Why does everyone love Interstellar?

[SortaCreative]

Everything about Interstellar was great. Apart from the story. From the performances to the score. The story really let it down.

It just lost all notion of cohesiveness mid way through Act 2 and left the realms of drama grounded in Scifi to just illogical popcorn drama. Characters that do completely insane things with little build up just to shock. Not to mention the mess that is Act 3.

Spoilers ahead.

Spoiler:

There's a better way to do time travel and for the most part the theory behind Interstellar is fine, just the execution to serve the weak dramatic tension created just undermines the incredible set up and performances from the cast. It really didn't get better than the astronauts watching the video logs from home and seeing their lives go on without them in seemingly minutes. The execution of the theory of relativity in terms of the story and how it impacted the characters was fantastic.

And then Matt fucking Damon shows up. What the fuck. Seriously? Look, i'll take Michael Caine's lie and swallow it even though it's freaking illogical for someone to be working on a math equation with him for so long not to pick up on the fact that it's bullshit. But Matt Damon. Fuck sake. He ruined the movie, or atleast his character did, because it made no sense.

I understand the idea that he was alone, depressed and wanted saving and finally someone came looking for him taking his beacon as a sign of hope rather than a desperate call for rescue. But then the natural step from that is to build drama with that deception, build on the time wasted from the previous planet and ramp up the already existing tension in a way that is consistent and cohesive. NOT HAVE HIM TRY AND SOLO FLY A SHIP. WHO THE FUCK DOES THAT?

I bring this up because it's a name that gets thrown around in this current nomination season and I just don't see it. It's probably the worst film Christopher Nolan has made because of the massive missteps in the narrative and how much it serves to undermine an otherwise fantastic piece of work. Interstellar has a wonderful mythology about it. It has some semblance of scientific theory and characters we can care about. The performances help to draw you in and the romantic drama between the family and the characters gives you a human touch. The music and graphical quality are fantastic but man... such a gaping hole in the narrative just turns me straight off.

I don't understand why people rate it so highly.

[Everlong]

Part of the reason I love it is because I've never seen so many people so up in arms about a movie being widely considered a fantastic sci fi masterpiece This movie, just as Nolan movies seems to do for some reason, always seems to bring out an army of detractors any time it's mentioned. I've never seen a group more obsessed with hating movies than people who are so quick to hate on Nolan.

I'll never understand the problem you have with the Matt Damon character. I thought that entire sequence was one of the best parts of the movie. Having Mann attempt to work with the Interstellar team would have basically wrecked one of the predominant themes of the movie: man's inherent selfishness in placing his own survival before anything else, and the "fight or flight" instinct that we have.

To me, Interstellar is a movie that has breathed life back into science fiction, a genre that used to be about thought and wonder but has turned into lasers and explosions. For that reason, I think it will be remembered long after any of the Best Picture nominees this year.

Interstellar isn't the best movie of the year, but it's going to be remembered as a cinematic achievement far more widely and far longer than probably any of the movies that will win the award, except maaaaybe Boyhood.

[SortaCreative]

I'll never understand the problem you have with the Matt Damon character. I thought that entire sequence was one of the best parts of the movie. Having Mann attempt to work with the Interstellar team would have basically wrecked one of the predominant themes of the movie: man's inherent selfishness in placing his own survival before anything else, and the "fight or flight" instinct that we have.

I'm not just hating Nolan cos it's Nolan. I generally love his work and i'll defend Dark Knight Rises as the best Batman film to the death.

But no. It's just stupid.

Spoiler:

I understand why they had Dr. Mann do what he did. But just the simple act of him calling them down to that planet and wasting their time, time which may have served to jepordise their entire existence, is enough. It's a more elegant way to show man's inherent selfishness. He called them there, not to save mankind. Not to show them a new world to live on but to just save his own arse. We already saw how much such a "small detour" cost the astronauts on the previous world. This would have been ten times worse and those hooks were already there with the intersection of the daughter asking if they knew they were never coming back. They didn't need Matt Damon to go insane and be like LOL I'M TAKING THIS. YOU DIE NOW. No. It was stupid. WHAT WAS HE GOING TO DO ALONE? ON THE SHIP? WHAT WAS HIS END GAME?

[Daz]

I find when it comes to Nolan, there's never a middle ground. There's people that will defend his work to the death, never accepting the mere thought that he might make a film with a flaw. Then there's the other side of the coin, who will nitpick and pull apart every inch of his movies, just to quiet down the other side.

I would argue, based on this thread, that Moon did a lot more to breathe life back into Sci-Fi than Interstellar did. And that it was also the better movie, but that's just one guys opinion.

[Matteo]

It's a perfectly solid work, but Nolan clearly needs a screenwriter to better develop his innately interesting concepts and ideas. He tried to do everything on Interstellar - from cinematography (particularly dealing with largely inaccessible and intricate IMAX cameras and film) to writing to directing to even editing. His number one objective, it seemed, was to create a visually engrossing, traditional cinematic spectacle - shooting on film, avoiding VFX wherever he possibly could, physical sets and stunts, photochemical processing instead of digital intermediate, etc, etc. It's a pretty good film, really, but yes, it has some problematic storytelling and some issues with its pacing. The editing could have been much better, too, but I certainly don't hate the film. I admire Nolan for utilising his status and creating a large-scale hard science fiction film - an increasing rarity ever since the industry-changing success of Star Wars.

[Everlong]

Yeah I mean, you'll never hear me argue that this is a perfect movie by any means, but it's just hilarious to me how vocal the hate train for it has been when judging by audience appeal, it's one of the most loved movies of the past decade

[Matteo]

Yeah I mean, you'll never hear me argue that this is a perfect movie by any means, but it's just hilarious to me how vocal the hate train for it has been when judging by audience appeal, it's one of the most loved movies of the past decade

Precisely. It has its problems (which @SortaCreative explicated upon), but at least Nolan is doing something different. In an age of insipid comic book adaptations, monotonous sequels, prequels and remake, and mindless blockbusters, it's refreshing to see a big budget film with an originally written screenplay and a decent dosage of ambition. Most large-scale science-fiction are usually more tonally lighthearted and escapist in concept; space operas, fantasy epics, extraterrestrials, aliens, monsters, among others. They play it safe and within familiar terrority. Interstellar is a bit more challenging.

Nolan's film demonstrated that hard science-fiction works with the mass audience, and that you can tell a story which is rudimentarily scientific but still largely entertaining and accessible. Also, Nolan is what you may call a cinematic traditionalist in many respects - he is a proponent for film, a dying medium, and refuses to let the aesthetics of his work get impacted during the DI (digital intermediate). He also does a lot of practical stuff, especially when it comes to building sets and props. In an age where so many blockbusters are created in post-production (VFX, CGI rendering, colour grading, green screen), it's refreshing and it's welcoming. Interstellar is an encapsulation of all of that.

[Daz]

Yeah I mean, you'll never hear me argue that this is a perfect movie by any means, but it's just hilarious to me how vocal the hate train for it has been when judging by audience appeal, it's one of the most loved movies of the past decade

Precisely. It has its problems (which @SortaCreative explicated upon), but at least Nolan is doing something different. In an age of insipid comic book adaptations, monotonous sequels, prequels and remake, and mindless blockbusters, it's refreshing to see a big budget film with an originally written screenplay and a decent dosage of ambition. Most large-scale science-fiction are usually more tonally lighthearted and escapist in concept; space operas, fantasy epics, extraterrestrials, aliens, monsters, among others. They play it safe and within familiar terrority. Interstellar is a bit more challenging.

Nolan's film demonstrated that hard science-fiction works with the mass audience, and that you can tell a story which is rudimentarily scientific but still largely entertaining and accessible. Also, Nolan is what you may call a cinematic traditionalist in many respects - he is a proponent for film, a dying medium, and refuses to let the aesthetics of his work get impacted during the DI (digital intermediate). He also does a lot of practical stuff, especially when it comes to building sets and props. In an age where so many blockbusters are created in post-production (VFX, CGI rendering, colour grading, green screen), it's refreshing and it's welcoming. Interstellar is an encapsulation of all of that.

Hmmm...

[Matteo]

Yeah I mean, you'll never hear me argue that this is a perfect movie by any means, but it's just hilarious to me how vocal the hate train for it has been when judging by audience appeal, it's one of the most loved movies of the past decade

Precisely. It has its problems (which @SortaCreative explicated upon), but at least Nolan is doing something different. In an age of insipid comic book adaptations, monotonous sequels, prequels and remake, and mindless blockbusters, it's refreshing to see a big budget film with an originally written screenplay and a decent dosage of ambition. Most large-scale science-fiction are usually more tonally lighthearted and escapist in concept; space operas, fantasy epics, extraterrestrials, aliens, monsters, among others. They play it safe and within familiar terrority. Interstellar is a bit more challenging.

Nolan's film demonstrated that hard science-fiction works with the mass audience, and that you can tell a story which is rudimentarily scientific but still largely entertaining and accessible. Also, Nolan is what you may call a cinematic traditionalist in many respects - he is a proponent for film, a dying medium, and refuses to let the aesthetics of his work get impacted during the DI (digital intermediate). He also does a lot of practical stuff, especially when it comes to building sets and props. In an age where so many blockbusters are created in post-production (VFX, CGI rendering, colour grading, green screen), it's refreshing and it's welcoming. Interstellar is an encapsulation of all of that.

Hmmm...

Yes, of course, I am well aware, but as much as I am indifferent to The Dark Knight trilogy, there's no doubt he brought something new to the table in that regard.

[JDD]

Yeah I mean, you'll never hear me argue that this is a perfect movie by any means, but it's just hilarious to me how vocal the hate train for it has been when judging by audience appeal, it's one of the most loved movies of the past decade

I think you've been overhyping it a bit Most people I know found it average, or pretty good. Even my friends who are huge Nolan fans thought it was great but Inception was better(i disagree but thats coming from some of the biggest Nolan fans I know) I liled it but it was pretty forgettable.

The fan approval rating for it on Rotten Tomatoes is a 86%. While it does have it's fans, I wouldnt call it one of the most loved films of the past decade at all. Just a pretty good movie. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Everlong]

^It's also the 20th ranked movie on IMDB with like 500,000 ratings so yeah, I'd say it's one of the most loved films of the past decade.

[Hanley!]

^It's also the 20th ranked movie on IMDB with like 500,000 ratings so yeah, I'd say it's one of the most loved films of the past decade.

A lot of new movies tend to appear quite high on the IMDB list, due to heavy traffic mostly from people who just saw and loved the film in question. They then inevitably drop down the rankings. Based on both word of mouth and critical response, I don't think there's reason enough to say this is one of the most loved films of the last decade. It's less loved than Inception and far less than The Dark Knight just to mention some of Nolan's recent films. On Rotten Tomatoes it's currently at 72% critics and 86% audience, which is good but far from fantastic.

I find when it comes to Nolan, there's never a middle ground. There's people that will defend his work to the death, never accepting the mere thought that he might make a film with a flaw. Then there's the other side of the coin, who will nitpick and pull apart every inch of his movies, just to quiet down the other side.

Nolan does attract a lot of that. The Dark Knight Rises for example was probably a 5/10 movie. Not really remarkable in any way. It had some decent moments, and some dumb moments and ultimately ended up pretty average. But you don't hear a lot of 5/10 reviews for the film. It's always 10/10 or 0/10 or thereabouts.

I don't think it's so much because of who he is, but because of the types of films that he makes. There are a certain amount of people out there who will treat any film that's trying to be deep as a complete masterpiece, regardless of whether or not it succeeds at actually being deep. Nolan creates strange and conceptual movies, that attract these kinds of fans. The kind of fans who want to like "deep" films because it makes them feel smarter and cooler. They're the ones who cannot acknowledge any kind of flaw in his work (or the work of any of their favourites) and insist on every dumb decision having some greater meaning.

I'm not saying every fan of Nolan's falls into this category, as I like most of his films myself. But you do stumble across a lot of these particular fans online. And they're fucking insufferable. These are the same types of people who couldn't admit what a piece of shit Prometheus was, because it made some vague hints at trying to be profound (though it desperately failed). These fans are everywhere just gushing about Interstellar at the moment. Harassing any critic who dared to give it even a pretty good score, because it's not the 100% score that it deserved. I can't watch a Youtube review at the moment without seeing comments saying "You gave this 8/10, but you only gave Interstellar 7/10? You're a fucking idiot".

Maybe that's why Tim thinks of Interstellar as so beloved too - because there's this portion of its audience that won't shut the fuck up about it, praising it as the best thing ever. Hijacking other conversations to gush over it some more. It always seems to be the big idea films that create this kind of reaction too. Maybe just because those are most likely to appeal to those in their late teens.

[Daz]

Or maybe because there's such a great lack of "deep" movies in mainstream cinema, they cling to anyone and anything who comes along with a big idea, trying to say something profound.

I pretty much agree with your assessment though. Couldn't have put it better myself.

[SortaCreative]

Ultimately i'm not saying Interstellar is utter crap. There's so many good things about it. If the story was tightened and given more attention to it could have been nominated. It could have succeeded in what it was trying to say. But the cheesy plot developments mid way through, man, they just destroyed the films tension, integrity and pacing.

It was so bad that when I think of Interstellar, I don't think of the quality direction or cinematography. I don't think of the wonderful depiction of the theory of relativity when it concerns real people. I don't think of the wonderful performances, from Matthew McConaughey and Mackenzie Foy especially. I don't think of the sometimes hauntingly beautiful score that boomed into the theater as the shuttle was taking off. All I can think about is how jarring the second act was and how contrived and forced plot twist was. It was a massive misstep and Nolan could, and should, do better.