When A.O Scott likes it.

m4st4 wrote:

devinhughes24 wrote:RT up to 77! What a time to be alive...

Sticking with my prediction of low 80s.

Hype is real round these parts.

Hope it's actually good.

"What a time to be alive..."

That line cracks me up. The wait is killing me! Meanwhile, am I the only person who is so surprised at how divisive this film is? I've been a Nolan fan for years and most of my friends and family love his movies. It's hard to find someone who truly dislikes his work. But when it comes to the Hollywood press, I swear some reviewers are out to eat him alive regardless of the final product on screen.

When a film is this ambitious, visually stunning and well acted... I can't help but wonder what it takes to please some of these reviewers. The point of movies is to experience something, to be amazed, to have a memorable experience... for good or bad. This seems to be exactly the kind of film that Hollywood needs more of. If that's the case, then I would just expect more reviewers to support it.

Then again, maybe I'm just a naive Nolan fan

Devin Faraci
@devincf
I don't even dislike Nolan. INTERSTELLAR is crazy flawed but I gave it a fresh on RT. But the praise for him confuses me.

Angier wrote:When A.O Scott likes it.

My thoughts exactly. What next, Rex Reed giving it a decent write-up?

BluegrassNolanFan wrote:

m4st4 wrote:

devinhughes24 wrote:RT up to 77! What a time to be alive...

Sticking with my prediction of low 80s.

Hype is real round these parts.

Hope it's actually good.

"What a time to be alive..."

That line cracks me up. The wait is killing me! Meanwhile, am I the only person who is so surprised at how divisive this film is? I've been a Nolan fan for years and most of my friends and family love his movies. It's hard to find someone who truly dislikes his work. But when it comes to the Hollywood press, I swear some reviewers are out to eat him alive regardless of the final product on screen.

When a film is this ambitious, visually stunning and well acted... I can't help but wonder what it takes to please some of these reviewers. The point of movies is to experience something, to be amazed, to have a memorable experience... for good or bad. This seems to be exactly the kind of film that Hollywood needs more of. If that's the case, then I would just expect more reviewers to support it.

Then again, maybe I'm just a naive Nolan fan

when you're highly successful, have a commercial and sub-commercial following, have made studios loads of money while also pulling in a fair share of peer recognition, your reputation is on the line with every step you take, and every shot you film. with this reputation comes the expectation of perfection. and with the expectation of perfection, every imperfection is under a microscope. this is why something like Interstellar will have detractors that give it a 3/5, for example, the same score they'd give a run-of-the-mill rom-com that no one will remember in two months. its because they have to. it's impossible to judge a film of Nolan's objectively.

then again, i haven't seen the film yet.. i will be seated in the IMAX theatre watching it begin in 5 hours. there's a chance i don't like it. but i expect to love it. which is the biggest problem. any imperfection will cast a shadow on all of its perfections... unfortunately.

hasanahmad wrote:Devin Faraci
@devincf
I don't even dislike Nolan. INTERSTELLAR is crazy flawed but I gave it a fresh on RT. But the praise for him confuses me.

I've never like this guy and this doesn't help.

"What a time to be alive..."

That line cracks me up. The wait is killing me! Meanwhile, am I the only person who is so surprised at how divisive this film is? I've been a Nolan fan for years and most of my friends and family love his movies. It's hard to find someone who truly dislikes his work. But when it comes to the Hollywood press, I swear some reviewers are out to eat him alive regardless of the final product on screen.

When a film is this ambitious, visually stunning and well acted... I can't help but wonder what it takes to please some of these reviewers. The point of movies is to experience something, to be amazed, to have a memorable experience... for good or bad. This seems to be exactly the kind of film that Hollywood needs more of. If that's the case, then I would just expect more reviewers to support it.

Then again, maybe I'm just a naive Nolan fan

when you're highly successful, have a commercial and sub-commercial following, have made studios loads of money while also pulling in a fair share of peer recognition, your reputation is on the line with every step you take, and every shot you film. with this reputation comes the expectation of perfection. and with the expectation of perfection, every imperfection is under a microscope. this is why something like Interstellar will have detractors that give it a 3/5, for example, the same score they'd give a run-of-the-mill rom-com that no one will remember in two months. its because they have to. it's impossible to judge a film of Nolan's objectively.

then again, i haven't seen the film yet.. i will be seated in the IMAX theatre watching it begin in 5 hours. there's a chance i don't like it. but i expect to love it. which is the biggest problem. any imperfection will cast a shadow on all of its perfections... unfortunately.

That's a great point. When expectations are low, a movie can be average and blow you away. But when expectations are sky-high, a movie can be excellent but still leave you slightly disappointed. With Nolan's films, I have always had high hopes because of his prior work. Fortunately, I have not yet been disappointed

http://arts.nationalpost.com/2014/11/04 ... e-mission/

It’s rare for a film to deliver a scene of such emotional power that the hardened critic is fighting back tears. It’s even less common for a celluloid image to have that effect. Interstellar does both.

And he gave it a full 4 stars / 4.

VitaminQ wrote:from Walter Chaw, Film Freak Central (I will not link it):

"Cooper (Matthew McConaughey), modelled in appearance and performance after Sam Shepard's portrayal of Chuck Yeager, is an astronaut forced by Republican climate-change deniers and textbook manglers into a life of farming as an apocalyptic dust bowl looms.'

Good grief. This a-hole has a political chip on his shoulder the size of a California sequoia.

This is funny when paired with those other articles calling it a "response to liberal pessimism" or whatever and saying that it explores "American exceptionalism." Nolan's films always seem to draw totally conflicting political sentiments.

thegreypilgrim wrote:

VitaminQ wrote:from Walter Chaw, Film Freak Central (I will not link it):

"Cooper (Matthew McConaughey), modelled in appearance and performance after Sam Shepard's portrayal of Chuck Yeager, is an astronaut forced by Republican climate-change deniers and textbook manglers into a life of farming as an apocalyptic dust bowl looms.'

Good grief. This a-hole has a political chip on his shoulder the size of a California sequoia.

This is funny when paired with those other articles calling it a "response to liberal pessimism" or whatever and saying that it explores "American exceptionalism." Nolan's films always seem to draw totally conflicting political sentiments.

I've always felt that his films have been pretty neutral, offering a conservative viewpoint in one instance, then a liberal one in the next. I do think if they leaned one way or the other, they have slightly more conservative ideas, but that's just what I take from them, others obviously, feel differently.

What I do find funny is how that reviewer calls the textbook changing a republican idea, when in fact, common core, which regulates what is taught and put in textbooks, is much more of a liberal/democrat idea. I won't argue for climate change denying republicans though, haha.