Interstellar - Chris Nolan's new film

yeah some people are pissed that he's not some other writer/director they do like

Its' a decent film, not his best, not his worst. There are some very cliche scenes and the characters are a little flat at times I think. It could probably be edited into a better shorter film, however visually it is amazing.

Really stoked to see this on saturday

  On 11/5/2014 at 11:24 PM, MassfreeKid said:

@Nebraska

 

Sure and I respect everyone's opinion about Nolan's films, I just don't like the Nolan sucks campaign I get from some people. There are so many bad directors these days, so many cheesy movies, why shit on Nolan, who is at least honest and authentic in his art? He is not licking Hollywood's ass. He's been doing his own thing, he is self-taught, he writes his own scripts, has his own production company, seems to be more than respected (in fact admired) by his peers... I mean, how more real could it get? Now that he is a big name in Hollywood, he is not selling out! That is very rare in his milieu. He could be doing Avengers or the new Star Trek, you know? But he decided to make Interstellar. A true original. Sure, Batman is not my thing either, Nolan for me is Following, Memento, Insomnia, The Prestige and Inception. Batman in my opinion was his ticket into Hollywood so he could make films like Inception and Interstellar, with no limit on the budget. And it's just the beginning. :) How can someone not at least respect what he stands for as an artist?

All of this is honorable imo, but the one thing that hangs me up with Nolan are that his films are void of real emotion & keep me detached as a viewer. He's pretty good with all other matters involving a film, just not that one. Not that I'm looking to cry like a little kid who had his lolli stolen, but I just don't care what happens to the characters in his films.

Kind of the same deal with Kubrick really. (Except full metal jacket maybe) Not trolling. Sorry in advance & not looking for a fight.

tomorrow, 20:00h

finally!

With all the sound mix complain, I'm gonna skip the Imax version of it. What a shame

good movie. blast off at 40 mins in, 2 hours + of space. maybe my favorite nolan flick.

Is Bat's Man in this?

I think it was allright, even good, on some moments, philosophical, time and space, love.. minor spoilers, haha, old Michael Kane, was such a sinister character after all, also Matt Damon going crazy and blew him self out of space, lol!!! The Water planet was really amazing, such a moment of cinema bliss! Don't wanna say, that the Gravity was better, overall maybe not, but on some points, yes

I enjoyed this movie. Didn't think it was as overwrought as I expected, despite it's almost 3hr runtime. Visually very pretty, the spacetravel scenes were very nice as were the ones on the planets. Kind of expected the twist, but thought it worked well. Liked the design of everything and the robots were cool and nice of them to have human voices rather than some typical robotic voice. Maybe it's my misanthropic leanings, but I never pay that much attention to the characters, if they are fleshed out enough, so didn't mind them. I wonder if there is some subtext in Damon's character being named Mann and being a selfish prick. I am usually not a huge fan of Zimmer's scores, but this one was nice, very epic with the roaring organ. Suited the movie fine. I had a feeling of wanting to see it again as soon as I walked out of the theater. Top banana overall.

Is it still a twist when everyone's expecting it? This movie is as predictable as they come.

It also makes Gravity look like an epitome of focus and restraint.

Did M. Night Shyamalan get writing credits?

  On 11/4/2014 at 10:19 PM, eugene said:

i think i'll actually go and see this in a cinema so i want to know absolutely nothing about it beforehand than i already know: it's huge budget, made by a capable director, it's sci fi and has good actors.

Pretty much this.

  On 11/8/2014 at 2:29 AM, manmower said:

 

It also makes Gravity look like an epitome of focus and restraint.

They are both felt like huge films in their own way, but yeah, something like this

  On 11/8/2014 at 11:46 AM, arvy Ictal said:

 

  On 11/8/2014 at 2:29 AM, manmower said:

It also makes Gravity look like an epitome of focus and restraint.

They are both felt like huge films in their own way, but yeah, something like this

 

For the record I think Gravity could have done with being only an hour long, someone taking away those über-expensive camera mounts before they had the chance to film all that spinning around wank that added nothing to the movie, and someone to monitor the cringe levels and scratch out just a few key offending lines and music cues that really pushed it over the top.

But it's almost minimalist compared to Interstellar. And at least it settled on some kind of definite message or theme. What is Interstellar about honestly? It's all over the shop. And without that focus it ends up feeling like a bunch of easy thrills strung together. Such a waste.

I'm probably starting to sound really harsh but I think it might be my favorite Nolan nonetheless, so maybe that qualifies some of the above.

Gravity felt wild and unexplained pretty much, cosmos and human, that was very well done...

Interstellar for me had it's moments! I felt at times almost like watching Trakovsky, it doesn't show that of course, but I felt like, maybe, it was inspired by that...

When Matt Damon wake up at that lonely icey planet, you actually believe, that he was were for ages!

Those moments were brief, but really amazing...

Saw it last night. Flawed, but beautiful. The first 40 minutes were so choppy that it felt like a movie trailer. So many ideas crammed into one film, to the point that it feels bloated— like a more intelligent Transformers... That sounds overly harsh, but I wonder if this is indicative of a new way of making movies, or hubris on the directors part?

Any time the movie cut back to earth and family drama, I felt my brain screaming "Go back! Space!!"

With that said, the wormhole sequence was so breathtaking. Regardless of every forced story element, there are also scenes where astronauts discuss time dilation without pausing for the viewer, which is nice.

9.5/10 great acting, beautiful visuals, huge ideas

p.s. to me it was quite evident that hans zimmer was listening to murcof's cosmos. at moments it felt like a total rip-off.

I agree with the Murcof thing and thought Philip Glass did the score to this in the opening scene.

Saw this today, its amazing to look at yes, but its just too damn long!! felt like it went on forever, and really it didn't leave me in awe like other Nolan films have done in the past.

  On 11/5/2014 at 10:20 PM, Nebraska said:

i'm actually not a fan of chris nolan. i was working in a theater when memento came out and a lot of the arthouse film crowd were raving about it but i thought it was meh. didn't watch the prestige and didn't bother with the batman films because i'm not a fan of superhero movies- thought inception was a convoluted mess and now here we are.

 

i however cannot ignore he's currently one of hollywood's most successful filmmakers and the fact that he got 2 studios who'd normally be competing against one another to cough up enough dough to distribute this film wide- not to mention buy 35mm film stock from kodak- well, that's something. i don't even think scorsese can get one studio to do that let alone two.

Prestige was probably his best film imo, you should check it out.

  On 11/8/2014 at 12:16 PM, manmower said:

 

  On 11/8/2014 at 11:46 AM, arvy Ictal said:

 

  On 11/8/2014 at 2:29 AM, manmower said:

It also makes Gravity look like an epitome of focus and restraint.

They are both felt like huge films in their own way, but yeah, something like this

 

For the record I think Gravity could have done with being only an hour long, someone taking away those über-expensive camera mounts before they had the chance to film all that spinning around wank that added nothing to the movie, and someone to monitor the cringe levels and scratch out just a few key offending lines and music cues that really pushed it over the top.

 

But it's almost minimalist compared to Interstellar. And at least it settled on some kind of definite message or theme. What is Interstellar about honestly? It's all over the shop. And without that focus it ends up feeling like a bunch of easy thrills strung together. Such a waste.

 

the scene where anna hathaway explains her pull to edmunds.., the love/higher dimensional talk. that's the core of what this movie is about, i think. gotta rewatch

went to see this today and i can definately say:

  On 11/5/2014 at 11:51 PM, Tamagotchi San said:

Its' a decent film, not his best, not his worst. There are some very cliche scenes and the characters are a little flat at times I think. It could probably be edited into a better shorter film, however visually it is amazing.

i agree with this. i thought i'd love this a lot more but it actually ended up not being as good as expected (not terrible but certainly not the type of science fiction that would make it a classic). i actually thought it was a little like a more expensive and maybe a better realized version of contact

the ending kinda felt like a cop out to me and the hippy explanation was a little cringeworthy. to be honest, the thing that most impressed me was the music. even the cinematography was a little "meh".

Interesting chart explaining the plot of Interstellar (warning: possible spoilers):