INTERSTELLAR Clip: Matthew McConaughey Wrestles With A Difficult Decision

He should have made Failure To Launch 2.

Just came from seeing it. The visuals were absolutely stunning. But the plot and length of movie caused me to walk away disappointed.

Watched this last night. Mind = blown. Stunning visuals, and as Agentmi5 said very emotional and mentally draining, in a good way. Running time wasnt an issue, Nolan knows how to keep you hooked in.

Oh and them robots too, haha they were too good!

Blown away by this film, as a father, the father/daughter thing hit me hard, as I've seen a few people mention before, there's "the moment" in this film that shifts, that either completely pulls you in emotionally or throws you out, I think it was a risk, and It worked for me, it didn't work for others. I think its gonna divide viewers, and I think the movie won't be a box office run away, I think the run time, the 2001-ishness of it (drawn up shots of silent space and spacecraft), and the themes at hand aren't a feel good movie that people will walk out of feeling like they just saw a kick ass super hero movie, or a feel good action flick. All in all I loved the film, I loved that it was shot on film and hand a really gritty look to a lot of the shots, I think IMO that it's the best science fiction film in a really really long time, far surpassed stuff like District 9 (which I loved), Edge of Tomorrow, and the one with Matt Damien from the D9 guy. I think this movie will have a legacy, not like 2001, but still a really damn good Space/Sci-fi film. The scope is huge.

Could someone exlain the plotholes?

@Starkasm Too many plotholes to keep track of. The most glaring of which is, like I stated earlier, the Bootstrap Paradox. ***SPOILER*** How did future humans first survive to make a Tesseract – given that there would have been no Tesseract to save them? Also, the proportionate relativity is wayyyyyy off base.

Remember when CMB.com tried to convince us that this movie was bad? Good times.

@LadyAyra -RT scores for Christopher Nolan

The Dark Knight-94%

Insomnia-92%

Inception-86%

Batman Begins-85%

The Dark Knight Rises-88%

Memento is his only good film? Really???

@LadyArya, you're a [frick]ing dumbass.

What a overrated hack , shit [frick]ing movie , Kubrick wannabe indeed

Ps. It ant no classic, and if anyone even tries to compare to greats like 2001 they are fricken idiots.

I think anyone who didn't like this movie should go rewatch some Liam Neeson action films... That's more suited intellectually for them.

@Wikkyburz-Interstellar is BETTER than 2001. Even at it's close to 3 hours length it is far less boring and tedious, the acting, far better....

@LasyAyra - if you think that was a plot hole then you clearly didn't understand the concept of time/5th dimension that is presented. Which is fine, as it's part of enjoyment of a film like this. Simply put: time isn't linear. Bearing in mind we're talking about a fictional film playing with theoretical science; you don't have to agree with it, but at least accept that for this film, things work a certain way.

Also, it's funny that you mention Dr Kip Thorne, as he worked heavily on this film and ended up writing two essays on the back of his time working on it.

To those who have seen the film, did anyone else find the music (which I really liked) to be incredibly similar to the music used in the scene in The Watchmen where Dr Manhattan explains how he conceives time?

@LadyArya-He hugged at the heartstrings because he is making a movie, not a science documentary...

Thorne himself helped work on the filnm so there goes that argument about abandoning his principles..

@Ladyarya I have just been reading your posts and find it refreshing to see someone actually debating the merits of the conceptual underpinnings of the movie rather than just the run of the mill debate about what studio is better, director and so forth, which has come to be typical for this site. The same goes to the others who have contributed to this debate (bravo). After reading your last post I am a little perplexed by your position and I was hoping you could clarify. You mentioned that interstellar was fundamentally based in "pseudo science", yet in your next sentence you state "for the most part, this movie is the living embodiment of his life's work" (meaning Dr Kip Thorne's work that is). Framing your argument in this way gives the impression that you are suggesting that Dr Kip throne’s work is fundamentally based in pseudo science considering that the bulk of the movie is dedicated to his work.

Secondly, you mention the plot-holes are due to his departure from this theory in order to focus on the relationship aspect. What I walked away thinking was that the concept of love is not just a utilitarian argument or Hollywood intervention, rather it transcends beyond what can be measured scientifically, thus proposing a juxtaposed argument that contradicts and invalidates the very nature of scientific investigation. Much like gravity itself, for a phenomenon to be validated scientifically it must be both observable and testable. Gravity cannot be seen, but we can observe its effects. Thus it fails scientific validation (in the traditional sense) but we know it exists. Same goes for love we are connected in a profound and inexplicable way that cannot be truly measured scientifically but we know it exists because it is felt by all and we are all connected by it. In essence, it is a dichotomy of theoretical and philosophical thought. I thought the move done an exceptional job of exploring this.