Saw it (in 70mm) and junketed it. Thrilling concept film, just about all of it pulled off magnificently. I found a couple of flaws, and so will you, and they'll probably be different ones. I forgive them. It's a film with some small, intimate stories as well as a gigantic space travel one, neatly blended together. I thought much more about it a couple of days after seeing it, rather than right after, and I've gotta say that I was profoundly moved. Of course, it helped to do a Q&A with both Christopher and Jonathan Nolan. Here you go: http://www.dailytidings.com/article/20141030/News/141039976

Does this mean that the long promised 70mm installation is complete???????

David the Projectionist wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2014 at 8:21pm:

L.A. Connection wrote on Nov 26^th, 2014 at 3:37am:

A difficult review for me to write. INTERSTELLAR is a mess. But, it's a big beautiful mess. Nolan's film has some of the greatest scenes I have ever seen in an SF movie. But, the critical side of me can't deny that it is overlong (that length will make it a difficult fit in a future marathon), full of wooden dialogue and has plot machinations that befuddle even the most hardcore Sci-fi fan and science nerds like myself.

The scale and ambition are vast. A world class astro-physicist (Kip Thorne) was key to the film's production and it shows. This is amongst the most hardcore SCIENCE fiction motion pictures yet made. Relativity, gravity, space & time travel and more are presented on an intelligent and reasonably realistic level (even Thorne admits that some of it is extrapolated theory - informed, but still speculation). The father-daughter relationship is genuinely moving. The special effects are superb and realistic looking (I love that Nolan still insists on practical effects whenever possible, using CGI as a tool and not a crutch as so many do). The robot computer is great, and the cast is mostly fine (Matt Damon lumbers, and Casey Affleck seems oddly uneasy). The sound is powerful, pain-stakingly produced and LOUD (I know there have been many complaints about the sound mix - but, it's the way Nolan wanted it, and I liked it for the most part, with some quibbles). The 70mm looks fantastic on the big screen when projected on FILM - you will never see black levels this deep, shadow detail so defined, nor skin tones this natural-looking in any digitally shot and projected movie with current digital cameras and DCP projection.

Unfortunately, the length isn't substantiated by the screenplay. Despite all those minutes, the plotting isn't always clear, nor certainly focused and concise. Sometimes, too much is just too much. And, yes, there are several trite lines that even the very active soundtrack can't cover up. Also, in a movie with so much sober scientific discussion why did there have to be a Kirk vs. Alien-style knockdown dragout fight (not to mention a number of dubious character actions in the last 1/3 of the movie)? It's as if the Nolan brothers felt their story needed more 'conflict', but, you have the Survival of the species at stake - isn't that enough? Finally, without delving too much into Spoilers, I think there is a crucial disconnect in the main plot point - Why would the mysterious beings behind the plan concoct one that is so labyrinthine if their intent was to help mankind? In 2001 you could understand that the mysterious beings were sort of setting up a series of signals and hoops for mankind to eventually comprehend and conquer, but, why the byzantine maze here?

Still, in the end, I felt as energized and emotionally wrought as I had been with any SF film I've seen in years. I love the movie, but, it's not blind love. I see the flaws. It's sort of like that Gargantua Black Hole that plays such an important role in the movie: I got sucked in by its mysterious and powerful force, even if at least part of me was trying to resist and grab on to that event horizon in order not to fall completely in. This black hole won, but, with some major asterisks and my escape pod at the ready.

Methinks a bit too soon for SF40.  I liked it a lot but the acting is very uneven and it is overly long by at least 30 minutes. A visual feast.  Hard science to be sure but more than a bit of gobbledygook blended into the tale.  I would like to give it some distance before seeing it at the thon.

kirok wrote on Jan 29^th, 2015 at 3:25pm:


It would be nice someday to show INTERSTELLAR in 70mm at the Marathon. The length is an issue, but, it's worthy.

matt damon's awakening scene was a low point and may have been the reason this was a good movie as opposed to a very good movie.

The longer its simmered in my head, the more and more I think of INTERSTELLAR fondly. Not only the best sci-fi film of the year (sorry, SNOWPIERCER and EDGE OF TOMORROW), but, one of the year's best movies, period.

A true Space Opera. And, the score should win an Oscar (but won't).