Same! My first viewing of Interstellar I was a sobbing mess. I saw it literally 2 days after my sister died. My mom had died months earlier so the entire year of 2014 was a mess. We had to get out of the house before grief consumed us and we chose to watch the “entertaining escape” that is Interstellar… huge miscalculation but it was also incredibly cathartic by the end.
It was and always will be for me a movie about how cold and uncaring the space is, how indifferent the universe is. The ship is so isolated, and the heroes are so helpless against everything that happens to them and what happens on earth, and it's heartbreaking. It is also ultimately a movie about love. About other people in our lives and how much they mean to us and how we can be ignorant of that until we lose them. I think that is the point it is trying to make. It feels like McConaughey's character got a second chance. But he didn't. It left me absolutely devastated, when I watched it for the first time. It pains me so that people don't feel that emotional impact of the movie. Because it broke me and it made me look a bit differently at people in my own life.
When Matthew comes back he realizes that the special thing he had with his daughter was not saved by his sacrifice. And the one relationship he can save is the one with Ann Hathaway.
I think the issue is that a lot of people(people like me) do feel and understand the emotional impact the movie is going for. It just seems like the movie takes a very convoluted way to get there. Also a Climax that is focused more on the emotional Impact at cost of the grounded realism doesn't seem to gel with the rest of the film that had such a strong focus on the grounded and realistic potrayal of Science and Space in the movie.
@@kingkiller5325 I didn't find it grounded in realism all that much. There's funny robot, weird physics, magical wormhole with an infinite book-shelf, interdimensional handshakes, there's people believing Matt Damon can be a good person, just all kinds of sci-fi silliness (non-deragatory). It is not a space-opera, I'll give you that, but other than that it checks all the boxes in the science fiction genre. I hate to make this comparison but it's more Lem, than it is George Lucas. And even so, themes aren't and never were a thing that only non-realistic movies can have. Realism is just a way stories are told. The feeling of isolation and loneliness and togetherness are conveyed well through many instruments of sound-design, music, storytelling and visual elements all throughout the movie from beginning to the end. And I don't see the divide of real and unreal, there's always a mesh of both, just like in any other fiction. That's what I think about people saying that interstellar's realism interferes with the message: no, I don't think it ever does. And the other thing is - the whole discussion about how realistic "the science" of the movie is, with black hole, space-time equation and what-not isn't even something that an average viewer is going to notice. This discussion was started as a part of marketing in the first place. It was AROUND the movie, not inside of it.
@@choiseoffortuneful It was way more grounded in realism than your Average Sci Fiction(Or rather Fantasy) movie in it's first 2/3rds. The Robots in Interstellar have especially been lauded for bieng a more realistic and grounded take on Robots rather than Just another Humanoid robot like C3PO. The Wormhole wasn't Magical. It was again one of the most realistic depictions of a Wormhole derived from the Work of renowned Physicist Kip Thorne. Same with the Black Hole and the concept of Time Dilation resulting from increased Gravity. The Infinite Book Shelf I agree wasn't realistic but it was in the 3rd act and part of the problem I am describing. So it's safe to say that in it's first 2/3rd the movie was very realistic. Or atleast tried to be. It very clearly tried be and was more reminiscent of a film like 2001: A Space Odessey. (Not in tone but in terms of the realistic potrayal of Technology) I never claimed that Themes were a thing that only Non-realistic films could have. My point was that the theme Interstellar tried to go for in it's last 1/3rd came at the cost of the realism that was central to the movies narrative and potrayal up until that point. In other words it's themes and narrative conflicted at each other. Otherwise look at a film like The Martian. It's a very realistic Science Fiction film. It's also a thematically rich film. But it never sacrifices the realism that it used to potray it's world for the sake of it's themes. It stays consistent im both throughout. Wether viewers would recognize how realistic the science of Interstellar is irrelevant. What matters is does it stay narratively consistent in it's potrayal of Science. Because if it's not than the narrative isn't consistent which becomes a problem. Imagine if at the end of Saving Private Ryan Tom Hanks just grabbed a machine Gun like Rambo killed a bunch of Nazi's and then grabbed a Few grenades jumped into the Nazi Tank and sacrificed himself to take out the tank and save Private Ryan. Now this ending would still thematically make sense with the rest of the movie playing into themes of Heroism and Sacrifice and cost of War. And you could argue that the Average viewer wouldn't notice the realistic potrayal of War in the movie. But it would still not make sense to you would it that a movie that had so realistically potrayed War combat up until now suddenly turned in a Generic Nic Cage Action movie.
@@kingkiller5325 I don't agree with most your points here, but I don't want to spend too much time rebuking each and every one, so long story short: I didn't even know about Kip Thorne before this comment, it's a knowledge from outside the movie, therefore it doesn't really contribute to feeling of realism, because it was a weird scene altogether; I fully disagree with the notion that interstellar borrows aesthetic realism from odyssey, odyssey isn't realistic in the slightest, they're alike only in terms of structure, but they speak different languages and care for different themes; robots aren't even remotely realistic here, they're extremely goofy, they're functional, but that's not the same as real, and in, god forgive me, star wars c3p0 isn't the only robot, there's all sorts of weirdo designs there, doesn't make them feel or look real though, does it; comparison with saving private Ryan is just ridiculous, I'm not touching that; wether viewers recognize how realistic the movie is - is the only thing that matters, because narrative consistency of a movie isn't a binary, isn't an absolute and isn't a formula, it fully depends on perception and how you see the movie, for example I didn't perceive the things that you describe as inconsistent, and you did, I love the movie and you don't, and neither of us is wrong, therefore perception mattered; and also poking holes in consistency of a genre is not the best kind of art critique, at least in my opinion, since tonal shifts can serve as an emphasis to what message the movie is trying to convey, and it is not as rare an occurrence as you're trying to convey with your saving private Ryan example. There's a bunch of examples to the contrary: inglorious bastards, from dusk till dawn, sunshine, a bunch of subversive comedic movies, etc. And its' not unlike Nolan to do tonal and genre shifts, it is a tool he uses on regular since the prestige. That being said, I'm not convinced by your comment that interstellar's tone is inconsistent. It is, as I said before, both believable and unbelievable, if you choose to dig for inconsistencies, that is, throughout the entirety of its' runtime, it wholy depends on perception. I don't think that it is a movie you should analyze for consistency of its' science, because science isn't part of its' cinematic language. Score, sound, frame, cuts and everything else is. It is science fiction to its' core, it is not a cosmic opera though. You either feel the movie or you don't for whatever reason. And I do believe that you could, if you wanted, to poke the same kinds of holes in saving private ryan or in space odyssey as well, if you wanted to. This is the last message I'm going to write in this thread. Thanks for your time.
honestly, it DOES feel good to argue when it's your opinions and you're talking to someone you trust and respect, knowing you can really say what you think but still feel the same towards each other at the end of the convo. and it feels good to see it XD (also, I was literally wondering this recently, if I was wrong about interstellar but this review reminded me that yeah...the script didn't do it for me, and i was so irritated with them reciting that one damn poem "do not go gently into the night", like omg WE GET IT >_
I always interpreted the hard scifi aspect and the personal melodrama to be deliberate. Juxtaposing the extents of our intellect through the amazing stuff the scientists achieve in the movie, specially in a meta-narrative sense (the Black Hole being incredibly well realized, for example), while at the same time being Christopher Nolan's most emotional movie. Anne Hathaway's monologue was definitely corny, but I think the message it was trying to convey is that within an uncaring universe, all we have is each other (something that ties neatly with the reveal about the identity of the helpers). After reading the Hyperion Cantos (all 4 books) and seeing Dan Simmons' universe of empathy and love, I kinda gave me a new appreciation for Interstellar, I wouldn't go as far as to say that the speech was inspired by the Hyperion Cantos, but it definitely shared the same ideas behind it.
Just had to comment to appreciate a fellow lover of the Hyperion Cantos. Possibly my favorite books of all time. The juxtaposition of sci-fi on a truly epic scale, with a story so intimate in its emotions… that’s also what I so appreciate about Interstellar. Granted, I don’t think Interstellar can stand beside the Hyperion stories, but that’s not saying a lot considering just how immense of an experience the Cantos is.
I understand much of the criticism, and especially why many people dislike the ending, but for me, just the second act of the movie is a solid 10/10 and the reason why I personally like it.
I like the movie overall, but I eyeroll so hard when they get to arguing that love is a force in the universe. Let's just throw science out the window for this sci-fi film.
The first time I watched the movie, I felt nothing and I thought it was dumb af. I decided to watch it a few years later and cried like a little baby and It's now one of my favorite Nolan movies. Don't try to understand it, feel it
I feel like Nolan’s directorial style in Interstellar really shines and cements the incredible style of the film, especially when combined with Zimmer’s beautiful soundtrack
I think that interstellar is pretty good, but you know... I more like stories that are like Berserk. Fun, joy and funny things. You should really try it!!!!😘
I love Nolan, he’s arguably the most technically competent filmmaker Wes Anderson aside, but I honestly don’t know if I’ve ever been able to connect to any one character he’s ever written. If I could critique one thing, I’d say he writes emotional catharsis like an A.I. Granted, given the focus of his ouvre is deconstructing film structure makes sense. But the result of which is no matter how much I enjoy his films, I’m always kept at arms length by the empathic disconnect
Ive always found the development of this film to be so fascinating. It’s a screenplay that Jonathan Nolan wrote and sold to Spielberg to direct. He started pre production which involved focusing the film on more “Amblin” like emotional beats and heart string pulling only to then drop out. It then found its way to Christopher Nolan independently of his brother’s involvement and took it on, “emotionally manipulative” beats and all, as a challenge for himself. He related to the story because he was father to a young girl and worried about missing the milestones in her life because he and his producer wife were always away making movies. It’s Nolan attempting to jump out of his wheelhouse and embrace the emotional pathos of the story instead of his typical “cold & cerebral” approach, in some ways to his detriment. Im still curious how the film would have worked with Spielberg at the helm? Im with Nadia on this one. I completely understand why others don’t gel with Interstellar but I still think it’s a great movie. For me Nolans weakest film is The Dark Knight Rises which is a bummer because the only thing I love more than Nolan is Batman! But yeah, Im even one of the crazy nerds that loves Tenet and how bonkers it all is. That film says strap in and pay attention because I don’t give 2 fucks if you cant follow shit! Lol (Obvious Confession: I don’t dislike any Nolan film. In fact Im a card carrying member of the “Nolan Dickriders Club” - Great Lakes Chapter, HQ’d out of Chicago😜) PS Please do more of these revisits?! I love when you too disagree on a film. It’s simultaneously wholesome and snarky AF. CHEERS!❤👍🏾
I like Interstellar, but it is one my heart and brain wrestle over. As a sensory experience Nolan uses his tools effectively to make something that grabs your attention, and the scenes unto themselves are satisfying, but on the whole this material is out of his general ethos as a storyteller. I respect him for trying, but I’d say it’s near the bottom of my Nolan ranking. Like I said though, I still like the movie. I will say this: the sequence where they need to dock the ship on the runaway station is one of the greatest action sequences of the 2010s, and might be the single best scene of Nolan’s career. Also, the music rules!
I love Interstellar, on some days I would rank it as my top Nolan film. Definitely has the most emotional impact for me of all of Nolan’s film. 10/10 for me.
To me, Interstellar is really about two things: 1. Love is the most powerful force in the universe. 2. A father doing everything he can to keep his promise to his daughter. And on those fronts, the film really works for me. I find myself getting so wrapped up in the emotional core, that it makes the problems I have with it or it's sci-fi logic, not really matter as much. The first time I watched it, I hated the black hole stuff because it made no sense to me. It felt unexplained, and out of left field. But, upon rewatch, I found none of that mattered. What mattered to me in that moment was what it meant emotionally for this father and daughter. And using the two main ideas as the context for the scenes on Earth, it helps them. They seek to explore how the father's promise effects his family. It also helps me accept the last moments more. Nolan is showing that the father kept his word. He kept his promise, and went to extreme lengths to do so. Is the movie executed flawlessly? Not at all. But, I think it does a fantastic job exploring these two ideas, and I have likely not done a good job explaining that in a simple RUclips comment.
That being said, I also totally get why the movie doesn't work for people. It just sweeps me up in the idea of love though. Very excited to rewatch it now that I have become a dad.
Nadia makes some great points, e.g. about how those family relations are well established throughout the movie, however I still agree with Jake so much about how corny the dialogue is. There's just so much exposition regarding emotions and heart-to-heart scenes, which could have just been shown instead of told, and at the same time the world-building lacks and falls flat, because there's not enough focus on it.
I agree with your criticisms about overexplaining things in dialogue and not letting the imagery breathe, at times. Anne Hathaway's monologue about love is one of my most hated scenes in any movie, but I think Matthew McConaughey's scene of watching his kids' videos is good enough to cancel it out. Where we differ, is that I still consider it to be a good movie, not simply a movie with good scenes
I think this helped clear up the main reason this movie didn't land for me. People I've talked to before about it have concluded that I'm someone the theme of love just doesn't resonate with. I've realized that what feels off to me is love being represented as a physical, tangible power, a core element of how the universe functions, which actually feels like it cheapens the emotional power of love. It takes something that to me has profound intrinsic value, the love between a parent and a child, and twists it into a tool to accomplish a task, shifting its value to whatever can be accomplished with it.
The theme of love almost certainly resonates with anyone who has a heart, people just need to understand that some ways of communicating that idea just won't get some people. Sometimes, it's not us that don't get the movies, it's the movies that don't get us. Ik it's trivial but too many times, people say this kinda stuff, even out of politeness but they don't really realize how egocentric of a view it could be.
I haven't seen this movie since it came out but I'm realising it's a movie about relativity and missing time. specifically if inception is a metaphor for making movies as a process this is a metaphor for how when you make movies it involves a lot of time away from the people you love. when you come back they've had all this life, aged up (esp when kids are young) that you missed out on.
also I wonder, with what you said about the movie being made around moments (and it's definitely true), that he wrote it following kubricks non-submerisble units method
@@DanLyndon hmmm idk Dan, you'll have to work a bit harder. we're talking real, serious, rigorous research and sourcing here. but I see marcello mastroianni in your pfp, I know you can do it! chop chop 👏
I actually agree with Jake on this one. Sometimes I struggle to understand why I don’t like something but his comments on this movie helped articulate it
bro is HATING 💀💀 i love interstellar. while it's cheesy, i like how sincere it is about its message of the power of love. i had to stop myself from shedding a tear at the IMAX with my boys in case they revoked my position as the alpha male of the group x
totally with jake on this one. i would like this movie a lot more if it didn't take itself so seriously, because then i could let the dumb shit slide. but the overexplaining and the exposition completely ruins any suspension of disbelief i could hold and it gets to the point that i can't really enjoy it for what it is. it's a shame because it's visually stunning and i have a lot of scenes from this movie etched into my brain
@@DanLyndon yeah it's a weird mix that really drags down a bunch of his movies. i was pleasantly surprised by how much i liked oppenheimer though, another movie that i would describe as self serious. my guess is that it being based on a book, nolan didn't have room to go crazy with his novel concepts, which is what ultimately ends up coming across as undercooked and dumbed down. all the ideas go into the filmmaking for oppenheimer, which is what he does best anyway, so it's a perfect fit. i hope he does more adaptations in the future
Before watching, I loved Interstellar on first watch but I find it a bore to watch now. Interstellar and Dunkirk are my two least favourite Nolan films. I know. Unpopular opinion. I just don't see what everyone loves in both of these films. Anyways, my opinion and engagement out of the way, time to watch the video! :)
i feel so vindicated by Jake's commitment to hating this movie, I've thought it's almost unwatchable since seeing it in theaters and felt crazy there was so much love for it and your words map pretty well to my feelings about it
also I'd love to see y'all talk about Tenet, I'm the insane Nolan hater who thinks Tenet is underrated and one of his better movies and would love to see the takes about that glorious vibe-y mess of a flick
I feel like when this film is looked at through the lens of a sci fi a la 2001 a space odyssey, it's easy to understand why it would be disappointing and why the scenes intercut with space/earth are annoying filler. But, at least according to Nolan and Zimmer, they've said the point of the film is about the relationship between a father and a daughter, across the universe, across time. When you look at it like that, the scenes on earth aren't just possible, they're necessarily.
what I love about Interstellar is that much like the Avatar films, it's completely trounced all the tvtropes-obsessed, soulless media "discourse" from critics and "film buffs™" alike to become one of those genuinely iconic blockbusters that most ppl around the world can recognize from just the first note of its OST alone. absolutely God-tier film that defines what it means for something to be greater than the sum of its parts, which imo is honestly Nolan's greatest strength. as for my personal experience watching this film, I've watched more films in theaters than anyone else I know irl and regularly travel to attend film screenings and festivals, and no moment has ever shocked me and made me physically move to the edge of my seat the way the scene of Cooper falling into the Tesseract did back when I watched the film in 2014. it was the single biggest "I have no idea where this is going and my imagination can't keep up" moment I ever experienced watching anything in my entire life. years later, when I was in college, running a fraternity as well as my school's film programming, I remember screening Interstellar in our 900-seat auditorium to a packed audience, and I'll never forget how EVERYONE was in shambles during all the emotional scenes. I distinctly remember girls I knew from sororities being very talkative going into the film and then shaking and sobbing uncontrollably by the end. easy 10/10 where none of the flaws matter.
People like dumbed down crap and cliches. That says nothing about quality, it's just that most people are lazy when it comes to the art they engage with.
The logic of the movie really got to me. Why go to the planet with the highest time dilation so early? The initial surveyors would have only been there like an hour from their perspective by the time Matthew McConaughey gets there hardly enough time for them to do an actual survey to tell if it is habitable. The entire emotional core of the movie hinges on this time dilation caused by them Starting their mission by making the absolute worst possible decision. The planet that costs 30 years to check if the people who have been there for an hour have decided if it is habitable is the last resort not the first thing you check.
@@5Amigos32 ruclips.net/video/dykzs40b3zo/видео.html This scene addresses what you are speaking to, which may add I think is a valid point. They discuss the pros and cons of going to Miller's planet and come up with a plan based on the assumption Miller is okay and the planet is very habitable. May or may not work for you.
@@kyleliegelexactly. That one was the most hopeful, had evidence of water, atmosphere, and organic material, and the beacon was set off, while the others could be a complete bust. For all they knew they could check the one and be done. Why would you check all the dead planets before checking the most hopeful one?
ah yeah i did not care for the movie at all when I saw it in theaters but just generally chafe at plots that have a very "Things happen for a reason because they need to happen that way" structure. Fate/destiny stuff is just always less interesting to me than movies where it feels like you are watching cause and effect happen in a way that at least feels like it has an internal logic to it, I recall this movie as just being like "And then Matthew unlocks the space/time engine through the power of love because he had a flashback and feelings that were powerful enough to do that". I had memory holed the whole "robot explains everything that's happening" moment because it just felt deeply cheap to me. Both this and 2001 struck me as really religious/spiritual movies, but I really preferred 2001's approach to cosmic divine forces being inherently incomprehensible to human beings. We're little ants marching forward across time and space and if a big 5D space daddy picked one of us up and put us somewhere else it would be beyond our understanding
2001: A Space Odyssey is an incredible film but it's not for everyone. I've shown it to five people and only two of them liked it. And one person was my brother, so he may have lied to me
My thesis is that Interstellar was popular for the same reasons that Ad Astra wasn't: Interstellar is a power fantasy about how space and science will save all mankind from outside forces we have no responsability into, whereas Ad Astra is a bleak prediction that humanity will fuck up space exploration like we fucked up everything else. Interstellar wraps itself in hard-sci-fi clothings to appeal to the nerdy crowd, whereas Ad Astra doesn't even try to have remotely accurate science, because it's utterly irrelevant to the plot and message. Interstellar apes 2001's aesthetics and real NASA footage as hard as it can, whereas Ad Astra embraces a strongly personal vision of what space exploration would look like. Interstellar tries really hard to have deep, transcendental themes without ever saying the G-word (God), whereas Ad Astra has openly religious astronauts in a world where the divine is violently absent.
Here's how I feel about Interstellar. I think the first 2/3rds of the movie is one of the best Sci fi/Space Opera film I've ever seen. But then the last 1/3rd completely ruins it and takes a great Sci Fi movie to an okay movie. I just could not vibe with the fact that the movie went from this very realistic and grounded Sci Fi movie exploring ideas like Worm Holes, Black Holes and Time Dilation in a super realistic manner to a hoaky "Love Transcends Space And Time" Climax where Coop survives a Black Hole and uses a 4th Dimensional Matrix to send information from the inside of a singularity to his daughter who hasn't seen him in almost 30 Years and probably presumes him dead, through Morse Code in an Old Watch that his daughter then looks at and instead of assuming it's a broken 23 year old watch instead assumes that it's hear father who disappeared in space 23 years ago somehow sending her information from inside of a singularity because you know......... "Love Transcends Space And Time". 😂
I don’t think they should’ve explained more lol. Mostly because we don’t know more. The film was clearly explaining the stuff actually grounded in science, and leaving the rest up to interpretation. It may all seem the same to a layman, but it would really bother me if after talking so much science, they start spewing sci-fi bullshit explanations about how the gravity equation solved the ecosphere etc etc. Just accept that when humanity begins going fucking extinct they get their shit together. I imagine they now have budget because everyone wants to survive. And the world doesn’t have to end because of global warming, the movie isn’t an Uber eats menu. I think a central theme of the movie is that in a cosmic scale, humans are tiny and powerless. When earth decides to become inhospitable, humans have to risk everything to go out and search for better horizons. Only through the “power of love” they overcome this and carve out a new space for humanity. This message would be undermined if it was global warming, ie “the humans deserved it because they misused their big technology powers to end their world”. On that note, I think the “power of love” was corny as fuck, but for how corny it was it was well executed. I take it to mean the will of humanity to face the cosmos.
Nolan first has in place the philosophical points he wants to make, the spectacles he wants to show and tell us the exposition (so much exposition) and then he starts with the story and plot . Hence most of his films feel contrived. Once the thrill wears off it shows.
Nolan always did this in movies, they start in ways that have not much to do with the end, or add tangents that go nowhere. He gets bogged down in concepts and ideas. Although Tenet and Oppenheimer are better about it.
I think people get too hung up on it being sci-fi when its really more of a sci-fi fantasy movie. It has a lot of whimsy which is either gonna work for you or it wont.
It’s my favorite movie, so I feel a touch personally attacked, but that’s fine, I really see the argument here for some drawbacks. I just fundamentally disagree with every aspect of them.😂
I loved it after watching it in theatre. Rewatched it recently and was baffled by how clunky the expositional dialogues were. It really is a film that works best on the biggest screen and falls apart when its writing is being held up for scrutiny.
I'm very passionate about Interstellar being a bad film and Jake's opinion vindicates me. It's a gorgeous film with some absolutely beautiful scenes, but beneath the gorgeous setpiece, music, and several scenes, it's hollow and superfluous. Emotionally manipulative really is the right phrase to describe this movie. The movie tried to fit too much into it and in the end felt tonally and thematically inconsistent which is a massive disservice. It's a shame because there are some truly great moments in the movie and it was close to being actually great.
Koyaanisqatsi.... enjoy the last 5 minutes influences zimmer and cinematographers here .... oh I thought it was still aliens or something non human that made the dimension. Humans didn't put the black hole by Jupiter I thought?
Personally I felt the movie was trying too hard, it felt like the entire runtime it had a gorilla the size of 2001 a space odyssey on its back and it was struggling with that weight.
100% agree with Jake. 4/10 is quite generous for this movie as it falls apart logically, emotionally, and structurally + it requires much more suspension of disbelief to enjoy it than I can muster. For the emotional manipulation I felt like this movie is constantly throwing sand into my eyes trying to make me cry instead of building a real connection with its characters so I can start to care about them. Music, cinemetography, overacting - everything is screeming "this is so sad" when in fact, if you strip it down to what is actually happening, it's often dull or dumb.
This was a huge bummer. Like Jake's opinion on this is the same shit as ten years ago. It's a testiment to this movie that it has survived the cinemasins, neck beard wining. Like, calling the movie dumb and subtextless is not a critical evaluation, like come on. Considering that Mark Fisher wrote an excellent critical (positive) piece linking it to cosmic horror and weird sci-fi, it means that people with better critical tools than Jake got something out of the movie.
For me, 2001, Contact and Interstellar are all the same movie. The details of what happens aren't important, it's Space Philosophy time. They're all good films, but I would argue Interstellar is the weakest of the 3.
I can't quite explain it, but Christopher Nolan films give me a feeling of "wrongness" comparable to Sharkboy and Lavagirl and I'm not even fucking joking. The scripts feel like AI generated first drafts and the visuals and editing feel like they were done by aliens trying to imitate what they think a film is. Basically, I don't get the hype. Also, The Prestige is one of the dumbest films ever made, and I will die on this hill.
@johncra8982 A serious realistic science fiction movie having a random deus ex machina to magic its way to a happy ending is awful and weakens the film as a whole.
I hate this movie, which is annoying because it’s all the things I love: the constant evolution of time and space and non-Euclideanness of it all, when you get deep enough into the unexplored regions of the universe. Unfortunately, the lead character is Matthew McConahay and imo he is the worst possible choice of casting for the role. He just always portrays a vague “holier than thou” egomaniac persona in everything he does that I just cannot stand him. Watching this video, I am now remembering more issues with the script. The emphasis on love, the dumbed down science (which is usually fine but in this it was so dumbed down that it didn’t make sense), THE FACT THAT GRAVITY HAS ALREADY BEEN SOLVED AND THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE THE FUTURE DID THEY JUST FORGET ABOUT THAT??? And none of the characters feel like real people. Hate it. Absolutely loved the set design and music though, some of my favorite in any movie. Too bad they were wasted on this. Tl;dr: Interstellar could have been one of my favorite movies of all time if only Matthew McConahay wasn’t in it (also if the script was changed entirely and written by people who understand basic science better)
Interstellar was the middle in a trilogy of movies for me, starting with Gravity, and ending with Arrival, in which a somewhat compelling hard sci-fi movie is foiled in it's 3rd act by the sudden assertion that love is literal magic and the plot doesn't have to follow any of the established rules so long as the actor emotes hard enough. I was beginning to lose hope in 2016 that Hollywood would ever make a compelling space sci-fi movie again, either out of incompetence or out of genuine distain for the genre. I'm pretty glad that ended up not being the case.
The time dilation planet was incredibly stupid. Why would they take such an enormous risk to check on the person who went there originally when she would've literally been there for minutes due to the time difference. There was not enough time to do anything worthwhile there. Elements of the movie are great but I just can't like it.
See, the reason Nadia liked it more than Jake is that she solved gravity and Jake didn't.
24:49
Nadia: It's funny because the second half of the film is my favorite
Jake: 😐
As soon as I realized.....this is the same dude who asked Denis Villeneuve 'How you Dune' ?...... I completely agreed with all his criticisms.
Matthew McConaughey's emotional breakdown watching his kids grow up is still one of my all time favorite movie scenes.
Same! My first viewing of Interstellar I was a sobbing mess. I saw it literally 2 days after my sister died. My mom had died months earlier so the entire year of 2014 was a mess. We had to get out of the house before grief consumed us and we chose to watch the “entertaining escape” that is Interstellar… huge miscalculation but it was also incredibly cathartic by the end.
It was and always will be for me a movie about how cold and uncaring the space is, how indifferent the universe is. The ship is so isolated, and the heroes are so helpless against everything that happens to them and what happens on earth, and it's heartbreaking.
It is also ultimately a movie about love. About other people in our lives and how much they mean to us and how we can be ignorant of that until we lose them. I think that is the point it is trying to make. It feels like McConaughey's character got a second chance. But he didn't. It left me absolutely devastated, when I watched it for the first time.
It pains me so that people don't feel that emotional impact of the movie. Because it broke me and it made me look a bit differently at people in my own life.
When Matthew comes back he realizes that the special thing he had with his daughter was not saved by his sacrifice. And the one relationship he can save is the one with Ann Hathaway.
I think the issue is that a lot of people(people like me) do feel and understand the emotional impact the movie is going for.
It just seems like the movie takes a very convoluted way to get there.
Also a Climax that is focused more on the emotional Impact at cost of the grounded realism doesn't seem to gel with the rest of the film that had such a strong focus on the grounded and realistic potrayal of Science and Space in the movie.
@@kingkiller5325 I didn't find it grounded in realism all that much. There's funny robot, weird physics, magical wormhole with an infinite book-shelf, interdimensional handshakes, there's people believing Matt Damon can be a good person, just all kinds of sci-fi silliness (non-deragatory). It is not a space-opera, I'll give you that, but other than that it checks all the boxes in the science fiction genre. I hate to make this comparison but it's more Lem, than it is George Lucas.
And even so, themes aren't and never were a thing that only non-realistic movies can have. Realism is just a way stories are told. The feeling of isolation and loneliness and togetherness are conveyed well through many instruments of sound-design, music, storytelling and visual elements all throughout the movie from beginning to the end. And I don't see the divide of real and unreal, there's always a mesh of both, just like in any other fiction. That's what I think about people saying that interstellar's realism interferes with the message: no, I don't think it ever does.
And the other thing is - the whole discussion about how realistic "the science" of the movie is, with black hole, space-time equation and what-not isn't even something that an average viewer is going to notice. This discussion was started as a part of marketing in the first place. It was AROUND the movie, not inside of it.
@@choiseoffortuneful It was way more grounded in realism than your Average Sci Fiction(Or rather Fantasy) movie in it's first 2/3rds.
The Robots in Interstellar have especially been lauded for bieng a more realistic and grounded take on Robots rather than Just another Humanoid robot like C3PO.
The Wormhole wasn't Magical. It was again one of the most realistic depictions of a Wormhole derived from the Work of renowned Physicist Kip Thorne.
Same with the Black Hole and the concept of Time Dilation resulting from increased Gravity.
The Infinite Book Shelf I agree wasn't realistic but it was in the 3rd act and part of the problem I am describing.
So it's safe to say that in it's first 2/3rd the movie was very realistic. Or atleast tried to be.
It very clearly tried be and was more reminiscent of a film like 2001: A Space Odessey. (Not in tone but in terms of the realistic potrayal of Technology)
I never claimed that Themes were a thing that only Non-realistic films could have.
My point was that the theme Interstellar tried to go for in it's last 1/3rd came at the cost of the realism that was central to the movies narrative and potrayal up until that point.
In other words it's themes and narrative conflicted at each other.
Otherwise look at a film like The Martian. It's a very realistic Science Fiction film. It's also a thematically rich film. But it never sacrifices the realism that it used to potray it's world for the sake of it's themes.
It stays consistent im both throughout.
Wether viewers would recognize how realistic the science of Interstellar is irrelevant.
What matters is does it stay narratively consistent in it's potrayal of Science. Because if it's not than the narrative isn't consistent which becomes a problem.
Imagine if at the end of Saving Private Ryan Tom Hanks just grabbed a machine Gun like Rambo killed a bunch of Nazi's and then grabbed a Few grenades jumped into the Nazi Tank and sacrificed himself to take out the tank and save Private Ryan.
Now this ending would still thematically make sense with the rest of the movie playing into themes of Heroism and Sacrifice and cost of War.
And you could argue that the Average viewer wouldn't notice the realistic potrayal of War in the movie.
But it would still not make sense to you would it that a movie that had so realistically potrayed War combat up until now suddenly turned in a Generic Nic Cage Action movie.
@@kingkiller5325 I don't agree with most your points here, but I don't want to spend too much time rebuking each and every one, so long story short: I didn't even know about Kip Thorne before this comment, it's a knowledge from outside the movie, therefore it doesn't really contribute to feeling of realism, because it was a weird scene altogether; I fully disagree with the notion that interstellar borrows aesthetic realism from odyssey, odyssey isn't realistic in the slightest, they're alike only in terms of structure, but they speak different languages and care for different themes; robots aren't even remotely realistic here, they're extremely goofy, they're functional, but that's not the same as real, and in, god forgive me, star wars c3p0 isn't the only robot, there's all sorts of weirdo designs there, doesn't make them feel or look real though, does it; comparison with saving private Ryan is just ridiculous, I'm not touching that; wether viewers recognize how realistic the movie is - is the only thing that matters, because narrative consistency of a movie isn't a binary, isn't an absolute and isn't a formula, it fully depends on perception and how you see the movie, for example I didn't perceive the things that you describe as inconsistent, and you did, I love the movie and you don't, and neither of us is wrong, therefore perception mattered; and also poking holes in consistency of a genre is not the best kind of art critique, at least in my opinion, since tonal shifts can serve as an emphasis to what message the movie is trying to convey, and it is not as rare an occurrence as you're trying to convey with your saving private Ryan example. There's a bunch of examples to the contrary: inglorious bastards, from dusk till dawn, sunshine, a bunch of subversive comedic movies, etc. And its' not unlike Nolan to do tonal and genre shifts, it is a tool he uses on regular since the prestige.
That being said, I'm not convinced by your comment that interstellar's tone is inconsistent. It is, as I said before, both believable and unbelievable, if you choose to dig for inconsistencies, that is, throughout the entirety of its' runtime, it wholy depends on perception.
I don't think that it is a movie you should analyze for consistency of its' science, because science isn't part of its' cinematic language. Score, sound, frame, cuts and everything else is. It is science fiction to its' core, it is not a cosmic opera though. You either feel the movie or you don't for whatever reason. And I do believe that you could, if you wanted, to poke the same kinds of holes in saving private ryan or in space odyssey as well, if you wanted to.
This is the last message I'm going to write in this thread. Thanks for your time.
honestly, it DOES feel good to argue when it's your opinions and you're talking to someone you trust and respect, knowing you can really say what you think but still feel the same towards each other at the end of the convo. and it feels good to see it XD
(also, I was literally wondering this recently, if I was wrong about interstellar but this review reminded me that yeah...the script didn't do it for me, and i was so irritated with them reciting that one damn poem "do not go gently into the night", like omg WE GET IT >_
"It feels good to argue" it do be like that sometimes. Thanks for the video great watch
I always interpreted the hard scifi aspect and the personal melodrama to be deliberate. Juxtaposing the extents of our intellect through the amazing stuff the scientists achieve in the movie, specially in a meta-narrative sense (the Black Hole being incredibly well realized, for example), while at the same time being Christopher Nolan's most emotional movie.
Anne Hathaway's monologue was definitely corny, but I think the message it was trying to convey is that within an uncaring universe, all we have is each other (something that ties neatly with the reveal about the identity of the helpers).
After reading the Hyperion Cantos (all 4 books) and seeing Dan Simmons' universe of empathy and love, I kinda gave me a new appreciation for Interstellar, I wouldn't go as far as to say that the speech was inspired by the Hyperion Cantos, but it definitely shared the same ideas behind it.
Just had to comment to appreciate a fellow lover of the Hyperion Cantos. Possibly my favorite books of all time. The juxtaposition of sci-fi on a truly epic scale, with a story so intimate in its emotions… that’s also what I so appreciate about Interstellar. Granted, I don’t think Interstellar can stand beside the Hyperion stories, but that’s not saying a lot considering just how immense of an experience the Cantos is.
I miss these kinds of videos! Keep reviewing movies that aren’t new releases too, its great!
thanks we plan on it!
The it's necessary scene with the music gave me so many goosebumps. I love it so much.
I understand much of the criticism, and especially why many people dislike the ending, but for me, just the second act of the movie is a solid 10/10 and the reason why I personally like it.
I like the movie overall, but I eyeroll so hard when they get to arguing that love is a force in the universe. Let's just throw science out the window for this sci-fi film.
Anne Hathaway was right in the end, even though her boyfriend died on the best planet before they could reach him.
The first time I watched the movie, I felt nothing and I thought it was dumb af. I decided to watch it a few years later and cried like a little baby and It's now one of my favorite Nolan movies. Don't try to understand it, feel it
My biggest takeaway from this is: Yall are so cute together.
I can agree with a little bit of both your points tbh. Great review!
I feel like Nolan’s directorial style in Interstellar really shines and cements the incredible style of the film, especially when combined with Zimmer’s beautiful soundtrack
I think that interstellar is pretty good, but you know... I more like stories that are like Berserk. Fun, joy and funny things. You should really try it!!!!😘
Never thought i'd ever see Berserk in the same sentence as fun and joy
I love Nolan, he’s arguably the most technically competent filmmaker Wes Anderson aside, but I honestly don’t know if I’ve ever been able to connect to any one character he’s ever written. If I could critique one thing, I’d say he writes emotional catharsis like an A.I. Granted, given the focus of his ouvre is deconstructing film structure makes sense. But the result of which is no matter how much I enjoy his films, I’m always kept at arms length by the empathic disconnect
Ive always found the development of this film to be so fascinating. It’s a screenplay that Jonathan Nolan wrote and sold to Spielberg to direct. He started pre production which involved focusing the film on more “Amblin” like emotional beats and heart string pulling only to then drop out. It then found its way to Christopher Nolan independently of his brother’s involvement and took it on, “emotionally manipulative” beats and all, as a challenge for himself. He related to the story because he was father to a young girl and worried about missing the milestones in her life because he and his producer wife were always away making movies. It’s Nolan attempting to jump out of his wheelhouse and embrace the emotional pathos of the story instead of his typical “cold & cerebral” approach, in some ways to his detriment. Im still curious how the film would have worked with Spielberg at the helm?
Im with Nadia on this one. I completely understand why others don’t gel with Interstellar but I still think it’s a great movie. For me Nolans weakest film is The Dark Knight Rises which is a bummer because the only thing I love more than Nolan is Batman! But yeah, Im even one of the crazy nerds that loves Tenet and how bonkers it all is. That film says strap in and pay attention because I don’t give 2 fucks if you cant follow shit! Lol (Obvious Confession: I don’t dislike any Nolan film. In fact Im a card carrying member of the “Nolan Dickriders Club” - Great Lakes Chapter, HQ’d out of Chicago😜)
PS Please do more of these revisits?! I love when you too disagree on a film. It’s simultaneously wholesome and snarky AF. CHEERS!❤👍🏾
I like Interstellar, but it is one my heart and brain wrestle over. As a sensory experience Nolan uses his tools effectively to make something that grabs your attention, and the scenes unto themselves are satisfying, but on the whole this material is out of his general ethos as a storyteller. I respect him for trying, but I’d say it’s near the bottom of my Nolan ranking.
Like I said though, I still like the movie.
I will say this: the sequence where they need to dock the ship on the runaway station is one of the greatest action sequences of the 2010s, and might be the single best scene of Nolan’s career. Also, the music rules!
I love Interstellar, on some days I would rank it as my top Nolan film. Definitely has the most emotional impact for me of all of Nolan’s film. 10/10 for me.
To me, Interstellar is really about two things:
1. Love is the most powerful force in the universe.
2. A father doing everything he can to keep his promise to his daughter.
And on those fronts, the film really works for me. I find myself getting so wrapped up in the emotional core, that it makes the problems I have with it or it's sci-fi logic, not really matter as much.
The first time I watched it, I hated the black hole stuff because it made no sense to me. It felt unexplained, and out of left field. But, upon rewatch, I found none of that mattered. What mattered to me in that moment was what it meant emotionally for this father and daughter.
And using the two main ideas as the context for the scenes on Earth, it helps them. They seek to explore how the father's promise effects his family.
It also helps me accept the last moments more. Nolan is showing that the father kept his word. He kept his promise, and went to extreme lengths to do so.
Is the movie executed flawlessly? Not at all. But, I think it does a fantastic job exploring these two ideas, and I have likely not done a good job explaining that in a simple RUclips comment.
That being said, I also totally get why the movie doesn't work for people. It just sweeps me up in the idea of love though.
Very excited to rewatch it now that I have become a dad.
Nadia makes some great points, e.g. about how those family relations are well established throughout the movie, however I still agree with Jake so much about how corny the dialogue is. There's just so much exposition regarding emotions and heart-to-heart scenes, which could have just been shown instead of told, and at the same time the world-building lacks and falls flat, because there's not enough focus on it.
Yes you were.
YES! Thank you Jake! I absolutely agree and have basically since I walked out of the theater. Huge Nolan fan, but this one didn't work.
It’s alright
Interstellar was pretty interesting but I wasn't a big fan of the magic system.
I agree with your criticisms about overexplaining things in dialogue and not letting the imagery breathe, at times. Anne Hathaway's monologue about love is one of my most hated scenes in any movie, but I think Matthew McConaughey's scene of watching his kids' videos is good enough to cancel it out. Where we differ, is that I still consider it to be a good movie, not simply a movie with good scenes
I think this helped clear up the main reason this movie didn't land for me. People I've talked to before about it have concluded that I'm someone the theme of love just doesn't resonate with.
I've realized that what feels off to me is love being represented as a physical, tangible power, a core element of how the universe functions, which actually feels like it cheapens the emotional power of love.
It takes something that to me has profound intrinsic value, the love between a parent and a child, and twists it into a tool to accomplish a task, shifting its value to whatever can be accomplished with it.
The theme of love almost certainly resonates with anyone who has a heart, people just need to understand that some ways of communicating that idea just won't get some people. Sometimes, it's not us that don't get the movies, it's the movies that don't get us.
Ik it's trivial but too many times, people say this kinda stuff, even out of politeness but they don't really realize how egocentric of a view it could be.
I haven't seen this movie since it came out but I'm realising it's a movie about relativity and missing time.
specifically if inception is a metaphor for making movies as a process
this is a metaphor for how when you make movies it involves a lot of time away from the people you love. when you come back they've had all this life, aged up (esp when kids are young) that you missed out on.
also I wonder, with what you said about the movie being made around moments (and it's definitely true), that he wrote it following kubricks non-submerisble units method
there is NO WAY this man just called "no, it's necessary" a CORNY line 😂 that is one of the ALL-TIMER lines in ANY film ever made 💀
No, it is a bad/ corny line trying to be a great line and it comes off as a joke.
@@DanLyndon where's your source to back that up, Dan? you need to link a research paper from a school like harvard, go, chop chop 👏
@@johncra8982 I could get a dictionary and show you the definition of corny lol.
@@DanLyndon hmmm idk Dan, you'll have to work a bit harder. we're talking real, serious, rigorous research and sourcing here. but I see marcello mastroianni in your pfp, I know you can do it! chop chop 👏
@@DanLyndon No, it isn't
You shpuld watch a brighter summer day, in now way does it relate to interstellar but its just a soectacular movie
we have it on blu ray - been waiting for a long afternoon to watch it lol
I actually agree with Jake on this one. Sometimes I struggle to understand why I don’t like something but his comments on this movie helped articulate it
bro is HATING 💀💀
i love interstellar. while it's cheesy, i like how sincere it is about its message of the power of love. i had to stop myself from shedding a tear at the IMAX with my boys in case they revoked my position as the alpha male of the group x
totally with jake on this one. i would like this movie a lot more if it didn't take itself so seriously, because then i could let the dumb shit slide. but the overexplaining and the exposition completely ruins any suspension of disbelief i could hold and it gets to the point that i can't really enjoy it for what it is. it's a shame because it's visually stunning and i have a lot of scenes from this movie etched into my brain
That's exactly my problem with most Nolan films. They are very self serious and pretentious, while also being heavy handed and dumbed down.
redditor moment
@@DanLyndon yeah it's a weird mix that really drags down a bunch of his movies. i was pleasantly surprised by how much i liked oppenheimer though, another movie that i would describe as self serious. my guess is that it being based on a book, nolan didn't have room to go crazy with his novel concepts, which is what ultimately ends up coming across as undercooked and dumbed down. all the ideas go into the filmmaking for oppenheimer, which is what he does best anyway, so it's a perfect fit. i hope he does more adaptations in the future
I agree with the rewatch of the videos being the best scene, it's just such a strong scene
Before watching, I loved Interstellar on first watch but I find it a bore to watch now. Interstellar and Dunkirk are my two least favourite Nolan films. I know. Unpopular opinion. I just don't see what everyone loves in both of these films. Anyways, my opinion and engagement out of the way, time to watch the video! :)
I think both are incredible theatrical experiences, but I have a hard time sitting through them again as well.
i feel so vindicated by Jake's commitment to hating this movie, I've thought it's almost unwatchable since seeing it in theaters and felt crazy there was so much love for it and your words map pretty well to my feelings about it
also I'd love to see y'all talk about Tenet, I'm the insane Nolan hater who thinks Tenet is underrated and one of his better movies and would love to see the takes about that glorious vibe-y mess of a flick
@@djspacewhaleI'm the opposite.
As a big Nolan fan Tenet is probably his only film I dislike.
Sorry Jake but two of my favorite movies are Interstellar and Eternal Sunshine of The Spotless Mind.
I feel like when this film is looked at through the lens of a sci fi a la 2001 a space odyssey, it's easy to understand why it would be disappointing and why the scenes intercut with space/earth are annoying filler. But, at least according to Nolan and Zimmer, they've said the point of the film is about the relationship between a father and a daughter, across the universe, across time. When you look at it like that, the scenes on earth aren't just possible, they're necessarily.
I’ve always said this is a wonderful movie… from the moment Matt Damon shows up to the moment he exits… and the rest is kinda fine
what I love about Interstellar is that much like the Avatar films, it's completely trounced all the tvtropes-obsessed, soulless media "discourse" from critics and "film buffs™" alike to become one of those genuinely iconic blockbusters that most ppl around the world can recognize from just the first note of its OST alone. absolutely God-tier film that defines what it means for something to be greater than the sum of its parts, which imo is honestly Nolan's greatest strength.
as for my personal experience watching this film, I've watched more films in theaters than anyone else I know irl and regularly travel to attend film screenings and festivals, and no moment has ever shocked me and made me physically move to the edge of my seat the way the scene of Cooper falling into the Tesseract did back when I watched the film in 2014. it was the single biggest "I have no idea where this is going and my imagination can't keep up" moment I ever experienced watching anything in my entire life. years later, when I was in college, running a fraternity as well as my school's film programming, I remember screening Interstellar in our 900-seat auditorium to a packed audience, and I'll never forget how EVERYONE was in shambles during all the emotional scenes. I distinctly remember girls I knew from sororities being very talkative going into the film and then shaking and sobbing uncontrollably by the end. easy 10/10 where none of the flaws matter.
People like dumbed down crap and cliches. That says nothing about quality, it's just that most people are lazy when it comes to the art they engage with.
@@DanLyndonthank goodness we have people like you who can go around smarting us all so hard
your family is really beautiful, man and woman carrying cute dogs.😍😍😍
Perhaps its a bit naive but I'd love for you guys to explore Ryusuke Hamaguchi's work.
The logic of the movie really got to me. Why go to the planet with the highest time dilation so early? The initial surveyors would have only been there like an hour from their perspective by the time Matthew McConaughey gets there hardly enough time for them to do an actual survey to tell if it is habitable. The entire emotional core of the movie hinges on this time dilation caused by them Starting their mission by making the absolute worst possible decision. The planet that costs 30 years to check if the people who have been there for an hour have decided if it is habitable is the last resort not the first thing you check.
If I remember correctly the beacon had been sent off - we unfortunately learn the reality of what happened, however.
@@kyleliegel But like they could check out all the other planets first and it would only be like a few minutes longer for the people on that planet.
@@5Amigos32 ruclips.net/video/dykzs40b3zo/видео.html
This scene addresses what you are speaking to, which may add I think is a valid point. They discuss the pros and cons of going to Miller's planet and come up with a plan based on the assumption Miller is okay and the planet is very habitable. May or may not work for you.
@@5Amigos32 You say that as though they had the fuel to do it.
@@kyleliegelexactly. That one was the most hopeful, had evidence of water, atmosphere, and organic material, and the beacon was set off, while the others could be a complete bust. For all they knew they could check the one and be done. Why would you check all the dead planets before checking the most hopeful one?
Truly one of the greatest films of all time
Regardless of where you stand, I think this film was very important for mainstreaming the Sci-Fi genre again.
ah yeah i did not care for the movie at all when I saw it in theaters but just generally chafe at plots that have a very "Things happen for a reason because they need to happen that way" structure. Fate/destiny stuff is just always less interesting to me than movies where it feels like you are watching cause and effect happen in a way that at least feels like it has an internal logic to it, I recall this movie as just being like "And then Matthew unlocks the space/time engine through the power of love because he had a flashback and feelings that were powerful enough to do that". I had memory holed the whole "robot explains everything that's happening" moment because it just felt deeply cheap to me. Both this and 2001 struck me as really religious/spiritual movies, but I really preferred 2001's approach to cosmic divine forces being inherently incomprehensible to human beings. We're little ants marching forward across time and space and if a big 5D space daddy picked one of us up and put us somewhere else it would be beyond our understanding
I feel like you dislike it because you wanted this movie to be a different type of movie and not that type of movie that it is
2001: A Space Odyssey is an incredible film but it's not for everyone. I've shown it to five people and only two of them liked it. And one person was my brother, so he may have lied to me
My thesis is that Interstellar was popular for the same reasons that Ad Astra wasn't: Interstellar is a power fantasy about how space and science will save all mankind from outside forces we have no responsability into, whereas Ad Astra is a bleak prediction that humanity will fuck up space exploration like we fucked up everything else. Interstellar wraps itself in hard-sci-fi clothings to appeal to the nerdy crowd, whereas Ad Astra doesn't even try to have remotely accurate science, because it's utterly irrelevant to the plot and message. Interstellar apes 2001's aesthetics and real NASA footage as hard as it can, whereas Ad Astra embraces a strongly personal vision of what space exploration would look like. Interstellar tries really hard to have deep, transcendental themes without ever saying the G-word (God), whereas Ad Astra has openly religious astronauts in a world where the divine is violently absent.
It’s emotionally manipulated but it didn’t even make you cry? So how did emotionally manipulate you?
By being bad at manipulating
Interstellar is essentially a science fiction that replaces actual logic with "emotional intelligence"
True
It does good what science fiction usually does bad and vice versa
emotional intelligence is a real thing btw
@@poposterous236 yeah but it's mostly used as a buzzword by women who always describe relationships as being "complicated"
It’s almost as if “logic” and emotional intelligence aren’t mutually exclusive
We were wrong, the legend does miss!!
I feel like Interstellar ia a good candidate for the Man Carrying Thing channel to make a parody/swede video of.
I'm with Nadia 😂
Here's how I feel about Interstellar.
I think the first 2/3rds of the movie is one of the best Sci fi/Space Opera film I've ever seen.
But then the last 1/3rd completely ruins it and takes a great Sci Fi movie to an okay movie.
I just could not vibe with the fact that the movie went from this very realistic and grounded Sci Fi movie exploring ideas like Worm Holes, Black Holes and Time Dilation in a super realistic manner to a hoaky "Love Transcends Space And Time" Climax where Coop survives a Black Hole and uses a 4th Dimensional Matrix to send information from the inside of a singularity to his daughter who hasn't seen him in almost 30 Years and probably presumes him dead, through Morse Code in an Old Watch that his daughter then looks at and instead of assuming it's a broken 23 year old watch instead assumes that it's hear father who disappeared in space 23 years ago somehow sending her information from inside of a singularity because you know......... "Love Transcends Space And Time". 😂
I don’t think they should’ve explained more lol. Mostly because we don’t know more. The film was clearly explaining the stuff actually grounded in science, and leaving the rest up to interpretation. It may all seem the same to a layman, but it would really bother me if after talking so much science, they start spewing sci-fi bullshit explanations about how the gravity equation solved the ecosphere etc etc. Just accept that when humanity begins going fucking extinct they get their shit together. I imagine they now have budget because everyone wants to survive.
And the world doesn’t have to end because of global warming, the movie isn’t an Uber eats menu. I think a central theme of the movie is that in a cosmic scale, humans are tiny and powerless. When earth decides to become inhospitable, humans have to risk everything to go out and search for better horizons. Only through the “power of love” they overcome this and carve out a new space for humanity. This message would be undermined if it was global warming, ie “the humans deserved it because they misused their big technology powers to end their world”.
On that note, I think the “power of love” was corny as fuck, but for how corny it was it was well executed. I take it to mean the will of humanity to face the cosmos.
Nolan first has in place the philosophical points he wants to make, the spectacles he wants to show and tell us the exposition (so much exposition) and then he starts with the story and plot . Hence most of his films feel contrived. Once the thrill wears off it shows.
Nolan always did this in movies, they start in ways that have not much to do with the end, or add tangents that go nowhere. He gets bogged down in concepts and ideas. Although Tenet and Oppenheimer are better about it.
I think people get too hung up on it being sci-fi when its really more of a sci-fi fantasy movie. It has a lot of whimsy which is either gonna work for you or it wont.
It’s my favorite movie, so I feel a touch personally attacked, but that’s fine, I really see the argument here for some drawbacks. I just fundamentally disagree with every aspect of them.😂
You find hope corny and thats okay I just hope you heal my guy.
I think he finds hope transcending actual science and physics corny.
I loved it after watching it in theatre. Rewatched it recently and was baffled by how clunky the expositional dialogues were. It really is a film that works best on the biggest screen and falls apart when its writing is being held up for scrutiny.
Supply chains make or break an army
yeah
I'm very passionate about Interstellar being a bad film and Jake's opinion vindicates me. It's a gorgeous film with some absolutely beautiful scenes, but beneath the gorgeous setpiece, music, and several scenes, it's hollow and superfluous. Emotionally manipulative really is the right phrase to describe this movie. The movie tried to fit too much into it and in the end felt tonally and thematically inconsistent which is a massive disservice.
It's a shame because there are some truly great moments in the movie and it was close to being actually great.
IKR
Brand: Love is the one thing that we’re capable of perceiving that transcends dimensions of time and space
Ugh.
No it doesn’t feel good to argue.
1:10 CGI??
Koyaanisqatsi.... enjoy
the last 5 minutes influences zimmer and cinematographers here
....
oh I thought it was still aliens or something non human that made the dimension. Humans didn't put the black hole by Jupiter I thought?
2001: A Space Oddyssey For Dummies.
Personally I felt the movie was trying too hard, it felt like the entire runtime it had a gorilla the size of 2001 a space odyssey on its back and it was struggling with that weight.
Jake does not believe in Moon
Matthew McConaughey Carrying Condescending and unstructured film.
No, you were right (and you still are).
Yes you were
Why is it that science fiction novels with cool ideas but weak characters can be great, but when a film does it, it’s bad?
IS Nadia from India or Bangladesh?
I’ve always described this as the best made bad film that I’ve ever seen.
The validation of puting this movie so low ❤
100% agree with Jake. 4/10 is quite generous for this movie as it falls apart logically, emotionally, and structurally + it requires much more suspension of disbelief to enjoy it than I can muster.
For the emotional manipulation I felt like this movie is constantly throwing sand into my eyes trying to make me cry instead of building a real connection with its characters so I can start to care about them. Music, cinemetography, overacting - everything is screeming "this is so sad" when in fact, if you strip it down to what is actually happening, it's often dull or dumb.
This was a huge bummer. Like Jake's opinion on this is the same shit as ten years ago. It's a testiment to this movie that it has survived the cinemasins, neck beard wining. Like, calling the movie dumb and subtextless is not a critical evaluation, like come on. Considering that Mark Fisher wrote an excellent critical (positive) piece linking it to cosmic horror and weird sci-fi, it means that people with better critical tools than Jake got something out of the movie.
I enjoyed the movie on first watch but subsequent rewatches make the unsatisfying ending and cheesy moments make it feel like a slog imo
For me, 2001, Contact and Interstellar are all the same movie. The details of what happens aren't important, it's Space Philosophy time. They're all good films, but I would argue Interstellar is the weakest of the 3.
No you weren’t.
I can't quite explain it, but Christopher Nolan films give me a feeling of "wrongness" comparable to Sharkboy and Lavagirl and I'm not even fucking joking. The scripts feel like AI generated first drafts and the visuals and editing feel like they were done by aliens trying to imitate what they think a film is.
Basically, I don't get the hype. Also, The Prestige is one of the dumbest films ever made, and I will die on this hill.
I like this movie but the ending is terrible. I would have liked a more depressing ending where Matthew McConaughey doesn't return to Murphy
so true, everything needs to be berserk and game of thrones 👏
@johncra8982 A serious realistic science fiction movie having a random deus ex machina to magic its way to a happy ending is awful and weakens the film as a whole.
@@5Amigos32 I fully agree. I punched everything you said into a calculator and the output was "movie bad".
@@johncra8982 why are you like this?
@@johncra8982No but a good Sci Fi movie should aspire to be something like 2001 or Solaris rather than Star Wars or Cinderella.
I hate this movie, which is annoying because it’s all the things I love: the constant evolution of time and space and non-Euclideanness of it all, when you get deep enough into the unexplored regions of the universe. Unfortunately, the lead character is Matthew McConahay and imo he is the worst possible choice of casting for the role. He just always portrays a vague “holier than thou” egomaniac persona in everything he does that I just cannot stand him.
Watching this video, I am now remembering more issues with the script. The emphasis on love, the dumbed down science (which is usually fine but in this it was so dumbed down that it didn’t make sense), THE FACT THAT GRAVITY HAS ALREADY BEEN SOLVED AND THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE THE FUTURE DID THEY JUST FORGET ABOUT THAT??? And none of the characters feel like real people. Hate it.
Absolutely loved the set design and music though, some of my favorite in any movie. Too bad they were wasted on this.
Tl;dr: Interstellar could have been one of my favorite movies of all time if only Matthew McConahay wasn’t in it (also if the script was changed entirely and written by people who understand basic science better)
The movies was made for audience like Nadia. Simple as.
People with good taste, got it 🫡
Interstellar was the middle in a trilogy of movies for me, starting with Gravity, and ending with Arrival, in which a somewhat compelling hard sci-fi movie is foiled in it's 3rd act by the sudden assertion that love is literal magic and the plot doesn't have to follow any of the established rules so long as the actor emotes hard enough. I was beginning to lose hope in 2016 that Hollywood would ever make a compelling space sci-fi movie again, either out of incompetence or out of genuine distain for the genre. I'm pretty glad that ended up not being the case.
This movie was dumb, but it had good music.
It's a good movie with a weak plot.
But I agree that Godzilla is better.
The time dilation planet was incredibly stupid. Why would they take such an enormous risk to check on the person who went there originally when she would've literally been there for minutes due to the time difference. There was not enough time to do anything worthwhile there.
Elements of the movie are great but I just can't like it.
I did not like it. On top of the story being nonsense, the music was too loud to hear a bunch of the dialogue.
I personally find Interstellar overrated
You just hate love and think love is unimportant.
Every Christopher Nolan is a master piece, so far . You were really wrong a out Interstellar.
His only arguable masterpiece is Memento. Otherwise Nolan is a pretentious sellout.
@@DanLyndonEvery accusation is a confession, sweetie. We’ll pray for you ❤
Bro has the worst take ever
Its fine to dislike Interstellar, but mate, your reasoning didnt make sense.