Interstellar (2014 film directed by Christopher Nolan)

[crocodile 8,017]

Yeah, but we're talking about Nolan!

Yes, I know.

Are they not one and the same person?

Karol

[A24 4,338]

I could hear everything just fine in the IMAX I went to. The sound design of the film was very well done.

Then the theater fucked it up. Nolan wanted the dialog to be a sound effect and not a part of the narration. Go to a proper theater and watch the movie again as it is intended!

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

He could not hear a character shouting EUREKA!

[KK 3,307]

Designed specifically for TGP:

AMC presents unlimited ticket for infinite screenings of 'Interstellar'

[acomicsite 0]

Let’s Head to the Stars with “Interstellar”

http://www.acomicsite.com/review-lets-head-to-the-stars-with-interstellar/2/

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Jay 37,368]

Yea I posted in the spoilers thread that it was coming, cool that it's out now.

Definitely something you don't want to read before seeing the film.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Will it deal with with the three headed aliens that attack Matthew Mcconaughey and Anne Hathaway near the end of the film and reveal where they came from?

[mstrox 6,651]

No, they are supposed to be left to the viewer's imagination, like the robot army.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Imagination isnt Nolan's strong point. I love the film, but it could have done with more exposition. I still don't understand why the Tiwilians accepted Mcconaughey as their deity. Just because he has from a planet with a yellow sun?

[Hurmm 91]

Finally seen it. I liked it, enjoyed it, but wasn't blown away by it. I think we can safely say this is Nolan's sparsest script yet, and I mean it in a good way. He finally lets scenes and moments linger and breathe without the interruption of incessant dialogue or talky exposition. This is particularly true in the first 2/3 of the film, where there is a measured pace to the proceedings that I don't think I've seen from Nolan before. The last act somewhat reverts to the old Nolan though, where plotting gets ramped up and things start to get a ittle hurried. But still, I have to applaud Nolan here - this is a step in the right direction. Also really liked Zimmer's score, and while the score is still mixed almost overbearingly loud, this time it works because a) the music is actually good, and b) the loudness fits the context this time.

But I still wasn't blown away by any of it. I was expecting some majestic imagery from space travel here, after reading some of the reviews, but got very little of it. I'm not sure if Nolan intended it to be this way, none of the flash that usually accompanies such sci-fi features, but it did not scale the grandness of 2001: ASO. It was way off. 2001's visuals still mesmerize me to this day, I got very little of that in the first viewing of Interstellar. Part of it I think is because that's how Nolan works - always trying to make things "realistic", whatever that means in the context of a movie, and dull. It's his style, I suppose, but not one which I agree with obviously. In the end, I think better directors would have managed to squeeze more out of each image from such a film, in terms of spectacle, emotions, or just plain significance.

Still, it's quite an ambitious project, and it's rare to find a film that confronts relativity and time concepts like this one, so I do recommend watching Interstellar on the largest screen you can find.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I agree! Visually speaking Interstellar lacks awe.

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

Which shouldn't be any more of an issue than Gravity's lack of soul... though since that prevented me from enjoying it, I'll let it slide.

Point is, movies don't need to be what we want them to be! Gravity was a visual, kinetic experience meant as a cinematic amusement park ride. Interstellar is a human drama set in space. Totally different goals, including visually.

And I don't think that 2001 is really much more florid visually. Most of the space imagery has parallels in Interstellar. It's just a combination of how fresh those effects were at the time and the fact that so much of the film relies on them which makes it so effective and memorable. Again, Interstellar is a different type of film with a different aesthetic point, which should be judged by its own standards and not those of other films by other people with different intentions.

[A24 4,338]

A human drama is exactly what Cuaron thinks Gravity is (and not a science fiction film).

Part of it I think is because that's how Nolan works - always trying to make things "realistic", whatever that means in the context of a movie, and dull. It's his style, I suppose, but not one which I agree with obviously. In the end, I think better directors would have managed to squeeze more out of each image from such a film, in terms of spectacle, emotions, or just plain significance.

I agree (based on what I know about Nolan). 2001: ASO is meant to be realistic (for its time, that is) but the style is very 'figurative'. It's like every image is an allegory for something else.

Alex

[crocodile 8,017]

Which makes it completely unrealistc.

Karol

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

2001: ASO is far more imaginitive and awe inspiring visually then Interstellar, sorry Grey.

[publicist 4,643]

The other thing is, and i say that as a non-fan of Kubrick, that INTERSTELLAR's philosophical aspirations are on par with a STAR TREK episode - mind you, that's not a bad thing, but a far cry from Kubrick's enigmatic mythmaking. And i'm afraid you don't get above STAR TREK, shelter of most common ideas about time travel and such, in narrative sci fi.

[Arpy 4,145]

I didn't find 2001 all that great actually. I had great expectations and came out of it slightly bummed that it didn't live up to them. It's a good film, but not one I would rate as high as Interstellar.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

The final part of Interstellar has the type of plot resolution that has featured on Star Trek in it's various incarnations, yes.

[publicist 4,643]

Then you didn't really understand the term 'greatness' regarding sci-fi in movies.

[Arpy 4,145]

We need more films in the vein of TNG's 'Darmok'. That's imaginative science fiction.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I didn't find 2001 all that great actually. I had great expectations and came out of it slightly bummed that it didn't live up to them. It's a good film, but not one I would rate as high as Interstellar.

You cannot fault Kubrick and his amazing film for you lack of understanding of it. I think you should give it another chance.

[Arpy 4,145]

I don't think I implied a misunderstanding of the film.

[publicist 4,643]

I don't think I implied a misunderstanding of the film.

No but we do.

[Arpy 4,145]

I don't want this to turn into another war over what is considered 'art'. 'Greatness' means fuck all to me.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Those who do understand the film will always look upon those who didn't with a certain disdain.

[Arpy 4,145]

btw, to quote myself:

I didn't find 2001 all that great actually. I had great expectations and came out of it slightly bummed that it didn't live up to them. It's a good film, but not one I would rate as high as Interstellar.

I thought it was a good film and I definitely understand its profound influence on science fiction and that's something I actually appreciate about the film among other elements. Personally I enjoyed Interstellar more. That's it.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

It's perfectly natural. Interstellar is a far more accessible film, with more "obviously" human characters, a "save the Earth" plot etc...

[Hurmm 91]

Purely in terms of imagery and how the visuals flow (not in the quality of the special effects), ASO is on another level altogether. Visually, Interstellar is sterile, in the sense that there is no subtext to each image - they're all presented as they are, absolutely nothing more attached to it other than what you physically see. The visuals themselves do not link up with the overall philosophy or themes of the film in general. Perhaps again, Nolan was trying to do it documentary style. But I expect some kind of visual splendour when it comes to sci-fi, especially a purported big budget and amart sci-fi like Interstellar.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I agree.

[A24 4,338]

Me too ... and I haven't seen it yet.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

But you have seen Nolan's other films, right? You are familiar with how he likes to shoot his visuals.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

There's plenty of parallel structure and subtext to Nolan's visuals. Sure, it ties directly to the plot, but it's there nonetheless. Memento, The Prestige, bits and pieces of The Dark Knight trilogy, etc.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Please name a few examples?

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Like the entirety of The Prestige? The first shot is of the hats in the woods isn't it? As a first time viewer you have no idea what that's referencing. There are visual clues all throughout that tell you someone is messing with cloning.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Example please from I film I've actually seen?

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

2001: ASO is far more imaginitive and awe inspiring visually then Interstellar, sorry Grey.

Care to actually refute what I said instead of making flat statements?

[publicist 4,643]

Example please from I film I've actually seen?

You haven't even seen PRESTIGE?

[A24 4,338]

I don't understand why showing the field of hats in The Prestige makes Nolan Kubrick.

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

I didn't find 2001 all that great actually. I had great expectations and came out of it slightly bummed that it didn't live up to them. It's a good film, but not one I would rate as high as Interstellar.

You cannot fault Kubrick and his amazing film for you lack of understanding of it. I think you should give it another chance.

Are you going to call everyone who doesn't understand it an idiot?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

2001: ASO is far more imaginitive and awe inspiring visually then Interstellar, sorry Grey.

Care to actually refute what I said instead of making flat statements?

Interstellar's visuals are for the most part functional. there is little style for style sake. Compared to 2001 there are far fewer "panoramic" shots, and the ones that are there aren't held as long. Nolan favors a more close, almost POV feel. For example the scene after the take of from Earth where the ranger docks with Endurance. If you compare it to Kubrick's stand out docking scene underscored by The Blue Danube, the difference is clear.

I can give other examples, but not without revealing spoilers.

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

That's not a refutation of my key point. It's just describing the film. Try again.

And you haven't answered this yet.

I didn't find 2001 all that great actually. I had great expectations and came out of it slightly bummed that it didn't live up to them. It's a good film, but not one I would rate as high as Interstellar.

You cannot fault Kubrick and his amazing film for you lack of understanding of it. I think you should give it another chance.

Are you going to call everyone who doesn't understand it an idiot?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

It's simple. Kubricks film was absolutely ground breaking. Visually, special effects wise nothing before had come closer to portraying outer space with such utter realism. And it's not just a technical triumph. To make those visuals, in an era before man had even walked on the moon, when shots of how Earth looked from orbit were still extremely rare and often classified shows an enormous audacity and imagination from Kubrick, Trumbull and all the artist involved.

Interstellar, doesn't have that. Partly because it's made decades later and many of the visuals have been seen before in one way or another. Technically it isnt as much a milestone. And, many others here have said it, a lot of the visual imagery is a bit sterile.

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

That's STILL not addressing my key point.

Forget it!

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Then I guess I simply don't understand your point. And you certainly don't seem very interested in understanding mine.

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

Only because it's a point I already made myself.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Please quote to the point you made? because I can't find it.

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

Which shouldn't be any more of an issue than Gravity's lack of soul... though since that prevented me from enjoying it, I'll let it slide.

Point is, movies don't need to be what we want them to be! Gravity was a visual, kinetic experience meant as a cinematic amusement park ride. Interstellar is a human drama set in space. Totally different goals, including visually.

And I don't think that 2001 is really much more florid visually. Most of the space imagery has parallels in Interstellar. It's just a combination of how fresh those effects were at the time and the fact that so much of the film relies on them which makes it so effective and memorable. Again, Interstellar is a different type of film with a different aesthetic point, which should be judged by its own standards and not those of other films by other people with different intentions.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Interesting point, but the world doesn't work like that. Movies, music, works of art are always seen in the context of their times, and compared to similar works from the same era or previous.

Nolan has cited 2001: ASO as an inspiration, making it totally valid to make a comparison between the two.

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

I disagree. If he had said he was trying to really emulate the film, then sure. But he made it quite clear that it was an inspiration more out of inevitability than anything specific.