Christopher Nolan - Interstellar
Discussion
JustinP1 said:
Something I find very interesting:
Every great film, ever: That film was great because the acting was great, the story was great, the effects were great and it really made me think.
Interstellar: If you really think about one of these facets of the film, it may or may may not be real or possible, so it's s
t.
Maybe we should start a thread where other films end up with the same level of scrutiny:
Shawshank Redemption: If the prison wall wore away, then so would the utensil he did it with! st!
Star Wars: There's no way that Han Solo can decipher Chewbacca's grunts! wk!
The Matrix: So all these people go into the Matrix to do running and shooting, so why do they all actively choose to wear full length leather coats!!? Poor script!
Gladiator: When you die, you don't see stuff, it's just black! That last scene where he sees his wife is just so unbelievable! Ruined!
Indiana Jones: So the burning spirits come out of the Ark and melt all the Nazis and Indy gets saved by his eyelids being closed! Rubbish! And the Ark doesn't exist!
Were you not entertained?!Every great film, ever: That film was great because the acting was great, the story was great, the effects were great and it really made me think.
Interstellar: If you really think about one of these facets of the film, it may or may may not be real or possible, so it's s
t.Maybe we should start a thread where other films end up with the same level of scrutiny:
Shawshank Redemption: If the prison wall wore away, then so would the utensil he did it with! s
t!Star Wars: There's no way that Han Solo can decipher Chewbacca's grunts! w
k!The Matrix: So all these people go into the Matrix to do running and shooting, so why do they all actively choose to wear full length leather coats!!? Poor script!
Gladiator: When you die, you don't see stuff, it's just black! That last scene where he sees his wife is just so unbelievable! Ruined!
Indiana Jones: So the burning spirits come out of the Ark and melt all the Nazis and Indy gets saved by his eyelids being closed! Rubbish! And the Ark doesn't exist!
Interesting that a number of people commented on the sound levels.
None of this is helped by Matthew McConaughey's drawl, which I tend to find irritating anyway, but throughout the film the music builds to such a crescendo that the vocal track can't be heard.
When I came out of the auditorium I spoke to the manager who checked it (it was on in another screen and they were at the Waterworld point of the film) and gave me a free ticket. Sweet.
But from the comments it sounds like the film makers are at fault rather than individual cinemas.
None of this is helped by Matthew McConaughey's drawl, which I tend to find irritating anyway, but throughout the film the music builds to such a crescendo that the vocal track can't be heard.
When I came out of the auditorium I spoke to the manager who checked it (it was on in another screen and they were at the Waterworld point of the film) and gave me a free ticket. Sweet.
But from the comments it sounds like the film makers are at fault rather than individual cinemas.
Sound wasn't brilliant at my cinema but then it sounded st during the ads and previews. Not dissimilar to a giant transistor radio from the 70s.
Many times the sound and the vision have been below par at my local Cineworld but then it appears to be run by work experience kids. What can I expect.
As I said before, I did like the film and look forward to seeing it again on my basic telly and sound set up at home.
t during the ads and previews. Not dissimilar to a giant transistor radio from the 70s.Many times the sound and the vision have been below par at my local Cineworld but then it appears to be run by work experience kids. What can I expect.
As I said before, I did like the film and look forward to seeing it again on my basic telly and sound set up at home.
Here's what I don't understand.
Nolan has a unique style which everybody now knows, Inception being the culmination of that style.
Likewise most people by have an inkling that Interstellar is a typical Nolan film before entering the cinema.
So to the haters - what did you expect? It hit just about every mark a Nolan film can hit both positive and negative.
If I didn't like Peter Jackson's offerings (say Lord Of The Rings) I wouldn't go and see The Hobbit and certainly not one that is being reviewed just about everywhere as typical of his output.
Yes, all directors can have stinkers, but that isn't this film - indeed its almost exactly what you'd expect from him.
Nolan has a unique style which everybody now knows, Inception being the culmination of that style.
Likewise most people by have an inkling that Interstellar is a typical Nolan film before entering the cinema.
So to the haters - what did you expect? It hit just about every mark a Nolan film can hit both positive and negative.
If I didn't like Peter Jackson's offerings (say Lord Of The Rings) I wouldn't go and see The Hobbit and certainly not one that is being reviewed just about everywhere as typical of his output.
Yes, all directors can have stinkers, but that isn't this film - indeed its almost exactly what you'd expect from him.
I've had some time to think about it now, so will have another go. The more I think about it, the more it loses its shine.
It's a bit confirmation bias, but moaned about on here: the comment about the pedestrian photography strikes a chord - not whether the scenes were impressive as such, but the really conventional and sometimes lazy way they were shot. Gravity did much better on that front, although maybe it's a bit of a high target to call out every film against. It's in fking space, and all we get are a few shots and a quick remark about how there's millimetres between them and nothing, like the overall affair is wholly unremarkable.
The best legacy of the film is the bits it leaves you to imagine for yourself, except it's soured by the fact that a lot of that stuff is excuse-making to cover the plot issues. I can happily ignore large chunks of it, like all the unexplained stuff about the situation on Earth, or those bloody robots, but the paradox is a great big problem that won't go away. I'm not going to go into that again - it is what it is.
It grates that they go into specific details and make them plot-centric, like the 23 years, and then trash that by completely overlooking it in others, e.g:
How many years added on after going through the black hole, FFS? And while we're at it, st like who builds a rocket next to their fking boardroom?
Overall, suspension of disbelief becomes quite difficult.
The characters are passable but shallow. McConnaughey is neither good nor appropriate. Don't even get started about Michael Caine. I don't really know what the point of Hathaway is; I can't remember anything she did except that bit about the choice. Answer me this: what meaningful, serious human interactions can you recall from this film? That's what I mean about it fading on review. Now you can say that doesn't matter, and if it was a film primarily about disaster, or the amazing nature of the universe, or whatever else, then fine, but when it tries to be a film about people, it can't do it with completely 2D (ho ho ho) specimens.
Overall I felt it was a film that was preaching to the choir: people that go to see it wilfully wanting to like it probably will, or people who enjoy and are looking for mindless disaster-movie-on-rails type stuff, but people going with vague expectations or in the hope of some Gravity-esque show and tell piece about space (and don't get me wrong, Gravity wasn't perfect) may not get on with it. I don't know if I'm I able to say it felt like a film for idiots without being a snob, but that's how I feel. It's like the emperor's new Armageddon.
As for that last comment about Nolan, I don't really know his films. I do know I liked Inception a lot, and it bears rewatching. I think that was just a better yarn, and maybe pointing in a different direction as regards whether the people in it really mattered. It also had a much more capable cast.
It's a bit confirmation bias, but moaned about on here: the comment about the pedestrian photography strikes a chord - not whether the scenes were impressive as such, but the really conventional and sometimes lazy way they were shot. Gravity did much better on that front, although maybe it's a bit of a high target to call out every film against. It's in f
king space, and all we get are a few shots and a quick remark about how there's millimetres between them and nothing, like the overall affair is wholly unremarkable.The best legacy of the film is the bits it leaves you to imagine for yourself, except it's soured by the fact that a lot of that stuff is excuse-making to cover the plot issues. I can happily ignore large chunks of it, like all the unexplained stuff about the situation on Earth, or those bloody robots, but the paradox is a great big problem that won't go away. I'm not going to go into that again - it is what it is.
It grates that they go into specific details and make them plot-centric, like the 23 years, and then trash that by completely overlooking it in others, e.g:
How many years added on after going through the black hole, FFS? And while we're at it, s
t like who builds a rocket next to their fking boardroom?Overall, suspension of disbelief becomes quite difficult.
The characters are passable but shallow. McConnaughey is neither good nor appropriate. Don't even get started about Michael Caine. I don't really know what the point of Hathaway is; I can't remember anything she did except that bit about the choice. Answer me this: what meaningful, serious human interactions can you recall from this film? That's what I mean about it fading on review. Now you can say that doesn't matter, and if it was a film primarily about disaster, or the amazing nature of the universe, or whatever else, then fine, but when it tries to be a film about people, it can't do it with completely 2D (ho ho ho) specimens.
Overall I felt it was a film that was preaching to the choir: people that go to see it wilfully wanting to like it probably will, or people who enjoy and are looking for mindless disaster-movie-on-rails type stuff, but people going with vague expectations or in the hope of some Gravity-esque show and tell piece about space (and don't get me wrong, Gravity wasn't perfect) may not get on with it. I don't know if I'm I able to say it felt like a film for idiots without being a snob, but that's how I feel. It's like the emperor's new Armageddon.
As for that last comment about Nolan, I don't really know his films. I do know I liked Inception a lot, and it bears rewatching. I think that was just a better yarn, and maybe pointing in a different direction as regards whether the people in it really mattered. It also had a much more capable cast.
trashbat said:
Answer me this: what meaningful, serious human interactions can you recall from this film?
The whole interaction between Cooper and his daughter.... the massive underlying storline. I recall that very strongly.Hathaway though...no depth there...
Caine? meh
This was (especially)McConaughey and Chastain/Foy's film.
Funkycoldribena said:
Hated Inception but quite like the look of this...can I put myself through 3 hours?
Judging by your first 2 words I'd give Interstellar a miss.I've seen the film described as Inception meets 2001 and I'd agree with that, it's certainly a 'Nolanized' version of that iconic film (a 2001 for the 21st century) - something he admits he used as his inspiration himself. Whether its as good as 2001 is an entirely different matter.
Certainly Interstellar is 'layered' just as Inception was and the layering is Time.
If you truly 'hated' Inception then I'm assuming both the content and the style grated. I'd save yourself the time and money and not bother with this.
If I were to level a consistent criticism at Christopher Nolan it is that he doesn't direct his casts very well in terms of chemistry. Interstellar has the feel of actors reciting perfunctorily from a script at times. Of course, this is what they are doing, but I feel if Speilberg were directing for example, it would have a whole different dimension (soz) to the interplay.
Agoogy said:
The whole interaction between Cooper and his daughter.... the massive underlying storline. I recall that very strongly.
I'm probably being unfair but what I recall is a fairly run-of-the-mill, limited depth bit at the start where the characters are introduced, and once that's done, he sods off into space with her running after a trail of dust. Off to explore space but no depth of exploration of what it means for his family. Is that the end of his relationship with his son, by the way? And then there are some one-way videos, whereby noone really has to actually communicate, and then there's the end which amounts to, 'oh hi, nice to see you again, you should be off now, see ya'. Meh.trashbat said:
Agoogy said:
The whole interaction between Cooper and his daughter.... the massive underlying storline. I recall that very strongly.
I'm probably being unfair but what I recall is a fairly run-of-the-mill, limited depth bit at the start where the characters are introduced, and once that's done, he sods off into space with her running after a trail of dust. Off to explore space but no depth of exploration of what it means for his family. Is that the end of his relationship with his son, by the way? And then there are some one-way videos, whereby noone really has to actually communicate, and then there's the end which amounts to, 'oh hi, nice to see you again, you should be off now, see ya'. Meh.Quite why old'Murph dismisses her dad so quickly at the end is odd...but up to that point, very strong relationship stuff.
garyhun said:
I do chuckle at people's desire to pick apart every inconsistency, technical gaff or plot weakness. It's almost like you need to not enjoy it 
I left real life at the door to Screen 5 yesterday, gave Nolan a little slack and really njoyed the film.
Try it, you might like it!
I think I'm in the same camp as you chap.I left real life at the door to Screen 5 yesterday, gave Nolan a little slack and really njoyed the film.
Try it, you might like it!
I paid £3 per hour to watch this at local Cineworld. In terms of entertainment it was great VFM for me personally
I didn't perceive it as a documentary, just as I didn't perceive Inception or Hunger Games etc in that way
It was just 3 hours of entertainment - I enjoy the cinema
s m said:
garyhun said:
I do chuckle at people's desire to pick apart every inconsistency, technical gaff or plot weakness. It's almost like you need to not enjoy it
I left real life at the door to Screen 5 yesterday, gave Nolan a little slack and really njoyed the film.
Try it, you might like it!
I think I'm in the same camp as you chap.I left real life at the door to Screen 5 yesterday, gave Nolan a little slack and really njoyed the film.
Try it, you might like it!
I paid £3 per hour to watch this at local Cineworld. In terms of entertainment it was great VFM for me personally
I didn't perceive it as a documentary, just as I didn't perceive Inception or Hunger Games etc in that way
It was just 3 hours of entertainment - I enjoy the cinema
It's not like it's being offered up to Prof Stevey Hawkins as 'the answer' is it...
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff