Interstellar: Nolan, McConaughey

no, my wife and I are not an assault team. we are snakes.

Yeah that looks/sounds completely horrible xp

Nolan's gimmick of trying to come up with concepts that film can't really convey well reaches some sort of apotheosis at the climax of this one. Wanna see what the fourth, fifth and hell the sixth dimension look/sound/feel like? Too bad.

psyched to skip this

the 5th dimension IIRC

http://www.rocksbackpages.com/public/img/artists/8162.jpg

nolan's films can be good, but sometimes it's like 'hey! have a little fun with it, buddy! lighten up!'

just missingNO's $0.02

Goddamnit. I feel like Charlie Brown and the football - after seeing Interstellar tonight, I have to question if Nolan was ever a good director. File this in between Mission To Mars and Sunshine. A movie that's so enamored with its own high concept that the emotional weight needed as backfill is just glopped on like cheap spackle. 15 minutes in and I'm already rooting for climate change to win. And that's even after the cool drone rustling scene. Visual effects perfunctory but uncompelling.

There's a lot of crying in this movie.

Trope alert...there's an African-American astronaut. How much you wanna bet that he survives the movie?

so i read. more than Hugh Jackman in The Fountain? xp

Lots more crying.

(disclosure: I kinda liked The Fountain)

psyched to skip this

― call all destroyer, Tuesday, November 4, 2014 1:55 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

otm

^

15 minutes in and I'm already rooting for climate change to win.

ok lol

christopher nolan is probably the greatest individual force for cultural stupidity that I could currently name

feel like there could be a twist ending to that post

m night shyamalan style

turns out chris nolan's been dead all along

"christopher stupidity is probably the greatest individual force for cultural nolan!"

"what are you doing??"

"improvising!"

lol

For what it's worth, I really enjoyed this. It's big, bombastic, and downright pulpy at times, but never really lost me. There were a few really odd decisions, but it captures the spirit of a particular vein of "hard" sci-fi (Arthur C. Clarke is the major touchstone, but there are elements of PKD/Stanislaw Lem in here) in a way I haven't seen a film do in a very long time (Moon is probably the last film I've seen that hits a similar tone).

weird how i just assumed i'd hate-see this out of pure zeitgeist and now that it's actually coming out i have no desire for that to ever happen even if i didn't have to pay for it

willing to bet that, say, Contact is a significantly better hard sci-fi movie than this

catching this and Birdman back to back on Friday, double feature of dudes who are really incredibly into themselves. (Nolan's made more enjoyable movies, tho)

weird how i just assumed i'd hate-see this out of pure zeitgeist and now that it's actually coming out i have no desire for that to ever happen even if i didn't have to pay for it

― linda cardellini (zachlyon), Wednesday, November 5, 2014 3:42 PM (21 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i was thinking about doing this but it's 169 minutes.

exactly twice as long as Lucy which I hope you all threw some money at

catching this and Birdman back to back on Friday

two movies i have negative desire to see right now

if time and aging were to stop for 6 hours and i was presented with the option to see these two movies back to back free of charge i would choose to stare at a wall

willing to bet that, say, Contact is a significantly better hard sci-fi movie than this

Completely agree.

For all the bloviating about Interstellar's "hard science" there's some astonishing ignorance that has nothing to do with relativity or hyper-dimensionality .A jet-propelled drone that runs off of solar power (read that closely). A landing ship that can apparently launch itself off of a planet at the bottom of a time-dilating gravity well, but still requires a Saturn V to get off of Earth. And apparently no one at NASA read their own studies about sending out uncrewed tanker ships ahead of time.

Arthur C. Clarke would have had all that nailed down.

A jet-propelled drone that runs off of solar power (read that closely)

ok lol

just sounds like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_rocket

guess it's not truly a 'jet' then I get u

well I guess it's still a 'jet' if it's sucking in air

Hey, this planet is near a black hole. You think tidal forces are, um, dramatic? YOU THINK?

arrrghh... Want to hate-post about this some more.

crazy thing about this movie is you're in the theater for 169 minutes but outside the theater 3 years go by

please do xp lol

this is pretty dumb but not in a bad way. i was happy and engaged for most of the three hours.

max! we all expected that post.

is it just me or do ppl now equate humorless scifi with hard scifi

i have not much desire to see this. especially if ppl are like oh it's gravity for smart ppl (and still completely nonsensical) *snore*

most important question to my mind is: would roman from party down like it?

no he would hate it

then i'm in

"For all its aspiration to the sublime, Interstellar can’t escape the ridiculous. The characters, and consequently the acting, rarely transcend comic-strip simplicity; Cooper’s family inhabit their own belt of purest corn somewhere between Field of Dreams and Ray Bradbury at his folksiest. Admittedly, there’s something boldly simple about proposing to represent our apocalyptic near future and only showing us a rural patch of America, rather than cutting to the gasping multitudes from Canberra to Kolkata, as Roland Emmerich would have done. Yet my Brit sensibility recoils at the idea of an English director so wholeheartedly embracing American myth that he can cheerfully present us with the idea that the destiny of our entire species is being forged in a Midwestern cornfield."

http://filmcomment.com/entry/film-of-the-week-interstellar-christopher-nolan

Last month, during a talk at the New York Film Festival, Paul Thomas Anderson called Nolan's film "beautiful," urging audiences to " go see it in IMAX." And now Quentin Tarantino has put his very vocal support behind the picture too.

“It’s been a while since somebody has come out with such a big vision to things,” Tarantino told The Guardian. “Even the elements, the fact that dust is everywhere, and they’re living in this dust bowl that is just completely enveloping this area of the world. That’s almost something you expect from Tarkovsky or Malick, not a science fiction adventure movie.”

eh, the old boys of 'murican filmmaking always have nice things to say about one another's movies even when they suck

not that this one necessarily sucks

Doesn't suck, but it does mostly blow.

if it sucks, it's a jet i guess

the fucking thing sucks like a solar powered jet i tell u

the more I read about this movie the more it sounds like shymalan gussied up in HD