lcbaseball22 wrote:

xWhereAmI? wrote:http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movi ... /18018445/

3/4

Seems more like a negative review than a 3/4 review

Uhh, how many critics are going to use this cliche, Interstellar "gets LOST IN SPACE".

I swear I've seen this 4 or 5 times already...

Same and its getting annoying as hell. It makes its seem like it fails completely using that saying.

poplar wrote:When should Empire release their review?

That's what want to know as well.

xWhereAmI? wrote:

lcbaseball22 wrote:

xWhereAmI? wrote:http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movi ... /18018445/

3/4

Seems more like a negative review than a 3/4 review

Uhh, how many critics are going to use this cliche, Interstellar "gets LOST IN SPACE".

I swear I've seen this 4 or 5 times already...

Same and its getting annoying as hell. It makes its seem like it fails completely using that saying.

Yeah, considering Lost In Space is among the worst movies ever made (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120738/)

BTW, it looks like RT has finally added a few more reviews (2 fresh, 1 rotten)

"BTW, it looks like RT has finally added a few more reviews (2 fresh, 1 rotten)"

Does anybody know why a review with a score of 3 out of 5 stars be considered a negative review. It doesn't make sense.

radewart wrote:"BTW, it looks like RT has finally added a few more reviews (2 fresh, 1 rotten)"

Does anybody know why a review with a score of 3 out of 5 stars be considered a negative review. It doesn't make sense.

Are critics who decide if it is rotten or not.

It seems the bigest problem which is drawing to mixed reviews is the pace: basically as slow as 2001.

Biribiri wrote:It seems the bigest problem which is drawing to mixed reviews is the pace: basically as slow as 2001.

I've heard/read completely different sides to this; some saying that if 20 minutes or so were cut it might be a masterpiece (or more so) and others saying it's very brisk and not long enough! If you watched the AMC Film Talk video he said he would have been good with 4 hrs.

lcbaseball22 wrote:

Biribiri wrote:It seems the bigest problem which is drawing to mixed reviews is the pace: basically as slow as 2001.

I've heard/read completely different sides to this; some saying that if 20 minutes or so were cut it might be a masterpiece (or more so) and others saying it's very brisk and not long enough! If you watched the AMC Film Talk video he said he would have been good with 4 hrs.

Sort of reminds me of TDKR, to be honest. I thought it tried to include too much, and at the same time it could have benefitted from an extra hour.

I'm trying so hard to stay out of this section of NF, but when I realized there were reviews today I caved. Big mistake, can't let these reviews influence my level of hype. Oh the anxiety.....

So with regards to Metacritic let me remind that Inception finished with only a 74 (http://www.metacritic.com/movie/inception) and yet it was the #2 film of the year when it came to Critics Top 10 lists...

2. Inception (273 lists; 55 top spots)

“Nolan’s film is surely the most ambitious psychological thriller ever, and yet also the most personal. His baroque imagination makes most directors’ efforts look like beach-pail sand castles alongside Mad King Ludwig’s Neuschwanstein Castle.” — Colin Covert, Minneapolis Star Tribune

http://criticstop10.com/best-of-2010/

I could see a similar fate for Interstellar but is it just me or were Inception's poor to lukewarm reviews not because "it fell short" or "its intellectual reach exceeded its grasp"? I seem to recall that those who did not like Inception simply said it was confusing or something of that sort...

I feel like with Interstellar it's more "flawed masterpiece" or falls well short of a masterpiece, tries to be too grand, overly sentimental, etc. I don't know I just get a different impression for the reception so far.