Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 66
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Plus the movie's been out almost two weeks. Anybody coming in this thread by now having not seen it deserves what they get.

I'd say I've never seen someone type so much while still saying so little, but I've been on Nightly for like 12 years now.

Saw it. Whaaaaaaat?   I am more or less the target audience for a movie about a spaceman flying off to spaceworlds to solve spaceproblems, right? And yet I thought this movie was an absolute failure o

Posted Images

Saw it. Whaaaaaaat?


I am more or less the target audience for a movie about a spaceman flying off to spaceworlds to solve spaceproblems, right? And yet I thought this movie was an absolute failure on nearly every level. The visuals are stunning. That's it, and to be fair, that's actually an extraordinarily impressive achievement considering how not good so many of these movies look even while they succeed in other crucial respects that this movie fails at to doing.


I have some questions for this movie. Here they are :


  1. Why was everybody miscast? The two old men are in the wrong old man parts : manipulative mentor should have been played by John Lithgow and the guy who played the manipulative mentor should have played the father figure role. The woman who is really good when she cries and feels sad has the role of the mostly stoic person and the woman who is really good at being stoic has the role where she mostly cries and feels sad. The man who is really good at making you root for and like an unlikable person despite themselves is playing the straightforward good and likable guy whereas the guy who shows up late in the movie does not have that quality at all yet is forced into that role.
  2. When is it okay to lie and when is it not okay to lie, movie? Just some basic indication of where the movie was on that issue at all would have been good.
  3. Why didn't what comes out of people's mouths make sense? Roughly thirty percent of the sentences in the movie are not clear as to what they are talking about exactly but in a way that makes me think like the audience is expected to understand their meaning.
  4. Who was responsible for ALL of the unexplained phenomena at the movie's beginning or even the unexplained phenomenon which happened long before the movie began? You can't just explain half of the phenomena and leave out the other half. I mean, you did, but I don't understand why you did or if I am expected to guess about the rest of the phenomenana.
  5. Why did movie decide to be inextricably bound up with a different really old movie? Does this movie even make sense to those unfamiliar with that old movie? Does it make more sense to them? Does a familiarity with that old movie ruin this movie or enhance it?
  6. You can't just have a character recite a good piece of poetry and hope it turns your movie into a better one. I mean, you did, and so did Skyfall and Oblivion too but I think it only really worked for Skyfall. It sort of works the first time here in this movie but doesn't the second time and doesn't the third time and the fourth time it sorta happens, well, no. Spoiler warning : hella poetry here in this movie.
  7. Where is everything? If you set a movie in Times Square and the movie is all about getting to different parts of Times Square then I'd like to have a little more understanding of where the different parts are in relation to one another otherwise any decisions made by the characters as to where they go and why and any changes in those made decisions don't have a whole lot of context for me. And, in this analogy, I am an eager patron of Times Square movies. I love Times Square movies. I am even okay with Times Square movies that make believe things about Times Square that are blatantly untrue; I am not like Neil DeGrasse Tyson complaining on twitter about a Times Square movie where the advertisements have loudspeakers or whatever. If my Times Square movie wants to make pretend that Times Square is a fundamentally different place than Times Square in real life I am okay with that so long as I understand this new fictional only quasi-real Times Square and the choices made by the characters navigating it. P.S. In this analogy the Times Square = love.
  8. Why would you let Topher Grace inside you, movie?
  9. How does the thing do the thing in the place when it's not in that place anymore? I am ready to accept that the thing does that thing where it is but not when it's not longer there in the place. What feature of the thing allows it to retain what is happening to it in the place once it is no longer there?
  10. Why does the guy in the thing going to the place do what it does to the place and the guy and the thing? This is just one illustrative example : there were lots of things happening to guys in places all throughout the movie where I had difficulty following or assumed one thing happened to the guy and then it didn't and this was all experienced for me in a way that made me think the movie was absolutely confident people in the audience totally understood what was happening.
Link to post
Share on other sites

CASE is obviously a nod to Neuromancer, right? What is TARS a nod to? Anyone know off the top of their head? I could Google but meh.


The score was mixed like ****. When it got going, combined with audio effects, you couldn't hear the dialogue for ****.

This drove me batshit insane for roughly one third of the film.


Otherwise, I thought it was a fun run. Still don't like Anne Hathaway though. Seems like nothing will make me like her.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The last paragraph of that article (RE: When Caine is talking in bed) reads like Nolan is telling us it's our fault for not being artsy enough to understand his movie when the lines are at 25% volume.

That was okay though, because the passage he quotes makes like a half-dozen appearances throughout the film.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just viewed it on imax today. My second favorite movie of the year. Enjoyed it from beginning to end. Don't care what is scientifically accurate and what's not. For me, nolans movies are usually never ones that I understand after one viewing. Or two. That's death to a lot of movies, but Nolan at least makes me want to come back to the movie for more viewings.


For about half the movie, I really didn't care for the robots. But they grew on me. The reveal was something way out of left field. Confusing. But I get the jest. I loved Cooper and Murphys relationship.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Saw it yesterday. Was pretty good IMO, except for the whole "power of love" theme thing. Kinda lame. Liked the audio mix, particularly when it got epic loud as they were sling-shotting round the black hole. The pipe organ was a fantastic choice of instrument for space scenes. Kind of made me roll my eyes when protagonist winds up in the bookshelf 5th dimension suspended in time and space communicating to his daughter using morse code and gravity. Did I mention it was the power of love that saved humanity? Barf. Otherwise it was pretty cool. Shame it had to be such a cry-fest.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Finally saw it, there's a good movie in there somewhere.

It took roughly 45 minutes to get into space, we get all this stuff with his kids that doesn't really make a difference to any of the rest of the movie.

Casey Affleck was wasted in the role.
We finally get a good movie from the point they are in space up until the ending which has such a glaring plot hole it ruins the entire movie for me.
It looked really pretty.

Easily Nolans worst film for me, not to say it's God awful just that he has such an impressive catalogue and this doesn't come close to any of his others.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Create New...