Originally posted by Esau Cairn
How much of the movie focussed on the space exploration?
Just an estimation, but maybe about 40-50% of the movie takes place in space. But even the "space exploration" is pretty dull because they actually focus more on relativity and the passage of time difference due to the black hole, which becomes integral to the plot. A really stupid thing about the plot: NASA is perfectly capable of finding out about a planet's capacity to support life without landing on the planet.That's a big part of the plot.
He cuts back and forth all the time between space and a mundane corn field and somehow we're supposed to care about saving earth and the people on it. Jessica Chastain is not a particularly likeable actress to me and there really were not any impressive visuals. But then again I never have thought of Nolan as much of a visual direction. More of a conceptual director. His cinematography on this blows: zoom in too close and shake the camera. Not many good establishing shots to help orient you, which then makes it difficult to get absorbed into the film.
But hey, don't let me ruin it for ya. Some people might still enjoy it. But it definitely ain't my cup of tea.
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Just an estimation, but maybe about 40-50% of the movie takes place in space. But even the "space exploration" is pretty dull because they actually focus more on relativity and the passage of time difference due to the black hole, which becomes integral to the plot. A really stupid thing about the plot: NASA is perfectly capable of finding out about a planet's capacity to support life without landing on the planet.That's a big part of the plot.He cuts back and forth all the time between space and a mundane corn field and somehow we're supposed to care about saving earth and the people on it. Jessica Chastain is not a particularly likeable actress to me and there really were not any impressive visuals. But then again I never have thought of Nolan as much of a visual direction. More of a conceptual director. His cinematography on this blows: zoom in too close and shake the camera. Not many good establishing shots to help orient you, which then makes it difficult to get absorbed into the film.
But hey, don't let me ruin it for ya. Some people might still enjoy it. But it definitely ain't my cup of tea.
I'm going to see this, tonight. We haven't disagreed on a movie, yet. But if you're wrong about this and I love the shit out of it, I'm going to go straight to your house and punch you in the taint.
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
But even the "space exploration" is pretty dull because they actually focus more on relativity and the passage of time difference due to the black hole, which becomes integral to the plot.
So time dilation?
Reminds me a little of "The Forever War", where the protagonist leaves earth and travels faster-than-light; to him, only a handful of years has passed, but on Earth decades or sometimes centuries have ticked away by the time he returns.
Originally posted by dadudemon
...if you're wrong about this and I love the shit out of it, I'm going to go straight to your house and punch you in the taint.
😆
I would suggest saving your money for later and cheaper showings, but hey, do as you must. 😛 I would also suggest seeing John Wick instead. It's a much more focused and enjoyable piece of entertainment.
Oh, btw: it's almost 3 hours long and a pacing nightmare. I'm sure there is a much better 2-hour version of this movie somewhere on the editing room floor.
So. Interstellar.
It's an interesting concept but you get the distinct feeling Nolan bit off more than he can chew from a scientific point of view. I understand the weak reviews as I'm not sure many will grasp even the rudimentary physics of the film but if you do you can follow it reasonably well. It falls down when it, inevitably, has to simply make stuff up regarding black holes. In this case the one in the film appears to have either been constructed for the purpose of allowing Cooper and TARS to understand gravity and time enough to relay the understanding back to the past to allow Murphy to have humanity or its a natural black hole but the future 'people' have gotten to the point where they can overcome the black hole anyway and save Cooper and TARS from it after they've crossed the event horizon and gotten the data they need to reconcile gravity and quantum mechanics. But if you're going to base and film in scientific fact then have the ultimate explanation something that isn't understood in reality you're gonna have a hard time making it believable.
In the end it seems to me it's a film that the more you understand of it the less you'll enjoy it. Because thematically its relatively weak. Simple motivations of love and survival etc.
Visually it has its moments but like PL says the closeness of the shots diminishes the experience. It only partly succeeds in showing the vastness of space. It fails miserably in making the time dilation feel as impactful as it should. It failed in showing the plight of humanity with any kind of impending dread as nothing seemed much worse when Murphy was older than when she was still a kid. It didn't convey how much of humanity survived, simply that it did.
I don't. Maybe I'm wrong cos physics was never my strong point. Maybe I just never understood the black hole bit enough. Time dilation and worm holes are easy enough. I was never good at the whole brane/bulk extra dimensions stuff though. Maybe you get less enjoyment from it if you only know some of the physics and you'd be better off either knowing nothing and thinking it's a brain busting work of genius or knowing a lot about physics and seeing it as a decent attempt and conveying ththeoretical concepts in a film.
Overall it gets a 5 from me.
I might read up on it a bit and watch it again with a better understanding of some the stuff.
Another way to look at it is likel the triangle of traits in a woman. Intelligent, emotionally stable, good looking. Pick 2.
Well Nolan doesn't want to pick 2. He wants realistic science, engrossing narrative and emotional connection to the audience. He ends up in some middle ground where you end up not satisfied with any of them.
Almost fell asleep during this movie. My buddy steve passed out bout 40 minutes into it hehe. The movie was more on the lines of 2001 a space odessy, it wasn't a thriller like avatar or Independence day. It was basically a cross between the movie Ghost and a sci-fi exploration flick. Movie was unique but nothing special.
this movie is a renter in my book.
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
😆I would suggest saving your money for later and cheaper showings, but hey, do as you must. 😛 I would also suggest seeing John Wick instead. It's a much more focused and enjoyable piece of entertainment.
Oh, btw: it's almost 3 hours long and a pacing nightmare. I'm sure there is a much better 2-hour version of this movie somewhere on the editing room floor.
I've already seen John Wick. Also, I didn't see this movie, this weekend. We had too much stuff to do. 😄
Originally posted by jaden101
So. Interstellar.It's an interesting concept but you get the distinct feeling Nolan bit off more than he can chew from a scientific point of view. I understand the weak reviews as I'm not sure many will grasp even the rudimentary physics of the film but if you do you can follow it reasonably well. It falls down when it, inevitably, has to simply make stuff up regarding black holes. In this case the one in the film appears to have either been constructed for the purpose of allowing Cooper and TARS to understand gravity and time enough to relay the understanding back to the past to allow Murphy to have humanity or its a natural black hole but the future 'people' have gotten to the point where they can overcome the black hole anyway and save Cooper and TARS from it after they've crossed the event horizon and gotten the data they need to reconcile gravity and quantum mechanics. But if you're going to base and film in scientific fact then have the ultimate explanation something that isn't understood in reality you're gonna have a hard time making it believable.
In the end it seems to me it's a film that the more you understand of it the less you'll enjoy it. Because thematically its relatively weak. Simple motivations of love and survival etc.
Visually it has its moments but like PL says the closeness of the shots diminishes the experience. It only partly succeeds in showing the vastness of space. It fails miserably in making the time dilation feel as impactful as it should. It failed in showing the plight of humanity with any kind of impending dread as nothing seemed much worse when Murphy was older than when she was still a kid. It didn't convey how much of humanity survived, simply that it did.
I don't. Maybe I'm wrong cos physics was never my strong point. Maybe I just never understood the black hole bit enough. Time dilation and worm holes are easy enough. I was never good at the whole brane/bulk extra dimensions stuff though. Maybe you get less enjoyment from it if you only know some of the physics and you'd be better off either knowing nothing and thinking it's a brain busting work of genius or knowing a lot about physics and seeing it as a decent attempt and conveying ththeoretical concepts in a film.
Overall it gets a 5 from me.
I might read up on it a bit and watch it again with a better understanding of some the stuff.
Getting the feeling that McConaughey's kid when she's older is the one helping him in the present, or his present.
Like multiple time-lines being shown all at once?
Disappointed you gave it a 5, as we're usually very close in which films we like. Was hoping this was going to be stellar.
The movie starts with something so bizarre and out of place that the "twist" at the end is telegraphed 3 hours in advance, and the rest of the movie you just wait for the "reveal."
It's BONKERS.
And then
Spoiler:
robots show up. All of a sudden, Rust Cohle is talking to a giant black metallic pair of pants.
The film also contains quite possibly the worst monologue this year, in which Anne Hathaway waxes philosophic about love.