thread for Interstellar yet?

My favorite net movie reviewer gave it 4 out of 4 stars.

It is playing at the local IMAX this weekend-definitely plan to check it out.

That’s a great review - thanks for posting! I’m excited about this movie and will definitely check it out on the IMAX screen but will probably not be able to do so before Thanksgiving. Hoping this one lives up to the anticipation

Don’t see it for the science.

My issue is that from the previews they spend far too much time on Earth with the Pilots family. boring.

The review sez the same. 45 minutes of Earth, then “The movie takes some chances with its endgame, which resolves a lot of plot points but at times seems rushed.”

That article has serious spoilers.

I saw it in 70mm last night and liked it a lot (though not as much as some of Nolan’s other films). The cast is very strong and while some basic emotional exposition happens on Earth, far more time is devoted to the space mission. I won’t go into too much detail but I am a sucker for time travel movies, and the paradoxes inherent in stories like that so really enjoyed it though some people might find it too ponderous or sentimental. Visually, it’s gorgeous with some stunning effects and some character surprises, and while I’ve heard about some problems with a muddled audio mix, my screening was perfect. I’ll probably see it again.

I’m debating whether or not to see this tomorrow.

Honestly, I really don’t care for Nolan’s films. I enjoyed Batman Begins, but his other films are tedious to me, and at nearly 3 hours, I’m afraid Interstellar will be tedious.

However, I really like McConaughey and find he makes most anything he’s in worth watching.

But again, at 3 hours, I think it best for me to wait until I can watch it at home.

As I grow older I find myself appreciating film makers who can keep their films to 90 minutes.

That’s strange. The movie had as an adviser Kip Thorne, theoretical physicist and than whom few in the world know more about this stuff. I guess in the end though if you want to make a movie like this you have to leave the science behind at some point as it gets too confining.

This guy says the critic has it wrong:

One of the critics is Phil Plait - the Bad Astronomer and former SDMB poster - but the critique critic seems to also know his stuff, so I’m willing to believe that Phil may have gotten it wrong this once. It’s all above my head, though, so they’ll all need to fight it out amongst themselves.

I just got back from seeing it. And I have a good grasp on layman GR, so anticipating this film, and finally seeing it was a tremendous treat.

I loved it. For me, it lies somewhere between 2001:ASO and Contact, a bit more ponderous than Inception, but with an unambiguous resolution that I found satisfying.

As to the science, if there was a movie to get wrapped up in the extreme nerdy science of it, this is the movie to do it. And if the equations work out in some mathematical framework or another, pick that one and go with it and just enjoy this movie heavily strung on General Relativity, Black Holes, and the warping of space and time.

One point about Phil’s that made me scratch my head, was his criticism of needing a star to cast energy, warmth and light on a planet… I’ll spoiler the rest, but it’s more situational description and less of a major spoiler plot-wise:

[spoiler]And since the solar system’s star they wormhole on over to had collapsed into what the movie calls a “soft, massive black hole” (dubbing it Gargantuan), it has an extremely bright (and beautifully rendered) accretion disc that I assume would radiate as much light and energy as equal to that of a normal star that a screenplay writer might need so long as it’s close to real, IMHO.

In fact, there’s many shots where we see Gargantuan from a distance, and the accretion disc is blindingly bright, yet you can still see hints of the black event horizon, as the curvature of spacetime by the black hole wreathes the event horizon in hot light, almost like an eclipse; due to gravitational lensing.

Once inside the event horizon, things go direct to the land of pure science fiction, but if you like trying to visualize higher dimensions in time and space, such as tesseracts (Murph’s room), then you’ll have a ton of movie-fun.[/spoiler]

Highly recommended, not as a treaty on GR, but a good romp using it as a plot backdrop.

Interesting Wired article on the astrophysics behind the movie.

Some parts of the movie were quite interesting.

Unfortunately, larger parts of the movie were quite stupid.

There were things I liked about the movie, and things I hated about it. I liked the portrayal of a dying planet. I liked a lot of the acting and the characterizations. I liked the portrayal of planetary exploration. The special effects were good. I liked the emotional effect of having the characters age more slowly than their friends and relatives on earth.

On the other hand, I didn’t like:

[li]the repeated schmaltzy quotations from “Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night”[/li][li]the fact that they didn’t tell us how the great discovery (whatever it was) made it possible to save the earth[/li][li]the fact that the apparent effect of falling into a black hole is to make you magically appear in your daughter’s bedroom at some point in the past (I get that it made it possible to travel through time as a fourth dimension, but how did he end up exactly where he needed to be?)[/li][li]that while you’re in this time-traveling tesseract you can cause things to happen by pounding on the walls of reality[/li][li]that Anne Hathaway’s character jeopardized the entire mission by doing something incredibly stupid[/li][li]the sentimentality, which started off small but grew over the course of the movie until it got so big that it collapsed and drew everything else in the movie into it[/li][/ul]

1)Yeah, the first time felt right. After that it became thick.

  1. the huge discovery was the data TARS was able to collect from inside a black hole, unifying QM with GR, thus ushering in a whole new understanding of gravity and fundamental physics. They didn’t save the earth, they all left it (Plan A).

3)This one’s a time-paradox: their far advanced future progeny was able to send Cooper into a higher-dimentional cube (Murph’s room), aka a tesseract, once he passed beyond the event horizon. How? Because the future humans knew that was the spacetime coordinates he had to be in order to interact with his daughter to relay the information on how to solve the equations for “Plan A” thus colonizing Ann Hataway’s planet and over millennia giving rise to these future humans who knew who to send back etc.

  1. I’m thinking they were able to make time spacial and they somehow made gravity tangible in limited ways. And love or something.

  2. She was trying to retrieve the data from the first explorer who had died there. This caused the other dude to drown, and delayed them 3x as long or something, cuz the engines were flooded.

  3. the Sentimental Singularity! Eureka![/spoiler]

It was boring.

So you start out with science and end with God & magic. Not a fan of that blending.

God & magic? :confused:

Only in the Clarkeian sense.

I was hoping for at least one Mr. Mxyzptlk cameo.