Interstellar

Wow, what a stinking log of Spielberg-flavored shit. I cringed less at the science in 7 seasons of Stargate SG-1 than I did in this saccharine turd. And that had less emo-exposition, too. And no precocious children.

This was like -- Prometheus bad.

it was like an episode from the even-worse-than-you-expected 2018 season of Dr. Who.

Tags: , , ,

27 Responses:

  1. Jake says:

    No wayyy, Interstellar may have problems but at least the character motivations make sense! Prometheus is a terrible, infuriating movie. Interstellar is certainly not Kubrick but it also isn't recent Scott.

    • jwz says:

      Ok, yes, Prometheus was worse. But I want my time back just the same. And Kubrick is grave-spinning at relativistic, frame-dragging speed.

    • MightyMu says:

      More importantly, it's not recent Lindelof. I think Ridley Scott ably directed the plate of nonsensical horseshit he was given by the writers - Prometheus's (utter, epic) failure was their fault, not his.
      Interstellar, as you say, made sense, at least as far as the craft of storytelling was concerned. And that's what made the more hand-wavey aspects of its science bearable.
      I liked it a lot.

      • Jake says:

        Yes I agree, Lindelof has a terrible habit of confusing 'unanswered' with 'intriguing'. However, I feel like Scott has enough clout at this point in his career to say "No, send this back." He agreed to film that stinker, and so some of the stink belongs on him.

  2. I call it a three-hour magic trick. You sit in the chair, you get amazing sound, great visuals, and it makes you believe that you are watching an awesome, epic sci-fi that just gets more and more crazy (especially the "science") and woah.

    Then you get to the end and... I see what you just did there, Christopher Nolan.

    It was fun to watch once, but I can never shake the disappointing last act.

  3. Marc says:

    For me it was like The Right Stuff meets 2001: A Space Odyssey meets The Abyss but mostly the bad parts of it : the wonder cowboy, the too long-no reason and the frightening but finally friendly overlords.

    It could have been cool without the wonder cowboy bits, though. And Matt Damon's fuck-everyone character and the robots are good.

    • Ian Young says:

      "The Wonder Cowboy" is probably my #1 complaint about Interstellar. What it really needed was for humble farmer, Cooper, to kidnap James Earl Jones [hell, let's just put him in a Darth Vader Costume] to bring him back to his rustic Iowa farm to show off his Timelike-Curve-of-Dreams. Oh look! Here's "Shoeless" Joe Acaba! MAAAAAGIC!

    • Jeremy Wilson says:

      The robots, despite being the stupidest design in the universe, certainly offered up obvious call-outs to 2001 and my personal favourite, 1979's Black Hole. I liked that part.

    • MattyJ says:

      I kinda liked it, but I like stupid, sappy things. I haven't decided if it had too much exposition or not enough.

  4. Stijn says:

    Did Spielberg also use two robots for comic relief in one of his movies?

  5. For once I am in complete agreement with your hate. I wonder if the black hole was a metaphor for all the plot holes?

  6. Can someone please tell me why you Americans are flooding all over the world and Universe such huge amounts of shitty meaningless films ? I think that there should be a reason if majors continue to invest billions in this crappy productions...

    • Ben says:

      Because you foreigners keep spending millions upon millions of dollars to see those shitty films.

      (cue long discussion about how making a film with worldwide appeal is hard but falling back on shiny visuals, story be damned, helps with that greatly).

  7. rob.alarcon says:

    Thank you.
    Fuck that movie.

  8. Kyle Huff says:

    I enjoyed the watching of it, but with each passing day my distaste for it grows.
    Except for Matt Damon. That stuff was hilarious.

    • Nick Lamb says:

      Anyone with half a brain listening to the speeches about lone pioneers making a huge sacrifice to report the conditions on each target should be thinking "Well, any person who survives is going to more or less report that they landed in a green grassy meadow dotted with delicious fruit trees on a warm day with a gentle breeze, because otherwise they're guaranteed to die alone" and thus know the reports are worthless.

      Now, you were busy watching a movie so I can cut you some slack if you missed that, but the characters in the story aren't watching a three hour movie, they spend months or maybe years, bored, in outer space. They have a LOT of time to think about this, so why are they surprised by what Matt Damon has done?

      • MattyJ says:

        I may have missed it, but I thought they intended to go to all three planets that had beacons transmitting. The beacons only told them that the pioneers had landed safely, I don't think they were sending out info about the habitability of the planets themselves. That's why space cowboy and catwoman took the little ship down there and not the big one, they had to check it out for themselves and presumable bring the scientists back with them, or to the next planet.

        Will Hunting hijacked the ship to continue with plan B, though, which still would have been a lifetime of raising zygots and banging chicks at whatever age he made the age of consent on his new plnet. He went a little nuts but at least he was still pressing on with the original plan.

        • jwz says:

          No, they were definitely sending out info about habitability. Damon admitted that he lied about it in the transmission to get rescued.

          • MattyJ says:

            Maybe that's when I dozed off a little bit. I just remember him going through his 'data' after they got there and woke him up, like they didn't know anything.

            Now it makes me wonder about the beacon on the water planet, and how they can land on a planet with waves going at that frequency and not notice them.

            • abeld says:

              As for the water planet, they mention that due to the time-dilation, time passes much slower on that planet, so only a few hours have passed since the first lone astronaut landed, which they mention as an explanation for why the wreckage of his ship isn't scattered completely but is mostly in one place. This might also be used as an explanation for not discovering the waves.

          • Kyle Huff says:

            The prequel comic Nolan published makes it clear that after being there for a while, Dr. Mann has the robot fabricate a set of data that would be exactly what they are looking for before he goes to sleep for the last time. Then he kills the robot. Also before he goes to sleep, obviously.

  9. NYT summary for David Brooks' latest column: "Christopher Nolan's 'Interstellar' illustrates how modern science has changed the way we look at love, philosophy and religion."

    Brooks writing seriously about the movie is almost as damning an indictment as your review.

  10. Owen W. says:

    Shh, not so loud, or even slightly science-based sci-fi will go back in the box for another ten years like after Solaris came out.

    • Kyle Huff says:

      Anyone who walks into a Soderbergh movie should know what to expect by now.