'Interstellar' Reviews Discussion

Christopher Nolan's 2014 grand scale science-fiction story about time and space, and the things that transcend them.
Posts: 933
Joined: July 2012
Taken with a grain of salt but interestingly overall "non-US" on IMDB have rated it significantly higher
US users 1623 8.9
Non-US users 8789 9.4
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0816692/rat ... _=tt_ov_rt

That being said, I read on AwardsDaily that the critics in Denmark have't taken very kindly to it either...
JULIAN THE EMPEROR
NOVEMBER 6, 2014
The reviews in my native Denmark are in, and they are not promising at all. Most (except for one) reviewers on the big, national media outlets and newspapers award the film a paltry 3 out of 6 (that’s the agreed-upon rating system over here). All agree that the film doesn’t hit the target emotionally or intellectually. Kudos for the visuals and the insistence on a scientific sound approach, but everything else falls flat, according to the reviewers. Nolan’s newfound love of applying a Hollywood formula of emotional pay-off is clearly an impediment to his project and the conceptual boldness of the whole endeavor.
Btw, there are no sold out screenings even on opening day in my hometown, which is another discouraging sign of a movie slightly out of sync…
http://www.awardsdaily.com/blog/2014/11 ... /#comments

Posts: 15
Joined: October 2014
I was afraid of this.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_an ... ivity.html

(Warning: fairly serious spoilers)

I'm a "hard science" guy. I can suspend my disbelief quite a bit with a really really good movie, but not infinitely. I'm afraid I'm going to have considerable trouble with Interstellar. Still going to see it though.

The author does get it a little bit wrong about tidal forces near the black hole- I don't think he realizes it's a supermassive BH. But he makes many other valid points.

Posts: 1049
Joined: May 2013
"Hard science guy"....

Listen, I'm about as hard a science guy as there is. If you can't enjoy this movie, that's not the real reason why. And as Vesh says below me, a lot of that article is total bunk.



Anyway, remember how I said I could only give this movie a 9.5 because it didn't make me feel quite as much as I thought it would, but that repeat viewings would change that? Well, I was sitting at the piano just playing around with the simple theme and... now I feel it.
Last edited by thegreypilgrim on November 6th, 2014, 2:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Posts: 221
Joined: August 2011
VitaminQ wrote:I was afraid of this.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_an ... ivity.html

(Warning: fairly serious spoilers)

I'm a "hard science" guy. I can suspend my disbelief quite a bit with a really really good movie, but not infinitely. I'm afraid I'm going to have considerable trouble with Interstellar. Still going to see it though.

The author does get it a little bit wrong about tidal forces near the black hole- I don't think he realizes it's a supermassive BH. But he makes many other valid points.
Although some of what he says is true, there is a lot that he is also very wrong about. For someone that is trying to tear a film down based on bad science, he is spreading a lot of misinformation himself.

Posts: 933
Joined: July 2012
thegreypilgrim wrote:"Hard science guy"....

Listen, I'm about as hard a science guy as there is. If you can't enjoy this movie, that's not the real reason why.
Since when is science FICTION completely realistic anyways? I have a feeling Nolan is just being leveled with these criticisms because in the past he has tried to strive for grounding his films in realism as much as possible and because Kip Thorne was part of the production. Would these same criticism exist if the director where anyone else? I doubt it. Besides, no matter how much science is there (theoretical or not) it's still just a movie, which above all is meant for our entertainment, right? :P Far as I am concerned the filmmakers have completely liberty to do whatever they wish to accomplish this goal or whatever other goal(s) they had in mind when making the film. In the words of the legendary director Alfred Hitchcock (when an analyst disputed various therapy components of his under-rated masterpiece Spellbound) ...

"My dear, it's only a movie"
Last edited by lcbaseball22 on November 6th, 2014, 2:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Posts: 15
Joined: October 2014
thegreypilgrim wrote:"Hard science guy"....

Listen, I'm about as hard a science guy as there is. If you can't enjoy this movie, that's not the real reason why. And as Vesh says below me, a lot of that article is total bunk.
Okay.

Is the author:

a) Misrepresenting what actually happens in the movie, or
b) scientifically wrong in his analysis? (reminder: I already spotted the tidal forces thing)

Posts: 2058
Joined: September 2010
I think we need to wait for Kip Thorne's book

Posts: 12
Joined: November 2014
Hey all,

Just found this site and decided to register in the hopes of escaping the wasteland of hyperbolic insults and idiocy that exists on general comment boards.

I've seen the movie twice, once on Tuesday and again last night, and personally it's my favorite Nolan movie. The unmatched ambition and meshing of hard science with metaphysics roll over any objections I may have concerning some over-exposition towards the end of the movie.

Something that is confusing me about some of the mixed/negative reviews, is the claim of gaping plot holes. Maybe I'm missing something, but I didn't notice any egregious holes in the plot that would impede one from enjoying the film. Can someone enlighten me on the specifics of what these critics are talking about, or are they just throwing out the term plot-hole concerning elements that did not make sense to them upon the initial viewing but reconcile themselves with a bit of thought? Even before this film released, I thought it was an overused accusation, thrown around by those more concerned with nitpickery and mechanical boring logic rather than story. The fact that I've seen no specific examples of these plot destroying holes, makes me think it might be a case of critics throwing that accusation out there without fully examining the part of the film they are referring to. Every film has plot holes, without them films would be boring, more concerned with logistics than telling a meaningful story. In my mind, they are problematic only if they build to a point where the internal logic of the film can no longer be sustained by suspension of disbelief.

Remember in "Raiders" when Indiana Jones (unseen) stowed-away onto a locked-down submerging U-boat? No one seems to consider that a plot hole, but many believe Bruce Wayne sneaking back into Gotham (TDKR) is. The latter is not a plot-hole, and showing the mechanics of that moment would've slowed down the story significantly, but the understanding of that fact is lacking in many or just ignored to support their preconceived notions.

Sorry for the rambling nature of this post, but I'm at work and time for editing is at a minimal. I may do a review of the film on the other thread if, by the time I get around to it, it doesn't seem redundant.

Look forward to further conversations with you guys!

Posts: 31
Joined: October 2014
I find it funny that certain critics are bashing the movie when a majority of audiences who have seen it are calling it masterpiece, mind-blowing, amazing, etc. etc. Some reviews just make no sense.

Here's one thing I've learned from watching movies my whole life. You don't have to AGREE or rather LIKE the ideas in the movie to be able to enjoy it to it's fullest extent. Sure we all have those "it would've been better if this happened ...." etc, but nothing is perfect. Within it's own context, Interstellar is an incredible f-ing movie and is one of the best movies I've seen in a long long time, if not the best.

Posts: 134
Joined: October 2010
smokey81286 wrote:Hey all,

Just found this site and decided to register in the hopes of escaping the wasteland of hyperbolic insults and idiocy that exists on general comment boards.

I've seen the movie twice, once on Tuesday and again last night, and personally it's my favorite Nolan movie. The unmatched ambition and meshing of hard science with metaphysics roll over any objections I may have concerning some over-exposition towards the end of the movie.

Something that is confusing me about some of the mixed/negative reviews, is the claim of gaping plot holes. Maybe I'm missing something, but I didn't notice any egregious holes in the plot that would impede one from enjoying the film. Can someone enlighten me on the specifics of what these critics are talking about, or are they just throwing out the term plot-hole concerning elements that did not make sense to them upon the initial viewing but reconcile themselves with a bit of thought? Even before this film released, I thought it was an overused accusation, thrown around by those more concerned with nitpickery and mechanical boring logic rather than story. The fact that I've seen no specific examples of these plot destroying holes, makes me think it might be a case of critics throwing that accusation out there without fully examining the part of the film they are referring to. Every film has plot holes, without them films would be boring, more concerned with logistics than telling a meaningful story. In my mind, they are problematic only if they build to a point where the internal logic of the film can no longer be sustained by suspension of disbelief.

Remember in "Raiders" when Indiana Jones (unseen) stowed-away onto a locked-down submerging U-boat? No one seems to consider that a plot hole, but many believe Bruce Wayne sneaking back into Gotham (TDKR) is. The latter is not a plot-hole, and showing the mechanics of that moment would've slowed down the story significantly, but the understanding of that fact is lacking in many or just ignored to support their preconceived notions.

Sorry for the rambling nature of this post, but I'm at work and time for editing is at a minimal. I may do a review of the film on the other thread if, by the time I get around to it, it doesn't seem redundant.

Look forward to further conversations with you guys!
Hey there! welcome to the forum, I'm too sickened by "gargantuan" (see what I did there ;) ) levels of immaturity in the internet today, this is a safe haven. You have to understand something first, a lot of these "critics" are young and many are amateur. They tend to use cliché words and tend to repeat a lot of what other people say in order to substantiate their "arguments", so when they use the word "plot hole" many times they don't even understand what that means and use it anyways because it sounds cool to them and it makes them sound "knowledgeable" I too have found a lot of situations when they mentioned that a film is filled with plot holes when in actuality the information needed to understand a story is there and they missed to grasp it and simply ignored because they didn't "like it" hence stating that these are "plot holes"

Don't get to frustrated by these people, if you understood the story completely, found no missing gaps in continuity or information and are able to follow things without having anything spoon feed to you, then there shouldn't be any plot holes for you and you can disregard these people's misinformed comments.

Post Reply