Interstellar - Part 7

[wampa1]

Brainy, barmy and beautiful to behold, this is Stephen Hawking’s Star Trek: a mind-bending opera of space and time with a soul wrapped up in all the science.

Don't worry guys, we're getting Bob Orci's Star Trek soon.

: |

 

[jabolino]

Is it just me or are they having major sound mixing issues in some screenings? Virtually every negative review is complaining about inaudible pivotal moments.

Hopefully it's not on every IMAX print

 

[redfirebird2008]

Is it just me or are they having major sound mixing issues in some screenings? Virtually every negative review is complaining about inaudible pivotal moments.

Hopefully it's not on every IMAX print

The TCL Chinese screening is probably where the vast majority (maybe even all) of the complaints are coming from. I'm surprised Nolan didn't do a better job of quality control. He had to know that theater doesn't have great sound presentation. It's not even a real IMAX.

 

[Jaspertian1105]

Its funny how Nolan gets a free pass even with the rotten tomatoes score. That score really doesn't say much anyway, for example i really enjoyed Godzilla this year. I think it ended up with a 73 score more or less, i personally thought it deserved a better reception but well not anyone has my sensibilities. Still no one said with that Edwards movie was polarizing or that critics didn't understood it or whatever, it was a good movie for some or mediocre for others. I know one director has much more work behind him, but still all movies should be reviewed with the same standards and not be forgiving, no matter what the director has made before.

By the way, some reviews should really be careful, one gave away a major spoiler that really changes the context of the movie a lot, so thanks for that supposedly spoiler free reviewer.

Nolan fans will have to be ready too accept that this can be a mediocre movie, no matter how visually amazing it is , story comes first. I personally haven't seen it so i can go either way. I really liked Memento and The Prestige but the rest of his films don't do much for me, so if it resembles those 2 movies it would be a solid for me.

Box office wise i don't see this movie doing Inception numbers, is way to long probably for multiple views and the mixed reviews could hurt as well

 

[redfirebird2008]

Its funny how Nolan gets a free pass even with the rotten tomatoes score. That score really doesn't say much anyway, for example i really enjoyed Godzilla this year. I think it ended up with a 73 score more or less, i personally thought it deserved a better reception but well not anyone has my sensibilities. Still no one said with that Edwards movie was polarizing or that critics didn't understood it or whatever, it was a good movie for some or mediocre for others. I know one director has much more work behind him, but still all movies should be reviewed with the same standards and not be forgiving, no matter what the director has made before.

By the way, some reviews should really be careful, one gave away a major spoiler that really changes the context of the movie a lot, so thanks for that supposedly spoiler free reviewer.

Nolan fans will have to be ready too accept that this can be a mediocre movie, no matter how visually amazing it is , story comes first. I personally haven't seen it so i can go either way. I really liked Memento and The Prestige but the rest of his films don't do much for me, so if it resembles those 2 movies it would be a solid for me.

Box office wise i don't see this movie doing Inception numbers, is way to long probably for multiple views and the mixed reviews could hurt as well

Describing a film as polarizing is not giving the director a free pass. It's just observing the different reactions. The movie could very well be mediocre AND polarizing.

 

[Deserana]

Im not sure the hype in the last few weeks has gotten quite big and I still think word of mouth could help it edge past Inception.

I dont see how this is Nolan getting a free pass though... some people are pretty much waiting for him to fail. The "haters" are just as bad as the "fanboys".

 

[Jaspertian1105]

Describing a film as polarizing is not giving the director a free pass. It's just observing the different reactions. The movie could very well be mediocre AND polarizing.

True, hopefully it will only be polarizing. I admire Nolans ambition but sometimes you can bite more than you can chew with a story that involves so many things and concepts. Its a very thin line that he is walking over , between masterpiece and convulted mess, again hopefully it leans towards the first

 

[redfirebird2008]

True, hopefully it will only be polarizing. I admire Nolans ambition but sometimes you can bite more than you can chew with a story that involves so many things and concepts. Its a very thin line that he is walking over , between masterpiece and convulted mess, again hopefully it leans towards the first

The one common thing is the reviews seem to be a mixed bag across the board. The negatives are not completely negative and the positives are not completely positive. Sounds like the film itself is a mixed bag of good and bad things.

Some of us will probably enjoy the good more than we dislike the bad and some of us will probably dislike the bad more than we enjoy the good. Just have to see how it goes when we watch it.

 

[Jaspertian1105]

Im not sure the hype in the last few weeks has gotten quite big and I still think word of mouth could help it edge past Inception.

I dont see how this is Nolan getting a free pass though... some people are pretty much waiting for him to fail. The "haters" are just as bad as the "fanboys".

To be clear i dont "hate" the guy. I love the prestige and Memento, but i dont think everything that he has ever done is cinema gold like many of his fans think. Every director has tasted defeat (maybe not Cameron), its not something bad but i don't think this will be case. He is WB golden boy no matter what, he has made them way too much money

 

[redfirebird2008]

To be clear i dont "hate" the guy. I love the prestige and Memento, but i dont think everything that he has ever done is cinema gold like many of his fans think. Every director has tasted defeat (maybe not Cameron), its not something bad but i don't think this will be case. He is WB golden boy no matter what, he has made them way too much money

Cameron does have Piranha II on his resume. But since then he has had an awesome track record for sure.

 

[DeadPresident]

Im not sure the hype in the last few weeks has gotten quite big and I still think word of mouth could help it edge past Inception.

I dont see how this is Nolan getting a free pass though... some people are pretty much waiting for him to fail. The "haters" are just as bad as the "fanboys".

Quite true. Some people are hoping more than just waiting. I think people like to rag on Nolan because his movies often create some sort of parable and I think some people like it when "higher brow" material fails. Like attempting to pitch something as though it's "better" rubs people up the wrong way.

Some folk probably look at Nolan's films as an opportunity to watch a rich person crash their Rolls Royce - they take a bit of vindictive pleasure in it.

 

[Jaspertian1105]

Cameron does have Piranha II on his resume. But since then he has had an awesome track record for sure.

Yeah true, i think he had to direct it half way the production or something like that so i don't think anyone would have saved that thing, and it was his first movie too.

But Cameron actually has made very few movies, compared to someone like Scott or Spilberg. If he was more prolific he would probably had a couple of stinkers in his resume.

 

[AnneFan]

This bit from Empire's review caught my eye, and is promising:

This is Stephen Hawking’s Star Trek: a mind-bending opera of space and time with a soul wrapped up in all the science.

Reminds me of a statement someone made about Inception being The Matrix for those who drink wine.

 

[redfirebird2008]

Yeah true, i think he had to direct it half way the production or something like that so i don't think anyone would have saved that thing, and it was his first movie too.

But Cameron actually has made very few movies, compared to someone like Scott or Spilberg. If he was more prolific he would probably had a couple of stinkers in his resume.

Agreed. He has done a great job on quality control during his career and part of that is taking his time to make the movies and not rushing through them.

I will be curious to see how the Avatar sequels go, mainly because the further along in a franchise the more difficult it seems to be to keep the quality going at the same level. Plus making multiple franchise movies at the same time has rarely ever actually worked out in the quality department. If anyone can pull it off, he's the guy.

 

[Jaspertian1105]

Agreed. He has done a great job on quality control during his career and part of that is taking his time to make the movies and not rushing through them.

I will be curious to see how the Avatar sequels go, mainly because the further along in a franchise the more difficult it seems to be to keep the quality going at the same level. Plus making multiple franchise movies at the same time has rarely ever actually worked out in the quality department. If anyone can pull it off, he's the guy.

Yeah every time people thought he was going to crash and burn bad, going over budget or because all the stuff that it goes in his sets, he has made more many than anyone else in cinema.

I think with the Avatar sequels the thing is the comic book movies, when Avatar came out, Marvel was just starting out, DC only had Batman. Now when Avatar comes out it will be a much more crowded market. The first movie was 5 years ago (God i feel old) and honestly it hasn't made a clear mark in pop culture. Also 3D was a novelty back then and now it was been overused to death.

He will have a lot of obstacles, but if someone can pull it off is this guy. And his sequels are always better too

 

[Deserana]

To be clear i dont "hate" the guy. I love the prestige and Memento, but i dont think everything that he has ever done is cinema gold like many of his fans think. Every director has tasted defeat (maybe not Cameron), its not something bad but i don't think this will be case. He is WB golden boy no matter what, he has made them way too much money

But you're saying it as if you feel everyone else is somehow wrong to like it. He's the golden boy because to the majority of people he has not produced one bad film yet whilst dealing with different types of films. So he deserves to be the golden boy. He's somebody still providing old school movie making for the modern era whilst at least trying to be bring intelligence. The films are also critical and public darlings. Why cant this be praised even you fail to see the films the way the fans do?

Fans really are not as deluded as people think. If Interstellar isnt great people wont be pretending to like it.

Quite true. Some people are hoping more than just waiting. I think people like to rag on Nolan because his movies often create some sort of parable and I think some people like it when "higher brow" material fails. Like attempting to pitch something as though it's "better" rubs people up the wrong way.

Some folk probably look at Nolan's films as an opportunity to watch a rich person crash their Rolls Royce - they take a bit of vindictive pleasure in it.

Exactly I've never been able to put it into words but I guess that's it. People see Nolan's name, presume it's trying to be clever and then hope it fails. Even though Nolan himself says he just treats the audience as if they have a brain.

Just to stress this certainly doesn't go for everyone, people dont like him for certain and valid reasons but a small minority of people just dont like his films for this inane reason.

This bit from Empire's review caught my eye, and is promising:

Reminds me of a statement someone made about Inception being The Matrix for those who drink wine.

It's interesting how fast paced some people have said this film is. I was expecting quite a slow drama but it sounds like towards the middle it turns really fast paced.

 

[Jaspertian1105]

But you're saying it as if you feel everyone else is somehow wrong to like it. He's the golden boy because to the majority of people he has not produced one bad film yet whilst dealing with different types of films. So he deserves to be the golden boy. He's somebody still providing old school movie making for the modern era whilst at least trying to be bring intelligence. The films are also critical and public darlings. Why cant this be praised even you fail to see the films the way the fans do?

Fans really are not as deluded as people think. If Interstellar isnt great people wont be pretending to like it.



Exactly I've never been able to put it into words but I guess that's it. People see Nolan's name, presume it's trying to be clever and then hope it fails. Even though Nolan himself says he just treats the audience as if they have a brain.

Just to stress this certainly doesn't go for everyone, people dont like him for certain and valid reasons but a small minority of people just dont like his films for this inane reason.



It's interesting how fast paced some people have said this film is. I was expecting quite a slow drama but it sounds like towards the middle it turns really fast paced.

I don't think if someone likes the movie is wrong, hell i haven't even seen the movie myself! I have no idea were it can go for me personally. I enjoy when he does his own stuff rather than adapt someone else s properties. My biggest gripe with him is his Batman films, as weird as it sounds i don't think he was the right person for them, but well that just me.

 

[Squaremaster316]

Im not sure the hype in the last few weeks has gotten quite big and I still think word of mouth could help it edge past Inception.

I dont see how this is Nolan getting a free pass though... some people are pretty much waiting for him to fail. The "haters" are just as bad as the "fanboys".

The ironic thing is, if Nolan were still a relatively average-size director (aka, not Blockbuster), this rating wouldn't be a blip on their radar screen.

Aronofsky, Wes Andersen and Tarantino all have films with worse reviews (Death Proof, Life Aquatic and Fountain), all of which flopped hard at the BO, yet no one was declaring their careers to be "over", they only considered them minor setbacks at worst.

If any one of them had achieved the level of power and influence over the industry that Nolan has amassed the last decade, those films would have just as many hardcore detractors declaring the Hollywood to stick the proverbial fork in them.

 

[DeadPresident]

Exactly I've never been able to put it into words but I guess that's it. People see Nolan's name, presume it's trying to be clever and then hope it fails. Even though Nolan himself says he just treats the audience as if they have a brain.

Just to stress this certainly doesn't go for everyone, people dont like him for certain and valid reasons but a small minority of people just dont like his films for this inane reason.

I'll go a bit further and say I think it's actually quite prevalent, I think the average moviegoer prefers mindless cinema. That's fine up to a point, but I think the GA is encouraged to see consumption of media as a "brain-off" activity. I mean surely there's a reason Transformers keeps making obscene amounts of money after rehashing basically the same movie 4 times?

I honestly think there's a contingent, maybe like 10-15% of film goers (and probably users of this site) that dislike having to intellectually engage with the film medium and consciously or subconsciously dislike Nolan particularly because some of his material is geared towards a more thinking audience while simultaneously dressing his movie up like a "textbook" blockbuster.

I'm probably in the vast minority where that's concerned. But I've picked up a very vehement (vocal minority, granted) dislike for Nolan that can't just come from his technical film-making style or choice projects, there's something more to it.

 

[BatLobster]

This bit from Empire's review caught my eye, and is promising:

Reminds me of a statement someone made about Inception being The Matrix for those who drink wine.

Mmm, yes.

This may be an extreme position to take, but in my eyes anyone who's ACTIVELY rooting against Nolan is actively rooting against intelligent, large scale original blockbusters with a brain, that are must see events in the cinema/IMAX. Whether they realize that or not.

That is not to say one can't find flaws or be disappointed with his work, but it's honestly unfathomable to me how any lover of movies could ACTIVELY root against this guy. A movie like this being a success is good news for high concept original films. This movie and others like it need to succeed at the box office in order for non-franchise films to have a prayer of getting made in this era where we're going to have a franchise movie being released every other month. The competition out there is fierce and it's only getting more plentiful.

There's a quote in one of the reviews about how it's sort of the Nolan curse that a movie like this can come along and simultaneously be the best 'blockbuster' film of the year by leaps and bounds, while also leaving some wanting a little more. It just draws more attention to the fact that large scale cinema is struggling in the originality/quality department when it's always "Nolan's new film" vs. every other blockbuster that came out in a given year.

I think Nolan can withstand this movie underperforming at the box office (I don't think it will, but Inception had great WOM so we'll have to see), but the day Nolan stops becoming a guaranteed box office juggernaut would be a sad day for movies.

Sure, in the worst case scenario he could easily rebound and rebuild his rep by going small again, but I'd much rather see him do that on his own terms rather than out of necessity. I want him to keep playing on the large canvas as long as he's able to and is passionate about it. Or until the next "guy" comes along and starts working magic on that large scale.

 

[redfirebird2008]

I'm probably in the vast minority where that's concerned. But I've picked up a very vehement (vocal minority, granted) dislike for Nolan that can't just come from his technical film-making style or choice projects, there's something more to it.

There is something more to it: his crazy fans send people over the edge in the other direction. Human nature to run the other way when you feel something is massively overhyped and being shoved down your throat by other people.

 

[DeadPresident]

There is something more to it: his crazy fans send people over the edge in the other direction. Human nature to run the other way when you feel something is massively overhyped and being shoved down your throat by other people.

Haha, yeah, you probably have a point. It's one of the reasons I find discussing Nolan very tiresome, because it's gotten to the point where it's almost impossible to discuss him or his films "accurately". Because fans are going to try and compensate for what foam-mouthed haters are going to say and the haters are going to try and compensate for what the sycophants will say. I wonder if that's permeated into the reviewing sphere as well. I've encountered very few of the memetic "crazy Nolanites" to be completely honest. I think there are people who enthusiastically discuss his movies and enjoy that they aren't cookie-cutter blockbusters who are misconstrued as meth addict-esque nutjobs who want everybody else to bow down to their lord and savior, Christ Nolan. I mean Christopher Nolan. I do agree with you though, when people feel like there's "too much" love for a certain movie/director they put an equal amount of effort into criticizing that entity to equalize the situation.

What can't be denied though is that Nolan is an above average film maker that generally executes his movies quite well. He has his flaws, like all directors, and can sometimes have a film attempt to be so grand that it sometimes loses a bit of its quality in its scale. But it's pointless for anybody to suggest he's some gimmicky hack. Too much of people's opinions about his movies are tainted by whatever their opinion of him is, good or bad.

 

[BatLobster]

Haha, yeah, you probably have a point. It's one of the reasons I find discussing Nolan very tiresome, because it's gotten to the point where it's almost impossible to discuss him or his films "accurately". Because fans are going to try and compensate for what foam-mouthed haters are going to say and the haters are going to try and compensate for what the sycophants will say. I wonder if that's permeated into the reviewing sphere as well. I've encountered very few of the memetic "crazy Nolanites" to be completely honest. I think there are people who enthusiastically discuss his movies and enjoy that they aren't cookie-cutter blockbusters who are misconstrued as meth addict-esque nutjobs who want everybody else to bow down to their lord and savior, Christ Nolan. I mean Christopher Nolan. I do agree with you though, when people feel like there's "too much" love for a certain movie/director they put an equal amount of effort into criticizing that entity to equalize the situation.

What can't be denied though is that Nolan is an above average film maker that generally executes his movies quite well. He has his flaws, like all directors, and can sometimes have a film attempt to be so grand that it sometimes loses a bit of its quality in its scale. But it's pointless for anybody to suggest he's some gimmicky hack. Too much of people's opinions about his movies are tainted by whatever their opinion of him is, good or bad.

Great post. Anything popular attracts haters, it's just the way it is.

But I agree with you that the perception of half of his fanbase being a bunch of lunatic nutjobs is a greatly exaggerated and distorted one, aided by the power of the internet- wherein there are trolls of all shapes and sizes no matter where you turn. Just have a look around, most of his so-called crazy fans are taking the so-far mixed reception pretty calmly. Batman had a lot to do with it in the past, as has been pointed out- Batfans in their own right are pretty friggin intense. I can say that because I am one, haha.

I said months ago that I was tired of debating Nolan himself and was hoping desperately that the discussion surrounding this film would be about the actual film itself- particularly the ideas and themes it presents. Rather than round 528491 of "NOLAN IS GOD!!" vs "NOLAN IS TEH HACK!!!"

My hope here is that we are kind of preemptively getting that discussion out of the way a bit, and in a week's time will be more focused on discussing the film itself.

 

[DeadPresident]

Great post. Anything popular attracts haters, it's just the way it is.

But I agree with you that the perception of half of his fanbase being a bunch of lunatic nutjobs is a greatly exaggerated and distorted one, aided by the internet wherein there are trolls of all shapes and sizes no matter where you turn. Just have a look around, most of his so-called crazy fans are taking the so-far mixed reception pretty calmly. Batman had a lot to do with it in the past, as has been pointed out- Batfans in their own right are pretty friggin intense. I can say that because I am one, haha.

I said months ago that I was tired of debating Nolan himself and was hoping desperately that the discussion surrounding this film would be about the actual film itself- particularly the ideas and themes it presents. Rather than round 528491 of "NOLAN IS GOD!!" vs "NOLAN IS TEH HACK!!!"

My hope here is that we are kind of preemptively getting that discussion out of the way a bit, and in a week's time will be more focused on discussing the film itself.

Agreed, I'm glad people are thrashing out this conversation now, because like you say then perhaps there will be more focus on the movie when it comes out, instead of the usual back and forth. In redfirebird's support though I wasn't on SHH when TDK was released and I didn't see the discussions about Inception or TDKR either, so I don't know how intense the Nolanites were back then. Judging from my brief-ish time here though I haven't seen anybody that's absolutely blind in their support of Nolan.

The stigma might persevere though because some people probably feel like those who prefer Nolan movies over "general cinema" are condescending ***holes (which I personally might frequently be). I'd see myself as relatively objective in this debate, but what I can say is I'd stick my neck out to defend directors like Nolan 9/10 times just because I feel like those kinds of movies are few and far between.

I have limited time and money to spend on going to movies, so I prefer to spend that time watching what is of a slightly higher caliber than [Generic Action Sci-Fi Release #12] of any given year. If that makes me a snob I can see where people are coming from. But honestly, if you've seen Transformers 1/2 you've seen them all, why keep spending money on a franchise with the cerebral development of a cartoon show? I'm generalizing here, but I sometimes wish people had higher standards than they seem to.

 

[Fallen Angel]

Sorry if posted already but Empire is a 5/5 rave!

http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/reviewcomplete.asp?FID=138121

Slight Spoilers in the review, here's the concensus:





This is so polarizing every critic either adores it or hates it. I can't wait even more now.

EDIT: Another really positive one:

http://www.toofab.com/2014/10/27/christopher-nolan-interstellar-movie-review/

When did Empire not give a Nolan film 5 out of 5?