Chris Nolan's "INTERSTELLAR"

Just watched this on Imax. Lots of missed focus, chromatic aberrations and a changing aspect ration. I must be honest... ...I loved the look, soundtrack was pretty dope too:-)

I agree with Kyle, there were lots of plot holes and logic fails, some were staggeringly daft, but there were enough cinematic wow moments to keep me hooked until the last 20mins when it descended into a soppy melodrama. A good popcorn flick nonetheless.
 
My wife and i didn't like it much at all, the holes were rampant. my two favorites: (A little SPOILISH) They decide to check out the planet closest to the giant black hole first,(Derrrrrrr) and 2: despite all this apparent video messaging technology they posses, the ranger ships not only sent no video/photos to show the garbage that awaits them, but apparently sent complete jargon to keep it mysterious.
 
I thought it was a powerful engulfing experience. I love the Nolan Zimmer combo and how much Nolan puts Zimmer's work as the forefront driving force overpowering every other soundscape and narrative at many times. All done in 10-15min. long stretch build ups. I really enjoyed the choice of tight vignetted shots and then the very selective moments of having grand wide shots. Not the first time we've seen this done of course but I think this was one of the best executions I have seen of it. Loved the tanglble grit of all the earth scenes, it did not look overdone. I was confused about some of the soft focus issues. I couldn't tell if it was intentional or not? If it was intentional I could have done without thought as I found it distracting. I did see the film on IMAX. almost all shots felt real person perspective and no magic cam, dug that as well.

There was a lot less action and a lot more emotional character driven moments than I went in expecting but I came out of it appreciating the film all the more because of it. Just out of curiosity for those on here who didn't enjoy it, where you guys fans of Inception? I am totally just curious? I was a big fan of Inception as well along with most everything Nolan has done but for me, he did it again.
 
Liam Hall said:
Just watched this on Imax. Lots of missed focus, chromatic aberrations and a changing aspect ration. I must be honest... ...I loved the look, soundtrack was pretty dope too:-)

I agree with Kyle, there were lots of plot holes and logic fails, some were staggeringly daft, but there were enough cinematic wow moments to keep me hooked until the last 20mins when it descended into a soppy melodrama. A good popcorn flick nonetheless.
Click to expand...

LOL; finally; someone watched the same film as i did!
 
Darren Levine said:
They decide to check out the planet closest to the giant black hole first,(Derrrrrrr) and 2: despite all this apparent video messaging technology they posses, the ranger ships not only sent no video/photos to show the garbage that awaits them, but apparently sent complete jargon to keep it mysterious.
Click to expand...
From what I understood, the ship on the first planet crashed and the computer sent some information out automatically which indicated it could be hospitable. On the ice planet--

SPOILER

--Matt Damon deliberately sent out false information to lure them there. The third planet, they were told was hospitable, but it was the least convenient to access. I don't think images would have helped. Water and ice would still indicate the possibility that life could flourish. Other readings would be much more important and require less bandwidth.
 
Last edited:
Batutta said:
...the sound mix was unbalanced in spots...
Click to expand...

Apparently this is what Nolan wanted. The gist of it seems to be that he wanted the viewer to "be in" the situation with the characters, and to have the background be so loud that it made hearing the characters' speech difficult, in a way not dissimilar from what the characters would hear if it were real.

This is not at all what I want as a viewer, but that seems to be what Nolan wanted as director.
 
Wow..what a film…Nolan and Kodak…integrity and artistry..
(the out of focus was from using anamorphic lenses wide open I'm figuring)
 
Well as long as we're doing spoilers, I would like to call out some common themes in Nolan's films:

Time distortion: Memento, Inception, Interstellar
Longing to get back to children: Inception, Interstellar
Whether lying is right: Memento, The Dark Knight, Interstellar
Wiping out the world: Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, Interstellar
 
Bruce Watson said:
Apparently this is what Nolan wanted. The gist of it seems to be that he wanted the viewer to "be in" the situation with the characters, and to have the background be so loud that it made hearing the characters' speech difficult, in a way not dissimilar from what the characters would hear if it were real.

This is not at all what I want as a viewer, but that seems to be what Nolan wanted as director.
Click to expand...

I think the issue is that Nolan took this approach to the mix right to the edge. It probably worked in a perfectly calibrated mixing stage. In an actual theatre, it becomes unintelligible unless shown in optimum conditions. In my theatre it was painfully loud to the point of distortion in spots.
 
combatentropy said:
Well as long as we're doing spoilers, I would like to call out some common themes in Nolan's films:

Time distortion: Memento, Inception, Interstellar
Longing to get back to children: Inception, Interstellar
Whether lying is right: Memento, The Dark Knight, Interstellar
Wiping out the world: Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, Interstellar
Click to expand...

You completely missed this common theme:

Michael Caine: The Prestige, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, The Dark Knight Rises, Inception, Interstellar

Haha, I love it though, and I will anticipate every Nolan film until he makes a bad one.
 
Ryan Farnes said:
You completely missed this common theme:

Michael Caine: The Prestige, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, The Dark Knight Rises, Inception, Interstellar

Haha, I love it though, and I will anticipate every Nolan film until he makes a bad one.
Click to expand...

Haha; SO right. ...so far, and personally; I'm sticking with Prestige

Edit: 'Cos Batman trilogy -or whatever it calls- "thing" (and i'm really sorry for the fans here) bores me to the death.. (no script, no real characters, no nothing.. IMHO)
 
Last edited:
I do admit, it was a bit overhyped, but I think with Nolan track's record, it had no choice but to be overhyped. But I thought it was okay. KyleProhaska said it best. I didn't hate it but it didn't blow my mind. It did remind me of Contact a little bit, but Contact was a much more superior film in my opinion. However, I have to say, it did not feel like 3 hours watching it. I guess because of Nolan's track record I expected something beyond amazing story wise. I'll have to say, those damn robots creeped me out lol, especially when they took off running.
 
I didn't get one part (well, not just one, but here it is): if you need millions of pounds of fuel to leave Earth's gravitational field then how can you leave a planet which has 130% of Earth's gravity with a Star Wars spaceship?
 
Piszkos Fred said:
I didn't get one part (well, not just one, but here it is): if you need millions of pounds of fuel to leave Earth's gravitational field then how can you leave a planet which has 130% of Earth's gravity with a Star Wars spaceship?
Click to expand...

Because rocket launches are cooler!...This is probably the most glaring error for me. The film starts as a very realistic depiction of what space travel in the near future would look like, with rocket launches, plausible artificial gravity and hibernation units, taking months just to get from Earth to Saturn, and then just becomes standard issue sci-fi stuff where the ships seem to have unlimited fuel, landing and take-off capabilities as they whip around a distant planetary system. In a different movie, I wouldn't care. But when you have one of the world's top physicists as part of your filmmaking team and make claims to have accurate science in your film, you set yourself up to have every detail of your film scrutinized so it better be air tight.
 
jghenderson said:
It will be interesting to see whether Nolan finally tries to break free of the mold and make a truly challenging film, or whether this will be yet another very well made big-budget action film that he does so well.
Click to expand...

I just got back from the theater. Sadly, it was as you say "yet another very well made big-budget action film that he does so well." With the added detriment of some awful sound design that a number of times completely destroyed my "suspension of disbelief" to make me listen to just how bad it was.

Yes, this was yet another Nolan film about the concept of recursion. I'm beginning to loose hope for him. He's seeming like a one trick pony, albeit one with a big frellin' trick.

Still, a fun ride. But it's not much more than a standard summer pop corn movie (with a lot of 2001 references. A lot.).
 
Piszkos Fred said:
I didn't get one part (well, not just one, but here it is): if you need millions of pounds of fuel to leave Earth's gravitational field then how can you leave a planet which has 130% of Earth's gravity with a Star Wars spaceship?
Click to expand...

This bit bugged me as well, but having given it some thought, there might be a plausible explanation for it.

The Endurance and its landing craft might be using open-cycle nuclear thermal rockets, which would provide significantly more delta-V, but at the cost of producing hazzardous radioactive exhaust. That exhaust is not going to be a problem in space, or on uninhabited planets, but you probably wouldn't want to use them for regular lift-offs from Earth. Repeatadly irradiating your launch facility would likely be frowned upon by the NASA safety inspectors, thus old-fashioned chemical rockets are used instead.

That's just a guess. I don't know if that what the filmmakers were thinking.
 
Last edited:
Since this movie is set sometime in the near future I just let my imagination go and convinced myself they were using some sort of compact fusion rocket propulsion system or other type of hybrid rocket fuel etc. At least this is what we're currently trying to do for Mars and beyond. That's how the skunk works. :)
 
Piszkos Fred said:
I didn't get one part (well, not just one, but here it is): if you need millions of pounds of fuel to leave Earth's gravitational field then how can you leave a planet which has 130% of Earth's gravity with a Star Wars spaceship?
Click to expand...

Batutta said:
Because rocket launches are cooler!...This is probably the most glaring error for me. The film starts as a very realistic depiction of what space travel in the near future would look like, with rocket launches, plausible artificial gravity and hibernation units, taking months just to get from Earth to Saturn, and then just becomes standard issue sci-fi stuff where the ships seem to have unlimited fuel, landing and take-off capabilities as they whip around a distant planetary system. In a different movie, I wouldn't care. But when you have one of the world's top physicists as part of your filmmaking team and make claims to have accurate science in your film, you set yourself up to have every detail of your film scrutinized so it better be air tight.
Click to expand...

The limited fuel is a central plot point that dictates why they do what they do in the other galaxy's system and which planets they go to and how. (although, that may be the Endurance's fuel, not the landers) But, at the end, when they've ruled out 2 of the planets, they realize they cannot get home, but they use the remaining landing craft as boosters to slingshot around Gargantua to get Brandt to Edmund's planet, during which each craft detaches after running out of fuel.

They sent 10 or 12 astronauts during the Lazarus missions, and yet are only able to go check on 3. Fuel seems a major limitation for the smaller craft and so perhaps in getting it up to the Endurance from Earth, they use a traditional rocket to save the fuel for that gravity escape. Those small craft are capable of leaving earth without a rocket, but they only have so much fuel, and thus can only go up and down from a planet and thus escape gravity a couple of times.

Remember, on the first planet, Cooper doesn't even use any fuel in the landing until the very last moment. He uses aerodynamics to let the ship glide in and use the atmosphere to slow it until the last moment when he engages the thrusters for touchdown. He even says in response to a comment on his abrupt landing, "...yes, but very efficient." Fuel is a limited commodity.

Anyway, my thoughts on it. There may be other factors at play.
 
I loved the film. Saw it in imax, and I'd put it up alongside The Prestige as one of my favourite Nolan films.

That said, I was kinda shocked at the decision to shoot with wide-open apertures and razor thin DoF on 15-perf 65mm... what's the point of having all that incredible resolution and detail at your fingertips and then wasting 90% of it on creamy bokeh? Rather defeats the purpose I think.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top