Interstellar - Part 7

[redhawk23]

That's possible, as is your theory. Another is that it requires multiple viewings to appreciate everything. King Kong told a very simple story and was an hour longer than it should have been.

I'm sure Interstellar is an example of Nolan reaching beyond his own grasp, but at least there seems to be a decent reason for it given the subject matter. I actually like King Kong a lot, but there is no reason for a Kong movie to ever be over 3 hours long.

 

[BatLobster]

In all honesty, I'm glad the critical reaction isn't pure euphoria, for my own sake. The hype was starting to get unbearable with all the directors' reactions and such. If it continued only in that direction, it would've been impossible to live up to all of that. This is bringing me back down to Earth...probably right where I need to be before blasting off with this movie.

We all know this movie will have a helluva lot to offer even if it doesn't go down as Nolan's undisputed masterpiece. He has the rest of his career to make that one, or keep trying anyhow. Right now I just want to focus on enjoying what this film has to offer, which by the sounds of it, is something pretty unique.

Very much looking forward to seeing this movie on an IMAX screen in a week.

 

[redhawk23]

Oh my, you actually answered that. And the answer wasn't, "I have seen the film".

 

[redhawk23]

I think we've reached a ridiculous place with several directors when reviews even have to bother to say "Well, its not a masterpiece."

 

[BatLobster]

I think we've reached a ridiculous place with several directors when reviews even have to bother to say "Well, its not a masterpiece."

Amen to that.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I still think it's going to end up in the mid 80's at least on Rotten Tomatoes. It's not getting greatest movie ever reviews like most thought it would though and I guess that's disappointing to some.

Excuse me but after TDKR I wasn't wiling to give Nolan the benefit of the doubt that Interstellar would be a masterpiece.

 

[FilmNerdJamie]

You guys realize Rotten Tomatoes is a flawed system, right? And most importantly, make up your own minds when you see the film yourself. Zero need of getting bent out of shape because others didn't like it.

 

[Boom]

I've found Metacritic to be a more reliable source for critical reception.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Both of the systems are flawed. Reading the actual reviews is a good idea though.

 

[BatLobster]

Right now it's at 77 on Metacritic which is pretty on par with his other work.

But yes, the binary of nature of RT really does make it a flawed system. It does absolutely nothing to account for HOW MUCH people loved, liked, disliked or hated a movie. I can't tell you how many times I've watched movies with scores in the 80s or 90s only to be disappointed.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I still think it's going to end up in the mid 80's at least on Rotten Tomatoes. It's not getting greatest movie ever reviews like most thought it would though and I guess that's disappointing to some.

Excuse me but after TDKR I wasn't wiling to give Nolan the benefit of the doubt that Interstellar would be a masterpiece.

 

[redfirebird2008]

Oh my, you actually answered that. And the answer wasn't, "I have seen the film".

I don't need to see it to know that it is on a much larger scale than the stuff that Nolan has done well in the past.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Both of the systems are flawed. Reading the actual reviews is a good idea though.

You want people to read?

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I don't need to see it to know that it is on a much larger scale than the stuff that Nolan has done well in the past.

The dude made Inception. I think viewership is required before we start talking about what is and isn't in his grasp. This reeks of prejudgment and potential prejudice against the director.

 

[DKDetective]

ROTK only "catches flack" over a decade later after Jackson's King Kong and Hobbit series. At the time, it pretty much swept the awards.

Yeah, but that is not necessarily evidence that it was the best of the bunch. I mean, I remember that, even at the time, the consensus was that ROTK swept the awards season as recognition of the trilogy as a whole rather than recognition that it, in particular, was one of the greatest films of all time. Also, we all had Hobbit fever at the time after two great previous films in the trilogy, which were all released in short succession. It did not really give anyone the time to soberly re-evaluate the films independently. It makes sense that the flaws would become more apparent as time went on. It's not just an example of revisionist history. I say this as someone who still loves the whole LOTR trilogy, but has always found ROTK to be the weakest link.

 

[BatLobster]

I'm only skimming reviews. Sometimes it's easy to infer spoilers even when the reviewer is trying hard not to give anything away. Other times they just outright mention things I'd rather not have known. And lastly, I don't want to go in with too many preconceived notions.

As for Nolan and working on a large scale...I hope he continues to do it. He is a flag-waver for so much of what I love to see in blockbuster cinema, and I think the film world needs guys like him doing it and going big right now more than ever.

However...I desparately would love to see Nolan tackle horror. I think he'll do it one day.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

You want people to read?

Is that too much to ask?

 

[Jekecy]

Right now it's at 77 on Metacritic which is pretty on par with his other work.

But yes, the binary of nature of RT really does make it a flawed system. It does absolutely nothing to account for HOW MUCH people loved, liked, disliked or hated a movie. I can't tell you how many times I've watched movies with scores in the 80s or 90s only to be disappointed.

That's what the critic/user rating is for. It's right next to the TomatoMeter.

MetaCritic is not a good barometer for objectivity, as the listed numbers are pure guesswork from an editor who aggregates all the reviews for a movie. There's no actual mathematics or science behind it at all.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

The dude made Inception. I think viewership is required before we start talking about what is and isn't in his grasp. This reeks of prejudgment and potential prejudice against the director.

As opposed to the bias in his favor?

 

[redfirebird2008]

The dude made Inception. I think viewership is required before we start talking about what is and isn't in his grasp. This reeks of prejudgment and potential prejudice against the director.

He did make Inception, but even that film had a very messy third act. The best moments in his big budget movies tend to be the small scale stuff. That is where he excels and I would love to see him go back to that level again.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Is that too much to ask?

 

[Deserana]

The end in particular seems to be decisive. Which IMO is normally where Nolan excels.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

As opposed to the bias in his favor?

There is enough on both sides. I'll judge it when I actually see it.

He did make Inception, but even that film had a very messy third act. The best moments in his big budget movies tend to be the small scale stuff. That is where he excels and I would love to see him go back to that level again.

A mess perhaps to you. I find Inception, like Memento, TDK and the Prestige to be extremely well crafted throughout, and great examples of why Nolan is the biggest name in directing today. But again, if you are simply gonna poopoo his work, no wonder you seem to think you know the qualities and problems of Interstellar without having actually seen it.

 

[Donut]

It would have been interesting 2 see peoples reactions had the WB not let reviews come out until after opening weekend

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Inception had a great 3rd act but the less said about Batman Begins's 3rd act, the better.