your best movie ever

[Arrowstormen]

Interstellar was a bad film designed to make dumb people feel smart. So much woo.

Far as I've heard, it's mostly accurate when you consider how accurate you can get with the highly theoretical material they work with.

[Mormolyce]

Far as I've heard, it's mostly accurate when you consider how accurate you can get with the highly theoretical material they work with.

IMO, the movie was great in the middle and the ending, while a mess, took a great stab at visually representing four dimensional space, something incomprehensible to the human mind. I couldn't stand the first act though, and overall it was a deeply flawed movie.

Also it pushes the boundary dividing homage from plagiarism, re: 2001.

[Arrowstormen]

Not at all. Too many religious overtones and bullshit about "the universal power of love". It's a feel good theology flick disguised as shoddy science.

Religious overtones? Haw haw.

- - - Updated - - -

IMO, the movie was great in the middle and the ending, while a mess, took a great stab at visually representing four dimensional space, something incomprehensible to the human mind. I couldn't stand the first act though, and overall it was a deeply flawed movie.

Also it pushes the boundary dividing homage from plagiarism, re: 2001.

I don't find them all that similar, but YMMW I suppose.

[Revik]

Not at all. Too many religious overtones and bullshit about "the universal power of love". It's a feel good theology flick disguised as shoddy science.

I find this interesting. What was shoddy about the science? As far as I can tell the movie represented science as well as we know it. The time dilation might have been reaching a bit.

[Stormcall]

Probably one of the movies I never get tired of, and the soundtrack is awesome

This one and Tremors would both be contenders for my top spot.

[willtron]

Saving Private Ryan
The Departed
Bourne 1-3

[Deleted]

[AkundaMrdal]

I usually don't watch same movie twice, but this one I saw four times.

[cubby]

Interstellar was a bad film designed to make dumb people feel smart. So much woo.

Thanks for being a positive contributor.

[schwarzkopf]

By far :

[cubby]

I find this interesting. What was shoddy about the science? As far as I can tell the movie represented science as well as we know it. The time dilation might have been reaching a bit.

It represented science as we currently understand it (the Nolans consulted theoretical physicists on the script - gonna go ahead and believe them over you). The haters above are seeing things that aren't there @Lobosan) and there were NO religious undertones, lol - did you actually see it (@Mormolyce)? What do you mean flawed? And at this point I don't think you know what plagiarism means (@Mormolyce again).

It's ok if @Lobosan you don't understand the movie - no need to hate on things that are confusing to you. Just ask and we'll explain them.

It was a spectacular piece of filmography crafted by one of the greatest combinations of minds in the modern world.

[schwarzkopf]

It represented science as we currently understand it

Well, no. It really didn't Neil deGrasse Tyson's summary was 'the science was ambitious'

They went for visuals over substance - and it worked, it was a visually stunning movie with a shallow and lame repetition of the same old story underneath.

Arrival - now there is a movie that tries to make the science forefront ... and pretty much suceeds.

[cubby]

Well, no. It really didn't Neil deGrasse Tyson's summary was 'the science was ambitious'

Yes, it did. The science might have been "ambitious" but it was also as accurate as we understand it currently. Not sure why you want to fight this - they are the ones who consulted with physicists when writing the script.

They went for visuals over substance - and it worked, it was a visually stunning movie with a shallow and lame repetition of the same old story underneath.

Again, no, they didn't. They went for both and achieved it fantastically. If you didn't like it, that's fine, but don't make things up to justify your opinion.

Here is the interview with Kip Thorne, the astrophysicist who wrote the original treatment for the film: Link

Arrival - now there is a movie that tries to make the science forefront ... and pretty much suceeds.

I've still got to see this - I hope I haven't put it off too long. Heard only great things about it.

[schwarzkopf]

Again, no, they didn't.

When you check out the movie you will see that they went for style, visuals and pretty stuff over science - I'll go with NDGT any day on that one. "Ambitious science"...

[Arrowstormen]

When you check out the movie you will see that they went for style, visuals and pretty stuff over science - I'll go with NDGT any day on that one. "Ambitious science"...

NDGT was very positive about the movie, FYI.

[schwarzkopf]

NDGT was very positive about the movie, FYI.

As was I - thought it was an awesome movie, however that was because it looked so great. IT even used some IRL science modelling to create the visuals. All impressive stuff.

It was just the underlying story didn't really science things too much.

[Mormolyce]

Here is the interview with Kip Thorne, the astrophysicist who wrote the original treatment for the film: Link

So the "scene that made him cringe" (/clickbait) wasn't... the one where Anne Hathaway's character insists that love is a physical force?

[endersblade]

Aliens. I could watch that movie on repeat.

[FeralNonBeliever]

I would say that inception is definitely one of the best movies, got that right combo of action, plotline (even if there are a few contradictions) and sass.

[cubby]

When you check out the movie you will see that they went for style, visuals and pretty stuff over science - I'll go with NDGT any day on that one. "Ambitious science"...

And I'll go with Kip Thorne - the real astrophysicist. And they certainly did go for visuals and style as well as accuracy - they (the Nolan brothers) are literally the whole package. You don't have to give up one to achieve the other - especially if you are talented.

Remember, Neil didn't say it was wrong, he just said it was ambitious.

Look, I get that some people didn't like the movie - and that's fine if you didn't. There are a couple of movies out there that most people like/love that I didn't - and it's no biggie. Just don't inaccurately bag on the movie to justify your dislike. That's all I'm asking.

- - - Updated - - -

So the "scene that made him cringe" (/clickbait) wasn't... the one where Anne Hathaway's character insists that love is a physical force?

Lol, yeah - I have to admit that wasn't the best scene in the film, but it was a consistent theme in the movie, and it added to the entire film. Love was a theme in the movie - multiple characters were motivated by it.

Dammit - why did you go and get banned - I want to discuss this! Come back!