DVD Talk Forum
Page 6 of 17
« First
4
5
6
7
8
16
Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

DVD Talk Forum (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/)
-   Movie Talk (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/movie-talk-17/)
-   -   Interstellar (Nolan, 2014) — The Reviews Thread (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/movie-talk/623337-interstellar-nolan-2014-%97-reviews-thread.html)

Why So Blu? 11-09-14 02:02 AM
Re: Interstellar (Nolan, 2014) — The Reviews Thread
 
Everyone is a fucking scientist now.

:sarcasm:


It's a terrific film.

lordwow 11-09-14 07:31 AM
Re: Interstellar (Nolan, 2014) — The Reviews Thread
 
Originally Posted by Why So Blu? (Post 12295841)
Everyone is a fucking scientist now.

:sarcasm:


It's a terrific film.
In the words of Brand, I hope they'll be as objective with all the other films they watch.

Troy Stiffler 11-09-14 07:56 AM
Re: Interstellar (Nolan, 2014) — The Reviews Thread
 
Zimmer's pipe organ theme was so good. There's not a lot of scores that do that. I remember Akira and maybe Vampire Hunter D: Bloodlust.

Very big and bold in the movie (as Nolan's movies always are).

johnnysd 11-09-14 08:46 AM
Re: Interstellar (Nolan, 2014) — The Reviews Thread
 
Originally Posted by lordwow (Post 12295885)
In the words of Brand, I hope they'll be as objective with all the other films they watch.
Some people are OK with illogical plotting as long as it creates interesting situations. I can turn off my brain and just enjoy a movie sometimes. I don;t sit there and say that Bruce Banner would need to carry 600 pounds of weight around to turn into the Hulk and stuff like that.

But Nolan wants movies to be firmly grounded in reality and his scripts are just so outlandishly ridiculous in plotting, and so completely humorless that they just become unwatchably bad.

I learned at one point to just stop seeing Tim Buton's movies even if it has an interesting concept I will do the same thing with Nolan.

Interrstellar is the worst of his movies but very shiny, guess a pretty movie with no logic and no soul is good enough for many people.

RichC2 11-09-14 08:55 AM
Re: Interstellar (Nolan, 2014) — The Reviews Thread
 
Originally Posted by johnnysd (Post 12295905)
guess a pretty movie with no logic and no soul is good enough for many people.
While not the case for this movie, this is still a "no duh" statement. Look at the success of Transformers, Avengers, Maleficent, etc; they're all glossy and brain dead and are hugely successful.

I keep stumbling across commentary on how "Nolan wants to be Kubrick so badly" and all this other stuff about people thinking his movies are "profound". I honestly haven't met a single person who thinks that of him at all, he makes big budget action and adventure movies, they aren't deep at all, they're just fun "puzzle" style movies designed to have mainstream appeal. He does it well imo, and considering what we normally get from $100m+ budgets, it's refreshing from time to time. Honestly have no idea where all the push back comes from especially when we had what, 5 Marvel movies this year, Transformers is the top grossing movie in the world, and The LEGO movie is the most original title in the top 10.

I will note Interstellar has some weaknesses in relation to that, namely it is just a remake of 2001 gone mainstream, the music in space sequences annoyed the hell out of me because of that relation. But it's also entertaining and a fast 3 hours, with enough imagination to make it memorable. Alas, the 3rd act really was a waste of a cool planet, Damon and Affleck.

lordwow 11-09-14 09:06 AM
Re: Interstellar (Nolan, 2014) — The Reviews Thread
 
Originally Posted by johnnysd (Post 12295905)
But Nolan wants movies to be firmly grounded in reality and his scripts are just so outlandishly ridiculous in plotting, and so completely humorless that they just become unwatchably bad.
I thought this movie had more humor than his Batman series or Inception.

I learned at one point to just stop seeing Tim Buton's movies even if it has an interesting concept I will do the same thing with Nolan.

Interrstellar is the worst of his movies but very shiny, guess a pretty movie with no logic and no soul is good enough for many people.
You are entitled to your opinion, so long as we can agree that you are on the fringe here. Like I said, it's not a perfect movie, but to say it had "no logic and no soul" is quite frankly, absurd.

Troy Stiffler 11-09-14 09:17 AM
Re: Interstellar (Nolan, 2014) — The Reviews Thread
 
Nolan's movies use speculative science and gadgets to ground everything. Comparing the science of Transformers to the science of Interstellar is unfair.

It's theoretical science. People who create theories to "disprove" wormholes and interstellar travel are doing just that - creating more theories. With progressive science, all ideas must be out there to help push things forward. When you're piling theories on top of theories, there's really no such thing as "disproving science". One guy has a different idea than the other guy. And all of these ideas are supposed to be out in the open. Coop almost explained this to the audience when he told Murph a little about it.

To argue the science of this film is to argue the science of all grounded science fiction. There's that league of fantasy science-fiction (Transformers, Avengers). And then there's the films that attempt to ground everything and make it somehow connect in a real way (Interstellar, James Cameron's movies, old Star Trek).

...

On another note, I liked how the Nolans can be creative enough to overcome problems that would otherwise drown out a film. You know that everyone was expecting more "training" and "leadup" to the launch. But the Nolans said screw it and send us right out into space. That is very admirable.

I also liked the bit about love and they way we can't yet comprehend the biology and power of its presence.

I think this is entertainment at its best. You get involved. It introduces ideas to the audience. And then you have your cinematic elements - the adventure and drama.

TARS making a 2001 joke during takeoff was hilarious.

RichC2 11-09-14 09:20 AM
Re: Interstellar (Nolan, 2014) — The Reviews Thread
 
That was one cut I really appreciated, despite knowing there should have been a 20 minute training montage, it just goes from exiting the house to lift-off. Actually I guess he does that a good bit, to get to the playground faster.

Solid Snake 11-09-14 09:49 AM
Re: Interstellar (Nolan, 2014) — The Reviews Thread
 
Yeah. I really liked that. And it did it very confidently too.

d2cheer 11-09-14 11:02 AM
Re: Interstellar (Nolan, 2014) — The Reviews Thread
 
Originally Posted by MBoyd (Post 12295201)
Messy messy movie. Lame looking robot. Worst Nolan film and I've liked some of what he has done.
This quote sums it up for me...I changed it a bit in the bold parts. Not a fan of the Batman movies or Inception so full disclosure there.

But he really knocked it out of the park with the Sci-fi clichιs.

Ending was very poorly done IMHO. Kind of meh for me. I was hoping for more but as Snake stated if you don't like 2001 you should stay away. I agree 100% with that. This movie is not for me as I was not a fan of that either...

Osiris3657 11-09-14 11:21 AM
Re: Interstellar (Nolan, 2014) — The Reviews Thread
 
Saw this last night (regular 35mm screening). I've been processing it, letting it sink in...

I liked it, but wasn't blown away by any meanings. It was definitely cool visually, especially when they enter the wormhole, and Cooper enters the black hole and is in the 5th dimension.

But the story did drag at times, and the whole "love can transcend dimensions" thing was cheesy. I also thought the death of the bearded guy was stupid. He had plenty of time to get back to the ship (he was practically next to it), and stood there watching Brand getting rescued by TARS instead of saving his own ass.

I think I'd appreciate this movie with more viewings, but at the same time I'm not really sure I'd revisit it that much.

I give it a B-. It may make the back end of my top 10 for the year.

Mike86 11-09-14 11:22 AM
Re: Interstellar (Nolan, 2014) — The Reviews Thread
 
Originally Posted by johnnysd (Post 12295905)
But Nolan wants movies to be firmly grounded in reality and his scripts are just so outlandishly ridiculous in plotting, and so completely humorless that they just become unwatchably bad.
Do people really still try to use this argument? First of all Nolan said he wanted his Batman films somewhat grounded in reality, not one hundred percent. Second of all I've never heard Nolan say that each and every film he does is supposed to be grounded in reality. Pretty sure you're just pulling things out of your ass or trolling because Nolan is a target for Internet hatred for whatever reason.

Anyways as far as the film goes I liked it well enough. It was a lot to take in on one viewing and I do think seeing this film more than once will be beneficial. Solid acting throughout by the entire cast and the film was awesome visually. I also didn't have a problem with the film's running time. It seemed well paced despite being almost three hours.

RichC2 11-09-14 11:27 AM
Re: Interstellar (Nolan, 2014) — The Reviews Thread
 
I guess it depends on how you view it. His movies work fine on the internal logic they establish, and that's the most important aspect to me. None of these are taking place in the real world, they simply aren't as high fantasy as most big budget flicks are these days, still firmly planted in movie world.

I didn't get the complaints about understanding the dialogue in this one, though I did see it in IMAX. Which was eardrum shattering.

Guru Askew 11-09-14 11:32 AM
Re: Interstellar (Nolan, 2014) — The Reviews Thread
 
I know he says it on one of the docs on one of the Batman Blus. I wanna say it was on the bonus disc that came with the trilogy box but I can't be sure.

I specifically remember it because I've seen it thrown around online a lot too and I'd admittedly never heard it coming from the man's mouth before either.

But yeah, he definitely says it in no uncertain terms, and as such the "it's just a movie!" defense is pretty much invalid.

To be fair I believe in the quote he's only referring to his take on Batman but I think it's pretty clear that Nolan has a one-size-fits-all approach to his films.

Mike86 11-09-14 11:55 AM
Re: Interstellar (Nolan, 2014) — The Reviews Thread
 
I'm not denying that Nolan did say that he wanted to make The Dark Knight Trilogy more grounded in reality. The problem is that some people take that statement way too literally. He never said that they were supposed to be one hundred percent grounded in reality just moreso than what previous attempts at the character had been and more than other superhero films are. Also I don't recall him ever saying that every film he makes is grounded in reality. I think its fairly obvious that the films he makes all have some fantasy elements to them. They just aren't completely over the top.

Ghostbuster 11-09-14 04:10 PM
Re: Interstellar (Nolan, 2014) — The Reviews Thread
 
Putting aside the science, there were parts of the movie that just didn't make sense. The movie is entertaining, but not nearly as intelligent as it pretends to be.

Spoiler:
If Cooper is needed for the mission, as Professor Brand makes it seem, then why didn't NASA try to recruit him at some point? And if another pilot could get the job done, as NASA must have believed, then why would Cooper go on the mission? While he wanted to do the type of job he had trained for, he most definitely did not want to leave his children.

Perhaps I misremembering, but Miller's planet (water planet) did not seem to be a viable option, even before the landing, given the proximity to the black hole. The mission seemed to be a rescue mission. Why take the risk of landing?

The ending is ridiculous. Cooper talks to his daughter for 2 minutes, jumps in a shuttle, and takes off. But wait. I believe that the wormhole had already closed. So how the hell does he expect to get to Brand? Also, wouldn't you want your dad to have some peace and quiet after everything he went through? Why would you encourage him to go on another high-risk/suicide mission?

RichC2 11-09-14 04:37 PM
Re: Interstellar (Nolan, 2014) — The Reviews Thread
 
Originally Posted by Ghostbuster (Post 12296420)
Putting aside the science, there were parts of the movie that just didn't make sense. The movie is entertaining, but not nearly as intelligent as it pretends to be.

Spoiler:
If Cooper is needed for the mission, as Professor Brand makes it seem, then why didn't NASA try to recruit him at some point? And if another pilot could get the job done, as NASA must have believed, then why would Cooper go on the mission? While he wanted to do the type of job he had trained for, he most definitely did not want to leave his children.

Perhaps I misremembering, but Miller's planet (water planet) did not seem to be a viable option, even before the landing, given the proximity to the black hole. The mission seemed to be a rescue mission. Why take the risk of landing?

The ending is ridiculous. Cooper talks to his daughter for 2 minutes, jumps in a shuttle, and takes off. But wait. I believe that the wormhole had already closed. So how the hell does he expect to get to Brand? Also, wouldn't you want your dad to have some peace and quiet after everything he went through? Why would you encourage him to go on another high-risk/suicide mission?
Spoiler:

It seems like it never really occurred to NASA. They were training their own pilots but they were all stuck at simulator levels and not particularly good. Cooper was the best, of the small group that they had. Telecom doesn't seem like it works too great when they're at.

They didn't know it would be a risk to land, they had found exactly where the beacon was, and were then attempting to retrieve her data. Hospitable is hospitable even if it won't be for long.


The wormhole didn't close (I think you're thinking of the tesseract, which had it's own movie a decade ago), and I believe there was a bit of a time gap between him returning and when he was able to see his daughter since she had to be transferred and was in cryo, and he already looked pretty bored of the place :lol: the biggest head slapper at the end was that Edmund's planet is one that can sustain life, and base camp was setup on there, so she should be banging him right now. Unless they found and rescued her, and her on the planet at the end is her returning to duty.

I think that has always been the biggest fault critics have with Nolan -- while he likes playing with Time in his movies, he's terrible at showing the passage of it.

redrum 11-09-14 05:29 PM
Re: Interstellar (Nolan, 2014) — The Reviews Thread
 
Spoiler:
You didn't see Edmunds grave? He was probably dead when she got there.

csant 11-09-14 05:39 PM
Re: Interstellar (Nolan, 2014) — The Reviews Thread
 
My mind is blown after watching this... lol

I liked it though, very entertaining.

Paul_SD 11-09-14 05:44 PM
Re: Interstellar (Nolan, 2014) — The Reviews Thread
 
Originally Posted by RichC2 (Post 12295911)
While not the case for this movie, this is still a "no duh" statement. Look at the success of Transformers, Avengers, Maleficent, etc; they're all glossy and brain dead and are hugely successful.
While I would admit it wasn't 100% successful in cultivating it's themes, I would strenuously disagree that Maleficent was brain dead.
It absolutely had things on it's mind and what those things were is kind of startling to contemplate coming from that studio.

What it didn't have was a lot of byzantine plotting to make the film seem deeper and more intelligent than it actually was (not saying Interstellar does that as I haven't seen it yet- but that certainly applies to some of Nolan's other films).
Apparently going by the reaction to the film, Maleficent's simplicity was deceptive to a lot of people.

Ghostbuster 11-09-14 05:45 PM
Re: Interstellar (Nolan, 2014) — The Reviews Thread
 
Originally Posted by RichC2 (Post 12296454)
Spoiler:

The wormhole didn't close...

Spoiler:
Oh, I didn't hear anyone say that the wormhole closed, but last night I read it somewhere and figured I had missed it. See my visible comment.

I think Cooper was only at the space station for 2 weeks. That's how long a character said it would take for his daughter to arrive.


I'll rent the movie when it comes out on BD. Maybe my opinion will change. It was at least partially influenced by the four disrespectful people sitting behind me who kept talking during the first half of the movie. I missed some dialogue because of them and the loud sound effects.

Mr. Salty 11-09-14 05:46 PM
Re: Interstellar (Nolan, 2014) — The Reviews Thread
 
Originally Posted by RichC2 (Post 12296454)
Spoiler:
the biggest head slapper at the end was that Edmund's planet is one that can sustain life, and base camp was setup on there, so she should be banging him right now.
Spoiler:
I guess you missed the part about decades passing while they were on the first planet. Edmund set up camp but had died, presumably of old age, by the time she got there.

RichC2 11-09-14 07:23 PM
Re: Interstellar (Nolan, 2014) — The Reviews Thread
 
Originally Posted by Mr. Salty (Post 12296523)
Spoiler:
I guess you missed the part about decades passing while they were on the first planet. Edmund set up camp but had died, presumably of old age, by the time she got there.
Sure did. I had to go to the restroom around the time they would have gone over that. aging makes sense too.

Mr. Salty 11-09-14 07:45 PM
Re: Interstellar (Nolan, 2014) — The Reviews Thread
 
A hazard with a three-hour movie. You need the RunPee app!

Troy Stiffler 11-09-14 08:52 PM
Re: Interstellar (Nolan, 2014) — The Reviews Thread
 
Originally Posted by Mr. Salty (Post 12296650)
A hazard with a three-hour movie. You need the RunPee app!
Haha. I purposely get a bigger popcorn and smaller drink for long movies.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:22 AM.
Page 6 of 17
« First
4
5
6
7
8
16
Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page


Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.