[blackzoid]

I saw Intersteller just now as well.
I'll probably need a night to sleep on it, but my overall impression is that I didnt like it that much at all and may have begun to actively hate it towards the end. Which is not at all what I was expecting from a Nolan film.

MOD GOD NOTICE OF TOPIC SPLIT

This post has been edited by Imperial Historian: 09 November 2014 - 07:03 PM

[QuickTidal]

Saw INTERSTELLAR.

Here's my take.

It has moments of utter and complete shining filmaking brilliance...and those moments are intersperesed between long, boring bouts of exposition, hackneyed villain aspects, repetetive shots (seriously, if I had to watch the same shot of then outside of the ranger ship again for the 47th time I was going to get angry), and an overall hamhanded handling of the theoretical physics...including a trip to the 5th dimension that doens't altogether make sense.

This was Nolan doing his level best to make a Kubrick fiilm, aping most obviously 2001...up to and including having Hans Zimmer shit all over the soundtrack with loud church organ music (Kubricks fave was to use singular piano music...always irritated me)...and he even tries to get some GRAVITY, and even ALIEN in there...and it all misses the mark.

So yeah, in a nearly 3 hour film I found a few redeemable shots, a few sequences and some decent dialogue...but overall this is a wild miss for Nolan in my books.

And MAtt Damon's bit was so tacked on.

Danny Boyle's SUNSHINE did this better, and even that is a flawed film.

[Tiste Simeon]

You guys are making me sad. Still going to see it but still...

[polishgenius]

I'm hearing loads of bad things about the ending. Still seeing it though. I was already expecting it to be a bit unweildy and flawed, so maybe going in with dampened expectations will mean I enjoy it more than Nolan's last two anyway.

Will have to wait a while though. Money money money.

[worry]

Well if you are going to see it, then the theater is probably where you should. Some scenes pretty much demand a massive screen.

[polishgenius]

I'm defo gonna see it at the cinema. Hoping to see it at the IMAX here if it stays showing long enough - it'd be the first time I get to see something in IMAX that isn't in 3D, which would be nice.

[QuickTidal]

Yeah if you are going to see it, defo IMAX...the best things about the film are some of the shots and sequences that demand to be seen on a big screen.

[QuickTidal]

Oh, and this:

Spoiler

The 5th Dimension is LOVE yall...love. That is some sappy-ass bullshit...and I'm a sappy person.

[Imperial Historian]

Well I just got out of the cinema to watch this and I loved it. The first hour alone is worth the price of admission for a really well done, and not overblown look at a world on the edge. The science of the film was pretty good for Hollywood, they cover relativity pretty well (magic time zones aside), and though some of the finale is a bit of a stretch it still worked for me. There are some really great shots of black holes and the alien worlds were really well done. The films main strength is it's character work the scenes between mcconaughey and his daughter were really good. I also thought matt Damon's bit was excellent and for me really portrayed well the affects long term space travel could have on a persons psyche.

This film had me from start to finish, and may be my favourite Nolan film, though I'll have to see whether it stands up to the rewatch.

[worry]

Wish he wasn't. The movie could have done with fewer familiar faces.

[worry]

There aren't any roles I'd call cameos.

[A Demon Llama!]

Interstellar.

First off, yes go watch it. Then decide if you like it or not yourself.

Some Spoliers.

I agree about the Matt Damon part, did not care for his appearance and it did seems a bit forced. There could have been a better way to show the human need for self preservation/ loneliness/hope(lessness) etc. Maybe not necessary but not unreasonable.

I didn't see how any scenes really dragged on and the visuals were fine, but also nothing spectacular. Score was fine too and in my opinion worked well.

I have to think about the movie first before I come to any solid conclusions yet. I enjoyed it though, but need to mull over it.

QT, its like you wanted to be disappointed. You have 2001 on a pedestal there and comparing this movie and just throwing it away cause obv it did not reach the perfect sate of Kubrick's film, even though they are proposing something different (to me at least). Also, the fifth dimension was not "Love." The fifth dimension was not quantified in the movie. Love was and is what every damned human being experiences in this world, and it was the motivation that allowed our hero to communicate and try to physically interact with his daughter. I am not a theoretical physicist or even anything close to that so can you please post a non hamhanded venture out into the fifth dimension? I would love to know what would actually happen. If you were dying and were in an inconceivable dimension where anything and everything could happen you can bet that you wont wish for a banana but would want to see your family again. Seems like the movie was more of the human condition than a 2001 like, evolutionary or advancement oriented one.

One thing that annoyed me was the reception of the audience - Hey, remember when 2001 was not liked and was dismissed? - Once the movie was done I heard people chuckling or saying "OK then" and an older gentleman saying how the movie was boring and his 20 something son saying how it was bad cause "too much thinking involved." Not to sound presumpuous, but I don't understand how people can say such things when a movie tries to propose grander ideas or themes. Are people really not interested the real possibility that one day humans will need to venture out into the unknown? Or how the effect gravity has on space and time and ramifications of such things as singularities or worm hole or whatever. Of course anyone can shrug and say "pfft, yeah like that would happen." But at least its trying to show and propose some ideas that at least stimulate mentally. Probably not enough action and explosions. I really dont know.

[Gnaw]

Heh. A film that brings up that level of discussion might actually be worth seeing sometime soon. Good enough for 1st cam or should I wait for a decent hard coded subs version?

[McLovin]

I just saw it. I'm still trying to process it. Acting and fx were awesome. The robot design was different and cool and kinda creepy all at once. I do agree the Matt Damon part seemed kinda pointless. Not an easy movie to like, but not so easily dismissed either.

[worry]

It definitely attempts some things you see in sci-fi novels much more often than you see in movies. Agree with Llama that none of the scenes, in and of themselves, overstay their welcome (and I was actually impressed with several of them, in terms of visuals). Agree with QT that the score is godawful and often intrusive, and there's way too much exposition even in the half I liked. It handles relativity/time dilation by having scientists explain it out loud to each other followed by what amounts to "You knew that when you signed up!". I sympathize with your reaction to the audience, Llama, as I felt the same way after No Country For Old Men led local area yokels and various other morons to a head-scratching contest. Then again, after Interstellar my jaw might have shattered against the floor if I heard anyone complain the movie required too much thinking.

[HoosierDaddy]

I quite enjoyed Interstellar. Saw it on a regular screen, probably should have gone IMAX route. That being said, my thoughts on other thoughts:

Agree soundtrack was a very obvious attempt to ape 2001, and it failed. But, I didn't actively dislike it.
Imagery is absolutely brilliant, and some of the cinematography is just fucking exquisite.
I love Matt Damon, thus, I'm happy he was in the film and it was quite a surprise, too.
LOVED the robots.

Spoilers:

Spoiler

Re: "love" being the fifth dimension. Disagree. I thought it was explained decently that basically the civilization that Brandt and (assumption) Cooper started in the foreign galaxy is the group that excels to the next level. They have a nearby blackhole to study and all, thus being able to create a tesseract within the blackhole is not impossible. I guess.

The ending: Meh. Cooper surviving the blackhole can be rationalized with what the movie gives us, but I didn't necessarily love it.
Also didn't love Casey Affleck's sudden idiocy at the end about his family.
Didn't love generic "blight" for killing off humanity, not enough explanation.

[Chance]

Saw Interstellar yesterday and well it was a trainwreack attempting to do a lot of "new/different" stuff but not really pulling it of over and over. Not the worst movie I've seen recently but not especially good either.

worry, on 09 November 2014 - 05:04 AM, said:

Then again, after Interstellar my jaw might have shattered against the floor if I heard anyone complain the movie required too much thinking.

So much this even basic reasoning will completly shatter large part of the movie, so it might rather be said turn of your brain look at pretty pictures and don't whatever you do think about the movie's story, premises and a lot of the elements appearing in it. Actually eating after the movie while discussing all the holes in it was probably my favorit part of the experience.

At the same time I was impressed by some of the visuals, the robots was easily the highpoint of the actors preformance and script. They also attempted very ambitious storytelling for a hollywood drama/action movie over a longer duration movie and it nearly worked.

This post has been edited by Chance: 09 November 2014 - 09:26 AM

[QuickTidal]

A Demon Llama!, on 09 November 2014 - 04:01 AM, said:

Interstellar.

First off, yes go watch it. Then decide if you like it or not yourself.

Some Spoliers.

I agree about the Matt Damon part, did not care for his appearance and it did seems a bit forced. There could have been a better way to show the human need for self preservation/ loneliness/hope(lessness) etc. Maybe not necessary but not unreasonable.

I didn't see how any scenes really dragged on and the visuals were fine, but also nothing spectacular. Score was fine too and in my opinion worked well.

I have to think about the movie first before I come to any solid conclusions yet. I enjoyed it though, but need to mull over it.

QT, its like you wanted to be disappointed. You have 2001 on a pedestal there and comparing this movie and just throwing it away cause obv it did not reach the perfect sate of Kubrick's film, even though they are proposing something different (to me at least). Also, the fifth dimension was not "Love." The fifth dimension was not quantified in the movie. Love was and is what every damned human being experiences in this world, and it was the motivation that allowed our hero to communicate and try to physically interact with his daughter. I am not a theoretical physicist or even anything close to that so can you please post a non hamhanded venture out into the fifth dimension? I would love to know what would actually happen. If you were dying and were in an inconceivable dimension where anything and everything could happen you can bet that you wont wish for a banana but would want to see your family again. Seems like the movie was more of the human condition than a 2001 like, evolutionary or advancement oriented one.

One thing that annoyed me was the reception of the audience - Hey, remember when 2001 was not liked and was dismissed? - Once the movie was done I heard people chuckling or saying "OK then" and an older gentleman saying how the movie was boring and his 20 something son saying how it was bad cause "too much thinking involved." Not to sound presumpuous, but I don't understand how people can say such things when a movie tries to propose grander ideas or themes. Are people really not interested the real possibility that one day humans will need to venture out into the unknown? Or how the effect gravity has on space and time and ramifications of such things as singularities or worm hole or whatever. Of course anyone can shrug and say "pfft, yeah like that would happen." But at least its trying to show and propose some ideas that at least stimulate mentally. Probably not enough action and explosions. I really dont know.

Actually no, I went into this prepared to love it. Nolan has not disppapointed me before. I had not thought I'd dislike it at all. I was super excited beforehand.

Second, I LOATHE Stanley Kubrick, and I REALLY hate 2001. I can recognize why it's considered a good film, and I can recognize what's good about it...but it's not remotely on any kind of pedestal to me and never has. The only Kubrick movie I can watch without wincing is A CLOCKWORK ORANGE.

I'm pretty sure that the 5th dimension they were peddling was love, not in a direct way (as the 5th dimensional beings were humans...) but a roundabout way. The io9 review seems to agree with me on that score, so I'm not the only one who got that impression. That's why there is a whole paragraph of Anne Hathaway's dialogue about how "love" is quantifiable.

And as to your last paragraph, I'm not sure why it bothers you so much that others interpret a film differently to you. Not everyone is looking to have their mind expanded when going to a film. That should be neither here nor there for your enjoyment of it. And I don't think it has anything to do with their wants about humaniity and the stars...it just means they didn't feel like being cerebral about it on a theorhetical physics level on a Friday night out at the movies. Nothing wrong with that.

EW kind of agrees on the "love" thing too...and says it better than I can: http://popwatch.ew.c...plot-explained/

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 09 November 2014 - 02:39 PM

[blackzoid]

Intersteller spoilers

Spoiler

While I was prepaed to love the film but many things began to annoy me and the cumulative effect built up. And from audience reactions (one guy clapped sarcastically) I dont think many people liked it when I saw it.


Trying to remember off hand things that annoyed me.

1: The teacher claiming the Moon Landings were faked. That was a big un. Hated it and wanted to physically go into the film and giver her what for.
2: Matthews other child, his son got kidna butchered as a character in my opinion. His sister especially when played by Jessica Chastain, annoyed me, cos she basically pushed (almost literally when she set fire to the crops) her brother out of the film.
3: That intrsuive score. Jesus, will you just keep it quiet for a second.
4: DO NOT GOO GENTLY blah blah blah. There is no need to reference or quote the same poem 3-4 times was it? I remember Nolan used to be known for some subtlety. Not the repeated banging over the head. Now I know what people mean when they said the theme/word "Fear" was brought up way-too much in Batman Begins. Remember the subtle shake of the head of the cop who hated Dent in the Dark Knight? Where is that Nolan?
5: As mentioned before, characters explaining stuff to each other that they should already know. I compared it with True Detective, remember those guys interviewing Matthew and Woody. Even though they were not the main characters in the series, they SEEMED profossional. They didnt explain out loud what these police procedures are. For some reason the other non-Matthew characters didnt seem profossinal here. Especially the guy who just gawked at the wave on the Water planet. For Gods sake, run you moron! And why did Hatheway go out to that wreckage anyway when she saw the wave coming in?
6: The theme of lying/deceiving so that the stupid people dont give up hope/do the right thing annoyed me. The "faked Moon landings", the fact that Plan 1 was never a starter, the burning of the crops, Matt Damon lying about Hoth's viablity. Goddammit Alfred, didnt you just say in "The Dark Knight Rises", its time to let the truth have its day. And here you are lying all over the place.
7: People have already brought up Matt Damon. I preferred the way Sunshine did it personally, but by then the film was losing me badly anyway.
8: Wasnt too keen on the power of love used to save the day, but again, that was late in the film and my mind was pretty made up by that stage.
9: I didnt like the way people kept on bringing up some form of fate/destiny etc. "We are not destined to die here", "You were supposed to go here" and the like. Some of it does tie back into the time-loop message thingie that Matthew sends the people in the past, but it felt kidna-religious to me. I kept thinking that we we originally never meant to be here, that if it wasnt for the asteroid that killed off the dinos there would be no fate for humanity or humanity in general. We needed Rust Cole on that ship as pilot!

Things that I liked
1: The Robots stole the show! As soon as that second one said "We are off to found a robot colony" I was on their side. Kept expecting one to pull a Hal and was glad they didnt. They were awesome throughout. You didnt hear one of them moaning about "Go gentle into that long night blah blah", they just did their frickng jobs with style! Why didnt Cooper ask him what he saw in the Black Hole?
2: The visuals were great. I liked the clouds of ice and the Blackhole and Saturn and the Tidal waves.
3: The spinning docking scene. Very Gravity-ish. Was cool. Perhaps the one time the music was effective and not annoying.


Questions
1: About that Water planet, should the guys not have already guessed that the water planet was too close to the black hole and might suffer from terrible tidal effects. Plus with Time Dilation the human colony would be at a potential time disadvantage compared to other hostile alien forces in that galaxy who would have more time to progress their technology! Maybe.(Personally I think Stargate SG1 did the time dillation thingie much better). As well as the blackhole potentially having sucked in life-microbe containing comets a long time ago. Even with hindsight, a planet close to a blackhole seems like a terrible idea for a colony.
2: Where was the "Gamma Quadrant" end of the wormhole in relation to Gargantia, the Black Hole? That wasnt mentioned. I was confused when a "normal" blackhole in addition to the "wormhole" blackhole was brought into the film. Was one dependent upon the other? Did teh future 4-dimension humans build the Wormhole AND the Blackhole?
3: Wasnt there 10 flights through the wormhole? Where did the other 7 missions go? To other planets in the other Galaxy? Did that system have 10 possible planets? Or was there an adjoining system to the blackhole one? How did they get there without a wormhole if so?
4: So the Cooper station at the end, isnt sending constant flights through the wormhole to help Hatheway set up her colony. Or maybe bring her back now that there is no need for a colony. Whats up with that? Why isn't she getting official support instead of Matthew having to steal a ship to go help her?
5: Did anyone else think that with the whole instance of "Murphy's Law" that the subtext was that Murphy was an accident and wasn't planned by Cooper and his wife? Just me? I thought it was a cruel name for a kid. Especially with the bringing up of Murphy's law so much in her face.

EDIT: Ultimatedly it is still Babylon 5 that explains the best why Humanity must go to the stars. Better then this film IMO.
Ask ten different scientists about the environment, population control, genetics and you'll get ten different answers, but there's one thing every scientist on the planet agrees on. Whether it happens in a hundred years or a thousand years or a million years, eventually our Sun will grow cold and go out. When that happens, it won't just take us. It'll take Marilyn Monroe and Lao-Tzu, Einstein, Morobuto, Buddy Holly, Aristophanes .. and all of this .. all of this was for nothing unless we go to the stars."
- Sinclair

"DO NOT GO GENTLY!!!!"

This post has been edited by blackzoid: 09 November 2014 - 05:42 PM

[A Demon Llama!]

QuickTidal, on 09 November 2014 - 02:29 PM, said:

A Demon Llama!, on 09 November 2014 - 04:01 AM, said:

Interstellar.

First off, yes go watch it. Then decide if you like it or not yourself.

Some Spoliers.

I agree about the Matt Damon part, did not care for his appearance and it did seems a bit forced. There could have been a better way to show the human need for self preservation/ loneliness/hope(lessness) etc. Maybe not necessary but not unreasonable.

I didn't see how any scenes really dragged on and the visuals were fine, but also nothing spectacular. Score was fine too and in my opinion worked well.

I have to think about the movie first before I come to any solid conclusions yet. I enjoyed it though, but need to mull over it.

QT, its like you wanted to be disappointed. You have 2001 on a pedestal there and comparing this movie and just throwing it away cause obv it did not reach the perfect sate of Kubrick's film, even though they are proposing something different (to me at least). Also, the fifth dimension was not "Love." The fifth dimension was not quantified in the movie. Love was and is what every damned human being experiences in this world, and it was the motivation that allowed our hero to communicate and try to physically interact with his daughter. I am not a theoretical physicist or even anything close to that so can you please post a non hamhanded venture out into the fifth dimension? I would love to know what would actually happen. If you were dying and were in an inconceivable dimension where anything and everything could happen you can bet that you wont wish for a banana but would want to see your family again. Seems like the movie was more of the human condition than a 2001 like, evolutionary or advancement oriented one.

One thing that annoyed me was the reception of the audience - Hey, remember when 2001 was not liked and was dismissed? - Once the movie was done I heard people chuckling or saying "OK then" and an older gentleman saying how the movie was boring and his 20 something son saying how it was bad cause "too much thinking involved." Not to sound presumpuous, but I don't understand how people can say such things when a movie tries to propose grander ideas or themes. Are people really not interested the real possibility that one day humans will need to venture out into the unknown? Or how the effect gravity has on space and time and ramifications of such things as singularities or worm hole or whatever. Of course anyone can shrug and say "pfft, yeah like that would happen." But at least its trying to show and propose some ideas that at least stimulate mentally. Probably not enough action and explosions. I really dont know.

Actually no, I went into this prepared to love it. Nolan has not disppapointed me before. I had not thought I'd dislike it at all. I was super excited beforehand.

Second, I LOATHE Stanley Kubrick, and I REALLY hate 2001. I can recognize why it's considered a good film, and I can recognize what's good about it...but it's not remotely on any kind of pedestal to me and never has. The only Kubrick movie I can watch without wincing is A CLOCKWORK ORANGE.

I'm pretty sure that the 5th dimension they were peddling was love, not in a direct way (as the 5th dimensional beings were humans...) but a roundabout way. The io9 review seems to agree with me on that score, so I'm not the only one who got that impression. That's why there is a whole paragraph of Anne Hathaway's dialogue about how "love" is quantifiable.

And as to your last paragraph, I'm not sure why it bothers you so much that others interpret a film differently to you. Not everyone is looking to have their mind expanded when going to a film. That should be neither here nor there for your enjoyment of it. And I don't think it has anything to do with their wants about humaniity and the stars...it just means they didn't feel like being cerebral about it on a theorhetical physics level on a Friday night out at the movies. Nothing wrong with that.

EW kind of agrees on the "love" thing too...and says it better than I can: http://popwatch.ew.c...plot-explained/

Fair Enou.

From your link: "love is a literal potent physical concept, strong enough to bend the elaborate cosmic architecture of wormholes and black holes and far-flung star systems"

It seems like because of Hathaway's little theory that automatically it has to be the answer to the movie. It probably hurt the movie more than it helped. I dont want to agree that love is the thing that physically lets us transcend time and space because if it is, and that is exactly what the movie is trying to tell us then yes, I will have to agree that it is cheesy and bad. I still believe that love and the need for self preservation for us humans is the what drives us and motivates us to allow the transcendence of time and space and whatever else that happened to physically allow him to interact is actually not quantified and a complete mystery. You obviously cannot portray what will physically happen in a singularity but it is not far-fetched to conclude that if the possibility arose where a human was in a position to manipulate time and whatever else that emotion and human condition would be a factor in such manipulation.


Now I see a lot of folks saying the score was terrible. I didnt see anything really wrong with it but I know that at least once it did take me completely out of the movie so next time I watch it I will need to keep that in mind.