Mockingjay is only getting 63 on metacritic, the reviews say it's boring. Not that that'll keep it from being a hit with Hunger Games fans, but it'll probably cap the box office to a degree.

I am shocked how many of the BFCA members gave Interstellar a score of 60 or less...

http://www.criticschoice.com/members/tbaehr/
http://www.criticschoice.com/members/sau/
http://www.criticschoice.com/members/jbayer/
http://www.criticschoice.com/members/jbell/
http://www.criticschoice.com/members/jbrowne/
http://www.criticschoice.com/members/cbudin/
http://www.criticschoice.com/members/ccampbell/
http://www.criticschoice.com/members/acampbell/ (30)
http://www.criticschoice.com/members/kcarr/
http://www.criticschoice.com/members/mdelarosa/
http://www.criticschoice.com/members/tenglish/
http://www.criticschoice.com/members/mfoizey/
http://www.criticschoice.com/members/dfreedman/
http://www.criticschoice.com/members/rjay/
http://www.criticschoice.com/members/TalkCineman/ (40)
http://www.criticschoice.com/members/kjohnson/ (20)
http://www.criticschoice.com/members/rjustavick/
http://www.criticschoice.com/members/zkit/ (20)
http://www.criticschoice.com/members/skernan/
http://www.criticschoice.com/members/ckoplinski/
http://www.criticschoice.com/members/fmastracci/ (20)
http://www.criticschoice.com/members/mmedved/
http://www.criticschoice.com/members/jmurphy/
http://www.criticschoice.com/members/rmurray/ (40)
http://www.criticschoice.com/members/mpaurich/
http://www.criticschoice.com/members/sperlraver/
http://www.criticschoice.com/members/mreardon/
http://www.criticschoice.com/members/ksimanton/
http://www.criticschoice.com/members/msmith/
http://www.criticschoice.com/members/astanford/
http://www.criticschoice.com/members/hstratford/
http://www.criticschoice.com/members/rtennis/

It's amazing that despite all these low scores the film still comes in with an 80/100 average!

http://www.criticschoice.com/search?s=interstellar

lcbaseball22 wrote:I am shocked how many of the BFCA members gave Interstellar a score of 60 or less...

http://www.criticschoice.com/members/tbaehr/
http://www.criticschoice.com/members/sau/
http://www.criticschoice.com/members/jbayer/
http://www.criticschoice.com/members/jbell/
http://www.criticschoice.com/members/jbrowne/
http://www.criticschoice.com/members/cbudin/
http://www.criticschoice.com/members/ccampbell/
http://www.criticschoice.com/members/acampbell/ (this old fart gave it only a 30)
http://www.criticschoice.com/members/kcarr/
http://www.criticschoice.com/members/mdelarosa/
http://www.criticschoice.com/members/tenglish/
http://www.criticschoice.com/members/mfoizey/
http://www.criticschoice.com/members/dfreedman/
http://www.criticschoice.com/members/rjay/
http://www.criticschoice.com/members/TalkCineman/ (40 from this douche)
http://www.criticschoice.com/members/kjohnson/ (20 from this even bigger douche)
http://www.criticschoice.com/members/rjustavick/
http://www.criticschoice.com/members/zkit/ (we knew this b**** didn't like it, but only a 20?!)
http://www.criticschoice.com/members/skernan/
http://www.criticschoice.com/members/ckoplinski/
http://www.criticschoice.com/members/fmastracci/ (another 20 from this c*** sucker...)
http://www.criticschoice.com/members/mmedved/
http://www.criticschoice.com/members/jmurphy/
http://www.criticschoice.com/members/rmurray/ (40 from this c***)
http://www.criticschoice.com/members/mpaurich/
http://www.criticschoice.com/members/sperlraver/
http://www.criticschoice.com/members/mreardon/
http://www.criticschoice.com/members/ksimanton/
http://www.criticschoice.com/members/msmith/
http://www.criticschoice.com/members/astanford/
http://www.criticschoice.com/members/hstratford/
http://www.criticschoice.com/members/rtennis/

It's amazing that despite all these low scores the film still comes in with an 80/100 average!

http://www.criticschoice.com/search?s=interstellar

I wouldn't concern yourself with those scores,to be honest.

If anyone is interested in getting this nice Interstellar Infographic Timeline print, you can get it here:

http://dcgundogdu.deviantart.com/art/In ... -494119262

the only question is whether the uninformed, phoned-in reviews of interstellar are worse than the uninformed, phoned-in reviews of tdkr.

so i don't get accused of rabid nolan fanboy-ism, let me lay out a few things:

interstellar, like, well, any work of art, is not perfect. its execution does not perfectly match its aims. there's clunky dialogue, some mediocre acting (most notably chastain imo), some shots that linger too long, and some heavy-handedness in exposition. find a movie that doesn't have flaws and i'll find a movie you need to watch more closely. if you look, you can find them. films in particular are incredibly difficult artforms to get perfect. SO many things have to go right for the whole thing to be a success (story, dialogue, shooting, acting, visual effects, sound, editing, just to name a few).

evaluating a movie is partly a matter of deciding whether its flaws outweigh its achievements, but that shouldn't be all that's involved, since many "flaws" are going to be based on subjective judgments. i am sure, for instance, that there are some people who loved chastain as adult murph, even though she left me kind of dry. the process should also involve:

(1) assessing the movie's themes on their intellectual merit;
(2) assessing the movie's craft and construction (how is the story told, how does the film exploit the advantages of the medium, how good is the shooting);
(3) assessing the movie's emotional impact on you personally (this is hugely important, yet many critics these days completely leave it out, or actively try not to have an emotional response);
(4) trying to arrive at a coherent interpretation.

reviewing, as a literary art form (which, yes, it is a literary art form, pretentious though it may sound), is supposed to do all of these things at the same time. that's a demanding job. it's rarely going to be adequate to watch a movie once and opine, but this is what nearly everyone does, especially staffers whose jobs are secure. it takes thought and effort and research and re-watching and careful contemplation of ideas to really appreciate a film, though some movies have more depth than others. i wrote an article about star trek: into darkness and watched it four times trying to appreciate it, even though it's not that great.

if you've done that job and come to the conclusion that the movie sucks, i'm cool with that. with a film as ambitious and beautiful and scientifically rich and (for some) heartbreaking as interstellar, that's going to mean a lot of work. this "here are some things that occurred to me after watching this movie once" style of reviewing is just a waste of ink, frankly. publications like the new yorker, slate, and the atlantic should be ashamed to print these half-assed reviews.

tl;dr: it's o.k. to have a negative opinion of interstellar. if you call yourself a film critic, try having an informed one based on repeat viewings and research that's backed up by an argument explaining your reasons for feeling as you do.

did my post just torch this thread to ground so hard that no one wants to post anymore?

You make great points. I think "reviewers" (and it seems like anybody can be a reviewer now) don't really seem to write (at least the bloggers don't) to give an objective evaluation of the movie, they're out to impress their friends with how hip they are. They seem to have decided before they see a film what they were going to write. Or they have an agenda in favor of some other movie and Interstellar's its Oscar competition. It's like the Eurovision competition: they give nul points to the act which might take the title from their country's act! It's TOTALLY unprofessional.

If you notice, most "reviewers" now seem to be either women or gay men (not that there's anything wrong with that), but I'm a girl and I know I bring a girl's perspective to things (and some bitchiness too). The same (maybe more) with gay men. Scifi's not a genre that particularly appeals to women or gay men in general I think (check out any gay men's forum and they HATE Interstellar but they hated Gravity too). Check out Goldderby where most of the posters are gay men (and talk about being gay). They just ignore Interstellar. It isn't a musical and Meryl Streep isn't in it! I'm only partially joking here.

I think you can only really trust the "professional" reviewers (Variety, Hollywood Reporter, LA Times, NY Times, Time, Rolling Stone). They ALL gave great reviews to Interstellar. These are reviewers who have a reputation to maintain. They can't have an agenda (or flaunt their personal views) or they lose all credibility. The pissy little bloggers, little hipster reviewers, etc. have the longevity of fruit flies. They aren't writing so that somebody in 10 years comes across the review and finds it pertinent. They're just writing something they hope will get them a lot of hits for a week or so.

Aili wrote:You make great points. I think "reviewers" (and it seems like anybody can be a reviewer now) don't really seem to write (at least the bloggers don't) to give an objective evaluation of the movie, they're out to impress their friends with how hip they are. They seem to have decided before they see a film what they were going to write. Or they have an agenda in favor of some other movie and Interstellar's its Oscar competition. It's like the Eurovision competition: they give nul points to the act which might take the title from their country's act! It's TOTALLY unprofessional.

yeah, it's a huge problem. the hipsterism is particularly irritating to me. it's the most facile b.s.

the_critic_it_stinks.gif

If you notice, most "reviewers" now seem to be either women or gay men (not that there's anything wrong with that), but I'm a girl and I know I bring a girl's perspective to things (and some bitchiness too). The same (maybe more) with gay men. Scifi's not a genre that particularly appeals to women or gay men in general I think (check out any gay men's forum and they HATE Interstellar but they hated Gravity too). Check out Goldderby where most of the posters are gay men (and talk about being gay). They just ignore Interstellar. It isn't a musical and Meryl Streep isn't in it! I'm only partially joking here.

wow, i hadn't even thought about this dimension, but this is totally true. i like to think that nolan is a pretty big tent, but maybe that's not true? there's no denying his films center on straight male psychology and straight male emotional experience. but i like to think nolan's women aren't uninteresting to female viewers and his men are sympathetic regardless? would love your perspective on this.

I think you can only really trust the "professional" reviewers (Variety, Hollywood Reporter, LA Times, NY Times, Time, Rolling Stone). They ALL gave great reviews to Interstellar. These are reviewers who have a reputation to maintain. They can't have an agenda (or flaunt their personal views) or they lose all credibility. The pissy little bloggers, little hipster reviewers, etc. have the longevity of fruit flies. They aren't writing so that somebody in 10 years comes across the review and finds it pertinent. They're just writing something they hope will get them a lot of hits for a week or so.

yeah, this is majorly telling. anyone who is serious about film and film crit is raving. the big-shot directors of this genre are all straight white men, true, but it seems like the hipsters are deciding to be against a great artist on politics alone. to me, that's upsetting.

i think the new yorker and the atlantic's reviews are both exceptions to your point, though. both examples of professional film critics writing political b.s. based on very shallow looks at the film. though the new yorker's film section has sucked for like a decade now. they need to fire both of them (lane and denby)

Aili wrote:
If you notice, most "reviewers" now seem to be either women or gay men

?????????????

Aili wrote: I think you can only really trust the "professional" reviewers (Variety, Hollywood Reporter, LA Times, NY Times, Time, Rolling Stone). They ALL gave great reviews to Interstellar. These are reviewers who have a reputation to maintain. They can't have an agenda (or flaunt their personal views) or they lose all credibility. The pissy little bloggers, little hipster reviewers, etc. have the longevity of fruit flies. They aren't writing so that somebody in 10 years comes across the review and finds it pertinent. They're just writing something they hope will get them a lot of hits for a week or so.

Yeah. Those publications are as guilty of what you think you're accusing other people of. Also, there's no such thing as objective reviewing.


-Vader

OK, maybe not "most" (or maybe yes) but A LOT. I read a lot of these reviewers regularly and they love to talk about being gay. Alfonso Duarte of The Wrap (who trashed Int) is gay. So is David Denby of New Yorker. OK the women are obvious. The guy at EW who trashed Int (but gave it a mysteriously passable score, I guess the editor said 'come on') is gay.

Let's face it, most movie critics were English majors. There's not a lot of work for English majors. I know I'm an English major. And I don't know ANY straight guys who are English majors (well, maybe this one guy). We're all girls and gay guys. And most of the English majors I know don't like Interstellar and can't imagine why I don't just looooove Gone Girl and am not looking forward to Into the Woods and didn't think Birdman was wonderful.