Harvey Dent, he's the emotional center of the entire flick. A little of Bruce too, but only in relation to Harvey's arc.
Interstellar | SPOILERS! | Keep out unless you've seen it
- Thread starter okLaptop1
- Start date
Harvey Dent, he's the emotional center of the entire flick. A little of Bruce too, but only in relation to Harvey's arc.
Also ye gods the over explaining of everything in Interstellar.
That's fair enough if it worked for you but I wouldn't have found enough focus on Dent to connect to him and the conclusion of his arc suffers from being after the functional climax.
The functional climax to me is Harvey taking Gordon's kids, and while the dialogue during the confrontation spells things out a little too much, it's still a fitting end to the fall of Harvey. I found they devoted plenty of time to Harvey's story too, but again that's just differing opinions.
A sense of hyper criticism in this thread.
To be fair that comes with the territory. If this was Apatow or Ratnor I doubt there'd be much criticism given the relative expectations of audiences. But this director is widely being hailed as some sort of cinematographic messiah, the greatest of his generation and the spiritual heir to Kubrick among other superlatives. Yet the overall product is regressing since arguably, the zenith of The Prestige and The Dark Knight and he is reduced to recycling old concepts. eg. This movie was a blend of a generic space sci fi + Steins; Gate with enhanced visual appeal.
I think I'd dig Nolan movies more if he was more like Kubrick, if he was more detached from his characters, but since he's making movies for wide audiences they all try to be grounded in personal relationships (Cobb and his wife, Coop and his daughter etc) but I don't think that's where his talent lies. He makes Kubrick movies for Spielberg audiences.
Comparisons to Kubrick were always unfair as Nolan's work has never been anywhere near that class (which isn't an insult considering how good Kubrick was).
Still though, Nolan has established himself as an major figure in current day cinema so extreme reactions to his films are to be expected really.
In all honesty you really can't expect anything more from Nolan than he actually delivers. He makes blockbusters that, while flawed, at least have some level of thought and craft put into them. Expecting amazing depth, perfectly drawn characters or major artistic achievement from this sort of movie is a bit much.
Still though, Nolan has established himself as an major figure in current day cinema so extreme reactions to his films are to be expected really.
In all honesty you really can't expect anything more from Nolan than he actually delivers. He makes blockbusters that, while flawed, at least have some level of thought and craft put into them. Expecting amazing depth, perfectly drawn characters or major artistic achievement from this sort of movie is a bit much.
And there is the problem, don't have unnecessary expectations. It is a function of gimmicky marketing to hype beyond what's necessary. And its equally fashionable to to be overly critical of things which are popular because one is perceived to be smart when he/she is mean.
Yup, that just about sums it up. All this Warner Brother franchise shtick will undoubtedly make him more popular and unbelievably wealthy. But he'd have a superior, more lasting legacy making niche cinema and catering to a smaller, more discerning audience.
Obviously he's never going to do that (and why would he, people love his movies and he owns a solid gold house) but he could at least tighten his writing up. McConnaughey discovers NASA have a secret mission and 10 minutes later he's the only man for the job? Lucky he found you Michael Caine or you'd have been fecked!
Isn't he retiring now ?
I really don't have unnecessary expectations fwiw. Just illustrating the prevalent narrative regarding Nolan.
Last edited:
Can't connect with emotionally?
I had people sniffing with tears in their eyes watching Interstella.
A few others have said the same.
Geez, some people can't be happy at times..
It's a fine movie, it's the scarriest movie I've seen in a while, imagine being trapped in that 5th dimension in eternity
It's a fine movie, it's the scarriest movie I've seen in a while, imagine being trapped in that 5th dimension in eternity
Really enjoyed it as a spectacle although the story isn't the greatest ever. Feels like you're in one of those virtual reality things at times with the spaceship.
It peaks in the middle when they seem to be realistic about the dangers involved with space travel, then it gets a bit outrageous towards the end when they seemingly decide feck it, the spaceship can do everything and is invincible.
I found the scene where Coop
I just don't see how you can say it was a cold or unemotional movie.
Looked at the video from his family and they'd all grown up and he broke down in tears quite emotional.
I just don't see how you can say it was a cold or unemotional movie.
I've come in here for a rational opinion before deciding whether to tag along and see this.
We've got some people claiming it's unemotional drivel and others claiming they could "hear the tears" of other people in the cinema (I mean, seriously?)
One person claims it's a generic rip off sci-fi, the next thinks it's an intellectually deep blockbuster.
I'm expecting something somewhere in the middle which would validate my theory that none of you are to be trusted about anything.
We've got some people claiming it's unemotional drivel and others claiming they could "hear the tears" of other people in the cinema (I mean, seriously?)
One person claims it's a generic rip off sci-fi, the next thinks it's an intellectually deep blockbuster.
I'm expecting something somewhere in the middle which would validate my theory that none of you are to be trusted about anything.
Kermode liked it: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b04p2880/the-film-review-07112014
I'd say the going opinion is that it's not his best film but if you're a fan of his others, you'll like it despite some moments that'll cause an eye-narrowing or two. If Nolan films annoy you, best stay away.
I'd say the going opinion is that it's not his best film but if you're a fan of his others, you'll like it despite some moments that'll cause an eye-narrowing or two. If Nolan films annoy you, best stay away.
This. Jesus it almost brought me to tears and I've never cried at a film. I thought it was a fantastic film for the record. Unfortunately I watched it with a couple of cousins who said it was garbage only to rush back for the X Factor.
should have gone with my old manYeah I was holding them back a little at that bit.This. Jesus it almost brought me to tears and I've never cried at a film. I thought it was a fantastic film for the record. Unfortunately I watched it with a couple of cousins who said it was garbage only to rush back for the X Factor.
This. Jesus it almost brought me to tears and I've never cried at a film. I thought it was a fantastic film for the record. Unfortunately I watched it with a couple of cousins who said it was garbage only to rush back for the X Factor.
Crap I'm done for then. I cried when I watched Wall-E for fecks sake.
Just watched it. My short review:
Like all Nolan's movies, it looks fantastic. In fact, I would say that visualy looks better than any of Nolan's movies (which is a pretty big thing). The acting from the main actors McConaughey, Chastain and Hathaway is very good (especially from McConaughey who is one of the best actors in the world). The idea of the movie isn't revolutionary, but is interesting. The movie is emotional on many parts, which was good considering that since Prestige I found Nolan's movies very cold. And lastly, the music is really good. Hans Zimmer is the best when it comes to this.
Now the negative part. A big part of the movie is a shitload of nonsense. While on Inception, you needed two hours after the movie to realize that, here you realize it instantly. Really some parts are just stupid. It has all kind of cliches, and it is extremely predictable. You can see the influences of 2001 and Tarkovsky movies, but it hasn't been implemented that well. I also found a scene very similar to Armagedon. Also, why on Earth they needed to put an antagonist on the movie? Similarily to Prometheus, it was completely stupid.
To conclude, it is a decent movie, a lot of fun but ultimatelly nonsense, lot of cliches, predictable and non-revolutionary (like it was hyped to be). Would say that it is somewhere between The Dark Knight Rises and Inception/Batman Begins (on quality) and far below the likes of Memento, The Dark Knight and The Prestige.
Like all Nolan's movies, it looks fantastic. In fact, I would say that visualy looks better than any of Nolan's movies (which is a pretty big thing). The acting from the main actors McConaughey, Chastain and Hathaway is very good (especially from McConaughey who is one of the best actors in the world). The idea of the movie isn't revolutionary, but is interesting. The movie is emotional on many parts, which was good considering that since Prestige I found Nolan's movies very cold. And lastly, the music is really good. Hans Zimmer is the best when it comes to this.
Now the negative part. A big part of the movie is a shitload of nonsense. While on Inception, you needed two hours after the movie to realize that, here you realize it instantly. Really some parts are just stupid. It has all kind of cliches, and it is extremely predictable. You can see the influences of 2001 and Tarkovsky movies, but it hasn't been implemented that well. I also found a scene very similar to Armagedon. Also, why on Earth they needed to put an antagonist on the movie? Similarily to Prometheus, it was completely stupid.
To conclude, it is a decent movie, a lot of fun but ultimatelly nonsense, lot of cliches, predictable and non-revolutionary (like it was hyped to be). Would say that it is somewhere between The Dark Knight Rises and Inception/Batman Begins (on quality) and far below the likes of Memento, The Dark Knight and The Prestige.
Christopher Nolan summed up perfectly.
Just saw it, really liked it. The visuals were incredible, the story was good (not great but decent), Zimmer knocked it out of the park, the performances from the actors were great, and there were quite a few scenes where I felt genuine emotion. I didn't hear people crying in my cinema but there were a lot of tears around the theater in a few scenes.
I'll have to think about it a bit (and maybe watch it again on DVD) before I could properly compare it to other Nolan films, but to me it's just under The Dark Knight and The Prestige, but better than Inception.
I'll have to think about it a bit (and maybe watch it again on DVD) before I could properly compare it to other Nolan films, but to me it's just under The Dark Knight and The Prestige, but better than Inception.
Not seen it yet, but the 2008 draft script sounds like it was very different to what's been released. Which is a shame because i found that script quite good.
Why would people bother to read the script before actually seeing the movie? I mean, isn't it kinda ruins everything?
Because it's just draft version. It's like reading online review, you get the main idea but at the same time you have no idea. Movie screenplay isn't like novel.
Anyway I don't like the old script, the second act is so over the top. I'm glad that they changed it.
Saw it yesterday and I enjoyed it. As many others have said it has absolutely stunning visuals and an okay story. The acting was great, and the lot was interesting for me. I don't know all that much about quantum physics, so I can't point out the obvious flaws that I'm sure are there. I agree with the idea that the antagonist was unnecessary. I want my dad to watch this move and explain it to me since he's an astrophysicist.
Watching it tonight. Hope it is worth it.
Anyone else seen it in an imax? On the way now, should be excellent.
Watched it in imax today, some of the visuals are mind blowing, worth the extra price.
Jsut got back from it, loved it. It looks fantastic and all the actors are great, McConaughey especially who brings a lot of emotion to it all. Felt Chastain's character was a bit under-utilized but I think that's just cos I love Chastain, don't really see what more they could've done with her. Also, Zimmer's score was spot on, once again.
I've read here and there that it was 'utter nonsense' or whatever, but I read an interview by a physicist who'd assisted the Nolans in writing the script, basically what he was saying is that it wasn't necessary bollocks, you just couldn't know and they used their artistic license to basically fill in the holes where science hasn't yet given any answers. And that's what I want from a sci-fi. I thought it was pretty engaging from that point of view, though I understand totally why people might hate it or call it utter nonsense, I just thought it had the courage to run with its concept.
Anyway, I thought it was pretty enthralling, especially for someone like me who is fascinated by space travel (my wife isn't at all, so she wasn't that enthused), and yeah it's really gorgeous to look at. Thought it managed to capture the 'lost in space' feeling very well.
I've read here and there that it was 'utter nonsense' or whatever, but I read an interview by a physicist who'd assisted the Nolans in writing the script, basically what he was saying is that it wasn't necessary bollocks, you just couldn't know and they used their artistic license to basically fill in the holes where science hasn't yet given any answers. And that's what I want from a sci-fi. I thought it was pretty engaging from that point of view, though I understand totally why people might hate it or call it utter nonsense, I just thought it had the courage to run with its concept.
Anyway, I thought it was pretty enthralling, especially for someone like me who is fascinated by space travel (my wife isn't at all, so she wasn't that enthused), and yeah it's really gorgeous to look at. Thought it managed to capture the 'lost in space' feeling very well.
Kip Thorne, he's one of the most popular theoretical physicist alive. Closed timelike curve is the theory you see in the movie, Kip supports it others, including Hawking don't. Simply put, it's really not perfectly make sense for most people.
What you said pretty much sums up Nolan. An ambitious director who knows how to entertain mass but he has flaws like others.
Yeah I loved it to be honest, not as good as the likes of Memento and the Prestige as has been mentioned but I preferred it to Inception, and some of the imagery was incredible. Definite plot holes to be found and it goes downhill a bit after a certain moment (pretty sure those who've seen it will know when I'm talkng about), but I can't help but admire the whole thing for its ambition and driving idea. Plenty of homages (some would say outright ripoffs but I'm generous!) to 2001 and other Arthur C Clarke stories too which I appreciated. 8.5 overall from me.
Yeah, Nolan didn't make anything up or go over the top really, it's just a matter of some people not really believing that some of the things exist at all so just see it as ridiculous like the whole 5th dimension part. I found that a bit too far too but it's still entirely possible and not complete nonsense like some say.
One thing I would agree with most on, is that there was no point for there to be an antagonist.
Matt Damon's characters goal was to get saved right? Well, there they were, saved him, and they wanted to go home (at least McConaughey). There really was no need to go and feck them all over for essentially the same goal. Just seemed a bit random.
The antagonist was present throughout the film and effected almost every character on screen.
The antagonist was time.
As for your spoiler question:
Matt Damon was only supposed to call for others if his planet was sustainable. That's why they were considered "brave" explorers. But he folded in and called them because he wanted to be rescued, lied about the planet being able to support life. He was meant to stay there and continue the mission. Instead he tried to blow up the space ship and kill Coop to return home.
Yeah that was the part where it took a turn downwards in quality, but his motivation was that he couldn't afford to let Coop take the ship back. He'd left his beacon on despite the planet not being at all suitable for life (due to his "survival instinct", and being a massive cock), then lied about the data and got Coop to come out with him on his own to dispatch him. He'd also gone fairly crazy at this point, by the sounds of it. The biggest plot contrivance here for me is that there's no need to go down to the planets themselves to find all this out - if you can travel interstellar distances you can scan the surface from orbit in fairly good detail, I imagine.
As to the need of an antagonist - with the way they wrote it, it was needed: if Matt Damon doesn't damage the Endurance, Coop doesn't have to go down into the black hole, doesn't contact Murph and himself to kick off the mission, doesn't help Murph solve the gravity equation and so humans cease to exist and don't create the wormhole from the future (this in itself is a bit of a paradox but meh). So they needed something to antagonise Coop's return to Earth, and I guess they thought it would be more interesting to have the person that led the initial exploration efforts become it, rather than have it be something non-human.
As to the need of an antagonist - with the way they wrote it, it was needed: if Matt Damon doesn't damage the Endurance, Coop doesn't have to go down into the black hole, doesn't contact Murph and himself to kick off the mission, doesn't help Murph solve the gravity equation and so humans cease to exist and don't create the wormhole from the future (this in itself is a bit of a paradox but meh). So they needed something to antagonise Coop's return to Earth, and I guess they thought it would be more interesting to have the person that led the initial exploration efforts become it, rather than have it be something non-human.
Yeah, I got that, but even if he admitted that the planet wasn't habitable when they met him, what were they going to do, leave him on that planet because he turned into a coward? They wouldn't leave him there to die, they'd probably just take him with them but be pissed off at him and think less of him. Just felt that him needing to kill Coop was something that really escalated quickly and came out of nowhere really. Not like they would think any differently of him then being a coward if he ended up getting home anyways.
Just how I saw it at least.
Just how I saw it at least.
Like I said in my last post, I just didn't see the need for him to actually go and kill Coop. Him going crazy would definitely make more sense, as he could potentially see no other option, but even if he admitted to them that the planet isn't capable of sustaining human life when they woke him up, it's not like they would just leave him there to die. They would take him with them to wherever they were going next, whether it was home or to the other planet, but they would probably just be pissed off at home. Hardly a reason for him to just go and murder Coop.