I thoroughly enjoyed it. Saw it on the regular screen (bet IMAX is awesome) and really can't say enough good things about it. The imagery, music, acting - all very good. Some may say there are a few plot holes here and there, but in truth, I didn't notice them. Nolan did his homework and had a bunch of physicists checking everything over for accuracy.

Definitely worth the movie ticket and the 2 hours 47 minutes just flies by!

 

Just saw it last night in 4k. Was amazing.

I love how Nolan uses the music to enhance the most important scenes in his movies. Will have to watch it at least 2 more times. May check it out in IMAX.

 

Very good movie, definitely worth seeing on a big screen.

 

A tour-de-force science fiction movie that has been long overdue. This movie was excellent.


I got to see it in IMAX 2D (Nolan filmed it alternately in IMAX and 35mm depending on shot), and it was absolutely breathtaking. As Kami mentioned, Hans Zimmer's score adds gravitas to very skilled shots/CGI throughout the whole movie.

As a fan of 2001: A Space Odyssey, I wholeheartedly enjoyed the repeated nods/similarities to that mega-epic.

If you, or your friends have their heads filled with confusion, I found this article, where Neil deGrasse Tyson breaks down the science of the movie, along with where Nolan made sensible deviations from the science to help the story. AND YES, THERE'S SPOILERS. . .

 

Great read on the link man!

Makes me want to watch it again right now!!

 

that IMAX rumble from Hans Zimmer scores.. well worth the price of admission..unless you have a state of the art sound system in your house, watch this movie in IMAX before its gone..

great movie.. IMO, not Christopher Nolan's best movie, but it was still great.. got to read that article on the science behind it posted by UnkieT. ( I heard Nolan consulted with scientists to make sure things were scientifically valid)

 

Something must be wrong with me then because I thought it was terrible. My wife and I walked out with ten minutes to go when Cooper was pushing on the back side of the bookcase because it became so stupid we did not care any more how it turned out. My brother sent me an email a couple days before saying, "Skip it. I laughed out loud several times during the movie." I hate to say he was right.

I love Nolan's work but this was a serious mulligan. It reminded me of the equally well cast and laugh out loud bad "Mission to Mars."

Don't get me wrong, the special effect sequences were good, the robots were really neat, it had an all star cast, and watching Damon lose it was kind of interesting but......It starts out with a thinly veiled global warming preachiness that last for 20 minutes, the actors mail it in, it spends way too much time on scientific exposition, it is too long, and the whole ghost and different time scale plots become heavy and tiresome. When Caine dies reciting his stupid poem I started laughing out loud. When Hathaway makes the speech about which planet she chooses because of the human desire for love. When Cooper is revealed as the "ghost". Hokey fake forced sentimentalism and movie cliche. Nolan does not do that well.

I read one review where they said Nolan was just trying to include too many complex ideas and has to try to dumb them all down and explain too much and it becomes a total mess. I agree. I would not even rent this movie. When they hit the planet Damon was on it gets interesting for about 30 minutes but for me that was about it. I give him credit for trying, but it needed to be scaled down and scaled back. If I had to hold it up against something like Solaris, it pales in comparison.

And Anne Hathaway's face should not be seen on a giant screen. She looks like a crazed gopher.

 

OH FFS!!

I thought it was "good" because they did dumb it down. There's no way in hell most (read: 97% of the movie going public) can possibly digest either version of Solaris.*

The bookshelf thing was necessary. If you don't have a nice Hallmark-bowtie on these things, they don't screen well. Doesn't screen well, the movie gets defunded.

No, it's not as good as (either) Solaris. No, it's nowhere near the quality of 2001, and the last good (hard) science fiction movie I could remember seeing was Moon.**

I lament the dumbing-down of cinema as much as the next nerdlinger, but I also know the second I walk into a name-brand theater (tm), my expectations get reset (down).

Interstellar exceeded my moderated expectations. Huzzah.

*the original is from 1972, and is a sprawling epic by Andrei Tarkovsky. The 2002 version is by Soderbergh, stars George Clooney, and is pretty good. Go find the '72 one.
**A good movie, but you may suss out the ending in the first 20 minutes. Don't tell the guy sitting next to you.

 

I follow you, I just though it was kind of a mess. I still don't know how it ended but I can guess. I had to look up "FFS".

I agree with you on Moon and 2001, but I would also throw out Children of Men as a better "world is going to crap" movie, although that did not sell well with the US movie goers either.

I only saw the last half of the Tarkovsky version on IFC, but had already seen the Clooney version first with all the pretty Hollywood types in it.

 

I thought the Clooney version made more cohesive sense than the original. Overall, I like the remake more.