As someone who is absolutely enthralled by Astronomy and Physics and the Universe, this film, for me, seems to be a step above the rest of the sci-fi films that have come out. It had one of the world's leading scientists of General Relativity as a consultant and co-writer. Kip Thorne co-wrote a textbook now considered the Bible of General relativity. In short, the man knows his business. How many sci-fi films of the last 50 years have had someone like this as a consultant? How many films of the last 50 years have been built around actual scientific theory and mathematics? Not just inspired but built on? IDK maybe its a bunch, but if it is it certainly hasn't been evident at the cinema.
Members here can dismiss other members here and say that this is a Nolan thing (for some that may be all it is), but for me it's more about Kip Thorne and the scientific theories and principals I'm going to get to see explored in a film with a substantial budget. Am I thankful that Nolan is the director? Absolutely. The man has the cold calculating method that scientific material like this needs. The only other director I'd trust with material like this is Kubrick. This isn't to say that other director's aren't as talented as Nolan just that each and every director has projects they are best suited to, and Nolan is suited to this project and the right one for the job. So yeah, I'm glad this is a Nolan film, but my interest in this film isn't a "Nolan" thing. Its a science thing, and what this film could do for the public. We talk about film's like Star Wars inspiring a generation of filmmakers. Is it so crazy that this film may inspire a generation of children to take more of an interest in the Universe and its mechinations? Is it unbelievable that for some of us this is more than a "Nolan" thing?
I think it's perfectly possible to hate a movie, but think it was pretty well-made and not your cup of tea.
