do travel to another galaxy, but the plants are orbiting a black hole.

    1. I assumed it was because the most reasonable name, "Gravity," had already been taken by another movie.

  4. Indeed, Interstellar is one of the worst pieces of #%!~ I have ever seen. There wasn't anything good about the movie. Anybody who says differently is a moron who was to thick to understand the movie and is parroting the marking BS to sound clever and their opinions on movies can never again be taken seriously.

  5. HORRIBLE..HORRIBLE..HORRIBLE. Watching mimes for three hours or plunging needles into my eyes would be more enjoyable than watching that piece of something again. After about 30 minutes I was wishing the movie would be sucked into a black hole.

  6. Haha. I was searching for my own post and came across this. Exactly what I felt about the movie too! Linking below, if you would like to read :)

  7. You know, I was never able to figure out what all the hoo-haa about Love in this movie was. I mean apparently, Love can transcend time and space somehow, presumably because according to Hollywood logic, LOVE IS THE MOST SPESHULEST OF ALL EMOTIONS (Hate and Apathy? Or Sloth? Or Jealousy? What the fuck is that?), yet it doesn't actually play any substantial part in the movie. Nolan screws up on this a lot - bring up a theme, then do fuck all with it.

  8. Just because YOU don't understand astronomy, astrobiology, and physics doesn't mean the movie was terrible. It means you're just not intelligent enough to comprehend science fiction. Go watch your so-called "science fiction" movies like Hunger Games and Transformers and leave the intelligent, thought-provoking films to the grownups, kiddo.

    1. The irony here is killing me. Science fiction has nothing to do with aesthetics. Instead, it has only to do with the notion of alternate worlds or realities, based on rational assumptions or existing knowledge of our known world. This is why something like Lord of the Rings is fantasy – we know that dragons and orcs don't exist; but, in movies like Terminator, far-fetched as they may be, the underlying assumption of (for example) artificial intelligence rising against humanity is at least possible, and is obviously based on current knowledge. Conversely, the complete, utter mockery of physics you see throughout Interstellar is absolutely not possible, nor is it based on anything we know – if your head wasn't so far up your fucking ass, you'd understand that the entirety of the movie's end is complete guesswork, because no one has ever observed anything direct about a black hole *because it's impossible to do so.* Interstellar is so sure of itself that it creates an entire dimension for the sake of the plot once McConaughey enters the black hole – and here, you're telling *me* I didn't get it.

      I should also point out that it's cute you think this was even a relevant point to bring up to begin with, as I specifically stated I *did not* intend to analyze Interstellar's mistreatment of physics (that is, you're telling me I'm wrong even though I literally didn't even mention what you're telling me I'm wrong about). However, as you somehow find the movie's science defensible, it's apparent you must be okay with calling a 3-dimensional 5th-dimension library inside a black hole "possible and realistic given our current knowledge of science," as that's what sci-fi actually means.

      Anyway, I should tie up the loose end: it's ironic because what little sci-fi permeates The Hunger Games actually IS better (just in terms of what "sci-fi" denotes; I'm not talking about quality, because The Hunger Games is obviously a shit movie) than what you see in Interstellar – because Interstellar is complete and total fantasy. You're just the kind of idiot who assumes anything taking place in outer space or aboard a spaceship is necessarily science fiction, because there's pretty much nothing else about the movie that would give such an indication.

      Okay, and lastly, way to use "not intelligent enough" in defense of a Nolan movie. You've directly bought into the marketing bullshit that's made Nolan so successful – his movies are thought to be cerebral while in truth they're all fairly simple if you graduated high school (again, I implore you! Why else does Nolan think it's necessary to tell his audience what dust in the atmosphere means for the ecosystem and what the basics of a wormhole are!).

      You get points for kiddo, though. I guess someone younger than you can't be smarter, eh? Probably not until they agree with you about enough Nolan movies.

    2. You're obviously an obnoxious hipster type that enjoys hating on successful directors because it's "cool." Interstellar was hard science fiction. Nolan even consulted Kipp Thorne, a well known ASTROPHYSICIST. In fact, Kipp actively worked as associate producer or something like that. You mean to tell me that YOU, a 20-something hipster, know more than a professional scientist that studies black holes? Don't make me laugh.

      Interstellar was a very scientifically accurate movie and it just pains you to admit your brain is too small to process so much mathematics and science in one sitting. They explained all the concepts during the movie, so you should use your ears next time and give it a listen.

      And at the end of the day, it's still a science FICTION movie, fool. Did you hate on Ridley Scott's "Alien" because it wasn't 100% scientifically accurate?

    3. It's pretty clear by this point that you're not interested in discourse, because you've again ignored my question about why Nolan has to keep spoon-feeding his audience. Until you address everything I've said, and not just the bits you feel don't contract your argument, don't expect to be taken seriously.

      I don't care much for your pretentious psychoanalysis – you're exaggerating because your argument doesn't have merit. Do you notice how you state I hate on successful "directors" (plural) even though we're only talking about Nolan (singular)? You also go on to tell me that I'm obnoxious, even though you've never met me in person – and this, you do after telling me I'm not intelligent enough in the first place to know what I'm talking about. Like, you're not trolling, but your insults are illogical and you're making stuff up.

      RE: Kipp Thorne. That's all well and good, but entirely an appeal to authority. You've literally done nothing other than tell me Nolan consulted with the guy, which I knew before writing this article. It does nothing to change the fact that Interstellar portrays multiple objects maneuvering into a black hole and then doing something other than getting crushed out of existence. And again, you've blatantly ignored the library – how do you expect to argue with someone if you refuse to address what they say? Further, no, I didn't make the general claim anywhere in my article that I know more than a scientist about astrophysics – that's just another ridiculous assertion you're trying to claim I made, because your (intentional?) misinterpretation of the facts prevents you from seeing that, for the second time as I've stated, I did not mention specifics about the science of this movie *anywhere* in my original article. In fact, the ONLY point I've brought up about science is the bit about the library/black hole, and yet, you exaggerate until you say eventually equate "everything you know" with "everything Kip Thorne knows" (one P, by the way, not two. Did someone not know Kip Thorne until having seen the movie...?).

      And sure, yeah, keep claiming the movie is scientifically accurate even in light of your consistent refusal to address the bit about the black hole. I mean, hey, what can I do if you just want to ignore what I'm saying? Similarly, should I place you in cryostasis until we're the same practical age? Will my age influence your opinion of my logic, or will you still find other red herrings to ignore it?

      Anyway, the moment you claim "but it's still science fiction" is also the moment you become *completely* ridiculous. You're aware of what contradictions are, right? You can't claim the movie is hard sci-fi, "very scientifically" accurate, and then go back on yourself and state "well shit, but it's science FICTION, so ignore all the parts that contradict my previous assertion." It's just not how arguing works – you need to be consistent. I mean, all you even had to do was say "the movie tries to be as accurate as possible, but still has its faults," which is true of most good hard sci-fi anyway; but instead, because you're here to argue and not to be correct, you specifically stated the movie is "scientifically accurate" but "fictional," which by definition is ridiculous.

      RE: Alien. That you imply that I would dislike it because it isn't scientifically accurate is both a strawman (what does that have to do with Interstellar?) and a false dichotomy (couldn't I dislike its science but still like it overall?), so all I'm left able to say to that is "no, I actually really like Alien, because its intent isn't to be scientifically accurate in the first place, unlike what Interstellar tries to sell itself as."

      I eagerly await your next trick in getting out of answering my question about the black hole and the library.

    4. The creators of Interstellar made the most scientifically accurately looking black hole on screen in cinema history. They went out of their way to incorporate real physics to make the black hole look very realistic with the way the light and matter bends and circles. And, how would you know what happens in a black hole? Science is a field of theory and experimentation. They took a scientific theory about what happens in black holes and put it on screen.

      Christopher Nolan spoon-feeds audiences? I disagree. He simply clarifies difficult concepts because 90% of casual moviegoers aren't that observant and intelligent and prefer popcorn flicks like Avengers, TMNT, and Transformers where thinking and education isn't necessary. Speaking of scientific do you feel about the claims in X-Men that a genetic mutation can cause people like Magneto to control magnetic fields? Where's the physics behind THAT? How does Ultron work? Did you yeah Joss Whedon for not creating a scientifically accurate portrayal of robotics engineering when he put Ultron on screen? ROFL!

      Interstellar claims to be scientifically accurate because it IS scientifically accurate. The movie incorporated various theories and puts them to the test. Please go back to middle school science class and learn about experimentation, theories, and so on.

      You like Alien but hate Interstellar? That's hilarious. Sounds like you want to gorge yourself on pulpy science fiction with aliens rather than something that intelligently explored astronomy.

    5. "Most scientifically accurate in cinema history" is entirely relative, and given that it's still (completely) unknown what a black hole looks like inside, no amount of repetition on your end will do away the fact that the ending of Interstellar is guesswork. You're just not really responding to what I'm saying – you're including some of the words I'm using in your proposed refutations, but the closest you come to responding to what I'm saying is "they took a scientific theory about what happens and put it onscreen," which you do knowing that current knowledge about the inside of a black hole is extremely, extremely limited. Given that, how can you reasonably claim the movie is scientifically accurate?

      RE: spoon-feeding. You're exaggerating yet again with your 90% – unlike you, I won't make up exaggerated statistics to support my claims, but I will say that all the friends I've spoken to about Inception were familiar with recursion, all the friends I've spoken to about Memento were familiar with short-term memory loss... I mean, it goes on, but at some point you need to acknowledge that there is such a thing as an extremely mainstream director overdoing the exposition for fear of alienating even a small percentage of the viewership; this is because otherwise, Nolan doesn't get rich. No one wants to see a movie and not get it, so Nolan goes out of his way. Does it make you wonder why, comparatively, directors like Hitchcock, who make absolutely thrilling movies (but that don't spoon-feed audiences), and who are obviously extremely talented, get less hype and viewership than Nolan?

      RE: inaccuracies. Man, you and your strawman arguments. It DOES NOT matter what I think about Avengers or any of the other movies you listed because we are talking about INTERSTELLAR. You are pretending that by getting me to admit that I dislike characteristic X in movie Y, I must also dislike characteristic X in movie Z, because X = X; but this is untrue, because movie Y differs from movie Z such that characteristic X might be necessary to examine in an entirely different light. In context, this is to say that scientific inaccuracies are irrelevant in blockbusters like Avengers but relevant in Interstellar because the former doesn't masquerade as hard sci-fi.

      Okay, you're telling me again it's accurate. Because you say so. You're like a broken record. More insults. Alright, man.

      And what? You're calling Alien pulpy? Are you fucking kidding me? Alien is one of the best examples of a creepy, isolated cat-mouse-type sci-fi thriller ever made, with terrific acting, writing, and dialogue, and has been so influential that even today everything tries to emulate it. That is THE OPPOSITE of what it means to be "pulpy" – if what you mean is "popular," then again, all you're doing is insulting the man instead of addressing the logic. Why?

    6. Entirely relative? There you go again arguing against professional scientists who aided in the creation of the black hole in the movie. And knowledge of what happens in black holes is pretty known, so I'm not sure what you're talking about.

      I don't understand why you're so hung up on "spoon feeding." Every movie has some sort of exposition in it.

      So, you'll criticize Interstellar but let Avengers and X-Men get away with scientific inaccuracy? X-Men claims to be a science fiction film and tries to incorporate a lot of genetic science into it, but again...where's the scientific basis of magnetic field manipulation and mind reading? I simply brought up your hypocrisy, but nice deflection, chief.

      So, your defense of Alien is because it's a classic? Well, so is the 1950s version of "The Day the Earth Stood Still." That doesn't make that movie any less pulpy and absurd, yet people to this day still try to put English-speaking, humanoid aliens into sci-fi books and movies.

    7. I said your attribution "most scientifically accurately looking black hole on screen in cinema history" is relative, in the sense that even if it's the MOST accurate, it could STILL be WRONG. And no! There you go making stuff up again – read what I said, and you'll see I am not arguing against your professional scientists because I didn't refer to what GOES ON INSIDE, but what IT LOOKS LIKE. Read my words. Don't reply to things I'm not saying.

      RE: spoon-feeding. So now you're just rejecting the argument because it's not going your way? You're the one who chose to bring it up as a point of contention to begin with – if you didn't want to argue about it, why did you? My criticism of Nolan in this context is that he does it too much – telling me "everyone does it" is childish and irrelevant.

      And yes, of course I'll criticize Interstellar for scientific accuracy but not Avengers; Interstellar markets itself as hard sci-fi, but Avengers DOES NOT. Hence, I criticize Interstellar for hard sci-fi criteria but not Avengers, because Avengers IS NOT hard sci-fi. I can't possibly make this any simpler for you: you don't criticize different kinds of movies with the same criteria. That's all that's going on here.

      No, my defense of Alien isn't "because it's a classic." I didn't say that anywhere – only you did. Seriously, if you keep putting words in my mouth and replying to things I haven't said, or rather, things you're trying to convince me I said, I'll ignore you. I only brought up positive characteristics of Alien in the first place to defeat your ridiculous false dichotomy where I couldn't like Alien because it has scientific inaccuracies – as in, I gave you reasons as to why I like it DESPITE its inaccuracies, because you stipulated that I must DISLIKE it.

    8. I'm curious as to when this movie was marketed specifically as HARD SCI FI. Nolan isn't going around claiming this to be the most scientifically accurate thing EVER. He simply worked with scientists to incorporate real science into his movie. But, again, you don't understand what astrophysics are, so there's no point in debating that matter any further. Perhaps you want to elaborate on your hilariously bad claims of WHY you hated the movie? For instance, you hate the "dying Earth" trope but you seem perfectly fine with aliens (the biggest sci-fi trope in history, dating back CENTURIES). Fiction uses tropes to tell different stories. Look at all the popular movies like Avengers….that movie dealt with an alien invasion, one of the biggest cliches for moviemaking ever. Why didn't you write up an article talking about how that movie sucked because it was cliche?

      And another problem with your review…you said the wormhole was placed there by an "alien entity." You clearly didn't pay attention to the movie when it clearly explains it was placed there by futuristic, highly evolved HUMANS, not aliens. So, at least know your material before you criticize it.

      And the rest of your review…I just see you hating on a movie because Nolan made it. If Joss Whedon made Interstellar, I doubt you'd criticize it at all. In fact, you'd probably love it. You sound like a bitter DC fanboy that wants to hate on Nolan because he redefined the superhero genre. I've argued with your ilk all over the Internet….anything Nolan does immediately sucks because you're jealous that the Dark Knight trilogy reached levels the crappy Marvel movies can only DREAM of.

      Dark Knight: an intriguing film about crime, chaos v order, the ethics of surveillance technology, the darkness of the human soul, what it means to be a hero, etc that uses superhero characters to tell its story.

      Avengers: Age of Ultron: OMG GUYZZ!! EVUL ROBOTS R ATTACKING! RUN!

    9. Correction: Bitter MARVEL fanboy, not DC.

    10. This movie was marketed as hard sci-fi when it was made well-known that Nolan went through extensive hoops to coordinate with various scientific experts. Even by your own admission, since you mention Kip Thorne. So once again, you contradict yourself.

      You keep attacking me instead of addressing what I'm saying – rather than reply to my question about what happens with the black hole, you keep telling me "I'm wrong," but not "what you're saying is wrong," which allows you to avoid having to substantiate the latter; instead, you substantiate the former with increasingly childish insults, which says something about how upset this is making you. After all these responses, you still haven't tried to justify the library inside the black hole, because you know it's absurd.

      You put words in my mouth: I did NOT use the word "trope" anywhere (try using ctrl+F next time), because "trope" and "cliché" are entirely different things; tropes are PERFECTLY OKAY because they are merely conventions, whereas clichés are not because they are OVERUSED CONVENTIONS. In this sense, my claim that Interstellar's dying Earth is a cliché is valid because it's a plot that's been done to death. Conversely, when you state using aliens in a sci-fi movie is not okay, because it's a trope, you misunderstand the difference between a trope and cliché – "aliens in a sci-fi movie" is a trope (a convention), and for example, "green aliens with oval heads and black eyes" would be a cliché. You've obviously not researched the terminology you're using because you couldn't make the distinction, and in any case, you also lied when you stated that I have a problem with tropes (because I specifically said "cliché").

      Further: it's apparent you're trying to pick apart points even if it means ignoring the necessary context. When you attack the point about "unknown entity," you completely gloss over the previous clause that reads "AS WE'RE TOLD," which denotes that AT THAT POINT IN THE MOVIE, THAT IS WHAT THE AUDIENCE KNOWS. Obviously, as the reviewer (having seen the movie in full), I know that it's future humanity – I even state this later in my review. But you're so intent on disproving me that you missed it, or more likely, pretend I don't later say it's future humanity because then you'd have no point to make. Isn't it a little ironic then, that you tell me I missed it?

      RE: Joss Whedon. Check this very site. I have a negative review of Firefly, a show directed/written by Joss Whedon. It's irrelevant in terms of Nolan what I think of Whedon (why do you keep trying to relate other directors? What does Joss Whedon have to do with Nolan?), but just to humor you: yeah, read the review; I don't like Firefly, so even your strawman is illogical.

      RE: DC fanboy. Again, what does this have to do with Interstellar? What does Marvel have to do with Interstellar? How does proving I dis/like either of those prove anything about what I think about Interstellar? It's just some red herring you keep bringing up because you know your rebuttals are getting weaker by the reply.

      I warned you about misquoting me and replying to things I didn't state. Because you were unable to do comply, I'm not going to continue wasting my time. I started this site in part to have some fun arguing with anonymous strangers, but you're more of a chore than an interesting discussion. I have absolutely no interest in arguing with someone who ends his response with something you'd find on 4chan, or with someone that will paraphrase incorrectly, whether intentionally or not, and then reply to the paraphrase (which incorrectly reflects the original statement) and pretend he's addressed what was actually originally written.

      You have the last word, if you'd like to keep embarrassing yourself and misquoting me.

    11. Well, then let me close by saying that it must suck for you to be such a bitter anti-Nolan hipster that is dismissing an amazing movie because you don't understand astronomy. I don't know what to tell you, kiddo. Stay in school?

    12. Thank you for inciting the above discussion. I've read several amusing discourses by Interstelltards, but yours has been a truly unique experience. I mean, if you are a troll, then well done sir, well done. Otherwise, go back to fucking goats. Cheerio.

    13. Yeah...they brought in some consultants and then decided to happily ignore their advice and make a mockery of the laws of physics for no particularly good reason to advance a stupid story line. A first year literary student could have come up with more interesting ways to continue the story without turning science into convolutely preposterous bufoonery. Yes...they had scientists work on a couple specific problems or renderings but no physicist would have ever signed off on the final script and maintained their dignity or reputation.

      Break the laws of physics if you have to in a film but give a very good reason for doing so, a non-preposterous explanation or an extremely worthy story line to justify it. But don't try to have it both ways (a non-fantasy science-fiction film full of rediculous stupid fantasy)

    14. I don't care about the blackhole. I don't care that these people had some advanced space ship technology that allowed the space ranger to fly in planets with 1.25x Earth's gravity, but still needed a huge Saturn V rocket just to launch the ship into Earth's orbit.

      But, the future people helping Space Man McConaughey send a message to his daughter in her bedroom was just ridiculous. And a bit pervy!

      So, the future people needed the past people to learn the future people's gravity technology in order for the past people to save themselves and become the future people.... huh???

      Never mind the faulty logic of the whole premise, but why didn't the future humanity just send a fucking typed letter or email to the NASA scientists saying, "Hey dickwads, here is the formula for anti-gravity drives or whatever. - Future Mankind, P.S. You're welcome!"

  9. I just want my money and my time back. Told the story to my partner in 5 minutes and she just laughed.

  10. I was hoping Interstellar might be the hard science fiction gem I've so yearned for. They certainly promoted the film as if it could be, bringing up Kip Thorne's involvement at every opportunity. Instead, the science in this movie only tickled that desire while taking liberties that blew the rest of it up, cancelling out most of the good.

    Outside of the science: there are so many plot points that wouldn't make sense in ANY sort of serious movie. And so many sigh-inducing cliches that waste time, insult the intelligence of the audience, and just ruin the whole experience. In the movie they say the world "doesn't need engineers." In real life, the world desperately needs a sci-fi movie done right.

    I wouldn't say Interstellar totally sucked, but a lot of things about it sucked pretty hard. It's watchable but supremely disappointing.
    PS Jason Briggs: Rip that Heath Ledger as Joker poster off your wall, crumple it up real good, and shove it up your ass. Your boy Nolan screwed this one up.

    1. Marko, you're another bitter hipster that's hating on Nolan simply for the pleasure of hating on him.

    2. Jason, you're wrong. I've enjoyed every other Nolan movie I've seen and was really looking forward to Interstellar for that reason. I'm not "hating on" him, I'm saying I thought Interstellar fell short of what makes a truly great movie.

      Because it did.

      And stop senselessly name-calling everyone who disagrees with you a "hipster". Is that the only pejorative word you know?

      An angered Jason Briggs on 9/11: "Hey! Some hipsters just flew planes into the WTC! Those hipster bastard hipsters are gonna pay for this with their hipster lives!"

    3. And Jason you are a troll telling people that they don't really mean it when they say they don't like something (even after giving copious explanation as per why).

  11. I'm a huge Nolan fan; I've lost count of the number of times I've watched The Prestige and Inception. I'm sorry Jason, but Interstellar was little more than an absurd, three hour screensaver. And before you accuse me of being a hipster, I should warn you that I don't know what a hipster is. -Brendan.

  12. This movie should be called “Deus ex Machina”,( is a plot device whereby a seemingly unsolvable problem is suddenly and abruptly resolved by the contrived and unexpected intervention of some new event, character, ability or object.)

    There were so many thin layers of pop culture movie references and clichés, that halfway through the movie you stop watching and you start comparing.

    Space Psycho (Matt Damon)- This was a rip off from Danny Boyle’s “Sunshine”. There aren’t many explanations why he tries to kill Mcconaughey since his plan is to steal their ship and stay alone (again?) and probably fail (again?) by becoming more unstable, since now he is also a murderer(why?). At first he is happy to see another human being and he could aid them in succeeding their mission, but then he tries to kill his only chance of sanity and audience’s patience with an unnecessary fight scene on ice planet. His character’s obsession about “the mission” doesn’t explain his actions, yet all this can happen because of….plot.

    Airlock-Another space movie (2001:Space Odyssey, Sunshine, Gravity) with a defective airlock configuration that serves the plot, in a way it shouldn’t.

    Journey in a Black Hole- We all knew this was going to happen didn’t we? It would be a waste of a Black Hole in a Nolan movie, if Mcconaughey didn’t fly directly into Nolan’s suicidal subplot (the mission was failing, time made them age, everyone was losing hope, too many loses, Mcconaughey’s daughter hate, bye bye Earth etc. ).
    Nolan tries to create a justifiable reason for Mcconaughey to dive into the Black Hole, where suicide is more poetic, but actually suicide or accidental death in this nihilistic mission seemed to be the only end these characters could have, after all, so why didn’t he do that earlier? They can’t return to Earth and we know it. We also know the popular belief of time travel through black holes. At the time Mcconaughey dived in it was exciting, but the back story was sucked into the oblivion, making me wonder how easily 2 hours were erased.

    Unnecessary #1: Mcconaughey and children chase a drone with their car, they never use again.

    Unnecessary #2: Parent-Teacher meeting didn’t build a bond with the struggles of a parent, we already know is abandoning his children because he is an astronaut.

    Unnecessary #3: Two out of Four space shuttle members die; we didn’t care.

    Unnecessary #4: Two out of Four space shuttle members die, in a time where AI is superior to human intelligence and saves the day all the time(dues ex machina)!

    Unnecessary #5: “STAY” paradox ( Andrzej Sekula-Hypercube(2002)). From that point on we know there are clues about the end all over the movie, which is not cool.

    Unnecessary #6: Happy end (“Edge of tomorrow” Tom Cruise style).

    The rest of them were already mentioned. Can’t say I hated it, I was just disappointed.

  13. First, let me say that I'm NOT defending this mess. I almost lost a friend tonight because he thought this was the most brilliant movie "of his life" and I laughed in his face. A dick move, but I thought he was joking.

    "Love", as Hathaway so boringly explained, can't be quantified or tested. The allusion here, as I saw it, is that "love" might just be able to transcend time, just like gravity. Fucking stupid, but I got the impression that the movie was saying that "love" is a dimension.

    It does come into play later, although they don't beat you over the head with it. The entire reason Mcconaughey "knew" his daughter would find the watch was "because I left it for her", thereby dredging up that shit idea of "love" transcending time.

    Either way, I found this blog post because I had to believe that other people hated it as much as I did. A solid hour of film is nothing but slow-moving shots of spacecraft pointlessly maneuvering through space.

    1. Hm, interesting.

      Though I don't hesitate to say that this may be unintentional, since Chastain already remembers from her childhood that that bookshelf holds some kind of strange, supernatural significance. Like, if the initial breadcrumbs had not been left in that room (the coordinates), thereby making her only reason to come back to it her fond, childhood memories of her father (love), I'd have an easier time agreeing with this.

    2. "thereby dredging up that shit idea of "love" transcending time."

      Which makes no fucking sense. Why is "love" somehow a dimension? What about hate? Envy? Apathy? Any of the other emotions? The whole "love" subplot is the one thing that they should have cut out of this final version of the script that was in the original version.

      And "most scientifically accurate film"? BWAHAHAHAHA!!!

      Space stations that can somehow allow for growing crops, trees and maintaining atmosphere without issue in OUTER FUCKING SPACE. I can almost buy anti-gravity being how it flies. How does it replenish resources, on the other hand, is apparently magic.

      Cooper manages to dock with a rapidly spinning ship in space. Kip Thorne needs to check his physics credentials. He of all people should know that shit is impossible.

      Black holes somehow don't kill people. I've had people excuse this by saying that "we don't know everything about black holes!". We also don't know everything about how evolution works, gravity works, or a myriad of other things. We have approximations, that's how science works. Right now, evidence points towards black holes killing the fuck out of you if you're stupid enough to jump into one. Cooper manages to live.

      Tsunami planet is inconsistent with the proper function of tidal wave patterns. Even if you adjust for gravitational forces in that part of the universe affecting it differently than on Earth, what is shown is still impossible when you take other factors into account.

      And that's just the tip of the iceberg. The actual plot is even worse.

      Exposition, FUCK YEAH! Nolan, FUCK YOU! I'm not a retard, and I'd prefer if you didn't treat me like one.

      Characters acting stupid to drive the plot forward.

      Whoever edited the sound in this movie needs to get shot. I nearly went deaf several times because of Zimmer's awful music. When they are chasing the drone? There's a bunch of dialogue happening, but I can't hear any of it, because the idiot sound editor decided to paste Zimmer's music right over it and crank the volume up to 11.

      Nolan gets Murphy's Law wrong. It's not whatever can happen, will happen, dumbass, it's "if things can get worse, chances are, they will". Hence why the law is commonly used in the context of "well, at least it can't get worse than th...OH, SHIT!". All it would have taken is ten seconds on Wikipedia to check that shit.

      And so, so, so much more.

      Nolan, as usual, is a hack, but a hack with a knack for reeling in idiots, hook, line and sinker. I'll give him that, at least.

    3. I know right? Murphy's Law: "Anything that can go wrong will go wrong."

      I don't know what the fuck they were talking about in this movie. Murphy's law IS about shit going wrong.

  14. In fact we could describe this movie in three circles. The Father-Daughter Promise, The Astronaut-Earth Mission and the Searching for Love in Space. The first two were closed and the thrid was left for the audience to "imagine".( "What a twist?") (-_-)

  15. The other trick to Christopher Nolan's films is that they stun the audience with visuals. I remember being completely blinded by Inception, but now I barely even think of it. It was actually quite shallow, plot-wise.

    Nolan makes a good spectacle, I will give him that. I still muse about light bulb scene in The Prestige from time to time (even though my satisfaction with the film has likewise waned overtime).

  16. You're right on point The Diurnal Rambler. This was a fucking debacle of movie that was somehow more boring than Gravity, and had more cliches than Prometheus. This is really bad, but I actually would say that 2012 was a more enertaining movie than this! One thing about Interstellar you didn't mention though, was the awkward stupid design of those extremely bulky and blocky robots. At one point TARS grabs hold of the ship's joystick with his/her non-fingered one-jointed block arm and safely docks the ship to a spinning space station. Are you fucking kidding me? It's a slick metal block arm! Despite all the cliches in the movie, they tried to avoid having a cliche looking robot, by creating a fucking stupid looking robot. I did, however, enjoy the A.I. of the robots... but another thing I didn't enjoy was how the movie seemed to foreshadow the idea that the robots would turn against the humans... turns out it was just a way to distract the audience from seeing how fucking boring the movie was. Lastly, as a mathematician (hence why my writing sucks) I would say that the magical 5th dimensional library was at most a projection of 4 dimensions into 3 dimension space. I didn't really see the need for 5 dimensions but I am open to explanations. Also if you want to learn about how to visualize 4 dimensions check out the sweet movie that was made and free to watch at

    1. The robots were meant to be an homage to 2001: A Space Odyssey. You really didn't get that they were flat black monoliths helping humanity out and giving Astronaut McCaughney the secrets to the universe (Gravity. Oooh, ahhh.) at the end?

    2. Those robots drove me nuts. I got the monolith reference - kind of, in my more generous reaching for positives - but what the actual fuck? How, HOW, did the 200 lbs refrigerator take Cooper and Murph into custody when they arrive at NASA? Did its robot arm actually apprehend them?

  17. tripe ... on so many levels. I don't care much 4 the scientific principles ... they're are just theory after all ... oppppps shock horror, not to dispute what is observable (hmmm tho that's another argument) the rest is postulation, hypothesis, even speculation. go cry science buffs IDC.

    What concerned me more was the underlying anthropocentrism, really scary really scary ... who gives a shit about this planet (our home) let's just fuck off to another, fuck all the other life (non-human) on it ... technology will save the day, what's more we dont even need a moral 'code' for it ... oh and we will even come up with a pile of stinking thinking (scientific theory, shock, horror, I did mean to cause offensive IDC) to make it possible/plausible justifiable reasonable ... fuck this load of CRAP Nolan go fuck yourself and all your fan boys/girls and inbetweeners ... even better go fuck off into space and test these theories for real ... very brave to sit on one's ass and think this shit up ... let's test it for real like any good scientists should

  18. It was a buffoonery and that is incredibly deceiving after all the fuss around this movie in the press calling it a "scientific" movie, combined with Nolan's experience.
    The simple fact that ALL the film evolves around this Hypercube Library is enough to move it in the FANTASY categorie, nor in sciences-fiction or anything else.
    And to the Jason calling everyone a hipster: stop reading internet reviews and go read books about physics. That will save us all some time and makes you not look like an idiot, you look so stratospherically idiot to me. You might be a troll, then you have my congratulations. Kipp Thornes helped to design visually how a black hole would look like, that doesnt give to the movie ANY scientific base and utterly not a caution.

  19. ha finally a bad review. :P
    seriously the guys comparing nolan to kubrick in any serious attempt... they can not for the love of it have seen any movie of kubrick.

    i think you got many things right, but crucial things wrong. they talked about the power of love twice, the showed it and it was intended to be interpreted as the key, to why cooper was able to send stuff into his daughters room. BUT nolan got one major thing wrong about paradoxons. they do not happen for any logical or emotional reason, but for them simply being their, a constant in time and space. that is why everything that happened between the drone crashing and cooper getting out of the tesseract was void of any meaning, as it was all bound to happen. there was no free will envolved and so on... that is why there is basically no story to tell. if people have no free will, their actions are without any moral consequence.

    for the tesseract scene. i am pretty sure cooper was moved there before being shredded by the gravity of the hole (they explained in the movie that it does not happen immediatly on giant black holes or something after crossing the event horizon). but even in everything they explained and if you take it as fantasy and so on: there is no reason, why cooper could actually generate gravity on the level he did in the tesseract (have you ever tried to move the hand of a clock by waving your hand? clue it doesn't work). also why didn't he just send a message written in english (again time paradoxon, no logic needed).

    they obviously were able to feed the people on the cooper station in the end (why did they have to leave earth then?)

    ok. there are other logical holes, but lets move on to: they telegraphed everything to the audience miles before it happened, seriously. there was no moment in the movie i sat there and thought: ok didn't see it coming. i read somewhere that dr man was an allegory for the worst in humanity. in fact the dr man miniplot was just the worst writing/ acting combination in cinematic history (at least on that level of big budget films).

    next: emotion. nolan talked about the film being about emotions. beside that one scene, that was actually pretty strong, when he comes home from the first planet and watches the videos of his kids, there was no real emotional scene in the film. people died and they were just like: ok, happens, move on. his daughter saw him after 90 years or so again and shed a tear and told him to piss off. wow such emotion.

    what buggered me, was how the characters in the film constantly are speculating on things they cannot possibly know shit about and state them as facts (who put the wormhole there, who created the tesseract). that was the director telling his audience what to think -> seriously kids, watch some kubrick.

    so what is left: a nice musical score, some scifi references to other movies (2001, event horizon, maybe azimov?, dr who) and a visual wanking exercise of the director. in conclusion this film is not complex, it is tiring for the most part, complete bullshit on another. i give you this, the film looks nice. best scifi for a long time? no. revolutionizing cinema level movie? definetly not. for everything that makes a movie good, this one fails at it. its at best mediocre and thats just because it looks nice and hans zimmer made a decent (not excellent mind you) job.

    also a hint for all the science freaks:
    it is nice if that movie sparks an interest in science in you. however most high level physic concepts are a mixture of pure speculation and philosophy, based on the models they use to explain the universe, it has not necasserily anything to do with reality.

    1. I'm all for people disagreeing with me, but please be more specific than "you got crucial things wrong."

      Regarding the love thing – it's only brought up once, by Hathaway, in that scene en route to the wormhole. I disagree that love is what is intended to be shown as having facilitated the communication between McConaughey and Chastain, as it's not Chastain's childhood memories that eventually lead her back to the room – it's remembering that supernatural things used to happen in it. Yes, it's true that she eventually figures out it's McConaughey, but the point was to have love "bring them together" as it almost does for Hathaway and her "boyfriend."

      There is also similarly nothing to indicate that McConaughey was pulled out of the black hole before/during getting crushed as an explanation to why he didn't die. All we can see as this happens is an homage bordering plagiarism to 2001's wormhole scene, but not anything inside redirecting him or shielding him from the black hole. And honestly, even if you could prove that future-humanity reaches in and saves McConaughey, you'd then open yourself up to hundreds of more questions about why they only interfere then, and some not elsewhere, or whatever else – you can't argue that their influence is so selective because supposing it's possible to begin with, it makes no sense for them to have only such a small influence (which is why the wormhole being placed so far away from Earth is a talking point; why didn't they place it closer? I'm not asking for a good explanation, but it would be nice to at least have something).

    2. the power of love thing was definetly spelled out twice, but fuck me if i knew when the second time was (i remember though, that was the point i wanted to leave the theatre).
      you say it wasn't love that brought them together and yes i agree with you there. in short nolan's 'genius' wasn't enough to emphasize the point he held most crucial to make the story work (he said that he saw it the only way to make the script work: human emotion->love).

      there is nothing to indicate my version of what exactly happened at the black hole. i just tried to make some sense of the scene.

      the most crucial criticism (which you did not mention) is that you simply can not tell an interesting tale that is embedded in a time paradoxon, which interstellar did try to. if at any point in the story anyone does something different, if anything that seems illogical would happen so that it would seem logical, the story would have had no beginning in the first place. everything happened so that cooper could go into the black hole, get the data and send it back through time to save (living) humanity. if you change any crucial point (try) the timeline implodes (figure of speech here). i can not tell you why the wormhole wasn't placed closer to earth (that one could've been done without altering the rest of the story i think), but if nolan hadn't stuffed everything down our throats, we might wonder if the wormhole was placed there for humanity in the first place. so my actual point is this: a good story told in a film (a deep story at least) tells you something about humans, in one way or another. this story though did just capture the only possible sequence of events (the sequence that closes the time loop/ fulfills the paradoxon). in the fact that there was no room for human choice (or like we use to call it free will), the film abandons any way it could tell us something about humans. it can't even interpreted as a comment on free will, because the above only stays true for the time in between the closing points of a paradoxon, which we do not have in the real world (afaik ;) ).

  20. Why does everyone here have to be on the edge of two extremities (well mostly everyone)?

    It's either blindly defending it, or completely denouncing it.

    And The Diurnal Rambler I completely expected you to catch the flaming and the slight extremist fanbase just from the title of this article:

    "A Negative Review: Interstellar Sucks"

    I mean you seem to be looking for a thought-provoking discussion, and I sort of am confused:
    If you were looking for that, then why would you title it with a a conclusion to the discussion (basically a presumption)? Yeah, I'm talking about the "Interstellar Sucks" part. Did you want to attract debaters who thought it sucks, because that doesn't really allow a legitimate discussion when you're all so biased. Plus that's an easy way to catch flame. I don't know if you realized that, but you closed the discussion before it even started with that bias. I mean comments on a review article isn't as good of a place to start that kind of discussion as a discussion thread per se especially here because already from the title we're on extremely biased terms.

    I doubt you're all the way on that pole, and you don't have to be leaning all the way towards that extremity because that's just limiting your own expressed feelings and I personally don't think that picking between two stances is the best way to review (maybe the best way to persuade, which is why I'm sort of confused--your review seems to be made to persuade, but you also seem to want to discuss openly, but this easily results in a gathering of a bunch of people who will just agree with each other because they have the same general opinion, which I don't think allows for a deep discussion because you guys generally ignored points that anyone here would view as bad except for the visuals which hinders the discussion), even if that's the widely accepted way of reviewing. But to be honest I just don't think this was a good place to go into that sort of discussion.

    All I'm saying is that if you want to have a better discussion, you should let the discussion go somewhere else other than "Interstellar Sucks" and not determine it's destination before it starts. I'm sure everyone here liked this movie at some parts and disliked it at others, specifically when watching it, because I'm sure a lot of the people here formed these biases after watching the movie (but I'm going off of myself because I for one was too bewitched to form a verdict on this movie while watching the movie), and your experience at it forms a complex opinion and it's been poorly expressed here today, because it's more defending your basic stance than fully expressing your opinion.

    I'd be happy to discuss this movie with you guys as long as I know I have your attention, but I don't believe in leaning towards the "Interstellar Sucks" or "Interstellar was the best thing since sliced bread." stances, because I believe that every single person who saw this movie developed an extremely complex, but sadly under expressed opinion as the majority of mindful beings do on all things.

    1. No. This is incorrect because it rests on your initial assumption that I am looking for a balanced argument. Or rather, while a sound argument, it's an irrelevant one.

      I don't care if people troll, insult, argue, debate, whatever – they're free to post as they please, and unless it's outright spam or something illegal, I have no objection. What typically happens is that most people who comment here already agree, and sometimes there are a few people who disagree. Occasionally, the latter causes an exchange to start, as is the case here with Jason Briggs. However, this isn't to say I'm expecting anything. This blog isn't a legitimate review site – it's just a place for me to write, because I like to write. Incidentally, Blogspot has a comment section, so I left it open – but if I really want to argue respectably about movies, you can be sure I'll do it face-to-face; it requires way too much effort to get to know someone online enough to be able to argue about something like movies.

      Or, to address what you said more generally: you've posted an articulate viewpoint, asking what kind of discussion I'm trying to start. The answer: none specifically – you're welcome to comment and make things interesting, and as it turns out, you've done just that. So has Jason Briggs, even if I disagree with him – and so have several of the posters (the majority) who agree with me to begin with, as they've pointed out things about Interstellar that I missed.

      Let me know if I didn't address what you're really asking.

    2. Ok fair enough. You answered my question, but I was also wondering if you have anything that you think was a positive in this movie (other than visuals). I just sort of felt that there was nothing to be discussed at first because the of the title really because I felt if everyone already is on the assumption it's bad then we can't really get a good argument on the good side either and we can't really get unbiased looks either and I already knew where it would go.

      I just saw Interstellar yesterday, and I liked it during watching it. I found a plethora of flaws in their thinking compared to common knowledge, but because they were filming on unexplored territory (black holes and time dimensions and such), I couldn't really prove them wrong, except for when I thought that Tars should've been destroyed and Cooper killed when they went into the black hole. I mean, you could say God is in a black hole. I mean it's preposterous, but I can't go and prove you wrong. It's only speculation what's in a black hole.

      That being said I was perfectly okay with the theories, because they were just theories. I do agree that the ending was absurd and extremely underexplained, but I also believe that they were perfectly fine as long as they were theories.

      I mean, the stuff that wasn't just theories was somewhat accurate, which is basically everything we've already defined. Since we've never been in a wormhole, they can theory all they want. Since we've never been in a black hole, they can theory all they want. Since we can't confirm water doesn't act like that on other planets, they can theory all they want. They aren't exactly right, because it's theory, but if they have some back-up calculations then ok fine. I'll wait for the counter theory.

      I did like the idea of time as an infinitely defined dimension compared with other races conception of time, and I was perfectly fine with the love dimension at first, because Amelia was delirious and cloudy when she started with that logic and I took it as her way of justifying why she should go onto Edmond and reunite with her lover. I guess it must've twisted up Cooper's logic, too, because he used it when he was in the tesseract to explain what was going on, which I feel could have been the movie's idea of error in character's as much of an actual writing error (that could've still been Cooper as a character having flawed logic, just putting it out there).

      Eh I'm sort of rambling now, but those are my opening thoughts. All in all my opinion of the movie is it was pretty enjoyable in the theatres, which is entirely subjective from person to person, but it does have a lot of perceivable flaws. I mean movies are here for our subjective enjoyment, but I think people were under the assumption that it would be something more. And it very well could be. All of these "flaws" could still be explained, and yeah this is a highly discussable movie that would definitely need to be explained by the creators.

    3. Sure, there's plenty to like, but it has mostly to do with the craftsmanship – acting, cinematography, etc., the kind of stuff you can mention liking, but not really talk about extensively.

      I do like the visualization of the library. It seems to expand no matter where he looks, implying that time is infinite. It also looks fairly wonky, because to represent 4 dimensions in a 3-dimensional world isn't really possible... though they should never have brought up the 5th dimension as another commenter has said because it wasn't addressed visually or otherwise. Similarly, yeah, the black hole visual is apparently the most accurate representation yet created, so there's points there as well.

      Something else: you have to be careful with saying stuff like "I can't really fault him for this because I can't prove it wrong," though – it's Russell's teapot territory. I don't have an issue with informed speculation, but obviously, you can't have informed speculation about surviving a black hole because current science has no idea how it would work.

      RE: Hathaway. Yeah, see, I'd be fine with it if they followed up on it more, or at least explained it better – I'm just not seeing what's so special about love specifically, seeing as there are other emotions that for some people can sometimes be stronger (like hate, fear, etc.).

  21. My only definite negatives for this movie are:
    - The tesseract in the black hole was weakly explained in the movie. My first assumption was that there was a wormhole that led to the tesseract and Cooper didn't go into the black hole at all.
    - Too much explanation has to go on outside the movie. In the DVD release they better include an extra commentary explaining this.
    - Their logic is for the most part alien. They introduce a lot of things that are contreversial. I'll let them provide explanation before I denounce it, but yeah.
    - Tom turned into a douche unexplainably, but then didn't deliver when he returned from the fire (cop-out).
    - Dr. Mann's character was unnecessary, his character's logic was extremely flawed and if it was Nolan's logic speaking through Mann for why Mann should've acted that way, then there are some misgivings to be had. There was no need for a fight in this movie.
    - 50+ year timeskip without any touch on what happened in between. Too much is implied. And in a movie no less.
    - Characters were mouthpieces most of their lines. Show, don't tell.

    - The accuracy people were looking for was in the visuals, mostly the representations of the black hole and wormhole. I'ma leave plot out of this, because that was all Nolan. If they were boasting it though then they were destined to disappoint because they would've created a hype beast that they couldn't control. I liked the black hole and wormhole representations, though.
    - It made me think about things.
    - There were plenty of good moments for me, specifically the part where they are watching the recordings of their family. That was touching to me.
    - I saw some original moments. The retracing events at the end of the movie thing wasn't new, but I don't usually see people starting out at different ages and then ending at opposite age differences.
    - It seemed like a lot of thought went into this, which I think should always be positively reinforced.

    Hmph. I guess I am leaning towards the negative side :/
    But I did see good in this movie.

    This reply is long enough though.
    What about you?

    1. Um, well. I already covered most of what I didn't like in the review, so I'll comment on what you listed as "positives."

      - Accuracy in visuals: yes, agreed. Research went into that, and it was definitely well done.

      - Making you think: well, sure, I mean, but I don't think a movie necessarily has to be deep in order to evoke thought; a far more clear-cut movie like Soylent Green can still make you think about things even if its message is a lot more straightforward. That being said, this movie does still manage to successfully weave multiple talking points into the same 2.5 hour stretch, so at least that's something...

      - Touching moments/originality: sure, yeah. Some neat visuals and effective cinematography, but that's to be expected given the cast and budget. As much as I dislike The Prestige, I think it's the best example of Nolan devoting his complete attention to the visuals and making sure you're fully immersed in the movie's world. In Interstellar, it's occasionally weird – the visuals from after McConaughey returns from his "trip" hardly look any different, even despite all the years that have passed and the new environment they're on (i.e. a space station isn't all that impressive, the way the camera tries to show it off, given that they've already spent most of the movie either inside a spaceship or the NASA facility)

      - Lots of thought: oh, I don't doubt it.

  22. The only people I know who liked this movie are the soft-hearted types who get all choked up by the crying scenes... the NEVER ENDING CRYING SCENES!

    Good lord, I don't know how anyone can feel any sympathy for these one dimensional characters. They were so flat and the acting so thin, that it made the unbearable, never ending crying scenes 10x more obnoxious and nauseating.

  23. ^^^This guy/gal gets it. I felt little to no empathy for any of the characters. All around, shit was awful.

  24. It's completely refreshing to witness Diurnal Rambler's cool logician's responses to the net's typical infantile emotional invective.

  25. Arguing about the science is pointless. There was no science.

    If you want to see a real master at work, watch 2001: A Space Odyssey again.
    No preaching. No overreaching. No overwrought speechifying. No hand-holding.
    The tone is correct. The music, just so. The complexity and the concepts just build and build.

    Kubrick respects his audience and treats them as adults. Nolan thinks everyone is an impressionable 12-year-old. He's totally in-your-face and super-aggressive. Why won't he stop preaching? It's unbearable. Other directors, like the Black Swan guy are like that too. It's like with all the noise of modern life, I have to YELL LOUDER to get my point across. Just shut it already. Ever heard of the word subtlety?

    I won't see another Nolan film. His work begins and ends with Memento. Inception was entertaining eye-candy but nothing more. Interstellar is just annoying. How much money was spent to make this monstrosity? How many homeless could that money feed? Is there no producer or executive at Paramount or Warner Bros that could stop Nolan or slap some sense into him?

  26. Until two weeks ago, I was a huge Christopher Nolan fan. Between Inception and the Dark Knight trilogy, I thought we had an amazing writer and filmmaker. Interstellar destroyed that impression, and now I even see his older plots as ridiculous contrivances rather than complexities.

    Interstellar is a scam, and its marketing was a vast lie that suckered me into thinking it would be great.

  27. I was not interested in this movie whatsoever but hubby wanted to see it. I got to the theater and saw that it was 3 hours long, and groaned... This is exactly the type of movie where one laments "that was 3 hours of my life I will never get back"... Matthew McWhatchamafuck is the SAME in EVERY movie he does. Those long distance stares and then some drivel falls out of his mouth like he's the first person to realize and fully comprehend the meaning of life. Never again!

  28. I used to be a scientist. I was very surprised to see so many absurdities in this mindless film. This movie actually reversed or spoiled our collective "understanding" of fun and real scientific concepts by pissing a 5 dimentional muti colored urin stream on the last 100 years of our hard hard work. Between human love and dust storms and gravity messages and hangin inside a singularity I found myself (for the first time in my life) wishing physics didnt exist so as to not persuade our noble director to take this project on. Inter fucking stellar has crossed the event horizon into a singular tragety. P.s. three fucking hours. I hope that my love for myself can send a similar message that diurnal sent to himself...dont fucking watch.

  29. This is the best review I have read up to now about this dreadful movie. Interstellar sucks.
    How is possible there are people that actually pay for this shit movie? To sit with hundreds other equal morons in a huge cage to watch on a huge screen to something that will never happen. Humanity is still sinking deeper each day. Wake up! Don't be an idiot by wasting your time on garbage.

    No self honouring organisation would let their billion$ operation control by a moronic cowboy, who states that the mission to the moon was fake to bankrupt the Russians. My God, what an imbecile. The worst part is that all the public that watch it start to believe.

    Making this fucking movie is all about earning money. There's nothing humane in this.
    What do people learn from this movie? Earth will become a shithole. Why driving a Toyota Prius then, if it's all in vain? No one seems to bother to repair Earth, no just throw it away and start somewhere else. Good message.

    If you rate this movie higher than 1 star, you're a moron by definition and you're doomed to live in a shithole.

  30. I'm surprised this review wasn't completely flooded with Nolan fanboys flaming you. I'm pretty sure they sit around and type into google "[Insert Nolan film here] sucks" and descend upon the poor blogger/reviewer like a swarm of black friday shoppers on a flat screen TV. They proceed to attack the reviewer's intelligence and tell them they don't "get it" and suggest that they stick to popcorn films such as Transformers and the like.

    I like some of Nolan's earlier films but I began to despise him as a director after seeing Inception. Sure it had nice effects but the dialogue was horrible and I got a migraine from being beaten over the head with all that exposition. And don't get me started on The Dark Knight Rises. To paraphrase Arnold Schwarzenegger, Nolan's films have plot holes so big I could drive a Hummer through them.

    1. You know there are many Nolan apologists / fanboys who vehemently decry that "The Dark Knight Rises" has zero plot holes. Sad, pathetic but true..

  31. Movie sucked. Stop over analyzing this piece of dogshit.

    1. Hey! I want my money's worth back... analyzing WHY it's dogshit is part of the fun !
      (Maybe that's the whole point in movies nowadays, seeing as to what s**t is called a blockbuster - go see a movie and entertain yourself after viewing with educational research and sociologically sound endless debate)

  32. Hi, i saw the movie yesterday and felt upset that i couldnt leave because my wife was enjoying it. Later in the car i blew up over theft of concepts and how lazy the writing was. Then Matt Damon, for no good reason. Then Topher Grace... for no. Good. Reason. Anyway, the movie was really awful. Unrealistic and misinformed. I cant believe it got made. Good for everyone who hated it. Science aside, it was a piss poor attempt by everyone on screen. Including the science it was a real slap in the face

  33. Wow, all these negative comments... So demoralizing to see how the majority in this "not-gonna-agree-with-the-mainstream-people-cuz-I'm-too-cool-for-that"-thread is actually thinking they know what is real science and what not... It's nice to question everything and not being to eager to accept whatever is presented on your plate, thinking outside of the box... All good, but don't just put the whole movie in a "it was awful and sucked" or "please give me my 3 hours of life back"-category, because the film was extraordinary with the visuals and music. The majority actually seems to appreciate it, so if you didn't like it - it does not necessarily mean the movie "sucked". That's just my 5 cents, what movie of 2014 do you believe was actually impressive? Because for me, Interstellar surely made an impression on me.

    1. Yes, Anon, "wow" indeed – I'm sure we're very far behind your vastly superior intellect, what with our inability to know what is "real science and what not." It behooves you not to be guilty of your own accusation if your basis for the accusation to begin with is that, in your privileged, knowing state, you are different than the rest of us and have a deep connection to science. Because, y'know, until then, I don't think it takes someone with a PhD to logically deny that entering a black hole will lead you to a magical space library.

      "The whole thing was awful and it sucked." Okay, really? You couldn't tell this was an exaggeration? Obviously there are things about every movie, no matter how terrible, that will be good. I am sure there are plenty of things like that to point out about Interstellar. But does the fact that I didn't bother necessarily mean I don't think so? Why would you assume that? It's just not the focus on this blog.

      Also, it's 2 cents, not 5.

    2. That's why it's called science fiction and not science facts. Anyway, I regret commenting here, after reading your reaction. Somehow the urge to correct an unfortunate misspelled statement is bigger isntead of actually responding to my question. But hey, that's just not the focus on this blog - right? As long as you get to stay in your comfort zone and talk about the things you can rant about. Well, good luck with it in the future - hope you actually make something out of it. I will definitely come back to make sure if you found any mistakes in my reaction. "Don't talk me about the visuals or music about the movie, but you better watch out the way you write it down!" Apologies if this reply is a bit cocky / immature, a side-effect of people with vastly superior intellect. :)

    3. "...statement is bigger THAN actually responding..." - That's one error less for the grammar patrol.

    4. Actually, Anon, in your effort to avoid damaging your self-esteem, I think you've glossed the bulk of my response; my tongue-in-cheek statement about it being 2 cents and not 5, which only *follows* my main response to your question, does not exclude the rest of what I've said or somehow negate it. To that end, please direct your attention to the part of my original response, which I will quote here again as you've somehow managed to miss it: "Obviously there are things about every movie, no matter how terrible, that will be good. I am sure there are plenty of things like that to point out about Interstellar. But does the fact that I didn't bother necessarily mean I don't think so? Why would you assume that?"

      I know it's difficult for someone in your position to acknowledge mistakes, but consider the logic of your assertion: why is it that because I've not opted to share what I liked about Interstellar, without someone first asking, in a blog obviously geared towards explaining what I don't like in movies, proof that I really don't like anything about the movie? You make this claim as if you've proven it, referring to it as me avoiding leaving the comfort zone, even though you didn't actually prove it – you're just claiming things and expecting them to be true.

      I can't say I'll shed a tear at you not coming back here; after all, I'm not sure what really brought you here in the first place, or elicited your (self-admitted) childish post. All I can say is that I hope that in the future, you do a little bit of research, and take the time to read the other comments in case you decide to post on someone else's blog, whining at them for not liking the movie you liked. Because if you'd have done this here, you'd have seen that a different poster already asked me this, and I replied in full as to exactly what I liked about the movie. I guess for someone as smart as you, it's excusable to miss something so plain?

      Heh, and for the record, it's not a spelling mistake; you didn't misspell "2," you just wrote "5" instead. That's just not knowing your subject matter, which I think extends to quite a bit more than just idioms.

  34. I actually write the numbers with a notepad and the "5" is directly above the "2", so in this case - it certainly was a typo. I somehow feel bad for having to defend myself over that. You might want to focus on not being so cocky in your replies if you really want people to value your opinion and this blog. Then again, I did call this thread "not-gonna-agree-with-the-mainstream-cuz-I'm-too-cool-for-that"... So I guess that's my own fault.

    Either way, the reason why I ended up in your blog is because I was wondering why people tend to think the movie "sucked". And I have my answer.

    Regaring the part where you mentioned I didn't read all the comments... That's unfortunate but as far as I'm concerned I'm not obliged to actually read all of them, that's your job. ;)

    1. You came into this post with a weak argument that you barely substantiated. When it was refuted, you quickly focused on what you've even said yourself to be the most irrelevant point – a spelling mistake. This tells me, and anyone else bothering to read the comments (something you've admittedly not been doing, so apologies there), that you're trying to deflect away from having to respond to what I've said. It's clear as crystal; you called me out for supposedly not saying anything positive about this movie, but now you understand that you were wrong because you didn't bother to read any of the comments where I did in fact do this. So now you're trying to save face by hounding me for calling out your spelling mistake, which completely misunderstands the purpose of that point – a lighthearted, tongue-in-cheek tease, that, correspondingly, was also a 1-liner at the very end of the post in which it appeared, just like your original comment.

      But you know, buddy, you've already shown yourself to be the kind of egotistical type, whom, even with a completely anonymous username, feels it necessary to defend his/her honor on a blog you've made it a point to say isn't worth reading. And this is after you said you wouldn't be coming back anyway.

      As your rebuttals have been getting weaker with every response, I eagerly await to see how you'll manage to surprise me with an even more ridiculous argument in the next post. Or you could quit while you're behind.

  35. You're the one who baffles me once again! No matter what I seem to write down, you always manage to find something to criticize me for. I suppose that says more about the things I write down than you, but then again - you really seem to be making a competition out of it.

    I admit, we're really getting off topic here. This was fun though, I appreciate your effort for actually responding to me whilst knowing I'm an egotistical type with ridiculous arguments.

    1. I criticize what you write because it's presented argumentatively. You have the option to change the tone of the discussion at any point – all you have to do is reply in a certain tone, and I'll reciprocate. So yes, in this case, your phrasing lent itself to the "competition" you're referring to.

      In any case: if you post, I'll reply. That's how it works. Pretty much the only way to get me to ignore you is to intentionally and continuously respond (after initially posting) to me without making some kind of attempt to address what I've said. For reference, you can read through that shitfest with Jason Briggs, found somewhere above this comment chain. That guy is just nuts.

  36. Kudos. Your review and most of the comments are spot on. What is interesting is how the Nolan apologists respond to valid criticism. Their comments (on this and other sites) are basically attacks laced with profanity. It's almost as if Nolan was the leader of some cult and his minions will have none of that opposition to their way of thinking. Very weird and strange.

  37. I would not have hated he movie so much if they didn't hype the failed pretentiousness of it so much. It wasn't good science or an original plot. If it was marketed as just another Hollywood spectacle devoid of any depth or quality(which is is), I perhaps could have enjoyed it (if it was an hour shorter at least).
    But the sheer arrogance that I am supposed to take all this complete nonsense seriously in this maze of logical failures and plot holes simply makes this a insult of a movie.
    Inception was bad enough with it's convoluted bullshit covering up the flaccid plot, but this tripe did not even try to cover up the insanity.

    1. Hehe, nicely put. Just long enough to deliver more than the standard insult, but still concise.

      Yeah, I don't know what to say, really. You know how directors have trademarks? Kubrick likes chess, the Coen brothers like things that spin. Well, Nolan likes plot holes.

  38. You have to read this if you haven't already. It's fantastic:

    1. I laughed so hard while I was reading it. Pure genius..

  39. Let me start off with stating that my mother tongue isn't English, so please excuse the grammatical/liguistic mistakes - those that are obvious mistakes, that is.
    I'm not a sociologist, ecologist, mathematician, physicist or psychologist. I CAN draw conclusions based on facts or theories presented to me in as far as I'm either able to understand the premises or place trust in the source of previous conclusions. I will e.g. not start arguing "Newton's laws are incorrect" as long as the premises don't get into relativistic territory. I do pride myself in being a generalist in that I know enough about a sufficiently wide range of fields to at least be able to make a somewhat founded decision on what is likely acceptable

    What jarred me in the whole "what is your opinion of this movie" debate was the extreme bias people have or feel for it. My primary source for movie information is (surprise) iMDB and the related discussions. In this case the "discussion" there triggered me to at least see the movie.


    - The Dust Bowl

    There are recorded instances of dust storms in the U.S. that were caused by seasonal winds. in the thirties these were exceptionally strong after uncharacteristic droughts caused crop loss and subsequentially loose top soil due to root systems dying. National Geographic did a well-rounded mini-series on the subject directed by Ken Burns. Can this happen again ? Sure, if for some reason the "super crops" that are currently just about a mono-culture succumb to a disease. For reference, see the current (2014) problems with the banana.
    Is this possible all over the world ? Unlikely. As is made abundantly clear in the footage, other plant life does survive. Unless some mutant corn exists that can block an SUV from aerial view. And can mimic grass. So it can only occur in places where huge swathes of land are turned into one-crop regions. Look Americas.

    - Scientists are scarce and discouraged

    For the life of me, I don't see why that would be the case. Sure, they would be specialized in other domains such as plant genetics or environmental countermeasures, sure there would be a more stringent selection of those that would be worth investing in and typically that would be done by those that have exactly the wrong qualification for it (cough-politicians-cough), etcetera.
    But I hope someone at least would have the sense to keep basic operations running.

    Even then, it's quite unlikely that basic knowledge (cfr. the loss of MRI tech - and yes, if you can talk down an enemy(?) drone with a laptop computer, that is basic) would be lost in less than 30 years(*). That is assuming Cooper's was the last space flight and he did that when he was quite young, which isn't corroborated by the footage. Even if you take into account it's his present self in the dream. He has a sixteen year old son. Do the math.
    (*) on second viewing, it wasn't 30, it was 12 years since wheat started dying.

    - Low tech combustion engine based vehicles can be kept running(**), as can high tech (to our standards) GPS networks and Internet... yet healthcare is missing. Am I detecting a hint of reproach on some governmental system here ?
    (**) combustion engines are 40% effective at sea level at most. If as is stated oxygen diminishes, so does engine efficacy. So, you need more fuel, which requires more oxygen, which in turn augments nitrogen …

  40. - The cost of getting spacecraft off of this planet is huge in intellectual, resource and monetary capital. Even assuming "monetary" is put aside as an afterthought - we'll see how we pay for this if we survive it - there were twelve(!) Lazarus missions and an unknown number of probes. As is shown in the movie, every single one of them took a Saturn V rocket to launch. Either that, or they're using another rocket that conforms to stock footage of the lunar missions. Given that the launch can be witnessed at least two states (in US terms) away, it is highly unlikely this was done in secret given that internet still exists (see above).
    I wonder why this was necessary in the first place since the lander demonstrates it is quite capable of taking off from another planet (granted, one with lower gravity but ipso facto lower atmospheric density) using its flight capability. Sending objects into low orbit is significantly cheaper than deep space launch. Even giving the thirty year leeway, that is a giant leap.

    - I'm not going to argue cryogenic sleep being developed, artificial gravity even though that would have made conception of space stations not in a torus shape a whole lot easier, the fact that artificial gravity implies the solution of the "gravity question", the ignorance of waiting around for someone trying something foolish like retrieving a pod from a planet while an entire one shot mission is at stake, the "sending back" of a message, even from dimension 5, back through time although time goes faster on one side...

    Sorry, this is as far as I got. Maybe sometime in the future I'll have some more energy to put in this, but not at the moment.
    Kudos to TDR though. If he still reads this, even more.

    1. I have to say, English isn't my first language either, and I'm in awe of how articulate you are. Kudos.

      Anyway, you brought up a lot of interesting points; I agree with what you've said. I think it's no surprise that when Nolan gets the facts he could have verified in 5 minutes wrong (as someone has mentioned: incorrect definition of Murphy's law), that he also gets the more significant ones wrong as well.

      All we can hope for is that people do their own research and try to see if what's being presented to them comes close to making sense. A movie that sells itself as realistic fiction is allowed some leeway, but Interstellar kind of goes overboard and runs away with it.

  41. I didn't like this movie at all, and have been surprised by the high ratings it has been given. The characters did not act, talk, or interact the way that real human's do. There was so much pontificating and characters consistently EXPLAINED the plot! I just HATE that! It is a sign of a badly made movie.

    Many many small things made no sense-for instance, WHY in the world would our 'hero' be driving a truck with a STICK shift, one that looked as though it came from the time of the dust bowl? Why would they have stopped using medical equipment? It makes no sense. Did medical equipment somehow cause the destruction of the environment?

    In some types of movies it's fine to have the ONE hero who has to SAVE the world. No one else can do it, right? But logically, WHY wouldn't Nasa have simply gone out and contacted the best possible pilot? What, no one else but our 'hero' would do? And it's all up to him? All the work that everyone else has put in has nothing to do with it? Somehow they managed to successfully complete ALL these other missions, but HE is the only one who can 'save the world'!

    I don't know enough about science to give specific details, but I knew that the things they described sounded and felt wrong. For instance, can you REALLY just take your helmet off on another planet and simply start living there? Don't you have to live in a protective dome? Everything has to come from the earth except what you can use from the new planet etc. And why in the world wouldn't we just mess the entire thing up, wherever we go, just as we have on earth?

    After all, nuclear power has not turned out to be the golden solution which people imagined it might be. Simple negligence and lack of foresight are enough to cause great destruction, and of course, here we are poised to destroy our own environment by nuclear bombs and chemical weapons.

    I really really liked Inception. I was interested in the characters and their fates, it was very powerful emotionally on so many levels. But with interstellar I could never feel any connection to the characters nor with the contrived plot.

    The 'humanity' shown in the movie just isn't very 'human' at all. Actually the most believable character was the one guy who was called a 'coward'. Who wouldn't be desperate to be rescued, and who wouldn't have gone crazy if left alone for years?

    Anyway, those are my thoughts, and I certainly liked the review given on this page.

    1. Your points are all good ones and are some of the same problems that I had with this film as well. Nolan didn't even address how humans could just "live" on another planet in a different galaxy without dealing with micro and macro alien organisms. This has been a staple of sci fi all they way back to "War of the Worlds" and "The Andromeda Strain". If the American Indians had no immunity from the diseases (micro organisms) that the Europeans brought with them and perished in droves, what is waiting for humanity on alien planets? How about at least addressing the issue? To just show someone taking off their helmet like everything is fine and the same on earth is ridiculous. Especially so since this film and Nolan was so concerned with "real science". Insulting.

  42. Was able to watch until THE SMARTEST, MOST-COMPETENT ASTRONAUT EVER had a worm-hole explained to him via a piece of paper and a pencil. On the spacecraft, no less. How does an austranaut not know this? How does a ten-year-old not know this? I did try to watch more, but Anne Hathaways' declaration that oxygen, food and water would be needed soon for their survival pushed me over the edge.

  43. This comment has been removed by the author.

  44. This comment has been removed by the author.

  45. This comment has been removed by the author.