Interstellar - Wow.

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
With a build up like this I hope you wont be disappointment.
I got more than I expected and I'm planning on seeing it again.

If it's a technical as I have heard, I'll prolly have to see it again so I can get a re-do on the dialog. I go to a movie expecting to get hammered with a great story line, and the visual effects. But when the techno babble starts....eh....I could get a little lost sometimes. Maybe it won't be as bad as translating a 'Next Gen' episode...hehehe.
 
I'm sure I'll come out of there thinking, "How did they pull that off w/o green screens?" God as my witness, I saw him say it in a GMA interview. I still don't believe everything I hear on TV, but, that's a pretty bold statement. A lot of great movies were done without them you know. It's just become a given standard using them anymore.

Well...that's what I heard as well. Here is an excerpt from the previously linked five star review:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Every once in a while, a film comes along that is so mind-blowing, you can feel the impact it will eventually have on cinematic history. Whether it be Christopher Nolan’s use of practical effects and ZERO green screen, Zimmer’s masterful/ambitious score, or the fact that Nolan still shoots on film, “Interstellar” proves that an original idea can still come out of Hollywood and blow people’s minds. Upon repeat viewings, this film reveals more of itself to the audience and it’s gloriously mind-blowing. If you thought “Inception” was a mind-bender, you haven’t seen anything yet. This time, Nolan has found his heart.

I honestly don’t even know where to begin with this review. Words like game-changer and masterpiece come to mind but it’s much more than that. It’s a FILM (And yes, it’s so refreshing to call it that) that is massive in scope, effects and ideas yet is extremely grounded in its emotional core about a father and daughter. When you strip everything away, that father/daughter relationship is the core to the flick. I’ve seen the film twice and I still haven’t fully grasped all the science and ideas but I do know that I walked away experiencing an incredible love story that took me on one of the most incredible rides I’ve ever been on. I do know that it is Nolan’s most emotional and complete film to date. Listen, I’m obsessed with films like “The Dark Knight” and “Inception,” but I always felt they lacked the emotional punch that I wanted. “The Dark Knight” transcended the superhero genre and “Inception” blew people’s minds with its story and visuals. I just never felt there was a massive heart to either of those films. With “Interstellar,” Nolan locates that heart while also delivering his out-of-this-world visuals and ideas.

In a day and age where computer-generated effects have become a crutch for filmmakers, it is beyond refreshing to see a director building massive sets and set-pieces while using ZERO green screen. That is worth repeating. NOLAN USED ZERO GREEN SCREEN. He built massive spacecrafts and then projected images of space (using front projection) on the windows so that the actors could experience it in real time, which obviously makes it more immersive for the actors and the audience. Nolan would then film the actors in the spacecrafts and capture that realism in-camera!"
 
I got to go see it at a private screening on Tuesday, and I loved it! As I told my friend after the movie, it was like taking a bath in astrophysics and quantum physics. It really is a great movie. I'm glad to hear others sharing my opinion of this film.


I've been curious since you posted this...how did you luck into a private screening so early? And was it IMAX?
 
Saw it today.

Good overall, but at least a couple of really "WFT" moments. And not necessarily in the "wow that's fantabu-tastic" way. The movie did recover from the first one. The last one…… I'm still not sure.

But then I can recall when a friend and I went to see the movie "Alien". We expected a sci-fi movie with a deadly alien. We didn't realize it was going to be more like Friday the 13th, in Spaaaaaace. But in seeing it again (and again) later on cable TV, I appreciated it a lot more, we were too harsh. Didn't have the expectations from going in, and also saw it wasn't really like Friday the 13th (except for the predictable - Finally It''s dead…. SURPRISE (not) NO it isn't!" at the end in the escape pod).

And just loved Aliens (even though it too played the "its dead.. NO it isn't!" game again). The 3rd one was horrible and the 4th one "eh". And I never bothered with the Aliens vs Predator junk. I did see Prometheous…. the less said the better (glad I saw it on cable and didn't pay $).

Anyway…..back to Interstellar…..

It was pretty interesting to see a certain actor in an uncredited role. Makes me look even more forward to next year to seeing a movie he is going to be in. And no I do not refer to Star Wars 7 in this case, but I am looking forward to that too.

I would be interested to see Neil Degrasse Tyson review this one. He was too hard on Gravity, paying too much attention to picky things like hair in zero-G, (though IIRC he didn't focus enough attention to the impossibilities of getting from a shuttle orbit to an ISS orbit and then to a Chinese Space Station orbit, as though one just pointed that way and slowly drifted there…. like they were islands in space that were all near each other, never mind orbital mechanics and orbital planes).

I KNOW what he'd say about a certain scene where [spoiler, can't describe it]…. happened, and ……… [spoiler, can't describe it]. I've heard him discuss such a thing on Star Talk.

I do suggest nobody read anything on the internet about it, go see it soon before someone spoils it. Because when I simply looked up a list of actors, I ran across a story where they describe the characters in too much detail ….. the site gave away massively idiotic spoilers (they were idiots to describe in the detail they did). The good thing is that I didn't see that till after I saw the movie.

For the length…. start time was listed as 12 noon. When it ended and the credits began, it was 2:52. But there had been 10-15 min of previews after 12 noon. But still, nearly 3 hours of sitting. Good thing the chair was comfy. Even for much shorter movies, I eat and drink little in advance, never during. Today, it was an orange for breakfast, and a bit of water but not much.

Oh, I saw it on a flat screen, projected in 70mm. Yes, actual 70mm FILM. $5.50 matinee.

- George [spolier mode editing] Gassaway
 
Last edited:
I deliberately do NOT drink soda or any other kind of liquid during a movie. Especially a 3 hour one. Hence, I don't do the popcorn and candy thing either. I hate to have to miss a single minute because I need to hit the restroom! Call me cheap, dunt matter. I eat before I go. The matinee is at 12:30 here tomorrow which is perfect timing for me. There is never a lot of people at the matinee on Sunday afternoon here in this dreadful little town, and I'm just fine with that. It is, the one of very few, little jewels this place has to offer. Been a long time since I've anticipated seeing a movie on this level. I hope it blows my skirt up.....metaphorically speaking.

I'm with you on this one... plus, for the cost of popcorn and a coke, you can get a pretty nice meal elsewhere... I don't like wasting that much money on what's basically a "munchie" during the movie...

Later! OL JR :)
 
Saw it today.

Good overall, but at least a couple of really "WFT" moments. And not necessarily in the "wow that's fantabu-tastic" way. The movie did recover from the first one. The last one…… I'm still not sure.

I KNOW what he'd say about a certain scene where [spoiler, can't describe it]…. happened, and ……… [spoiler, can't describe it]. I've heard him discuss such a thing on Star Talk.

I do suggest nobody read anything on the internet about it, go see it soon before someone spoils it. Because when I simply looked up a list of actors, I ran across a story where they describe the characters in too much detail ….. the site gave away massively idiotic spoilers (they were idiots to describe in the detail they did). The good thing is that I didn't see that till after I saw the movie.

George [spolier mode editing] Gassaway

George:
Thanks for posting, I was waiting for your take on this one, and thanks for keeping the no-spoiler mode on and not giving away details.
Maybe we can get into the details offline - via PM....or here after ample time passes...
 
Yes, one of the previous posts mentioned Director M. Night Shyamalan, now I know why.
There are aliens capable of interstellar flight who come without raincoats to a water laden world where water literally falls from the sky even though they know water will dissolve them like a strong acid?
 
I saw it on opening, and liked it, I got sucked into the emotional side of it which is ok. My kids and I watched 2001 a week before, and there were similarities to that, to signs, inception and a few others in places. Visually very neat and I'd go see it again. I get so tired though of no obvious connection with orbital mechanics, aerodynamic issues in re-entry, finding orbiting structures by dead reconing....etc and don't get me started about singularities. But in general the way it was crafted you can just enjoy the story for the most part and buy into the situation......I didn't find it as implausibly annoying as gravity....gravity was great visually, but story and rediculousness of what they were doing just grated on me. I was able to predict a couple of the "surprises" but that was ok.

Frank
 
Last edited:
Max, Overall, how does this movie compare to 2001? Seeing 2001(in 1971) in a theatre with only a handful of people was like a "religious experience" of sorts for me. :eyepop: I may go see this based on your recommendation.
 
My wife, son and I went to see The Maze Runner last night. It feels an awful lot like The Hunger Games, but without the shakey cam, and with more and seamless CGI. It's the first in a 3 or 4 part series, so don't expect a satisfying conclusion, although there is a solution presented.

Upon returning home, my 17 college Freshmen son remarked that he was sorry that he had missed Gravity, as he heard it was very good.
I whipped out the DVD that I had ordered through Amazon only a week before, and at 1 a.m. we started watching "just the first ten minutes or so" in order that he could see the level of CGI and the set-up for the plot. I was standing next to the hi-res computer with the stereo sound. 40 minutes later, my wife came down to the basement and said "Aren't any of you ever going to bed tonight?"

We had watched almost 1/2 of the movie, we had gotten so drawn into it. (I've seen it four times now, and knowing what to watch for, I still get drawn in!)

PS: The DVD has an additional bonus feature on the end, that fans may find amusing/entertaining. Remember when Dr. Ryan Stone attempts to make radio contact, and gets a foreign speaker who mistakes her name for "MayDay"? I had assumed that was the Chinese station with people hallucinating or evacuating. How wrong I was. The additional feature at the end, shows the OTHER side of the conversation, and the person who struggles with their own issues of life and death, and we hear the voice of Dr. Stone, direct from the movie, intercut with his conversation, which is subtitled for us on the screen. It's a nice little bonus that enriches the story slightly.
 
Max, Overall, how does this movie compare to 2001? Seeing 2001(in 1971) in a theatre with only a handful of people was like a "religious experience" of sorts for me. :eyepop: I may go see this based on your recommendation.

I was fortunate to see 2001 at the theatre it premiered, a week after it premiered in 1968...the Uptown in Washington DC in cinerama.
I don't think I can compare this movie, or any movie for that matter, to 2001.
Like Spielberg said in the Kubick documentary, 2001 was a turning point in how films were done, it was big budget, but unusual in that it attempted to tell a big story on humanity's future and past, relying a great deal on visuals with no narration - it didn't even have a spoken word or dialogue until 45 minutes or so into the movie.
This sort of leads me to classify 2001 in its original context more as film as art - rather than film as entertainment.

My take...with 2001 there was so little spoon feeding the viewer had to bring something to the experience, a lot of patience for one. And a level of imagination to explain what he/her was seeing..
Precisely why the old people and execs walked out at the premier row by row, some 200 of them. Woody Allen didn't like 2001 until his third viewing, whereupon he realized how far ahead Kubrick was.
I have heard of people where I lived at the time that didn't walk out, but either fell asleep, threw popcorn at the screen at matinees, etc.
Kubrick had made his mark after Dr. Strangelove and was given a lot of latitude by the studios to do what he he wanted to back then.
Given the movie going crowd today and what sells - I'm not sure if a film like 2001 would even play well today, for instance, I know young people today that think a classic like Casablanca is too boring to sit through.

Ok, that said, Interstellar relies a great deal on dialogue and a fairly fast paced level of action. Not very much like 2001 - Ok, I'll say it: Intersteller is not a 2001.
I think Nolan is too clever to step too far outside the movie genre given what the current movie crowd expects and studios want.
 
Last edited:
This movie get's a 9 on my cool factor. The only down side for me was, in a few places, some of the dialog gets washed out from sound effects. It also doesn't end like I thought it would, which was great, because it was better than where I thought it would go. It's a darn good space movie for sure.
 
There are aliens capable of interstellar flight who come without raincoats to a water laden world where water literally falls from the sky even though they know water will dissolve them like a strong acid?

That's good.
"Signs".....There were several blatant inconsistencies IIRC.
My brother referred to this movie as the Invasion of the Dumbass Aliens.
 
I would absolutely go and see this movie again. I took my girlfriend to see it Friday night. Unfortunately, I did not realize it was almost 3 hours long, and we didn't leave the theatre until past midnight.
 
This movie get's a 9 on my cool factor. The only down side for me was, in a few places, some of the dialog gets washed out from sound effects. It also doesn't end like I thought it would, which was great, because it was better than where I thought it would go. It's a darn good space movie for sure.


Thanks Gary.
I think we agree on that.
 
Last edited:
Just before the movie started, there was this quick little ad that got everyone laughing. It was about an app for your smart phone called "RunPee".
If you didn't see it in your town, google up some videos on it. I guess no one in the theater had heard of it which was why it was so funny.
 
My brother called, just finished viewing the 1:00 sold out showing at the Airbus IMAX at Udvar Hazy Air and Space museum.
Asides from the six story screen they have the full scale Ranger landing craft in the parking lot, and he said is is quite a piece of hardware, down to the portholes and exterior skin,...looks like the real thing.

Theatre was full to capacity, all shows earlier today were sold out in advance, and some people drove from West Virginia to see this one.

Avid well read Sci - Fi person and critic that he is, he was suitably impressed.

Most of our conversation related to things in the plot line I won't discuss, given our spoiler caution.
He mentioned that he had some processing on the plot to do yet, and he had a complaint: some critical dialogue was drowned out by the IMAX sound...so again, these theatre folks might need to consider a volume adjustment.
But he was pleased there is a film to see based on science theory as opposed to more super hero drivel.
 
Last edited:
I was fortunate to see 2001 at the theatre it premiered, a week after it premiered in 1968...the Uptown in Washington DC in cinerama.
I don't think I can compare this movie, or any movie for that matter, to 2001.
Like Spielberg said in the Kubick documentary, 2001 was a turning point in how films were done, it was big budget, but unusual in that it attempted to tell a big story on humanity's future and past, relying a great deal on visuals with no narration - it didn't even have a spoken word or dialogue until 45 minutes or so into the movie.
This sort of leads me to classify 2001 in its original context more as film as art - rather than film as entertainment.

My take...with 2001 there was so little spoon feeding the viewer had to bring something to the experience, a lot of patience for one. And a level of imagination to explain what he/her was seeing..
Precisely why the old people and execs walked out at the premier row by row, some 200 of them. Woody Allen didn't like 2001 until his third viewing, whereupon he realized how far ahead Kubrick was.
I have heard of people where I lived at the time that didn't walk out, but either fell asleep, threw popcorn at the screen at matinees, etc.
Kubrick had made his mark after Dr. Strangelove and was given a lot of latitude by the studios to do what he he wanted to back then.
Given the movie going crowd today and what sells - I'm not sure if a film like 2001 would even play well today, for instance, I know young people today that think a classic like Casablanca is too boring to sit through.

Ok, that said, Interstellar relies a great deal on dialogue and a fairly fast paced level of action. Not very much like 2001 - Ok, I'll say it: Intersteller is not a 2001.
I think Nolan is too clever to step too far outside the movie genre given what the current movie crowd expects and studios want.
Thanks Max, I guess 2001 is one of those movies that affects some individuals in a positive manner or is meaningless to others. :)
 
I would absolutely go and see this movie again. I took my girlfriend to see it Friday night. Unfortunately, I did not realize it was almost 3 hours long, and we didn't leave the theatre until past midnight.

Your girlfriend stuck it out for a Sci-fi movie - past midnight?
More power to ya!
 
Thanks Max, I guess 2001 is one of those movies that affects some individuals in a positive manner or is meaningless to others. :)

I still reflect on seeing 2001, as a benchmark for Sci-fi, and have many thoughts about its relevance and what it represented in terms of film art or entertainment.
In retrospect, many years past, I can see why some people reacted the way they did, and understand completely.

It was a movie in my opinion that was right for its time.
We were in the final lap of our race to the moon,and the space program itself was less than ten years old.
We earthbound folks had finally been seeing real photos from NASA and to some extent Russian missions of how the earth looks from orbit, and rendezvous had provided real images of what the hardware looked like in space, and film technology had arrived to the point where everyone could visually experience what few people ever had...and then some.

In retrospect, some of 2001 did not age so well, the obsession with scenes of real corporate presence in space, like the Bell telephone, TWA and Pan Am logos etc.
Ironic how some of those everyday corporations did not make past 2001 and are a memory.
 
Last edited:
I've been curious since you posted this...how did you luck into a private screening so early? And was it IMAX?

Yes, it was IMAX. It was an invite from Rocketdyne Aerojet and the Challenger Learning Center. I've worked with Challenger on a board. So to sum it up.... I just got lucky. :)
 
I thought it was okay.

Nothing blew my mind like Inception did: the visuals were not very dramatic or inspiring, and I was able to predict the plot starting a third of the way into the movie.

Some of the themes were done nicely, but overall it just wasn't as thought-provoking or immersive as Inception.

Though Inception is an awfully high bar to measure against.

EDIT: Also, my theater turned the sound up way too loud. I brought musician earplugs in preparation, and it was just right for me, but the people around me were complaining after the movie was over.
 
Though Inception is an awfully high bar to measure against.

Inception would have been on my Sci-Fi "best" list many posts back but I left it off as it isn't space or time travel-related, nonetheless a top Sci-Fi film of all time.
 
Inception would have been on my Sci-Fi "best" list many posts back but I left it off as it isn't space or time travel-related, nonetheless a top Sci-Fi film of all time.

I have not seen any Nolan movies, but given the many recent comparisons of Interstellar relative to Inception for quality sake, I'm going to pick it up on DVD.

As for other "Sci-Fi" movies ...believe it or not, I have not seen Avataar. I have seen Pitch Black which I thought was pretty good.
 
I thought it was okay.

Nothing blew my mind like Inception did:

Some of the themes were done nicely, but overall it just wasn't as thought-provoking or immersive as Inception.

Though Inception is an awfully high bar to measure against.

Hard to compare the two. One is earth bound high tech and the other a space theme with family dramatics. I honestly think they belong in separate categories. Maybe on your personal 1 - 10 "fave list", applies here.
 
Hard to compare the two. One is earth bound high tech and the other a space theme with family dramatics. I honestly think they belong in separate categories. Maybe on your personal 1 - 10 "fave list", applies here.

I compare them because they're recent original movies directed by Christopher Nolan.
 
Back
Top