Artwork

What Went Wrong With… Interstellar?

What Went Wrong With... Interstellar - Paraody of the poster by whatwentwrongwith.com

There have been many occasions recently when we’ve been told that an upcoming film is “huge in scale”, “big in scope”, or “epic”, but once you’re finally able to watch the movie it becomes plain that this hype was merely a marketing ploy to sell a mediocre product. When it comes to Christopher Nolan‘s Interstellar this is definitely the case, and with the cinematic hyperbole “epic” being used so many times to describe this movie, it almost became a synonym for the film before the public even watched it. After weeks of brainwashing movie-goers into thinking that Christopher Nolan is some kind of reincarnation of Stanley Kubrick, I like the rest of the audience (all five of them) was expecting something spectacular, but after the overrated shitfest that was The Dark Knight Rises, I don’t know why I expected more. Once I finally sat down and began to watch this drab-arse movie, it first made me wonder which part was supposed to be “epic”. It wasn’t the dusty cornfield on Earth, it wasn’t the Earth-like Alien Planets, it wasn’t the low-grade Spacecraft or the Robot, and it definitely wasn’t the unimpressive worm-hole. And yet Interstellar cost an estimated $165,000,000. I mean where did this money go? I haven’t seen this much wasted money since a fucking NASA Mission.

Interstellar like many recent Hollywood exercises in condescension (After Earth, Avatar) is set in a not-too-distant future where the human race has destroyed its own planet and must leave, explore, and conquer other worlds. And yet, even from this point in the movie we are introduced to so much barbed commentary about society and culture that you begin to feel uncomfortable in your seat…

  • Firstly it’s supposed to be a dystopian future where the human race is on the brink of extinction, and yet conversely we’re told there’s no more Army. So I guess we’re supposed to equate war and Militarism with harmony and paradise?
  • There is a quick dig at conspiracy theorists, with the school children being given books in which they are told the Apollo Moon Landings were faked. So people who are free-thinkers will lead the Earth to ruin?
  • There is also the inclusion of an Indian Air-Force drone which the lead character “Cooper” takes control of; so only when the world is completely destroyed will a third-world country become technologically advanced enough to compete with current American tech?
  • Then there is the strange inclusion of National Stereotypes; America is able to grow corn, and Ireland has just been through a Potato famine! …Fuck off Nolan.

Wasn’t this supposed to be a film about humanity, that is to say; all of humanity? I guess even in a serious-toned contemporary Sci-Fi Drama concerning the extinction of the human race; we still have an American saviour. In that respect, Interstellar may as well be a reboot of Armageddon, but targeted toward Middle-Class twats. I mean, if you’ve got copies of the original Planet Of The Apes, M. Night Shyamalan‘s Signs, Sphere, Contact, Solaris, Event Horizon, and the aforementioned Armageddon, you could piece together this film on an editing suite and save yourself a trip to the frigging cinema. Just take all the cornfield corniness and sentimental junk from Signs, add the water landing from Planet Of The Apes, add a touch of boredom from Solaris and then edit in the explanation of a wormhole directly from Event Horizon. Interstellar is hardly an original movie-going experience.

For somebody who wishes he was Stanley Kubrick, Nolan hasn’t even made outer-space as believable as Kubrick’s Moon Landings (…allegedly). And while I’m at it, knocking the Moon Landing conspiracy and then proceeding to film a so-called “realistic” space movie here on Earth is the epitome of ironic. But I digress, back to the film itself.

Interstellar purports to be about human exploration, life, love, the human experience, and science; and in the hands of a talented Writer and Director these ideas could have been exciting, enthralling, and even emotional. But when it comes to Christopher and Jonathan Nolan’s examination of these concepts, we are left with nothing but 169 minutes of contrived blandness and soulless film-making, it’s as if the Nolan’s put little or no effort into creating this space-junk. In fact, Interstellar has so little going for it, that it was hardly worth the ticket price. It did however have an almost endless list of things wrong with it, so let’s get back to bullet points, hell I may as well put as much effort into critiquing it as Christopher Nolan did into making it…

  • In the future we can’t sort out crop blight or dust-related lung disease, we’re weirdly still using Rockets to leave the Earth’s atmosphere, and NASA are still using today’s laptops. But amidst all this backwards bullshit we’ve invented some form of suspended-animation-cum-hyper-sleep chamber.
  • T.A.R.S. is one of the cheapest looking robots since Robot B-9 from ‘Lost In Space’, clunking around like a fucking vending machine with legs; this was surely one of the lamest excuses for a Robot (or should I say Slave) in the history of film.
  • And on that note, I guess we humans can only navigate through space and build a “civilisation” on a New World with the help of a slave; Space Exploration seems very Columbus-esque.
  • Matthew McConaughey pretty much abandons his Catholic sensibilities. There are no aliens, no ghosts, and by extension no God in Interstellar. Humans are the be-all and end-all of the entire Universe and all dimensions. It’s like he completely forgot about the sentiments of ‘Contact’, what happened to belief rather than proof?
  • Overpopulation throughout history usually follows on from exploration. After a place is conquered, it is settled and built on. We then breed and consume. We cannot fix this human trait, but in Interstellar our best idea is to leave Earth and continue the same cycle on another planet. What are we, fucking germs?
  • And yet, in this world where the Big Bang definitely happened, and Adam and Eve is a thing of fiction; our best solution is freezing human embryos in order to save them from an Armageddon like some kind of all-human Noah’s Ark. What a great scientific idea.
  • Nolan wants progress in the form of technological advances for space exploration, and yet he wants to keep analogue projection in cinemas.
  • Nolan makes a film that is so fucking boring, it makes no difference if you watch it with digital projection.
  • The continual use of the same shot (from the camera rigged to the side of the Ranger and Lander) becomes tiresome and monotonous.
  • The crew of Endurance represents the “best of humanity” and this consists of a Pilot slash Engineer, and a few Scientists. Within this amazingly diverse skill-set there are three men to one woman, and there are three white people to one black. The prejudicial ratio in Interstellar is off the star chart.
  • Dr. Mann is the first person to travel through the wormhole. Great name, I guess we could have had Dr. Womann, Dr. White, And Dr. Black, but that would have been too obvious.
  • 23 years pass on Earth, Cooper’s kids have grown up, and yet Michael Caine looks exactly the same. Toward the end of the film, Cooper returns (over 80 years have past on Earth and he is technically 124 years old) and yet all the Hospital equipment looks the same as the day he left and so do the clothes.
  • Anne Hathaway’s character lands on the new “Edmund Planet” where we can see the American flag planted in the background; I thought this was to kick-start the human race, not to start an American Colony.

This movie is so bleak that it will never be remembered in the pantheon of great Space genre movies. It may contain references to inter-dimensional time, but Interstellar is far from timeless. And constantly quoting Dylan Thomas’ poem does not give this crap any more artistic credence. The slap-dash storyline has more plot-holes than worm-holes, and the shabby way in which this film is constructed, you instantly begin to notice the problems rather than enjoy the story. The most glaring plot-hole is the fact that if five-dimensional future human beings can effect their own past, then why not communicate with humanity before it destroys the Earth and prevent it? Surely letting the pre-crop-blight humans know of their future is simpler than the more complicated “tell the dying humans to explore space through a worm-hole” solution? But then again, if these future humans exist in a time where they need us to change the course of our future, surely they and their time-line would cease to exist once we fulfil our destiny and save humanity? The way this time-travel paradox is set out in the movie, it seems that humans will be stuck in a never-ending loop.

Interstellar is nowhere near being an artistic masterpiece, and even though it wishes it was ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’, it has more similarities to ‘Gravity’; it’s overrated and nothing special. So let’s be honest, this film does not contain exciting and imaginative space exploration like that of Gene Roddenberry, and it doesn’t contain intriguing science like that of Michael Crichton; so why has it been so overvalued and so over-hyped? In fact, the imagining of worlds and the delving into theoretical physics becomes so lifeless and dull, that you would rather listen to a lecture from an actual Physicist than watch this horridly dismal movie, and when coupled with Hans Zimmer’s overblown, same-same bullshit score, Interstellar becomes so tedious that you begin to think time has actually stood still.

One Dimensional.

Advertisements

74 replies »

    • Wow, you really are a sheep-like sycophantic fuck.

      Having an opinion doesn’t automatically make someone a “Hipster” you ignorant moron, but I guess using a blanket term to demean all non-conformist viewpoints is just the kind of thing you wannabe clever arseholes do. Now that you’ve got your two cents in; get back on your knees and kiss Nolan’s overrated upper-class arse like the grovelling scum you are.

      And by the way; it’s “too hard” not “to hard” you illiterate twat.

    • how is criticizing this film being different? this is one of nolans most disappointing films and critics agree, i saw it with a few friends and we werent impressed at all

    • What the hell did i just watch? It was waaaaay too long and had no great characters. One of the most boring films I’ve watched in a long time!!!

    • I think the movie was actually good ! Little dab and long but I guess that what it takes to send the message or the science in this case. But that’s my view

    • Do you even understand science man?
      Yes an over budget movie, but a movie going down in history. We are already searching for new habitable potential worlds. Though the science to reach there is not there. Our closest bet in the future – A Wormhole. Nothing wrong there with movie.
      Maybe you should start studying.

    • What the pissing hell are you talking about?

      Firstly, maybe stop polluting this frigging planet instead of inflicting our germiness on other worlds.

      Secondly, if we do explore space, our best bet would be hibernation and good ol’ fashioned spacecraft, maybe utilising nuclear or solar energy, and also tackling gravity and atrophy, but to try and find a motherfucking WORMHOLE in order to save the human race by travelling through it, is so dumb that it makes me wonder if you know anything about science at all!

      There’s shit-loads wrong with the film, most of which I outlined in the article plus a few people left links to other articles saying the science is in fact WRONG, so “nothing wrong with the movie” is actually a falsity.

      The fact that your comment is written so poorly, before you fanny about studying so-called science, maybe start studying English… man.

  1. A third world country with Mars orbitor mission reaching mars at first attempt with a mission budget of $75 million cannot compete with current American technology. 165 million for a making a movie??? What a joke….

  2. Yeah you son of a bitch. I had to post the same thing 3 times as you kept deleting it. I’m not talking about India’s cost effective methods. I’m talking about how you are specifically looking for hints of racism in the movie which are nothing but extremely minor coincidences. Also I’m pissed off about your views of India as third world and incompetent. And you call Nolan racist.

    • Fucking Hell, you really are a tragic fucking moron.

      If I see prejudice in a piece of Art, that’s what I see. When I call it out, that makes it my point of view; it doesn’t make me racist you dumb motherfucker.

      Secondly, where the fuck did I say India was incompetent? If you bothered to read the article correctly, I said that Nolan was inferring that India (and other developing nations) would only be flying current generation drones over US Soil once the world was coming to and end; any way you look at it, it’s Nolan’s writing that’s prejudice. But you feel free to glaze over his Pro-West undertones and continue talking shit if it makes you happy, you skewed fuck-wit.

      Lastly, it’s not just my opinion that India is classed as a Third World Country; look it up. I could describe India as a developing country and it would mean exactly the same fucking thing. The two shits are interchangeable in modern language. This isn’t a report for the fucking UN; it’s a review about Interstellar.

      PS. Why would you follow this site by email and then spew your venomous garbage at an article within it? You really are a dumb fucking moronic cock.

    • “I said that Nolan was inferring that India (and other developing nations) would only be flying current generation drones over US Soil”

      A current generation drone? So you are saying that US (and other “developed” nations) have the capability of creating a drone which can fly for 10 years straight without refuling already? The movie said that it was an “advanced” drone with advanced solar cell which Coop wanted to harness for his own use. 🙂

    • I take your point, but the drone in Interstellar resembled the current design of US “Reapers” with the addition of a solar fuel cell. The fact that most nations are developing drones with a completely different design means that the one shown in the movie would be an old retro-fitted vehicle if flying in our future. India specifically is working on concepts for the DRDO Rustom and the DRDO AURA (with a 2016 production date), both with a new triangular V shape wing design. Therefore, apart from the long-range the drone in the film is basically a current generation model (more specifically in terms of design).

    • Also not to mention, that India has developed it’s own pilotless drones (since the year 2000), so Nolan’s assumptions that India will have these advanced drones in the future doesn’t degrade India’s status (and is not racist in any way). He has portrayed India as an technologically advanced nation who have cracked the age old problem of energy crisis by inventing a highly intellegent drone which is self navigating (without human piloting it even via remote command center), which have solar cells panel which do not decay for over a dacade (or even more!).

    • Again, if the current trend for all-winged drone designs come into production in the next few years; the model in the film will be an obsolete design. Therefore in a world on the brink of destruction, India is most likely stuck with present-day technology. A retro-fitted solar cell capable of flying for a decade is not necessarily India’s design in any case, and even if it was; it was far too easy for a corn-farming ex-pilot with a laptop to hack into the drone in question (therefore Nolan assumes India’s Air-Force are bad at encryption and security too). In either case Interstellar was in my opinion a tad pro-West and anti-everybody else.

    • I do agree with what you are trying to say to some extant, design wise, the craft looked nothing like what Indian defense contractors are designing and more like some US (Predator or Reaper) aircraft. But the technology which was inside this “ordinary” looking UAV, by far surpasses today’s technological capabilities. The advanced solar cells, the ability of self mobility with no human interactions etc. are somewhere in the distant future.

      I agree, that Nolan, didn’t get his facts right about the design of the craft but that doesn’t mean to say he wanted to portray India as technologically handicapped. During what looks like World War III (or maybe 4, a decade ago), India had unmanned drones in reconnaissance missions which somehow made it half way across the globe, this sounds impressive even in future standards. 🙂

      Finally, the biggest point I agree with you is that it was too easy for a corn/okra farmer to remotely hack into a military aircraft! That just made me chuckle… but then again, the craft had 10 years old (or even older) cryptographic technology, so a lot can happen over a decade… 😉

    • Also, just to make things clear. I by no means endorse the movie in any way. It got a LOT of things wrong, fueling the age old moon landing contraversy, stereotyping with america/corn, Irish/potatos and the father keeping his promise 124 years after he made it is all bit OTT for me! From what I am reading elsewhere, it spewed up a lot of BS about worm holes and black holes too, but atleast this movie got me interested in researching all this..

      I know for a guy with a bit more knowledge (a lot more) than myself, this might be full of crap. But for a guy who had very little knowledge about inter steller space, it is a thought provoking movie. 🙂

    • Oh my God! How is it that you are defending Nolan, a white man whose ancestors probably took over India in the first place (where people like you probably gave the whole kit and caboodle to them on a plate) but when someone simply critiques one film you’re up in arms, you piddling little twit.

  3. INTERSTELLAR WAS THE MOST DISAPPOINTING SCIFI FLICK SINCE PROMETHEUS. JUST HAD TO GET THAT OUT SINCE THERES SO MANY FOOLS WHO ADORE THIS CRAP.

    • Exactly!!!! What is wrong with people? Interstellar was the most boring film I’ve seen in years, and way too long. I don’t get the people who say it’s good, it’s like these people were watching a different film or something!?!?

  4. You don’t like Nolan. You don’t like Tarantino. Don’t you think you’re are being narcissistic? Because you are literally searching to give shit about them.

    • How is it narcissism to not like the work of two Directors? Simply following the accepted norm and sucking up to anybody that you’re told to is such a trend of contemporary society. Disagreeing with a crowd isn’t narcissistic, it’s called having an opinion; maybe check the Dictionary again. And while you’re at it, maybe read the fucking articles properly; I liked Pulp Fiction, and I enjoyed Batman Begins. To not enjoy the majority of a Director’s films because they have become sub-par isn’t blanket hatred; it’s honest criticism.

    • Just took a look at it now, definitely agree with this part:-
      “Why the best in their field would have to venture to the surfaces of two worlds – one made out of ocean, the other forged out of ice – before realizing there’s no chance in hell these planets can support human life is a question the film can’t be bothered to answer. And it’s just one of the many frustrations the narrative presents”

    • Does the film actually state that the ‘whole’ surface is covered with ice and water??? They visit the ice planet bcose mat damon’s charecter sends them da wrong information, and just because they landed in the oceanic part or icey part of a planet that doesnt mean they can understand wheather theres chance for life or not…earth has oceans and polar regions…..but has life on it in other regions and in the mentioned places too.

    • Did I say this? No. I just agreed with the article in the link. That being said, Interstellar was set in the future, so a simple satellite scan would have shown the best area to land. Not knowing there was a huge tidal-wave coming (and landing on vast areas of water and ice) meant these were the least inhabitable places on each planet; which made the whole idea of starting a human colony there nonsensical.

  5. The whole sustainability thing was an excuse to make this over the top movie. Much of what’s mentioned in movie is shown very well in Donnie Darko, which was a great movie.Apart from McConaughey ,the acting was shit. The dialogue at many places was atrocious. And you’re absolutely right , the shots of the spacecrafts were extremely irritatng. took me a while to figure out its actual shape and by that time i was not interested

    • Exactly, I think once you finish watching the whole film; you realise that the space exploration was a side-issue. The main crux was the idea of spiritual connections between us as family and humans (souls) and the fact that linear time is just the way we perceive our reality. Like you said, this kind of thing was better explored in movies like Donnie Darko and if you put these same ideas against the backdrop of reincarnation; we have better films like Cloud Atlas. I would definitely watch either of those films rather than Interstellar any day.

  6. You expect Matthew McConaughey to have the same views as a character in a different movie made by different people?

    Are you stupid? Do you understand how “acting” works?

    • Are you stupid? Do you understand how critiquing works? You bring up any and everything that’s wrong with the subject no matter how minor, it all adds up to an overall criticising of something. But forget that, to answer your question; I expect Actors to have a fucking backbone. I wouldn’t expect a left-wing anti-war Actor for example to appear in a right-wing pro-war movie. So McConaughey prats around being Religious and then appears in an anti-spiritual film; that makes him a sell-out plain and simple. Why not bring that up?

    • So actors need to support crime to play criminals and they need to support gangsters to play gangsters…..so al pacino doesnt have a backbone because he played a gangster but doesnt support gang violence. Anthony hopkins doesnt have a backbone because he played a psychopath but he doesnt agree with the actions of a real one. Im a fan of nolan but i wasnt impressed with interstellar. But i completely disagree with what you just said. An actor is an artist,an artist looks for and acts roles that challenges him/her……….A ROLE THAT IS COMPLETELY DIFFFERENT IN TERMS OF PHILOSOPHY AND PERSPECTIVE IS NATURALLY MORE DIFFICULT. I do agree that a left wing antiwar actor shud not act in a FILM dat supports right wing prowar philosophy……….but he/she can play a charecter that supports rightwing prowar philosophy…wat if the charecter’s cruelty is used as a way to critise rightwing politics???? BTW INTERSTELLAR DOES NOT SAY ‘GOD DOES NOT EXIST’………….JUST BECOSE ITS A FILM THAT DOESNT DISCUSS GOD’S EXISTENCE THAT DOESNT MEAN IT ACTUALLY BELIEVES GOD DOES NOT EXIST. if that is so then all non religeous films wud hv to be deemed athiest.

    • A Gangster or even a Psychopath is not a world view, it’s a way of life because of various socio-economic reasons; it is not a state of mind. Being a Gangster or Psychopath is not built on the opinion or support of the masses. Being pro-war, anti-war, Religious, Agnostic, Atheist, Left-Wing, or Right-Wing however, is a choice everybody makes and it forms our very being and society. Therefore if you exclaim to everyone that you’re a pacifist, but then appear in a pro-war movie for example, you’re obviously selling out. Same thing applies to McConaughey.

      On your second point, the film was overtly pro-science, pro-human, and anti-theosophy. It was also confused; there was the “Grandpa’s close to being a ghost” line along with “there’s no such thing” which contradicted itself. Then, the “ghost” (spiritual) turned out to be a future Cooper and future/evolved humans (it turned out) created the black-hole itself. Therefore there are no aliens, no ghosts, no spirituality, no angels, and no God.

  7. Not sure if troll or completely ignorant. You are a fucking moron. If you are up to it I can fucking destroy you on your scientific critiques which are all wrong. Reply to this if you aren’t a fucking pussy ass bitch.

    • Defending Interstellar and sucking up to some upper class dick like Nolan makes you the dumbest fucking bitch of all time. The kind of twat that misses the word “you’re” from your opening sentence is surely the real fucking moron here.

      Plus, how the fuck can I be a “troll” on my own website, you retarded fucking halfwitted prick? You’re the idiot coming to a site called “What Went Wrong With” and bitching about “what was right” with Interstellar; that makes you the scum-sucking faceless troll, you “pussy ass bitch”.

      Go ahead, elucidate us all with your amazing, all-knowing, critique-destroying points of view. I’m sure your breakdown of Interstellar will be as brilliantly constructed as your poorly-written comment.

      Reply to this if you’re a complete and utter cunt.

  8. Well, when you said that they got the science of a wormhole and a blackhole wrong, they did that because if they didn’t then the movie wouldn’t be a movie. I understand what they got wrong with the wormhole, which was if a wormhole happened in space it would only be the fraction of a centimeter in size and that there would be no way of keeping open for more than, I think less than a minute, without some type of exotic element it would collapse.

    The only thing that I can remember that was wrong with the black hole was that it would have basically obliterated Millers planet since it was way to close to the blackhole. The other thing was that when Cooper went through the event horizon he should have died, but they couldn’t do that because if they did then the movie would have made completely no sense and there really wouldn’t be a end to explain it. The ending would have just been Dr.Brand on Edmunds planet.

    Other than those things though the movie was pretty spot on. The other small things that didn’t make sense were science fiction, I don’t understand how none of you did not understand that. Also, if you say the movie was boring because you were confused doesn’t make any sense, because throughout the movie it explains to you how they worked.

    • I personally didn’t say I was confused; I got the plot, I understood the science, I then recognised the flaws in the science, but it was the depressingly drawn-out storytelling and drab aesthetics that made this a below-average film.

    • Actually, looking back at all the comments all I see is…

      “we werent impressed”
      “the most boring films I’ve watched”
      “THE MOST DISAPPOINTING SCIFI FLICK SINCE PROMETHEUS”

      Who exactly said “the movie was boring because they were confused”?

      Please stop assuming the audience who criticised the film were confused; most of us were just disappointed.

  9. Interstellar is just a movie.That’s all.Some would like it while others won’t. Imagine a world where everybody liked everything they saw! The science in interstellar is flawed, i agree but that’s just because almost everything in the movie is based on theoretical physics. Nolan based the scientific aspects of this movie through the consultation of Theoretical physicist Kip Thorne( A longtime friend and colleague of Stephen Hawking and Carl Sagan, he was the Feynman Professor of Theoretical Physics at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) until 2009 and “is one of the world’s leading experts on the astrophysical implications of Einstein’s general theory of relativity”). There are many articles out there written by other scientists who criticize the science but the truth is they are not an expert at that particular field in physics. Many have changed multiple views they had on the movie after reading the book, “The Science Of Interstellar” written by Kip Thorne himself. Any one who has questions on the science of the movie should read it, it is quite good.
    The ones who are reading this might feel that i am biased. Sure, i am a Nolan fan(from Memento) but you cannot simply accuse science your not an expert on. Have you spent your entire life working on theoretical physics relating to gravity and astrophysics? Maybe or Maybe not. In the end i must say that from the current understatement of “PROVEN” science, the movie’s science is just not possible, but could be, far in the future(Where humans are higher dimensional beings). Maybe that’s why we cannot truly understand the science. It can only be possible if humans reach a higher dimensional capacity. We are still present in 3-dimensions. Trying to quantify such higher dimensional beings from a 3-dimensional perspective is like trying to quantify humans to god. We are just not capable of doing so(for now anyway).

    • To reiterate what I said to another commenter; it wasn’t the Theoretical Physics that was to blame. I couldn’t give a toss what Kip Thorne wrote or didn’t write. This film was originally being developed as a Spielberg film and maybe that would have been better, maybe not. But Christopher Nolan made an immensely shit film, and that had nothing to do with the science; it was the plodding pace, the drab aesthetics, the depressing anti-theologian plot (and this is coming from a fan of Memento too). Interstellar was just a poor-man’s pastiche of Kubrick’s 2001, with muddled elements from the other films I mentioned in the article. There was nothing new here, and despite critics constantly mentioning Stanley Kubrick, Nolan’s film sported none of the soul or artistry that 2001 did.

      For the umpteenth time; Nolan’s film was crap because of Nolan, not because of the Science.

  10. Well, first, Interstellar was an amazing movie and it made my balls drop to the theater floor. If I had a fetus in my womb at that time, it would have dropped to floor. Second, you just don’t like the movie because you were sad that Anne Hathaway wasn’t taking all her clothes off for Matthew Mcconaughey, you wanted to see his greasy nutsack all over the screen. You reviewed this movie like my date last night; shitty and smelled like fish. I even bet that I have a bigger penis than you, how big is yours, like 2 centimeters? HA, mine can react to 69 miles long. The science was fine, the big, black, sexy, hole was the perfect size for a women like me and Nolan is an incredible director with a huge, black list of movies under his belt. It was inter-esting and it did have a stellar-proformance. FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK.

    • So, the kind of imbeciles who like Interstellar are wannabe-funny, sexually confused, sexually frustrated, Nolanite hermaphrodites?

      And stop flip-flopping between gender and systems of measurement you daft prat; balls to womb, centimetres to miles… the shit doesn’t even make sense. Your penis can “react” to 69 miles long? A Director with a “black list” of movies? What the fuck does that crap even mean?

      Why are you trying so hard to be funny?

      And why are you not funny when you’ve tried so hard?

      I guess the kind of idiotic moron who writes nonsensical comments like this is exactly the kind of twat who enjoys overrated crapfests like Interstellar.

      CUNT CUNT CUNT CUNT CUNT CUNT CUNT CUNT CUNT CUNT CUNT CUNT CUNT CUNT CUNT CUNT CUNT CUNT.

  11. THIS FILM WAS A PIECE OF UTTER FUCKING TRASH. I COULDN’T WAIT FOR THE FUCKING THING TO END. I WISH I COULD HAVE TRAVELLED THROUGH A FUCKING WORMHOLE AND COME THRU THE OTHER END 2 HOURS IN THE FUTURE WHEN THE FUCKING THING WAS OVER!!!!!!!

  12. Even though I enjoyed the film, it certainly wasn’t without its flaws and I can definitely say I agree with many of your points.

    However, a couple of your points didn’t make much sense to me.
    First of all I don’t understand the problem with the diversity of the crew. I mean wouldn’t it be more prejudice to have not included a woman and a black man.

    Secondly I don’t see why India having a modern looking drone is prejeduce towards their military technology. I believe the reason they chose a generic design because it was such a minor part of the film.

    • Outside of the late twentieth century, this kind of forced inclusion of minorities (and I include all minorities) especially when written by a white, upper-class, heterosexual male, just seems calculated to me. Interstellar could have had an entire crew made of black women, but that would have been some kind of statement to everybody. Make the crew all male and that would have been a statement too. But mix it up as to appear diverse just enough so nobody complains, and that’s fine with everybody. To me that’s the real statement of the Hollywood system. We’re selling tickets to all races and both sexes, but we all still want a white, male, heterosexual lead.

      The Indian drone thing was just annoying to me since today, the US has drones flying over many Middle Eastern and South Asian countries because the United States is the world’s foremost Super Power. So for India to have a drone that can fly over US soil without being shot down, means the US in the future of Interstellar is kaput… only then would people of colour have the same freedoms that the US enjoy today. But not before we have a little dig at the Indians, since they’re still flying our “old” designs, and aren’t so advanced that they’ve managed to get their current concepts off the ground. Plus I assume they either built a model, shell and/or a CG drone for the film, so they had to go through the design (and therefore thought process). And they couldn’t do some simple research into what future drones would look like if current concepts were approved after testing? That seems calculated to me too.

  13. Calling a country Third World without any fucking clue what a Third World country is racist please research before you talk out of your ass [LINK REMOVED]

    • No shit genius, everybody knows the true meaning of “Third World”, and it’s a term that has no meaning outside of the Cold War anyway. But in an article which critiques Interstellar, in order to make the point that the writers (prejudicially) showed a race other than white technologically surpassing them only after the West is destroyed, you have to hit the point home especially when most people perceive India as being developed. So to call India “Third World”, it aligns all nations together in the mind of the reader, and makes this idea seem more prejudice. If I was to make a point about an area of the U.S. which has inequality of wealth, and I was to call it “Third World” would you make the same comment?

      You do realise this is a review, and not a Geography essay? Maybe consider the stance and the choice of words, rather than the official definition before talking out of your arse.

    • go to any slum in india and tell me it doesn’t resemble a third world country.just because the rich and the higher castes live in a first world or developed nation,it doesn’t make the conditions of the poor 100 times worse than the poor people of the west.

    • You mean “I can get a sense” not “we can get a sense”, or do you think that all people who disagree with this critique possess some type of hive mind?

      So to you, the films I do like have what kind of bearing on this article? None whatsoever, unless of course you’re the type of guy who makes prejudice presumptions based on someone’s taste.

      • So if I say I like Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Halloween you would come to the conclusion that I have no authority on the Sci-Fi genre.
      • If I say I like Back To The Future, Bill And Ted, and WarGames you’d say I’m too childish and stuck in the past to like Interstellar.
      • If I say I like Phase IV, Westworld, and Alien you’d say I have no grasp of “intelligent” movies especially “intelligent Sci-Fi”.
      • If I say I like 12 Angry Men and Sunset Boulevard you’d say I do have a grasp of intelligent movies, but not necessarily Sci-Fi movies.
      • If I say I like 2001: A Space Odyssey, Memento, Batman Begins, and Dark Knight you’d be slightly perplexed, so which one of these options would fall neatly into you’re “he’s wrong because he likes so and so” argument?

      But what if I told you that I like ALL of the above. If a film like Interstellar has a dull drawn out pace, a sanctimonious plot, tedious acting, poorly thought out science and plot-holes what would be the point in comparing it to 2001: A Space Odyssey?

      Can you not understand that Interstellar was just a piece of overrated crap in my eyes without holding it against other movies and other opinions? There were people who agreed with this article, just read the comments; are you going to cross examine all of them too?

  14. Brilliant review. I really looked forward to this and it turned out crap. The American flags and the fact that the tiles were dirty when going into hibernation after leaving earth like they couldn’t give the place a wipe down before the most important space journey in history. I do think Caine was referring to the Irish potato famine of the 1840’s though to be fair to Nolan. Mcconaughey always looks like he’s constipated when it comes to a stressful scene. The most over hyped film I’ve ever seen.

  15. What did you think of Jonathan Nolan’s latest work, the HBO series Westworld?

    This is the same video essay on YouTube critiquing BBC’s Sherlock, praising the acting of Anthony Hopkin’s performance in Westworld:

    • Michael Crichton’s Westworld was fine the way it was. Crichton was the writer and the director so I assume that film is exactly the way he wanted it to look and that was how he wanted the storyline to go, so why expand on it other than for profit?

      The TV show seems to be overly drawn-out, the plot is very thin for a series, and regardless of the acting talent (Jeffrey Wright is another great actor) the writing and directing is dull and somewhat pretentious… Soundgarden playing on a piano and those opening titles spring to mind.

      I tweeted this after watching the first episode, and I think you liked or re-tweeted it:

  16. Oh I remembered now that I retweeted your tweet regarding Westworld before. I remembered watching the first episode and I found myself bored watching it. Nothing shocks me at all, as opposed what some of my friends were saying about the show…

    Besides The Night Of & Breaking Bad being your favorite shows so far, do you have any other good shows that you’ll like to recommend?

    Other than Westworld, what did you think of the other shows out last year, if you did watch any of them (The Crown, This Is Us, Better Call Saul, Game of Thrones, Stranger Things) ?

    • Better Call Saul was pretty decent, I’m glad Season 3 will include Giancarlo Esposito playing Gus Fring. I liked This Is Us for the first few episodes, I would have preferred it if every one ended with a surprise/twist, it seemed like they abandoned that idea after the second or third episode.

      I still need to watch Stranger Things, but Sneaky Pete seems like a good show judging from the pilot.

    • Thanks! Awesome. This guy Jonathan does not know anything. Clearly delusional right? OMG. What was he thinking. It’s such a crime to have one’s point of view. Even if it’s not a review as he said. Such a fool right? Only true reviewers are people like you.

    • Here’s an idea… if you’re going to be sarcastic then save that shit for one truly sarcastic comment. And by the way, nobody said my reviews were “the best”, if you’re oh so proud of having different points of view (as you said in your reply to garudastasion) then why belittle my review? You can thank me for the back-links later.

What Went Wrong Or Right With This Article? (Spam & Shite Will Be Deleted)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s