Finally saw this last night with my wife... she's not a big sci-fi fan (not like me anyway) but she tolerates it because its one of *my* big interests...
We both LOVED the movie and were HIGHLY impressed! It was WONDERFUL and the way it was executed was absolutely brilliant! The performances were SO excellent; the casting was terrific and the actors did a brilliant job in their roles! The CGI was impressive without being overpowering, and it SUPPLEMENTED the story, not SUBSTITUTED for it, which is an EXTREMELY refreshing change from the usual sloppy writing and "dumbed down" stories of most Hollywood fare over the last few years (aimed it seems primarily at separating teen "mall rats" from their ticket money). We were both also HIGHLY impressed that there was NO bad language to speak of (a near "f-bomb" but he basically "mouthed it" by simply going silent for that word in the middle of his sentence). There was also no nudity, no sex, and only a limited allusion to a "love story" between two of the characters. The setup was, in Betty's opinion, a little long, but it effectively set up the story and the problems while also getting you to "care about the characters" and what happens to them later in the movie...
There were a FEW problems I noticed, but they were forgivable (but could have been SO easily corrected with a little more research...) I haven't been following this thread very closely since the first day fearing spoilers, so I don't know how deeply the film has been discussed here (whether there's spoilers in the thread or not) but I will say this... SPOILER ALERT!!! If you don't want spoilers, STOP READING THIS POST NOW!!!!
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
Okay... while the films dedication to "scientific accuracy" in quantum physics was terrific, and its portrayal of the actual effects of time dilation at relativistic velocities and stuff was terrific and a cornerstone of the story, I openly laughed at the inaccuracies in the farming scenes...
When Cooper is fiddling about with the "robotic combines", and driving across the field chasing the drone and nearly running into the combine, they were all running in GREEN CORN...
REALLY?? I've been a farmer all my life, born and raised on the farm, and I JUST got back from Indiana and helping my BIL with his corn harvest, and *anybody* with ANY even remote experience with agriculture knows that crops are NOT harvested "green"... (with the obvious exception of silage cut wet and green, where the high moisture and sugar levels are used to advantage to ferment the crop and preserve it in the absence of oxygen). Not only is the grain in NO WAY mature enough (still at the milk or at best dough stage of development-- hence still taking on starch and nutrients from the plant, which stops basically at the late "dough" stage (the kernels of grain, whatever grain, will when first formed/fertilized with pollen, will start off like blisters of water-- the individual kernel of grain starts out basically as a seed coat filled with a watery jelly, which turns milky and thickens through the "milk" stage and continues to thicken into the 'soft dough' stage (at which point if the kernel is pinched between the fingers, the milky contents will squeeze out, or later a soft, wet, doughy material) then to the "hard dough" stage (as the contents thicken continually, eventually squeezing a kernel will cause a damp, firm starchy pasty material to squeeze out; from that point on the kernel will get harder and drier and not be able to have the contents squeezed out...) it will go through the "dent" stage (for corn) where the drying kernel hardens further and shrinks, causing the end of the kernel to form a dimple or 'dent' in it, and then continue losing moisture and maturing to the "black layer" (when the kernels attachment to the cob is physiologically mature and ready to separate) when the grain is ready to be harvested. This is basically the same process for ALL grains, small grains (wheat, rye, oats, etc), sorghum, rice, etc., with a few minor variations, as they are all members of the grass family... and even soybeans (which are a broadleaf legume and not a grass) follows a similar maturing process for the grain. The plants transfer MOST of the nutrients stored in the plant tissues (built up during the vegetative and early reproductive stages) from the plant tissues into the developing grain. The plant then basically "dies" and dries down as it reaches physiological maturity, transferring virtually all its nutrients into the grain (which is why 'stover' or stubble is of very little feed value, but is valuable for animal bedding and such). Mature grain is a golden yellow-tan-brown, dry and ready for harvest-- the grain is hard and as dry as possible (ideally in the 13% range for safe storage in the bin, though field crops, depending on the region, climate, weather that particular year, variety (brand and type of seed), growth conditions, etc., may be as high as 25% or even 30% at harvest depending on drydown conditions-- such grain has to be dried to 14-15% moisture for safe storage (for corn, climate dependent) and about 13.5% for soybeans and even 12% for some other grains...) That's why harvest doesn't take place for some time after the crops actually physiologically mature and turn golden.
Besides, combines, like hay balers, are designed to handle DRY materials (stalks, leaves, stover, grain, husks, shucks, etc) NOT wet material... combines tend to choke up RAPIDLY and VERY BADLY in excessive green material (like weeds and vines and stuff) and the moisture squeezed out from this green matter during harvest can even increase the moisture content of the grain as its absorbed by the grain during threshing, when all of that stuff is ground together in the thresher and shaken to separate it all in the machine... plus the green sap squeezed out by the crushing of the thresher then sticks to the internal parts of the machine and dust then sticks to it, "gumming up" the concaves, grain pan, straw walkers or separators, chaffers and sieves, augers, etc, greatly reducing the efficiency and capacity of the machine and causing plug-ups and riding grain out the back with the chaff and stover. SO, running in excessively wet conditions is NEVER a good thing.
Heck, even *I* have posted videos on youtube of the corn harvest (especially last year and this years-- search for "luke strawwalker" if interested) along with hundreds/thousands of other farm-related videos... WHY screenwriters/producers don't do a *tiny* bit more research to more accurately "tweak" their screenplays and what they film for a little more accuracy is beyond me... I guess maybe it comes down to a pure financial decision-- filming in the middle of the crop season (mid summer) rather than waiting for "actual harvest conditions" in the fall... (though mid-summer IS harvest season down here in Texas, so that argument doesn't really hold water either... unless of course they have a sweetheart deal to film in a "certain place" at a 'certain time'. Anyway, its one of those things that just seem excessively sloppy...
Point two is, while the spaceflight scenes were VERY realistic and beautifully done, and they generally tried pretty hard to portray spaceflight and quantum physics as accurately as possible (within reason), there was one glaring error mentioned in the movie that immediately jumped out at me... they did a "gravitational slingshot" off MARS to get to Saturn... that really wouldn't gain you much. Mars is only about 1/3 Earth's mass... so a gravitational slingshot off such a low-mass body will not gain you much velocity AT ALL. Remember that Galileo did TWO fly-by gravitational assists from Earth and one from Venus (which are both very similar in mass) to gain the velocity needed to get to Jupiter. Cassini and the Voyagers did gravitational assists from Jupiter, which due to its ENORMOUS mass can provide a big increase in velocity due to the gravitational slingshot maneuver... the massive gravitational pull is the real key, coupled with the orbital velocity of the planet around the sun. A low mass body like Mars simply doesn't have the mass to provide enough of a gravitational pull to accelerate a spacecraft much... If they'd have changed that to "Jupiter" it would have closed that mistake.
There were also a few plot holes in regards to the "situation" on Earth... evidently, there was a big shortage of food, yet as Betty put it "they still had grain to ferment into beer??" Also, the movie was supposed to be (guessing) 50 years or so in the future, but vehicles haven't changed much (at all) and there seems to be a limitless supply of gasoline and motor fuels... I can *kinda* buy that-- the world has turned its back on technology and undergone some sort of "mini-Malthusian collapse" and gone "Luddite" to some extent (gov't textbooks saying Apollo WAS faked for pities sake!, no MRI machines, NASA banned) and thus sort of "gone Cuba" (in that they still drive cars from the 50's there since they've been "cut off" by the US for decades), so I can see that early 20-teen vehicles still being the 'norm' because nothing much was produced after that... but then the movie sort of contradicts itself...
For one thing, the education system determines who will be a farmer during adolescence, much like the old Soviet education system determined who would be sent to college and who would be directed into a trade preparatory courses or trade school preparatory coursework about the time they entered high school... (and what trade to direct them into). There is a general shunning of technology (and considerable scavenging, since Cooper puts himself, his family, and his vehicle at considerable risk to "capture" the India drone that overflies his farm, so he can scavenge it for parts, especially its computer which he can "graft into" a combine to operate it instead. There's a definite dichotomy there... I guess the "general population" was quite anti-science and Luddite, whereas the "misfits" like Cooper still embraced technology, as did certain other areas where it was required... maybe just not much of a "priority"...
It was also interesting to contemplate some sort of "mini-meltdown" of society based on lack of food, yet it resulted not in a collapse into resource wars, but an orderly progression of "eliminating armies and weapons and warfare" instead-- something which our own civilization, even in less troubled and more "resource-available" times, was nowhere even close to achieving. This was another dichotomy that I found implausible to rectify to the point of considering it a plot hole... Food is one of THE most basic resources, and its FAR more likely that nations, especially 'rogue nations' suffering a severe shortage of it will seek war as an answer (either to obtain resources or reduce the problem via "attrition"). That's why I'm a reluctant but realist believer that resource wars and some sort of "Malthusian collapse" (of whatever severity) is FAR more likely in the coming decades than any "peaceful adaptation" to increasingly scarce resources and burgeoning populations coupled with weapons proliferation and increasing sophistication and global unrest.
The O'Neill colonies were particularly well done... VERY cool... however the "adjustment" from an increasingly Luddite existence and anti-science culture on Earth to the ENORMOUS effort (and shift in mentality) required to build massive O'Neill colonies to evacuate Earth was again, such a huge unrectified dichotomy that I considered it a plot hole of sorts... Granted you can't address EVERYTHING in even a 2.5-3 hour movie without making it into a 3-4 hour movie... but still, it would have been nice to have these "holes" a little better explained or "closed"...
Anyway, it's a WONDERFUL movie and CERTAINLY should be seen by as many people as possible... I also think it's a REALLY good kids movie-- it's clean, non-sexual, and has a really inspiring and thought-provoking message and presentation, and was extremely well done and well presented. Some of the material was certainly "heavy" from a kid's perspective (Cooper leaving his young daughter especially hit 'close to home' for me, since I leave my wife and daughter for a month or so at a time twice a year to help my BIL plant and harvest crops in Indiana for the past three years (and who knows for how long) and every time I leave, I wonder if its for the last time (it is a long drive, and anything can happen, and farm work isn't the safest occupation on the planet by a LONGSHOT!) but I think that its also important for kids to learn to deal with and adapt to separation from one or both parents for some period of time, to experience some level of self-reliance and dealing with those sorts of issues, and learning that they CAN survive it and thrive and adapt, BEFORE such a thing might be FORCED upon them by events in life (such as death of a parent, divorce, etc.) I think that such things are part of growing up, and help teach the lesson "what doesn't kill us makes us stronger", and the important thing is "how *WE* REACT to the circumstances, not the circumstances themselves so much". I'm looking forward to taking Keira to see it...
Anyway, that's my first impressions...
later! OL JR