{
    "0": "A science-fiction masterpiece. Nolan executes a marvelous direction that slowly but efficiently puts in place a dark world creating a necessity to save humanity. Add to that great performances from Nolan and Hathaway plus a great score from Hans Zimmer. The result is on the best science-fiction movies of all time.",
    "1": "I think just about everything has been said about this film now. But, I can still tell you what this masterpiece is to me. To me, this movie is possibly the most relevant movie ever, because it questions our own humanity relative to the Universe. Whether that's our ability to love, think, or persevere and walk into the unknown. We are explorers, and curious at heart. This untameable curiosity is not our end, but our beginning. It is what advanced this civilization and it will continue to do so. So never, never let anybody tell you that we shouldn't look towards the stars and wonder, because that's what makes us human. Without this stargazing we are merely animals, accepting our fate in the dust...",
    "2": "After watching this insane movie in the theatres back in 2014 I swore to god I will wait 5 years to watch it again so I get to forget it and experince the insanity it has again\nThis without doubt is THE BEST MOVIE EVER MADE",
    "3": "Amongst the best movies of all time. The story, the acting, the script, the cinematography, the effects, the sound and the production as a whole is all absolute 10/10's.But what beats all of that is Hans Zimmers compositions. How he continues to churn out perfection to the senses is mindblowing.",
    "4": "Sometimes I just need to see the start. Or end. Or a trailer. Or the music and theme from Hans Zimmer. Or the whole movie. Just to feel that thing, I only get from this movie. That the earth, space and time are something special, mystical. I never forget the first time I saw this movie, in an IMAX theatre in 2014. I was struck by it. Totally got me. And it stil does, 7 years later. This is the best movie ever made for me. Because of the feeling it gives me, no other movie can. So hard to get all of this emotion in only one movie. Brilliant.",
    "5": "Set in a future where crop species are going extinct one after another former test pilot Joseph Cooper is now a farmer growing corn. His daughter Murphey thinks there is a ghost in her room; Cooper doesn't believe in ghosts but accepts that something is there when the dust on the floor is a set of coordinates in binary form. He goes to that location and finds himself at a NASA base where he learns of a secret programme to find another habitable world involving a wormhole discovered near Saturn. He is asked to take part in a mission to find the best planet out of three orbiting a black hole; each of which has a scientist who went on a one way mission sending data back. The plan is to find a world to transfer humanity to but if that is impossible there is a back-up plan for the crew to raise the 5000 embryos stored aboard their ship. Time is an issue as it moves at a different rate near the black hole; this means that as hours pass for Cooper years are passing back on Earth.This film starts at a gentle pace gradually explaining what has happened to the Earth before getting the mission to save the world started; this means the separation of Cooper and Murphey is more emotional. Once the mission is underway there is plenty of tension, including some particularly gripping moments on the second planet they visit. The small cast does a fine job; especially Matthew McConaughey, who plays Cooper; Anne Hathaway, who plays Amelia Brand a scientist aboard the mission; and Mackenzie Foy and Jessica Chastain, who play the younger and older Murphey. The effects looked great, as one would expect in a film from Christopher Nolan, and I was pleased that space was depicted as silent; something that is both scientifically correct but also more impressive. Things do get a little confusing near the end but in a way that made me want to watch again rather than causing frustration.Overall I'd recommend this to somebody looking for intelligent science fiction in the mould of '2001 – A Space Odyssey'… although this has more emotion to it than that classic.",
    "6": "I judge a movie by how long it takes me to realize I need the bathroom, how long the movie can hold my interest and how convincing the events unfolding are. Well, I watched this movie all the way through with no bathroom breaks. My interest was grabbed from the start and held all the way through. Being old enough, and lucky enough to have watched the premiere of 2001 A Space Odyssey - and viewed it several times since - of course I made comparisons, and there were a few, but this movie tells an excellent stand alone story that is both riveting and believable. I'm not going to give away any secrets but anyone who watches the last five minutes or so without a lump in their throat and a tear in their eye, well you're a critic, you're not enjoying the movie because you're too busy looking for bloopers and faults. Were there bloopers and faults? The darn movie was so riveting if there were any I didn't notice them!",
    "7": "I hadn't seen this but movie and caught it on a flight back from the DR. \nOne of my favorite movies of all time. I would give the first half of the movie an 11/10, just completely enjoyed it as a sci fi/ thriller(in the sense of so much always being on the line). I loved the acting and just yeah, a great movie and one you should go see if you never have",
    "8": "Hollywood science fiction spectacles about antagonistic aliens abandoning dying worlds to occupy not only Earth, but also to oust us have been popular with moviegoers. Typically, like the European explorers who invaded and disenfranchised millions in the Western Hemisphere during the 15th century, these extraterrestrials—either bug-eyed behemoths with lobster claws or pod people whose seeds have drifted across the cosmos—show up to evict or absorb us. \"Inception\" director Christopher Nolan's latest extravaganza \"Interstellar,\" toplining Matthew McConaughey, Anne Hathaway, Jessica Chastain, Michael Caine, and John Lithgow, is a superior space opera that reverses the action. Earthlings must abandon mother Earth because an environmental blight has devastated farming and millions have starved to death in overpopulated continents. No, \"Interstellar\" doesn't pit Earth against multi-colored \"Guardians of the Galaxy\" aliens or immaculate looking storm troopers in white outfits from the \"Star Wars\" and \"Hunger Games\" franchises. Instead, the \"Interstellar\" scientist heroes must search for a new home for humankind. Rather than an outlandish adventure epic with evil extraterrestrials, \"Interstellar\" qualifies as an intelligent, realistic, sometimes provocative, sci-fi saga similar to Stanley Kubrick's landmark movie \"2001: A Space Odyssey.\" Mind you, Nolan doesn't chronicle mankind's evolution from the dawn of time the way Kubrick did in as \"2001.\" The casts of \"Interstellar\" and \"2001: A Space Odyssey\" differ, too. Kubrick relied on an unknown cast, while \"Interstellar\" boasts a charismatic array of superstars. If you haven't seen \"2001: A Space Odyssey,\" you won't appreciate some of the clever allusions to the legendary 1968 film. Anybody who has seen \"2001\" will be amused by a joke that a robot makes about blowing an astronaut out of an airlock. Ultimately, the most obvious \"2001\" references in \"Interstellar\" are those bizarre, oblong, Minecraft-style robots that resemble the black monoliths in Kubrick's film. Some of the sci-fi terminology may fly over your head, but Christopher Nolan and his brother Jonathan concern themselves with more than speculative science fiction ideas. They focus on relevant contemporary themes, such as father & daughter relationships and the environment. They forge interesting characters with philosophical dialogue that you will ponder long after the movie. \"Interstellar\" occurs in the late 21st century, after things have waxed really wretched. Bad enough that farmers can grow only corn. Blight has destroyed wheat and okra. Public opinion about NASA has curdled. History textbooks have been rewritten. Everybody believes NASA faked the Apollo moon landings to bankrupt the Soviet Union. A former NASA test pilot, Cooper (Matthew McConaughey of \"Mud\"), has turned to farming and reaped rewards where many others have failed. Although his wife died from a brain cyst that an MRI could have detected had an MRI had been available, Cooper perseveres as a farmer and a father of two children, his fifteen-year old son Tom (Timothée Chalamet of \"Worse Friends\"), and his precious ten-year old daughter Murph (Mackenzie Foy of \"The Conjuring\") who adore him. Cooper and his kids live with his father-in-law, Donald (John Lithgow of \"Terms of Endearment\"), and they contend with tumultuous dust storms on a daily basis. These dust storms recall the Depression Era drought and dust storms of that prompted millions to flee from the plains states. Dust gets into everything, and Donald wages a never-ending war to keep everything clean. Meanwhile, books have been toppling randomly from Murph's bedroom bookcase. She suspects a ghost is responsible, but nothing ghoulish like \"Paranormal Activity.\" Naturally, Cooper dismisses the presence of ghosts. One day after a particularly turbulent dust storm, father and daughter examine the way the books have fallen out of the shelves, translate it into code, and come up with coordinates that lead them to a classified NORAD facility. A monolithic robot named Tars confronts them. Later, Murph and Cooper find themselves sitting around a table talking with high-ranking NASA officials. One of them is Professor Brand (Michael Caine of \"Batman Begins\"), and Brand confides in Cooper that the world is living on borrowed time. Moreover, he tells him about the 'Lazarus' project. NASA has dispatched manned missions to other parts of the galaxy to find a new home for mankind. He convinces Cooper to sign on as a pilot for one last launch that will take his daughter, biologist Amelia (Oscar winning actress Anne Hathaway of \"Les Misérables); physicist Romilly (David Gyasi); geographer Doyle (Wes Bentley of \"The Hunger Games\"); and two robots TARS (voice of Bill Irwin) and CASE (voice of Josh Stewart) deep into space to a recently discovered wormhole which will enable them to explore new worlds. Predictably, Murph isn't happy about her father's departure. During their flight to the wormhole, Cooper and company lose contact with Earth, but Professor Brand can still transmit messages. Gradually, however, things take a turn for the worst. The final quarter hour of \"Interstellar\" will absolutely boggle your mind. Cooper goes where no man has gone before in a desperate bid to save mankind! \"Interstellar\" is a serious sci-fi movie. The computer-generated visual effects are nothing short of dazzling, and Nolan orchestrates the flight sequences so we don't hear any sounds in the vacuum of outer space. The different spacecraft and the Endurance mother ship look as authentic as the outfits that our heroes wear. The strange but new worlds that they encounter during their search to locate a new Earth are breathtaking. One world consists of an eternal sea with towering waves that loom like mountain ranges, while another is as stark and icy as it is inhospitable. The theme of deception runs throughout \"Interstellar.\" The faked Apollo moon landing and Dr. Brand's mind-blowing revelation are a few surprises that will maintain your interest throughout \"Interstellar.\" Nolan generates several suspenseful set-pieces that will keep you poised on the edge of your seat. Matt Damon has a startling cameo as another astronaut who has succumbed to effects of isolation. Clocking in at 169 minutes, \"Interstellar\" amounts to an unforgettable epic with intense white-knuckled suspense, top-notch performances, and a terrific ending.",
    "9": "I was extremely lucky to get the chance to see this film upon its first day release, before entering the cinema, my expectations were already high, after all, this was a film from the cinematic genius who brought us the likes of 'Inception' and 'The Dark Knight', to summarise the following review in a single sentence: I left the cinema in extreme awe from the visual masterpiece I had just viewed. A film that explores the psychological and emotional state of a man whose life revolves around his family, 'Interstellar' is a thrilling and thought-provoking film that boasts an intellectual story masterfully written by the Nolan brothers. Whilst there seems to have been influence from films like '2001: A Space Odyssey' and 'Apollo 13', 'Interstellar' is unique in its own way. Whilst the subject may be hard to comprehend at times, it can't be denied how visually monumental and thoughtful Christopher Nolan's epic science fiction masterpiece is, and can easily be named the best film of this year and possibly one of the greatest science fiction films to have ever graced the screen. A sheer brilliant feat of cinema.",
    "10": "I rate this movie 11/10 to signify it's greatness. Perfection. Mind-blowing. A workout for your brain. I want to have debates about it. I want to write research papers on it. Amazingly unbelievably awesome. This is the kind of movie that opens up your mind. Lots of amazing scenes with epic music. A killer story told flawlessly. Perfect directing by the best ever. Great cast with great acting. A deep psychological aspect explored for numerous characters.The most renowned theoretical physicist who is an expert on cosmology was brought on to keep the science honest, as well as a retired astronaut who's been to space five times. One of the rare movies that is better the second, and even the third time watching. The only movie I have ever liked the most the fourth time. I keep picking up on more things and a better overall understanding. So many parts are extremely moving and powerful. It does an awesome job of making you feel what the characters are feeling.EDIT on tenth viewing: This movie destroys me every time. Numerous tears EVERY TIME. And I don't just mean at the obvious emotional parts. There are so many moments where I am in complete awe at the beauty of the filmmaking I'm experiencing, to the point of tears. The way the story all comes together and the \"epiphany moment\" is so perfect that it brings me to tears.When watching movies, I sometimes think, \"this is the best thing I've ever seen\" or \"this is the coolest thing I've ever seen.\" I know it's hyperbole and I've said it many times, usually at one or maybe two scenes in a movie. During Interstellar, I feel this way for about 40% of this three hour movie. Every time I watch, it re-emphasizes that it is CLEARY my favorite movie of all-time. And that musical score alone gives me goosebumps for so much of the movie. Hans is the GOAT. Nolan is the GOAT.(10 viewings, 12/2/2016, 2/26/2020, 1/11/2022, 8/9/2023)SPOILERSI was randomly thinking about Interstellar, haven't watched it in at least 6 months. I thought about one hypothetical that intrigued me: what if the tesseract is such that it can only be placed inside an already collapsed black hole. If plan B was what \"originally\" happened and Dr. Brand survived, future people figured it out, and they want to save those they left behind on earth, they need to find a love-link between someone who goes into a black hole and someone on earth smart enough to be able to solve the gravity problem = Cooper and Murph. Doctor Brand knows this because she knows Cooper loves Murph, knows he sacrifices himself by falling into the black hole, knows Murph grows up to be her dad's understudy, so she has the future people (eventually, after her death) put the machine in the same black hole that Cooper falls into, thereby making the entire plan work. INTRIGUING. Will need to confirm on next viewing... after watching again, I like this as a viable theory, but it conflicts with another theory I had about the \"original\" mission being completed without Cooper.Lots of awesome concepts that made me think, like Murphy's Law not applying close to a black hole, human survival instincts and it encompassing your children, love being a quantifiable scientific force, the black hole and time relativity. The robots are cool and original. Really awesome visuals of things I've wondered about but never really imagined. I liked the depiction of the 5 dimensions in 3D in the daughter's room. The way everything connected is very awesome. The different planets are so interesting with ice clouds and giant tidal waves. The endings are perfect.Something I noticed that I didn't realize the first time is the reason his son became dark and a little crazy. He was still a good person, even after experiencing the death of his son, Jesse. However, once his wife convinced him to let go of the idea that his father was coming back, he gave up on everything in life and became a horrible husband, father and brother.The relationship between Coop and Murph is the best relationship I can remember in any movie I've seen. The primary underlying theme in the movie is the love between a father and his daughter being able to transcend space and time, which is the key to her getting the information she needs to save the world.From Interstellar group chat discussion:-Or the other theory I had was that originally plan B was the one that worked and a colony survived and eventually was able to do what they did and wanted to save all the people that ended up dying on earth and try to make plan A work-So she finds out that plan a was a sham. That the professor had already solved the equation years ago before she even met him. That he knew even with solving the equation that they couldn't figure out how to get the people off earth. She found out they knew they were never coming back and they were going to let everyone on earth to die. So every day since she was 10 that she has been hoping her father would come home was a lie. She should have never been hoping. Her entire 20 years that she dedicated her life to working on this was a complete waste. That should break a person. Murph is a beast.-The love between them was the only reason the world ended up being saved. It's the only reason she kept trying that hard after all those years. It's the only reason she went back to her house in her room. It's the only reason she saw the watch again. It's the only reason she figured out that the watch twitching was her dad sending the data.12/2/16: I watched interstellar again wow. I found a flaw in my theory that in the original timeline they used Plan B without Cooper, and then when they became advanced they went back to try to get Cooper so they could save the people that died on earth. The problem is, how would they have gotten past the problems with re-docking onto the spinning blown up ship after Mann backstabbed humanity. But it actually makes perfect sense because in the original timeline Cooper would not have convinced them to go to Mann's planet, Brand would have convinced them to go to Edmund's planet which was the right one. In that \"original\" timeline, love still saved humanity since it helped her choose the right planet.",
    "11": "The earth is plagued with droughts, famines and other apocalyptic disasters. Mankind must find a way to leave planet earth once and for all. An earth-like planet has been discovered in another solar system. A spaceship can travel fast through a wormhole though interstellar space but can Cooper get there and return to earth in time to see his daughter before she grows too old?The Aging of Murph vs her father Cooper the answer is relativity playing a factor in aging - how fast time runs depend on the relative position of the observer and the subject.Incredible movie - HIGHLY RECOMMENDED!10/10",
    "12": "chris Nolan a delivered another original story with with less special effects its more old school stuff with flight simulators done instead of geeen screens with space painted on the outside everything you see in this movie is real as your going to get so here starts the story of a farmer called cooper played by Matthew mconnaughey another Oscar performance who was a N.A.S.A pilot and his family he finds out that there is a problem with earth food sources and stumbles upon a plan to save earth and t leave earth for another world with his daughter he loves and his daughter tuned into other worldly scientific things that I wont explain you have to see this to understand the films relevance on finding a solution to the worlds problems there is a solution in here house were signs are there but I wont make sense until the end he has really turned the corner in his career what a RenascenceFirst of all, it is incredibly beautiful to watch. Honestly, it was so beautiful that I felt like I was sucked into the movie. The way Nolan decided to show some scenes really remind me of contact and parts of inception you see in this movie ca feel the talent of Christopher Nolan, just by looking at the way it is filmed. The techniques he used contribute to create that visual environment in a believable way.The sound environment is just mesmerizing. It is a very important part of the movie, because some scenes take place in space, and Noland just found the right way to use sound. The soundtrack (made by the great Hans Zimmer) is breathtaking, epic, amazing, unreal. I could find a lot more adjectives to qualify it, but you have to hear it to understand how epic they are. you think how loud this film is you think you ware a astronautMatthew, In this movie... Well, he is the movie. he orchestrates this film that everybody else feeds of his power so much that everyone around him gets better. But Matthew is just what was needed to feel the human part of the story (which is very important in Interstellar). He is capable of making us feel so many different emotions all along the story, as a father, as a human. Anne Hathaway was very convincing, all together the actors managed to create some harmony, which makes the human interactions credible. Caine, Chastaing and Affleck are a perfect choice. And then there is... The special guest who is mischievous in a minor role , is actually much more important than that. He proves, once again, that he is a great actor. Watch and see. and a sarcastic computer really a bit bizarre in space but this computer does come in handy in a important scene And finally, the scenario/story. I won't spoil anything here; I'll just try to convince you how great it is. Nolan is known to revolutionize everything when he tries a new genre in cinema. Well, once again he did it. With The Dark Knight he revolutionized the superhero genre. With Interstellar he's revolutionizing the sci-fi genre in cinema. he worked with a physicist in gravitational physics and astrophysics to help him with this movie. And we can feel and see just as Spielberg did in the 80s Nolan is doing it now Today, Nolan is laying the new foundations of the genre in cinema, proving that cinema is still at the beginning of what can be done (brace yourselves my friends, we have not seen anything yet). Why? Well, simply because we only know a few things about space, some things can't be proved for the moment, so we can use theory, and make the best of it. That is exactly what Nolan did. He used theories that exist today, and made a movie about mankind, about pioneers, about humanity, about us.whole journey that they thought was fraught with danger and the unknown as they have received messages from across time and space to realize that they had the answers after all it was just his daughter love to figure out what the lead scientist life work (Michael Caine) was about My rating for this movie can only be a 10,this film does not feel like 3hrs of moving space enthralling epic masterpiece with a beating heart of love and time and bending space time from a to b to meet his family across the universe This is the sci-fi movie of the decade, and probably the best movie Nolan ever made.if you like thinking about logic you might just come way thinking that this earth can be saved if we take what Nolan was taking about and not just taking the earth for granted Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night... Rage, Rage Against The Dying Of The Light.\"",
    "13": "To this day , many people still talk a lot about Christopher Nolan's \"Batman\"-trilogy, but here is his newest work: \"Interstellar\". He gets help from Michael Caine and Anne Hathaway again and a couple more familiar faces. One year after Cuarón with Gravity, he discovers the endless widths of space as well. The difference, however is that a large part of his movie, including the first 40 minutes or so completely, plays down on Planet Earth. However, it is also about survival in space, including two people instead of one though. Or you could probably say the whole human race and not one individual fate.This is like our generation's \"Armageddon\", only that it is much better and much more edge-of-the-seat. The lead character is played by Matthew McConaughey, whose career is still on a massive high after numerous critically lauded performances and an Academy Award win. \"Interstellar\" is much more than Sci-Fi though. I personally found the film was at its best when it touched more the emotional relationships of the characters. The water planet sequence was incredibly well done. And right afterward, when Cooper (McConaughey) sees how his beloved family has aged and become parents, it is truly moving as well. I had a lump in my throat just like I did when he meets his very old daughter at the end of the movie. The inclusions with the old people telling about the past seem a bit odd at first, but make sense towards the end as we find out who is speaking there really.Then, I also had a love-hate relationship with the Matt Damon parts. I found it pretty boring to be honest initially, but when we found out about his true intentions, it quickly turns into one of the best parts of the film. Nicely done. When Caine's character mentioned him with high praise early on, I felt there could be something fishy (like with Pixar's Up) there and yes it was. The ending of the movie with Hathaway's character completely alone out there made me think maybe there will be a sequel. Saving Private... ehh I mean Dr. Brand. Who knows? The time during which the whole film plays is also interesting. Somehow, the NASA lost a lot of their reputation and the moon landing is called fake in American school books. It is some point in the future. That much we know. David Oyelowo plays a small role here as one of the teachers. He has \"Selma\" in the race for an Academy Award nomination this year.The ending of the film was not among the best scenes in my opinion, but I still liked it. The whole ghost explanation about Cooper being actually the one giving the signs was pretty exciting. The effects are brilliant of course, but that does not really need be mentioned for Nolan movies. A given. Hans Zimmer did a good soundtrack and there is also some comic relief coming from McConaughey's charm (if you like that) and some droll robot creatures. Anyway, I found the film interesting enough that I found it a bit sad they did not get to visit the third planet (with Hathaway's character's lover), only the water planet and the ice planet. I'd have loved to see that. However, maybe that could be a nice inclusion for a sequel as well. The movie never dragged despite coming pretty close to the three-hour mark. It could have run for another hour and I probably would not have been bored. There really was hardly anything wrong with it. Affleck's character did not do too much for me. He wasn't particularly well-acted and the character felt just included as a simple man who quickly gave up on his dad in order to show the contrast compared to Chastain's character: the ambitious loving smart daughter with a true connection to Cooper. John Lithgow plays a small role too and is fun to watch as always.This is one of the movies I really recommend to watch, preferably on the big screen due to its sensational visual aspects. It's also good for a rewatch I believe, also to evaluate the characters' actions, especially Caine's for example. And the story of course. I believe, after one viewing, I am still far away from having understood everything that was going on, especially the scientific aspects. That however, does not hurt the viewing experience at all thanks to the film's great acting and emotional impact. If you are interested in space, you really have to see this too. It has distant planets, wormholes, black holes, spaceships and a lot more. Let me finish this review with two little snippets: First, the actress who played Murph as a child was the same that played Renesmee in the last two Twilight movies and, secondly, that fittingly Hathaway's character was called Amelia like the aviation pioneer Amelia Earhart. That can't be coincidence, can it? Especially with her last shot.",
    "14": "This movie was the best written, acted, visual effected, etc. movie. This movie was the best movie I have ever seen. I am a huge Christopher Nolan fan and this movie was his finest. Matthew McConaughey turned in his best performance of his lifetime. Anne Hathaway was an amazing supporting actress and compared to her performance in Les Miserables, I have no idea how she didn't get an Oscar for this. The visual effects were more than just Oscar worthy. They were pioneering. I have never seen anything like it. One thing I would recommend is having a little previous knowledge about space. Not like Einstein stuff though. I would recommend you see this movie as fast as you can if you are a Nolan fan or not. I give this movie a rating of 97 out of 100.",
    "15": "Just watched this on IMAX with my movie theatre-working friend who had seen this before. It has Matthew McConaughey and Anne Hathaway going to space and seeking possible livable planets for places to move the earth people when that planet becomes uninhabitable. Christopher Nolan directs quite a long but mostly intriguing tale of how long this journey lasts and the effect on McConaughey's offspring when they grow up without having him around during those times. I have to admit that part of me was ready to sleep during some scenes but something exciting does always come up and it gets a little better as the narrative keeps on going. So on that note, Interstellar is very much worth seeing if you're patient enough to watch quite a long movie requiring you to think.",
    "16": "This movie is no doubt the best I've ever scene this movie gives you everything emotions,love,hype,excitement,etc..\nIn my opinion this is the best movie made by Christopher nolan. The ending is so good that I had to watch it twice I loved this movie so much and tbh I don't think any movie will Top this one for me .",
    "17": "There is not even a single day I don't think of this movie, it's scenes , it has a profound impact on me and it shall remain with me forever.",
    "18": "A lot has been said and heard about this movie but none of it comes even close to the experience of watching it. It has all the elements of a Nolan movie and just like in all of his other movies he decides to go a bit further. This time, he went a little too far. The story behind the movie has it's flaws. There really is no explanation of what happened/is happening. Instead you are given fragments in the first half of the movie hoping one will put all the pieces together. All in all, the first part seems a bit rushed and leaves you wondering if more could have been told. But, since the real story is not why the travel is necessary but the travel itself once the crew is off, the story really kicks in. The main part of the movie gives a great ride, pumps your blood with adrenaline from time to time and gets you emotional pretty often. The problem I personally had was that the story taking place simultaneously on Earth was less shown than I expected. A different approach was expected but that did not stop Chastain from giving the best role in the movie. The last part of the movie is dynamic and filled with problems real people would have if found in a situation like that. But the explanation given at the very end was a bit to much for me. I heard that this was called \"the most scientifically accurate movie\" and that physicist around the world fought over the fact was that true or not. Nevertheless, way too much theoretical physics in the end. Since I love SF movies I am willing to look past the over- the-top science part, but what really got to me was that it was predictable. From the very moment I saw a black hole in the movie I put two and two together and that kinda ruined it for me a little. Regarding the acting, as I said before, Chastain gave the most powerful performance in the movie. She doesn't have much screen time, but she sure knows how to use it. The two that actually lead the movie - McConaughey and Hathaway were brilliant. McConaughey did a little better job handling the emotions of a father with the responsibilities of a team leader and the savior of mankind. His performance was outstanding. Hathaway was good, decent, without a single word that can be said against her, but for a movie like this, that is almost completely on the shoulders of the actors, she should have done more. The others did a good job, particularly Casey Affleck who's character was a grand comparison to Chastain's. The music given it was done by the mastermind Hans Zimmer was spectacular. Just the right notes, just the right timing, just the right music. His understanding of what movies should sound like is amazing. All in all, Interstellar is a magnificent movie. It is a type of movie Nolan does best. It has all the elements of being a classic like Kubrick's 2001: a space odyssey, it comes really close to being the new space odyssey, and it will not perish with time. Still, this might be a bit too much for the average moviegoer, a lot has to be digested here, it is not a simple or easy movie to watch. But, if your braincells don't shut off and you don't expect another Die Hard movie, you will appreciate this masterpiece.",
    "19": "Well to me this was one of the better science-fiction movies that I ever saw. It's been a long time since I didn't see a sci-fi like this one. It's extremely long but you won't get bored for a second. And that says enough about it. All the actors gave us a very good performance and some shots were stunning. The story was very well written even though sometimes too complicated to understand but then again who are we to understand anything about the unknown dimensions, black holes or wormholes. You have got to stay concentrated during the whole movie to understand the story but like I said before with Interstellar it is certainly not a problem at all. I was completely absorbed by the story and was actually surprised that time flew by so easily. One of the better movies I watched this year and certainly the best sci-fi in years.",
    "20": "Having destroyed all resources on the planet, like a rapacious, insatiable gannet, it's time to move on, to vacate and be gone, find a new place to rampage and beset. But where can you take all the people, to build their new churches and steeples, and how to get there, if you can find somewhere, without a breakthrough in science and maths rules.Juxtaposing a more than probabilistic forecast of things to come with the absurd, to produce a wholly engaging and imaginative piece of sci-fi that may well get you thinking of what might just happen to the planet and the people of it when the help and support of as yet undiscovered dimensions fails to materialise.Great performances, great effects, leaves you wanting to revisit 2001: A Space Odyssey but you know you'll never know why.",
    "21": "'Interstellar' takes off by constituting its soaring ambitions right at the very first few sequences of the film: humanity is struggling to survive in a barely habitable Earth, already at the brink of total destruction. Earth and its resources is down to its last few moments, but when a wormhole, a medium that enables space time-travel beyond known limits, is discovered, scientists and ordinary men gather together, to begin an exploration that would take time-traveling through different worlds, in man's desperate search for humanity's place among the stars.To fully understand 'Interstellar', its premise and its accuracy, may require repetitive thinking, research, and a certain level of intellect—perhaps the same level Nolan asked in 'Inception'. But the film does not necessarily ask its audience to right away fully understand it, instead it begs you to feel it, to experience its dilemmas and tragedies and go through the same threads of emotion tangled up within the web of humanity's last possible moments, and the relationship between a widowed father and his children already leaning toward an anticipated end. Nolan's made sure that even the film's ideas are too far-fetched and may seem resting on towering intellectual grounds, it would nonetheless connect to its audience by delivering its message through emotionally-charged tales of human relationships, tangible enough to be felt and experienced.At its core, is retired NASA engineer, Cooper (McConaughey) and his relationship with his children—most strikingly with his daughter, Murph. Cooper's emotional journey—the decision he has to make whether to leave his family behind or join the quest to search for a new habitable planet—alone, serves as an effective vessel to transport the audience from Earth, right from the moment the spacecract 'Endurance' takes off from the ground, to the unknown limits of the cosmos. McConaughey delivers a stunning and highly-commendable performance, and while I can't say its his best, as I've managed to have seen only a few of his movies, I can certainly say it's one of the best I've seen from any actor, so far, and he may be owing that to Nolan's impeccable direction. McConaughey's incredibly brilliant portrayal of a loving father places him at the center of the story. There are plenty of nail-biting sequences here depicting his devastation after the choices he needed to make and still has to take, and in each one, he never fails to effectively convey whatever emotion the sequence requires him to deliver.Nolan's mastery of his craft screams in deafening volumes through his unblemished capacity to explore and raise the layers of the film's characters and put their stories in right places and in valid highlights within the film, and that works best with the help of brilliant musical score orchestrated by the equally impeccable Hans Zimmer. Added with breath-taking cinematography and spectacular visual effects, together, these elements, make 'Interstellar' capable of weaving a human story powerful enough to intrude through our delicate emotional senses, delve into our humanity and still go beyond that. Nolan's managed to tread through the film's seemingly absurd scope and ambitions without losing focus on the one powerful element that seems to keep the film's aspects bonded together: LOVE. As chiché as it may sound, that may be the only thing that is right away understood and easily felt in the movie. There are a lot of questions raised, and each one poses another, but none of which really requires immediate answer, and by not losing grasp of the mystery of love, and the power it can deliver to make human connections tighter and even closer amidst the ever widening physical distance between the characters in the film, Nolan comes out victorious in making the audience feel and understand 'Interstellar' and have its questions answered, in a way that doesn't necessarily oblige us to just think, but also to make our emotions work as well, so we can have the experience the film wants us to go through.Sure, it can't be perfect, I myself noticed that it lacks focus with its narrative (this either because I find it hard to solve Nolan's puzzle-like construction of the story—LOL—or the narrative' s really not just that good. If you have seen Memento and Inception, the construction here is somehow similar as those two) and some respected critics even argue this one can't be Nolan's best, and I haven't seen all his works yet, either, but for me, it really isn't that hard to put this on the list of the best sci-fi movies I've seen so far. Nolan has put up together a perfect ensemble of outstanding actors, whose powerful performances, IMO, are enough to cover the flaws. Not a single bit of every actor's potential is put into waste, here; everyone has a star to shine in this universe Nolan created. Hans Zimmer's music seems to never go out of sync, in fact it almost always goes in harmony with the dramatic highlights of the film. Visual effects is never less than top-notch; the imagery presented in this film is utterly jaw-dropping, so expect to have your breath being repeatedly taken away by the frequent outburst of colors effectively employed to establish distinctions between the dimensions. All those elements are satisfyingly sufficient to create the deciding impulse needed to bring the movie to where it aims to arrive.'Interstellar' is a thought-provoking and mind-enriching motion picture, a grand and brilliantly depicted visual spectacle not bereft of human emotions, one of the best of its genre in a very long time. If this movie gets proclaimed as a classic in the coming decades, that definitely isn't going to come out as a surprise.This Christopher Nolan film deserves my 10 stars. :)",
    "22": "INTERSTELLAR (2014) ***1/2 Matthew McConaughey, Anne Hathaway, Jessica Chastain, Michael Caine, John Lithgow, Ellen Burstyn, Mackenzie Foy, Matt Damon, Casey Affleck, Wes Bentley, David Gyasi, William Devane, Leah Cairns, Topher Grace, Timothy Chalamet, Brooke Smith (voice of Bill Irwin) Filmmaker Christopher Nolan's valentine (of sorts) to 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY (and to his daughter) continues his streak of audacious sense of space (literally) and the inner human spirit : set in the bleak future Earth is on the descent of humanity with continuous food demands and climate change with one Hail Mary of a plan by NASA - send a small crew thru a wormhole (just go with it) to see if 'they' can help us. A grand ensemble of talent assembled but it is truly a shining moment of cool-as-a-cucumber and deeply felt performance by McConaughey as the astronaut/pilot of the journey into the realms of desperation, anchoring the film with a transfixing turn (largely due to his interplay with young talented actress Foy as his daughter - later played with clear-eyed intensity by Chastain), no easy task with all the eye candy visuals that are indeed awe inspiring and a kissing cousin to GRAVITY for sheer amazement (one must see it on a big screen and IMAX would be a start as it was filmed in the medium). Hathaway has a few moments as well particularly with her brainy scientist dad Caine (a Nolan regular). The true stars are the breathtaking cinematography by Hoyte Van Hoytema, a stellar score by frequent collaborator Hans Zimmer and fantastic visual effects by literally dozens of geniuses. The only stumbling block is its slightly heavy handed message getting across but the Twilight Zone-ish final act makes up for it in spades. WOW!",
    "23": "-Plot- The year is unknown, but most likely close to present time. The Earth is running out of resources and a group of underground NASA workers seek the help of Engineer/Astronaut turned Farmer Mr. Cooper in taking a journey across the Galaxy and through a wormhole in hopes of a future for mankind on the other side.That is the gist of the exposition of the plot. It's mostly quite clear what this movie is about through previews. On paper this sounds like a typical sci-fi plot, but Chris Nolan executes it like never before. The movie seems to be getting more mixed reviews from critics compared to his other films, and I think I have an explanation. Nolan and his team had too much faith in it's audience. The movie is full of science and dialogue strongly textured with physics theories. The talk of wormholes and Black holes are key to the movie. But I know that many will be left confused even with the explanations of what is going on to make everything in the film scientifically possible. After all, Physicist Kip Thorne was a consultant for the movie! I found it quite educational, interesting, but also over done at times. A good majority of people who watch this movie will be turned off by the abundance of scientific talk throughout the movie. I personally loved it and was never lost, but I could understand why many people were frustrated with the constant turns in the plot and overlong length. I found this movie to be amazing. Sure, at times the dialogue was hard to even understand. There was a scene where a major character is dying, and as he speaks his last words, it's almost impossible to decipher what is said. It was also almost unintentionally humorous. But that was a small price to pay and I'm sure the subtitles of the Blu Ray release will save that scene for me. The directing and cinematography are gorgeously done. The camera angles really bring the movie to life. Simple shots from the point of view of the rear of a truck or spaceship never looked so amazing. The visuals were undeniably beautiful whether the setting was in space, on the foreign planet or even the decaying Earth. The music of the film by Hans Zimmer deserves so much recognition! I will even say it was better than the score for Inception. It really increased the tension and pushed for emotional heartache in many parts of the film. There are many tense scenes that will have you holding on along with the characters in the movie and a good portion of this effect is due to the musical score! The acting was top class. Matthew M gave one of the greatest human performances in history as Mr. Cooper. I seriously think it was better than his Dallas Buyers Oscar Winning performance. I really hope he gets recognition for this. There are more than a few scenes that will make even the most cold hearted person feel like crying. He was just amazing. Anne Hathaway gave a stunning emotional performance as the flawed Bland. Jessica Chastain has a few strong moments as well. There is a scene regarding her character breaking down which will definitely make your eyes water. The supporting cast all do justice to the movie too, but Matthew and Jessica gave the best performances without a doubt.In a way, this movie resembles Inception in certain areas. Inception had a hint of relativity in it with the time differences between the dreams, the real world and limbo. Interstellar adds to that with the inclusion of a planet in the other galaxy in which every hour is equal to 7 years outside of its atmosphere. In Inception, a central character is left behind and lost in the limbo world with its major difference of time. In Interstellar, a central character is left behind in the other galaxy to find a new home while the other leaves to help the current home adjust until then. In Inception, a central character is old for a moment in limbo at the end due to the difference in time relativity. In Interstellar, the time relativity affects the entire human race as the astronauts are in the other galaxy. In both movies, the main character has left behind children and longs to be reunited. Inceptions main character doesn't want to see his children's faces until they are truly reunited. But in Interstellar, he holds on to the image of their faces as a survival tactic. This movie is full of Christopher/Jonathan Nolan-isms. Overall, I think that this movie should be seen in theaters on the big screen if you have the chance. It was a true experience. Be sure to be attentive and to clear your bladder first though. It will make you think. At times it might make you check your watch, but please endure and you will be treated to one of the most intriguing films of all time. Even if you think you didn't like the film, there is no doubt that you will be thinking about the contents of the plot and beauty of the visuals long after the credits roll.",
    "24": "Not many directors have the clout of Christopher Nolan. Most of them receive notes from their fretting studios: suggestions (or demands) to change plot points or highlight certain characters/actors, which must be adhered to for contractual or financial reasons. With huge, intelligent blockbuster successes like the Dark Knight franchise and Inception, Nolan has deservedly won carte blanche from Warner Bros. for Interstellar - he gets garguantan sums of money and complete autonomy to realise his artistic vision. In effect, he's making an indie movie on a blockbuster scale. Ironically, this lack of oversight might be just what keeps Interstellar - a very good, occasionally brilliant foray into the furthest reaches of our galaxy and beyond - from greatness.Cooper (Matthew McConaughey), a former pilot and engineer, is now reluctantly scraping together a living as a farmer on a starving Earth. With sandstorms swirling and food supplies dwindling by the day, it doesn't seem likely that Cooper's children, stoic Tom and inquisitive Murphy, will have much of a world left to inherit when they grow up. While investigating a \"ghost\" in Murphy's bedroom, Cooper deciphers a message that brings him to a top-secret NASA base. Once there, Cooper learns from his former mentor, Dr Brand (Michael Caine), that NASA is looking for solutions to Earth's crisis in other galaxies. A recently-opened wormhole has given NASA and its scientists access to a whole new galaxy of planets. Brand appeals to Cooper to pilot the final and most important mission: to determine whether any of three identified planets can truly host human life. But it's a journey from which Cooper might never return - one that will take him away from his kids and everything he has ever known and loved.That's not even the half of it – Nolan's narrative is a sprawling, ambitious one that asks heavy metaphysical questions about the position and role of humanity in the universe, filtered through the prism of a father and daughter whose bond transcends time and space. It's shot through with complex scientific theories about wormholes and time travel courtesy of theoretical physicist Kip Thorne (who served as a consultant on the film). Indeed, much of Interstellar plays with such philosophical gravity that one can't help wondering if it's simply too deep a subject to be effectively communicated in a movie that must also create emotional stakes and real characters.Clocking in at almost three hours, Interstellar pulses with intelligence and occasional bursts of brilliance. The science and emotion of its story works best on each planet they manage to visit, with Nolan crafting some chillingly smart sci-fi moments amidst the human drama experienced by Cooper's crew. As badly as Cooper wants to save enough fuel to make the return trip home, Amelia Brand (Anne Hathaway) has both professional and personal stakes in visiting the planet that's furthest away from the wormhole. They trade hope for time, the minutes they use to hunt for salvation translating into the loss of decades with their loved ones. The film is at its best when the members of the Endurance - including David Gyasi's Romilly and Wes Bentley's Doyle - confront one another, and establish contact (or fail to do so) with the scouting teams that preceded them through the wormhole.But Interstellar also suffers from a bloated and faintly silly final act. The science of it may be well-founded (who knows, after all, what miraculous answers really do lie within a black hole?) and the concept very cool, but it doesn't quite translate as such. Instead, the film hyper-blasts itself into a oddly cheerful (and confusing) ending that feels purely fictional and not at all scientific. There's no denying, either, that Nolan could have carved half an hour or more out of Interstellar without losing any of its narrative or emotional density. Instead, many scenes unfold in an almost obstinately languid fashion, including a moment when Cooper is left gasping for oxygen on the icy terrain of an alien planet. It's pretty evident, too, that Nolan really wanted to make sure his audiences knew how little greenscreen he used to make the film; for no other discernible reason, his camera lingers in extreme close-up - and far too often - on the exterior shells of the various spacecrafts designed for the film.Nolan can afford the best when it comes to his cast as well, and it shows. McConaughey anchors the film with a gravitas and tenderness quite unknown before his career McConnaissance, and he's ably supported by a steely Hathaway, whose character, just like the film she's in, blends cold, pragmatic science with a churning wealth of emotion. Jessica Chastain and Matt Damon, in roles perhaps best left unspecified to avoid any explicit spoilers, are excellent too - the former radiates quite enough warmth and intelligence to make us believe that she can save the world, and the latter admirably treads in morally grey areas to good effect.For months before its release, Nolan kept Interstellar firmly under wraps. Everyone speculated that it would be a game-changer - a sci- fi blockbuster as thrilling and thought-provoking as it is entertaining. In some ways, that's true of the final product: Nolan's film is brave, brainy film-making, and it looks absolutely spectacular. But, on closer examination, Interstellar loses some of its gloss and varnish - and beneath it all lies an unwieldy script that meanders a little too long and wastes a little too much of the big, breathtaking ideas that underpin its story.",
    "25": "All is amazing. I can't describe anything. It's a film that leads you to think about yourself and your plans in your life. I am a real series/movies' lover and... This was awesome.",
    "26": "Christopher Nolan directs an enthralling space odyssey, co-written with his brother Jonathan. This movie lives up to the hype and is one not to be missed. The earth is chocking as it is a starving Dirt Bowl. The future is dim as farmers are producing less and less to feed the population. Cooper(Matthew McConaughey)is a former test pilot and widower raising two children, fifteen year old Tom(Timothee Chalamet) and ten year old Murph(Mackenzie Foy), who is suspended from school for fighting. She refuses to believe the school books being right, saying the Apollo missions were faked in order to bankrupt Russia's space program.Cooper and daughter stumble across the remnants of the believed to be defunct NASA, where Professor Brand(Michael Caine) convinces Cooper he is the only one to command a mission to be launched into space in search of a new planet that can sustain life. The flight must enter a wormhole that will warp time, but allow a crew to rescue data from explorers, who preceded them. A member of Cooper's mission is Brand's daughter(Anne Hathaway). Deep on the mind of Cooper's daughter is the fact that if and when her father makes it back to earth, he will be the same age or older than her due to the time warp.No little green men, no aliens in sight. There are a couple of highly intelligent computerized robots, so to speak. Visually awesome and enhanced by Hans Zimmer's score. McConaughey seems driven and invested. Young Miss Foy is very watchable. And Jessica Chastain is excellent in the role of the adult Murph. Also in the cast: John Lithgow, Wes Bently, Matt Damon, William Devane, Casey Affleck and Ellen Burstyn. Plus the voices of Bill Irwin and Josh Stewart. INTERSTELLAR is stellar!",
    "27": "'Interstellar (2014)' is a space-epic that feels remarkably intimate and emotionally resonant while also being sweeping in scope and visually stunning. The mixture of earthy textures and sleek sci-fi aesthetics makes for an interesting visual juxtaposition between the two sets of characters. While its third act does get a little existential and abstract, the narrative reasoning behind it and scientific integrity leading up to it allows for constant believability. This film never fails to have an impact on me, it is truly breathtaking work. In fact, it is one of my favourite pictures of all time. 10/10",
    "28": "'Interstellar' was incredible. The visuals, the score, the acting, were all amazing. The plot is definitely one of the most original I've seen in a while. Most of the critic reviews have said that some bits are a little too unbelievable, but I have to disagree. Yes, there were some parts that were definitely in the \"fi\" part of sci-fi. But the thing is, 'Interstellar' deals with concepts that we know very little about. We have no idea what the 4th or 5th dimension is like, or what it would be like to go through a wormhole or a black hole. I don't think it's fair to call something unbelievable, when we have absolutely no idea what WOULD be believable in those circumstances. Either way, excellent writing from the Nolan brothers. The visuals were outstanding, and will no doubt be nominated for an Oscar. The performances were excellent, though nothing Oscar worthy, as is the case with most of Nolan's films ('The Dark Knight' being the obvious exception). Hans Zimmer's score was amazing and blended perfectly with the film. All in all, 'Interstellar' is an excellent movie, which I personally think is Nolan's most beautiful film to date.",
    "29": "Uh-oh, here I go again. The movie's out, what, a week or so as I write this, and IMDb voters have it ranked the 11th best movie of all time!!?? If there's justice in a rational world this would never happen. But it's not a rational world anymore now, is it, when an MIT professor can be found on tape explaining how the President's signature health care law was built on lies and deceit, and the media isn't even interested in covering the story.I could rant on but what's the point. I guess if your name is Nolan, any movie that comes out with the director's fingerprints on it will be hailed as monumental. I don't have a beef with Nolan personally, I think he makes some visually fantastic films (this is one to be sure), but most of the time I think the hype precedes the product and then everyone else falls in line singing the praises.Case in point - \"Interstellar\". Nominally a sci-fi thriller, the picture devolves into something of a time travel anomaly that leaves the viewer scratching their head when hero Cooper (Matthew McConaughey) finds himself on the wrong side of the bookshelves in one of the picture's pivotal moments. I'm sitting there thinking 'this is what I came to see the movie for'? I'm not even going to start on Coop's selection to save the planet just by showing up at Professor Brand's (Michael Caine) facility. Which by the way, didn't it start out as some shack in the desert? When we get a tour of the place, it's got NASA central looking like a global conglomerate.Speaking of which, how is it NASA's still around for this massive undertaking to repatriate all of Earth's citizens to another planet? Unless I'm mistaken, NASA's primary goal now is Muslim outreach and all the best and brightest brains have farmed out. My head is starting to hurt.It was a small theater crowd last night, and I usually don't do this, but since a gentleman ahead of me held the door as I filed out, I asked him what he thought of the movie. His exact words were \"That was a piece of excrement\", only he used the more colloquially popular term for excrement. I wouldn't go that far, but if one hour in the wormhole equals seven years of Earth time, you're going to get old real fast trying to understand this picture.",
    "30": "Going against the grain, yet again. Am I the only one that was extremely distracted by plot holes, an inexplicable \"love will save the day\" ending, and Matthew McConaughey's fake tan? Alright so Matthew McConaughey is an ex spaceship pilot, stumbles upon NASA cuz, you guys, the government is evil now, is recruited for a mission to save the planet by finding another planet to colonize. Plan A is to evacuate Earth and move to that planet. That plan (SPOILERS!) is a sham. The real plan is Plan B, which is to repopulate the new planet with embryos. So is Anne Hathaway going to give birth to a hundred babies? How exactly is that going to work? They save Matt Damon. He turns out to be evil and loyal to Plan B. Sets about his own doom by ignoring all warning signs that his airlock is not secure (seriously?!). Anne Hathaway and Matthew McConaughey set sail for another planet. But Matthew McConaughey goes rogue and gets sucked into a black hole. The power of love transports him to his daughter's bedroom (?) - but IN THE PAST YOU GUYS, and he sends messages with Morse Code. Apparently transferring all of the data he's learned about...something or another...through Morse Code (that's one heck of a compression scheme), which allows his daughter to save humanity. He then gets saved from the black hole (?). Reunites with daughter on Saturn (?). And sets up the premise for the sequel. The plot isn't so much twisting and turning as it is just convulsing and flatlining. I didn't really care about any of the characters - actually Matt Damon was the most interesting. The film takes literally an hour to get to space (just c'mon already!). And by the point that the The Power of Love intervenes, I was just sitting in my chair quietly laughing. Gravity was way better.",
    "31": "I've probably watched this movie for the 10th time and wanted to watch it with my mum this time. Every time I cry in this movie. I'm 31 years old and I fall for it everytime. Probably one of the most beautiful movies ive ever seen in my life. Mathew and anne put on the performances of their lives while engaging the audience at every corner in the movie. 3 hours is a long time for a movie to run for yet by the end of the credits your yearning for more and wishing it wasn't ending. This still ranks as one of the best movies I've ever seen and I don't think that will change anytime soon. Special, enthralling, epic and just perfect in every way.",
    "32": "So, did I get this right? The essence of time-space relativity is that you're able to see a younger version of yourself from behind a bookcase, and shout in vain that you shouldn't do what you're about to do? Yes, that's how silly this movie is. 'Interstellar' is supposed to be a film exploring Einstein's relativity theory. It shows how space travelers enter a 'wormhole' to find new planets where they can find a future for mankind, which is suffering from heat, drought and hunger on planet Earth. By doing so, they enter a parallel time frame where one hour equals seven years on earth. The problem is that the film is tackling this subject in such a clumsy way that it makes you laugh rather than anything else. Take the robots that assist the space travelers during their voyage through time and space. Are we really to believe that thinking computers in the future would take the form of clunky metal boxes, assembled in such a way that they can walk on two legs? I would suppose an intelligent operating system for a smart phone or iPad would be much more convenient. In that respect, 'Her' was much more realistic. I could go on. How about a top scientist saying things like: 'Only love transcends time and space, so why don't we put our trust in that?' Or how about handing the command of the space ship that's supposed to save the human race to a farmer who finds the secret launching pad by coincidence? And how about the only woman in the crew being in love with another space traveler who is lost somewhere on another planet? Apart from this, there are several other things about this film I didn't like. The over-the-top soundtrack, filled with some sort of church organ music. The artificial dialogues, mostly intended to explain unexplainable things. The numerous melodramatic and tear-jerking scenes. The subtle message that love is superior to science. The countless scenes of the space ship shuddering and rattling, as if it were a Boeing flying through a patch of turbulence. I had hoped this big budget production by a talented director like Christopher Nolan could appeal to non sci-fi fans like me. But I was disappointed.",
    "33": "Again, the genius Nolan at work offers us a space expedition through a wormhole in search of a new planet to which to transfer the Earth's population. An ingenious mix of shots and soundtrack make this film a milestone for \"space\" films. The feeling of detachment from earthly reality is masterfully rendered both by the settings and by the interpretation of Matthew McConaughey, now an experienced interpreter of controversial human nature. The cast overall is truly impressive, ranging from the director's faithful like Michael Caine to Jessica Chastain, Anne Hathaway, Casey Affleck and Matt Damon. Don't go meekly into that good night...",
    "34": "The first 80-90% of \"Interstellar\" I absolutely loved and was prepared to give this movie a 10. Sadly, the ending inexplicably had an ending that didn't make a lot of sense and only seemed there in order to tack on a nice Hollywood ending and wrap everything up perfectly. It's sad, but apparently the public embraced this sort of ending...so who am I to complain?!As for the film, there are a bazillion reviews so I will be brief. The film has incredible special effects and is a film best seen in the movie theater. On a HUGE screen at home, it would still lose something. Like the wonderful \"Gravity\", it just needs the big screen...trust me with this. The story is exceptional and offers many wonderful twists (up until the disappointing ending that is) and there are a lot of wonderful performances. Overall, the good certainly outweighs the bad and it's a film to see. But as for me, an ending with more sadness and vagueness would have been okay.",
    "35": "Though I am not a Bat-person, and do not wish to become one, I have admired Christopher Nolan for his early films and 'Inception', though, with the exception of 'Insomnia', I always regarded them as, in the immortal words of Andrew Sarris 'less than meets the eye'. I do not like to call films pretentious, but with 'Memento' and 'Inception' the word certainly came to mind. They seemed shallow pretending to be deep.The same is, in my opinion, certainly true of 'Interstellar'. Yes, it carries you along for a ride, and yes the special effects are great, and yes, it might give us pause to think what will, in fact, be the destiny of our species. But, my dear Mr Nolan, surely you must realise that our species will not survive by planting American flags on distant planets. And, like 'Gravity' before it, the search for a happy ending has totally destroyed any shred of credibility of what might have gone before. The image of Cooper floating around Saturn without his spaceship, waiting to be picked up by a passing probe (just before his oxygen runs out, of course) is so ridiculous that if Stanley Kubrick were to be told that it is a respectful reference to the 'starchild' at the end of '2001', he'd punch you in the nose. 'Interstellar' - for all of its attempts to incorporate relativistic time dilation and very clever (I do not use that word in a derogatory sense) visual representation of multi-dimensional string theory towards the end, is void of any real cultural insight.The film simply extends 'The Wizard of Oz' into the space age and decides at the end that there is really somewhere better than home. It is TOSH! Great films tell us something memorable about the human condition, or the nature of cinema itself. This film, for all its quotes from Dylan Thomas does neither. It is for people who think that the word 'awesome' has some profound meaning and not, as is the case, an excuse for not finding a more appropriate and restrained reaction. Any suggestion that it deserves a Best Picture Oscar is a sad comment on the way that those awards have become debased in recent years.",
    "36": "Interstellar is a interesting film that questions the time in space in our reality a film that is straight up visually impressive The story is kind of odd but it's still worth in this type of film ever since I saw this movie I've been wondering what's up in space what type of life we can live on space and how is humans can evolve it the only thing that I did not really like was the main character being very one dimensional, but other than that this has a very good premise, and they will pay the movie that has a very good set up and pay off real well the performance was very very good and direction was... well it's Christopher Nolan 8.5/10.",
    "37": "At over 2100 reviews at the time of this writing, I guess there's nothing left to be said other than my opinion.I'd probably need a PhD in Physics from MIT to understand half of the technological terms in the movie, but I still found it to be rather awesome. After reading some of the reviews here, I think a lot of people are taking this sci-fi fantasy tale way too seriously and literally.Christopher Nolan's latest, which he co-wrote as well with his brother Jonathan, at 2 hrs and 48 min in length, can be ridiculously absurd one moment then quickly turn into riveting action the next.Matthew McConaughy and Anne Hathaway lead a long list of screen notables here, too numerous to mention. I did want to mention that I thought Mackenzie Foy, as Murph, the 10-year-old daughter of McConaughy was terrific in her role.I thought the musical score here was excellent, the wit and humor of the robot TARS (Bill Irwin) was on target. the special effects could be rather hokey at times but then other times were amazing, and the movie did contain a number of twists and turns which I liked.All in all, despite its' drawbacks I found this sci-fi fantasy to be a rather awesome and epic ride.",
    "38": "THIS IS A MANKIND ACHIEVEMENT.THE BEST MOVIE EVER MADE.IS ANYONE HAS DOUBT?",
    "39": "This movie had such an expansive amount of hype behind it...how could anything go wrong?!(Cue the Blair Witch Project soundtrack...)By no means was this was the worst movie that I have ever seen, that's definitive; there were, however, a few things about the film that don't make much sense! Perhaps the most obvious among them was WTF was Mann trying to accomplish in his apparent death spiral desire to condemn all life on Earth?! He knew that the mathematics behind 'Plan A' was a fraud; so, he...obviously...believed that returning to Earth was no option. This means that it was his understanding that finding a planet suitable for life, from 'an Earth perspective', was the only viable option. Yet, he knew\\believed that the ice planet that he landed on was not suitable for life, faking the data. So, why fake the data?? Would doing so enhance the likelihood of him being rescued? Presumably, yes, since he was transmitting the fake favorable data in hopes that someone would arrive & save him. Yet, he prevented them from doing anything on his world...obviously...because he knew they would uncover his deception. So, given that, what was the plan!? To condemn all life on Earth?! Granted, maybe that's the whole point of that story arc; he was insane. Which is, I believe, rather ironic; that 'death spiral', specifically due to the action of that scene, was, I think, the best scene in the entire film.Something overlooked by, at least, virtually everyone that saw this film, no doubt about it, is: Did the scientists on Earth see the blackhole, \"Gargantuan\", on the Earth-side of the wormhole, obviously, 'before' sending the astronauts through the wormhole, including the 12 sent through initially? It is implied that they did; but, ..& someone, please, correct me if I am wrong, ..no where throughout the first hour, or so, of the film did they bother to mention that blackhole that's on the other side of the wormhole, in that 'galaxy far, far away...' They talked about the 'wormhole'; not the blackhole! If they knew about the blackhole early enough, this, reasonably, may have changed their game-plan. Further, why go down to that planet, in orbit around the blackhole, when the risk of failure is so high, let alone actually retrieving data that is worth the risk of going down to that planet is so excruciatingly, 'astronomically' and exponentially low¿? Especially given the reality that said planet is completely inhospitable...given its close proximity to a blackhole¡!¡ For cryin' out loud, they'd be better off sending down a probe, at least at first, on the same quicker trajectory that they took to get to the planet, to determine if the data can be retrieved; & the data could reasonably be retrieved with just a probe, anyway! And if the time dilation makes all of that not viable, then, it is damn sure not worth sending people down there! It is a story arc that, in theory, sounds great 'script-wise'; because, it adds emotional turmoil for the characters to go through & experience &, therefore, tension & drama for the viewer - yet, it just doesn't honestly work. You see this as a person just watching the movie.I actually feel sorry for Getty, from \"That 70's Show\"; while the character is not useless, it is a weak character, entirely because of how the character was introduced, & Topher Grace, as an accomplished actor, deserves better than that. It actually made sense for that character to be a doctor working for/at NASA/NORAD, at the compound, perhaps as the physician working directly with Professor Brand...File that under \" *Duh!* \"; seriously, put that into the '\" *Duh!* \" File'!Obviously, this was a much better way to introduce that character. And, obviously, they chose to not do this; they introduced the character in, pretty much, the worst way possible; dropping him in out of no where, like he fell out of the sky - literally, ..as an after-thought! This was an absolute hatchet job and, undeniably, is the worst thing about the entire film. And, of course, there's the gratuitously predictable 'Tom', a character as devoid of a legitimate reason to exist as any such character has ever existed in the history of cinema! I am actually surprised that they didn't make him an addict of some sort; why not just poor on the vulgar borishness like it's pancake syrup!¿?!And, finally, (astronaut) Brand had a much greater chance of getting back to \"Sol\"/\"Terra\", our Solar System, than Cooper 'the guy who fell into a black hole...'... But, they can't allow the hero to FAIL; so, they have them accomplish the completely impossible. And the 'Tesseract Scene' is awesome; it looks very cool. However, it only made sense in a 'goofy romanticized sort of way', i.e., 'script-wise', that Cooper was 'the ghost' who started it all... And although there may have been no truly good way, at least none that they were able to think of (Although, did they even try!?), to depict it cinematically, I would love to have seen something of the 5th Dimension beings who made it all possible. When Cooper said that 'we' were them, i.e., \"...they're not beings, they're us.\", i.e., that humans are the 5th Dimension beings, that's just more romanticized BS.Overall, the worst thing about this movie is the directing, by far! This movie actually made me lose some degree of respect for Christopher Nolan.",
    "40": "The father-daughter relationship of Interstellar is often overseen, yet Nolan did an extraordinary job in this domain with Matthew McConaughey perfectly executing it. As a father who has a daughter, I'm deeply impressed how Nolan touched on this subject every time I rewatch it. It's so deep, it almost gives an ideal blueprint of how to connect with your kids on an emotional and intellectual level, and how to be the right parent for them. Any father, especially with a daughter, would understand what I mean! :) It's pure gold.I have a very close relationship with my little daughter, we are best friends, in some way similar to that of Interstellar, and I've always tried to prioritize it, but I find myself always learning something new from Cooper and Murph.As a huge sci-fi fan, I'll even completely ignore the sci-fi part in this review! :))",
    "41": "The good news that we have the brothers reunited and again working on circular narrative. Again, we have a powerful narrative arc that shifts in unexpected and engages in expected ways.The device is hackneyed: messages from the future, but is handled deftly. Where it is clumsy, we are competently distracted by narrative and visual process. The love story that drives this is novel enough to not fall into one of the three formulas commonly used for 'love,' (despite McConaughey) or two for father-rescues-daughter. We have a chosen child who saves the world by supernatural intervention, but again, this doesn't distract. These accomplishments alone make this worth experiencing because many devices are used to reset our expectations from formulas. Some fail horribly and that keeps this film from my absolute essential viewing list; I'll get to those in a moment. But all that are under the control of the filmmaker are so well considered that they bear mention.Take, for example the visual setting. The story itself is about the folding of time, but in a subtle way. The time of the story is in the future, but the setting is in the past. We refer to the dustbowl. All the cars, buildings, clothes and verbal expressions are vaguely from that era. We never see a brand that would pin down the time.More powerfully, the film itself is made as a science fiction film would be in the 50s-60s, using notions and tropes from that era. The robot is from \"Forbidden Planet.\" The notion that a world-saving enterprise rests on the mathematical attempts of one man alone. That a vast enterprise is actually secret and located in one spot, with no suppliers. That construction of a spaceship requires welding sparks. That a heavy lift launch can occur in a building.Look at the computer screens. Nearly all are commandline interfaces. The switches and control panels are from the DEW line era. They haven't managed to use legacy fonts in the signage, but it looks like they avoided the most obvious: helvetica.Even the drone is a currently obsolete model. Underscoring all this is setting the film in Texas. Malick, and before him Bogdanovich, Hooper, Welles exploited the fact that Texas lives in two eras, sucking riches from the present while defining itself in some fictitious and better past.The film is also clearly in a future, after antiscience politicians have written technology out of the textbooks, denying the moon landing and forcing something named NASA underground. The ambiguity of time is conveyed subconsciously and works. I think they used some recorded interviews from the actual dustbowl era.But the flaw, the underlying decay in this film is in who they relied on for the science. They clearly separated the science of the adopted genre (noted above) from the science used in the actual extraterrestrial events. They chose renown physicist Kip Thorne as their authority.The man is an important scientist and reportedly very engaging. But the world of such scientists is divided between those who believe in the primary eminence of geometry and those who believe instead in ordered mechanics. This is a deep divide, highly polarized when the work gets going. Which is better for the problems at hand is irrelevant here. But which is better for cinematic depictions of encounters with the forces of the world… well there is no contest and Noland chose unwisely. I may write about this. A good title may be the Carl Sagan effect.On other unrelated matters, some unresolved minor plot threads remain. The finished film exceeded the time budget for story-before-launch as it is, but we'd like to know what the reason for introducing the drone was and why it was important.A bit worse: In the film, we have a very hard won ability to send messages back in time, describing deep science from inside a black hole. I get that. But 'before' all those events, some other souls sent back messages and the physical artifact of the wormhole. Why not use that mechanism, unless the much-mentioned notion of the urges of love are essential to the bridge?",
    "42": "I sent to see Interstellar on Saturday night and have just spent 45 incredulous minutes reading the reviews. The film I went to see was dull, preposterous and far far far too long. Let's start with the idea. A good one but poorly displayed. I wanted to know more about how humanity was destroying the planet. All I got was old folk I am guessing talking about the duststorms of the 1920's and 1930's? Perhaps they were attempting to lay the foundation for the whole premise of the film? I also wanted to know more about Cooper but we didn't really see how he became a farmer other than the flashback at the start. When did his wife die? Why is his father in law living with him? Did we really get to understand the relevance of the droid they chased in the truck? Unfortunately most of the film is taken up with barely audible dialogue about scientific hypothesis and personal issues intertwined together. This made it very difficult to follow and the interest wanes as a result. BUT the biggest downfall of the film is Matt Damon. I am a fan off his but not in this. He is dreadfully miscast as the villain of the piece of sorts and that whole fight with Cooper and Ryan is poor. It is just not convincing at all and there is no suspense involved in the whole docking scene at all. Cooper just tells him not to dock as he hasn't got the codes but you never felt Ryan was in jeopardy. It was so poorly constructed. Overall vey similar to Inception in that it is at times visually stunning but rather like Inception it is style over substance. Beautiful to look at but like opening a strawberry cream in a box of Quality Street - very disappointing. And the title of my review? I am just a bit fed up that Nolan has made some fine early films and now nobody will criticise him? In The Emperors New Clothes nobody tells the Emperor he is wearing nothing until a little boy informs him. Somebody needs to tell Nolan that he needs to get back to crafting films full of suspense and not a plodding sci-fi full of characters you barely care about.",
    "43": "As you can probably ascertain from my title sentence, I am not a fan of Mr Nolan. However I don't have any bias prior to watching his films, in fact quite the opposite, I want to like his films, as I really like his ideas and concepts, which is why it's such a shame he never delivers.I also seem to be in a minority with my views as his films seem to have mass appeal, certainly if you look at money they make, but so far, they have all left me cold.Interstellar, TDK and Inception all have similar flaws: On the positive side, they are all really cinematic, stylish and well filmed. They all have really atmospheric music and nice special effects.On the negative side, the plots are terrible and make no sense. The dialog is flat and unrealistic, there is no charisma or charm in the films, they are functional and soulless and they lack any real depth or meaning. The characters tend to be robotic and cold, not warm or humorous.The problem is when you put these two elements together you basically get high expectations that something great is going to happen, but ultimately nothing does, so it becomes a major let down.On to Interstellar specifically (warning spoilers a plenty): The first hour of the film, was very boring, and very silly. The Earth is running out of food, so people still plant huge fields of crops, which they destroy when driving through them for no good reason. They have completely automated the process of farming crops, yet they don't need Scientists or Engineers, they need farmers, which makes no sense.If the Earth was starving then the crop fields would be fenced off, taken away from farmers and it would be a controlled process. Scientists and Engineers would be the most valued members of society. If the crops were so valuable they wouldn't be exposed to the elements and the dust. They would be covered and protected. Everyone is so worried about the food shortages, they don't take any notice of it. Instead they drive around in huge petrol driven SUV's from 2014 (where's the Google cars or electric cars?).Here's an idea. You now have the ability to hibernate on spaceships, so apply that to the population of Earth and reduce the need for food. Anyway let's move on.They go into space, arrive at some place and immediately land in some water. Do they survey the area first, check out the planet and landing area first in detail, nope they just land. Now I know there is time pressure, but why haven't NASA sent numerous robots into space to visit these planets and send back information.Anyway this drags on a bit, they visit another place, which is another disaster and then we get to the point of the film (only after about 2 and a half hours). Cooper flies into a black hole, where he would normally be crushed and killed instantly, but survives in some kind of advanced framework, where he very predictably sends the already sent messages back to his daughter. After this there is a very silly ending. Even though he is outside of time, as it were and he can send messages to any point, he can't for some reason stay in the same time as his daughterAnd how stupid was the 1970's Minecraft designed robot.In the end the visuals and atmospheric music was great, but the plot, soul and charm of the film was completely missing, unfortunately like all Nolan movies.",
    "44": "The premise here is relativity. Time vs gravity. The story, if there is one, is pointless. Christopher Nolan has surpassed Stanley Kubrick in making a visually stunning but ultimately pointless piece of Sci Fi nonsense. Nobody can give me a convincing explanation of 2001: A Space Odyssey, but in 1968 it was jaw dropping. Interstellar's problem is we've seen it all before, and Nolan is not Kubrick.Perhaps there is an analogy of the futility of life here, but it's spurious at best.This ranks with Prometheus as an incredibly beautiful waste of my time.",
    "45": "His 4th dud in a row, a ridiculous plot, for some reason the earth is reduced to only producing corn, so no animals, birds or fish, even though the scene by a lake the water looked clean and refreshing. Seems like humanity have forgotten that we can grow things in greenhouses and even underground. never mind lets move on, once again Nolan's characters all scientists and supposedly super intelligent do the most stupid things. anne hathaway goes in the water to retrieve a large piece of debris when a large wave appears, she has on hand a robot who could lift this wreckage with one hand but does not instruct him to do so, the beardy scientist is by the spacecraft door urging her to get a move on, the wave gets nearer the robot goes and carries her to the shuttle, the beardy scientist all this while stays put just outside the door and lets the wave carry him away, just one example of quite few.the biggest plot hole is this, for some reason once cooper is past the black hole and in 5 dimensional space, he becomes super intelligient, because he now knows how to solve the problem of gravity and save mankind, how he knows this we do not know, given that he is just an engineer to be able to figure out something the greatest physicists of the last hundred years cannot is unbelievable, he then sends probably the most complicated and long equation in history to his daughter in basic morse code, anyone familiar with morse code will tell you that this would take forever. now to the film making, others have mentioned its look , well to me it looked shabby, endless shots of aircraft wings, no vistas no shots of the galaxy or stars. during both the wormhole sequence and the black hole sequence he stays on the actors in close. in fact thank God i did not see this in imax, would have been a complete waste of time. and now the noise, with hans zimmer's worst and most bombastic score , added onto very loud sound effects, with the actors shouting to be heard we came a away with very bad headaches. the end did not make any sense at all. but we have the usual nolan fan base that cannot see past their noses all going ape over this and the usual batch of critics with no critical faculties whatsover.",
    "46": "Fantastic premise, script, acting, production, effects, soundtrack... this film had me hooked for its entire (long) duration. A slow burner for most of its length, Interstellar gave me a feeling I don't think I've had from a film before. Simultaneously hopeless and hopeful. Sad and uplifted. The entire time I was tense, and yet couldn't tear myself from the screen.For fairness, the first time I watched this film, when it was new, I was disinterested. The difficulty I had hearing a lot of the dialogue annoyed me, and I found the whole thing to be quite pretentious. However, watching the film again later and with a fresh mind it clicked in a new way and moved me in ways I wasn't expecting.",
    "47": "This is weird... I love Science Fiction and I love astrophysics, but disliked everything about this movie. The start was extremely slow and it was hard to stay awake. The second half of the movie was somewhat better but felt like a very cheap rip-off of Space 2001. The movie just didn't do it for me at all and the acting was average. I'm totally flabbergasted that the average rating stands at 9 out of 10. Maybe audiences have lost the notion of quality, story-line, plot, acting, and uniqueness - as this movie doesn't have any of it. Ah well, I guess I'll just have to wait for the next SF movie and hope it will be somewhat better, because I am deeply disappointed by Interstellar as I expected so much more from a movie with an estimated budget of $165 million.",
    "48": "As directed by Christopher Nolan, he of the pretentious, derivative, mind-bending crap-fest that was Inception and the vastly over-rated Dark Knight trilogy, I fully expected Interstellar to have plot holes you could pilot a space station through—and, with a whopping running time of 169 minutes, I figured staying awake would be a task almost as gargantuan as the film's black hole (which is actually called Gargantua—that's just how gargantuan it is!!!).Sure enough, the preposterous pseudo-scientific plot can be picked apart with ease, but the film itself is something of an anomaly: although it is a grossly indulgent pile of pretentious hooey that stretches plausibility to breaking point, I found myself entertained throughout. Interstellar is so far up itself that it actually transcends all the laws of cinema and proves to be a rather enjoyable piece of big-budget baloney as a result.For starters, we get Matthew McConaughey's farmer Cooper, who is chosen to pilot NASA's only spacecraft, despite having spent the last decade or so growing corn. Then we get two of science-fiction's most aesthetically awkward robots in the form of A.I. units TARS and CASE. After flying through a worm-hole, Cooper lands his spacecraft in several inches of water and then surfs a massive tidal wave. We see a planet so cold that its clouds are solid ice. We have a mad scientist who rants about the human instinct for survival while head butting Cooper with his space helmet. Although Michael Caine's character spans 23 years, he doesn't look a day older than when we first see him (his voice just gets a bit hoarse, but not Batman hoarse). And Cooper enters a black hole where he ends up behind a 5-dimensional bookcase that allows him to manipulate gravity to send a message to his daughter via wristwatch!!!And that's just the stuff I can recall right now (it's waaay past my bed-time and I'm very tired).If only there had been a few ninjas, some gratuitous female nudity (perhaps a race of insatiable, sexy alien maidens with over-sized breasts), a planet of space zombies, and a laser battle, this would have been the perfect so-bad-it's-good movie.7/10: it's too wonderfully silly for me too hate on it as much as I really should.",
    "49": "Intersellar. What Christopher Nolan has done so good with this movie was that he kept the plot simple,but we know that it's Christopher Nolan so it not going to be a simple movie. It's not. The overall plot is that the earth is dying so cooper(Matthew mcconaughey) and a team of scientists must go and find another place to live. The acting is great,what makes it so great is cooper and his daughter. Every time they were together it was WOW. The visuals were on another level. If you can,see it on the biggest screen possible. Some people may not like this movie because it talks a lot about science and many other things but you enjoy that, you will have a blast with this.Overall interstellar is a must see. I think it was Nolan's best film.",
    "50": "If you ever saw Kubrick's 2001 then do not waste your time in this movie. If you did not;then rent or buy 2001 and avoid this piece of crap.\"INTERSTELLAR\" is a dumb and lazy written cash cow disguised as a philosophical statement. \"INCEPTION\" was the same thing (but less stupid and more entertaining or at least had more action and violence ) Do not be fooled by the concept; there are just one or two interested statements in this movie but taking three hours for that is excessive.The whole things must make sense in Nolan's depressing mind; the world is ending but people is still selfish enough to make matters worse. The movie has zero humor and the positive or hopeful message is as fake as the special effects.In fact; this is a movie about God; but Nolan's refuse to even refer about religion; so the movie is about \"something\" that is never clear and makes absolutely no sense. ***SPOILER AHEAD*** Without saying too much about the first ending (there is a second happy ending to ensure better box office receipts and is even more absurd ) why whoever could create such a device just pass the message and solve the problem ?. ***END OF SPOILER***McConaughey is talk is almost incomprehensible. Anne Hathaway is always good; but his character is under written. Jessica Chastain has to deal a completely absurd and unbelievable and over dramatized situations (and she does not succeed).In brief; do not commit the same error I made. Save your money for a better and more sincere money; this one is just a scam.",
    "51": "I am sorry but found this movie to be highly over rated. It was high on visual effects but low on the content in terms of script, story and the future of the world basically.I am sure it will grab few awards in these categories.There was a similar hype around Avatar but when I saw Avatar, it had something new to offer. Interstellar doesn't offer anything new as such.If you put the movie Gravity and the movie Frequency together in 5D, wormhole angle, you have Intersetllar.In fact I found Frequency to be highly underrated movie.Acting/Direction is good but wished the script were much more stronger.",
    "52": "The movie did not need to be almost three hours long...this was a great example of why it is a bad choice to let a director have the last say over edits, cuts, and length of a film. So many scenes could have been cut.The only interesting part of the film was when the characters finally made it to different planets. However, all the science leading up to the adventure of going to different galaxies seemed to be a lot of mumbo-jumbo...lots of theories and big words to confuse the audience so that we think it could be possible.The last thirty minutes almost was incomprehensible...the explanations of what happened in the earlier part of the film didn't make sense...but because it was explained with a serious voice talking and serious music behind it, people who don't understand quantum physics (which are most of us) will think it does.Plese Hollywood, reign in Christopher Nolen a bit.",
    "53": "This is a film that deals with cliched issues like Global decimation and overpopulation maybe not today but definitely in the foreseeable future. The space travel is the reason I watched the film. I had to watch this film once when it came out a second time immediately after it dropped on Blu Ray and streaming services and I still want to watch it a 3rd and 4th time just to experience the wonderful acting, cinematography and visuals again. Christopher Nolan knocked out of the ballpark definitely not his greatest movie ever but yeah I can see top 5 Inception and Dark Knight are better.",
    "54": "Some directors can pull of the feat of writing and directing, Tarantino comes to mind. PT Anderson is another. Even though this was co-written between Christopher Nolan and his brother, the Coens they are not!This movies is a perfect example of how making a movie (as my amateur film maker friend put it) is like building a cathedral. Being good at making stain glass does not make you a good brick layer, and that task is best left to ones who know what they are doing. To whit, we have this monstrous piece of pretentious drivel which attempts, as so many big hollywood movies do, to gloss over hastily written sequences with flash and bombast. This is another movie that feels like it was written by a committee of executives who were barely aware of the history of film and watched a couple of youtube videos on The Grand Unified Theory and tried to write something all smart-like. This movie is so scattered and convoluted it's hard to begin, and many other reviewers have pointed a lot of the plot elements that are glossed over with yet another \"yeah, that happened, deal with it\". Here are some of the things that I audibly groaned over:Why not explain what happened to Earth when every other part of this movie is explained like the audience is 5 years old?If the technology is available to build spacecraft with cryogen chambers, how about producing new forms of food? Lab grown meat for example? Hydroponic greenhouses etc?Why are the robots basically mechanical jenga pieces? How does that design make sense? The robot REALLY bothered me, especially how there was absolutely no effort to actually make it sound like a robot, it basically sounded like exactly what it was, which most of the time was just a guy inside a cheap plastic box. His voice didn't even sound like it was coming out of a speaker. HAL sounded like a person, but still had a creepy quality to him that sounded vaguely artificial (\"what a moment, wait a moment\").And then there is the idea that you could actually get anywhere near a black hole (let alone wormhole) with relatively recent technology and survive. I have a rudimentary understanding of physics, but even I know that the radiation would turn you into goo pretty fast, space suit or no space suit.And a guy waits in a spaceship for 23 years by himself and doesn't go insane and looks basically the same except for a few grey hairs in his beard? I could go on and on....This movie tries really, really hard, there is a lot of balling actors showing off their chops and trusting that they are making a masterpiece, which I imagine every actor must do, but alas there is no saving this movie. It tried too hard to be all things, part 2001: A Space Odyssey, part Armageddon, part Inception and fails on all counts. Everything about this movies hints at greatness, the effects, the Phillip Glass like score written by Hans Zimmer, the tears swelling up at climactic scenes, but it is all empty packing around a bad story. This movie is a shiny car with hamsters on a wheel as the engine.One positive outcome of this movie is that it has reminded me to read about physics out of interest, but not to discuss them like I know anything, as I will come across as pretentious as this movie.I suggest everyone watches 2001 to cleanse their pallet and to be reminded of what truly great film making is about.",
    "55": "I saw this opening night (Thursday). I wanted the full monty. That means IMAX (I drove across town to get it). Wow! There are only a handful of films that have visually overwhelmed me and required a second go (or more). The first was 2001 A Space Odyssey. Star Wars Empire Strikes Back and Avatar come to mind for now. This was such a spectacle with a very complex script I'll admit I left the theater with a lot of questions. I knew it was a viscerally thrilling experience, I just couldn't fully explain the ending to my inquiring mind. I write this piece having seen this amazing film again four days later (No IMAX). OMG! I loved this movie even more tonight than four days ago. For me at least, it took two viewings for the grandeur of this project to reveal its power and intellectual reach. This is a science fiction film for the ages!",
    "56": "Interstellar, Another feather in Nolan's cap, This movie is surely one of the Nolan's finest blend, it had everything that makes you glued to the seats and those nail biting moments I can watch it again and have the same feeling as watching it for the first time, and don't be fooled by some idiots claiming that the movie is way too technical and you need to brush up your Physics before watching the movie, don't fall for this bullshit, the movie is clear and concise and well not to mention but just like any other Nolan movie this one also leaves much to your interpretation and I believe that's what makes the movies of Nolan stand out from others, it's all about IMAGINATION with a good bit of science and what could very well be a reality, I don't want to spoil it for you by revealing any interesting parts of the movie, I would recommend the movie to anyone who loves watching fiction movies that makes you believe in the fiction they portray, yes we are far from the reality, but when you are in there watching this movie, those 3 hours you become a part of the movie and it becomes the reality, few movies have given me such experience in the past, and this one definitely tops the chart!",
    "57": "I am wondering if the people who write \"intertstellar\" 10-star reviews are actually sane, or if they base their opinion on a movie library completely deprived of everything that is sci-fi. Basically if the sic-fi component - most of which does not really happen until the end - is removed from the plot the movie by and large is a classic Hollywood soap opera. The worn-out rag of cliché family relations, all- American-dad, \"complicated\" love affair, unruly and a classic tomboy-girl, co-workers (more like co-idiots) who rebel and despite all common sense act irrationally, you know, to \"up the ante\"... it really makes up 90% of this movie. Up until half- way trough I honestly considered walking away from this boring tragedy which is the lack of creative talent on the part of the script writers and director. There are also very obvious holes in the plot, and not just irregularities but direct contradictions that even the most obnoxious sic-fi movies at least try to amend somehow.I can not help but think that after watching Automata which was a breath of fresh air in many regards, this movie is like walking into a small toilet where someone just took a huge dump. It is literally that bad. What saves this movie by the skin of its teeth is the ending. So just watch that instead, because until then you could have just as well been watching an episode of Santa Barbara.Spolers about ridiculous plot holes (as if the soap part of the movie is not stressed enough): 1) The stupid Dust Bowl recycled. Seriously? I am not even going to try to explain this because I'd need to re-post have of Wikipedia here, but it does not work that way. Not in the past - not in the future. 2) The moment NASA abducts the main character and daughter and questions them. Seriously? Maybe they should also have shot them on sight? 3) NASA's facility is top secret! Right... in the age supposedly after the present, when there are drones and google maps, they manage to hide a huge facility in some old James Bond villain fashion. 4) \"LET'S GO TO ANOTHER GALAXY!\". OK if the movie shows a fairly conventional rocket, carrying a futuristic \"shuttle\", WHY for the love of all holy would anyone risk going there - instead of looking in our own? What, they really expected to have better luck there - than in our own? They already searched the entire Milky Way? And what's even better - it \"just so happens\" there is a planet like a stone's throw away from the black hole and is NOT being consumed by it, and somehow a black hole which is now proved to be a collapsed star is anything BUT a collapsed star? Why... let's just start diving down toilets, because you know, they are not full of s*** but are actual doorways to different dimensions! Like dimensions of dementia perhaps! 5) Saving the best for last - I did like the ending. Despite its absurdity I did like it. Almost cried - if I were a 14 year old girl with especially fragile psychology, but I digress. The \"machine\" that allows the main character to conviniently contact his daughter in the future- past, is built by... the very humanity he is trying to save, that survived, and built the machine in the future. Lord have mercy, I will try to explain this... So basically if we consider all major theories about time travel, in order to change the future one must go there and change it, right? But here the future changes the past, and that past is what changed the future with the help of the future that is changed in the past with the changed future's help. Mind >>> blown!",
    "58": "Fantastic premise, script, acting, production, effects, soundtrack... this film had me hooked for its entire (long) duration. A slow burner for most of its length, Interstellar gave me a feeling I don't think I've had from a film before. Simultaneously hopeless and hopeful. Sad and uplifted. The entire time I was tense, and yet couldn't tear myself from the screen.For fairness, the first time I watched this film, when it was new, I was disinterested. The difficulty I had hearing a lot of the dialogue annoyed me, and I found the whole thing to be quite pretentious. However, watching the film again later and with a fresh mind it clicked in a new way and moved me in ways I wasn't expecting.",
    "59": "This is weird... I love Science Fiction and I love astrophysics, but disliked everything about this movie. The start was extremely slow and it was hard to stay awake. The second half of the movie was somewhat better but felt like a very cheap rip-off of Space 2001. The movie just didn't do it for me at all and the acting was average. I'm totally flabbergasted that the average rating stands at 9 out of 10. Maybe audiences have lost the notion of quality, story-line, plot, acting, and uniqueness - as this movie doesn't have any of it. Ah well, I guess I'll just have to wait for the next SF movie and hope it will be somewhat better, because I am deeply disappointed by Interstellar as I expected so much more from a movie with an estimated budget of $165 million.",
    "60": "As directed by Christopher Nolan, he of the pretentious, derivative, mind-bending crap-fest that was Inception and the vastly over-rated Dark Knight trilogy, I fully expected Interstellar to have plot holes you could pilot a space station through—and, with a whopping running time of 169 minutes, I figured staying awake would be a task almost as gargantuan as the film's black hole (which is actually called Gargantua—that's just how gargantuan it is!!!).Sure enough, the preposterous pseudo-scientific plot can be picked apart with ease, but the film itself is something of an anomaly: although it is a grossly indulgent pile of pretentious hooey that stretches plausibility to breaking point, I found myself entertained throughout. Interstellar is so far up itself that it actually transcends all the laws of cinema and proves to be a rather enjoyable piece of big-budget baloney as a result.For starters, we get Matthew McConaughey's farmer Cooper, who is chosen to pilot NASA's only spacecraft, despite having spent the last decade or so growing corn. Then we get two of science-fiction's most aesthetically awkward robots in the form of A.I. units TARS and CASE. After flying through a worm-hole, Cooper lands his spacecraft in several inches of water and then surfs a massive tidal wave. We see a planet so cold that its clouds are solid ice. We have a mad scientist who rants about the human instinct for survival while head butting Cooper with his space helmet. Although Michael Caine's character spans 23 years, he doesn't look a day older than when we first see him (his voice just gets a bit hoarse, but not Batman hoarse). And Cooper enters a black hole where he ends up behind a 5-dimensional bookcase that allows him to manipulate gravity to send a message to his daughter via wristwatch!!!And that's just the stuff I can recall right now (it's waaay past my bed-time and I'm very tired).If only there had been a few ninjas, some gratuitous female nudity (perhaps a race of insatiable, sexy alien maidens with over-sized breasts), a planet of space zombies, and a laser battle, this would have been the perfect so-bad-it's-good movie.7/10: it's too wonderfully silly for me too hate on it as much as I really should.",
    "61": "Intersellar. What Christopher Nolan has done so good with this movie was that he kept the plot simple,but we know that it's Christopher Nolan so it not going to be a simple movie. It's not. The overall plot is that the earth is dying so cooper(Matthew mcconaughey) and a team of scientists must go and find another place to live. The acting is great,what makes it so great is cooper and his daughter. Every time they were together it was WOW. The visuals were on another level. If you can,see it on the biggest screen possible. Some people may not like this movie because it talks a lot about science and many other things but you enjoy that, you will have a blast with this.Overall interstellar is a must see. I think it was Nolan's best film.",
    "62": "If you ever saw Kubrick's 2001 then do not waste your time in this movie. If you did not;then rent or buy 2001 and avoid this piece of crap.\"INTERSTELLAR\" is a dumb and lazy written cash cow disguised as a philosophical statement. \"INCEPTION\" was the same thing (but less stupid and more entertaining or at least had more action and violence ) Do not be fooled by the concept; there are just one or two interested statements in this movie but taking three hours for that is excessive.The whole things must make sense in Nolan's depressing mind; the world is ending but people is still selfish enough to make matters worse. The movie has zero humor and the positive or hopeful message is as fake as the special effects.In fact; this is a movie about God; but Nolan's refuse to even refer about religion; so the movie is about \"something\" that is never clear and makes absolutely no sense. ***SPOILER AHEAD*** Without saying too much about the first ending (there is a second happy ending to ensure better box office receipts and is even more absurd ) why whoever could create such a device just pass the message and solve the problem ?. ***END OF SPOILER***McConaughey is talk is almost incomprehensible. Anne Hathaway is always good; but his character is under written. Jessica Chastain has to deal a completely absurd and unbelievable and over dramatized situations (and she does not succeed).In brief; do not commit the same error I made. Save your money for a better and more sincere money; this one is just a scam.",
    "63": "I am sorry but found this movie to be highly over rated. It was high on visual effects but low on the content in terms of script, story and the future of the world basically.I am sure it will grab few awards in these categories.There was a similar hype around Avatar but when I saw Avatar, it had something new to offer. Interstellar doesn't offer anything new as such.If you put the movie Gravity and the movie Frequency together in 5D, wormhole angle, you have Intersetllar.In fact I found Frequency to be highly underrated movie.Acting/Direction is good but wished the script were much more stronger.",
    "64": "The movie did not need to be almost three hours long...this was a great example of why it is a bad choice to let a director have the last say over edits, cuts, and length of a film. So many scenes could have been cut.The only interesting part of the film was when the characters finally made it to different planets. However, all the science leading up to the adventure of going to different galaxies seemed to be a lot of mumbo-jumbo...lots of theories and big words to confuse the audience so that we think it could be possible.The last thirty minutes almost was incomprehensible...the explanations of what happened in the earlier part of the film didn't make sense...but because it was explained with a serious voice talking and serious music behind it, people who don't understand quantum physics (which are most of us) will think it does.Plese Hollywood, reign in Christopher Nolen a bit.",
    "65": "This is a film that deals with cliched issues like Global decimation and overpopulation maybe not today but definitely in the foreseeable future. The space travel is the reason I watched the film. I had to watch this film once when it came out a second time immediately after it dropped on Blu Ray and streaming services and I still want to watch it a 3rd and 4th time just to experience the wonderful acting, cinematography and visuals again. Christopher Nolan knocked out of the ballpark definitely not his greatest movie ever but yeah I can see top 5 Inception and Dark Knight are better.",
    "66": "Some directors can pull of the feat of writing and directing, Tarantino comes to mind. PT Anderson is another. Even though this was co-written between Christopher Nolan and his brother, the Coens they are not!This movies is a perfect example of how making a movie (as my amateur film maker friend put it) is like building a cathedral. Being good at making stain glass does not make you a good brick layer, and that task is best left to ones who know what they are doing. To whit, we have this monstrous piece of pretentious drivel which attempts, as so many big hollywood movies do, to gloss over hastily written sequences with flash and bombast. This is another movie that feels like it was written by a committee of executives who were barely aware of the history of film and watched a couple of youtube videos on The Grand Unified Theory and tried to write something all smart-like. This movie is so scattered and convoluted it's hard to begin, and many other reviewers have pointed a lot of the plot elements that are glossed over with yet another \"yeah, that happened, deal with it\". Here are some of the things that I audibly groaned over:Why not explain what happened to Earth when every other part of this movie is explained like the audience is 5 years old?If the technology is available to build spacecraft with cryogen chambers, how about producing new forms of food? Lab grown meat for example? Hydroponic greenhouses etc?Why are the robots basically mechanical jenga pieces? How does that design make sense? The robot REALLY bothered me, especially how there was absolutely no effort to actually make it sound like a robot, it basically sounded like exactly what it was, which most of the time was just a guy inside a cheap plastic box. His voice didn't even sound like it was coming out of a speaker. HAL sounded like a person, but still had a creepy quality to him that sounded vaguely artificial (\"what a moment, wait a moment\").And then there is the idea that you could actually get anywhere near a black hole (let alone wormhole) with relatively recent technology and survive. I have a rudimentary understanding of physics, but even I know that the radiation would turn you into goo pretty fast, space suit or no space suit.And a guy waits in a spaceship for 23 years by himself and doesn't go insane and looks basically the same except for a few grey hairs in his beard? I could go on and on....This movie tries really, really hard, there is a lot of balling actors showing off their chops and trusting that they are making a masterpiece, which I imagine every actor must do, but alas there is no saving this movie. It tried too hard to be all things, part 2001: A Space Odyssey, part Armageddon, part Inception and fails on all counts. Everything about this movies hints at greatness, the effects, the Phillip Glass like score written by Hans Zimmer, the tears swelling up at climactic scenes, but it is all empty packing around a bad story. This movie is a shiny car with hamsters on a wheel as the engine.One positive outcome of this movie is that it has reminded me to read about physics out of interest, but not to discuss them like I know anything, as I will come across as pretentious as this movie.I suggest everyone watches 2001 to cleanse their pallet and to be reminded of what truly great film making is about.",
    "67": "I saw this opening night (Thursday). I wanted the full monty. That means IMAX (I drove across town to get it). Wow! There are only a handful of films that have visually overwhelmed me and required a second go (or more). The first was 2001 A Space Odyssey. Star Wars Empire Strikes Back and Avatar come to mind for now. This was such a spectacle with a very complex script I'll admit I left the theater with a lot of questions. I knew it was a viscerally thrilling experience, I just couldn't fully explain the ending to my inquiring mind. I write this piece having seen this amazing film again four days later (No IMAX). OMG! I loved this movie even more tonight than four days ago. For me at least, it took two viewings for the grandeur of this project to reveal its power and intellectual reach. This is a science fiction film for the ages!",
    "68": "Interstellar, Another feather in Nolan's cap, This movie is surely one of the Nolan's finest blend, it had everything that makes you glued to the seats and those nail biting moments I can watch it again and have the same feeling as watching it for the first time, and don't be fooled by some idiots claiming that the movie is way too technical and you need to brush up your Physics before watching the movie, don't fall for this bullshit, the movie is clear and concise and well not to mention but just like any other Nolan movie this one also leaves much to your interpretation and I believe that's what makes the movies of Nolan stand out from others, it's all about IMAGINATION with a good bit of science and what could very well be a reality, I don't want to spoil it for you by revealing any interesting parts of the movie, I would recommend the movie to anyone who loves watching fiction movies that makes you believe in the fiction they portray, yes we are far from the reality, but when you are in there watching this movie, those 3 hours you become a part of the movie and it becomes the reality, few movies have given me such experience in the past, and this one definitely tops the chart!",
    "69": "I am wondering if the people who write \"intertstellar\" 10-star reviews are actually sane, or if they base their opinion on a movie library completely deprived of everything that is sci-fi. Basically if the sic-fi component - most of which does not really happen until the end - is removed from the plot the movie by and large is a classic Hollywood soap opera. The worn-out rag of cliché family relations, all- American-dad, \"complicated\" love affair, unruly and a classic tomboy-girl, co-workers (more like co-idiots) who rebel and despite all common sense act irrationally, you know, to \"up the ante\"... it really makes up 90% of this movie. Up until half- way trough I honestly considered walking away from this boring tragedy which is the lack of creative talent on the part of the script writers and director. There are also very obvious holes in the plot, and not just irregularities but direct contradictions that even the most obnoxious sic-fi movies at least try to amend somehow.I can not help but think that after watching Automata which was a breath of fresh air in many regards, this movie is like walking into a small toilet where someone just took a huge dump. It is literally that bad. What saves this movie by the skin of its teeth is the ending. So just watch that instead, because until then you could have just as well been watching an episode of Santa Barbara.Spolers about ridiculous plot holes (as if the soap part of the movie is not stressed enough): 1) The stupid Dust Bowl recycled. Seriously? I am not even going to try to explain this because I'd need to re-post have of Wikipedia here, but it does not work that way. Not in the past - not in the future. 2) The moment NASA abducts the main character and daughter and questions them. Seriously? Maybe they should also have shot them on sight? 3) NASA's facility is top secret! Right... in the age supposedly after the present, when there are drones and google maps, they manage to hide a huge facility in some old James Bond villain fashion. 4) \"LET'S GO TO ANOTHER GALAXY!\". OK if the movie shows a fairly conventional rocket, carrying a futuristic \"shuttle\", WHY for the love of all holy would anyone risk going there - instead of looking in our own? What, they really expected to have better luck there - than in our own? They already searched the entire Milky Way? And what's even better - it \"just so happens\" there is a planet like a stone's throw away from the black hole and is NOT being consumed by it, and somehow a black hole which is now proved to be a collapsed star is anything BUT a collapsed star? Why... let's just start diving down toilets, because you know, they are not full of s*** but are actual doorways to different dimensions! Like dimensions of dementia perhaps! 5) Saving the best for last - I did like the ending. Despite its absurdity I did like it. Almost cried - if I were a 14 year old girl with especially fragile psychology, but I digress. The \"machine\" that allows the main character to conviniently contact his daughter in the future- past, is built by... the very humanity he is trying to save, that survived, and built the machine in the future. Lord have mercy, I will try to explain this... So basically if we consider all major theories about time travel, in order to change the future one must go there and change it, right? But here the future changes the past, and that past is what changed the future with the help of the future that is changed in the past with the changed future's help. Mind >>> blown!",
    "70": "Here's its 2 stars...I saw it in IMAX so I enjoyed going through the wormhole. Other than that? Well, let's get started...It's so typical - almost clichéd! - the way billions of dollars are spent on the visuals of movies these days and zero dinero on the script. Interstellar is a prime example of this. It just might be the definitive example.I'm not going to go into the science much because I'm a tad science- and space-illiterate but even I could see glaring holes in this tripe. For one thing, what kind of impossible tidal forces create a mile- high tidal wave out of 2 feet of water? Why weren't drones sent into the wormhole instead of people? That corn looked pretty green to me, didn't you think so? What's going on in London or Montreal or Buenos Aires or anywhere other than Kansas? Is Kansas the last place anyone is? Can't the black guy just once make it to the end of the movie? Why is NASA housed inside the Bonaventure Hotel? (okay sorry, I'm from LA and recognized it right away)Did Matt Damon owe someone a role and that's why he's in this tripe giving the worst performance of his career? Why weren't Matthew M's grandchildren and great grandchildren the slightest bit interested in him? Who the hell cast Matthew M in this? How was it possible to relay \"tapes from loved ones at home\" across those distances but nobody could relay anything back? What was up with that stupid robot?Okay, forgetting science and crazy-ass tesseracts for a moment...the human element of the script was incredibly eye-rolling. Remember that notoriously stupid moment in Armageddon when Liv Tyler screams \"That my father up there!\"? Well the entire \"human\" aspect of this story and all the dialogue seemed to be written by whomever wrote that classic line. What was so wrong with treating the audience like intelligent people and giving then a straight, highly scientific, awe-at-the-majesty-of-the-universe, harsh reality sci-fi film that didn't insult you at every turn instead of this z-grade soap opera with neat-o visuals?",
    "71": "SPOILER FREE BEGINS *********I had a sneaking feeling that Christopher Nolan was a director who wasn't particularly good at staging emotional sequences, nor had a special skill in staging action sequences nor has consistency in his screen writing which may range from mediocre (The Dark Knight Rises and overall logical setup of the Batman series) or sublime (Memento, Inception). What always worked for Nolan was that his movies were always interesting and always intriguing and if the script was any good, he made classics.Interstellar represents a colossal failure of Nolan on every front imaginable. Let's start with the plot which is the most looked forward thing in his movies. The plot involving the World's end and the attempt to save it via Interstellar travel is so hokey that you may think you are watching a Michael Bay movie. If you could complain about \"Gravity\"s leaps of logic, then you will realize there is absolutely no physical logic in this script. The story is a Galaxy sized plot hole. The sad part is that it isn't even original which you would come to expect from the Nolan Brothers. It's a bad mishmash of Gravity, Coherence, 2001 a Space Odyssey and Contact book ended by a cringe inducing emotional thread that it will compel you to flay your hands in the air over the inept acting, dialogues, staging, and poor editing, story and what not. If you were expecting an \"Inception\" than don't, Interstellar has the most contrived sci- fi plot in existence coupled with bad acting. It's Armageddon with a sense of higher purpose. At least I enjoyed Armageddon.SPOILER FREE ENDS ********Now back to the plot points. Lets talk about the plot. The world is ending, and I could not fathom why, nor could Nolan show us the World in a broad sense apart from one single corn field farm in the middle of nowhere which conveniently houses an ultra secret project by NASA. If the world is ending, who will save it? Of course the \"Aliens\" or \"They\" (insert oooooooooooh). I thought the movie would involve humans discovering Interstellar travel.I never went into the movie thinking that a huge big ass Worm Hole was conveniently placed by 5- Dimensional unexplained aliens as a convenient plot device to jump into the whole space travel thingy. How hokey is that? And the hokum continues with supremely bad exposition ever committed on screen with fellow astronauts explaining how worm holes work (\"Ah it's shaped like a sphere!) or how time dilation works in relativity theory. It seems like none of Johnathan or Christopher could truly grasp how these concepts should work in the context of the film and hence these appear as contrived elements in the service of producing cheap thrills (\"oh we lost so many years\").And talking about cheap thrills, can anyone possibly out there condone how stupid the middle reveal was with our famous cameo from a famous actor? Okay let's talk about the ending. One can apparently fly into a black hole, make contact with 5-Dimensional entities who will present you a menu of quantum states of possibilities in order to save the world by how? How? By transmitting some mumbo-jumbo data via Morse Code through a ticking hand of a watch to a woman on the other side of the space time continuum so that she can umm fit it into the equation? or was it a constant? what is a 5 pager formula? How did it work? Hokey as hell.And the visuals? Oh the problem is since Gravity came out and took the crown of the best space visuals in the last 5 years, what could Instellar do? Well lets have some obviously fake looking CGI dust clouds. Have your space ship fly over a Windows wallpaper of Saturn. How was any of it \"Original\"? Let's look at the planet. One has Water with a fake wall of waves, one has simply ice. That's it. Water and Ice. Where did you spend your money on Mr Nolan? Oh the Robots were hilarious but you would cringe in your seats thinking how a rectangular block of moving pillar was a good Robot Design and how the poor chap was managing to run on flat ground.And the acting? Cringeworthy Mumblecore.I don't think even the fanboys can save this one.",
    "72": "AM I THE ONLY ONE ON PLANET EARTH WHO THINKS THAT THIS FILM IS ABSOLUTE TOSH? Perhaps I'm being unkind because I could only handle an hour before walking out. I thought the acting in particular was very poor. The storyline is twaddle - a farmer with flight experience finds NASA in an unspecified location with a rocket that is going to save Earth - a typecast Michael Caine (thank goodness it wasn't Morgan Freeman) opens the boardroom door and there is the rocket!. It seemed to me that used actual rocket launch footage? The time element is misused and the special effects are not that great. I thought Elysium knocked socks off this film. I did semi enjoy the water sequence but it was at the point where they get back to the mother ship that I walked ................ very quickly out of the cinema. Ps I love Matthew McConaughey in true detective and I can't believe I was looking at the same actor",
    "73": "Although the idea is simple and written 100 times in SF novels and short stories, it could make a quite good space opera. It could be deep and wise. It could make people think. But no. It had to be wasted. The weakest point is not poor acting (by the way: McConaughey really can't speak? I am not the best in the world in English, but I know many native speakers who couldn't understand him talking), awful music. Even the dumbest possible design of a robot is not the worst part of the movie. It is a forced, painful solemness and pretended adherence to science and logic combined with funny, childish errors and a mile wide gaps in logic.It would take to much time and space to write down all stupid ideas, so just a few of them. Some of them are partially explained in the movie or e.g. in IMDb FAQ, but the explanations are even more naive than the goofs themselves. I start with a biggest problem: - In R. E. Raspe's \"Baron Munchausen\", the baron drowns in the mud and saves his life by pulling himself out, on his own hair. The Earthmen in the movie do the same: the humans from the future save their ancestors. But if the present people perish, there are no future people to save them... The most simple paradox, and yet they included it in the \"serious\" movie. And no naive explanations (branches, interpretations, non-linear timelines etc) can make it wiser, no matter how many times they use the word \"fractal\". And if the future people exist, they don't need to do anything, do they? - The best plan from the future humans is to put (in a past) a wormhole, 2 years flight from Earth, making it almost impossible to find and reach. Then the Earthmen would have to build spaceships for billions of people to travel to a new world. I would simply help the Earthmen get a decent crops...A catastrophic climate change destroys all the crops. How? During just several years? And all plants are dead? All animals? But humans survived? How? Isn't it possible e.g. to grow some algae in oceans? Why nobody even tries to do anything? - Why an anti-science education? A science never does any harm. Only the politics and businessmen do, using science. So it is not the science to be ostracized.A farmer drives his children to anti-science school fully equipped to bring a military drone down (has a specially programmed computer, antennas, means to establish a connection, etc.) - A \"ghost\" communication is very implausible. Does it really depend on gravity? Even some waves, oscillations would create observed effects on books/dust, the gravity hardly could.Barely legal NASA base, hidden in a barn, building a spaceship... Funny. Unsuccessfully looking for it's best pilot in the world, year after year... Funny. The pilot accidentally finds them, and is captured and interrogated like a war prisoner by scientists - funny. The scientists are pilot's old friends. And they just finished building a rocket. He has never seen this ship, he is a farmer for 20 years now, so will he fly it, the only hope for humanity, please? FUNNY! - Plan A and B. Science and technology so advanced that can keep human embryos alive during a space journey, and rise them to get humans, can not rise a radish on Earth (nor perform a MRI scan).Please, stop the stupid \"expert's presentation how it works\" (the imbecile with a pencil demonstrating wormholes, just like the similar imbecile in \"The Martian\" explaining the trivial maneuver around Earth). What makes it even more pathetic, the \"expert\" addresses his childish show to a engineer and best NASA pilot....and so on... I don't understand the physics that stands beside the unusual phenomena in the alien solar system, on its planets (the hundred miles high waves on an ocean two feet deep, the frozen, solid clouds in the air, the anti-logic movements of the ships, the anti-logic decisions of the crew... and so on...and at the end I (and all the nearby watchers) couldn't believe the stupidity of the falling to the black hole behind the main character daughter's bookshelves. It was... it was... unspoken. And the Future Men felt that the best way of communication with Present People is to shake the books in some girls' bedroom. If you can move the book, or a hand of the watch - that means, you can move objects - you can take a pen and write as well. It is the same action, using the same forces. Yes, I fully understand the meanings, metaphors, 11 dimensions of continuum, and so on. Doesn't help.To sum up: Interstellar is just another pseudoscience-fiction movie. It is intended to be deep and serious, but is just funny (including it's makers argumentation why it is not). It is not easy to think out a GOOD SF story. You can easily make a non-science fiction story which is very good and nice to read or watch (like Star Wars), but it cannot pretend it is serious and science-based. The most depressing thing about that movie is, however, it's huge overrating on IMDb. Are the young people so easy to control? If they see something that makes the first impression of having some value (slow, grave, pseudo-intellectual) they give 9 and 10 points just to show they are serious and deep-thinking? Is that why poor SF movies get such a high notes? Passengers, the last few Aliens and so on?My \"4\" rating is a real one, not lowered to balance the general overrating.",
    "74": "One of the best sci-fi movies.First of all, it is incredibly beautiful to watch. Honestly, it was so beautiful that I felt like I was sucked into the movie. We can feel the talent of Christopher Nolan, just by looking at the way it is filmed. The techniques he used contribute to create that visual environment in a believable way.These two important parts (image and sound) create a stunning atmosphere. You will forget you are in a movie theater, and you will be lost in space, sucked into the adventures of this new Space Odyssey, begging for more. It is a truly unique experience. I can say that I have never felt something like that in a movie theater. Then, of course, the cast. First of all, Matthew McConaughey. I discovered this actor in Tropic Thunder, but he didn't really convince me, though he was quite funny. Then I saw Dallas Buyers Club. Since that movie, I love him. In this movie... Well, he is the movie. I exaggerate a bit, since there are other great actors (some even unexpected with a special guest) who play extremely well. But he is just what was needed to feel the human part of the story (which is very important in Interstellar). He is capable of making us feel so many different emotions all along the story, as a father, as a human. Anne Hathaway was very convincing, all together the actors managed to create some harmony, which makes the human interactions credible. Caine, Chastaing and Affleck are a perfect choice. And then there is... The special guest, I will call him \"X\". His role, which could be seen as a minor role, is actually much more important than that. He proves, once again, that he is a great actor. Watch and see. And finally, the scenario/story. I won't spoil anything here; I'll just try to convince you how great it is. Nolan is known to revolutionize everything when he tries a new genre in cinema. Well, once again he did it. With The Dark Knight he revolutionized the superhero genre. With Interstellar he's revolutionizing the sci-fi genre in cinema. From what I heard, he worked with a physicist (in gravitational physics and astrophysics) to help him with that movie. And we can feel and see it. During the fifties, Asimov laid the foundations of modern science fiction. Lucas and Kubrick did the same in cinema. Today, Nolan is laying the new foundations of the genre in cinema, proving that cinema is still at the beginning of what can be done (brace yourselves my friends, we have not seen anything yet). My rating for this movie can only be a 10, because in itself, it is a beginning for a new kind of cinema. It IS a classic. Those who say \"we can't compare this movie to 2001 Space Odyssey, nor can we compare Nolan to Kubrick\" are wrong. We can, and we should. Talented people don't live only in the past, some genius live today, among us. And Nolan is one of them. Many say that he is overrated. I truly don't think so. Only time will answer that.This is the sci-fi movie of the decade. Just go for it, without a second thought.",
    "75": "\"Interstellar\" was an above average film and I have no regrets spending a Friday night checking it out. Unsophisticated audiences may enjoy it if they don't analyze it too deeply. However, if you are one who understands the world of physics, aviation, or space travel, this one is hard to watch. There are a plethora of continuity issues as well as plot holes. It seems like Chris Nolan watched \"Gravity\" and decided he could make a really terrible film into something worth watching. He added the \"Contact\" premise and inserted some Physics theories and some expanded back story to create a mediocre film. I was hopeful that I would be impressed by the obviously inflated reviews but I wasn't. The guy next to me actually fell asleep during the first hour which was very grueling. Of our group, there were three thumbs down and one thumbs up.",
    "76": "Firstly, I quite like the movie in terms of visuals and the sound track. About 10 minutes in though, I find myself wishing for sub-titles as the actors' voices are inaudible. (I like MM but where is Clooney when we need him?) Now, the story idea is not half bad except Nolan misunderstood the meaning of Sci-Fi...the fiction part of 'Science Fiction' refers to the science portion of a narrative, not the human story. Leaps of faith can be justified with stretching science, especially in areas not fully understood/known by people. The human part of the story has to be true for the audience to relate to (unless there is a setting in the story for human evolution that makes them different to what we are now.) Too many illogical human behaviours are just strung together to move this along and I believe Nolan hoped that the great visuals will distract us from thinking about what is going on. I will highlight a few that ruined the movie for me, even though plenty more were present. Watch out...spoilers below!1)Murph had experienced the 'ghost' from a young age yet didn't know who it might be; yet, when we find out that the 'ghost' is Cooper, she suddenly comes to the same realisation?!? That is of course essential to the story or otherwise she will not take what he transmits seriously, yet there is no reason for her to link the 'ghost' to her father. He could have easily added a message of 'This is your dad' to her, but he never did; and even if he had, it wouldn't work with the younger Murph...if he had located the older Murph (when she was retrieving her stuff), then maybe it will make more sense...very lazy story telling here as it could have been easy to add (maybe 20 seconds of screen time?). This one thing is key to the later part of the movie and without it; the movie couldn't go along the lines it did.2)Assuming we accept that Tor and Cooper did work out the mystery of the black hole that relates to their calculation and he transmitted all the data through her watch. Even if she did figure out that it's a message from her dad (or from someone important), she wasn't paying attention to the message. It is like tuning in to a radio talk show (on serious maths no less) mid-way through a program, there is no way for her to decipher the full message if she missed the first large chunk of what was sent.3)He knew that the message 'Stay' wouldn't work to keep him on the ground. Shouldn't he try a different message? Of course, that would change history and likely Nolan didn't want to go near this paradox...but this is Sci-Fi and I'd welcome the debate that would bring...instead, he rehashes the same old, knowing it wouldn't work.4)Young Murph was understandably upset with her dad when he left...but she becomes part of mission control? Hang on...she has firsthand knowledge of what her father is up to... she knows about plan A, Plan B and the importance of the mission...yet, she wouldn't send him a message? If she became someone outside the scientific field, I can at least accept her continued anger, but putting her in mission control makes it unacceptable. (She should at least be so upset that she wants no part of a mission control which sent her dad away. Otherwise, she should understand why he had to go. ) 5) Murph has a space station named after her so she has some cloud on 'her' space station. When she suggested that Coop goes to Brand, she could help with getting him a spacecraft. Instead, he had to steal one...really? Security is not a concern in the future? A guy who has been out of the loop for almost a century just walks into and starts up a craft, knows all the correct codes to open air locks and even the way out?? (Maybe unlike now, aerospace technology does not improve in a century?) The above really killed the movie for me.Sidenotes:A) If according to their plan, skimming just outside the gravity field to go into the water planet quickly, they surely didn't spend 3+ hours there. How did it translate to 23 years? (Well, I spent almost 3 hours watching this nonsense, so maybe it is possible. Not in the way it was shown though.) B) If all of Cooper's electronics failed on entering the black hole, how did TOR survive? TOR is fully electronics! Poor story telling as this could be explained under sci-fi rules yet wasn't done.C) Why would Murph travel 2 years to the space station, with all her family in tow, to visit her father...yet on seeing him, sends him away?D) Dr Mann and Cooper walked to the edge of the cliff...yet Brand takes a few minutes on a spacecraft to reach there? She took so long that Dr Mann had the time to WALK back to the station to board the other spacecraft, before they FLY back. Ridiculous! (Nolan, this is not a commercial flight... flying cannot be so much slower than walking by any stretch of the imagination.) Overall, without a logical human story, Interstellar is just a decent visual and sound show...its almost 3 hours play time is too long when audience is not absorbed into the tale.I gave it a 5 because I did enjoy some part of the movie (the effects and sound), otherwise, it would get a 3.5 out of 10. Almost 3 hours in a cinema is way too much for this lazily told story. (Plus, there's a chance you'll age 23 years.) I sure wouldn't watch it again.",
    "77": "Pro's:\nActually no sound in space finally, very well done.Atmosphere of the desolate and loneliness have been captured perfectly.Big fan of the soundtracks\nOverall good acting, only the protagonist didn't fit too well for me\nNice idea and story.Con's:\nPredictability. The ghost and the meeting at the end with a very old murphy were both pretty obvious to come 2/3 into the movie.Also how the heck did the dad get out of the black hole.",
    "78": "In 1968 countless theatre goers walked out of Stanley Kubrick's 2001: a space odyssey. Should have won Best Picture. And here in 2014 IMDb is giving Interstellar an 8.6 rating . I found this latest film over the top unbelievable! And incredibly silly. The top cast did give a good performance, but felt the acting of both Michael Cain and Matt Dillon not worthy of this script. The entire third act was choreographed wonderfully but again unbelievable and extremely hard to follow.168 minutes was also much too long ., could have been edited to 2 hours . I do give creedance to Christopher Nolan his eye to detail, and didn't include audio to outside space travel, just as Stanley Kubrick did for his Space Opera 50 years before, but the overall audience didn't buy that film eithe.Sorry. I give a 6 rating .",
    "79": "Wanted to enjoy this one. I like Matt and Ann... but...The sound was so muffled and badly recorded, I gave up after an hour. I just couldn't; tell a word they were mumbling.Whatever happened to dubbing??",
    "80": "This is first time ever that i claped to a movie, and i mean EVER. This is just incredible. There's no other movie as close. It could easily be the best I've ever seen. Just wow....",
    "81": "This is without exception one of the dumbest films I have ever sat through. Or perhaps it's a masterpiece and I'm too dumb to understand it? Anyway .....Here are some of the things (the list is not exhaustive) that I could not get my head around.There is a catastrophic failure in most of the crops of the world. And the entire scientific community simply shrugs and says, 'Oh well. Dem's the breaks' and does nothing. Seriously? Apart from that one dude in the 'super secret' NASA compound? Okay then.A super intelligent, super advanced alien civilization has been watching us. They see that the planet is in peril. That more than six thousand million people will die from starvation. So they offer a solution. Not by curing the blight mind. No, that would be far too easy.They construct a wormhole (they being five dimensional creatures 'n' all) close to Saturn ('cos Kubrick had already used Jupiter in 2001). The film makes a big deal about corn being the only viable crop still resisting the blight (cornmash beer anybody) but it's only a matter of time before that too succumbs. So It's a matter of great urgency that the astro-heroes get to the ol' wormhole as quickly as possible. So the far side of the Moon would be a handy place to put it. No, no, noooo.They place the wormhole beside Saturn. So distant from Earth that it takes two years just to fly there. And all the while any poor kids unfortunate enough to be called Dusty are getting the crap beaten out of them at Pharming College. Anybody for cornflakes? Now NASA have already explored the wormhole. They know that it opens into another galaxy, beside a black hole and an assortment of potential new worlds. Because of the proximity of the planets to the black hole, time will be distorted and a couple of hours exploring these new worlds will translate to decades back on Earth. While back on ol' Planet earth the corn crops fail and the dust storms gather pace. So this was the plan?By the super intelligent aliens? Is someone taking the p*ss? There were no planets anywhere that were ... um ... NOT right beside a black hole? Super intelligent? Doh! And so finally, after a number of silly subplots, our hero finally descends onto the event horizon of the black hole (My God! It's full of stars?). And experiences time as a physical construct. But is he shown the origin of the blight that is wiping out the planet so that he might alert the scientific community? Hell no. He is shown his daughter's bedroom on the day that he left on his 'weekend getaway.' We see him getting really upset that his daughter isn't picking up on his STAY ...... STAY! gravity assisted message, even though he should remember that she shouted STAY .... STAY! to him on that day, and he left anyway. Sheesh! And Zimmer's soundtrack? I hadn't heard about the soundtrack request came to him via email, without him ever seeing the movie. Explains a lot really. Presumably the email went something like 'If you produce anything orchestral like Kubrick, you're off the project.' So the soundtrack consisted almost entirely of ponderous bass heavy synth driven (in the cinema where I watched it) piercingly loud quasi classical discordance. Bear in mind that Kubrick chose the pieces by Strauss, etc., to assist him in editing the movie,and then realised that they actually fit perfectly, and so discarded the original soundtrack that he had commissioned.Not Nolan.NoSirreeBob! Email it in, Hans.Who listens to the music anyway? Deeply, deeply disappointing.And I loved Inception!",
    "82": "Interstellar by Christopher NollanReviewed by Svetoslav GrigorovFirst, I had to look at the score on www.IMDb.com to confirm that all the rumors were true (9 out of 10): me and Paul were the only ones who didn't like this movie and left 45 minutes before it had finished. Whatever that means I can assure you that I was/am still sober and I am not a zombie like the rest of the crowd in the Kettering Odeon cinema. Secondly, I would like to ask how all these critics made the comparison(s) with Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey and thirdly, please you who now read this review tell me that I am not the only one in my dullest disappointment for the year. Tell me that I haven't lost my marbles, tell me that you were enthralled from this copy of a House On The Prairie and if you think that this is the best movie of your life (or at least 2014), the only answer I can think of is: that's why so many rubbish movies have been released lately. Because the level of the quality has fallen drastically and the conveyor belt of the movie industry is catastrophic for the senses. OK, so straight to the point. First 45 minutes we are introduced to the farming, dust and the coming famine problems, nitrogen on the rise in the atmosphere, Earth is doomed, father and daughter found a super-secret location that NASA strategically placed for their eyes only. We see a lot of corn and even the nineties Children of The Corn was a better shallow slasher while this one turns out to be an American clichéd space marmalade, and my best fitting comparison for it is Armageddon which is not really a movie, but a joke. Wormholes, saving of the human kind, bringing resources, planting/replanting, Plan A /Plan B, frozen embryos to colonize a distant world, overcoming gravity, scientists and even a quantum physics and so much camera- philosophy that Kubrick will turn in his grave, daddy-please-don't-go-to-space-cause –I'm- gonna-cry, bam the watch on the floor (I don't wanna see you anymore), counting while going into the stratosphere, Lego-robot which somehow was better acting than the rest of the actors or at least was more fun. Wait, wait, did I say actors? Matthew McConaughey, Anne Hathaway and Michael Caine (The rest of them are not worth mentioning apart from the crying daughter Murph who did her best job).Matthew McConaughey has one of the most annoying twangs ever and his jaundiced bad- version-face of Paul Newman cannot contribute to any script lately (let's not forget that without the help of Jared Leto and his masterful transformation in The Dallas Buyers Club his Oscar was going to hell). His mumbling could be understood only from the villagers in Kentucky and what he is on about…Seriously, I needed subtitles to comprehend his actor's efforts in such a \"serious\" movie. How serious this movie was! I pushed myself to read couple of the 'serious' critical reviews and they had the audacity to call it \"scientific\"??? Oh man, poor Anne Hathaway who looked sometimes at the camera and was likely apologizing for the mess she was in. I felt sorry for her.The script was the hell of the hells. Such nonsense with no credibility and no creativity at all. Total zero or even below the zero. As I said we left long before the end because my time is precious. I will open Isaac Asimov's (or Stanislaw Lem's) short stories and will be engulfed in characters and situations, so my brain will be given food for thought while all these poor people are going to see Interbol..cks and will be exposed on the radiation of a mediocrity (yes, I felt cheated like someone was trying to insult me). Well, if you who now read this review respect yourself and really like Kubrick, Moon, Gravity (and even Contact) and other good sci-fi don't waste your time and save your money. Today we wasted £40 including the drinks, the popcorn and the tickets and the only thing that I was inspired for was my generated anger for this text. My verdict on the scale from 1 to 10 is to give ONE for the director Christopher Nolan who needs a little encouragement and I am hoping he will not slip into the shoes of M. Night Shyamalan who have crafted a lot of rubbish lately as you know. God forbid that never happens.P.S.Don't tell me that I have sat there for 2 (it's actually 169 minutes) hours of a film and it had a great ending cause I don't want know.",
    "83": "A lot has been said and written about Interstellar. You can obviously take apart any movie that is out there. You'll either love this one or you won't. I kind of would have loved to have watched this on an IMAX screen, the sheer scope of the whole thing. It's just amazing, what Nolan has put on screen here. It's not only the visual experience (there is no 3D here by the way), it's the story/ride you take with it. It might be clear to some earlier than to others, where it's heading (no pun intended), but it doesn't change the fact that it's beautiful ... and terrifying at the same time.Going out and saying this will be considered a classic, might not be too far stretched, but you still can never predict those things. The deserved love the movie gets on IMDb and other places would be an indicator that this will ring true though. The acting is really good, but I can understand if some people have issues with the ending. But the movie had to end in one way or another. It's the best possible way this could go, even if it's not in our grasps just yet ...",
    "84": "Interstellar is a movie like no other. Unlike many apocalyptic sci-fi films that feature advanced technology as the source of our destruction (ala The Terminator movies), it instead asserts that technology will save us.Not everyone in Interstellar recognizes the potential of advanced technology. Most dismiss it as a waste of time and resources, and not just old curmudgeons feel this way. Thoughtful, intelligent young characters share this sentiment. This belief gained steam following a world-wide blight that wiped out the vast majority of life on earth—crops and humans.Farming became paramount while advanced technology was deemed frivolous. Cooper (McConaughey) remains one of the few survivors who still appreciates the need for engineering. He feels like a man lost in time, until he stumbles into the headquarters of NASA (which had been operating in secret due to public disapproval). Here he meets others who realize that a return to our old ways is unsustainable and will ultimately lead to our demise. We need technology to save us. As Michael Caine, playing the brilliant (duh!) Professor Brand, eloquently tells Cooper, \"we were never meant to save the world. We were meant to leave it.\" For a movie that won an Oscar for Best Visual Effects (and deservedly so) the sound stole the show. Hans Zimmer (Dark Knight Trilogy) unleashed a performance that was, quite appropriately, out of this world. Never have I seen a movie elevated so much by its score. The sound literally took my breath away. Forgive me for the next paragraph. I will gush irresponsibly about the magic that is this movie's sound. Skip it if you please. You have your warning.The music fueled every important scene. In every meaningful moment Zimmer's harmonies captivated watchers' attention in the way of a coach commanding a locker room with a pregame speech. The music elucidated those emotional scenes, particularly ones featuring Cooper and his daughter, in a way that no words or visual ques possibly could. I sat frozen, jaw agape, with tears pouring down my cheeks as the music completely overwhelmed my emotions. The sound penetrated my soul and reverberated through my body, flowing to my appendages, supplying me with life like a heartbeat pumping blood through my veins. The music was truly the life force of movie.Yes, we all witnessed a visual triumph, a daring creative wonder the likes of which we haven't encountered since Inception. Yes, nearly every actor's performance proved worthy of commendation. McConaughey is on fire. Chastain is blossoming into a star. At this point Michael Cain exudes such knowledge and wisdom by merely appearing on screen that if he were cast as Albert Einstein, people would wonder if the role were beneath him. All this considered, and the sound still towered over everything.I walked out of the theater believing that I had experienced something unique, something truly special. Interstellar inspires, it awes, and above all it entertains. I cannot ask for more than that.",
    "85": "A team of explorers travel through a wormhole in an attempt to ensure humanity's survival.Going into this I had mixed feelings because some have praised it, others have panned it, and some say it is good with reservations. There were allegedly issues with he sound in theaters, and any number of other issues. Then, when we get to the Oscars, the film gets nominations in the technical fields but not in the top honors.This was wrong. Maybe this is not the best role from Matthew McConaughey or Anne Hathaway. Though, the fact that a \"Hathaway hater\" like myself enjoyed it should say something. And I think Jessica Chastain should have received a Best Supporting nomination. She easily outshines Laura Dern in \"Wild\".This may be the greatest ever film about physics.",
    "86": "(This is both a review of the film, and an assertion of Christopher Nolan's filmmaking style)There have been many reviewers and critics alike that have high praise for the film (the visual effects, the acting, the music), but say how it's not Christopher Nolan's best directed film. This is where i personally would have to disagree. Before i get into it, though, i'll talk about Interstellar a bit.Interstellar is truly a sci-fi epic like no other. To compare said film to '2001: A Space Odyssey' isn't just a disservice, but unnecessary. The films are almost nothing alike, simply sharing small plot elements. Also, Stanley Kubrick's vision of Arthur C. Clarke's sci-fi epic wasn't to ponder the philosophical questions that accompanied the story, but to make art, and art is was, and is. With Interstellar, Mr. Nolan set out to make his most personal and emotional film to date about love and time (time being a recurring theme throughout all of Nolan's films). But it's so much more than that too. There are no words to express the epic journey Nolan takes us on in the film, but needless to say, it's tear-jerking and emotional throughout. The acting is top-notch, especially McConaughey, who gives (I would say) his most emotional performance yet. But the actor who stole the show in a few scenes (one in particular, when they're on an alien planet) was David Gyasi as Romilly, one of the astronauts aboard the Endurance, their spacecraft. The musical score from Hans Zimmer is, without a doubt, his best and most influential work to date, helping drive the film's bold and breath-taking vision (the church organ helped significantly). The visual effects are easily the best to date as well, and of the year. To see a black hole created through visual effects in such a way, with pages theoretical equations provided by Kip Thorne (theoretical physicist, of whom's work inspired the film's genesis); what you see in the film is the most realistic depiction of a black hole, and even offered new insight to accretion discs surrounding the anomalies. But even everything else, from the alien planets to the Endurance, the visuals always look real. Then, there's the writing. I would definitely have to say this has some of the best dialogue i've ever heard in a sci-fi movie, and the script continually pours or oozes emotion, keeping the audience tethered to the film.Now, about Mr. Nolan. Don't just look at Nolan, but look at his films. Some say Inception would be his masterpiece, while others would say it's The Dark Knight, or Memento. But honestly, every single film Christopher Nolan has directed is a masterpiece not of its genre, but of Nolan. Following is his quiet masterpiece, not the film that put Mr. Nolan on the map as a phenomenal director, but one people visited or revisited after becoming accustomed to Nolan, after seeing Memento, what could be called his breakout masterpiece. Then, right after, he directed the remake of the Norwegian thriller, Insomnia. This, too, could be considered a masterpiece, even if a remake. Then, we were given his take on the Batman universe, starting with Batman Begins, the origin masterpiece. Then, there's The Prestige, adapted from the novel of the same name, which can be called his dark masterpiece. The Dark Knight, his bold masterpiece; Inception, his complex masterpiece, and The Dark Knight Rises, his flawed masterpiece. Now, we have Interstellar, his emotional or personal masterpiece.This is just my looking at Nolan and his films, but whatever your thoughts are, you can't deny Interstellar is one hell of a journey. He certainly is one of the best filmmakers of our time, and of all time. I can't wait to see what he does next, but i'm not sure it will be as emotionally powerful as Interstellar.",
    "87": "The fate of humanity rests in the hands of a small number of NASA pilots, who travel through a work hole in search of a new home.I've only watched it for the second time, the first being when it first arrived on the big screen. My opinion hasn't altered since the viewing, it's an epic masterpiece, the story holds up remarkably well, but the acting and visuals all contribute to make this film something very special.The story is remarkably good, it's cohesive, well balanced, it makes sense.Matthew McConaughey's best film role still for me, he's awesome as the lead character, superbly supported by both Anne Hathaway and Michael Caine, it really is a well made epic.The visuals, the special effects are all tremendous, and have held up as the years have gone past, it remains one of the most incredibly beautiful visual films of all time.Epic 10/10.",
    "88": "The film begins by establishing at his own rhythm its ambitions: men overexploited land resources, which is why the only goal they have left is to survive. This life is not enough for Cooper, brilliantly played by McConaughey who gave body and soul to this character. But all of this wouldn't hold without the total control of Christopher Nolan, based on the languishing soundtrack by Hans Zimmer, the luminous and impenetrable photography of Hoyte Van Hoytema, and the sincerity of Nolan's directing. He manages to film the characters and to find the right cut at the right time, always in harmony with Hans Zimmer's soundtrack, to give the film an aspiring and inspiring dimension that went missing for many many years. Thus we are transported into the same cockpit that Cooper, we feel the same remorse that he can already feel, we feel the same gravity, and we feel the same fear of the unknown melted with the force of his will. All of this is brilliantly illustrated in a very simple directing choice, which from my point of view is the decisive impetus of the film: to directly jump from when Cooper leaves in his truck, leaving his family behind him, to Endurance taking off. This simple editing decision allows Nolan to give an original movement to his film, and the musical crescendo makes us physically feel the sentimental break between two parts of the film.You don't necessarily have to understand it immediately : The film will raise questions in you, such as : what is it to be a human being, is there some physical limitations to our humanity, how far could we be willing to go to determine knowledge, is there other dimensions that we can not access to, and above all: what is the nature of this intact and immutable bond that unites us to others wherever we are in the universe ? Is this bond only intelligible, or is it also tangible ? All these questions resonate in harmony in Nolan's Interstellar. Interstellar is itself a crescendo, increasing sensitivity and creativity. I use the term deliberately because it goes crescendo with the soundtrack by Hans Zimmer, which is one of the most beautiful music ever scored for a sci-fi movie. We are witnessing a perfect musical arrangement, a total symbiosis, a bit like the music of Gravity which had understood very well how to match the image and the rhythm of a sequence to its own musicality. Zimmer's crescendos are giving a new powerful breath to every new scene, whether it is in visually powerful & intense moments or in more intimate moments; it intrudes into our momentary feelings and sensations, and manages to extend them, sometimes almost to choking, before resting on the balance of the film frame along with our mind spell-bounded. I have seen all the talent of the director that I knew he was outside the norm, but whom I did not know his capacity to reinvent itself. Because this is it: Interstellar is not an action movie, not really a blockbuster, and it goes not entirely but mostly again the expectations of common people. It's much more than that. This is much more than just a sci-fi movie. It is unlike any of his previous films. Some hoped to see Interstellar as Christopher Nolan's best film, and they were disappointed that this was not the case. And indeed, THIS IS NOT THE BEST FILM of Christopher Nolan. Because in a way, IT IS HIS FIRST FILM. I'm not saying that Interstellar is not as good as his other films, it goes beyond all of them. But to me Interstellar is the first film of a new stage in Nolan's filmography ; it is a masterpiece as it the beginning of a work ahead. Interstellar is the proof that Nolan has finally managed, despite all the expectations that were placed on him after the success of The Dark Knight, to move away from his own reputation to create a personal work, original, humble, sincere and deeply, meticulously, measured.Now, in this third act of the film, it all comes to life with unparalleled strength. Nolan poses and answers questions that raise others. But he focuses his attention on the great mystery of love, that emotional bond that can unite men and sometimes separate them. But Nolan is the only one that can successfully speak of love from a being to another in a film that mainly takes place in a another galaxy. From my point of view, only Solaris by Steven Soderbergh (2002), unfortunately neglected by the audience, was able to accomplish that. Interstellar is based on a premise which is the following : from terrestrial dust to the depths of space and time, we can never be separated from who we are as individuals and as a species, as we always leave a part of ourselves \"behind\" us. In other words, I could say that this is a human story, and even if we go as far as we want to, if we travel through the universe believing that we can be detached of the one we are fond of, we will only get closer to them. Because the separation, and thus the distance and time, can only ultimately reinforce the relationship between the people who really love each other. Because it is going to the end of the world, when we reach the end of ourselves, that we reach the singularity of the \"black hole beyond the horizon\" * : it is our humanity. No, I wasn't been able to find any bad flaws in the film. Not one, and I'm still looking. After all, Interstellar is like gravity, \"all it takes is a little push ! \"*you'll have to see the movie to figure that one out.Félix Tardieu, November 1st, 2014",
    "89": "The key of this movie may feel like you're watching only a Science-Fiction movie. Most of the times Sci-Fi movies are not great at telling an effective, emotional drama stories. You can't find this type of movie easily, unless you are watching a Sci-Fi movie directed by Christopher Nolan and written by Jonathan Nolan.Mixing those two genres is unique and dangerous. All the Nolan's projects are a bit dangerous and special.Not only the storyline is so great but also nearly all other technical details are great!Brilliant scores that composed by Hans Zimmer.The film editing is just beyond perfect. One of the best film editings of all time.The Cinematography by Wally Pfister is quite realistic and charming.The VFX are just stunning. Even the scientist are amazed by how great it is.Some of the people thinks this movie is based on wrong theories, so that makes it a bad movie. As you may know, all the movies are based on wrong things. You are watching a Sci-Fi movie. In being realistic, Sci-Fi movies are just one step ahead of Fantasy. Why would you look for reality in this movies? It's not a crime movie. If people would demand realistic movies, there would be a bigger Documentary sector.The main reason why people think like that is this movie is not only based on wrong theories. It's mixed. Some of the theories are proven, some of them has potential to be true, some of them are not likely true.But you can't make a movie that reflects so effective storyline with only the truth. Even \"Based on A True Story\" movies are so changed to make it more effective. You can't name any Sci-Fi movie that based on all true theories. Other Sci-Fi movies are not explaining the questions at all. And somehow when this movie tries to explain, this movie becames faulty. So better not trying to explain what's going on? In this movie there is no major flaw that you can't ignore. The main story is just so effective and perfect.",
    "90": "Wowser! This Christopher Nolan film was presaged with such marketing hype that I went in with pretty low and cynical expectations. But I was frankly blown away with it.Just about everyone raves about Christopher Nolan's work, and you look back at his Filmography and it makes for a pretty impressive resume: from Memento via the (rather over-hyped imho) Dark Knight Batman series-reboot through to Inception, one of my favourite films of all time. For me, Interstellar is right up there with Inception for thought-provoking, visually spectacular and truly epic cinema.We start in familiar 'Day after Tomorrow\" territory, with mankind having in some way – not entirely explained – messed up the planet. As I understood it (and the film probably does require multiple watches with – see comments below – subtitles=on) the rather clever premise is that the world's food supplies are being progressively destroyed by a vindictive 'blight'. This delivers the double whammy of destroying mankind's provisions but also, by massive reproduction of the organism, progressively depleting the Earth's oxygen. For some reason – again, which I didn't get on first viewing – this is accompanied by massive dust storms. It is a morbid bet as to what is going to get the mid-West population first: starvation, lung disease or suffocation. Matthew McConnaughey plays the widowed Cooper, an ex-NASA drop out turned farmer given the opportunity by mission-leader Professor Brand (an excellent Michael Caine) to pilot a NASA mission. The goal is to punch through a mysterious wormhole in space where they suspect, through previous work, that a new home for mankind could be found.The first part of the film is set on and around Cooper's farm, setting in place one of the emotional wrenches at the heart of the film: that Cooper in volunteering for the mission and having to leave behind his elderly father (John Lithgow, again superb) and young children Murph (aged 10) and Tom (aged 15) whilst recognising that danger for him comes not just from the inherent risks involved but from the theory of relativity that could change everything, time-wise, for when he returns.Cooper is supported on the mission by a team of scientists including Brand's daughter played by a love-struck Anne Hathaway, who again shows she can act.To say any more would spoil what is a voyage of visual and mental discovery. (However, I would add that it is good to see that the character that plays my namesake Dr Mann (in a surprise cameo) is equally good looking! LOL).In terms of plus points, where do I start? The visuals are utterly stunning. Whilst reminiscent in places of Kubrick's \"stargate\" from 2001, the similarity is only passing. The film adds a majesty and scale to space that surpasses wonder. Elsewhere there are some interesting visual effects: this might have just been me of course, but after the dramatic launch there was something about the camera moves during the first scenes of weightlessness that made me feel genuinely nauseous.Equally stunning is Hans Zimmer's score which is epic and (in places) very VERY loud. The film certainly doesn't \"go quietly into the night\"! When matching the noise of the score/choir to the sound effects in the launch sequence the combination is ear-bleedingly effective. This must be a strong contender for the soundtrack Oscar for 2014. One quibble, again 2001 related, is that Zimmer uses the last chord of Also Sprach Zarathustra in the score sufficiently often that one hopes Richard Strauss's estate receives some royalties! The acting is top notch: I've already mentioned Caine and Lithgow, but McConnaughey, Hathaway and Jessica Chastain are all great. A particular shout-out should go to Mackenzie Foy as the young Murph, who is magnetically charismatic and just brilliant in the role.Above all, Nolan's direction is exquisite. The film has a slow build on earth (which adds to the lengthy running time) but defines the characters and primes the plot perfectly. And some of the editing cuts – again, Cooper's farm departure/launch sequence overlay is a great example – are superb in building the mood and the tension.I've decided that I am an extremely tough reviewer and for me a 10 star film is a rarity indeed. Where I could have knocked off a star was in some of the dialogue on the soundtrack, which was pretty inaudible in places: McConnaughey in particular with his general mumbling and strong southern accent is indecipherable in places. I look forward to the DVD subtitles. And one of the character's dying words – delivering a key plot point in the film – was completely lost to me (but thankfully later restated). Whilst the expansive plot is highly ambitious, the end of the film, playing fast and loose with physics I fear, requires a gravity-defying suspension of belief (although I guess the same could equally be said of 2001: A Space Odyssey).However, the film has stayed so firmly lodged in my mind for 24 hours I will make a rare exception to my rating 'rule'. Overall, this is a top-notch Sci-Fi film. And a final word: PEOPLE… THIS IS A MUST SEE ON THE BIG SCREEN! (If you enjoyed this review, please see my archive of previous reviews at bob-the-movie-man.com and sign up for future notifications. Thanks).",
    "91": "Interstellar - ReviewCertain things in life are precious. Very precious. And so was the Film for me.Why you might ask?Well seldom do i get the chance where i find myself sitting in a cinema anxious and intrigued by what might come. In a time where trailers are omnipresent and going to the movies without having seen one seems unreasonable, outright stupid to some i had the magical chance to find myself in front of the IMAX on a cold November night with 2 tickets to Interstellar. My only knowledge was that Nolan directed it and McConaughey stars in it.The images were brilliant the acting was top notch and everything was blended together by Hans Zimmer and his Music. 169 minutes flew by me with my eyes fixed on the screen and my heart racing. And there it was.. The ending. I couldn't believe it . I was reliving, rethinking the movie while the credit scenes rolled enjoying the moment, the smell of popcorn, my comfortable seat and what do i see next to me? Ninety percent of the people in the cinema rushing outside after the first second of the credit scenes. .. .Well apparently people enjoy movies different than i do. Maybe i should start watching trailers again :).",
    "92": "Interstellar is a science fiction film co-written and directed by Christopher Nolan (Inception, Batman: The Dark Knight etc.) and starring Matthew McConaughey. I found it absolutely amazing, rarely do I use a word like 'spellbinding' to describe a movie but I really do feel like Interstellar is well worthy of it. Matthew McConaughey was excellent as well. He really shows the great emotional range he has as an actor.The story is about a group of explorers, led by former pilot and engineer Cooper (Matthew McConaughey), who embark on a journey through a newly discovered wormhole near the planet Saturn. Their main mission is to save humanity from extinction by an environmentally devastated Earth.The film was not only beautiful to look at, but it was very well written too. However, like with Inception, you REALLY need to pay attention to pretty much everything that happens to fully understand what is going on. It's difficult for me to go into too much detail without giving away important plot points so you'll just have to see for yourself.I rate it a very high 9.5/10 and I highly recommend it to any fan of Christopher Nolan and anyone who enjoys intelligent science fiction. I personally consider it one of the best and most thought provoking science fiction films I've ever seen.",
    "93": "This film tells the story of an ex-pilot in a world full of dust storms. He is chosen to travel to the uncharted parts of the space in search for a new habitable planet.\"Interstellar\" is a long film, and the first two hours of it does not seem like a typical Christopher Nolan film. Most of the scenes are (literally) down to Earth, with no fancy visual effects. It spends much time building up the story, telling the story of a father and his daughter who sees 'ghost' in her bedroom. Through this ghost, one thing led to another, and the man is in space. When the film is not down on Earth, it looks more like a disaster film. The first adventure is a spectacular feat involving water. It also introduces the physics of relativity, on how time slows down in another world, leading to a misguided decision of the astronauts in retrospect. This sets the foundation for future plot involving more relativity.As the film progresses, there is more adventure, both in the form of adrenaline pumping adventure and humanity and integrity testing conditions. Matt Damon's character forms a central subplot that makes me reflect on what lengths would people go in order to achieve a certain goal. It reflects on the reality that people are driven by egocentric instincts. It is not a pretty truth, but it tells that human are not idealistic creatures.The final half an hour is what a typical Christopher Nolan film is like. It makes me hold my breath because it is so intense, both emotionally and cognitively. The ending gives me inexplicable exhilaration. Things come to a full circle, and it is filled with joy.It is not a film for everyone, as the story is long and takes a lot of time to build. Two people walked out of the cinema an hour into the film, and someone sitting behind me remarked after the film ended that he opined it was the most boring Christopher Nolan film ever. For me, I enjoyed \"Interstellar\" thoroughly, because it is emotionally captivating and intellectually challenging.",
    "94": "I have been a cinema lover for years, read a lot of reviews on IMDb and everywhere, and never found the right movie to write my first review. I always thought I would wait for THE movie.And this is IT!When I first heard that Nolan was preparing a sci-fi movie, I felt like a kid again, waiting for his Christmas gift under the tree. I knew it would become a classic. And I'm sure it will.First of all, it is incredibly beautiful to watch. Honestly, it was so beautiful that I felt like I was sucked into the movie. The way Nolan decided to show some scenes really remind me of 2001 A Space Odyssey (actually many things will probably remind you of this movie). We can feel the talent of Christopher Nolan, just by looking at the way it is filmed. The techniques he used contribute to create that visual environment in a believable way.The sound environment is just mesmerizing. It is a very important part of the movie, because some scenes take place in space, and Noland just found the right way to use sound. The soundtrack (made by the great Hans Zimmer) is breathtaking, epic, amazing, unreal. I could find a lot more adjectives to qualify it, but you have to hear it to understand how epic they are. These two important parts (image and sound) create a stunning atmosphere. You will forget you are in a movie theater, and you will be lost in space, sucked into the adventures of this new Space Odyssey, begging for more. It is a truly unique experience. I can say that I have never felt something like that in a movie theater (at least not for the past ten years).Then, of course, the cast. First of all, Matthew McConaughey. I discovered this actor in Tropic Thunder, but he didn't really convince me, though he was quite funny. Then I saw Dallas Buyers Club. Since that movie, I love him. In this movie... Well, he is the movie. I exaggerate a bit, since there are other great actors (some even unexpected with a special guest) who play extremely well. But he is just what was needed to feel the human part of the story (which is very important in Interstellar). He is capable of making us feel so many different emotions all along the story, as a father, as a human. Anne Hathaway was very convincing, all together the actors managed to create some harmony, which makes the human interactions credible. Caine, Chastaing and Affleck are a perfect choice. And then there is... The special guest, I will call him \"X\". His role, which could be seen as a minor role, is actually much more important than that. He proves, once again, that he is a great actor. Watch and see.And finally, the scenario/story. I won't spoil anything here; I'll just try to convince you how great it is. Nolan is known to revolutionize everything when he tries a new genre in cinema. Well, once again he did it. With The Dark Knight he revolutionized the superhero genre. With Interstellar he's revolutionizing the sci-fi genre in cinema. From what I heard, he worked with a physicist (in gravitational physics and astrophysics) to help him with that movie. And we can feel and see it. During the fifties, Asimov laid the foundations of modern science fiction. Lucas and Kubrick did the same in cinema. Today, Nolan is laying the new foundations of the genre in cinema, proving that cinema is still at the beginning of what can be done (brace yourselves my friends, we have not seen anything yet). Why? Well, simply because we only know a few things about space, some things can't be proved for the moment, so we can use theory, and make the best of it. That is exactly what Nolan did. He used theories that exist today, and made a movie about mankind, about pioneers, about humanity, about us.Because, in spite of all the sci-fi aspect, it is a story about humanity. McConaughey, Hathaway, and mainly \"X\", will managed to convince you about that.My rating for this movie can only be a 10, because in itself, it is a beginning for a new kind of cinema. It IS a classic. Those who say \"we can't compare this movie to 2001 Space Odyssey, nor can we compare Nolan to Kubrick\" are wrong. We can, and we should. Talented people don't live only in the past, some genius live today, among us. And Nolan is one of them. Many say that he is overrated. I truly don't think so. Only time will answer that.This is the sci-fi movie of the decade, and probably the best movie Nolan ever made. Just go for it, without a second thought.",
    "95": "This is a movie with plenty of things going for it. Great performances, incredible visual effects, an interesting story, and tons of really cool concepts, which make for a few genuinely powerful scenes, However, that doesn't make it the flawless masterpiece of cinematic genius everybody is labeling it as. There are tons of people giving this movie 10/10 ratings, leading to a user rating of 8.7, and it is now #29 on the IMDb top 250. WOW! That is a lot of praise! On the top 250, \"Interstellar\" is above \"Casablanca\", \"Raiders of the Lost Ark\", \"Psycho\", \"Apocalypse Now\", and \"CITIZEN KANE\"! According to the users on IMDb, this movie's better than \"Citizen Kane\", which has been known as possibly the greatest film of all time!Is is better than \"Citizen Kane\"? No, not even close. The film is full of flaws, the biggest being the runtime. I may never see this movie again because of how long it felt! It feels like a lot of scenes are unneeded, and were made just so the movie could be longer, because Christopher Nolan wanted to make it seem really epic. I'm sure if Nolan cut a huge chunk of the movie out, it would've been better. A film by Nolan that is better than this one is \"The Dark Knight\", which has a somewhat long runtime, but it feels way shorter than it's runtime, and is extremely entertaining throughout. \"Interstellar\" is so long that it starts to really drag on and, at times, I began to just zone out.The film is also a bit too dramatic. The dialogue about how \"love conquers all\" seemed very unnecessarily corny, as well as a few other select scenes in the movie. However, some sequences were quite powerful, especially the ending, which, actually, was kind of creepy. The concept of time was very prominent throughout the film, and it lead to some pretty creative and powerful sequences.Overall, the film is recommended, but you should be warned that this movie was LOOOOOOOONG!!!!!!",
    "96": "Love is the one thing that transcends time and space... New creation of Christopher Nolan's genius, whose name is now known to everyone. His films are waiting with a special look, because it offers something that every day, unfortunately, less and less can be found in the world of mass cinema - an interesting spectacle, filled with meaning, ideas and emotions. At this time, Christopher decided to send us not to the world of dreams, and even not on the dark streets of Gotham City. No, now he send us to the journey to, and perhaps beyond the boundaries of the possible and impossible, through the curvature of space and time, in other worlds. And you won't forget this trip, this can be assured. I was madly waiting for Interstellar's release. And then, finally, I was able to see this Beauty - at the premiere in my coutry on October, 29. It was incredibly exciting. It was a delight. It was unforgettable. It was gorgeous. Nolan once again amazes the viewer's imagination by his painting. Journey to the brink of infinity, the line where humanity has never set, acts as either the first-born purpose and a background of emotional history about the father and the daughter. A loving father who mankind need to help, but that he should leave his children, and a loving daughter who doesn't want to let her dad in the infinity darkness. Starting from the very first frame and ending with the closing credits, a new picture of Nolan will absorb you completely, forcing stare at the screen during the whole action, because it's all so exciting and interesting that escape becomes physically impossible. No, this three hours won't fly quickly for you. You'll feel every emotion, every event, every character. You will not look how the main characters travel through the universe, because the movie experience in this film is so excellent that you will be on board of \"Endurance\" starship and travel between the worlds with the main characters by yourself.The emotional core of this story is the relationship of Matthew McConaughey's character and his daughter - Mackenzie Foy' and Jessica Chastain' character. And the acting work of these three artists in \"Interstellar\" impress the most. McConaughey was acting really great, and this is one of the most emotional, if not the most emotional role of his life. All the drama and tragedy of the relationship of father and daughter in this film will not leave anyone indifferent. Anne Hathaway, Wes Bentley, Michael Caine, Casey Affleck, Ellen Burstyn and other actors also coped with their roles and presented the film's supporting characters very realistic. I would particularly like to note a small but important in this story role of Matt Damon, a character who has received quite memorable. If we talk about the characters, it should be noted also two robots that accompanied our heroes in this difficult journey. One of them adds a touch of humor in the film, which mitigates constantly depressing, dramatic, and sometimes really dark atmosphere.The script of the film is very well combined the history of space exploration and the relationship between Cooper and Murph. The story is complex and complicated, is based on real scientific theories by Kip Thorne, and indeed contains a reference to the \"Space Odyssey\" and other sci-fi pictures. This story about true love, about loyalty, forgiveness, fraud, hard decisions, and much more. And it is designed so that leaves a lot of room for the imagination of the viewer. It's also possible to notice some structure allusion to another Nolan's work - Inception. The story and visuals are combined just perfectly in Interstellar.Hans Zimmer's score, written by him on the basis of only one letter from Nolan, hold the key: \"Once we become parents, we can't help but look at ourselves through the eyes of our children\", deserves a special praise. On this basis, Hans managed to write just incredible soundtrack that perfectly harmonizes with the history and the visual side of the picture. And this work of the composer is really different from the previous ones. It is executed in a different style from another subject in its base. Very impressive work, which will be pleasantly listened again and separate from the film itself. Visual range of the picture is incredibly beautiful and circuses. The \"Endurance\" itself, new worlds, insanely beautiful and mysterious space, wormholes, black holes, and travel through them, folds of time and space are arranged so that is simply breathtaking. I would like to thank all those who contributed to the creation of a visual of this film. It must be seen. That mastery with which this is done, not just words. In the visual pattern also has some references to the Kubrick's \"Odyssey\", and they are pleasing to the eye.Many thanks to Christopher Nolan for having given us such an incredible movie, which once again proved to us that the cinema is Nolan's life. \"Interstellar\" is a film that wins the hearts of the audience not only with its sci-fi splendor, but also an emotional story that lies at its very heart. This film is not only about the discoveries, space exploration and the final frontier of mankind, but also about the relationship of father and daughter, who were in a difficult situation in life when one has to leave the other in the name of a goal that can not be underestimated. So, with what Nolan's genius unfolds before us this action is beyond praise. Combining the story, filled with not only real science fiction, but the true human values ​​and emotions, outstanding and very emotional performances, breathtaking visuals, epic and dramatic soundtrack, Christopher Nolan breathed the life into this film by his directing to create something truly masterpiece again. \"Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night... Rage, Rage Against The Dying Of The Light.\"",
    "97": "\"We're still pioneers. We've barely begun. Our greatest accomplishments cannot be behind us because our destiny lies above us.\" Mankind has finally used up all of Earth's resources and it has become a dying planet. When Cooper (McConaughey) and his daughter stumble upon a secret outpost that contains the remnants of NASA they are told of the seriousness of the problem facing humanity. Cooper is a former astronaut and is given the responsibility of traveling into space to find a habitable planet for the human race. I have been writing these little reviews for almost 5 years now and for the most part I have found it easy to talk about every movie. This one I can't seem to find the right words for. The reason has less to do with my vocabulary and more to do with the awesomeness of the movie. There are some movies that words just cannot do justice to. The last one I felt that way about was The Passion Of The Christ. This is a movie you want to tell everyone about but no matter what you say it's just not enough. I loved Gravity and this was 1,000 times better. Overall, really nothing I can say about this movie other than watch it. Christopher Nolan is a genius. I easily give this an A+",
    "98": "This movie requires blind faith in theoretical physics as much as religion requires blind faith.And I'm not talking mainstream blind faith - I'm talking Mormon/Scientology levels of blind faith.The best one can do is just watch it as a film, and not get caught up in the science, or lack there of.As a film, they spend WAY too much time with the family in the beginning. Time that should have been dedicated to the actual space travel.A very slow burn, but the acting is great.A serious lack of explanation for things they want you to swallow for the story to make sense.I give it a one time watch value of 7; with a rewatch value of 4.Together - a 6.Decent, but the hype around this film makes no sense; almost as much as the 'science' involved.",
    "99": "The Earth in the near future is a shell of what it used to be. The plant life is dying. The very soil that used to sustain it is destroying it. There are some underground efforts headed by Prof. Brand (Michael Caine) called Lazarus to find an alternative world to settle in somewhere out there in the vast reaches of space. Three such potential worlds have been found beyond a black hole near Saturn.Cooper (Matthew McConaughey) is a retired NASA engineer who had been chosen to pilot this effort to seek out and investigate these alternative planets. Despite the stiff objections of his 10-year old daughter Murphy (Mackenzie Foy), he accepts the mission and lifted off together with his crew of three scientists, Amelia (Anne Hathaway), Doyle (Wes Bentley) and Romilly (David Gyasi). From there, we are brought on an unparalleled adventure of space, time and humanity by a master who is probably the most mentally-challenging writer and director in the film industry today, Christopher Nolan. Front and center in this spectacular sci-fi film is the timeless bond between a father and his daughter. The poetic story he has written is multi- layered and emotional, despite its scientific jargon and bleak settings.As with his other projects, Nolan works with some of the best technical talents, many of whom are award-winners in their fields. Everyone on this team are guaranteed at least Oscar nominations for their work in this film, and they may in fact all actually win.Film editor Lee Smith, sound engineers Gregg Landaker and Gary Rizzo and musical scorer Hans Zimmer together effectively create excitement and drama. The cinematography of Hoyte van Hoytema is breathtaking especially in those wide landscape shots, both on earth and on those other planets. The visual effects are innovative as ever, particularly in the third act where a whole new dimension was created. Production designer Nathan Crowley had some nifty ideas for his futuristic props. The circular design of the mother ship Endurance was beautiful in its symmetry. The designs of the robotic sidekicks TARS and CASE are in no way similar those in Star Wars. Matthew McConaughey continues his streak of acting excellence which was just capped by an Oscar earlier this year. Michael Caine was as good as he could be expected to be. However, I found his final speech too garbled to be understood well, and it contained an important plot point. Anne Hathaway's role is a bit of a puzzle for me. While she was actually managed to be credible as a scientist, she had a rather cheesy monologue that seemed out of place when it was delivered.Three talented actresses portray the character of Murphy Cooper at different ages: Mackenzie Foy, Jessica Chastain and Ellen Burstyn. Foy goes way beyond what she was required to do in her two previous hit films the \"Breaking Dawn\" films and \"The Conjuring\". Chastain is such a riveting presence as ever, and it was good to see her again after her long break after \"Zero Dark Thirty\" and \"Mama.\". Oscar winner Burstyn's singular big scene made me tear up.In the second hour, I was surprised to see a special, heretofore uncredited, big name guest star portray one of the pioneer Lazarus astronauts, Dr. Mann. This was more than a mere cameo appearance, as his character had a critical role to play in one of the many twisting episodes of this story.From \"Memento\", then \"The Prestige\" to \"Inception\", Nolan had gone for the extremes in terms of plot development. His work is not always easily comprehended on first watch. They are thought-provoking and demanding in terms of a viewer's patience and concentration. \"Interstellar\" joins this stellar list, and we are brought to yet another dimension of time and space. 10/10.",
    "100": "Not so much film as much as strange milestone for Hollywood.With A-List stars and a final running length of about 3 hours.This in an age where Hollywood is so desperate for profit and fast turnover that even TV shows have more commercials and less content.How is this possible? Easy answer: Nolan Brothers. Look in a mirror, say those names 7 times quickly, the Hollywood Rule Book disappears.The bizarre length effectively gives the viewer not one but three entirely separate movies joined only by the title.This reviewer in particular was gob-smacked by the first movie, effectively from the beginning until the space flight, and wanted to jump to an alternate universe where the whole movie took place in that small town, post-apocalyptic setting. With the dust. And stray drones. And the school teachers who taught that the trip to the moon was just propaganda.I cannot over-emphasize how strange this is. Even though that was not the point of the film, I suggest the production company unintentionally created (in that first hour) the best sci-fi future-world ambiance in the history of film; and, unaware of what they had accidentally done, they just moved on.BTW, a number of futurists have said that in the early part of the 21st century the odds favor at least one major volcano going \"super,\" or blowing for extended days or weeks. This will place ash/dust in the air will will cover the planet. Until this film, I never saw the image of what this might look like. Now I know. Wow.) The second film is like every Star Trek film you have ever seen, but by way of Stanley Kubrick. Not bad, but nowhere near as much fun as the first portion, Another really really cool thing is the robot that resembles one of those ladder kits you buy at Home Depot, that can form a variety of shapes. Ultra cool.Until you finally get to the third and final movie (or Act) which is meant to have profound spiritual implications but in reality only works if you have been paying careful attention for the first two and a half hours…. Which is itself a strange contradiction.But the whole film is full of contradictions. There is an Epilogue too (following the unstated theme of three Acts and an Epilogue). It is fun, it is moving, it connects with the viewer, and it makes no sense at all. There are plot holes in the Epilogue that you could lose a Black Hole in. Joke intended.So, there you go, one of the oddest and most contradictory films of all time.Oh, don't even bother trying to figure out how a society that can develop AI to a degree beyond anything ever seen in film before (the Costco ladder people) still has teachers that dispute the Moon Landing and doctors who can't deal with a cough.As I keep saying, a very strange movie.But a very powerful one*** REVIEW UPDATED OCT 2016****Greetings from the year 2016. For those reading this from the far future when everyone who wishes it has instant access to the IMDb database, probably beamed right into the cortex, I am updating my review with this addenda: I confess I missed the point of the film on first viewing. After all, this is a Nolan Bros 3 hr opus which, sadly, never really achieved a proper audience and now is more or less lost to time, much like the characters in the story. On second viewing, I \"got\" that this is basically a love story set against a sci-fi backdrop. The love of a father for his daughter, the growth of Man to a new dimensional experience where love itself is quantifiable - these are amazing concepts and this is an amazing movie.",
    "101": "You would think the story is adventurous, exciting, beautiful! Its not at all what I had hoped. It is slow, dark as a black hole, loud as an old Barton Theater Organ playing Fugue in D Minor interesting as a litter box. The story is thin.....I can't blame the actors, the entire plot is pretty simple. Can't inhabit earth, find somewhere else to live. Interstellar is a repeat of time continuum stories you have heard or seen before, I wont spoil it, but it's all been told before. Dialog is dreary, slow, ponderous. The comparison to 2001 is preposterous. The wonder and awe of 2001 and other movies before it was it had never been done it was the first. 2001 was all done without the advanced technology we have in computer imagery we have today. 2001 was a pioneering effort. This is not at all pioneering, inventive or surprising if you read science fiction at all. The imagery is not all that unique or impressive. The constant thumping and droning of background music was mind numbing. Most of the show I was trying to nod off, but for the LOUD THEATER ORGAN playing in the background I probably would have. I have to agree with some of the reviewers who thought the whole show was ridiculous and in some ways they are right. Somehow science has advanced enough to create interstellar space travel but not far enough to build power cells, clean power, they are still burning fossil fuels. The robots are Lego like, silly looking clunks of stainless steel....it is all so ridiculous. I would not call this HORRIBLE or AWFUL I have seen some real stinkers over the years. Interstellar is not so ridiculous it is a parody of a good movie it is just not a great movie some had hoped it to be.",
    "102": "I have to begin this review by acknowledging that I saw this movie under less than optimal conditions - on the screen on the back of a Jet Blue seat. Whatever visual magic might have impressed me was grainy and small, and the sound was murky. There's a good chance I would have liked this film better if seen properly.That being said, I probably wouldn't have liked it a *lot* better, because the things I didn't like would have been the same.First off, I thought the movie was off to a real slow start. It was basically a dust bowl family saga, and while I'll admit you needed some context for what happens later, it felt like it went on much too long.The early space experience also didn't engage me that much. Part of the problem might just be my expectations for a Christopher Nolan movie. I knew almost nothing about this film going in, but I think of Nolan as the director of Inception and Memento, and Interstellar was just so darn straightforward (at least at first).Eventually (the movie is almost three hours, so it really takes its time) the film's more intriguing ideas appear, such as the trickiness of relative time. The movie also becomes more eventful. Yet still there were things I found offputting; the first death in the movie makes no sense; it shouldn't have happened, and realistically wouldn't have. (Later I read a critique that pointed out that the whole scene wouldn't have happened that way unless everyone involved was an idiot.) The movie did, become more engrossing as it got more involved, playing with its time concept and tossed in some interesting twists and suspenseful moments. Alas, whatever gains the movie had made in my heart were squandered in the end. Apparently the movie had a scientist to make sure the science was good, and perhaps it was, yet to me the final part seemed incredibly silly, with way too much leaning on non-science things like intuition. And the last scenes were just .... huh? (Although someone in the IMDb board came up with a very Christopher Nolan interpretation of the end that I found more appealing.)As I say, if I'd seen it on the big screen I might have been more forgiving of its flaws, and it's very possible things like the reportedly hardcore seriousness with which it approached getting the look of a black hole just right would have made its length and plot weaknesses more palatable. But even saying that, I cannot see any way this movie would ever impress me as much as it has others.",
    "103": "A lot of mistaken pop science and poor attention to details makes this film a dumbing experience. Films based in history, biography and science need both the writers and viewers to do the hard work of reading the appropriate research so that we are bettered by the film experience. Director's/producers need to pay attention to detail for excellence. As follows: 1. Blight is usually strain or variety specific and is easily constrained by climate variability and solved easily with cross or genetic breeding. Source and type of blights was never explained probably because it just can't happen the way depicted. 2. Dust storms would be limited to a few limited environs and would soon hit bedrock. Besides, crop rotation and contouring should have solved that problem. 3. Drone was suppose to have been aloft for years using solar panels, but no solar panels visible. Propulsion was? 4. The pulp fiction fable of no Apollo/non-moon landing event is not taken seriously by anyone who is a middle school graduate. 5. McConaughey did his famous finger rubbing thinking prior to kicking a tire but what makes no sense is how kicking a tire makes a vehicle functional. 6. Movie relied on an excessive amount of loud tonal sound effects to create drama when writing and acting just not up to the task. 7. Communicating in barcode or Morse is not how any intelligent future beings would rely on. And, later the gravity–quantum equations coming from the future in Morse which doesn't have Calc encodings. Certainly not through watch hand movement. 8. Female role model in Hathaway was cast for smile/looks not for contributing anything believably intelligent. 9. Dad, Dr. Brand, also poorly cast only for accent and stereotyped science look. 10. Dropping bombs on starving people was presented as a solution – that sounded really ridiculous. 11. Looking for new Earth in another Galaxy when your own offers millions of possibilities is like looking for new home on the other side of the planet when one just like it is next door. 12. The energy required to open or even enter a wormhole would be equivalent to the total of our Sun's output for a thousand years. Also, if you can place it next to Saturn then why not closer like next to Mars to make transporting humanity easier. 13. The wormhole as well as the blackhole would shed matter to subatomic particle size. Communicating through a wormhole. Whoever wrote that has no idea of the scale of problems. 14. Speaking of Mars it can be terraformed with a few H-bombs to release CO2 to warm the planet thus melting subsurface ice to give H20 thus oxygen. 15. Turning on and off hibernation is not like opening the fridge; too many opportunities to damage cells. 16. Underground centrifuge space station was constructed of massive concrete which has only compressive strength not tensile strength. 17. Centrifuge center had a Saturn type rocket (100m high) which when blasts off should destroy that whole complex. In reality a complex that large and built underground would bankrupt half the world. 18. Those quantum gravity equations would not fit on that small blackboard. And, why are they using a blackboard in a tech world capable of traveling easily through space? Surely they must have at least an iPad! 19. So, not explained was how love brought Cooper through multiple dimensions (possibly Universes) to the exact correct time & space that Murph happened to occupy. Probably because the writer couldn't. 20. TARS sounded military dumb and those legs are not designed for surviving uneven surfaces without damage, let alone running. 21. The film's ending of throwing papers, the Eureka and the anonymous kiss was typical Hollywoodish. 22. Ranger view of Earth did not show a devastated planet but normal cloud cover; normal water and land color. 23. Five dimensional space-time is decades old-hat. Seven, nine and for the past dozen years; eleven dimensions is now the most likely mathematical construct. Remember that's all this is - a construct. 24. The effort to push books off a shelf would either be equally the same in all dimensions or not possible so that extra effort shown was just dramatic invention. 25. The interweaving of 1990s cars and other old tech, such as lap tops, all simultaneous with space vehicles & stations not yet achievable for several more decades, didn't make sense - incongruous. 26. The alternate Earth being made habitable by altering some made-up chemistry between chlorine and ammonia and their relation to N2 didn't make planetary chemistry sense, especially since such a planet would be hundred thousand times more rare than the more abundant habitable planets; also most likely more than a -100 degrees below zero. Conclusion: So many holes in this film that only a worm would love.",
    "104": "This is a good sci-fi tale, if you can manage to sit for almost 3 hours, about a mission to save the planet from some disaster (either global warming, dust bowls, or whoever wins the next presidential election). Matthew McConaughey heads the mission, along with Anne Hathaway and a few others I hadn't seen before. They also have a neat robot named TARS. They fly off to find some previous scientists, who have entered a black hole and settled on several worlds possible for human habitation. Matt Damon plays one of the scientists.You have to like black holes, relativity, and the fifth dimension (not the pop group) to appreciate this. I didn't know a thing about this film beforehand, so it was a nice surprise to see Michael Caine pop up. And when William Devane showed up, I instinctively blurted out \"What's in your safe?\"The special effects are fine, but the characters are more interesting, and you do want to see how the situations get resolved. McConaughey is good, but he mumbles on occasion, which drives me nuts. I liked the music score, but at times it drowned out the actors.",
    "105": "The film outright fails for me, because it's about all the vital stuff in life, love, loss and new discovery as each one nested in the capacity of our minds for vision. But Nolan is a logician, a geometer who has to know everything in his narrative world in advance before he can construct it. So he doesn't get any of it in an intuitive way, an allusive way, a fluid way for appearances to suggest things.He cites Zerkalo as influence, next of course to 2001, a masterwork with an elusive logic, not wholly tractable, not complete, not causal, a spontaneous capacity for images and connections between them. But he does the opposite, 2001, something tractable, complete, causal, not spontaneous. Logical.(Cool tidbit. One of the great discoveries of the past century is a limit in formal logic that implies there's more that is true than provable in a given system, something that every aware creative person knows intuitively, axiomatically to be true. I like to think this is why Malick abandoned philosophy for the cinema, proof for expression. Flipped around it means that if you stick to what is strictly provable within your narrative you must miss out on some expressible truth.)This logic screams at me in one particular strand of plot, the ghostlike presence in the girl's bedroom, at first mysterious, but it's actually Nolan's way of creating the explanation of what he's going to do inside the black hole, which is his way of creating the metaphor about love as a powerful force. How? An actual force that transcends spacetime! (Btw, all that fuss about a renowned physicist assisting the production and they go ahead and film all that black hole stuff?)In other words the only way he can create metaphor is by having it be a plot device, so that the profundity of what happens to us must be accompanied by its narrative explanation; it only succeeds in reducing the intuitions we have (about love, connectedness etc). What's left is Nolan's own journey in space towards images that expand understanding. This would be his most ambitious so far. Does he do anything interesting? The Dustbowl interviews show he wanted a more grounded approach, a good idea to start among cornfields. Better action than before. But still unimaginative.A big indication for me was the scene after Coop wakes up from cryosleep and checks his messages from Earth; an entire life has gone by, and among all the possible images that Nolan could have put there to evoke that life, in a time when so much of our vision is mobile and we carry with us cameras everywhere (even more so in that near future), he gives us static monologues before a desk. The same teary tone. What a tragedy of inexpression! The mind at play here is like the spectral Coop trapped in that boxed space behind bookshelves and able to see only loops.Nolan gambled here of course, tried to elevate himself to more than contraptions; failed. It turns out he can only roar about that night which great filmmakers gently recall without explaining. Why this man is held in high esteem in a medium that should celebrate visual ability while a modern calligrapher like Shunji Iwai is an unknown says it.",
    "106": "The plot is pretty standard, nothing new at all if you've read enough SF classics. The male cast is good, the adult female cast is awful, a small number of scenes are impressive, the so-called music reminisces of chalk on a blackboard, but all that doesn't matter because...YOU CAN'T HEAR ANYTHING WHEN PEOPLE TALK. Hum, sorry, I was saying that the sound department was run by either a deaf or retarded person. And so is Mr Nolan, who possibly didn't bother checking his final product. The thing that passes for music is that loud. Reading lips sometimes help, but half the talking is through radio anyway, so good luck with that.That's when I realise that Nolan can't actually tell a story through pictures. In many scenes, what is shown is severely shifted from what should be seen, and I would really need the dialogue to explain what is happening, but I can't decipher it because, you know, idiots at the helm. In the same vein, there are quite a lot of inconsistencies and silly concepts. And maybe the writer did come up with acceptable vocal explanations, but I'll never know, because a monkey spilled the background soundtrack all over the track I wanted to hear, and nobody cleaned it up.During the projection, I was seriously and increasingly getting angry at the technical lousiness. That's a first. Hollowood has reached new levels of incompetence.Save your time and money for something made by caring professionals.",
    "107": "With Earth running out of resources, astronauts make a last-ditch attempt at locating other habitable planets within reach. This is possible via a wormhole, of unknown origin. And it *has* to work.At its core, this is about the love between a father, Coop(McConaughey, an everyday man with vital experience and a good team leader), and his daughter, Murph(Chastain, independent and as stubborn as he is). This is simultaneously its greatest strength and weakness. Everything we are excited about rides, to some extent, on us, and them, caring about both of them, and what they share. Thus, we never stop caring, and it enhances all the thrilling space adventures(almost exclusively grounded in reality, and the best theories), where the mastery of movement(or relative stillness) of the camera and the volume of the soundtrack(and sometimes deafening silence) builds tension to its breaking point, and, crucially, never beyond it. And unfortunately, this emotional grounding does eventually lead to some sappy sentimentalism.The ending will divide audiences. This owes a great, and openly acknowledged, debt to Kubrick's 2001, but it isn't a mere tribute to that, and to exploration of the stars and what that can bring, the latter of which it seeks to encourage a return to. It goes different places, and the third act will be long debated, as it deserves. The humor is well-integrated, not distracting and it eases us out of what would otherwise be relentless and unbearable heaviness. All of the effects are amazing, and the technology compelling. Watch this in the theater, it is made very much for that, as far as the visual and audible experience. The 2 hour and 45 minute running time, and that's not counting the closing credits, will scare some off, and it is perhaps too long.There is some disturbing content and a little moderate language in this. I recommend it to everyone who doesn't outright hate Nolan… it is very much one of his films, for better as well as worse, however, even with the hokey aspects, this is one you shouldn't miss. 8/10",
    "108": "Every generation of movie goers sees one film, maybe two, that changes the game for them. It becomes a signature moment that they remember years to come. They remember where they saw it, who they saw it with, even where they were sitting. Christopher Nolan has proved to be a film maker who works best with a big canvas, and he has never been given a canvas bigger than the one he used for his latest film, \"Interstellar\". I feel I can't even call going to see a Nolan piece a movie but more like an \"event\". For the average movie goer, they most likely aren't familiar with the directors of the films they're seeing but most know Nolan. Most know of Nolan because he has made some of the biggest, thrilling, and thought provoking films of the past decade from the Dark Knight trilogy to Inception.It's almost not worth trying to do a plot synopsis of \"Interstellar\" because it is difficult to try to condense the happenings in a film this huge because I know that I will leave out something big. Anyway, the film takes place in a potentially not-too-distant future where the earth has become unable to produce all but a few crops and it will get to a point where none will be able to grow and man will die out. In comes an engineer/pilot/father Cooper (Matthew McConaughey) who is entrusted to be part of a space expedition to venture beyond a newly discovered wormhole to try and find a new planet capable of inhabiting the human race. Astronauts from previous missions have supposedly landed and have been sending signals for them to come.McConaughey has always had that \"movie star\" potential and I think this is the film that puts him in that title. This was a truly star making role due to the size of the film and I honestly believe he is the only man who could have done it. \"Interstellar\" was originally supposed to be done by Steven Spielberg before he dropped out and Nolan stepped in. Nolan, clearly influenced by past Spielberg films like \"Close Encounters of the Third Kind\" and \"Jaws\", puts McConaughey in a role in the same vein as Richard Dreyfuss in \"Close Encounters\" or Roy Schneider in \"Jaws\". They needed an actor who could be looked at as an everyday guy who is experiencing incredible circumstances and McConaughey is able to display the emotion required for a man who has to drop everything, including his family whom he knows he may not see again, and try to save the human race. You can see it in his eyes and hear it in his voice and your heart breaks and lifts with his simultaneously. This isn't necessarily a role that wins Oscars but it should be.The effects are obviously amazing. This, much like \"Gravity\" last year, is a film that needs to be seen on the big screen, especially in IMAX. This, along with the haunting score of frequent Nolan collaborator Hans Zimmer, almost transports you to that necessary place that makes the events happening on screen seem possible. Kind of piggy backing off of that point, there will be those who will trash the film for \"the science isn't accurate\". Those comments are nonsense because no matter what \"science\" tells us, there is just no way for us to actually comprehend what is beyond a wormhole or what would happen if we attempted to go through one. Could we really transcend time and space? Would we discover new worlds and new civilizations? Impossible for us to say at this point, but what makes this film so great is that we are able to see the ideas of \"what can be\". It's the mystery of the unknown that both frightens and enthralls man and few films have been able to capture those feelings like \"Interstellar\" In a time where there are no more explorers, we're fortunate to be put in a position where we can feel what is like to discover and explore new worlds.People will remember \"Interstellar\" for either being a truly great film experience or \"not as good as 2001: A Space Odyssey\". This is one of most popular slights against the film so far as it is the closest thing to \"2001\" and defenders of the Kubrick classic will argue to the death that it doesn't live up to it. This is an argument that no one will win because it is a generational issue. People see these landmark films during their youth and they leave such an impression on them, that it almost becomes blasphemy to hear of another film made years later, rivaling the one they saw. People want to believe that the film from their time was the best and that no film will be able to capture those emotions they first felt and the memories that it created for them. I respect and detest this because I will most likely feel the same way when future space adventures in the same vein as \"Interstellar\" come out and I fear it is something that is out of my control. Much of the film circles around the idea that love is the one true thing that travels purely through time and space because it is that connection we feel with one another that makes us human and that can be applied with our love for certain films. The connection we feel with our favorite films is almost unshakable and those who think they can make us waver from those feelings are exercising in futility.In the end, \"Interstellar\" is one of those landmark films. It's a chance for us to escape reality and feel sense of adventure, hope, and amazement that rarely comes around. Don't miss it.",
    "109": "A long, tedious movie. It attempts to be an epic but fails. It attempts to say something profound, but the message is garbled. The movie attempts to mix jumbled pseudo-scientific dialogue with a melodramatic subplot involving a father and daughter, producing a muddled story with little dramatic power. The movie contains elements from 2001: A Space Odyssey and the Matrix, with its bombastic musical flourishes and the special effects meant to depict extra-dimensionality, all pure Hollywood. Matthew McConaughey is the principal actor; his character, Cooper, is the central figure of the story; the rest of the cast are supporting characters (their placement in the credits notwithstanding). McConaughey gives an interesting performance, which includes several scenes in which he weeps, which for a leading man is remarkable. The depiction of earth as a doomed planet is unconvincing and the plan to colonize other planets half-baked and one that tests the limits of plausibility. Being a science-fiction movie, stretching the boundaries of science for literary purposes is to be expected, but this movie asks the audience to accept certain premises that just do not make sense (e.g, acceleration of time; relationship of time to gravity; time as a material object). This movie is proof that when Hollywood attempts to deal with time warps, time holes, multi-dimensionality, relativity, and other complex scientific theories, the results can be less than optimum.",
    "110": "This is the movie that proves what many people by now have already realized: People are being payed to write 10 stars fake reviews! Let me tell you this: This movie is really NOT that great!First, it's too long. It takes one hour just for the space mission to start.It's slow paced and VERY sentimental, or, in other words, most of it is boring.I'm not an English native speaker, but my English is not bad either. I have no problems watching movies in English, and yet it was very hard for me to understand the main character's mumbling in his farmer accent. All other actors spoke properly, except him, the most important one.The plot is not very logical: Planets just in front of a giant black hole?! Yes, this must be the place to live everybody is dreaming of.Imagine your colleagues in the space station would say to you: \"OK, we're now ready to fly down to that planet. You wait here. Don't worry, we'll come back soon, in... some YEARS!\" You'd probably smile and say: \"Wonderful! OK, go now!\", right? One day they come back and are probably surprised to see you haven't committed suicide because of depression, even though you waited 23 years (!!!) for them. You must be the most patience man in the entire Universe.And again a female \"scientist\" who looks like a model and behaves like an amateur. An obligatory part of every sci-fi movie nowadays.This is just to give you an idea. There is much more, so read the other negative reviews.Good night. And good luck.",
    "111": "'Memento' and 'Inception' had some problems, but their ideas stretched the imagination. 'Interstellar' only delivers the bombastic silliness one would expect if a puffed-up Batman director thought he could eclipse Kubrick's '2001' with a puerile adventure story. Christopher Nolan's new film begins badly and steadily declines as its long-winded prologue introduces the stereotypical elements of a Steven Spielberg/Norman Rockwell Sci-Fi co-production - a widowed ex-astronaut farmer, his chiseled jaw, a feisty daughter, a crusty grandpa, a dying Earth, dust storms, paranormal activity, baseball, cornfields - and lots of corn.After about an hour - which seems like two - a valiant crew lifts off in search of a planet to save humanity. Once they've journeyed through an intergalactic wormhole, the implausibility dimension expands to cosmic levels. Scientific hocus-pocus is stirred into the sentimental sludge as gigantic tsunamis, deranged astronauts, spaceship chases, time travel tomfoolery and black hole baloney eventually lead to a schmaltzy Hallmark-style climax. The visual effects are above average, but far short of awesome. When all is said and done, the film's self-importance and mawkishness leave one rooting for humanity's extinction.",
    "112": "As I begin this review of Christopher Nolan's latest movie, I want to point out the gorgeous visuals that we as an audience were able to behold with Interstellar. I truly believe this to be the movie's best quality and a true feat for the people in charge of visual effects. Having said this, I believe that many viewers were divisive over the plot's complexities. In fact, this is the most emotion driven movie I've seen from Nolan, something that he isn't ultimately known for. Nolan's strenght as a director lies in his ability to present us with a vision. He is meticulous and works the technical aspect of a film like no other director today. Once again, this is proved in every frame shot for Interstellar. So leaving behind my long praise, I now redirect this review to the story.The earth is dying, as the effects of our abuse of the natural resources is taking out the crops of food we need to survive. Upon this dark scenario, former NASA engineer Cooper (McConaughey) is asked to pilot a spaceship with the purpose of crossing a wormhole that will lead to another galaxy. This, of course, in hopes of reaching three possible habitable planets explored by scientists sent there in previous missions. Given the unpredictable nature of an unknown environment such as a different galaxy, Cooper will have to decide whether he is willing to sacrifice everything for the sake of humanity or if the urge to reunite with his daughter again is stronger. Personally I liked the story Nolan told us with this film, as it left you thinking about it after the movie was over, something Nolan does very well with his projects. Compared with his previous work, there are still movies that I love more than this. Still Interstellar is a brilliant film in it's own right and yet another great addition to this great director's Filmograhpy.In the end all I can say is, if you're a Sci-Fi fan, you surely must not miss this one. It will offer an unique visual experience and leave you wondering what the hell you just watched, even if you didn't feel completely satisfied.Rating: 8/10",
    "113": "Bad-ass... is the adjective which I choose to type the first word of this review. As I left the theater I was not only spellbound, but I was also sulking about the fact that the movie had ended.The movie has a slow pace at the beginning, but not really boring. Steady and unique in its nature, I did feel that this movie might end up like last years blockbuster 'Gravity' starring Sandra Bullock and George Clooney. With every minute that passed, I could feel the importance of time, which let my prejudice drain away. With twists and turns, but not brain-spraining at all, it did make emotions come at par with adventure.Great acting by Matthew McConaughey did overshadow Anne Hathaway. With an epic storyline and Nolan's direction Space, Galaxy and the Universe did reach a whole new level.I would love to rate this movie 10 stars without a second thought because it reached the depth of my heart and left me speechless. This movie is not a movie which is meant to be wasted by watching it at your laptop or TV. It's buck worthy and a must watch for all the people who wait for some new serious, touching, heartwarming, adventurous, Science Fiction and Oscar deserving movies of all time. Hat's off to both the Nolans!",
    "114": "First, about the pain, which is mostly due to the sound. I don't know how many times we're in a rocket ship blasting off somewhere with everything shaking, the cameras jiggling, the astronauts grimacing, and the sound track roaring, screeching, thundering, blasting the eardrums—I really did have to plug my ears by the end of the movie. Add to that the so- called music, which consisted mostly of even higher mountains of noise, mostly produced by a big pipe organ pumping out its gargantuan decibels in the form of a few simple chords—hardly music, merely a musical instrument adding to the overall accumulation of noise. I don't think anybody should be credited with creating \"music\" for this film.As for the stupidity, I was lured into the theatre by publicity claiming that the film had got the science right, or at least the graphic representation of a wormhole and black hole. Well, the graphics may have been right, but they were pretty standard stuff as far as eye candy goes, hardly worth the price of the ticket. What about the science? Maybe it was correct on every point, or on most points, or only on a few points—who knows? Only someone with degrees in quantum mechanics and astrophysics would be able to judge. For the general audience (obviously, the audience the film was aimed at), the science talk came across as sheer gobbledygook. There was no effort to explain the ideas for the public. The jargon was just spat out here and there with the purpose of raising a smokescreen for the current plot point. Very annoying.I wanted to enjoy this film. I hated not liking it, knowing how much money and effort went into making it. But by the time we got to the last 20 minutes or so, I'd had enough and had to fight the urge to walk out. In fact, I did get out of my seat and watched the last 10 minutes or so from the back of the auditorium near the exit door.",
    "115": "If you saw \"sunshine\" and thought \"wow, good thing they had scientist advisers, this stuff is so plausible\", you will like \"interstellar\".If you saw \"armaggeddon\" and thought \"what an awesome movie, i just wished they would have dragged the scene where he says goodbye to his daughter out even more\", you will like \"interstellar\".If you saw \"inception\" and thought \"this movie would be so much better in SPACE!\", you will like \"interstellar\".And if you liked \"2001\" or any other intelligent/geeky sci-fi movie, you will hate \"interstellar\".Like some of Nolan's earlier works, it's long for the sake of length only. Its plot is up there with \"armaggeddon\" in pure stupidity and forced US-cowboy-patriot-macho-ism, its special effects are underwhelming, its plot twists are obvious, its setting makes no sense, its characters are flat and forgettable, and its constant citations of \"2001\" just serve to make you remember how much better Kubrick did all of this with a tiny fraction of the money almost 50 years back.Disappointing.",
    "116": "The Plot:In the near future, Earth has been devastated by drought and famine, causing a scarcity in food and extreme changes in climate. When humanity is facing extinction, a mysterious rip in the space-time continuum is discovered, giving mankind the opportunity to widen its lifespan. A group of explorers must travel beyond our solar system in search of a planet that can sustain life. The crew of the Endurance are required to think bigger and go further than any human in history as they embark on an interstellar voyage into the unknown. Coop, the pilot of the Endurance, must decide between seeing his children again and the future of the human race.NASA's version of Sophie's Choice.It's a horrible movie and I am shocked anyone likes it. Firstly, it doesn't get moving until nearly an hour into this crapola. By then most us us have checked out and have no interest.The plot is idiotic and not even marginally based in the realm of scientific possibility.I genuinely hated this movie.",
    "117": "So last night I got the chance to see the early screening of Christopher Nolan's Interstellar. The film I've been waiting so much from the early days of the shooting. How did it fare? Here's my take:To avoid any tl;dr risk, let me get this straight from the very beginning, Interstellar is one goddamnedly good film, it gets you to the edge of your seat, it soars, it warps, it rips your brain senseless. It's that good.Interstellar is a story about the earth dying, with its soil no longer able to sustain crops other than corn, and of course, it will lead to the extinction of humanity. Our hero is an ex-NASA test pilot named Cooper (Matthew McConaughey), a typical ordinary-guy-in-an-extraordinary- situation everyman who's also a dedicated family man, especially toward his daughter Murphy (named after the Murphy's Law). In an all-too-Armageddon style our hero gets invited by the (publicly) defunct NASA to become humanity's last hope in finding a new home, for they have found a wormhole near Saturn (2001, anyone?) which will warp the astronauts to another galaxy in quest of a habitable planet. Solid and compact premise, although it's been used before.For seasoned filmgoers, there are many similar elements (although it's understandable) with Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) and Robert Zemeckis' Contact (1997). In a sense that this is not a bang-bang-shoot-shoot-blow-em-up sci-fi, but more of a slow-burning, metaphysical sci-fi which gets you to think about your place in the universe and your exact place in time.Similarity with 2001 and Contact is never a bad thing, but it becomes a wee bit too predictable, although Nolan is a smart enough director in providing the final (a very sentimental one, I should say) twist in the story. The visuals in this film is majestic, everything is shot to a meticulously calculated level, Nolan-style. The space scenes are serenely suspenseful just like Cuaron's Gravity, but unlike the documentary feel of Gravity, there's a real gusto and pace to these scenes. You should also be prepared for the (for some, maybe) unexpected third act, it is Nolan's most sentimental and humane moment to date. And this is why Interstellar is more than just a science-fiction, it is a human drama intertwined in space and time loop.One thing that Nolan gets a bit wrong is the narrative. Nolan was never a 'warm' director, his films are filled with brilliant ideas and flair but it feels cold, it maybe suits Memento and The Dark Knight but in Interstellar he seems to have been lost in determining which of the interpersonal drama or the sci-fi that will be Interstellar's forte. The result is a rather incongruous script, intermittently cutting off the excitement of the previous scene and so on. But it is a forgivable sin, for the good is a lot more than the bad in this monumental film. At the end of the day, all I can say is that Interstellar is a grand film. It is monolithic, thoughtful, sentimental, sophisticated, visceral but also with its flaws. I wouldn't say it's Nolan's best work to date, but I daresay that this is one of the best science fiction ever released.After watching Interstellar, do yourself a favor and get lost in space and time and go back in time to see Contact (1997) and 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) to further wonder and wander into the realms of the unknown.Because sometimes it is the unknown that fascinates us, frightens us and brings out the best in us.",
    "118": "OK, I'll keep this brief, but I'll also nail my credentials to the mast first. I know science, cosmology, sci-fi and film-making pretty well. I have, in the past taught film studies at degree level, and worked on the production of more than one major Hollywood sci-fi film. I read Stephen Baxter and I like space stuff a lot. More than a lot. And why am I telling you this? Because I should have loved \"Interstellar\", but I didn't for one simple reason: It is a truly dreadful piece of film-making.I won't even bother with dissecting the \"science\" in the film, because that isn't really the issue (it is wrong on pretty much every level). I'm not even going to bother complaining about the absurd audio balance in the sound mix. And I'll ignore the sub-standard special effects - because FX don't a great movie make.The issues I have with Interstellar are essentially these: The film is an arse-numbing three hours long, and feels far longer. The pace is stunningly poorly judged - the first hour in particular could have been cut to ten minutes and far more would have been gained than lost.The characters are paper-thin, and I didn't care about any of them. The plot is entirely derivative (mostly of the vastly superior \"Contact\"). The special effects aren't special at all and the editing (or lack of) is so self-indulgent it is a text book example of a director so enamoured with his project that he loses objectivity. The result is a plodding, flabby, and desperately dull movie devoid of any real excitement or emotional impact.I won't go on, but special mention must be made of the planets - Paddling World and Coldworld. You see virtually nothing of either, and so utterly uninteresting are they that what should have been a moment of genuine cinematic wonderment was squandered with a bit of poor CGI painfully inferior to \"A Perfect Storm\" and a location less dramatic than your own back garden.I've probably not been a brief as I intended, but as I write this I feel the disappointment and actual anger I felt on leaving the cinema bubbling to the surface again. It was a total let-down and a waste of more than three hours of my life. The gushing reviews on here are ridiculous and absurd, and I am forced to conclude that reviewers either watched a different film to me, or saw something so brilliant it completely passed me by. I am fairly confident I didn't doze off, although I desperately wanted to.So in conclusion, \"Contact\" did all of this far, far better, fifteen years ago. In Contact the characters are human, believable, beautifully realised and you care what happens to them. The relationship between Father and Daughter is deeply moving and inspiring. But then the plot is far more sophisticated anyway, dealing with the social tensions and impact of the discovery of extra-terrestrial life, the science is accurate and entirely plausible (it was written by Carl Sagan after all), the movie is genuinely thrilling and full of spectacle, and it has something very profound to say.Contact is everything Interstellar is not, and it has a considerably shorter running time. Contact brought tears to my eyes, Interstellar bored me to tears.",
    "119": "There are moments during \"Interstellar\" which may be compared to \"2001: A Space Odyssey\" (a better movie). There are moments during \"Interstellar\" which may be compared to \"Prometheus\" (also, a better movie). There are even moments and storytelling techniques within \"Interstellar\" that are completely ripped off from \"Inception\" (a much better movie, from Christopher Nolan himself). That said, \"Interstellar\" should still be touted as the most ambitious film of the year so far, and in the same breath, should ultimately go down as one of director Christopher Nolan's worst films to date.This highly anticipated Nolan project depicts a future riddled with dust storms, where the world's food supply is nearly depleted (or at least 40 to 60 years out from being depleted, but that doesn't sound nearly as dire) where astronauts are working as farmers and children are taught that the Apollo space missions were faked. During this time, an underground government institution called NASA commissions a group of astronauts (including Matthew McConaughey and Anne Hathaway) for a top secret space mission. This mission will have them traveling through a newly discovered wormhole, with the promise of finding another inhabitable world.OK, let's get right to it. Any praise I heap upon this movie will be directed at the final 90 minutes of this two hour and 49 minute long film, since the first 80 or so minutes of \"Interstellar\" (while absolutely gorgeous at times to behold) is drenched in sequences of McConaughey seemingly reenacting moments from those pretentious Lincoln car ads, caught in a continuous and almost finger wagging diatribe about how the human race was never meant to die on earth, which nearly put me to sleep. In other words, the first half of this is as slow and lifeless as watching a dead astronaut drift through space. Anyway, this is Intersellar's fatal flaw, since the latter half is ripe with big budget yet very symbolic action sequences, stunning cinematography and fascinating talking points dealing with the nature of human survival in the face of an unsympathetic universe, due to some really insightful slabs of dialogue from a script written by Nolan and his brother, Jonathan. Even the literal rocket science lingo becomes more and more palatable as the \"gravity\" of this plot begins to set in, near the midpoint of Act 2.Final Thought/The Ending: Allow me to take a quick spoiler free moment to discuss this ending. During the final act of \"Interstellar\", for most film nerds, Nolan's story will be encroaching on the hallowed grounds of Kubrick's \"2001: A Space Odyssey\". Some will admire the sheer ballsyness of what he does in this pivotal moment and others will find it in bad taste. Though this is not a huge issue, since I don't believe this niche group will have much effect on ticket sales, the problem is that for the millions who didn't see \"Interstellar\" for any film school aesthetic reason, Nolan's ending will simply come off as so strange and obnoxiously far-fetched, that many may leave the theater angry that the punch-line wasn't worth the nearly three hour set up.",
    "120": "Oh my...Another \"Science Fiction\" film made by those geniuses who never took a science class in life.Interstellar, is a boring slow, plodding condescending type of film that thinks is much more smart than it realty is.Cant't just people go and explore three planets without this melodramatic nonsense? Wouldn't it be much better if all this humanist approach was discarded in favor of a story based on the true adventure of traveling through a wormhole?If people want drama there are a huge number of other (much better) films. If I want to feel bad I will watch Schindler's list... If I want some good Science Fiction I will watch Aliens. Is it that hard for people to get it?This was supposed to be a science fiction adventure, for god's sake. Why do these genius have to butcher what could have been a great film with all this over-bloated sentimentalism, this sacchariny mess? This is yet another proof that the masses are brain dead. They laud anything that is over complicated, with mindless twists, with some sort of stupid revelation as the work of a genius.Interstellar is another extremely over rated film. It rivals Prometheus in stupidity!I'd rather shoot a nail through my foot than ever watching it again...",
    "121": "OK, I've just seen Interstellar and I can tell it's one of those movies that you either love or hate.Personally I loved it and probably I'm going to watch it again to process it a little bit more. It's not a simple movie, maybe that was already clear, is a Nolan's film.Matthew McConaughey does a great job by portraying Cooper. The most touching scenes are those between his character and Mackenzie Foy, who plays the younger version of Murph, Jessica Chastain character. Either it seems to be an \"Outer Space Film\" is more about human relations and how important is for us to be linked with others. Even it's a long movie, 169 minutes, I didn't felt it that long or tedious. The director managed to keep us engaged through the whole film. The experience on IMAX in 70mm film. The image quality perceived was superb, now I get why Christopher Nolan and other directors are fighting to keep film alive. I had the opportunity to watch it at the Chinese theatre and was a great experience, my first time in that theatre. The staff from the theatre even told us that Nolan himself watched several scenes of the movie in that theatre to \"calibrate\" the experience. Which is very cool. Well, I encourage you to go and watch Interstellar to see of you love or hate it.",
    "122": "Was this movie terrible? No, but for as much praise as it got, I'm astounded. The plot was ridiculous and unbelievable. That isn't what killed the movie however, it was the acting! Maybe the director wanted the actors to act that way, but every time they did something amazing, they barely acted surprised. It was as if it was all in a days work. This is the sole reason why I can't get myself to re- watch this movie. The visuals were amazing, but I'm more interested in plot lines and character development than pretty effects (call me old school, even though I'm in my 20's). The movie tries to be like 2001: A Space Odyssey, but falls short. 2 months after watching Interstellar, not much is retained in my memory (I had to re-read the ridiculous plot and re-watch a trailer to bring my memory back). Whereas 2001 I watched 6 or so months ago and remember most of it. It may seem like I'm calling this movie terrible, it's not. It's just highly overrated and I need to point out the flaws that keep this from being a masterpiece. Maybe I've seen too many programs about space (Cosmos, The Universe, 2001, etc) that keep this movie from stunning me with the visuals, but if you're a person that has not seen too many space programs, you'd probably like it. And just an FYI, this is coming from a guy that hated Gravity and Inception. If you like those, you may like this movie.",
    "123": "First, the good stuff. Black hole and other imagery is top notch accurate, as confirmed last year by real life observations. This is by no means 2001: A Space Odyssey just as Nolan is no Kubrick, but the movie is ambitious and does have strong points. There are a lot of things that make no sense however, first, the nature of the Apocalypse on Earth is completely nonsensical, but on the other side, the oft criticized ending by the scientifically illi terate, makes much more sense than a lot of otherwise blindly accepted parts, especially if you take into account that once you go speculative, you cannot be that wrong. There is some sound strong sci-fi along the way, but a lot of nonsense points have to be given too, though many are saved by the (almost) brilliantly consistent ending, and a lot of sci-fi themes are nicely incorporated and shown, to stimulate imagination in some capable kids.There is also a strong extra point given for respect of the father, as single fatherhood is vastly underappreciated in the wok esick culture of nowaday. The daughter \"scientist\" is celebrated despite of the fact that she entirely plagiarizes work of future generations transmitted by her daddy, which is taken as her modest denial in a culture desperate but unable to obtain wok ef reindly heroines of disciplines for which for many centuries including decades of ins ane positive dis krimination they are proven to be a bit too soft in the head for, a touche, if subtle punch that irritated the \"critics\". Extra point for Matt Damon playing a nas ty man he always seemed to me to be.Overall, a flawed but inspiring piece that can stimulate imagination and scientific curiosity in those who have it, and some emotional roller coaster for the dimw it majority.",
    "124": "\"Interstellar\" pretends to be more intelligent than Alfonso Cuarón's audio-visual roller coaster, \"Gravity\", but ironically its best moments are those which, like Gravity, rely purely on thrill and spectacle.For the rest of the film we are crammed into a tiny shuttle with McConaughey and his crew, or back on earth with the desperate remnants of human civilization as they attempt to solve the problem of starvation. Most of the dialogue consists of reams and reams of contrived quantum-physics babble, which, if you're like me, will whoosh straight over your head like those exposition sequences in CSI, with brief moments of levity provided by the two -weirdly cubic looking- robots TARS and CASE.Their journey to find another habitable planet is marred by a sequence of seemingly insurmountable problems that become progressively so ludicrous, it ends up impossible to take them seriously, albeit exciting to watch.We already have to stretch our disbelief past the opening premise that the world is dying because of crop blight, yet they've managed to build robots that have human intelligence and can adapt a variety of shapes to achieve a wide range of tasks. One wonders why humans at this level of technological advancement couldn't have found a solution to curbing this unexplained blight other than blasting off into a foreign galaxy to try and populate a mysterious planet neighboring a black hole.Glaring plot issues aside (and there are many), the film is at its best when in full space simulator mode and the audience is being catapulted into the roaring white light of a black hole, accompanied by Hans Zimmer's electrifying score (props to Zimmer for once NOT composing something that sounded exactly like Pirates of The Caribbean), making full use of the IMAX experience.Performances are fairly solid, in particular Jessica Chastain as the grown up Murph, and there is enough raw emotion on show to push some of the more logically questionable moments past your cynic meter and give a sense of weight and importance to what is happening, even if you can't quite understand it.Definitely worth watching on the big screen, but would I give it a 9/10? No way. This is a film that you will enjoy on face value, but once you leave the cinema you will start picking it to shreds. There are just too many inconsistencies, contrivances and blatant stupidity in the plot to call this a masterpiece, but I'd give it a solid 7 for blockbuster entertainment value.",
    "125": "As I begin this review of Christopher Nolan's latest movie, I want to point out the gorgeous visuals that we as an audience were able to behold with Interstellar. I truly believe this to be the movie's best quality and a true feat for the people in charge of visual effects. Having said this, I believe that many viewers were divisive over the plot's complexities. In fact, this is the most emotion driven movie I've seen from Nolan, something that he isn't ultimately known for. Nolan's strenght as a director lies in his ability to present us with a vision. He is meticulous and works the technical aspect of a film like no other director today. Once again, this is proved in every frame shot for Interstellar. So leaving behind my long praise, I now redirect this review to the story.The earth is dying, as the effects of our abuse of the natural resources is taking out the crops of food we need to survive. Upon this dark scenario, former NASA engineer Cooper (McConaughey) is asked to pilot a spaceship with the purpose of crossing a wormhole that will lead to another galaxy. This, of course, in hopes of reaching three possible habitable planets explored by scientists sent there in previous missions. Given the unpredictable nature of an unknown environment such as a different galaxy, Cooper will have to decide whether he is willing to sacrifice everything for the sake of humanity or if the urge to reunite with his daughter again is stronger. Personally I liked the story Nolan told us with this film, as it left you thinking about it after the movie was over, something Nolan does very well with his projects. Compared with his previous work, there are still movies that I love more than this. Still Interstellar is a brilliant film in it's own right and yet another great addition to this great director's Filmograhpy.In the end all I can say is, if you're a Sci-Fi fan, you surely must not miss this one. It will offer an unique visual experience and leave you wondering what the hell you just watched, even if you didn't feel completely satisfied.Rating: 8/10",
    "126": "Bad-ass... is the adjective which I choose to type the first word of this review. As I left the theater I was not only spellbound, but I was also sulking about the fact that the movie had ended.The movie has a slow pace at the beginning, but not really boring. Steady and unique in its nature, I did feel that this movie might end up like last years blockbuster 'Gravity' starring Sandra Bullock and George Clooney. With every minute that passed, I could feel the importance of time, which let my prejudice drain away. With twists and turns, but not brain-spraining at all, it did make emotions come at par with adventure.Great acting by Matthew McConaughey did overshadow Anne Hathaway. With an epic storyline and Nolan's direction Space, Galaxy and the Universe did reach a whole new level.I would love to rate this movie 10 stars without a second thought because it reached the depth of my heart and left me speechless. This movie is not a movie which is meant to be wasted by watching it at your laptop or TV. It's buck worthy and a must watch for all the people who wait for some new serious, touching, heartwarming, adventurous, Science Fiction and Oscar deserving movies of all time. Hat's off to both the Nolans!",
    "127": "First, about the pain, which is mostly due to the sound. I don't know how many times we're in a rocket ship blasting off somewhere with everything shaking, the cameras jiggling, the astronauts grimacing, and the sound track roaring, screeching, thundering, blasting the eardrums—I really did have to plug my ears by the end of the movie. Add to that the so- called music, which consisted mostly of even higher mountains of noise, mostly produced by a big pipe organ pumping out its gargantuan decibels in the form of a few simple chords—hardly music, merely a musical instrument adding to the overall accumulation of noise. I don't think anybody should be credited with creating \"music\" for this film.As for the stupidity, I was lured into the theatre by publicity claiming that the film had got the science right, or at least the graphic representation of a wormhole and black hole. Well, the graphics may have been right, but they were pretty standard stuff as far as eye candy goes, hardly worth the price of the ticket. What about the science? Maybe it was correct on every point, or on most points, or only on a few points—who knows? Only someone with degrees in quantum mechanics and astrophysics would be able to judge. For the general audience (obviously, the audience the film was aimed at), the science talk came across as sheer gobbledygook. There was no effort to explain the ideas for the public. The jargon was just spat out here and there with the purpose of raising a smokescreen for the current plot point. Very annoying.I wanted to enjoy this film. I hated not liking it, knowing how much money and effort went into making it. But by the time we got to the last 20 minutes or so, I'd had enough and had to fight the urge to walk out. In fact, I did get out of my seat and watched the last 10 minutes or so from the back of the auditorium near the exit door.",
    "128": "If you saw \"sunshine\" and thought \"wow, good thing they had scientist advisers, this stuff is so plausible\", you will like \"interstellar\".If you saw \"armaggeddon\" and thought \"what an awesome movie, i just wished they would have dragged the scene where he says goodbye to his daughter out even more\", you will like \"interstellar\".If you saw \"inception\" and thought \"this movie would be so much better in SPACE!\", you will like \"interstellar\".And if you liked \"2001\" or any other intelligent/geeky sci-fi movie, you will hate \"interstellar\".Like some of Nolan's earlier works, it's long for the sake of length only. Its plot is up there with \"armaggeddon\" in pure stupidity and forced US-cowboy-patriot-macho-ism, its special effects are underwhelming, its plot twists are obvious, its setting makes no sense, its characters are flat and forgettable, and its constant citations of \"2001\" just serve to make you remember how much better Kubrick did all of this with a tiny fraction of the money almost 50 years back.Disappointing.",
    "129": "The Plot:In the near future, Earth has been devastated by drought and famine, causing a scarcity in food and extreme changes in climate. When humanity is facing extinction, a mysterious rip in the space-time continuum is discovered, giving mankind the opportunity to widen its lifespan. A group of explorers must travel beyond our solar system in search of a planet that can sustain life. The crew of the Endurance are required to think bigger and go further than any human in history as they embark on an interstellar voyage into the unknown. Coop, the pilot of the Endurance, must decide between seeing his children again and the future of the human race.NASA's version of Sophie's Choice.It's a horrible movie and I am shocked anyone likes it. Firstly, it doesn't get moving until nearly an hour into this crapola. By then most us us have checked out and have no interest.The plot is idiotic and not even marginally based in the realm of scientific possibility.I genuinely hated this movie.",
    "130": "So last night I got the chance to see the early screening of Christopher Nolan's Interstellar. The film I've been waiting so much from the early days of the shooting. How did it fare? Here's my take:To avoid any tl;dr risk, let me get this straight from the very beginning, Interstellar is one goddamnedly good film, it gets you to the edge of your seat, it soars, it warps, it rips your brain senseless. It's that good.Interstellar is a story about the earth dying, with its soil no longer able to sustain crops other than corn, and of course, it will lead to the extinction of humanity. Our hero is an ex-NASA test pilot named Cooper (Matthew McConaughey), a typical ordinary-guy-in-an-extraordinary- situation everyman who's also a dedicated family man, especially toward his daughter Murphy (named after the Murphy's Law). In an all-too-Armageddon style our hero gets invited by the (publicly) defunct NASA to become humanity's last hope in finding a new home, for they have found a wormhole near Saturn (2001, anyone?) which will warp the astronauts to another galaxy in quest of a habitable planet. Solid and compact premise, although it's been used before.For seasoned filmgoers, there are many similar elements (although it's understandable) with Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) and Robert Zemeckis' Contact (1997). In a sense that this is not a bang-bang-shoot-shoot-blow-em-up sci-fi, but more of a slow-burning, metaphysical sci-fi which gets you to think about your place in the universe and your exact place in time.Similarity with 2001 and Contact is never a bad thing, but it becomes a wee bit too predictable, although Nolan is a smart enough director in providing the final (a very sentimental one, I should say) twist in the story. The visuals in this film is majestic, everything is shot to a meticulously calculated level, Nolan-style. The space scenes are serenely suspenseful just like Cuaron's Gravity, but unlike the documentary feel of Gravity, there's a real gusto and pace to these scenes. You should also be prepared for the (for some, maybe) unexpected third act, it is Nolan's most sentimental and humane moment to date. And this is why Interstellar is more than just a science-fiction, it is a human drama intertwined in space and time loop.One thing that Nolan gets a bit wrong is the narrative. Nolan was never a 'warm' director, his films are filled with brilliant ideas and flair but it feels cold, it maybe suits Memento and The Dark Knight but in Interstellar he seems to have been lost in determining which of the interpersonal drama or the sci-fi that will be Interstellar's forte. The result is a rather incongruous script, intermittently cutting off the excitement of the previous scene and so on. But it is a forgivable sin, for the good is a lot more than the bad in this monumental film. At the end of the day, all I can say is that Interstellar is a grand film. It is monolithic, thoughtful, sentimental, sophisticated, visceral but also with its flaws. I wouldn't say it's Nolan's best work to date, but I daresay that this is one of the best science fiction ever released.After watching Interstellar, do yourself a favor and get lost in space and time and go back in time to see Contact (1997) and 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) to further wonder and wander into the realms of the unknown.Because sometimes it is the unknown that fascinates us, frightens us and brings out the best in us.",
    "131": "OK, I'll keep this brief, but I'll also nail my credentials to the mast first. I know science, cosmology, sci-fi and film-making pretty well. I have, in the past taught film studies at degree level, and worked on the production of more than one major Hollywood sci-fi film. I read Stephen Baxter and I like space stuff a lot. More than a lot. And why am I telling you this? Because I should have loved \"Interstellar\", but I didn't for one simple reason: It is a truly dreadful piece of film-making.I won't even bother with dissecting the \"science\" in the film, because that isn't really the issue (it is wrong on pretty much every level). I'm not even going to bother complaining about the absurd audio balance in the sound mix. And I'll ignore the sub-standard special effects - because FX don't a great movie make.The issues I have with Interstellar are essentially these: The film is an arse-numbing three hours long, and feels far longer. The pace is stunningly poorly judged - the first hour in particular could have been cut to ten minutes and far more would have been gained than lost.The characters are paper-thin, and I didn't care about any of them. The plot is entirely derivative (mostly of the vastly superior \"Contact\"). The special effects aren't special at all and the editing (or lack of) is so self-indulgent it is a text book example of a director so enamoured with his project that he loses objectivity. The result is a plodding, flabby, and desperately dull movie devoid of any real excitement or emotional impact.I won't go on, but special mention must be made of the planets - Paddling World and Coldworld. You see virtually nothing of either, and so utterly uninteresting are they that what should have been a moment of genuine cinematic wonderment was squandered with a bit of poor CGI painfully inferior to \"A Perfect Storm\" and a location less dramatic than your own back garden.I've probably not been a brief as I intended, but as I write this I feel the disappointment and actual anger I felt on leaving the cinema bubbling to the surface again. It was a total let-down and a waste of more than three hours of my life. The gushing reviews on here are ridiculous and absurd, and I am forced to conclude that reviewers either watched a different film to me, or saw something so brilliant it completely passed me by. I am fairly confident I didn't doze off, although I desperately wanted to.So in conclusion, \"Contact\" did all of this far, far better, fifteen years ago. In Contact the characters are human, believable, beautifully realised and you care what happens to them. The relationship between Father and Daughter is deeply moving and inspiring. But then the plot is far more sophisticated anyway, dealing with the social tensions and impact of the discovery of extra-terrestrial life, the science is accurate and entirely plausible (it was written by Carl Sagan after all), the movie is genuinely thrilling and full of spectacle, and it has something very profound to say.Contact is everything Interstellar is not, and it has a considerably shorter running time. Contact brought tears to my eyes, Interstellar bored me to tears.",
    "132": "There are moments during \"Interstellar\" which may be compared to \"2001: A Space Odyssey\" (a better movie). There are moments during \"Interstellar\" which may be compared to \"Prometheus\" (also, a better movie). There are even moments and storytelling techniques within \"Interstellar\" that are completely ripped off from \"Inception\" (a much better movie, from Christopher Nolan himself). That said, \"Interstellar\" should still be touted as the most ambitious film of the year so far, and in the same breath, should ultimately go down as one of director Christopher Nolan's worst films to date.This highly anticipated Nolan project depicts a future riddled with dust storms, where the world's food supply is nearly depleted (or at least 40 to 60 years out from being depleted, but that doesn't sound nearly as dire) where astronauts are working as farmers and children are taught that the Apollo space missions were faked. During this time, an underground government institution called NASA commissions a group of astronauts (including Matthew McConaughey and Anne Hathaway) for a top secret space mission. This mission will have them traveling through a newly discovered wormhole, with the promise of finding another inhabitable world.OK, let's get right to it. Any praise I heap upon this movie will be directed at the final 90 minutes of this two hour and 49 minute long film, since the first 80 or so minutes of \"Interstellar\" (while absolutely gorgeous at times to behold) is drenched in sequences of McConaughey seemingly reenacting moments from those pretentious Lincoln car ads, caught in a continuous and almost finger wagging diatribe about how the human race was never meant to die on earth, which nearly put me to sleep. In other words, the first half of this is as slow and lifeless as watching a dead astronaut drift through space. Anyway, this is Intersellar's fatal flaw, since the latter half is ripe with big budget yet very symbolic action sequences, stunning cinematography and fascinating talking points dealing with the nature of human survival in the face of an unsympathetic universe, due to some really insightful slabs of dialogue from a script written by Nolan and his brother, Jonathan. Even the literal rocket science lingo becomes more and more palatable as the \"gravity\" of this plot begins to set in, near the midpoint of Act 2.Final Thought/The Ending: Allow me to take a quick spoiler free moment to discuss this ending. During the final act of \"Interstellar\", for most film nerds, Nolan's story will be encroaching on the hallowed grounds of Kubrick's \"2001: A Space Odyssey\". Some will admire the sheer ballsyness of what he does in this pivotal moment and others will find it in bad taste. Though this is not a huge issue, since I don't believe this niche group will have much effect on ticket sales, the problem is that for the millions who didn't see \"Interstellar\" for any film school aesthetic reason, Nolan's ending will simply come off as so strange and obnoxiously far-fetched, that many may leave the theater angry that the punch-line wasn't worth the nearly three hour set up.",
    "133": "Oh my...Another \"Science Fiction\" film made by those geniuses who never took a science class in life.Interstellar, is a boring slow, plodding condescending type of film that thinks is much more smart than it realty is.Cant't just people go and explore three planets without this melodramatic nonsense? Wouldn't it be much better if all this humanist approach was discarded in favor of a story based on the true adventure of traveling through a wormhole?If people want drama there are a huge number of other (much better) films. If I want to feel bad I will watch Schindler's list... If I want some good Science Fiction I will watch Aliens. Is it that hard for people to get it?This was supposed to be a science fiction adventure, for god's sake. Why do these genius have to butcher what could have been a great film with all this over-bloated sentimentalism, this sacchariny mess? This is yet another proof that the masses are brain dead. They laud anything that is over complicated, with mindless twists, with some sort of stupid revelation as the work of a genius.Interstellar is another extremely over rated film. It rivals Prometheus in stupidity!I'd rather shoot a nail through my foot than ever watching it again...",
    "134": "OK, I've just seen Interstellar and I can tell it's one of those movies that you either love or hate.Personally I loved it and probably I'm going to watch it again to process it a little bit more. It's not a simple movie, maybe that was already clear, is a Nolan's film.Matthew McConaughey does a great job by portraying Cooper. The most touching scenes are those between his character and Mackenzie Foy, who plays the younger version of Murph, Jessica Chastain character. Either it seems to be an \"Outer Space Film\" is more about human relations and how important is for us to be linked with others. Even it's a long movie, 169 minutes, I didn't felt it that long or tedious. The director managed to keep us engaged through the whole film. The experience on IMAX in 70mm film. The image quality perceived was superb, now I get why Christopher Nolan and other directors are fighting to keep film alive. I had the opportunity to watch it at the Chinese theatre and was a great experience, my first time in that theatre. The staff from the theatre even told us that Nolan himself watched several scenes of the movie in that theatre to \"calibrate\" the experience. Which is very cool. Well, I encourage you to go and watch Interstellar to see of you love or hate it.",
    "135": "Was this movie terrible? No, but for as much praise as it got, I'm astounded. The plot was ridiculous and unbelievable. That isn't what killed the movie however, it was the acting! Maybe the director wanted the actors to act that way, but every time they did something amazing, they barely acted surprised. It was as if it was all in a days work. This is the sole reason why I can't get myself to re- watch this movie. The visuals were amazing, but I'm more interested in plot lines and character development than pretty effects (call me old school, even though I'm in my 20's). The movie tries to be like 2001: A Space Odyssey, but falls short. 2 months after watching Interstellar, not much is retained in my memory (I had to re-read the ridiculous plot and re-watch a trailer to bring my memory back). Whereas 2001 I watched 6 or so months ago and remember most of it. It may seem like I'm calling this movie terrible, it's not. It's just highly overrated and I need to point out the flaws that keep this from being a masterpiece. Maybe I've seen too many programs about space (Cosmos, The Universe, 2001, etc) that keep this movie from stunning me with the visuals, but if you're a person that has not seen too many space programs, you'd probably like it. And just an FYI, this is coming from a guy that hated Gravity and Inception. If you like those, you may like this movie.",
    "136": "First, the good stuff. Black hole and other imagery is top notch accurate, as confirmed last year by real life observations. This is by no means 2001: A Space Odyssey just as Nolan is no Kubrick, but the movie is ambitious and does have strong points. There are a lot of things that make no sense however, first, the nature of the Apocalypse on Earth is completely nonsensical, but on the other side, the oft criticized ending by the scientifically illi terate, makes much more sense than a lot of otherwise blindly accepted parts, especially if you take into account that once you go speculative, you cannot be that wrong. There is some sound strong sci-fi along the way, but a lot of nonsense points have to be given too, though many are saved by the (almost) brilliantly consistent ending, and a lot of sci-fi themes are nicely incorporated and shown, to stimulate imagination in some capable kids.There is also a strong extra point given for respect of the father, as single fatherhood is vastly underappreciated in the wok esick culture of nowaday. The daughter \"scientist\" is celebrated despite of the fact that she entirely plagiarizes work of future generations transmitted by her daddy, which is taken as her modest denial in a culture desperate but unable to obtain wok ef reindly heroines of disciplines for which for many centuries including decades of ins ane positive dis krimination they are proven to be a bit too soft in the head for, a touche, if subtle punch that irritated the \"critics\". Extra point for Matt Damon playing a nas ty man he always seemed to me to be.Overall, a flawed but inspiring piece that can stimulate imagination and scientific curiosity in those who have it, and some emotional roller coaster for the dimw it majority.",
    "137": "\"Interstellar\" pretends to be more intelligent than Alfonso Cuarón's audio-visual roller coaster, \"Gravity\", but ironically its best moments are those which, like Gravity, rely purely on thrill and spectacle.For the rest of the film we are crammed into a tiny shuttle with McConaughey and his crew, or back on earth with the desperate remnants of human civilization as they attempt to solve the problem of starvation. Most of the dialogue consists of reams and reams of contrived quantum-physics babble, which, if you're like me, will whoosh straight over your head like those exposition sequences in CSI, with brief moments of levity provided by the two -weirdly cubic looking- robots TARS and CASE.Their journey to find another habitable planet is marred by a sequence of seemingly insurmountable problems that become progressively so ludicrous, it ends up impossible to take them seriously, albeit exciting to watch.We already have to stretch our disbelief past the opening premise that the world is dying because of crop blight, yet they've managed to build robots that have human intelligence and can adapt a variety of shapes to achieve a wide range of tasks. One wonders why humans at this level of technological advancement couldn't have found a solution to curbing this unexplained blight other than blasting off into a foreign galaxy to try and populate a mysterious planet neighboring a black hole.Glaring plot issues aside (and there are many), the film is at its best when in full space simulator mode and the audience is being catapulted into the roaring white light of a black hole, accompanied by Hans Zimmer's electrifying score (props to Zimmer for once NOT composing something that sounded exactly like Pirates of The Caribbean), making full use of the IMAX experience.Performances are fairly solid, in particular Jessica Chastain as the grown up Murph, and there is enough raw emotion on show to push some of the more logically questionable moments past your cynic meter and give a sense of weight and importance to what is happening, even if you can't quite understand it.Definitely worth watching on the big screen, but would I give it a 9/10? No way. This is a film that you will enjoy on face value, but once you leave the cinema you will start picking it to shreds. There are just too many inconsistencies, contrivances and blatant stupidity in the plot to call this a masterpiece, but I'd give it a solid 7 for blockbuster entertainment value.",
    "138": "I have a bias for movies that at least seem to take space seriously. I think it explains why I put Contact atop my list of Robert Zemeckis movies, and I think it's why Interstellar is probably going to end up at the top of my list of Christopher Nolan movies. It's the kind of story that I gravitate towards naturally so that when several movies are at about the same level of esteem in my mind, it's the space stuff that just ends up winning out. The movie still needs to be good though, and Interstellar is great.Matthew McConaughey's Cooper is the exact opposite of The Protagonist in Tenet, which I find interesting and points to why one movie works on an emotional level and the other is more purely spectacle. Cooper has a specific emotional touchpoint, his daughter Murph, where The Protagonist pointedly had nothing specific to drive him to save the world in Tenet. I think it's a testament to some of the more traditional building blocks of storytelling and utilizing them in intelligent ways can lead to more complete stories.So, the world is slowly ending. Blight is killing the world's crops. First was wheat. Soon, okra will be gone. Corn's days are numbered. Blight, thriving on the nitrogen in our atmosphere is killing our food supply and will soon turn to our air supply. Something must be done, so the remnants of NASA have devised a plan to use the mysterious wormhole that has appeared orbiting Saturn to find a new home in another galaxy. They had already sent through a dozen people a decade before, giving them three potential worlds on the other side of the wormhole that they could colonize. Cooper, a former pilot turned farmer, stumbles onto this plot when a gravitational anomaly in his daughter's bedroom gives him a set of coordinates in binary for NASA's hidden base on in old NORAD facility.I think this movie ends up working so well in no small part because of how it begins. Nolan takes the time to set up the world, its deteriorating and diminished condition, as well as Cooper's relationship to Murph which carries him through the entire film. It's for her that he decides to go on this mission through space and gravity, which guarantees that he'll miss decades of her life. It's for her that he wants to return home, to a home where not everyone has died. He's contrasted sharply with Doyle, one of the other astronauts. With no personal connections, he looks at the problem with the least humanity, feeling that their priority should be the quickest and easiest solution in order to guarantee that they save what they can.Also on the ship out is Amelia Brand, the daughter of the chief scientist at NASA trying to figure out the problem of gravity that will get them off the ground in great enough numbers to survive as a species. She has a hidden motive: to reach specifically one of the three worlds, Miller's planet, because she loved him before he left. Her specific attachment drives her just like Murph drives Cooper.Back on Earth, Dr. Brand takes Murph under his wing, getting her into college to pursue an education in physics that is in short supply because the needs of the world are so centered on growing food. She grows into a woman and chief student of Dr. Brand, eventually learning that Dr. Brand had known for decades that there was no solution to the problem of gravity, and that there was never any hope for anyone left on earth. Colonization needed to happen with frozen embryos that the ship carried with it to the other galaxy. In her mind, her father left her to starve and die.This movie has a lot of moving parts, and I haven't even gotten to the three planets, but Nolan handles it so deftly that it's easy to avoid feeling overwhelmed. Nolan has such command over the story and its cinematic rollout that one can lose yourself in the story without ever feeling confused. Combined with the embrace of time mechanics as Cooper's adventures with gravity slow time for him, the movie keeps the different threads extremely clear as they progress at different speeds towards a single conclusion.In terms of the movie's treatment of space, this is where the realistic approach to filming the special effects, with an emphasis on camera placements that are attached to ship hulls, really helps enhance the film's sense of scale and danger. We can hear the rattle of the different parts of the ship scrape and hit against each other as the ship enters the wormhole. When the Endurance passes Saturn, it feels tiny in comparison. When Cooper takes the Ranger into the black hole at the end, it feels terrifyingly huge and dangerous.The first planet they visit is a water planet that stretches time by a couple of decades and shows them a planet void of any life despite the presence of water. The second planet is Mann's planet. Dr. Mann was the best of the twelve, the leader, the one who inspired the original group all to go, and his data on his planet was promising and closer to the first planet than Miller's planet. The time on Mann's planet was shown in trailers, but Mann himself was completely hidden. Played by Matt Damon, he ends up being the manifestation of what Amelia Brand described as nature being violent and overwhelming but not evil. The only evil we can find out among the stars is what we bring ourselves. Mann faked all of his data because he couldn't face dying alone. He was completely selfish, as opposed to Cooper's selflessness centered on his family and even Doyle's selflessness unmoored from any humanity.Now, having said all this, I love this movie as it is. The final act in the Tesseract is the kind of heady thing that embraces time mechanics mixed with emotional storytelling that I love, using science fiction to tell a human story. This also represents Nolan's response to Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey. Nolan obviously loves Kubrick's film, as evidenced by his efforts to have the movie restored for 4K and his many public comments praising the film, but, watching Interstellar, it feels like he has a certain fundamental disagreement with 2001, especially the ending.In Kubrick's film, humanity evolved through Dave Bowman becoming the Starchild after passing through the Stargate. In Interstellar, Cooper remains decidedly human after passing through the black hole and the Tesseract. There's no great evolution. We're still human. When he finds himself on Cooper Station, dozens of years after he had originally left, boys are still playing baseball and cheering when they hit a flyball through someone's window (in a circular design that directly evokes Rama from Arthur C. Clarke, who co-wrote the script for 2001). We can save ourselves as we are, Nolan seems to be saying. We don't need some outside force to take us another step in evolution. We have it in ourselves to take us further. There are other callbacks to 2001 including the use of Saturn (which Kubrick wanted to use late in production instead of Jupiter, but his special effects team rebelled and kept it as Jupiter) and the overall structure of having the Tesseract in place of the Stargate. I love both movies, and Interstellar is great, but it's not quite 2001: A Space Odyssey brilliant.I think this is Nolan at his height. Technically, the movie is at the top of the heap of cinema magic. Narratively, Nolan found a way to keep the stakes of the movie small enough to understand but still tied to a larger problem. In terms of performance, Matthew McConaughey is probably the best leading man Nolan's ever worked with, imbuing Cooper with such pathos as to invite real emotional connection. Anne Hathaway gives it her all as Amelia. Jessica Chastain is wounded and proud as the adult Murph. Hans Zimmer produces one of his best soundtracks using a huge organ at its core. This is Christopher Nolan exploring his cinematic loves at the height of his power in Hollywood, able to turn a heady science fiction script into a rousing and even touching adventure through space and time that made gobs of money at the box office. This is really why I love Christopher Nolan as a filmmaker in general.",
    "139": "During the emergency docking scene, I said to myself: \"this movie is perfect\". I couldn't fund a flaw. The story is enthralling and you feel the anxiety of the people who are struggling to survive and help others to do the same thing. There is a gravity to their work and they each show it well.My favorite genre us sci fi. This is plausible scifi, which is my favorite subset of scifi. McConnahey is amazing as usual. The young actress who plays his daughter seems like a break out star who we will def see again.The music is so good I'm learning a guitar transcription of some of the songs on the finger style guitar we site.I've seen Interstellar 7 or 8 times. I'll watch it regularly for years to come. It's a classic of our time much like Inglorious Basterds.",
    "140": "An epic science fiction movie. Not just epic due to its running time - about 2 3/4 hours - but also due to its physical scale and the boldness of its concepts. Christopher Nolan has shaped a movie that tackles some fairly complex astrophysical issues, and carried it off with aplomb.Fantastic special effects, a clever plot and decent performances by an all-star cast.Not perfect though. The sci fi parts are great but the relationship / human drama stuff seems clumsy at times. The scene setting at the beginning seems to take forever. We all know the really good stuff - the space scenes - are coming at some stage but Nolan draws out the more mundane earth stuff. Plus, there are scenes and plot detours which feel unnecessary, and periods where the movie seems to drift. The Matt Damon sub-plot just felt like padding. Some of the seemingly unnecessary, overly contrived or implausible things do ultimately have a purpose. The conclusion ties up many loose ends and/or justifies some of the flat moments, but not all.",
    "141": "8 November 2014. Interstellar (2014). What stands out in this movie is the role of emotion and how the script introduces a fascinating \"long-distance\" relational component of parent-child interaction unlike those movies with a similar powerful, intense, and emotive impact found in the horror movies of Jennifer Connelly's performance in Dark Water (2005), Radha Mitchell's performance in Silent Hill (2006) or John Cusack's performance in 1408 (2007). Interstellar is today's version of the 1950s sci fi classic Forbidden Planet (1956) in storytelling, big scale, and special effects, perhaps rivaling 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) of the sixties, or the sci fi monster thriller hit of the1970s Alien (1979) in its scale and authenticity or the inspirational, newly presented idea film of the last decade of the super hit Avatar (2009). The interweaving of two story lines in this movie was also a huge editing and script challenge that was well handled and presented on screen. Interstellar is solid story telling with its dramatic but not overly stylish Hollywood gloss and glamour as of say Avatar or Forbidden Planet. Even Ann Hathaway's under-stated surprisingly diminutive performance stands out as a directorial and acting highlight considering Hathaway's bigger than life screen presence and public popularity of the past that enhancing the impact of the movie.The overall direction and performances in this movie are introspective and authentic in their approach much like that found in the sci fi drama Stranded (2001) or Apollo 18 (2011) that don't rely on big screen stereotypical theatrics to wow its audiences. Somehow this supposedly epic sci fi adventure is as intimate as Cloud Atlas (2012) was as large spanning literally hundreds of years. Unlike a number of other review references comparing Interstellar to the visual style of sci fi action thriller Inception (2010) or some brief resemblance to Gravity (2013), Interstellar seems to take more from the sci fi relational drama Upside Down (2013) and the sci fi space drama Elysium (2013). As for plot outline, one can argue that Interstellar has more in common with the sci fi mystery of Oblivion (2013) and 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968 ) especially with noted theoretical leading astrophysicist Kip Thorne as scientific consultant and executive producer. And in contrast, the minimalist music score is in departure to A Space Odyssey's dominating and sometimes haunting musical score. This mind twisting experience includes pieces of the emotion and twisting, off balance characteristics of Déjà vu (2006).Some might complain about the extended dialogue, there really is a more satisfying exchange of relevant thoughtful ideas during this movie that are interspersed among amazing special effects that are leading edge for our literal time and space. When it comes to cerebral and emotive impact, Interstellar does so in a more narrative, mystery drama fashion as Ender's Game (2013) hit the similar points using a war action, adventure motif. The sci fi television mini-series The Triangle (2005) brought many of the intriguing and suspense aspects in a lower budgeted, popular mass audience approach, but also indicating how Interstellar was presented in a quality, big budget, high definition big screen format with a corresponding mesmerizing impact. What makes Interstellar so markedly ground breaking is director's Christopher Nolan's leap with this movie in its freshness and significantly different visual presentation, its tight editing and retention of the human relational importance while also presenting to dual track story outline in seamless and meaningful power way. Interstellar recalls the similar breathing mind-bending experiences in Brainstorm (1983) with Natalie Wood and Christopher Walken. Contact (1997) with Jodie Foster and also co-starring Matthew McConaughey, the children's version of A Wrinkle In Time (2002), the otherworldly time altering classic of Slaughter-House Five (1972), the haunting alien ambiance of Solaris (2002).",
    "142": "How do we begin to describe 'Interstellar', Christopher Nolan's most ambitious film to date? There will probably be no doubt, once you've seen it, that it reaches for the stars; whether it manages to get there is quite something else altogether. Whereas 'Inception' showed the filmmaker's refusal to be restrained by physical dimension, his latest sees him attempt to take an even bigger leap across space and time, envisioning our three-dimensional reality as part of a larger five-dimensional whole, and employing some of the very best technical wizards to create such wondrously dazzling visuals that you cannot help but be mesmerised.By imagery alone, it is flawless. A dying dust-choked planet Earth in the near future is depicted in a somewhat familiar yet eerily unsettling landscape of agrarian society. A single spacecraft is seen as a gleaming spark against Saturn's giant gaseous rings. Bright flashes alternate with pitch darkness as the same spacecraft enters a wormhole to emerge in a different galaxy. Each planet we explore in this brand new world is a sight to marvel in itself - one an endless expanse of water where waves rise higher than the eye can see; another is pure ice, where even the clouds are snow chunks. And amidst such surreal beauty, the one scene that will probably stay in your head for a while is that of different moments in time as a binary puzzle, meant to illustrate a key relationship in the film about gravity and time.Since his breakthrough hit 'Memento', Christopher has displayed a fascination with twisting time, and 'Interstellar' is no different. It may unfold in a largely linear fashion, but it plays with time more than you realise. On one hand, time is relative, such that one hour on a foreign planet counts for seven Earth years passed - so much so that while Matthew McConaughey's NASA test pilot named Cooper looks the same throughout the film, Timothee Chalamet and Mackenzie Foy as his 15- year son Tom and 10-year old daughter Murphy are replaced midway by Casey Affleck and Jessica Chastain respectively. That is the easier part - and then there is the scientific mumbo-jumbo that sees time in the context of black holes, gravitational singularities and the possibility of extra-dimensional space.Another hallmark of Christopher's films has been their cerebral aspirations, but 'Interstellar' surpasses all his previous works by (over)reaching into an unnecessarily convoluted labyrinth of hokey quantum physics. To be sure, it is very serious about being serious, throwing about plenty of technical dialogue and making no apologies for assuming that its audience for smart intelligent beings. A lot of that will undoubtedly whiz by on the first viewing, but by trying to engage on such an intellectual level, it ultimately becomes the cause of its undoing with a logic-defying second half that cross- cuts furiously between Cooper in a race-against-time up in space and Murphy in a similar position back on Earth. Even without thinking too much into it, one already gets the nagging sense that it violates its very own relativity principle of one hour versus seven years.Yet ironically, that is also the most entertaining segment of the film, which otherwise spends too much time (in Earth years, we may add) on melodramatic partings and monotonous stretches in space. With his brother, Johnathan, Christopher wraps the heady interstellar voyage around the bond between parent and child, or more specifically, that between Cooper and Murphy, who takes the parting especially badly; but these supposedly heart-rending scenes at the start are overwrought, and no thanks to Hans Zimmer's incessantly intrusive score, terribly manipulative. In contrast, a simple scene where the camera is simply trained on Cooper as he cries his eyes out watching years and years of backlogged video messages left by his son back on Earth is much more poignant - and without a soundtrack that instructs you how to feel.Much as Christopher tries to ground the movie in the humanity between Cooper and Murphy, 'Interstellar' is better appreciated as an exposition on big ideas - and there are many bandied about here. Mankind's place in space is encapsulated in McConaughey's lament that \"we used to look up at the sky and wonder at our place in the stars; now we just look down and worry about our place in the dirt\". Much later on, Matt Damon pops up to make an emphatic point about survival as the primal instinct, and by that, we mean survivial of the individual, not the human race. That is nicely contrasted against the motivation behind Cooper's mission itself, which his mentor Professor Brand (Michael Caine) reveals on his deathbed to be much more selfless - or selfish, depending on your perspective - than what he had initially told Cooper.Similarly, 'Interstellar' is a film of many contradictions. It wants so desperately to be intellectual, so it grounds its science in the theories of renowned CalTech physicist Kip Thorne, but it violates these principles in favour of building a more thrilling (and complex) narrative. It wants to be moving, but it under-develops the relationships between its characters and then tries to wring emotion out of every intimate scene. And at the heart of it is an unblinking motivation to be important, to be significant, to be monumental, to matter like Stanley Kubrick's masterpiece did, and to be both science and fiction at the same time. Indeed, there is no doubt it reaches for the stars, but 'Interstellar' remains right where we are - gazing up at these constellations, and never quite getting any closer to them.",
    "143": "It manages to be a science fiction tale, and at the same time stay grounded in realism, Is what Transcendence tried to do, but didn't quite get there. The performances where very Oscar worthy, and none the characters never for once seemed annoyingly one noted, when anybody was happy or sad in the film you where feeling it with them.Cooper(Matthew McConaughey) a widowed farmer, and former air force pilot, raising two kids, is chosen by NASA to help another place to live for human race, cause the earth is slowly dying. With the heartbreak of having to leave his family. Will Cooper and his launch team succeed before it's too late? I'm sure the filmmakers did there homework on space travel, cause I don't think there just trying to make another sci-fi adventure, they wanted this to feel grounded in reality has possible. Christopher Nolan never ceases to amaze me as a director, with all his films so far, I'm hoping he never slips up. There are some nods to 2001 a Space Odyssey, but this really stands on its own. This effects are beyond incredible. And great performances by Matthew McConaughey, Anne Hathaway, Michael Caine, and Jessica Chastain.",
    "144": "I resent its cynically shallow pessimism disguised as apple pie sentimentalism, its artistic laziness & its technical sloppiness. I resent its condescending attitude towards its audience. By virtue of its sheer popularity on IMDb it's a testament to the colossal, continuing dumbing down of movie audiences.Where to start on specifics? The premise of a world-wide drought (a major blooper mentioned on this site) with tall green stalks of healthy looking corn. Okra grown as a major food crop (or was that supposed to be a joke)? Cut & paste interviews from a Ken Burns documentary abut the real dust bowl. The tiresome cheapie \"homages\" to Kubrick's 2001. The pedantic Astrophysics for Dummies lectures.The soap opera characters. The one dimensional acting. The utter predictability of every single plot twist. I'd get more specific, but then I'd be blacklisted for including spoilers. You want to see imaginative mind-blowing science-fiction/fantasy film making? Let me make 2 suggestions: Stalker and Solaris. Both Russian films directed by Andrei Tarkovsky. Far lower budgets than Hollywood blockbusters but works of pure genius. Avoid the American version of Solaris. It's a travesty, though not quite as awful as Interstellar. In summary the sheer numbing dullness & stupidity of Interstellar (& its concomitant popularity) managed to knock me into the worst state of depression I've experienced from a movie in years.",
    "145": "A simple farm guy named Copper (Matthew McConaughey) and a few other experts go into outer space to explore other worlds that might sustain human life. It seems that that life on Earth might not survive due to to some unexplained environmental disaster. Naturally nothing goes right.WAY overpraised and terrible sci-fi movie. When I heard the plot from this I expected the worst. Writer/director Christopher Nolan has never been a favorite for me--I HATE what he did to Batman in his movie trilogy. I thought that he as trying to imitate Stanley Kubrick (\"2001\") here but it's far worse--he's doing Steven Spielberg! The movie runs WAY too long (165 minutes) and they're constantly pushing family friendly values in your face. Cooper's non-stop yammering about his daughter got on my nerves instantly. Also that stupid fake southern accent he adopts is immediately annoying. The story is very slow and all the characters are cardboard cutouts you've seen in other movies. The special effects are flawless and there's some beautiful cinematography here but the extreme length and boring story really weigh it down. Any sort of statement they're trying to make on time and life is completely deadened by the script. Also this movie is very manipulative and way too sentimental. They go out of their way to make the audience cry--like at a Spielberg movie. Well I did cry--tears of joy at the end that this was over! Also the gaps in logic and plot holes here are very annoying. I lost track of how many times I rolled my eyes at the dubious \"logic\" served up here. The acting was as good as it could be (I guess) but, at the end, they throw in a surprise guest star (who I won't name). It didn't help because I think he's a terrible actor and this didn't change my mind. I was bored and looked at my watch MANY times while this played. It's boring, obvious and manipulative. Why is this getting so much praise? Skip it.",
    "146": "\"Love is the one thing we're capable of perceiving that transcends time and space.\"Void. Then, as the monologue continues, the void is filled with cringe. \"Oh, Nolan\", I think to myself. \"Will you ever be able not to take gigantic resources as means to tell over-complicated, spectacle-centered stories that lack emotion?\". But of course, these thoughts probably won't reach Nolan anytime soon, and my internal monologue will only be shared with you guys. Let's get into it.Interstellar is a 2014 film, directed by the beloved and critically acclaimed Christopher Nolan. The movie follows a group of astronauts on a race against time to save humanity from extinction, looking for a new home planet for our race. Apropos a race against time, time has a lot of meaning in this film - a foreboding, looming presence that you fight against, a sacrifice you make, your one-way ticket to the end of everything you know. At least, this is what the film is trying to communicate.Nolan, who has delivered great material in the past (as of the time I'm writing this review, Memento is in my top 15 films of all time) but also lacking-in-emotion, over-complicated stuff (The Prestige being a prime example of that, and I think I might've been a little soft giving score to this film). I recommend reading my review to The Prestige for more insight about the way Nolan approaches cinema, but in short, I think that Nolan's biggest problem is looking at cinema as if it was a magic trick, as if the only thing that matters is to surprise and amaze. His way of doing that is turning to spectacles, to complicated concepts with cool visuals, but by doing so he often compromises the emotional aspect of the film, and the flow of the story, too.In this case, I feel like most aspects of the film are just okay, just there to support those massive moments regarding time and space. The amount of work going into some of the visuals is truly magnificent, but I feel like I can't be moved by this film, not really. The characters are far from being three dimensional or interesting, only managing to be just a little above the bare minimum needed to sustain the plot. The dialogue is nothing more than okay - decent at its best moments, cringe-worthy at its worst.I mean, the only thing truly working here is the film's way with the most epic moments of the story, the moments that make you feel how powerless, how small humans are in comparison to the universe in general. I'll also admit that the pacing felt much worse on first watch, when so much of the film went on and on about scientific terms and laws of physics (the dialogue felt super forced here) and then tried to push this half-baked philosophy about the importance of love (which was forced, too, and definitely felt like Nolan's poor attempt in finding an excuse to this film's concept) that I felt like it just crawled sometimes. On rewatch you know what to expect, and I could let myself enjoy the more fun moments, the grand moments, easing into the spectacle as much as I could.Still - spectacle doesn't compensate for the dryness of anything else. This is maybe to worst thing about this film - it thinks it's deep or smart when it isn't, not at all. The grandest moments work best, the \"philosophical\" moments or the moments in which the film tries to outsmart the viewer...well, this is Nolan's biggest weakness as a director. It's not horrible, but it's disappointing in its utter mediocrity. I'm feeling a 5.7/10 on this one.",
    "147": "I wanted to write a review for this movie for awhile and after watching it again last night I made up my mind.Currently at #23 film on the all-time list, it was at #30 some years ago and I just love that people are giving this film the love and respect it deserves. Many of you out there are saying The Dark Knight or Inception are Nolan's best films but for me Interstellar is the best. Don't get me wrong because I can't name any bad Christopher Nolan film, he has to be my favorite director and with his latest movie Oppenheimer I believe he won even more fans!So now about Interstellar, from where should I begin? The score? The acting? The story? Yes, you should give the film some time, let's say half an hour! I know many people who are jumping to conclusions before the film gets to the point, but as soon as you get to the point you only wished the movie was even longer.",
    "148": "\"Do not go gentle into that good night; Old age should burn and rave at close of day.\" that was one hell of a dialog from the movie #INTERSTELLAR even though it was inspired from a poem. Chris Nolan made a film which make's even science freaks also don't know some of 'em which he implied in the film. It is evidently clear that he doesn't like this 3-D world which instead he created 5-D world and made 'Time' as a physical quantity in his world. Literally there is no words to explain the ingenuity of Chris. The way he crafted the characters and effectively using technical expertise and screen writing definitely make us to taste 'Transcendence'. once again he proved that he is not a contemporary director but a director who evolved from unrealistic future.Matt did a splendid job by portraying 'cooper' and express his emotions as a destitute and grief-stricken father was incomparable. Hans zimmer, he is at his best. Anne and Jess made justice to their roles. Matt Damon and Michael Caine played a pivotal role as well. Chris also made 'India' as part of his film because of 'M.O.M' i think, even though it is little about India i think. overall film is astoundingly superb with intense screenplay unless you detest physics or you lack keenness but its better to study a Lil'bit before 'bon appetite'. Remember \"do not go gentle into that good movie\".#INTERSTELLAR and #INCEPTION are the best sci-fi masterpieces i've ever seen in this decade. Take a bow Chris Nolan and \"orgoglioso DI es sere UN fan DI Christopher Nolan''",
    "149": "Look this is still a good film and my rating system has no actual weight here. Christopher Nolan is a brilliant film maker but lately you start noticing that he is not without his shortcomings.His films are laden with the same tropes especially the massive plot holes. And that was the reason I wanted to see this film, to see what plot hole he had this time and yes they are a plenty.I will still give credit to where it's due. He really wanted to make a head scratcher and this time with the laws of general relativity which the film does closely follow. Basically the emotional device here is that Matthew Mahogany traveling at a fraction of the speed of light through space makes him age slower than his kids and basically its a race against time.However the Nolan-isms come full circle with not-so-subtle foreshadowing, overly pretentious unnatural dialogue, heavy-handed symbolism, a really ear-ringing Hans Zimmer score which make the Inception horns sound like and an unnecessarily long run time.I can see that this is a script he didn't really have time to think through but you can see he tried and its still pretty entertaining. However it's no 2001 A Space Odyssey. He should stick to thrillers. Sorry."
}