Interstellar is an allegory for the argument that human beings are fundamentally driven by irrational things like love - things which cannot simply be reduced to instinct or biology, and, more importantly, that our irrationality is *valuable*, not an impediment to progress. Love then is both how we survive and the reason that survival is worth it. It's one of the most humanist messages I've seen in film in a long time, especially from a sci-fi film. Truly brilliant movie.
I agree that the value of love and emotion is at the core of the film. And it's an excellent message. That's not the issue. The problem is in his execution. His movies always impress, true. Thing is, he can make me think but he's never made me feel. One of the key emotional scenes is McConaughey bawling while watching video evidence that his children have grown up without him. His acting is excellent. The scene should be devastating to watch. But I kind of didn't care. The movie didn't make me value those relationships (seriously, did he care at all about his son?). I felt more in the first few minutes of Up than I did in this entire movie. EDIT: Ok since people keep personally attacking me, I'll clarify what I didn't want to take up space for: Yes, McConaughey made me cry. But only because of his acting, not love for the relationships. I still just didn't care about them. Nolan relies on his actors to bring the emotion but it's not on the page. That's why I mentioned Up. No actors there, just production: writing, direction, animation, and music.
But love CAN be reduced to instinct and biology. That's why it's such a terrible plot point for a movie that is suppose to be true to science to drop a bomb and say that love is some effemurable and transcendent "power" of some sort.
Well, love also has a large socio-cultural element, which is what makes it such a driving force (sociologically speaking) in human society. However, I agree, this does not make it a cosmic, inter-dimensional force in a physical sense, like gravity or light
Lol wut? At what point did science exclaim it can quantify love and reduce it to it's most basic qualities? Also the movie never claimed to be true to science but merely utilized it to add to it's narrative structure. Since when is science an authority on love that merely suggesting a naturally reasonable philosophical question about it can discredit such a postulation? Science is the opposite of what love is. Love is a feeling. Unpredictable by nature and science is a tool for breaking things down to a cold calculated predictable result. Two entirely contrasting mechanisms at work and you yet claim that science is above all? That is an incomprehensibly dehumanizing of a position for a person to take and genuinely makes me sad to read.
There wasn't much substance to building up their relationship, and the time he was gone seemed really rushed and like he didn't care all that much what the consequences would be, especially before he actually made it into space. That's just what I got from it.
@@R_G0104 as a NASA pilot this is probably not a small detail he could've overlooked. Even in highschool physics I learned about relativity so if he just kinda thought flying through a wormhole would have no consequences he's horribly incompetent.
I saw the title and I was like "NO". But, I mean, Interstellar is not a perfect movie, but it's still one of the most emotional experiences I've ever had watching a movie. And it's been what, 4 to 5 years?
It's not missed. And you can argue the "father/daughter" relationship as defined by the modern age does a lot of the work of establishing _why_ that relationship matters but why not his son? What makes their relationship special, what makes that the thing he wants to hold onto? What makes that relationship, that love, bring him to her room? If I take our essayist's point, then we don't see that as much and are left to infer it. In a medium where you have ample opportunity to "show it" then choosing not to, in what is already an epic, should add to the longing. In this instance I can see how the audience might be left to infer too much and instead be asking, "but why?" In that sense, I'm not sure if I agree with the criticism but I do agree *strongly* with the idea that it's unclear what story is being told here. The story of love triumphing over logic or sensibility? Maybe? Then there shouldn't be one person left wondering about Murph & Cooper. But then again, what do I know? ;)
@@x--. Great answer! I can’t stand people who comment that an answer that would take 20 sec to read is too long to read. You can tell they’re just saying that because they’ve lost the argument.
@@heliosconsultantsw.l.l2413 You asked a question. X answers it and you can’t take 20 sec to read it? Yeah right! More like you didn’t want to admit you were wrong.
Yes yes yes! I agree completely! I had an existential crisis too! I watched the movie with my friends at the cinema and it was a very cold night but when we left I refused to put on my coat because I hoped the freezing cold might clear my head (it didn't). My friends were staring at me. Yeah. I think the movie partially hit me so hard because I fit perfectly into the "target group": I'm interested in physics and philosophy and I love science fiction and space and I'm young enough so that the whole climate change and exploitation of our planet thing will actually have an impact on my future. It's definitely one of those movies that make you completely zone out and forget that you're sitting in a movie theatre. But people who don't allow that to happen are probably not going to have a good time.
+sharon wong While I completely agree with you on terms of emotional impact, the scene where Cooper and Murph are reunited nearly brought me to tears, in terms of a "Nolan film", Interstellar was a bit of a let down. While I feel the comparisons to Avatar are a bit unfair, there was a much greater emphasis on the science aspects of the film compared to the emotional/character aspects. If it was for the many great actors attached to the film, do you honestly think the emotional impact would be there? I do not. While Interstellar is by no means a bad film, it's far from a great one. Here's to hoping Nolan's next film will be more balanced in terms of concept vs. characters.
Hans Zimmer's work is unbelievable. The story, uh, I can't say so. It's a narrative which separates itself from its ideology. However, I would agree that a first viewing is a very fulfilling experience.
@@ktakashismith Good is subjective. Ofcourse having no character isn't good if you enjoy watching characters, It's down to opinion. Im guessing you enjoy watching good characters!
@@roshansreedhar4727 the brilliance of Tenet is this. Wat if the Protagonist's character arch was in the future and not the present? Wat if you had a protagonist who was also just that. A protagonist because the plot demands it thus his arch is in the future. That's wat Robert Pattinson's character told him. Tenet is brilliant.
Though I appreciate the fact that you recommend seeing the film, I disagree with this criticism. It misrepresents the film. Interstellar does have a single, common thread: time. It is important to identify it before reviewing the film. The dying Earth is a metaphor for the idea that life is bounded in time. Caine's character is the human embodiment of the same idea: his goal is to find how to expand life beyond its time. The journey itself is a race against time. The implications of the theory of relativity for the passage of time constitute the main plot points. The film's ultimate message is to force viewers to change their perspective about time, by considering its meaning from a higher dimensional standpoint. Dylan Thomas' poem couldn't be a better fit given the theme: it expresses the rage of a human being against the inescapable passage of time. The film's central message is not only smart, it is f***ing groundbreaking in cinema. The only point over which I agree with this review is about Anne Hathaway's lines. They don't translate well to the screen. (Notice: They are an attempt to relate human experience to the central theme of the film, time.) I don't know if the actress is to blame, the script, or the director. A little bit of each, probably. To all prospective viewers out there: this is the only performance that is sub-par. The rest of the film is masterful. The ideological stance of Interstellar is 'pro-science', which is a rarity in cinema. This is the background philosophy upon which the film's central theme is developed. That's probably another thing that had some people find the film odd or different, because they aren't used to such a stance. (It's the exact opposite philosophy as the one in Avatar, by the way.) My message to those dissatisfied by that: Just open yourself to other viewpoints and philosophies. In terms of themes, there is nothing remotely close to Avatar in Interstellar, with all due respect. Even in terms of visual effects and "grandeur", both movies are at opposite sides of the spectrum in terms of artistic approaches.
To complement your views I would add: That film that among its many messages highlights one, which is the fact that love, the emotional connection between human beings is a survival mechanism that allows us to advance and evolve as a species, Cooper and his fatherly love for Murph and Brand and his love for scientist Wolf Edmunds. Perhaps love is not something belonging to a higher dimension or something metaphysical, but even if the human being transcends space and time (as Cooper does within the Tesseract) the connection to another human being will make us reach beyond, will make another step more; something that the beings of the Bulk (They) were unable to achieve because they had unlimited access to space and time, they needed a bridge (Murph-Cooper). At the end Interstellar, as a good ode to science, proposes that not always the logical arguments are those that lead to the best results (The error of visiting the Planet of Dr. Mann) but that the element of the "feeling" is always necessary (Murph returning to his room to discover the message of his father) and that as human beings we are a curious species: we are explorers, pioneers and we are always in the search of entering the unknown, so Cooper's journey at the end, represents that. A great movie, one of those that I would like to see again for the first time on an IMAX screen, which can be analyzed from different angles, here is a great analysis of it. Trascending Time: Interstellar's Hidden Meaning Behind Love and Time: ua-cam.com/video/t6kqaip7WS4/v-deo.html
You sir just literally said what I just now posted, but in a WAY more well-versed manner. Like, you basically read my mind. Therefore, I couldn't agree with anyone more than this. Also, what Antonio said up above me here in the reply, he had some really good points as well. Antonio, you may have just made me reconsider my criticism of the thread of love in the film. Though Hathaway's philosophical monologue was painful to watch. Did you know that Kubrick's 2001, was not well revered by critics and viewers alike? It took time to realize the genius of Kubrick's artistic adaptation of Clarke's book. Maybe Interstellar will have the same fate.
Anne Hathaway's performance and lines there aren't a flaw. They're meant to be cringemaking and weird, even McConaughey's character treats it as nothing, but only later agrees with her
The first time I watched Interstellar the visuals and sounds is the only thing I remember leaving the theater. I lost my father to cancer a couple years later and then rewatched the film. It blew me away and the story became something I couldn't get out of my head. A story about a father who would do anything for their child. Now, as a father, the story remains amazing and more impactful. If I could recommend any movie to someone who wants to understand what you would do for your children as a parent I would recommend Interstellar.
I completely disagree. It is the most profound and emotional experience I've ever had watching a movie. I cannot articulate my experience into words. But i know for sure that I will die with a memory of this movie. This is art.
I think he's analyzing it too narrowly. He tries to find a single theme or character arc to justify the movie, but doesn't even mention what Nolan himself says in commentaries about the movie: Interstellar is about humanity as a whole. About what defines us, the emotions that drive us together into a same direction. Every character is representing a face of humanity. Loneliness, selfishness, selflessness, despair, hope, compassion.
I agree. I don't care if it doesn't meet the expectations of some self proclaimed film connoisseur in regards to story-telling. I watched it in IMAX theatre and balled my eyes out when Cooper gets the 20 year old messages of his daughter and cries. I have no film background but what I have is a physics background. So, seeing the black holes and concepts of relativity was enough to give me leg-shaking nerdgasms. You add Hans Zimmer's score to that and you get a cinematic experience. For me, cinema is not just characters or stories. I have books for that. I watch moving pictures for a reason and Interstellar fulfilled every desire I had from an ambitious space movie. Interestingly, I fell asleep watching 2001 twice. Perhaps, storywise Interstellar could have been better but you will be lying to yourself if you say that it didn't push the boundaries of what cinema can achieve.
I've never rewatched Interstellar, however I have listened to the soundtrack multiple times. It seems that whatever the movie tries to convey, the music does it more refined and profoundly. So consider Interstellar a music video, and forget about the amateurish script, and just focus on the genius of john Williams.
@James Merkle LOL, Arrival was a horrible movie, with a minimal gimmicky conclusion. Apparently the book is better and about how language is at the core of self perception for the main character and her leaning a different (time indifferent) language, makes her trancend human limitations in percieving spacetime!!! The movie never goes to any depth regarding this, not that it is exactly easy to depict such a character arch, but they could have made the movie much nerdier, with linguistic lingo, and consciousness philosophy thrown in, for a more nerdy but captivating movie.
@James Merkle i could say people praised Interstellar far more than Arrival, and this man is one of the few has guts over Nolan fandom. im just saying, wont argue about his contents.
@James Merkle what? Dennis Villineue- whatever his name is - he is a big one, of course Nolan is the biggest name nowadays no compare but he is not an unknown director at all lol looks like u have some problems with Arrival
There are very few movies that can be re-watched with same admiration, curiosity and love... interstellar is one of them. That is enough reason to conclude that Interstellar is a masterpiece.
That's like your opinion, man. I think "few" is a pretty subjective term for that matter. It is a master piece, but it's not that lonely when it comes to that.
Also more linear structure with us stuck with the few astronauts not knowing wtf is going on on earth would feal more isolating and relatable, and why did they exactly say moon landings didn't happen (in a space based movie)?
this is the first time I've disagreed with you. I personally thought this was one of the best movies of our generation. I've seen it several times and every time I'm in awe
C'est Moi Saad I loved it too, but I think it needed to be even longer to serve the story better. which is probably insane because it was 3 hours long already.
I don't think its love or hate. I'm very mixed on it as I very much enjoyed the relativity and grand scope of it. Also note that Nerdwriter is praising it in many ways as well so this idea that its love or hate is basically people doing the classic thing where something they love being criticized gets seen as someone hating it. Its a false dichotomy that gets promoted by a lot of people who are very averse to hearing criticisms of something they're awed by.
@@jonasloe4926 Because a lot of it is obnoxious and overwrought, like the movie itself. And the director pounds you with it incessantly, where he should be using a light touch. Way too heavy handed. The opening theme is ok.
The Interstellar soundtrack is the only soundtrack I can listen to independent of the film. It’s simply beautiful; I love listening to it while reading on my commute, there’s something so calming about it.
@@tuts351 who the fuck is restricting the movie from being watched more than once? ive seen it multiple times,over the dozens id say. what makes a movie a one time watch? who sets the standard?
Rui PTG exactly, I mean not the best comparison here but Avengers: Infinity War was dominated by and completely focused on the character of Thanos, and yet he doesn’t even have a half hour of screen time in literally a longer movie than interstellar. You don’t have to focus on something for the majority of the runtime in order for it to be a core feature.
SwenglishGamer but I’m just using that as an example of making a memorable and important aspect of a story with minimal screen time. 40 minutes is a LOT of screen time in a 2 hour movie. Considering the movie is set primarily in space, we are very lucky to have even gotten this long. I mean seriously, the only way to give Murph and Cooper more screen time would be to literally have Murph go with him.
Not to say that I loved Interstellar (I don't btw). But Darth Vader, arguably the greatest villain in cinema history has a total runtime of 40 minutes in 3 movies.
Did Dunkirk bring him back to his roots ? I'm glad Christopher Nolan has experimented with new stories and concepts. Too many films are rehashes and repeats. He's a national treasure and I hope he continues trying new things. Dunkirk was great tho
@@Hatzmaeba WHAT?! You do know the time line was all fucked up. It took me out of the movie entirely. It would be different if the theme was set like Momento but Dunkirk literally made be stop and be like; wait, let me re-calibrate.
Hehe, I came to the comments to say that I disagree and say a few things on why I do it. But I was surprised to see that I don't have an unpopular opinion.
@@yandhi5016 I think those do not reflect the reality very well. I bet a lot of people that disagreed with him didn't dislike the video because why would you do that, you just don't agree with his opinion, it doesn't mean that the video is bad. On the other hand, people that agreed had all the reasons to press the like button.
I am disappointed... you should know better than to sum up a film relationship's meaning by percentage of minutes of the total run time. The father-daughter relationship creates drama precisely because they are apart for so long! Frodo just wanted to get back to the Shire, but he had a job to do. Michael Corleone could've settled with Kay long ago, but he had a job to do. We see Andy Dufresne outside of prison for, what, 5 minutes at the beginning of Shawshank? But is anybody questioning whether or not he'd like to escape the prison, due to how much "screen time" he and the real world got?
" you should know better than to sum up a film relationship's meaning by percentage of minutes of the total run time" holy shit exact my fking thought! finally I saw someones comment regarding that how can he even do that lmao
Dude I lost my shit too. It's a good thing I had my first kid years after I saw that movie. Having g kids I feel, make you WAY more sensitive to shit like that. If I saw Interstellar for the first time today, I would have been a puddle on the floor. 😢
Jacob Meyer i agree with him. Interstellar’s script is vultureshit. They also couldn’t pick an ending, so they had three, which get progressively more stupid
Aryavir Sangwan, respectfully disagree. I get what you mean, especially about the conclusion. It was all over the place. Besides that, there were some really heartfelt and well written moments. Dedicating 40 minutes for a relationship between two characters was a good choice. We really got to see the pain that he felt as a father.
The theme about love wasn't about love being eternal and a medium of communication. It was a message from our future selves to focus on something you love. Something in the mind of two people who love each other, like a watch could be used as a basepoint.. The two trying to communicate to each other across dimensions could focus on that object and have a means of speaking, or a way to get each other's attention. Presumably the high beings, ourselves in the future, would be incapable of emotion, but would be able to still understand that we still rely heavily on emotion as a means of communication and connection.
Yeah this movie is 100% Nolan inserting himself into his own ass. He literally made the movie with a parallel of his relationship with his daughter and MM and MURPH!. His movies thesis is "I know it sucks for you that I am gone working a lot but, one day, you'll realise I saved the world with my work". That's some smug as fuck self-congratulatory bullshit.
Joe Avreg Art doesn’t necessarily have to be selfless per-se. A little bit of self in a piece of art makes it more human. Now that you told me about this aspect of the film I like it even more
I read almost everybody disagreeing with you, and found it funny that although I agree with everything you said (about Interstellar and Avatar) you managed to make my opinion on Nolan and Interstellar a lot softer. I think now I can watch this movie again and appreciate it more.
I think this movie has aged extremely well. It would age more gracefully over the years. It has to. Probably Nerdwriter himself thinks about the movie differently after 6 years. Because in between we didn't had a space movie this good. Arrival was great. But it had extraterrestrials in it. So not comparing the two.
Way too harsh, but I will say the criticisms are valid but they do not ruin the film. the whole love angle felt a little forced, and the impact of his daughter's relationship with hims diminished a little. But that score made up for so much inside me, it managed to bolster my emotional response like crazy.
Love is more than an angle. It's the whole point of the film. Strip all of the love and poetry away and the entire message of the movie is gone. The score contributes to that as well with how grandly emotional it is. That has a lot to do with why the church organ is so heavily used throughout.
nfinitiduck The movie is about why we dare in the first place. We dare because we are driven by the irrational side of us which motivates us to reach beyond our grasp. Love is both the means of our survival and the thing that gives survival meaning.
True. When I saw the movie in the theater with surround sound and excellent picture, I was completely enthralled. I had a really emotional experience and cried several times. though it was when I worked at a movie theater and decided to watch it after a shift on a whim, and I think that played a big part in it, that I had no expectations. I am fully willing to admit that it's not that good of a movie, but I also know I had an amazing goosebump experience with it, and I thought about for weeks afterwards. I know this has no value as far as actually judging the movie, but I was just in the perfect mindset to be blown away
I agree with your final paragraph about standards. I disagree with your analysis of Interstellar failing to meet to them. At least not to the extent that you assert.
Yeah I agree with Josh. Nolan wrestled with many topics in interstellar, several producing new scientific papers on black holes. I liked how he wrestled with intimate topics like father and daughter while tackling the realities of Einstein relativity, and how we are still slaves to the fourth dimension: time, and how we are so unprepared for it. I noticed too how some film scholars and students HATE interstellar because it doesn't follow some rules taught in film school. Like the science, Nolan was on the cutting edge of storytelling, first with Momento and now with interstellar and how time can muck up a traditional structure to storytelling. True that avatar was all spectacle that it bored me. All it showed was how good a slave driver James Cameron can be. Thats really it.
Indeed, I would assert that Nolan's real problem is that his storytelling was _too_ deep, too impersonal. His film-making, if we want to be as literal as possible (since he didn't use actual film to record with) was spectacular. The only problem was that he didn't spend enough time developing his characters, and that's just a natural result of tackling such big ideas.
Maybe I don’t have a extensive enough knowledge of cinema, but I have to disagree with you. Nolan’s films definitely carry concept-heavy stories, but it’s not more than you can handle, just powerful enough that it retains value for re-watching (so I guess I also disagree that it has no re-watch value).
I'm of the mind that people focus way too hard on Hathaway's "Love Speech", and miss how the cold, hard, reality of an extended amount of time in space can and would affect the human psyche. They are just regular people. Scientists. Who are so monumentally, incomprehensibly far away from all of humanity and the entirety of human history, further than anyone has ever been or even thought possible. MILLIONS of light years away from our galaxy, cooped up for MONTHS on a cramped spacecraft, and Hathaway's character feels powerfully drawn to someone she loves, who was previously, before they passed through the worm hole, MILLIONS of light years away. Now the person she loves is close. Closer to her than he has been in a very long time. Simultaneously, Hathaway and the crew are completely cut off from the rest of humanity. She does not know if he is alive or dead, she just knows he. Is. Close. People want to be with the people they love! Who doesn't!? Whether separated by a mile, or many light years, one could certainly entertain the thought, that love, could make one feel as though they are *drawn* to that person. She was *not* literally saying love is a fundamental force in the universe akin to gravity, but that a human being that experiences emotion could certainly entertain the idea that they behave similarly. I don't think she was trying to make a big statement. No hypothesis. She was just a very scared and very stressed out human being who has never felt more alone in her entire life.
My main problem was how this speech played into the climax. "Love transcends dimensions" cliche. The rest of the movie was good, but the climax didn't feel like an inventive Nolan kind of device to me.
@@dpage446 In the story the love thing is supposed to be an accidental coincidence between the ramblings of a distressed Anne Hathaway and reality. The bulk beings have transcended time and space, but the have difficulty pinpointing a specific moment in time. It was Dr. Brands obsession with her childhood room, the love for her father and her father's love for her that allowed the bulk beings to construct the tesseract. A three dimensional space where this room acts as a fixed place in space and you can convey information through time to that specific place. The bulk beings needed their love for them to communicate with each other through time. That what that meant. It's similar to the old french movie La Jetée where they need to go back before the war, but the time travel subjects don't have the ability to find the specific point in time to travel to. Only a man who has an image of a woman in his mind can navigate through the time to find the right point. If you have been interested, go watch the interstellar essay from "like stories of old" on youtube. He also makes excellent essays like Nerdwriter usually does.
I cried the first time I watched Intertellar, I cried the second time, the third time and the fourth time, oh boy, I cried the sixth time and I think the seventh would thrill me. That little time they spent together is the point of everything. I think in this time it's a revolutionary thing to believe in movies, in simple stories even if they are "awkward philosophical declarations". If you llok around most things we do in life are so, like this video.
This movie was one of the only films I saw that demonstrated a father/daughter relationship so beautifully. This movie never fails to make me cry because it is such a wonderful and subtle story.
I think Nerwriter is being harsh on it too, and I really like it, but subtle?! C'mon now. The "love transcends time and space" speech is one of the least subtle things I've heard in my life.
@@Luca-bv5ic I love this movie to death. One of my favorite films, but Nolan needs to learn how to use subtext. I cringed at Apollo landing debate. That's why I love Oppenheimer, because Nolan fixed his issues
Interstellar is my favorite movie of all time. Nothing has made me feel the things it made me feel the first time, or the second, or the third time I saw it in theaters
I loved it too, i recognize its flaws but i think there is a huge dichotomy between the two movies... Being a learner and enthusiast towards physics it not only gave me a background setting for my daydreams and sleepless nights but also something to reach out for and to know that someday we will be there, and knowing that i wont be there to see it is sad. If you play video games a great game is Elite Dangerous, it explores the concepts of a futuristic society as well as a galactic economy and lifestyle.
The part where he has to dock onto the spinning station, with Hans Zimmerman's incredible score loudly in the background always gives me goosebumps. Moviemaking done right.
@@mrpullafastone AGreed brother, Noble Prize Winner Scientist for the discovery of Gravitational waves Kip Thorne was the executive producer on this movie, This movie resulted into two research papers one on Physics and the another on computer graphics. And people still consider it a bad movie.
This is my favorite video of yours! I always feel guilty about how I feel about this movie because it’s so beloved but this articulates it’s flaws so well
I love sci-fi, all types. Even slow burn ones. I can't find anything I like about this film. The story. The effects. The music is okay but not mind blowing or anything I can play in my head. I dunno..I tried to like SSOMETHING and I can't.
People dislike the video without giving a reason for their disagreement It's funny how Nerdwriter criticizes the flaws of the characters and the movie's inability to hold everything together and people in the comments say how good the score was.
Everyone in the comments said what I wanted to say. Interstellar is my favourite film. It made me cry on the second time too... third too. I haven't got to fourth. Yet
I loved it too, i recognize its flaws but i think there is a huge dichotomy between the two movies... Being a learner and enthusiast towards physics it not only gave me a background setting for my daydreams and sleepless nights but also something to reach out for and to know that someday we will be there, and knowing that i wont be there to see it is sad. If you play video games a great game is Elite Dangerous, it explores the concepts of a futuristic society as well as a galactic economy and lifestyle.
"We have to stick to our assertion of values about what constitutes a great film" - 6:54 There isn't a single definition for "great film". Everything is subjective and opinion based. What I might value in a movie is different from what you might value in a movie. I for one consider Interstellar a masterpiece, but that has more to do with the experience of it more so than the narrative structure. Admittedly, the movie gets a bit sloppy narrative wise in the third act. But I don't care. It is breathtaking, awe inspiring, beautiful, powerful, and groundbreaking, which ultimately is far more important than having a perfectly cohesive narrative. Again, you could disagree, and thats fine. But you can't try and create a consensus definition of what a great movie is, as everyone values different things.
I thought Interstellar was a great movie, I loved it, but that might be because I'm a huge sucker for space and time travel, and they took advantage of that.
I thought the slight chaos the pacing brought actually enhanced the story in a way, so that when you finally caught your breath and comprehended the whole scope, you were blown away.
NoviceInDisguise That's how I felt about the movie! The chaos and pacing of the whole thing left me blown away, speechless, and unable to do anything but breath as I walked from my seat to outside the theater. (Reaching the walking pavement outside the theater is when my friends and I started talking excitedly about the movie and the theories they presented.)
I have to agree with Nerdwriter. While I enjoyed the film because of the subjects involved, and disagree with it being too many topics, I thought the time-travel and "Love" philosophy was very weakly / poorly implemented into the story itself, and led to an overall weakening to an otherwise potentially great film.
None of your arguments made much sense. Comparing Avatar to Interstellar is like comparing Avengers to The Dark Knight. There's no real comparison. I understand people who say this movie has less tangible ideas than other Nolan films, but idk why that automatically makes it worse. Most audiences don't give a shit about ideas and thought-provoking concepts, so I can see why some might be bored or laugh at the "Love" lines, but I loved every minute of this movie. I even bought it and rewatched it multiple times. It has minor flaws here and there of course, but I thought it was far more satisfying than you make it out to be.
@Rodzilla You say I'm missing the point, but you've missed the entire point of the ending and beginning of TDKR. The actions of Harvey Dent cannot be explained by the Joker, since there's no direct link. That's why in the end when it's Batman, Harvey and Commissioner Gordon, Batman tells him to blame everything on him. Essentially, any loose ends or questions from investigators or the media can be traced (incorrectly) to Batman. Why do you think Nolan began TDKR with a memorial to Dent, and having Gordon give a speech attempting to expose the lies, only to shelve it for later? Exactly. Not everything can be attributed to the Joker because it didn't explain what Dent did.
The first time, I pirated it (because I wanted to see if it was worth seeing in the theatre). The second time I spent money in a 3D theatre. The 3D was awful and unnecessary. Anyone who wants to argue aren't me and saying I'm wrong is stupid.
Why do I need to shut up? Never did I mention how the movie looked because it didn't to me. I was more concerned about the story. My movie experience was ruined by the 3D. I didn't like it because I already wear glasses. That means I have to wear the 3D glasses on the tip of my nose. Please don't talk to me like that again. Thank you.
haha. it's like you read the entire plot of The Sixth sense and then go to the cinema and say the movie is boring and i already know everything. you ruined your own experience by watching the pirated version with awful quality first. try watch your favorite movies with shitty cam quality then and tell me it didn't affect your experience. if you don't like 3D, watch the 2D version.
Almost all. The love thing is still cringe-worthy. Don't get me wrong, I understand the power of love as a human emotion, but that's all it is, its not some cosmic inter-dimensional force. Speaking of emotion, the number of emotions that soundtrack arouses is beyond counting...
I don't really agree with everything in this video. For one, showing the difference between Kubrick and Nolan's directorial style (cinematography-wise) and implying that because Nolan fails to recreate 2001, his style is worse, seems like weak evidence. Yes, the dialogue about love from Hathaway was pretty terrible, but that is the only thing you cited that had an impact on me. Saying that there was too much spectacle is also a bit unfair. Space IS spectacular. It's what we marvel at when we look up at the night sky. Space exploration is even more spectacular. The mere concept that humans landed on the moon is amazing, and our reach into the rest of the solar system grows with each passing decade. Interstellar is a love letter to science/astronomy and champions scientific progress as something to strive for. Spectacle is a way in which the movie can force us to revisit our child-like wonder and awe for something that surely deserves it.
He wasn't saying that it was too much spectacle, but the movie focused much harder on the spectacle than it did the plot points and themes of the films. This is disappointing since Nolan normally treats these aspects with a lot of care.
@@iqpok The film is actually well balanced in that regard. It's just that the first time you watch the film, probably you're drown into the spectcle which was the first intention of Nolan. Nolan wants to live the experience first in cinema and after that watch the movie again and extract the subtext and discourse of his filsm. He has stated that many times during interviews.
@Antonio Foglia Your comment is a bit condescending and assumes that I just didn't get the subtext and discourse amongst all the spectacle. Like I was some starry eyed kid who couldn't handle the complexity of this Nolan masterpiece. The issue with the movie isn't that I "missed the points amongst the spectacle", but rather that the issues with the plot points and the themes stand out and are pretty easy to spot. Firstly, the dialog is very cringeworthy and poorly executed in many parts. You claim that you need to "extract the subtext and discourse" on multiple viewings, but the dialog literally tries to beat the audience over the head with its extremely cheesy and simple message. And it does it with some clunky and cringeworthy dialog. Nolan has never really been great with dialog and subtext in most of his movies since his writing is extremely "on the nose". He isn't a Kubrick with writing. Kubrick always managed to retain a sense of ambiguity in his movies. Most of the meaning in his dialogue or action is implied as opposed to Nolan movies where it is stated out loud in expositionary dialogue. I would also argue that the philosophy and psychology in Kubrick’s movies is at a more advanced level than what can be found in (most of) Nolan’s movies. I would argue Nolan's best writing was in Memento when he used to be much more subtle and critic dialogue. This movies dialogue completely lacked subtlety. The Matt Damon subplot was entirely unnecessary. Even the most diehard Interstellar fans pretty much agree with this. His subplot didn't add anything positive to the themes and only negatively impacted the pacing of the movie. Finally, the rules of the universe completely clash with the conclusion in a ridiculous way. For example, the movie that prides itself on being extremely close to real science in most every aspect of its plot but then tries to drop a bomb on the audience and say that love is some effemurable and transcendent "power" of some sort. It was pretty ridiculous in the context of what had been previously shown in the movie. I am not saying that love isn't a good theme, but it was not executed well at all in this movie. Also many other people have stated this also, but for a movie with the emotion of love as a core theme, the movie seems to completely lack any emotions. The movie didn't make me value the relationships between the characters. There are many scenes that should have been emotional heart wrenching scenes ( McConaughey bawling while watching video evidence that his children have grown up without him, the crew member aging 40 years over a 5 minute timespan, etc.), but I didn't care because I had no investment into those characters or their relationships. Nolan has been panned for this aspect of his movies before, but it is exemplified in this film because the emotion of love was supposed to be a core theme. Those are fairly glaring flaws with the plot and theme. Again, he does amazing practical effects work and has spectacle like no other but the plot and theme in this movie were very lacking. The issue with this movie emphasized the weaknesses of Nolan's writing (poor expository on the nose dialogue and lack of emotional connection to characters) rather than playing to his strengths (building tension, spectacle, mystery gimmicks). This is why I had a problem with this movie
My thoughts on the film too. You also reminded me how phenomenal this soundtrack was. I constantly go through ways I would edit this film to make it much more incredible. I think thats a testament to how lackluster the film is, but how much potential it has. Its a film you want to love for its beauty and ambition yet falls maddeningly short. The foundation the film rests on is too unstable to hold up the weight Nolan attempted.
+Nerdwriter1 I have no source for this (because I have it from my uncle who leads a company doing movie sounddesign in berlin - not a competitor of Zimmer in any way but he knows the sound people in berlin) but apparently Hans Zimmer draws heavily from 10 or so younger emplyees of his company(?), he might do a basic theme but they do all the rest ...and tue or not it seems plausible, his output is astronomical, nobody should be able to write so much music. i have nothing against using helpers but he takes all the credit and most of the money (bad pay). I`m not her to discredit Zimmer (I have no real sources for that) but I would advise to look at his work with a bit of well distance, no reason not to enjoy it though.
+AQWMalkoir I hate to sound like average teenager, but Interstellar soundtrack is EPIC! I had to travel from Zagreb, Croatia to Istanbul, Turkey by car for work(800 miles), and got it, and combination of rural Balkans, modern cities, this car I was reviewing and soundtrack was spectacular!
+Nuran On This is very common, especially of films of this size. I'm actually pretty sure this is also common knowledge. One of his "younger employees" did the score for Gravity, I believe. It's a collaborative craft and this is in no way discrediting his work. It's like a film director, he's not the guy shooting it or editing the film, and yet his finger print is all over the film.
Coop not spending enough time with Murph is what makes it the most heartbreaking. It all happens so fast the same way life happens so fast as any parent grows old
"We have to stick to our assertion of values" This is a view surprising to me considering its from the nerdwriter, and one that I personally - and strongly - disagree with. A lot of people have disagreed with you here and for good reason, too. Although your critique of Interstellar is fair and well researched, I believe that your thesis was not well thought out. To clarify, I do believe that your thesis is true (that films are hampered by their spectacles surpassing their story) but to apply it to interstellar was the mistake. Why did you not direct this to avatar? Which I believe would have carried the message best. (Was it done before? Therefore prompting you to squeeze another film to fit under the same thesis?) Here are the problems I have: 1. Your judgement of interstellar by how many times it is rewatched is shallow. Depending on the films purpose it will determine the rewatch value by things such as the density of the message carried, the subject matter, the storyline, the characters, etc. *This is one of the few characteristics that should be left entirely to the filmmakers and irrespective of the audience, because this is what defines the creator* . An example of this is James Joyce; Considered as one of the greatest writers of all time, but even his biggest fans can only read his books once. This is not because he is the lesser writer than, say, John Green who you could re-read a dozen times, it is because he places higher value on the subject matter and the message over the storyline and characters. I am not doing that example justice, but hopefully you can get a rough understanding of what im trying to say. 2. You fail to appreciate the experimental and original approach Nolan took and not regard the film with respect to traditional films values. That is not how progress is made. Think of clockwork orange, Alice in wonderland, etc. These are films that broke the boundaries and indeed were frowned upon when it first released. Nolan would not be upset by this review as obviously he knows the nature of his work which is less focused on oleasing everyone and more so in creating masterpieces. And masterpieces were never universally welcomed in their age. The thing that is most disapointing is that it is from you. But I am being overly harsh, even though I di believe you have sat on the wrong side of cinematograhpic history on this one. I will admit, your comparison with the average scene lengths is one I found difficult to disagree with, but after further thought I realised that obviously Nolan would have considered this and would not err in such a blatant way, there is certainly more thought put into it than we are assuming. Space is indeed overwhelming and perhaps he used short scenes to portray this beyond-understanding like atmosphere? And it is also dangerous to judge a film solely on its average scene time and not consider the mood/scene/purpose with it (Because of course they will differ to convey different emotions, using the average would be akin to judging a film as if it only had one mood throughout).
@chem I disagree with one thing you said and it is: that Nolan is less focused on pleasing everyone. Why? Because even though he may know that there’s no possible way to please everyone since people like to complain even for the stupidest of things on every film and forget that “no movie is perfect” therefore he focuses on making good quality films by putting effort on the writing and visuals even if they are not always great but are competent and good. But he does care about the audience quite a bit because he tries to present complex ideas in a way that won’t lose most people and he has said this on interviews as well. To me that demonstrates that a director/writer is trying to make his vision appealing not only to himself or a certain amount of selected audiences but for as much people as possible which is a respectful thing to do given that it might pick the interest for some about topics they didn’t care before. But yes, his most important objective is to craft a well done film.
Absolutely disagree with that statement you highlighted, you CAN'T stick to your assertion of values when reviewing films, or art in general. How do you review a piece of art by coming in with preconceptions and judgments? You need to try to buy into the creator's vision, you don't have to enjoy the film, but you have to give it a fair chance. I'm always severely annoyed when people critique things that they don't understand or even ATTEMPT to understand it, be it movies or books. I personally love the channel Like Stories Of Old, because I really feel that the creator always gives his utmost best to understand what the creator wanted to say with the piece.
Nerdwriter asks of Avatar “have you seen it a second time”, then proceeds to assert that Interstellar falls into the same category - that of movies ruled by spectacle rather than substance. I agree that I never had a desire to rewatch Avatar because it was a substantially hollow film... so why is Interstellar my MOST rewatched film?
Yeah, Avatar is literally the second most widely sold DVD in America. Besides Frozen, no other movie in American history has sold more DVDs or BluRays, and this dense critic has the audacity to assume that because he didn't get the DVD and rewatch it, no one did.
R Webb I never said it did. Read his comment, then read my comment again, only slower. Take your time. Edit: he saw how stupid he sounded and deleted his comment in shame, lol.
+Connor McCausland I don't get this Nolan - Kubrick comparison though. PT Anderson is far more in the vein of Kubrick. Nolan is trying to be more like Alfred Hitchcock, including wearing a suit to set everyday.
Aesthetic manner is completely different, though. Likewise, why not include Danny Boyle's SUNSHINE or Robert Zemeckis' CONTACT? My point was far more broad than just the content of this film, but rather the connection to Kubrick that's drawn every time there's an auteur director who has some intellectual curiosities.
I think what this video was communicating though is that both directors in scrutiny aim for ideas to explore rather than stories to tell. I could be wrong.
I sort of disagree. I think Nolan searches for concepts/ideas so far in as he can see how to turn it into a plot. Kubrick is less invested in plot. I really like what Nolan is attempting, but I feel there's a cognitive dissonance in his approach that holds him back. He can't choose between moving the plot or exploring the concept; whether the characters should be more engaged with their emotions or with the plot (and therefore the concept); and I recall him mentioning Malick's influence on him in the Tree of Life special features - I feel like he wants to have the same kind of impressionistic, visual cinema but then his plots require explanation. All these things are always at odds with one another. Eventually he might find the perfect blend. But as Nerdwriter mentions, he found better solutions when his scope was constrained by the budget (same thing for Scorsese, in my opinion). Or maybe the scope isn't big enough, maybe he needs to write a story and then be given a trilogy to take his time with telling the story.
I like your take on it. Gonna have to reflect on it all. EIther way, Nerdwriter's stuff makes you think and ponder, something to be admired for sure. By the way - couldn't agree more about Scorsese. Except his films are completely character driven.
Watched this movie like every week with my friends, I had the soundtrack on my phone played on repeat. This was and still is a fantastic movie. I always felt that the connection between the father and daughter was emotionally moving and impactful which is why the ending was gut wrenching and overall bittersweet. And I kinda liked the philosophical rant about love.
@@Severian_of_the_Guild you wrote that reply a year ago but i just have to reply to your reply, i dont usually associate emotions into comments but this case is justifiable, and now i must roast you so unfathomably hard, your knees will buckle if you arent sitting down, and if you are sitting on your mounds of flesh, i will give you hemorrhoids: Nou nerd
+Benjamin Macdonald I worded it badly. I meant what you said. He has the content of top tier actually insightful channel but has the popularity of a small indie band. He is growing quite rapidly though. Honestly, sometimes l see this channel as a better more interesting vsauce type content producer.
Although I can consider all the criticism valid, I can't, no matter how hard I try, conceive of a way in which this movie could've done better. Nolan clearly wanted a movie about wormholes, different planets, black holes, extra spatial dimensions and time travel all while sending out a message of humanity getting out of a rut and surpassing itself. To me, all those elements fitted perfectly. There were no cheap or easy shortcuts taken and Nolan achieved what he set out to do. In many ways it was a more ambitious project than 2001 a Space Odyssey. 2001 got by with a lot of artistic hand-waving while Nolan went through all the hard work of making everything click.
+BaileysBeads It could've been done better if the characters were interesting in any way shape or form, or the screenplay was better. The god damn robot was the most human character out of them all. I would've liked the movie more if they went to space after the first 10 minutes of the movie instead of emotionally blackmailing us to feel sorry. They made his son a psychopath JUST so he can make fake drama on earth, and didn't even bother to finish his 'character' arc by the end of the movie. The way Mathew's character gets the job at NASA is laughably executed, and the ending is cringe worthy.
+nonikita Perhaps that's the point. The human beings are not the main characters of the film, the universe is. Hence the characters do feel flat in some ways. Not saying it couldn't have been done better, but I think people are a little bit too anthropocentric when analyzing a film that is really about the universe and it's relationship to humanity, rather than human to human
nonikita Fair enough. I see your point. My guess is that christopher nolan wanted us to be able to relate to the characters since they were going into an environment that was totally unrelatable. But then again I'm not saying it was perfect. (i'm the type of person who tends to believe that you could cut fluff out of every film). However, I'm still pretty confident I can find fluff in any film to cut out. It just happens to be because this film is so long the fluff looks a little bigger. Then again I don't really know what I'm doing so I'd probably screw it all up.
+BaileysBeads Overall, I thought it was a fantastic movie, but there were many flaws, especially with the characters. Like others have said, Murph's brother started to behave like a psycho for pretty much no reason. I mean, he'd rather see his son dead than go live with Murph, just because he resented Cooper? Why couldn't Brand answer a simple "no" when Murph asked him if her father left her to die on Earth, before repeating that goddamn poem again? Why couldn't Dr. Mann just freeze himself again without tricking the others to come to his planet? Somebody would've come to rescue him eventually, even if it took 100 years, and if he's in cryo sleep it wouldn't really make a difference to him.
Although I truly enjoy the film (it is my favorite thus far), and even disagree with you generally, you present good and well-thought out points. This has given me quite a bit to think about and re-evaluate. While it hasn't changed my feelings on the film, I appreciate this analysis - thank you for it.
While I know what you mean, and I agree with you, he did say "heady," not "heavy." "Heady" as in concepts that are complex and can be difficult to grasp; i.e. you have to use your "head" to understand them
Exactly my thoughts. I guess some people just want things to e too simple like a movie that only handle 1 theme instead of few. Typical Ivory Tower opinion guy. PS: If you don't mind heavy themes and exposition with lots of psychological/philosophical depth, try Gen Urobuchi
@@hatakekakashi3381 He's talking about how more focus would have made the movie better, not that multiple themes automatically make a movie worse. No need to call the dude an "Ivory Tower opinion guy" just because he disagrees with you.
I didn’t even watch the video I saw the dislikes.. and went straight to the comments. Happy that so many people say this dudes opinion is Trash. And now my point.. he also doesn’t like inception ? 😂😂😂 then he should just watch Amy shumer movies ffs what went wrong with him
When Cooper plays back years and years of video messages from his kids, I was on the verge of tears. That general relativity concept alone was heady and satisfying enough for a story. I never 180'd so much during a movie when Nolan decided to inject 5 more less impactful heady concepts and of course that cringeworthy "love monologue".
What I don't understand that nobody is talking about is that I think the "love monologue" was SUPPOSED to be a cringe inducing scene. At that point, you agree with Cooper and that what she said is ridiculous. Only after the rest of the events of the movie, and he finds he's able to communicate with Murph, do you change your mind. Because even Cooper is sitting there in the bookcases trying to get himself to change, not realizing he should be focusing on others -- in this case Murph. When he finally does, and he communicates with her, and finally reunited with her, at THAT point you get to grudgingly agree that Dr.Brand/Hathaway was right.
Coop & Murph’s intimacy and shared passions are all the character establishment we need, so much is quickly communicated about parent child dynamic, how they inspire each other to persevere through hellish struggles, from the strong sense of self they gave each other. Murph becomes a mature adult, and Cooper maintains his childlike wonder and hope (not to mention survival instinct) directly from that bond. The massive gulf afterwards emphasizes the tragic sacrifices of their lost connection, in the service of love in the broader sense for humanity as a whole faced with impossibly grim choices. The sentimentality critique is badly misplaced. It’s the opposite of a “love conquers all” narrative. Instead it says love is powerful, but requires real faith to endure the necessary risks, mistakes & heartbreaks that are inevitable . Even Brandt/ Hathaway, after pondering love’s power, accepts that Edmund’s planet may have been a dead end, and sheds judgement of Cooper, respecting his choice, as sacrifice and loss piles up around them. Faith is nothing without being tested, and both fight like hell to keep that inner light burning. And then there’s the world as it is now, pointedly the Western world, our weaknesses and fear causing us to lose the plot. We are an emotionally lazy society, we DONT EXPLORE OURSELVES very deeply, we lack the same spirit of risking the new in ourselves just as we tolerate so much status quo garbage, because exploring new possibilities is risky and not for the faint hearted. Unless we have an evolution of consciousness, material extinction won’t be as tragic a loss anyway. Even the sometimes necessary evil of lies and misdirection with those you love is uncomfortably explored. That humorous “honesty index” banter with TARS connected with an ocean of other text & subtext. This indirectly impeaches all the ways we foster fake connections, false intimacy, even simulated danger with thrilling games movies and carnival rides. But slip on the ice, sue the restaurant. We reject responsibility even for ourselves, much less each other, preferring easy fake solutions. Broken heart? Drag your ex on X and never learn anything about yourself from the experience, fake likes will validate you. And when we sense our spirit of adventure is dead, lean on propaganda assuring us we are rugged individualists and trailblazers because we buy the right product brands. Which is ALL subtext, these modern foibles are implicated without any depiction. For a story ostensibly about external exploration, its hardest impact is deeply interior. Interstellar is not suggesting we run with complacency, scrap Earth and leave. If we had our shit together and followed love as a complex discipline of empathy and openness, we might have solved climate change before it started getting scary. Interstellar is filled with sacrifice, failure, and disappointment. But it depicts in a very adult way that for all our technology, love is still the greatest power we have, the most mysterious in its ability to transcend, but in ways we can’t always predict or control. But we should be developing that capacity actively every day, instead of fighting each other while oligarchs rob us blind and destroy our planet. And when you can’t change humanity’s crash courses, save yourselves instead and see what it inspires. It’s a boldly humanistic statement, and Nolan (& brother) took great risk of ridicule for such strong emotional thrust when known instead for complex but cold puzzle mazes of myth, memory & loss, assuming overreach into Spielberg or Cameron’s forte’s. (Great influences from The Abyss by the way.). But imo, if it’s outside Nolan’s wheelhouse, it’s that much grander a slam for the risk of mixing deep sentiment with sci-fi concepts, all of it bursting with authenticity and inspiration. I’m firmly on Team Masterpiece as Interstellar is concerned.
Nerdwriter1 Haha it's just subjectivity I guess. I know a lot of people who think it is his best film and a lot that think it is his worst film. I'm a huge film buff and love all of his work but I felt something weird that can't be explained with words during all the many times I have watched Interstellar. The problems that critics bring up with the film are things that I just can't process as problems. I usually agree with critics and know how to analyze writing issues but I don't believe the ones that are said about Interstellar. Maybe I am crazy. P.S. You should do an "Understanding Art House" analysis of Apocalypse Now. I think you and your viewers would enjoy that.
+Mikethekid123 As long as Insomnia exists, it's unlikely anything he does from now on will be his worst. I would point at the downward curve in ingenuity from prestige+dk+inception to DKR+interstellar. The next project will be interesting to see.
Any good commentary on art always walks the fine line between informed opinion and pretentious high-mindedness. This video falls on the latter. Still love the channel though.
All criticism in art is pretentious. The reason is because art is subjective. What you might consider beautiful and thought provoking, might not be to Joe Sixpack down the street and vice versa. There's also this notion that just pure beauty isn't enough to make a good film. Avatar was mind blowingly beautiful to me (to me). I appreciated the amount of effort it took to create that world. The story wasn't deep (to me) sure but that doesn't mean it was a bad movie.
*pretentious high-mindedness* I'm sorry, but you're talking about someone criticizing a film that is nothing but high minded and pretentiously weaves 'love is a force beyond physics' into its narrative through brash exposition.
The main reason most people haven't seen it twice is because it's not on any streaming sites lol. I'd love to watch it more. Most people don't watch movies twice so it's kinda a weird argument
@@jaagle most people don't watch MOST movies twice.. if it's really worth it, they'd watch it over and over again. That's true. Also, I haven't watched avatar even once.. was never interested.. still not interested
@Unlocked I was hoping I wasn't alone in that. I've not only watched it several times I bought it again years later when I wanted to upgrade to the Blu-Ray.
@akshay satish so only the movies that exist on IMDB top 250 are known to human civilization? All movies that exist outside this list aren't worth watching? Also Top 250 is the list of most popular movies, not the best movies. There's no way that Endgame at #33 is objectively a better movie than The Departed , The Usual Suspects or Apocalypse Now
"Challenge don't confuse the viewer" I think you might learn from this. After watching this video, I have a really hard time summarizing what points you were trying to make and what your argument were.
I don't think he is the problem. He made it pretty clear that not enough time or development where given to the emotional core of the movie, and that the sci fi part could have left more for the imagination. I think it's just that you, as everyone here apparently, disagree with him but just can't really defend your stance
+Angus Gillies Kubrick could be extremely dramatic when he wanted to in films like Barry Lyndon and Eyes Wide Shut, which are less abstract than films like 2001: A Space Odyssey, A Clockwork Orange and The Shining. He knew what style fit what story, whereas Nolan sort of always has the same style for everything.
+WheresWallace4883 I respectfully disagree. I love 2001 and most of Kubrick's filmography but his style never changed according to the movie. The only thing that did was the lenght of his shots but he, towards the end of his career, seemed to settle to a glacial pace. To my view, he understood film as a vessel to tell a story. He just showed what was there and what you felt was up to you relative to what you are watching, that's why it's so effective in The Shining and Eyes Wide Shut, that dettachment the director had made you feel isolated, just like their characters. Nolan is, shall we say, more conventional in that sense. He (and many directors) wants to make you feel what the characters are feeling at that moment.
Diego Fernando Salazar Kubrick is actually very fast-paced when it comes to shot lengths. If you want glacial, watch anything by Bela Tarr - especially The Turin Horse. There are only 30 shots in the entire 2 and a half hour film.
Jake Wolfert You must have an extremely short attention span if you think Kubrick's films are "glacial". All of his movies move at a fairly brisk pace, with the exception of 2001: A Space Odyssey, which was deliberately slow (but necessarily slow). Also, you're calling The Turin Horse theatre? What the hell kind of theatre do you watch? Theatre is always fast-paced with a lot of dialogue and character interaction. The Turin Horse has a small handful of characters, only two of whom are main characters, and even they very rarely speak. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
I watched this at 11 years old and I loved it so much. It felt like one of those things I could only watch once so I decided to save it for later so that it would remain special. I didn’t want it to be one of those movies I loved that I kept watching over and over again only to lose its flavor. It’s just so emotional. The camera work was gorgeous. The amount of work and love put into this film really shows through. I see where you are coming from, and although I disagree it was interesting to see your view of this movie. I haven’t heard much criticism towards it. That was very brave of you to put out there considering the sheer amount of people who love it
I own Avatar and I watched so many times you have no idea. That movie had such an impact on me because to me, it was such an impressive movie with its visuals and its story. Its soundtrack was also a plus. Years later Interstellar had the same effect on me. Every aspect of this movie satisfied my expectations and I couldn’t ask more of Nolan. So I have to disagree with everything you said in this video.
Even it's like years this video was posted many people are hating on Avatar calling it mediocre and shit yet they forget that apart from story Avatar is greatest of it's time in animation and art, that kind of technology for 2009 movie was insane and would still consider as epic for it's time, I guess it's just opinion based but I'm tired of seeing people hate on whole concept of Avatar movie just on the basis of it's story.
@@rohanofgondor Isn't that what you watch films for? the story? Yes the animation and art was sick but the shit story draws you away from that. I think the hate is justified.
@@harryelliott4363 Not exactly... by "story" you really mean "plot," as in the events of the story. However, Avatar, like many other movies, is character-driven, not plot-driven. That means that the main focus of the story isn't the plot, it's the complexities of the characters. Plot-driven movies use characters as catalysts to advance the plot. Character-driven movies use plot as a catalyst to advance the depth of the characters. No one watches Avatar for the themes or plot; they watch it for the emotions that the characters leave with you, and a little bit for the spectacle too. Both plot-driven and character-driven movies can be good, and neither is inherently better than the other, it's all about execution.
I loved this movie for tons of reasons and despite that I can understand and even agree with some of your points here. However my one grip that I feel is worth voicing is how much I disagree with you about the daughter/father aspect of the movie. It isn't supposed to have a bunch of screen time, in fact that is a deliberate choice. We are supposed to feel like not enough time was spent on it because Cooper, our lens into this world, feels the same way. The entire point of that plot line is that we are missing so so much. That Cooper is missing so so much. We then interpret our own lives and experiences into that void as Cooper, who has a close relationship with his father, does as well. Cooper only experiences this tiny blip of her life like we only experience a few short minutes of young Murph before both the audience and Cooper are presented with older Murph, full of resentment and despair.
I don't get the criticisms most people make of the movie. Most of the plot holes aren't really there, and are just people ignoring the parts of the movie where they are explained. I really hate it when people say that the music is to loud. Isn't that kind of the point? The music makes you feel small.
But doesn't every other movie explore the relationships and emotions? I think the "holding back" is necessary to establish the gravity of it. They hold back the screen time of these relationships in contrast to Wolf of Wall Street which shows excess of everything and in turn exhausts it. Nolan gives value to these emotions and relationships which have an almost refrainic screen time, coming back to the screen almost exactly when the toughest concepts are explored and I think that speaks a lot of what Nolan wants to do. He gives more value to the humane nature of the beings and that gives the beings the power to explore the possibilities and concepts and use it in the benefit of their own race. I don't think it can get any better than that, than such a powerful narrative that carefully drives both the cinematic experience as well as the emotional one to it's climax and ends with shaking the audience to the core.
To me the whole of Interstellar was about how love is supreme above all else, including wormholes, time travel, science and ... well ... everything. Interstellar is my favorite science fiction of all time, next to 2001: A Space Odyssey. I believe it may take years before it is appreciated as the masterpiece it is.
May I suggest you read Roger Ebert's in depth review of 2001: A Space Odyssey, and see if this might illuminate why some of us so marvel at that, for me, magnificent film. Ebert's review speaks for very truly for me: www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-2001-a-space-odyssey-1968
I've seen it 10 times. It's similar to how I've seen Terminator 2 so many damn times too. Something about Cameron's style. But I know I'm in the minority.
2:48 "why does Nolan devote so little time to it" Do you not realize that one of main reasons why the main character accepted the mission was give her daughter a better future? And the whole film there was constant reminder that Cooper always missed his children that he left behind, particularly Marv. That solely justifies the screen time between Cooper and Marv. The ending beautifully ties it all together. That love is something that transcends logic. I know it's cliché, but hey it's movie lol You also critique the movie of having too many physics lingo... Well it's scifi space movie! Alot of people, including me like hearing stuff like that, it makes the movie more interesting and accurate. Actually this movie was directed with a physics professor and tried to be accurate as they can. I'm sorry, but your analysis on this movie is inaccurate. I feel like you didn't like this movie for a subjective reason. This movie was fcking awesome mate!
He clearly said that it was FAR from a bad movie. He liked it, but he's giving a tough criticism to one of his favorite directors of what he thought was the films weak points.
It's interesting how you justify the main point of the movie not with logic, but with "it's movie lol". That doesn't sound like a good argument for an often called "masterpiece". Also, in your next point you say that you actually like the physics lingo because it makes it feel more accurate and therefore realistic. Now explain to me how the folllowing comes even remotely close to being realistic: Cooper get's thrown out of the "Space library" basically anywhere in space. Only by luck they happened to come across him, moments before his oxygen would run out and he makes it on the ship just moments before Murv dies. If you know anything about the vastness of space, which came together with the last seconds of a lifetime of a human, you would know how incredibly lucky this is. If all that is ok for you that's fine. But consider that other people might be thrown off by this and other conveniences.
Plenty of people criticise this movie’s black-hole end sequence for being too sappy, nonsensical, genre jumping and generally absurdly outside the rest of the movie - which seems similar to the ending of 2001... just like Interstellar it was labelled many things, not least of all negative, and yet it is regarded as one of the best films of all time. Nolan’s bravery to make this the ending of the film is admirable
imo the difference between Interstellar and 2001's ending is that 2001 doesn't hold your hand and narrate you through what's happening, its "show don't tell" a more appealing approach to having these kinds of ending. Whereas in Interstellar Cooper talks through the whole thing, which weirdly makes it less profound
@@digitramch I mean even with that, Cooper didn't go into full detail, and the vast majority of people have never fully understood the end. Even the ones that claim to have.
This actually sounds more pretentious than Christopher Nolan. But seriously the idea that Interstellar is more spectacle than story compared to 2001 simply because Nolan uses faster cuts than Kubrick is just looking for something to complain about. While 2001 is methodical slow cerebral sci-fi, Interstellar is sci-fi action-adventure with cerebral sci-fi sensibilities. As for Nolan's leads being "dry and tiresome" while Kubrick leads are "cold and punishing", what does that even mean. I think one critic had it right when they described the characters of Interstellar as being more like allegories than multi-dimensional characters. There are definitely similarities to be made with between Kubrick and Nolan but this excessive and unfair criticism over Nolan's directing because it's "not like Kubrick" misses the point of what Nolan is trying to convey.
+Pokefan2199 it's so entertaining through all the hater comments.... so you're saying if someone disagrees with you on liking a movie they are butthurt? and if someone explains why they like it they are a fanboy?
+bart brugmans agreed, I thought Interstellar was flawed and I'm suspecting Nolan's losing his touch, but I'm not gonna label someone a fanboy just because they disagree with me
+bart brugmans I'm not speaking of all of Nolan's fans. A butthurt fanboy is someone who can't take criticism and isn't able to argue properly. I like to discuss. But there are enough people who are too limited to understand that not everyone has to like Nolan. Sometimes they even become aggressive if you disagree with them when the say Nolan's films are the best of all time. In MY opinion, Interstellar is an ambitious movie, but frickin far away to be named among the best.
Pokefan2199 so you know by reading a single comment that people can't take criticism? I didn't see any comments that where aggressive...and you like to "discuss"... You where just trying to troll people with your first comment didn't you?
Consistency, challenge, and characters... I felt like Interstellar had all three of these. I was never once asked by this movie to guess beyond reason. I was completely drawn in by the overarching theme of self. Every character is faced with the question of selfishness vs selflessness. And every character has a different definition of what constitutes each. That is where the magic of this film struck me... watching every character battle for their own quest to justify their inhibitions and hope that somehow they can still save humanity. I have never understood the distaste for this movie or the mentality that it somehow fell short. In my mind it worked perfectly. Hopefully my drastic difference of opinion with the rest of the moviegoing audience isn't the symptom of some sort of disconnect. Otherwise my filmmaking career might not ever get off the ground. LOL
I think you're opinion is shared by many. I especially don't understand where it "fell short" or was heavy handed. I have noticed, a lot of people that don't like this film, don't have kids.
'Do you own James Camerons Avatar?' yes. 'Have you seen it a Second Time?' yes. 'Me Neither' A collective assumption that everyone feels the same way about Avatar (and CG in general) as you do immediately crumbled what could've been a really compelling study. Instead it comes across as Bitter and frankly Wanky. CG is a tool to create just as Practicality is a tool. Sure people use CG awfully but don't stand on a hill and slander it because you its erasing the old ways of Cinema. People said the same thing when they introduced Sound into Films.
+BINDIJUICE Actually I felt exactly on board with him when he said that, it kind of pulled me in. I've always been tsked by people for not thinking highly of Avatar, but I found this extremely relatable from the get-go, so i think it depends on the audience he was trying to ensnare
+BINDIJUICE Proud to say I never saw Avatar (just a few min here and there on TV and was unimpressed). Interstellar had so much potential to be amazing, but too many flaws and stupid characters to be taken seriously.
@@tidyheidi9143 Atleast the princess bride characters had more personality! Avatars characters were so boring flat and forgettable I don't even remember the main characters motivation.
Zaxor Von Skyler they weren’t flat and boring, if you paid more attention to the movie you would have better understood the main characters’ character arcs.
I will never understand how underrated interstellar is. It completely left me speechless after watching in 4K, not even knowing what I was about to watch. The journey of this movie was something I am grateful to have been alive for. Interstellar is a fucking masterpiece. The issue is that people are too small minded to understand its depth.
This is an excellent dissection of how spectacle often overshadows certain films' ability to convey human emotion. In this regard, I think the recent sci-fi movie, Arrival, corrects all the wrongs of Interstellar's emotional ineptitude. As the credits rolled, I let out a much-deserved sob. It has a slow, methodical pace, and events operate as a means to serve the emotional core of the film. It's complicated, intricate, and overall, brilliant. It balances visual splendor immensely well with a narrative that forces its characters to explore their feelings, be they public or private. Evan, I'd love to hear your thoughts on Arrival and the film's dissection of language. Very well could be a video essay in its own right.
I completely understand where you're coming from but I don't think that this makes this movie a disappointment at all, just not a complete classic even thought the movie was still absolutely amazing.
That's why being one of the best movie directors can be as much of a curse as it is a blessing. The reason why so many people disliked it is because it came from the person who brought ''The Dark Knight'' and ''Inception'', just like a lot of people disliked ''The Terminal'' because it was brought to us by Steven Spielberg, the man who directed E.T., Indiana Jones and Saving Private Ryan... Both of these movies were good on their own and didn't deserve harsh reviews but that's what happens when you regularly shit diamonds: one day that you might shit gold, people will consider it worthless.
I watched Avatar twice on two different IMAX theaters, later a third time at home, and sure as hell I'm watching a fourth time before the sequel. I watched The Hurtlocker once...and I'm good. By the way, anyone actually aware of what other filmmakers were saying back then about James "I'm the King of the World" Cameron knows that many voted on his ex-wife to annoy him, while others voted for her "troops-supporting" movie to counter the success of his antimilitary movie. That one was an unforgettably political award show.
Interstellar is an allegory for the argument that human beings are fundamentally driven by irrational things like love - things which cannot simply be reduced to instinct or biology, and, more importantly, that our irrationality is *valuable*, not an impediment to progress. Love then is both how we survive and the reason that survival is worth it. It's one of the most humanist messages I've seen in film in a long time, especially from a sci-fi film. Truly brilliant movie.
I agree that the value of love and emotion is at the core of the film. And it's an excellent message. That's not the issue. The problem is in his execution. His movies always impress, true. Thing is, he can make me think but he's never made me feel.
One of the key emotional scenes is McConaughey bawling while watching video evidence that his children have grown up without him. His acting is excellent. The scene should be devastating to watch. But I kind of didn't care. The movie didn't make me value those relationships (seriously, did he care at all about his son?). I felt more in the first few minutes of Up than I did in this entire movie.
EDIT: Ok since people keep personally attacking me, I'll clarify what I didn't want to take up space for: Yes, McConaughey made me cry. But only because of his acting, not love for the relationships. I still just didn't care about them. Nolan relies on his actors to bring the emotion but it's not on the page. That's why I mentioned Up. No actors there, just production: writing, direction, animation, and music.
But love CAN be reduced to instinct and biology. That's why it's such a terrible plot point for a movie that is suppose to be true to science to drop a bomb and say that love is some effemurable and transcendent "power" of some sort.
Well, love also has a large socio-cultural element, which is what makes it such a driving force (sociologically speaking) in human society. However, I agree, this does not make it a cosmic, inter-dimensional force in a physical sense, like gravity or light
thats just like... your opinion man
Lol wut? At what point did science exclaim it can quantify love and reduce it to it's most basic qualities? Also the movie never claimed to be true to science but merely utilized it to add to it's narrative structure. Since when is science an authority on love that merely suggesting a naturally reasonable philosophical question about it can discredit such a postulation?
Science is the opposite of what love is. Love is a feeling. Unpredictable by nature and science is a tool for breaking things down to a cold calculated predictable result. Two entirely contrasting mechanisms at work and you yet claim that science is above all? That is an incomprehensibly dehumanizing of a position for a person to take and genuinely makes me sad to read.
The fact that he doesn't get to spend much time with murph is the whole point of the film, how can their screen time seriously be a criticism?
There wasn't much substance to building up their relationship, and the time he was gone seemed really rushed and like he didn't care all that much what the consequences would be, especially before he actually made it into space. That's just what I got from it.
Because higher authorities are dumb as fuck.
@@navyblue9355 he didn´t seem to care because he thought he would be back soon, but he was wrong, don´t you ever make mistakes?
@@R_G0104 as a NASA pilot this is probably not a small detail he could've overlooked. Even in highschool physics I learned about relativity so if he just kinda thought flying through a wormhole would have no consequences he's horribly incompetent.
@@navyblue9355 When he set off on the mission he didn't know that he was going to be entering a wormhole, you stupid geek.
I saw the title and I was like "NO".
But, I mean, Interstellar is not a perfect movie, but it's still one of the most emotional experiences I've ever had watching a movie. And it's been what, 4 to 5 years?
damn i got so fuckin angry when the video started and it seemed like a full-on comparison to avatar was imminent
Can't be more true
u would try the tree of life ...
You should watch Serenity, also with Matthew. That's a very emotional movie.
this video was uploaded in 2015
How do you miss the fact that Cooper not being able to spend time with Murph is the entire point and force driving him to complete his mission?
It's not missed. And you can argue the "father/daughter" relationship as defined by the modern age does a lot of the work of establishing _why_ that relationship matters but why not his son? What makes their relationship special, what makes that the thing he wants to hold onto? What makes that relationship, that love, bring him to her room? If I take our essayist's point, then we don't see that as much and are left to infer it. In a medium where you have ample opportunity to "show it" then choosing not to, in what is already an epic, should add to the longing.
In this instance I can see how the audience might be left to infer too much and instead be asking, "but why?"
In that sense, I'm not sure if I agree with the criticism but I do agree *strongly* with the idea that it's unclear what story is being told here. The story of love triumphing over logic or sensibility? Maybe? Then there shouldn't be one person left wondering about Murph & Cooper.
But then again, what do I know? ;)
@@x--. I ain't reading all that. happy for you. or sorry for what happened.
@@heliosconsultantsw.l.l2413 your curiosity inspires us all.
@@x--. Great answer! I can’t stand people who comment that an answer that would take 20 sec to read is too long to read. You can tell they’re just saying that because they’ve lost the argument.
@@heliosconsultantsw.l.l2413 You asked a question. X answers it and you can’t take 20 sec to read it? Yeah right! More like you didn’t want to admit you were wrong.
I think what impressed me so much about Interstellar was that it masterfully showed how small and how big we are in this universe.
+MadE That is an awesome way of putting it. Great comment
+Jonathan Sackett Thank you. :)
Yes yes yes! I agree completely! I had an existential crisis too! I watched the movie with my friends at the cinema and it was a very cold night but when we left I refused to put on my coat because I hoped the freezing cold might clear my head (it didn't). My friends were staring at me. Yeah.
I think the movie partially hit me so hard because I fit perfectly into the "target group": I'm interested in physics and philosophy and I love science fiction and space and I'm young enough so that the whole climate change and exploitation of our planet thing will actually have an impact on my future.
It's definitely one of those movies that make you completely zone out and forget that you're sitting in a movie theatre. But people who don't allow that to happen are probably not going to have a good time.
+sharon wong While I completely agree with you on terms of emotional impact, the scene where Cooper and Murph are reunited nearly brought me to tears, in terms of a "Nolan film", Interstellar was a bit of a let down. While I feel the comparisons to Avatar are a bit unfair, there was a much greater emphasis on the science aspects of the film compared to the emotional/character aspects. If it was for the many great actors attached to the film, do you honestly think the emotional impact would be there? I do not. While Interstellar is by no means a bad film, it's far from a great one.
Here's to hoping Nolan's next film will be more balanced in terms of concept vs. characters.
+MadE this is exactly why i liked it. then add hans zimmer
Do you own Interstellar?
Did you watch it like 3 times while it was in cinema?
Do you show it to every friend who hasn't seen it before?
Yeah, me too.
Don't own Interstellar, only saw it once in theaters and once at home, and friends and I only talk about how overrated and sloppily written it is lol.
I watched at IMAX 4 times and normal theatre once.
Havent seen it, howevet, almost finished this video
@@Mylada Good enough
@@NoobNoobNews sloppy in terms of a lot of heavy handed expositional/emotional dialogue and unsympathetic/unrealistic character relationships.
Interstellar is one of the best films i've ever seen. Its a moving masterpiece. Hans Zimmer's score is sensational and the story is epic.
i couldn't agree more
@@torhast Why is this video like this then. Lol it is a freaking gorgeous masterpiece
I don't think so
gross
Hans Zimmer's work is unbelievable. The story, uh, I can't say so. It's a narrative which separates itself from its ideology. However, I would agree that a first viewing is a very fulfilling experience.
I think Nolan took the concept over character a step more with Tenet and I believe people started to notice
Absolutely. There are no characters in Tenet.
He did that on purpose, too. Man literally named his main character "the protagonist"
@@roshansreedhar4727 A choice being intentional does not make it good.
@@ktakashismith Good is subjective. Ofcourse having no character isn't good if you enjoy watching characters, It's down to opinion. Im guessing you enjoy watching good characters!
@@roshansreedhar4727 the brilliance of Tenet is this. Wat if the Protagonist's character arch was in the future and not the present? Wat if you had a protagonist who was also just that. A protagonist because the plot demands it thus his arch is in the future. That's wat Robert Pattinson's character told him. Tenet is brilliant.
Though I appreciate the fact that you recommend seeing the film, I disagree with this criticism. It misrepresents the film.
Interstellar does have a single, common thread: time. It is important to identify it before reviewing the film. The dying Earth is a metaphor for the idea that life is bounded in time. Caine's character is the human embodiment of the same idea: his goal is to find how to expand life beyond its time. The journey itself is a race against time. The implications of the theory of relativity for the passage of time constitute the main plot points. The film's ultimate message is to force viewers to change their perspective about time, by considering its meaning from a higher dimensional standpoint. Dylan Thomas' poem couldn't be a better fit given the theme: it expresses the rage of a human being against the inescapable passage of time. The film's central message is not only smart, it is f***ing groundbreaking in cinema.
The only point over which I agree with this review is about Anne Hathaway's lines. They don't translate well to the screen. (Notice: They are an attempt to relate human experience to the central theme of the film, time.) I don't know if the actress is to blame, the script, or the director. A little bit of each, probably. To all prospective viewers out there: this is the only performance that is sub-par. The rest of the film is masterful.
The ideological stance of Interstellar is 'pro-science', which is a rarity in cinema. This is the background philosophy upon which the film's central theme is developed. That's probably another thing that had some people find the film odd or different, because they aren't used to such a stance. (It's the exact opposite philosophy as the one in Avatar, by the way.) My message to those dissatisfied by that: Just open yourself to other viewpoints and philosophies.
In terms of themes, there is nothing remotely close to Avatar in Interstellar, with all due respect. Even in terms of visual effects and "grandeur", both movies are at opposite sides of the spectrum in terms of artistic approaches.
Interesting view on main concept of the movie.
To complement your views I would add:
That film that among its many messages highlights one, which is the fact that love, the emotional connection between human beings is a survival mechanism that allows us to advance and evolve as a species, Cooper and his fatherly love for Murph and Brand and his love for scientist Wolf Edmunds. Perhaps love is not something belonging to a higher dimension or something metaphysical, but even if the human being transcends space and time (as Cooper does within the Tesseract) the connection to another human being will make us reach beyond, will make another step more; something that the beings of the Bulk (They) were unable to achieve because they had unlimited access to space and time, they needed a bridge (Murph-Cooper). At the end Interstellar, as a good ode to science, proposes that not always the logical arguments are those that lead to the best results (The error of visiting the Planet of Dr. Mann) but that the element of the "feeling" is always necessary (Murph returning to his room to discover the message of his father) and that as human beings we are a curious species: we are explorers, pioneers and we are always in the search of entering the unknown, so Cooper's journey at the end, represents that. A great movie, one of those that I would like to see again for the first time on an IMAX screen, which can be analyzed from different angles, here is a great analysis of it.
Trascending Time: Interstellar's Hidden Meaning Behind Love and Time: ua-cam.com/video/t6kqaip7WS4/v-deo.html
You sir just literally said what I just now posted, but in a WAY more well-versed manner. Like, you basically read my mind. Therefore, I couldn't agree with anyone more than this.
Also, what Antonio said up above me here in the reply, he had some really good points as well. Antonio, you may have just made me reconsider my criticism of the thread of love in the film. Though Hathaway's philosophical monologue was painful to watch.
Did you know that Kubrick's 2001, was not well revered by critics and viewers alike? It took time to realize the genius of Kubrick's artistic adaptation of Clarke's book. Maybe Interstellar will have the same fate.
Anne Hathaway's performance and lines there aren't a flaw. They're meant to be cringemaking and weird, even McConaughey's character treats it as nothing, but only later agrees with her
Dude you need to make UA-cam videos. I love NerdWriter but your comment was some good stuff.
The first time I watched Interstellar the visuals and sounds is the only thing I remember leaving the theater. I lost my father to cancer a couple years later and then rewatched the film. It blew me away and the story became something I couldn't get out of my head. A story about a father who would do anything for their child. Now, as a father, the story remains amazing and more impactful. If I could recommend any movie to someone who wants to understand what you would do for your children as a parent I would recommend Interstellar.
I completely disagree. It is the most profound and emotional experience I've ever had watching a movie. I cannot articulate my experience into words. But i know for sure that I will die with a memory of this movie. This is art.
You probably have a very shitty life over there in India and never have seen a real movie...
@@mickmack9645 I'm sure you're the result of some great parenting.
I feel the exact same way Vikas. This movie changed my life and will continue to until the day I die.
I think he's analyzing it too narrowly. He tries to find a single theme or character arc to justify the movie, but doesn't even mention what Nolan himself says in commentaries about the movie: Interstellar is about humanity as a whole. About what defines us, the emotions that drive us together into a same direction. Every character is representing a face of humanity. Loneliness, selfishness, selflessness, despair, hope, compassion.
I agree. I don't care if it doesn't meet the expectations of some self proclaimed film connoisseur in regards to story-telling. I watched it in IMAX theatre and balled my eyes out when Cooper gets the 20 year old messages of his daughter and cries. I have no film background but what I have is a physics background. So, seeing the black holes and concepts of relativity was enough to give me leg-shaking nerdgasms. You add Hans Zimmer's score to that and you get a cinematic experience. For me, cinema is not just characters or stories. I have books for that. I watch moving pictures for a reason and Interstellar fulfilled every desire I had from an ambitious space movie. Interestingly, I fell asleep watching 2001 twice. Perhaps, storywise Interstellar could have been better but you will be lying to yourself if you say that it didn't push the boundaries of what cinema can achieve.
It's funny how you criticise Interstellar while using its incredible score, so once your video is finished, all I want to do is watch the movie again.
I've never rewatched Interstellar, however I have listened to the soundtrack multiple times. It seems that whatever the movie tries to convey, the music does it more refined and profoundly. So consider Interstellar a music video, and forget about the amateurish script, and just focus on the genius of john Williams.
@James Merkle LOL, Arrival was a horrible movie, with a minimal gimmicky conclusion. Apparently the book is better and about how language is at the core of self perception for the main character and her leaning a different (time indifferent) language, makes her trancend human limitations in percieving spacetime!!! The movie never goes to any depth regarding this, not that it is exactly easy to depict such a character arch, but they could have made the movie much nerdier, with linguistic lingo, and consciousness philosophy thrown in, for a more nerdy but captivating movie.
@James Merkle Yes, I remembered, but then couldn't find my post in my comment history, to correct it! Thanks.
@James Merkle i could say people praised Interstellar far more than Arrival, and this man is one of the few has guts over Nolan fandom. im just saying, wont argue about his contents.
@James Merkle what? Dennis Villineue- whatever his name is - he is a big one, of course Nolan is the biggest name nowadays no compare but he is not an unknown director at all
lol looks like u have some problems with Arrival
There are very few movies that can be re-watched with same admiration, curiosity and love...
interstellar is one of them.
That is enough reason to conclude that Interstellar is a masterpiece.
That's like your opinion, man. I think "few" is a pretty subjective term for that matter. It is a master piece, but it's not that lonely when it comes to that.
What other movies can be re-watched, in your opinion?
@@ashwin8084 inception, lord of the rings 1 2 3, pulp fiction.
@@whatsinaname1610 those are indeed a few movies
Also more linear structure with us stuck with the few astronauts not knowing wtf is going on on earth would feal more isolating and relatable, and why did they exactly say moon landings didn't happen (in a space based movie)?
this is the first time I've disagreed with you. I personally thought this was one of the best movies of our generation. I've seen it several times and every time I'm in awe
I remember being blown away by Interstellar when I saw it in theaters. The music was so intense on the big screen
C'est Moi Saad I loved it too, but I think it needed to be even longer to serve the story better. which is probably insane because it was 3 hours long already.
I don't think its love or hate. I'm very mixed on it as I very much enjoyed the relativity and grand scope of it. Also note that Nerdwriter is praising it in many ways as well so this idea that its love or hate is basically people doing the classic thing where something they love being criticized gets seen as someone hating it.
Its a false dichotomy that gets promoted by a lot of people who are very averse to hearing criticisms of something they're awed by.
C'est Moi Saad I agree completely. It's a modern day 2001. The only difference is Interstellar has a better ending.
Agreed!
can we take a minute to appreciate Hans Zimmer and the amazing soundtrack
no
dizzymac wtf why not?
@@jonasloe4926 Because a lot of it is obnoxious and overwrought, like the movie itself. And the director pounds you with it incessantly, where he should be using a light touch. Way too heavy handed. The opening theme is ok.
The Interstellar soundtrack is the only soundtrack I can listen to independent of the film. It’s simply beautiful; I love listening to it while reading on my commute, there’s something so calming about it.
@@dutube99 im so glad such a trained and respected musician such as yourself can give us the truth about this soundtrack.
Nerdwriter: Do you own James Cameron’s Avatar?
Me: Yes
Nerdwriter: Have you seen it a second time?
Me: Yes!
Nerdwriter: Me neither
Me: Oh...
yeah
Second time really? It's a one time watch
i read this comment in my head before i scrolled down and saw it
@@tuts351 who the fuck is restricting the movie from being watched more than once? ive seen it multiple times,over the dozens id say. what makes a movie a one time watch? who sets the standard?
LOL
40 minutes isnt "so little time" to dedicate to her and her dad lol 40min is a lot for a movie
Rui PTG exactly, I mean not the best comparison here but Avengers: Infinity War was dominated by and completely focused on the character of Thanos, and yet he doesn’t even have a half hour of screen time in literally a longer movie than interstellar. You don’t have to focus on something for the majority of the runtime in order for it to be a core feature.
SwenglishGamer they spend a third of the movie’s entire runtime for that plot line, that’s a ton for any movie. Read my above comment
SwenglishGamer but I’m just using that as an example of making a memorable and important aspect of a story with minimal screen time. 40 minutes is a LOT of screen time in a 2 hour movie. Considering the movie is set primarily in space, we are very lucky to have even gotten this long. I mean seriously, the only way to give Murph and Cooper more screen time would be to literally have Murph go with him.
Not to say that I loved Interstellar (I don't btw). But Darth Vader, arguably the greatest villain in cinema history has a total runtime of 40 minutes in 3 movies.
@@fuaddanial2029 R1s ending with 30 seconds of Vader killing rebels is pure movie magic.
Did Dunkirk bring him back to his roots ?
I'm glad Christopher Nolan has experimented with new stories and concepts. Too many films are rehashes and repeats. He's a national treasure and I hope he continues trying new things. Dunkirk was great tho
I agree, Dunkirk felt much more consistent and didn't try to fiddle with multiple themes at the same time, unlike Interstellar.
Dunkirk was so overrated
@@Hatzmaeba WHAT?! You do know the time line was all fucked up. It took me out of the movie entirely. It would be different if the theme was set like Momento but Dunkirk literally made be stop and be like; wait, let me re-calibrate.
interstellar is not a perfect film but i do have to strongly disagree with you
I’m not even sure what his point was I kind of zoned off I haven’t been sleeping enough
interesting to see how everyone in the comments disagrees
CHINMAYA or they can simply form their own opinions..
@@Hayley-kp6wt exactly!
The likes seem to agree though
Hehe, I came to the comments to say that I disagree and say a few things on why I do it. But I was surprised to see that I don't have an unpopular opinion.
@@yandhi5016 I think those do not reflect the reality very well. I bet a lot of people that disagreed with him didn't dislike the video because why would you do that, you just don't agree with his opinion, it doesn't mean that the video is bad. On the other hand, people that agreed had all the reasons to press the like button.
This video just made me want to see interstellar again, Christopher Nolan and Hans Zimmer are just amazing
So because two of them are great it means the film is great. I got you. That is what makes good film the name of two famous people working together.
@@africanhistory Uh, he just showed appreciation for the movie's director/writer and the person that made the score. Why are you so triggered?
Popa Dan nerdwriter fan probably lol
Yeah, Hans Zimmer is truly amazing. The man at the apex of self plagiarism. And Nolan too. Just trying to be too ambitious for his own good.
@@a.static.kaleidoscope To be quite honest, you just sound jealous.
I am disappointed... you should know better than to sum up a film relationship's meaning by percentage of minutes of the total run time. The father-daughter relationship creates drama precisely because they are apart for so long! Frodo just wanted to get back to the Shire, but he had a job to do. Michael Corleone could've settled with Kay long ago, but he had a job to do. We see Andy Dufresne outside of prison for, what, 5 minutes at the beginning of Shawshank? But is anybody questioning whether or not he'd like to escape the prison, due to how much "screen time" he and the real world got?
Thanks! Exactly my thoughtso
i agree
The movie was too long and did not earned it
fantastic point sir
" you should know better than to sum up a film relationship's meaning by percentage of minutes of the total run time" holy shit exact my fking thought! finally I saw someones comment regarding that how can he even do that lmao
Say what you will about Interstellar, but I've never cried as hard for a movie as I did watching that video messages scene
That scene is truly powerful. You're not the only one crying
Dude I lost my shit too. It's a good thing I had my first kid years after I saw that movie. Having g kids I feel, make you WAY more sensitive to shit like that. If I saw Interstellar for the first time today, I would have been a puddle on the floor. 😢
Same.
Have you seen Arrival? that movie breaks me
@@MarcoBayod_MB I'm pretty sure Arrival breaks any human with even a shred of a soul.
I disagree with him about Avatar.
Now just take that disagreement times 20 for Interstellar
Jacob Meyer i agree with him. Interstellar’s script is vultureshit. They also couldn’t pick an ending, so they had three, which get progressively more stupid
Aryavir Sangwan, respectfully disagree. I get what you mean, especially about the conclusion. It was all over the place. Besides that, there were some really heartfelt and well written moments. Dedicating 40 minutes for a relationship between two characters was a good choice. We really got to see the pain that he felt as a father.
Exactly 😂😂. This video sucked .
I agree with him about Avatar. That movie sucked. I completely disagree with him about Interstellar. Thats a masterpiece.
@@28maitreyagupta21 no the movie sucked
Let me ask you a question:
Do you own Kathryn Bigelow's 'The Hurt Locker'?
Have you seen it a second time?
Me neither
Savage
Yesssss
I do plan to see it again
I have seen it multiple times, some scenes especially are very very very well acted and tense
Not even once
I like all of your videos, and I always enjoy your perspective.
This time, I disagree with you. Interesting take
Ah, I forgot that this one encompasses the onus of his criticism
@paul w Wait you're Paul W, too!
@@PaulWillisJr it's you from the fifth dimension
@@Andrey-il8rh I refuse to believe it! I'll die on the Interstellar hill.
That's...more poetic than it ought to be
I completely agree, most of his arguments are have a lot of things that are very accurate, but not this video.
never thought the day would come, when i disagree with you
The theme about love wasn't about love being eternal and a medium of communication. It was a message from our future selves to focus on something you love. Something in the mind of two people who love each other, like a watch could be used as a basepoint.. The two trying to communicate to each other across dimensions could focus on that object and have a means of speaking, or a way to get each other's attention. Presumably the high beings, ourselves in the future, would be incapable of emotion, but would be able to still understand that we still rely heavily on emotion as a means of communication and connection.
Lol, no matter what you say this movie is the weakest Chris Nolan movie
Yeah this movie is 100% Nolan inserting himself into his own ass. He literally made the movie with a parallel of his relationship with his daughter and MM and MURPH!. His movies thesis is "I know it sucks for you that I am gone working a lot but, one day, you'll realise I saved the world with my work". That's some smug as fuck self-congratulatory bullshit.
Joe Avreg
Art doesn’t necessarily have to be selfless per-se.
A little bit of self in a piece of art makes it more human.
Now that you told me about this aspect of the film I like it even more
@Leo Funari The movie is about how his work as a director is so important it will save the world. That's egomania.
I read almost everybody disagreeing with you, and found it funny that although I agree with everything you said (about Interstellar and Avatar) you managed to make my opinion on Nolan and Interstellar a lot softer. I think now I can watch this movie again and appreciate it more.
Same. I like the movies, but now I appreciate them as a show and admire how the effects are made.
I think this movie has aged extremely well. It would age more gracefully over the years. It has to. Probably Nerdwriter himself thinks about the movie differently after 6 years. Because in between we didn't had a space movie this good. Arrival was great. But it had extraterrestrials in it. So not comparing the two.
@@Dr.SyedSaifAbbasNaqviabsolutely disagree? Think everyone knows it's a cringe movie by now.
Way too harsh, but I will say the criticisms are valid but they do not ruin the film. the whole love angle felt a little forced, and the impact of his daughter's relationship with hims diminished a little. But that score made up for so much inside me, it managed to bolster my emotional response like crazy.
Love is more than an angle. It's the whole point of the film. Strip all of the love and poetry away and the entire message of the movie is gone. The score contributes to that as well with how grandly emotional it is. That has a lot to do with why the church organ is so heavily used throughout.
Mark Stoleson The movie should have been about the daring of humanity (and hubris in staying?) in that case
nfinitiduck The movie is about why we dare in the first place. We dare because we are driven by the irrational side of us which motivates us to reach beyond our grasp. Love is both the means of our survival and the thing that gives survival meaning.
+Mark Stoleson well put
True. When I saw the movie in the theater with surround sound and excellent picture, I was completely enthralled. I had a really emotional experience and cried several times. though it was when I worked at a movie theater and decided to watch it after a shift on a whim, and I think that played a big part in it, that I had no expectations. I am fully willing to admit that it's not that good of a movie, but I also know I had an amazing goosebump experience with it, and I thought about for weeks afterwards. I know this has no value as far as actually judging the movie, but I was just in the perfect mindset to be blown away
Interstellar is my favorite movie. This movie hit me like no other movie before.
Same here. It's so perfect. I get the flaws but I just think the positives outweigh the negatives.
RealMetalGaming it's my 3rd favorite
First 2?
RealMetalGaming same here. it's in my mount Rushmore of movies
Me too, man! And DANG am I picky with movies!
I agree with your final paragraph about standards. I disagree with your analysis of Interstellar failing to meet to them. At least not to the extent that you assert.
Yeah I agree with Josh. Nolan wrestled with many topics in interstellar, several producing new scientific papers on black holes. I liked how he wrestled with intimate topics like father and daughter while tackling the realities of Einstein relativity, and how we are still slaves to the fourth dimension: time, and how we are so unprepared for it.
I noticed too how some film scholars and students HATE interstellar because it doesn't follow some rules taught in film school. Like the science, Nolan was on the cutting edge of storytelling, first with Momento and now with interstellar and how time can muck up a traditional structure to storytelling.
True that avatar was all spectacle that it bored me. All it showed was how good a slave driver James Cameron can be. Thats really it.
Indeed, I would assert that Nolan's real problem is that his storytelling was _too_ deep, too impersonal. His film-making, if we want to be as literal as possible (since he didn't use actual film to record with) was spectacular. The only problem was that he didn't spend enough time developing his characters, and that's just a natural result of tackling such big ideas.
@ThePCguy17 He did use film to record it, though.
Interstellar is my favorite theater experience ever. Watching it in imax was mind blowing.
no
@@justicetout ur fav movie is defo american psycho lmao
Maybe I don’t have a extensive enough knowledge of cinema, but I have to disagree with you. Nolan’s films definitely carry concept-heavy stories, but it’s not more than you can handle, just powerful enough that it retains value for re-watching (so I guess I also disagree that it has no re-watch value).
Lol you don't need to have an extensive knowledge on film to give criticism. That's the biggest secret
I'm of the mind that people focus way too hard on Hathaway's "Love Speech", and miss how the cold, hard, reality of an extended amount of time in space can and would affect the human psyche.
They are just regular people. Scientists.
Who are so monumentally, incomprehensibly far away from all of humanity and the entirety of human history, further than anyone has ever been or even thought possible. MILLIONS of light years away from our galaxy, cooped up for MONTHS on a cramped spacecraft, and Hathaway's character feels powerfully drawn to someone she loves, who was previously, before they passed through the worm hole, MILLIONS of light years away.
Now the person she loves is close. Closer to her than he has been in a very long time. Simultaneously, Hathaway and the crew are completely cut off from the rest of humanity. She does not know if he is alive or dead, she just knows he. Is. Close.
People want to be with the people they love! Who doesn't!?
Whether separated by a mile, or many light years, one could certainly entertain the thought, that love, could make one feel as though they are *drawn* to that person. She was *not* literally saying love is a fundamental force in the universe akin to gravity, but that a human being that experiences emotion could certainly entertain the idea that they behave similarly.
I don't think she was trying to make a big statement. No hypothesis.
She was just a very scared and very stressed out human being who has never felt more alone in her entire life.
Agree with you sir
My main problem was how this speech played into the climax. "Love transcends dimensions" cliche. The rest of the movie was good, but the climax didn't feel like an inventive Nolan kind of device to me.
@@dpage446 In the story the love thing is supposed to be an accidental coincidence between the ramblings of a distressed Anne Hathaway and reality. The bulk beings have transcended time and space, but the have difficulty pinpointing a specific moment in time. It was Dr. Brands obsession with her childhood room, the love for her father and her father's love for her that allowed the bulk beings to construct the tesseract. A three dimensional space where this room acts as a fixed place in space and you can convey information through time to that specific place. The bulk beings needed their love for them to communicate with each other through time. That what that meant.
It's similar to the old french movie La Jetée where they need to go back before the war, but the time travel subjects don't have the ability to find the specific point in time to travel to. Only a man who has an image of a woman in his mind can navigate through the time to find the right point.
If you have been interested, go watch the interstellar essay from "like stories of old" on youtube. He also makes excellent essays like Nerdwriter usually does.
“COOPed up” 😂😂😂
Alright I will make my exit, but it was just too good of an opportunity
@@CoffeeD_1 I loved your explanation. I never understood why people ripped on the "love" dialogue.
I cried the first time I watched Intertellar, I cried the second time, the third time and the fourth time, oh boy, I cried the sixth time and I think the seventh would thrill me.
That little time they spent together is the point of everything.
I think in this time it's a revolutionary thing to believe in movies, in simple stories even if they are "awkward philosophical declarations". If you llok around most things we do in life are so, like this video.
Holy yikes lmao
agree
This movie was one of the only films I saw that demonstrated a father/daughter relationship so beautifully. This movie never fails to make me cry because it is such a wonderful and subtle story.
You mean him leaving her behind with little information?
@@gonzaloetse29 wut ??
I think Nerwriter is being harsh on it too, and I really like it, but subtle?! C'mon now. The "love transcends time and space" speech is one of the least subtle things I've heard in my life.
This movie makes a father/daughter relationship beautiful by abandoning the father/son relationship. Good job, Nolan.
@@Luca-bv5ic I love this movie to death. One of my favorite films, but Nolan needs to learn how to use subtext. I cringed at Apollo landing debate. That's why I love Oppenheimer, because Nolan fixed his issues
Interstellar is my favorite movie of all time. Nothing has made me feel the things it made me feel the first time, or the second, or the third time I saw it in theaters
I loved it too, i recognize its flaws but i think there is a huge dichotomy between the two movies... Being a learner and enthusiast towards physics it not only gave me a background setting for my daydreams and sleepless nights but also something to reach out for and to know that someday we will be there, and knowing that i wont be there to see it is sad. If you play video games a great game is Elite Dangerous, it explores the concepts of a futuristic society as well as a galactic economy and lifestyle.
The part where he has to dock onto the spinning station, with Hans Zimmerman's incredible score loudly in the background always gives me goosebumps. Moviemaking done right.
The feeling after watching this movie is something I can't describe.. That why I NEED to see often
Couldn't disagree with you more sir! Interstellar is the reason I went back to uni to study planetary science.
Tell me did they teach you that you can save the world with the power of... love? Cmon.
@@tarnishedpose you need to stop fixating on that one aspect and think about all the other stuff they got right.
@@tarnishedpose nit picking wow
@@mrpullafastone AGreed brother, Noble Prize Winner Scientist for the discovery of Gravitational waves Kip Thorne was the executive producer on this movie, This movie resulted into two research papers one on Physics and the another on computer graphics. And people still consider it a bad movie.
@paul w brother you watch Michael Bay's films, Nolan is much above your intellectual capabilities
The music, acting, cinematography, writing, simply amazing. I can watch this film on repeat and still get those goosebumps and shed tears, 10/10
This is my favorite video of yours! I always feel guilty about how I feel about this movie because it’s so beloved but this articulates it’s flaws so well
I love sci-fi, all types. Even slow burn ones. I can't find anything I like about this film. The story. The effects. The music is okay but not mind blowing or anything I can play in my head. I dunno..I tried to like SSOMETHING and I can't.
As far as movies go, Interstellar is amazing.
Interstellar is the normie’s 2001, only people who don’t watch movies find this film amazing
An alternative title for this video might be: "Christopher Nolan: I'm not mad, just disappointed".
Why do I have the feeling you only made this video to give us all goosebumps with the Interstellar soundtrack
that Interstellar score always gives me chills
madeon
People dislike the video without giving a reason for their disagreement It's funny how Nerdwriter criticizes the flaws of the characters and the movie's inability to hold everything together and people in the comments say how good the score was.
"Maybe I'm being too harsh." Yes, yes you are. This movie is quite moving and affective. Having said that, your videos are terrific.
Everyone in the comments said what I wanted to say. Interstellar is my favourite film. It made me cry on the second time too... third too. I haven't got to fourth. Yet
Trio Perfect I'm saving that fourth viewing 👌🏼
You r a noob movie watcher
@@ShivamShukla-uj2qz no u
Dude, I can't be the only one that thinks the story behind Interstellar is fantastic, right?
I'm with you. It was a story that gave me hope.. made me feel something.
I loved it too, i recognize its flaws but i think there is a huge dichotomy between the two movies... Being a learner and enthusiast towards physics it not only gave me a background setting for my daydreams and sleepless nights but also something to reach out for and to know that someday we will be there, and knowing that i wont be there to see it is sad. If you play video games a great game is Elite Dangerous, it explores the concepts of a futuristic society as well as a galactic economy and lifestyle.
No, you’re not
U r not.
You are not alone mate
"We have to stick to our assertion of values about what constitutes a great film" - 6:54
There isn't a single definition for "great film". Everything is subjective and opinion based. What I might value in a movie is different from what you might value in a movie. I for one consider Interstellar a masterpiece, but that has more to do with the experience of it more so than the narrative structure. Admittedly, the movie gets a bit sloppy narrative wise in the third act. But I don't care. It is breathtaking, awe inspiring, beautiful, powerful, and groundbreaking, which ultimately is far more important than having a perfectly cohesive narrative. Again, you could disagree, and thats fine. But you can't try and create a consensus definition of what a great movie is, as everyone values different things.
1:39 - At least we can all agree that Hans Zimmer's score for Interstellar invokes so much emotion.
It copies koyanisqatsi...full copy..so unoriginal...so sad to steal music
I watched Interstellar like 10 times. Love the score
Dark Adventure Hans Zimmer is fantastic. Listening to his original organ score gave me chills.
@@calebrhodes6422 the idea to use the organ actually came from Nolan. Nonetheless it's awesome what Zimmer did with it ;)
Me too! It’s my favorite movie. It’s amazing.
the score is the best thing about it
I thought Interstellar was a great movie, I loved it, but that might be because I'm a huge sucker for space and time travel, and they took advantage of that.
YouJustGotAnimated , no it was a brilliant movie. (Nolan's best - hands down, if you asked me.
('Nerdwriter' completely missed the boat on this one.)
I love the movie but hos comments on the shot length and giving the audience time to come to terms with things is an interesting point.
I thought the slight chaos the pacing brought actually enhanced the story in a way, so that when you finally caught your breath and comprehended the whole scope, you were blown away.
NoviceInDisguise
That's how I felt about the movie! The chaos and pacing of the whole thing left me blown away, speechless, and unable to do anything but breath as I walked from my seat to outside the theater.
(Reaching the walking pavement outside the theater is when my friends and I started talking excitedly about the movie and the theories they presented.)
I have to agree with Nerdwriter. While I enjoyed the film because of the subjects involved, and disagree with it being too many topics, I thought the time-travel and "Love" philosophy was very weakly / poorly implemented into the story itself, and led to an overall weakening to an otherwise potentially great film.
I have watched Interstellar many times. This is such a moving movie. Love it.
None of your arguments made much sense. Comparing Avatar to Interstellar is like comparing Avengers to The Dark Knight. There's no real comparison. I understand people who say this movie has less tangible ideas than other Nolan films, but idk why that automatically makes it worse. Most audiences don't give a shit about ideas and thought-provoking concepts, so I can see why some might be bored or laugh at the "Love" lines, but I loved every minute of this movie. I even bought it and rewatched it multiple times. It has minor flaws here and there of course, but I thought it was far more satisfying than you make it out to be.
Meh
the 'love' lines are not thought-provoking concepts... they're a corny joke!
@Rodzilla The blame was put on Batman not to give innocence to the Joker, but so NO blame gets put on Harvey Dent; Gotham's white knight.
@Rodzilla You say I'm missing the point, but you've missed the entire point of the ending and beginning of TDKR. The actions of Harvey Dent cannot be explained by the Joker, since there's no direct link. That's why in the end when it's Batman, Harvey and Commissioner Gordon, Batman tells him to blame everything on him. Essentially, any loose ends or questions from investigators or the media can be traced (incorrectly) to Batman.
Why do you think Nolan began TDKR with a memorial to Dent, and having Gordon give a speech attempting to expose the lies, only to shelve it for later?
Exactly. Not everything can be attributed to the Joker because it didn't explain what Dent did.
@Rodzilla No, Joker's rampage didn't explain Dent.
Explain how Joker's rampage explained Harvey Dent.
I'll wait
I watched Avatar twice. The second time, I couldn't wait for it to be over.
+Josh Derak Hahahaha! I'm surprised you waited.
The first time, I pirated it (because I wanted to see if it was worth seeing in the theatre). The second time I spent money in a 3D theatre. The 3D was awful and unnecessary. Anyone who wants to argue aren't me and saying I'm wrong is stupid.
+Josh Derak you watched the pirated one first? then shut up. do i need to compare the quality? and how it ruin the theatre experience?
Why do I need to shut up? Never did I mention how the movie looked because it didn't to me. I was more concerned about the story.
My movie experience was ruined by the 3D. I didn't like it because I already wear glasses. That means I have to wear the 3D glasses on the tip of my nose.
Please don't talk to me like that again. Thank you.
haha. it's like you read the entire plot of The Sixth sense and then go to the cinema and say the movie is boring and i already know everything. you ruined your own experience by watching the pirated version with awful quality first. try watch your favorite movies with shitty cam quality then and tell me it didn't affect your experience. if you don't like 3D, watch the 2D version.
That soundtrack made up for all it's shortcomings imo.
Hans Zimmer is brilliant.
Almost all. The love thing is still cringe-worthy. Don't get me wrong, I understand the power of love as a human emotion, but that's all it is, its not some cosmic inter-dimensional force. Speaking of emotion, the number of emotions that soundtrack arouses is beyond counting...
The way nerdwriter combined the soundtrack with the venture into the wormhole was pretty fucking dank tbh
@ 6:36
you want to know what else is cringeworthy, a baby in 2001 a space odyssey, love makes more sense than a giant baby going to earth
moongirl... The you're a cynic. Only a cynical person would find the scene in Interstellar cringe worthy.
"Have you seen avatar a second time?" - I haven't seen it a first time lol
I don't really agree with everything in this video. For one, showing the difference between Kubrick and Nolan's directorial style (cinematography-wise) and implying that because Nolan fails to recreate 2001, his style is worse, seems like weak evidence. Yes, the dialogue about love from Hathaway was pretty terrible, but that is the only thing you cited that had an impact on me. Saying that there was too much spectacle is also a bit unfair. Space IS spectacular. It's what we marvel at when we look up at the night sky. Space exploration is even more spectacular. The mere concept that humans landed on the moon is amazing, and our reach into the rest of the solar system grows with each passing decade. Interstellar is a love letter to science/astronomy and champions scientific progress as something to strive for. Spectacle is a way in which the movie can force us to revisit our child-like wonder and awe for something that surely deserves it.
He wasn't saying that it was too much spectacle, but the movie focused much harder on the spectacle than it did the plot points and themes of the films. This is disappointing since Nolan normally treats these aspects with a lot of care.
@@iqpok The film is actually well balanced in that regard. It's just that the first time you watch the film, probably you're drown into the spectcle which was the first intention of Nolan. Nolan wants to live the experience first in cinema and after that watch the movie again and extract the subtext and discourse of his filsm. He has stated that many times during interviews.
@Antonio Foglia
Your comment is a bit condescending and assumes that I just didn't get the subtext and discourse amongst all the spectacle. Like I was some starry eyed kid who couldn't handle the complexity of this Nolan masterpiece.
The issue with the movie isn't that I "missed the points amongst the spectacle", but rather that the issues with the plot points and the themes stand out and are pretty easy to spot.
Firstly, the dialog is very cringeworthy and poorly executed in many parts. You claim that you need to "extract the subtext and discourse" on multiple viewings, but the dialog literally tries to beat the audience over the head with its extremely cheesy and simple message. And it does it with some clunky and cringeworthy dialog. Nolan has never really been great with dialog and subtext in most of his movies since his writing is extremely "on the nose". He isn't a Kubrick with writing. Kubrick always managed to retain a sense of ambiguity in his movies. Most of the meaning in his dialogue or action is implied as opposed to Nolan movies where it is stated out loud in expositionary dialogue. I would also argue that the philosophy and psychology in Kubrick’s movies is at a more advanced level than what can be found in (most of) Nolan’s movies. I would argue Nolan's best writing was in Memento when he used to be much more subtle and critic dialogue. This movies dialogue completely lacked subtlety.
The Matt Damon subplot was entirely unnecessary. Even the most diehard Interstellar fans pretty much agree with this. His subplot didn't add anything positive to the themes and only negatively impacted the pacing of the movie.
Finally, the rules of the universe completely clash with the conclusion in a ridiculous way. For example, the movie that prides itself on being extremely close to real science in most every aspect of its plot but then tries to drop a bomb on the audience and say that love is some effemurable and transcendent "power" of some sort. It was pretty ridiculous in the context of what had been previously shown in the movie. I am not saying that love isn't a good theme, but it was not executed well at all in this movie.
Also many other people have stated this also, but for a movie with the emotion of love as a core theme, the movie seems to completely lack any emotions. The movie didn't make me value the relationships between the characters. There are many scenes that should have been emotional heart wrenching scenes ( McConaughey bawling while watching video evidence that his children have grown up without him, the crew member aging 40 years over a 5 minute timespan, etc.), but I didn't care because I had no investment into those characters or their relationships. Nolan has been panned for this aspect of his movies before, but it is exemplified in this film because the emotion of love was supposed to be a core theme.
Those are fairly glaring flaws with the plot and theme. Again, he does amazing practical effects work and has spectacle like no other but the plot and theme in this movie were very lacking. The issue with this movie emphasized the weaknesses of Nolan's writing (poor expository on the nose dialogue and lack of emotional connection to characters) rather than playing to his strengths (building tension, spectacle, mystery gimmicks). This is why I had a problem with this movie
I loved Interstellar. It was thought-provoking on every level. Like Inception.
You should love Paprika then. It is quite a piece of art, that movie.
Joey Fun I second that. Paprika is fantastic.
Joey Fun Sorry if my agreement of your assessment of the movie offended you.
Don't ever compare Interstellar to Inception. Instellar doesn't even compare.
98Thecodfather better
My thoughts on the film too. You also reminded me how phenomenal this soundtrack was.
I constantly go through ways I would edit this film to make it much more incredible. I think thats a testament to how lackluster the film is, but how much potential it has. Its a film you want to love for its beauty and ambition yet falls maddeningly short. The foundation the film rests on is too unstable to hold up the weight Nolan attempted.
+AQWMalkoir FOR THE RECORD HANS ZIMMER NEVER FALTERS, EVER. I LOVE YOU HANS.
+Nerdwriter1 *cough*AmazingSpiderMan2*cough*
+Nerdwriter1 I have no source for this (because I have it from my uncle who leads a company doing movie sounddesign in berlin - not a competitor of Zimmer in any way but he knows the sound people in berlin) but apparently Hans Zimmer draws heavily from 10 or so younger emplyees of his company(?), he might do a basic theme but they do all the rest ...and tue or not it seems plausible, his output is astronomical, nobody should be able to write so much music. i have nothing against using helpers but he takes all the credit and most of the money (bad pay).
I`m not her to discredit Zimmer (I have no real sources for that) but I would advise to look at his work with a bit of well distance, no reason not to enjoy it though.
+AQWMalkoir I hate to sound like average teenager, but Interstellar soundtrack is EPIC! I had to travel from Zagreb, Croatia to Istanbul, Turkey by car for work(800 miles), and got it, and combination of rural Balkans, modern cities, this car I was reviewing and soundtrack was spectacular!
+Nuran On
This is very common, especially of films of this size. I'm actually pretty sure this is also common knowledge. One of his "younger employees" did the score for Gravity, I believe. It's a collaborative craft and this is in no way discrediting his work. It's like a film director, he's not the guy shooting it or editing the film, and yet his finger print is all over the film.
Coop not spending enough time with Murph is what makes it the most heartbreaking. It all happens so fast the same way life happens so fast as any parent grows old
"We have to stick to our assertion of values"
This is a view surprising to me considering its from the nerdwriter, and one that I personally - and strongly - disagree with.
A lot of people have disagreed with you here and for good reason, too. Although your critique of Interstellar is fair and well researched, I believe that your thesis was not well thought out. To clarify, I do believe that your thesis is true (that films are hampered by their spectacles surpassing their story) but to apply it to interstellar was the mistake. Why did you not direct this to avatar? Which I believe would have carried the message best. (Was it done before? Therefore prompting you to squeeze another film to fit under the same thesis?)
Here are the problems I have:
1. Your judgement of interstellar by how many times it is rewatched is shallow. Depending on the films purpose it will determine the rewatch value by things such as the density of the message carried, the subject matter, the storyline, the characters, etc. *This is one of the few characteristics that should be left entirely to the filmmakers and irrespective of the audience, because this is what defines the creator* . An example of this is James Joyce; Considered as one of the greatest writers of all time, but even his biggest fans can only read his books once. This is not because he is the lesser writer than, say, John Green who you could re-read a dozen times, it is because he places higher value on the subject matter and the message over the storyline and characters. I am not doing that example justice, but hopefully you can get a rough understanding of what im trying to say.
2. You fail to appreciate the experimental and original approach Nolan took and not regard the film with respect to traditional films values. That is not how progress is made. Think of clockwork orange, Alice in wonderland, etc. These are films that broke the boundaries and indeed were frowned upon when it first released.
Nolan would not be upset by this review as obviously he knows the nature of his work which is less focused on oleasing everyone and more so in creating masterpieces. And masterpieces were never universally welcomed in their age.
The thing that is most disapointing is that it is from you. But I am being overly harsh, even though I di believe you have sat on the wrong side of cinematograhpic history on this one.
I will admit, your comparison with the average scene lengths is one I found difficult to disagree with, but after further thought I realised that obviously Nolan would have considered this and would not err in such a blatant way, there is certainly more thought put into it than we are assuming. Space is indeed overwhelming and perhaps he used short scenes to portray this beyond-understanding like atmosphere? And it is also dangerous to judge a film solely on its average scene time and not consider the mood/scene/purpose with it (Because of course they will differ to convey different emotions, using the average would be akin to judging a film as if it only had one mood throughout).
In short, interstellar is a masterpiece and will stay that way no matter what. ❤️
@chem I disagree with one thing you said and it is: that Nolan is less focused on pleasing everyone. Why? Because even though he may know that there’s no possible way to please everyone since people like to complain even for the stupidest of things on every film and forget that “no movie is perfect” therefore he focuses on making good quality films by putting effort on the writing and visuals even if they are not always great but are competent and good. But he does care about the audience quite a bit because he tries to present complex ideas in a way that won’t lose most people and he has said this on interviews as well. To me that demonstrates that a director/writer is trying to make his vision appealing not only to himself or a certain amount of selected audiences but for as much people as possible which is a respectful thing to do given that it might pick the interest for some about topics they didn’t care before. But yes, his most important objective is to craft a well done film.
Absolutely disagree with that statement you highlighted, you CAN'T stick to your assertion of values when reviewing films, or art in general.
How do you review a piece of art by coming in with preconceptions and judgments? You need to try to buy into the creator's vision, you don't have to enjoy the film, but you have to give it a fair chance. I'm always severely annoyed when people critique things that they don't understand or even ATTEMPT to understand it, be it movies or books.
I personally love the channel Like Stories Of Old, because I really feel that the creator always gives his utmost best to understand what the creator wanted to say with the piece.
Nerdwriter asks of Avatar “have you seen it a second time”, then proceeds to assert that Interstellar falls into the same category - that of movies ruled by spectacle rather than substance.
I agree that I never had a desire to rewatch Avatar because it was a substantially hollow film... so why is Interstellar my MOST rewatched film?
Yes
I feel alot of the times you refer to the collective and say WE you should really have been saying "I"
Yeah, Avatar is literally the second most widely sold DVD in America. Besides Frozen, no other movie in American history has sold more DVDs or BluRays, and this dense critic has the audacity to assume that because he didn't get the DVD and rewatch it, no one did.
R Webb I never said it did. Read his comment, then read my comment again, only slower. Take your time.
Edit: he saw how stupid he sounded and deleted his comment in shame, lol.
By “we”, he was referring to the people left who still value the principles of good storytelling
Agreed.
@@tidyheidi9143 I fucking loved Avatar
Christopher Nolan overfeeds us by the end, while Kubrick left you starving.
+Connor McCausland
I don't get this Nolan - Kubrick comparison though. PT Anderson is far more in the vein of Kubrick. Nolan is trying to be more like Alfred Hitchcock, including wearing a suit to set everyday.
Aesthetic manner is completely different, though. Likewise, why not include Danny Boyle's SUNSHINE or Robert Zemeckis' CONTACT? My point was far more broad than just the content of this film, but rather the connection to Kubrick that's drawn every time there's an auteur director who has some intellectual curiosities.
I think what this video was communicating though is that both directors in scrutiny aim for ideas to explore rather than stories to tell. I could be wrong.
I sort of disagree. I think Nolan searches for concepts/ideas so far in as he can see how to turn it into a plot. Kubrick is less invested in plot.
I really like what Nolan is attempting, but I feel there's a cognitive dissonance in his approach that holds him back. He can't choose between moving the plot or exploring the concept; whether the characters should be more engaged with their emotions or with the plot (and therefore the concept); and I recall him mentioning Malick's influence on him in the Tree of Life special features - I feel like he wants to have the same kind of impressionistic, visual cinema but then his plots require explanation. All these things are always at odds with one another.
Eventually he might find the perfect blend. But as Nerdwriter mentions, he found better solutions when his scope was constrained by the budget (same thing for Scorsese, in my opinion). Or maybe the scope isn't big enough, maybe he needs to write a story and then be given a trilogy to take his time with telling the story.
I like your take on it. Gonna have to reflect on it all. EIther way, Nerdwriter's stuff makes you think and ponder, something to be admired for sure.
By the way - couldn't agree more about Scorsese. Except his films are completely character driven.
Watched this movie like every week with my friends, I had the soundtrack on my phone played on repeat. This was and still is a fantastic movie.
I always felt that the connection between the father and daughter was emotionally moving and impactful which is why the ending was gut wrenching and overall bittersweet.
And I kinda liked the philosophical rant about love.
I loved Interstellar. Avatar was meh, but I really liked Interstellar
I've watched Interstellar 3 times.
@@Severian_of_the_Guild you wrote that reply a year ago but i just have to reply to your reply, i dont usually associate emotions into comments but this case is justifiable, and now i must roast you so unfathomably hard, your knees will buckle if you arent sitting down, and if you are sitting on your mounds of flesh, i will give you hemorrhoids:
Nou nerd
@@Severian_of_the_Guild yes
One of the most underrated channel of all time.
+stuff Cheers!
+stuff not realy, since the channel (from what i know) has never been rated bad, it is just not rated as many times as it should be.
+Benjamin Macdonald I worded it badly. I meant what you said. He has the content of top tier actually insightful channel but has the popularity of a small indie band. He is growing quite rapidly though. Honestly, sometimes l see this channel as a better more interesting vsauce type content producer.
Although I can consider all the criticism valid, I can't, no matter how hard I try, conceive of a way in which this movie could've done better. Nolan clearly wanted a movie about wormholes, different planets, black holes, extra spatial dimensions and time travel all while sending out a message of humanity getting out of a rut and surpassing itself.
To me, all those elements fitted perfectly. There were no cheap or easy shortcuts taken and Nolan achieved what he set out to do.
In many ways it was a more ambitious project than 2001 a Space Odyssey. 2001 got by with a lot of artistic hand-waving while Nolan went through all the hard work of making everything click.
+BaileysBeads It could've been done better if the characters were interesting in any way shape or form, or the screenplay was better. The god damn robot was the most human character out of them all. I would've liked the movie more if they went to space after the first 10 minutes of the movie instead of emotionally blackmailing us to feel sorry. They made his son a psychopath JUST so he can make fake drama on earth, and didn't even bother to finish his 'character' arc by the end of the movie. The way Mathew's character gets the job at NASA is laughably executed, and the ending is cringe worthy.
+nonikita Perhaps that's the point. The human beings are not the main characters of the film, the universe is. Hence the characters do feel flat in some ways.
Not saying it couldn't have been done better, but I think people are a little bit too anthropocentric when analyzing a film that is really about the universe and it's relationship to humanity, rather than human to human
Jonathan Sackett
Then why waste 40 minutes of our time developing the relationship between Cooper and Murph?
nonikita Fair enough. I see your point. My guess is that christopher nolan wanted us to be able to relate to the characters since they were going into an environment that was totally unrelatable. But then again I'm not saying it was perfect. (i'm the type of person who tends to believe that you could cut fluff out of every film). However, I'm still pretty confident I can find fluff in any film to cut out. It just happens to be because this film is so long the fluff looks a little bigger.
Then again I don't really know what I'm doing so I'd probably screw it all up.
+BaileysBeads Overall, I thought it was a fantastic movie, but there were many flaws, especially with the characters. Like others have said, Murph's brother started to behave like a psycho for pretty much no reason. I mean, he'd rather see his son dead than go live with Murph, just because he resented Cooper?
Why couldn't Brand answer a simple "no" when Murph asked him if her father left her to die on Earth, before repeating that goddamn poem again? Why couldn't Dr. Mann just freeze himself again without tricking the others to come to his planet? Somebody would've come to rescue him eventually, even if it took 100 years, and if he's in cryo sleep it wouldn't really make a difference to him.
Although I truly enjoy the film (it is my favorite thus far), and even disagree with you generally, you present good and well-thought out points. This has given me quite a bit to think about and re-evaluate. While it hasn't changed my feelings on the film, I appreciate this analysis - thank you for it.
KZ Bernabeu lol clear the chicken off the runway, i'll be the bad guy.. his points are ridiculous
Thank you. My thoughts exactly...and I love Nolan's films!
@@arirhamdar394 why
Yep. I'm kinda accepting it's not as good as I thought, but I still love it the same.
It's exactly because of this heaviness that I liked both Interstellar and Inception in the first place...
While I know what you mean, and I agree with you, he did say "heady," not "heavy."
"Heady" as in concepts that are complex and can be difficult to grasp; i.e. you have to use your "head" to understand them
Exactly my thoughts. I guess some people just want things to e too simple like a movie that only handle 1 theme instead of few. Typical Ivory Tower opinion guy.
PS: If you don't mind heavy themes and exposition with lots of psychological/philosophical depth, try Gen Urobuchi
@@hatakekakashi3381 He's talking about how more focus would have made the movie better, not that multiple themes automatically make a movie worse. No need to call the dude an "Ivory Tower opinion guy" just because he disagrees with you.
I didn’t even watch the video I saw the dislikes.. and went straight to the comments. Happy that so many people say this dudes opinion is Trash. And now my point.. he also doesn’t like inception ? 😂😂😂 then he should just watch Amy shumer movies ffs what went wrong with him
When Cooper plays back years and years of video messages from his kids, I was on the verge of tears. That general relativity concept alone was heady and satisfying enough for a story. I never 180'd so much during a movie when Nolan decided to inject 5 more less impactful heady concepts and of course that cringeworthy "love monologue".
The scene where Cooper watches the videolog is pure magic. I agree.
Nothing was cringe worthy in Interstellar. Just about every second of that film was beautiful to me.
You can't determine that for everybody. My toes curled up like burnt paper when I heard the love speech for the first time.
What I don't understand that nobody is talking about is that I think the "love monologue" was SUPPOSED to be a cringe inducing scene.
At that point, you agree with Cooper and that what she said is ridiculous. Only after the rest of the events of the movie, and he finds he's able to communicate with Murph, do you change your mind. Because even Cooper is sitting there in the bookcases trying to get himself to change, not realizing he should be focusing on others -- in this case Murph. When he finally does, and he communicates with her, and finally reunited with her, at THAT point you get to grudgingly agree that Dr.Brand/Hathaway was right.
I'd never thought about it like that, that's pretty interesting.
Coop & Murph’s intimacy and shared passions are all the character establishment we need, so much is quickly communicated about parent child dynamic, how they inspire each other to persevere through hellish struggles, from the strong sense of self they gave each other. Murph becomes a mature adult, and Cooper maintains his childlike wonder and hope (not to mention survival instinct) directly from that bond. The massive gulf afterwards emphasizes the tragic sacrifices of their lost connection, in the service of love in the broader sense for humanity as a whole faced with impossibly grim choices.
The sentimentality critique is badly misplaced. It’s the opposite of a “love conquers all” narrative. Instead it says love is powerful, but requires real faith to endure the necessary risks, mistakes & heartbreaks that are inevitable . Even Brandt/ Hathaway, after pondering love’s power, accepts that Edmund’s planet may have been a dead end, and sheds judgement of Cooper, respecting his choice, as sacrifice and loss piles up around them. Faith is nothing without being tested, and both fight like hell to keep that inner light burning.
And then there’s the world as it is now, pointedly the Western world, our weaknesses and fear causing us to lose the plot. We are an emotionally lazy society, we DONT EXPLORE OURSELVES very deeply, we lack the same spirit of risking the new in ourselves just as we tolerate so much status quo garbage, because exploring new possibilities is risky and not for the faint hearted. Unless we have an evolution of consciousness, material extinction won’t be as tragic a loss anyway. Even the sometimes necessary evil of lies and misdirection with those you love is uncomfortably explored. That humorous “honesty index” banter with TARS connected with an ocean of other text & subtext.
This indirectly impeaches all the ways we foster fake connections, false intimacy, even simulated danger with thrilling games movies and carnival rides. But slip on the ice, sue the restaurant. We reject responsibility even for ourselves, much less each other, preferring easy fake solutions. Broken heart? Drag your ex on X and never learn anything about yourself from the experience, fake likes will validate you. And when we sense our spirit of adventure is dead, lean on propaganda assuring us we are rugged individualists and trailblazers because we buy the right product brands. Which is ALL subtext, these modern foibles are implicated without any depiction. For a story ostensibly about external exploration, its hardest impact is deeply interior.
Interstellar is not suggesting we run with complacency, scrap Earth and leave. If we had our shit together and followed love as a complex discipline of empathy and openness, we might have solved climate change before it started getting scary. Interstellar is filled with sacrifice, failure, and disappointment. But it depicts in a very adult way that for all our technology, love is still the greatest power we have, the most mysterious in its ability to transcend, but in ways we can’t always predict or control. But we should be developing that capacity actively every day, instead of fighting each other while oligarchs rob us blind and destroy our planet. And when you can’t change humanity’s crash courses, save yourselves instead and see what it inspires. It’s a boldly humanistic statement, and Nolan (& brother) took great risk of ridicule for such strong emotional thrust when known instead for complex but cold puzzle mazes of myth, memory & loss, assuming overreach into Spielberg or Cameron’s forte’s. (Great influences from The Abyss by the way.). But imo, if it’s outside Nolan’s wheelhouse, it’s that much grander a slam for the risk of mixing deep sentiment with sci-fi concepts, all of it bursting with authenticity and inspiration. I’m firmly on Team Masterpiece as Interstellar is concerned.
Awesome, I always wanted to hear what you had to say about Interstellar.
+Mikethekid123 Cheers.
+Nerdwriter1 Though I do think Interstellar is by far Nolan's best film.
+Mikethekid123 To each his ow -- you're crazy. :)
Nerdwriter1 Haha it's just subjectivity I guess. I know a lot of people who think it is his best film and a lot that think it is his worst film.
I'm a huge film buff and love all of his work but I felt something weird that can't be explained with words during all the many times I have watched Interstellar. The problems that critics bring up with the film are things that I just can't process as problems. I usually agree with critics and know how to analyze writing issues but I don't believe the ones that are said about Interstellar. Maybe I am crazy.
P.S. You should do an "Understanding Art House" analysis of Apocalypse Now. I think you and your viewers would enjoy that.
+Mikethekid123 As long as Insomnia exists, it's unlikely anything he does from now on will be his worst. I would point at the downward curve in ingenuity from prestige+dk+inception to DKR+interstellar. The next project will be interesting to see.
Any good commentary on art always walks the fine line between informed opinion and pretentious high-mindedness. This video falls on the latter. Still love the channel though.
Aaron Starks Agree with you 100%
Glad im not the only one who felt this way.
All criticism in art is pretentious. The reason is because art is subjective. What you might consider beautiful and thought provoking, might not be to Joe Sixpack down the street and vice versa. There's also this notion that just pure beauty isn't enough to make a good film. Avatar was mind blowingly beautiful to me (to me). I appreciated the amount of effort it took to create that world. The story wasn't deep (to me) sure but that doesn't mean it was a bad movie.
It is crazy to me to call this critique, and the film it discusses, pretentious.
*pretentious high-mindedness*
I'm sorry, but you're talking about someone criticizing a film that is nothing but high minded and pretentiously weaves 'love is a force beyond physics' into its narrative through brash exposition.
"Do you own James Cameron's Avatar? Have you seen it a second time?"
Yes.
"Me neither."
ExCuSe Me?
The main reason most people haven't seen it twice is because it's not on any streaming sites lol. I'd love to watch it more. Most people don't watch movies twice so it's kinda a weird argument
@@jaagle most people don't watch MOST movies twice.. if it's really worth it, they'd watch it over and over again. That's true.
Also, I haven't watched avatar even once.. was never interested.. still not interested
@@jaagle Most people watch Not-so-famous movies twice....Iam die hard marvel fan and I watched each movie only once.
@Unlocked I was hoping I wasn't alone in that. I've not only watched it several times I bought it again years later when I wanted to upgrade to the Blu-Ray.
I've seen avatar many times and it's a good film but then again i have a large movie collection and tend to rewatch most a movie with my kids.
Nerdwriter: When Pretention Eclipses Analysis
Interstellar remains my favorite movie, and its gonna be a hard 1st place to topple.
@akshay satish oh pray tell some good movies "known to human civilization"
@akshay satish so only the movies that exist on IMDB top 250 are known to human civilization? All movies that exist outside this list aren't worth watching? Also Top 250 is the list of most popular movies, not the best movies. There's no way that Endgame at #33 is objectively a better movie than The Departed , The Usual Suspects or Apocalypse Now
Try watching shutter Island, the usual suspects too, they are also good
Yep, exactly how I feel.
tty watching more movies you dumbfuck
"Challenge don't confuse the viewer"
I think you might learn from this. After watching this video, I have a really hard time summarizing what points you were trying to make and what your argument were.
I don't think he is the problem. He made it pretty clear that not enough time or development where given to the emotional core of the movie, and that the sci fi part could have left more for the imagination. I think it's just that you, as everyone here apparently, disagree with him but just can't really defend your stance
Ironic
Kubrick = emphasis on subjective storytelling
Nolan = emphasis on dramatic storytelling
+Angus Gillies Kubrick could be extremely dramatic when he wanted to in films like Barry Lyndon and Eyes Wide Shut, which are less abstract than films like 2001: A Space Odyssey, A Clockwork Orange and The Shining. He knew what style fit what story, whereas Nolan sort of always has the same style for everything.
+WheresWallace4883 I respectfully disagree. I love 2001 and most of Kubrick's filmography but his style never changed according to the movie. The only thing that did was the lenght of his shots but he, towards the end of his career, seemed to settle to a glacial pace. To my view, he understood film as a vessel to tell a story. He just showed what was there and what you felt was up to you relative to what you are watching, that's why it's so effective in The Shining and Eyes Wide Shut, that dettachment the director had made you feel isolated, just like their characters. Nolan is, shall we say, more conventional in that sense. He (and many directors) wants to make you feel what the characters are feeling at that moment.
Diego Fernando Salazar Kubrick is actually very fast-paced when it comes to shot lengths. If you want glacial, watch anything by Bela Tarr - especially The Turin Horse. There are only 30 shots in the entire 2 and a half hour film.
+WheresWallace4883 Kubrick is glacial, the Turin horse shots are unnecessarily long. That's not even film, that's theatre
Jake Wolfert You must have an extremely short attention span if you think Kubrick's films are "glacial". All of his movies move at a fairly brisk pace, with the exception of 2001: A Space Odyssey, which was deliberately slow (but necessarily slow). Also, you're calling The Turin Horse theatre? What the hell kind of theatre do you watch? Theatre is always fast-paced with a lot of dialogue and character interaction. The Turin Horse has a small handful of characters, only two of whom are main characters, and even they very rarely speak. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
I watched this at 11 years old and I loved it so much. It felt like one of those things I could only watch once so I decided to save it for later so that it would remain special. I didn’t want it to be one of those movies I loved that I kept watching over and over again only to lose its flavor. It’s just so emotional. The camera work was gorgeous. The amount of work and love put into this film really shows through.
I see where you are coming from, and although I disagree it was interesting to see your view of this movie. I haven’t heard much criticism towards it. That was very brave of you to put out there considering the sheer amount of people who love it
I own Avatar and I watched so many times you have no idea. That movie had such an impact on me because to me, it was such an impressive movie with its visuals and its story. Its soundtrack was also a plus.
Years later Interstellar had the same effect on me. Every aspect of this movie satisfied my expectations and I couldn’t ask more of Nolan. So I have to disagree with everything you said in this video.
Even it's like years this video was posted many people are hating on Avatar calling it mediocre and shit yet they forget that apart from story Avatar is greatest of it's time in animation and art, that kind of technology for 2009 movie was insane and would still consider as epic for it's time, I guess it's just opinion based but I'm tired of seeing people hate on whole concept of Avatar movie just on the basis of it's story.
hahah well said :)
@@rohanofgondor Isn't that what you watch films for? the story? Yes the animation and art was sick but the shit story draws you away from that. I think the hate is justified.
Could not agree more!
@@harryelliott4363 Not exactly... by "story" you really mean "plot," as in the events of the story. However, Avatar, like many other movies, is character-driven, not plot-driven. That means that the main focus of the story isn't the plot, it's the complexities of the characters.
Plot-driven movies use characters as catalysts to advance the plot.
Character-driven movies use plot as a catalyst to advance the depth of the characters.
No one watches Avatar for the themes or plot; they watch it for the emotions that the characters leave with you, and a little bit for the spectacle too. Both plot-driven and character-driven movies can be good, and neither is inherently better than the other, it's all about execution.
I loved this movie for tons of reasons and despite that I can understand and even agree with some of your points here. However my one grip that I feel is worth voicing is how much I disagree with you about the daughter/father aspect of the movie. It isn't supposed to have a bunch of screen time, in fact that is a deliberate choice. We are supposed to feel like not enough time was spent on it because Cooper, our lens into this world, feels the same way. The entire point of that plot line is that we are missing so so much. That Cooper is missing so so much. We then interpret our own lives and experiences into that void as Cooper, who has a close relationship with his father, does as well. Cooper only experiences this tiny blip of her life like we only experience a few short minutes of young Murph before both the audience and Cooper are presented with older Murph, full of resentment and despair.
very poignant point - well put.
Very well said.
Charles Rothbacher this
I don't get the criticisms most people make of the movie. Most of the plot holes aren't really there, and are just people ignoring the parts of the movie where they are explained. I really hate it when people say that the music is to loud. Isn't that kind of the point? The music makes you feel small.
Vlisto Exactly, the same thing happens with The Dark Knight Rises.
But doesn't every other movie explore the relationships and emotions? I think the "holding back" is necessary to establish the gravity of it. They hold back the screen time of these relationships in contrast to Wolf of Wall Street which shows excess of everything and in turn exhausts it. Nolan gives value to these emotions and relationships which have an almost refrainic screen time, coming back to the screen almost exactly when the toughest concepts are explored and I think that speaks a lot of what Nolan wants to do. He gives more value to the humane nature of the beings and that gives the beings the power to explore the possibilities and concepts and use it in the benefit of their own race. I don't think it can get any better than that, than such a powerful narrative that carefully drives both the cinematic experience as well as the emotional one to it's climax and ends with shaking the audience to the core.
To me the whole of Interstellar was about how love is supreme above all else, including wormholes, time travel, science and ... well ... everything. Interstellar is my favorite science fiction of all time, next to 2001: A Space Odyssey. I believe it may take years before it is appreciated as the masterpiece it is.
unfortunately, you're probably right.
Well, it DID take a while for everybody to appreciate 2001: A Space Oddysey, so... Yeah, you're probably right.
Norm Babbitt , right there with you.
Norm Babbitt why does everyone like 2001 no characters to follow a 10 minute color acid trip not a good movie
May I suggest you read Roger Ebert's in depth review of 2001: A Space Odyssey, and see if this might illuminate why some of us so marvel at that, for me, magnificent film. Ebert's review speaks for very truly for me:
www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-2001-a-space-odyssey-1968
Do you own Avatar? Yes.
Have you seen it more then once? Yes.
I guess I'm "One of those"
Same haha though I wouldn't mention it in my list of top 5 favorite flicks
I've seen it 10 times. It's similar to how I've seen Terminator 2 so many damn times too. Something about Cameron's style. But I know I'm in the minority.
I own it and have seen it more than once but damn I don't like that movie.
Honestly, this guy turned me off right there.
Is it bad that I own it on 3D Blu-Ray?
2:48 "why does Nolan devote so little time to it"
Do you not realize that one of main reasons why the main character accepted the mission was give her daughter a better future? And the whole film there was constant reminder that Cooper always missed his children that he left behind, particularly Marv. That solely justifies the screen time between Cooper and Marv. The ending beautifully ties it all together. That love is something that transcends logic. I know it's cliché, but hey it's movie lol
You also critique the movie of having too many physics lingo... Well it's scifi space movie! Alot of people, including me like hearing stuff like that, it makes the movie more interesting and accurate. Actually this movie was directed with a physics professor and tried to be accurate as they can.
I'm sorry, but your analysis on this movie is inaccurate. I feel like you didn't like this movie for a subjective reason. This movie was fcking awesome mate!
At least it wasn't like Ant-Man where you just put quantum infront of every science related word and expect people to be wowed.
He clearly said that it was FAR from a bad movie. He liked it, but he's giving a tough criticism to one of his favorite directors of what he thought was the films weak points.
It's interesting how you justify the main point of the movie not with logic, but with "it's movie lol". That doesn't sound like a good argument for an often called "masterpiece". Also, in your next point you say that you actually like the physics lingo because it makes it feel more accurate and therefore realistic. Now explain to me how the folllowing comes even remotely close to being realistic:
Cooper get's thrown out of the "Space library" basically anywhere in space. Only by luck they happened to come across him, moments before his oxygen would run out and he makes it on the ship just moments before Murv dies. If you know anything about the vastness of space, which came together with the last seconds of a lifetime of a human, you would know how incredibly lucky this is.
If all that is ok for you that's fine. But consider that other people might be thrown off by this and other conveniences.
He's referring to the run time, not the actual story. If you wait a few seconds, you can see the numbers.
Plenty of people criticise this movie’s black-hole end sequence for being too sappy, nonsensical, genre jumping and generally absurdly outside the rest of the movie - which seems similar to the ending of 2001... just like Interstellar it was labelled many things, not least of all negative, and yet it is regarded as one of the best films of all time. Nolan’s bravery to make this the ending of the film is admirable
imo the difference between Interstellar and 2001's ending is that 2001 doesn't hold your hand and narrate you through what's happening, its "show don't tell" a more appealing approach to having these kinds of ending. Whereas in Interstellar Cooper talks through the whole thing, which weirdly makes it less profound
@@digitramch I mean even with that, Cooper didn't go into full detail, and the vast majority of people have never fully understood the end. Even the ones that claim to have.
This actually sounds more pretentious than Christopher Nolan. But seriously the idea that Interstellar is more spectacle than story compared to 2001 simply because Nolan uses faster cuts than Kubrick is just looking for something to complain about. While 2001 is methodical slow cerebral sci-fi, Interstellar is sci-fi action-adventure with cerebral sci-fi sensibilities. As for Nolan's leads being "dry and tiresome" while Kubrick leads are "cold and punishing", what does that even mean. I think one critic had it right when they described the characters of Interstellar as being more like allegories than multi-dimensional characters. There are definitely similarities to be made with between Kubrick and Nolan but this excessive and unfair criticism over Nolan's directing because it's "not like Kubrick" misses the point of what Nolan is trying to convey.
It's so entertaining reading through all the butthurt Nolan fanboy comments.
+Pokefan2199 it's so entertaining through all the hater comments....
so you're saying if someone disagrees with you on liking a movie they are butthurt? and if someone explains why they like it they are a fanboy?
+bart brugmans agreed, I thought Interstellar was flawed and I'm suspecting Nolan's losing his touch, but I'm not gonna label someone a fanboy just because they disagree with me
+Pokefan2199 Anyone that likes a Nolan film and tries to defend is a butthurt Nolan Fanboy apparently
+bart brugmans
I'm not speaking of all of Nolan's fans. A butthurt fanboy is someone who can't take criticism and isn't able to argue properly. I like to discuss. But there are enough people who are too limited to understand that not everyone has to like Nolan. Sometimes they even become aggressive if you disagree with them when the say Nolan's films are the best of all time. In MY opinion, Interstellar is an ambitious movie, but frickin far away to be named among the best.
Pokefan2199 so you know by reading a single comment that people can't take criticism? I didn't see any comments that where aggressive...and you like to "discuss"... You where just trying to troll people with your first comment didn't you?
Consistency, challenge, and characters... I felt like Interstellar had all three of these. I was never once asked by this movie to guess beyond reason. I was completely drawn in by the overarching theme of self. Every character is faced with the question of selfishness vs selflessness. And every character has a different definition of what constitutes each. That is where the magic of this film struck me... watching every character battle for their own quest to justify their inhibitions and hope that somehow they can still save humanity. I have never understood the distaste for this movie or the mentality that it somehow fell short. In my mind it worked perfectly. Hopefully my drastic difference of opinion with the rest of the moviegoing audience isn't the symptom of some sort of disconnect. Otherwise my filmmaking career might not ever get off the ground. LOL
I think you're opinion is shared by many. I especially don't understand where it "fell short" or was heavy handed. I have noticed, a lot of people that don't like this film, don't have kids.
i was 12 when Avatar was released, i believe it has played a huge part in my love for film
'Do you own James Camerons Avatar?' yes. 'Have you seen it a Second Time?' yes. 'Me Neither'
A collective assumption that everyone feels the same way about Avatar (and CG in general) as you do immediately crumbled what could've been a really compelling study. Instead it comes across as Bitter and frankly Wanky. CG is a tool to create just as Practicality is a tool. Sure people use CG awfully but don't stand on a hill and slander it because you its erasing the old ways of Cinema. People said the same thing when they introduced Sound into Films.
+BINDIJUICE Agreed.
+BINDIJUICE Actually I felt exactly on board with him when he said that, it kind of pulled me in. I've always been tsked by people for not thinking highly of Avatar, but I found this extremely relatable from the get-go, so i think it depends on the audience he was trying to ensnare
+BINDIJUICE Fanboys like you are pathetic. Can you really not grasp that not everyone likes what you do?
+BINDIJUICE Exactly what I was thinking. My answer was yes to both yet he said "me neither' and I'm like okay..now you're assuming things
+BINDIJUICE Proud to say I never saw Avatar (just a few min here and there on TV and was unimpressed). Interstellar had so much potential to be amazing, but too many flaws and stupid characters to be taken seriously.
Nerdwriter1: Have you seen Avatar a second time?
Me: Yeah, probably more like 10 times!
Nerdwriter1: Me neither.
Me: oh
Luca Romani Yeah I thought I liked this guy but he was so pretentious about Avatar that I unsubbed. It was just such a douchey thing to do.
Avatar has such a boring storyline. Really not worth watching it a second time.
Eddy Mannylow It’s character-driven, not plot-driven.
You know why people like The Princess Bride? For the characters, not the plot.
@@tidyheidi9143 Atleast the princess bride characters had more personality! Avatars characters were so boring flat and forgettable I don't even remember the main characters motivation.
Zaxor Von Skyler they weren’t flat and boring, if you paid more attention to the movie you would have better understood the main characters’ character arcs.
it's a love story for both physics and man, how man lives, survives and loves in the universe. I really enjoyed the film.
I will never understand how underrated interstellar is. It completely left me speechless after watching in 4K, not even knowing what I was about to watch. The journey of this movie was something I am grateful to have been alive for. Interstellar is a fucking masterpiece. The issue is that people are too small minded to understand its depth.
This is an excellent dissection of how spectacle often overshadows certain films' ability to convey human emotion. In this regard, I think the recent sci-fi movie, Arrival, corrects all the wrongs of Interstellar's emotional ineptitude. As the credits rolled, I let out a much-deserved sob. It has a slow, methodical pace, and events operate as a means to serve the emotional core of the film. It's complicated, intricate, and overall, brilliant. It balances visual splendor immensely well with a narrative that forces its characters to explore their feelings, be they public or private. Evan, I'd love to hear your thoughts on Arrival and the film's dissection of language. Very well could be a video essay in its own right.
halfway through the video and I'm like: Is he talking good or bad about Interstellar and Nolan?😃👌
Both
I completely understand where you're coming from but I don't think that this makes this movie a disappointment at all, just not a complete classic even thought the movie was still absolutely amazing.
That's why being one of the best movie directors can be as much of a curse as it is a blessing. The reason why so many people disliked it is because it came from the person who brought ''The Dark Knight'' and ''Inception'', just like a lot of people disliked ''The Terminal'' because it was brought to us by Steven Spielberg, the man who directed E.T., Indiana Jones and Saving Private Ryan...
Both of these movies were good on their own and didn't deserve harsh reviews but that's what happens when you regularly shit diamonds: one day that you might shit gold, people will consider it worthless.
I watched Avatar twice on two different IMAX theaters, later a third time at home, and sure as hell I'm watching a fourth time before the sequel.
I watched The Hurtlocker once...and I'm good.
By the way, anyone actually aware of what other filmmakers were saying back then about James "I'm the King of the World" Cameron knows that many voted on his ex-wife to annoy him, while others voted for her "troops-supporting" movie to counter the success of his antimilitary movie.
That one was an unforgettably political award show.
Interstellar is among my favourite movies I have seen. Top 3 for sure.
1. V for Vendetta
2. Interstellar
3. Inception
@paul w Why? I've seen a lot of films and it's on my top 3 of favorite sci-fi movies.