Interstellar (Christopher Nolan) *SPOILERS FROM POST 458 ONWARDS*

SuprSi

GBXI wrote: »

I can't believe the amount of people on here who thought this movie was good or better than that. Boards.ie must not be a good sub-sector of what the rest of the world is like - though I'm learning that more and more when I log in here!

I could tell from the reaction of people leaving the theater last night that it wasn't highly thought of (that's putting it nicely) but then the IMDB rating is huge and the majority on here think it's great, so I'm a bit confused.

I thought it was way too long, ridiculous plot and story for most of the movie. It's like it was made as an excuse to show off space and I can understand why some people would enjoy that, but I need more in my movies. Think I'll stay away from sci-fi for the time being!

I'm one of those who thought it was superb, one of the best movies I've ever seen. Perhaps the difference is that I absolutely love space and sci-fi, and I don't care about a lot of the things people have been complaining about here. Perhaps I have simple tastes but I just want to go to a movie and be entertained - not everything has to add up together for that to happen.

The plot was completely plausible - it's a sci-fi movie after all, and it's something that has undoubtedly been the main plot of successful novels for years. I didn't notice the length at all and thought the pacing was perfect. It never dragged and I was never once looking at my watch. The music and effects were great, the characters were spot on and I bloody love those robots!

It did a great job of showing off the vastness and inhospitality of space, reminding us of just how insignificant a spec in the universe we are. There were real edge of the seat moments, moments where I was genuinely emotional and also some humour.

I just don't see how people can criticise the plot - it's a sci-fi movie! Sure it may have been predictable for some (though not in the slightest for me) but the whole point of sci-fi is that the plot can be whatever the writer/director want it to be! As long as everything links together, as I thought it did, what's the problem?

orubiru

GBXI wrote: »

I can't believe the amount of people on here who thought this movie was good or better than that. Boards.ie must not be a good sub-sector of what the rest of the world is like - though I'm learning that more and more when I log in here!

I could tell from the reaction of people leaving the theater last night that it wasn't highly thought of (that's putting it nicely) but then the IMDB rating is huge and the majority on here think it's great, so I'm a bit confused.

I thought it was way too long, ridiculous plot and story for most of the movie. It's like it was made as an excuse to show off space and I can understand why some people would enjoy that, but I need more in my movies. Think I'll stay away from sci-fi for the time being!

I don't particularly like to be seen as "defending" a movie but, here we go.

The film pretty much has positive reviews from both critics and audiences. Critic reviews are averaging 7/10 and audience reviews are averaging 8 to 9 out of 10.

On Metacritic there are 46 critic reviews (35 positive, 10 mixed, 1 bad) and 76% of those are positive. They have 210 audience reviews (169 positive, 22 mixed, 19 bad) so that's 80% positive.

Only 3% of critics are giving the movie a bad review and only 9% of audience reviews are bad.

So, I'd reckon that around three quarters of the people at your screening would have thought quite highly of the movie with the other 25% having a mixed to bad reaction?

That seems to be reflected on here too.

I dunno, I guess since you've posted you actually are interested in why other folks liked the film.

I can definitely agree about the length, 169 minutes is quote long and we definitely have some "drag" but that's a problem in many films.

What was it specifically about the plot and story that you thought was ridiculous or not good?

What movies do you generally like? What would you recommend instead of this movie?

paulieeye

GBXI wrote: »

I can't believe the amount of people on here who thought this movie was good or better than that. Boards.ie must not be a good sub-sector of what the rest of the world is like - though I'm learning that more and more when I log in here!

I could tell from the reaction of people leaving the theater last night that it wasn't highly thought of (that's putting it nicely) but then the IMDB rating is huge and the majority on here think it's great, so I'm a bit confused.

I thought it was way too long, ridiculous plot and story for most of the movie. It's like it was made as an excuse to show off space and I can understand why some people would enjoy that, but I need more in my movies. Think I'll stay away from sci-fi for the time being!

Its almost as if sci fi fans enjoyed it and non sci fi fans didnt...interesting...

Drumpot

ror_74 wrote: »

Can you explain yourself rather than linking to somebody elses hour long explanation, which may or may not have anything to do with what you're trying to say ?

The criticisms of the science in the film are legitimate but minor and don't impede on the overall experience. They are legitimate because it markets itself as scientific realism and was intended to stimulate thinking rather then be just fantasy. I think that much was made clear. Incidentally, Kip Thorne will be the first to concede you cant survive falling into a black hole and that time travel is impossible. Its also true that the majority of science in the film is accurate.

But go ahead and dismiss all that as snobbery with lazy generalizations rather than an opportunity to learn something.

I link a documentary titled "is everything we know about the universe all wrong" and you are asking me to summarise the programme?:rolleyes:

I have given you the opportunity to watch the programme. You suggesting I made a lazy generalisation is a bit rich considering you don't want to even bother watching what I based my post on and then you accuse me of not explaining myself.

And you need only go onto IMDB forums and read general ratings/reviews of the movie to see that Nolan movies are judged on a different level to others. Most people are simply unaware of their own prejudices and think that because they have written what they think that its objective, well that's not really accurate.

GBXI

paulieeye wrote: »

Its almost as if sci fi fans enjoyed it and non sci fi fans didnt...interesting...

Ah in fairness, and I know you're being smart about it, but that's it. I'm not an out-and-out sci-fi fan and that's more than likely why I didn't enjoy it and sci-fi fans did. But I don't have an issue with sci-fi as an idea/genre, that's why I went in the first place and I'd like to enjoy a sci-fi film. It's just nearly every sci-fi film I've seen has a ridiculous plot and abandons what I would consider critical story-telling aspects, i.e. emotional interest, interesting characters, believable story (to an extent), in favour of over-the-top cinematography and imagery.

Drumpot

paulieeye wrote: »

Its almost as if sci fi fans enjoyed it and non sci fi fans didnt...interesting...

I don't necessarily have a hatred for movies I don't enjoy. Some people do have a distinct hatred for certain movies/actors that doesn't allow them to properly judge a performance/movie on its own merits.

Some people get a bee in their bonnet if they think 200million budget meant a movie should of been better and would judge a similarly entertaining movie on a lower standard. I don't see how that is objective. Surely movies should be judged on their entertainment value? If you were given 10 movies to watch without any information about the movies, actors or cost of the movie, you could realistically give a more grounded review of them, irrespective of what kind of movies you like.

The internet allows the egotistical side of human nature to be horribly enhanced, so much so that people think because they think something, it must be a fair analysis of a topic. In truth, most people don't realise how bias that they are for/against certain things. I don't exempt myself from that (I am human after all).

PhiloCypher

paulieeye wrote: »

Its almost as if sci fi fans enjoyed it and non sci fi fans didnt...interesting...

So I guess I must be one of those outliers then because I'm a sci fi nut who doesn't think it's the best thing since sliced bread..... Interesting.

Ole Rodrigo

Drumpot wrote: »

I link a documentary titled "is everything we know about the universe all wrong" and you are asking me to summarise the programme?:rolleyes:

I have given you the opportunity to watch the programme. You suggesting I made a lazy generalisation is a bit rich considering you don't want to even bother watching what I based my post on and then you accuse me of not explaining myself.

And you need only go onto IMDB forums and read general ratings/reviews of the movie to see that Nolan movies are judged on a different level to others. Most people are simply unaware of their own prejudices and think that because they have written what they think that its objective, well that's not really accurate.

FWIW, I saw the documentary when it was first broadcast. I'm interested to know whats in that you think supports your point. You can discuss what you have linked to, right ?

orubiru

GBXI wrote: »

Ah in fairness, and I know you're being smart about it, but that's it. I'm not an out-and-out sci-fi fan and that's more than likely why I didn't enjoy it and sci-fi fans did. But I don't have an issue with sci-fi as an idea/genre, that's why I went in the first place and I'd like to enjoy a sci-fi film. It's just nearly every sci-fi film I've seen has a ridiculous plot and abandons what I would consider critical story-telling aspects, i.e. emotional interest, interesting characters, believable story (to an extent), in favour of over-the-top cinematography and imagery.

I would suggest that what's maybe happening is that the Sci-Fi elements are distracting you from the emotional interest and the characters etc?

Plenty of Sci-Fi has great emotional and character driven story behind it. I'd throw Blade Runner out there as a prime example. Her would maybe be a good recent example.

I can definitely understand your point of view though. Elements like the music and the imagery in this film DO distract from the characters story and they can be overwhelming at times.

Personally, I felt that the soundtrack on this film was quite intrusive at times. I can see why some folks would feel the same way about the visual effects or the need to go from discussion about the future of humanity to a full on action sequence.

paulieeye

PhiloCypher wrote: »

So I guess I must be one of those outliers then because I'm a sci fi nut who doesn't think it's the best thing since sliced bread..... Interesting.

That is interesting. You must not be a real sci fi fan....(runs for cover)

GBXI

orubiru wrote: »

I don't particularly like to be seen as "defending" a movie but, here we go.

The film pretty much has positive reviews from both critics and audiences. Critic reviews are averaging 7/10 and audience reviews are averaging 8 to 9 out of 10.

On Metacritic there are 46 critic reviews (35 positive, 10 mixed, 1 bad) and 76% of those are positive. They have 210 audience reviews (169 positive, 22 mixed, 19 bad) so that's 80% positive.

Only 3% of critics are giving the movie a bad review and only 9% of audience reviews are bad.

So, I'd reckon that around three quarters of the people at your screening would have thought quite highly of the movie with the other 25% having a mixed to bad reaction?

That seems to be reflected on here too.

I dunno, I guess since you've posted you actually are interested in why other folks liked the film.

I can definitely agree about the length, 169 minutes is quote long and we definitely have some "drag" but that's a problem in many films.

What was it specifically about the plot and story that you thought was ridiculous or not good?

What movies do you generally like? What would you recommend instead of this movie?

Exactly, it seems to be a critical and commercial success but (and maybe it's the people I hang around with) not many have given it the praise it's getting everywhere else.

Anyway, I didn't like the idea that we were just supposed to accept the idea that the world as we know it was coming to an end, the lack of character development (and I know that's very hard when your movie is essentially abut space travel), that they could travel from in a spaceship for light-years and the thing doesn't burn up or have many major issues, and the very Hollywood ending. But I suppose when we know so little about space travel then you can get away with a lot of "artistic license".

What I generally like is varied, but good thrillers are a favorite. The best I've seen recently have been Nightcrawler, Gone Girl, Prisoners, Dallas Buyers Club. Of what's in the cinema at the minute, I'd recommend Nightcrawler and I'm looking forward to seeing Foxcather.

johnny_ultimate

Can we please lay off with the ludicrous generalised insults and dismissals against everyone who disagrees with you? We have a charter rule against it because we have seen time and time again what a toxic influence it has on discussion. Discuss the film, not the people who liked or dislike it. We'll have to come down harder on anymore examples we see throughout the thread.

It's an exercise in futility trying to pigeonhole everybody into binary 'they liked it because...' categories. As this thread indicates, there is a huge amount of reasons why people had the response they did. Some people liked it, some people did not, some were on the fence - it's really as simple as that (albeit for complicated reasons).

Dan_Solo

FortuneChip wrote: »

I don't let ratings on websites dictate too much, but I can't make sense of this argument.

It has a high rating on IMDB.
A lot of people on Boards gave it a good rating.
The screening you were at didn't give it a good rating.

If anything, doesn't that suggest that the screening you were at isn't a good sub-sector of what the rest of the world is like?
Now to be fair, it looks about 60:40 in favour of positive on here.

Wouldn't that depend on whether the average movie goer is more "random" than the average IMDB and boards.ie user? No idea myself, but I'd guess yes.

Drumpot

ror_74 wrote: »

Can you explain yourself rather than linking to somebody elses hour long explanation, which may or may not have anything to do with what you're trying to say ?
.

ror_74 wrote: »

FWIW, I saw the documentary when it was first broadcast. I'm interested to know whats in that you think supports your point. You can discuss what you have linked to, right ?

Hmm . .


So now you have actually seen the documentary, only a cynic would think you are just making this up as you go along (cue you quoting a part of the programme you have just watched). You didn't feel it was important to raise your own views on the documentary before?


If you had actually watched it and understood it, you would understand why its relevant. .


Ok:

• People are arguing about scientific issues they have with the film in relation to universal wonders that we can only theorize about, not factually, accurately , completely understand.
• I post a link to a documentary that's titled "Is everything we know about the universe all wrong" and you think a documentary with this name needs to be explained in the context of the point?

People are arguing about scientific theories as if they are fact and dissecting a movie using unproven (if not accepted) theories to validate their views . . Our knowledge of the universe is extremely limited and mostly theoretical. Even the big bang is best guess and along with the inflation theory , it relies on a lot of unknown/unexplainable factors invented to make it work (like dark matter).



But of course, you knew all that because you watched the documentary . . Right ? :pac:

eviltimeban

Responding to a couple of points made.

In relation to the predictability of the plot, especially around the "ghost" reveal, I had NO idea what was going to happen at that point. When he went into the black hole and the tesseract was forming around him, I literally could not predict what was going to happen. And I'm normally fairly good at that. I thought he was going into some kind of alien space ship or something, and really, I was expecting a "respawn", where he'd go back in time to when his kids were young again, but he'd somehow know how to fix things on earth / get them off earth / or whatever. So points for that.

As for on the spot reviews, I also went to the cinema by myself to see it. I had no one to talk about it on the walk out, so I could hear the reactions around me. Mostly they were "wow" and "wasn't expecting that!" and emotional responses. There was a guy sitting beside me, who throughout all the previews and ads was making smart comments, cynical and sarcastic observations, and I was thinking "here we go". By the end he was blubbing, absolutely in tears.

Ole Rodrigo

Drumpot wrote: »

Hmm . .


So now you have actually seen the documentary, only a cynic would think you are just making this up as you go along (cue you quoting a part of the programme you have just watched). You didn't feel it was important to raise your own views on the documentary before?


If you had actually watched it and understood it, you would understand why its relevant. .


Ok:

• People are arguing about scientific issues they have with the film in relation to universal wonders that we can only theorize about, not factually, accurately , completely understand.
• I post a link to a documentary that's titled "Is everything we know about the universe all wrong" and you think a documentary with this name needs to be explained in the context of the point?

People are arguing about scientific theories as if they are fact and dissecting a movie using unproven (if not accepted) theories to validate their views . . Our knowledge of the universe is extremely limited and mostly theoretical. Even the big bang is best guess and along with the inflation theory , it relies on a lot of unknown/unexplainable factors invented to make it work (like dark matter).



But of course, you knew all that because you watched the documentary . . Right ? :pac:

With all due respect that reads as gibberish so lets just leave it.

the_monkey

Shiraz 4.99 wrote: »

I went on my own cause the missus didn't want to see it.
She asked me what it was about, I tried to tell her but couldn't even start the sentence, nothing I said would do justice to the scale of this movie.
.

I was worried my wife wouldn't like it, normally she's not into Sci Fi ,
She hated 2001, hated Moon - can't stand the Alien films etc ...

She calls me a nerd for liking them ...

She just came along I think for the night off - anyway she ended up enjoying it more then me, and that I think is a sign of a f*cking A+ film,
getting people outside your usual audience to like it .

eviltimeban

the_monkey wrote: »

- anyway she ended up enjoying it more then me, and that I think is a sign of a f*cking A+ film,
getting people outside your usual audience to like it .

And Matthew McConaughey didn't even take his shirt off...

Roquentin

eviltimeban wrote: »

And Matthew McConaughey didn't even take his shirt off...

he didnt even say mass:pac:

the_monkey

Actually this is how I knew he was in Interstellar, I heard the rumour but at 23s he says he just worked with MMC so ... that was it - glad actually cos when he did turn up he wasn't a distraction ..

Andersonisgod

Saw it this evening and loved it, infact I'd say it's the best blockbuster I've seen in years. The sheer scale of the movie can only be marvled at, the epic Hans Zimmer score, the pitch perfect performances, I sat there for almost 3 hours in amazement and it was only afterwards I had realized 3 hours had passed by and not once had I been bored or considered the time (ironic given the subject matter of the movie.) Nolan is a director whose work I would actively seek out, I'm not sure anybody in cinema today does epic quite like him. An incredible feast for the eyes and dammit by the final act my heartstrings were being tugged aggressively. Just incredible.

tunguska

Andersonisgod wrote: »

Saw it this evening and loved it, infact I'd say it's the best blockbuster I've seen in years. The sheer scale of the movie can only be marvled at, the epic Hans Zimmer score, the pitch perfect performances, I sat there for almost 3 hours in amazement and it was only afterwards I had realized 3 hours had passed by and not once had I been bored or considered the time (ironic given the subject matter of the movie.) Nolan is a director whose work I would actively seek out, I'm not sure anybody in cinema today does epic quite like him. An incredible feast for the eyes and dammit by the final act my heartstrings were being tugged aggressively. Just incredible.

+1
I think Nolan is one of the few directors who have culitvated their own unique style. Honestly I couldve sat through more, didnt want it to end. Best film Ive seen in years.

Hrududu

Saw this today. Some of it was terrific, it looked amazing and I was engaged throughout. I had no idea Matt Damon was in it and thought it was a really interesting way to go.

But some stuff made no sense and I'm struggling to get to grips with a few things:

1. So Cooper sends the Morse code to Murph and she uses this to solve the equation allowing them to move masses of humans. But was the whole point not to send all the humans to a habitable planet? Because there was no mention of them sending anyone to Planet Hathaway. They all seemed to be living on stations. If they did inhabit a planet its odd that this wouldn't be mentioned in the film.

2. They're all living on stations playing baseball etc. But what are they eating? The Earth was dying so did they also come up with a way to grow food on these stations?

3. Murph tells Cooper that nobody believes her about him contacting her from within the black hole. But he surmises that humans eventually evolve to be able to set up the wormhole and the tesseract specifically so that he can communicate with his daughter and save mankind. But if nobody believes Murph then why would humans in the future set this up?

4. I don't understand the thing with Hathaway at the end at all. So while they slingshot around the blackhole 60 or so years pass in real time. She heads off to the last planet and somehow Cooper is transported back to Saturn. The humans never went to the planet so Cooper heads off to stop her being alone. Couldn't he just tell them that she's there and they can launch a mission to rescue her? And again why did they never go to check out those planets themselves since they clearly have the technology now. And is the wormhole still there or did that disappear along with the tesseract? If its not there then how is he going to get there?

5. How was Plan B going to work? Caine knew Plan A was never going to work, that Plan B was the only option. Were they going to grow the embryos to term without any wombs? Was Hathaway supposed to give birth to them? If so there's only so many babies she can have. And at that they'll all be siblings. And that's also banking on Hathaway surviving long enough to do that.

It sounds like I hated it but for the most part I really liked it. Its just the last 15 minutes or so had me sitting there thinking "That makes no sense." Its one of those films that I'd recommend and also say "Just don't think about it. It falls apart if you do."

catallus

I liked the part when the spaceship blew up.

Barlett

Enjoyed it with some excellent ideas...but thought the Damon piece was disappointing...so many space movies seem to go down the road of one guy wants to sabotage things. But very enjoyable

PhiloCypher

Hrududu wrote: »

5. How was Plan B going to work? Caine knew Plan A was never going to work, that Plan B was the only option. Were they going to grow the embryos to term without any wombs? Was Hathaway supposed to give birth to them? If so there's only so many babies she can have. And at that they'll all be siblings . And that's also banking on Hathaway surviving long enough to do that.

They won't be siblings as her womb will merely be an incubator for an already fertilised egg/embryo.

jcsoulinger

On the plan B thing, ya think it would have been a good idea to send more women scientists possibly some one who's hips are a little more childbearing than Hathaways. ;-)

brianregan09

Barlett wrote: »

Enjoyed it with some excellent ideas...but thought the Damon piece was disappointing...so many space movies seem to go down the road of one guy wants to sabotage things. But very enjoyable

This ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^if they had took his involvement out it would have been an easy 10/10 for me , but not just his role but the whole re attaching part , Jesus would he not have known he was going to make **** of the whole thing by half attaching surely he knew how all that stuff worked too ?? It was just lazy i think

MJ23

Saw this tonight. Spectacular movie.
Still processing everything. MMC is brilliant, some turnaround he has made in last few year with DBC, True Detective and now this. Thankfully all those stupid rom-coms he was in are now in the past.

FlyingIrishMan

Saw it again tonight. Sitting through the starting scenes when they're on earth was slightly boring the second time around, but as soon as the countdown began I wasn't even a little bored.

The whole explosion, and docking sequence was even better the second time around.

The sound was a lot better this time too, we were in a different screen and they even stopped the showing in the screen I was in last time due to technical difficulties, guessing the speakers blew.

My only gripe with the film now is the way in which Murph came to realise that the ghost was her father. The first time around I just assumed I missed something, but I looked out for that specifically when it came up and there was no connection really.
I would have accepted her just realising it was somebody trying to communicate with her and give her the codes, but the jump to it being her father wasn't there.
I'll let it slide though, it doesn't ruin a fantastic movie. Definitely my favorite of the year, probably of the last few years. Probably going to see it once or twice more before it goes, don't think it'll be as good on the small screen. Anybody on the fence about it, I highly recommend watching it in the cinema.