Interstellar

The sound track was real messy. Banging the volume up on the rocket engines, or the symphony music score didn't help with the drama. It only sounded forced and was painful on the ears. But nevertheless, I found this interesting. $200 million dollars worth and bad sound !!! So what was the bulk of the money spent on?

I'm tempted to believe Christopher Nolan had NASA take an iMax camera into orbit, strapped on the side of a prop.

They also mentioned "Gravity" a lot. Like in Star Trek when you hear words like "singularity" or "the space-time-continuum" repeated again and again to the point where you have to give up and take notice of what the words might mean.
Were they referencing the (Clooney, Bullock) film, Gravity? Maybe. There were certainly plenty of similarities.

Birdman, sounds like a good movie.

yeah, a lot of people have complained about the sound design!

I didn't have an issue with it myself.

Originally Posted by thistle

They also mentioned "Gravity" a lot. Like in Star Trek when you hear words like "singularity" or "the space-time-continuum" repeated again and again to the point where you have to give up and take notice of what the words might mean.
Were they referencing the (Clooney, Bullock) film, Gravity? Maybe. There were certainly plenty of similarities.

I know what you mean about the repeated invoking of this word.

The script was originally commissioned, I believe, after someone attended a talk by an actual physicist, and they were quite taken with the possibilities offered in the physical model he described. So I'm sure they made the most of certain keywords to reference back to that.

the only other thing I'd bring up, and it's related to this, is that there was definitely a lot of expositional dialogue in the film to explain to the audience what was going on. That sort of felt a bit clunky, like tuning into a lecture. But hey, I guess they were also trying to teach the filmgoer something along with the storyline experience

Originally Posted by Garry_F

the only other thing I'd bring up, and it's related to this, is that there was definitely a lot of expositional dialogue in the film to explain to the audience what was going on. That sort of felt a bit clunky, like tuning into a lecture. But hey, I guess they were also trying to teach the filmgoer something along with the storyline experience

I took little notice of all that. Putting it this way, the professor's chalkboard was a prop, full stop!

I did feel a sense of panic creeping into my enjoyment of the film when I wondered more and more of what had happened to planet Earth. War? Ozone layer?
If any of the actors actually explained what had happened then I must have missed it.

t.

[Swami Chihuahuananda]

Originally Posted by Garry_F

yeah, a lot of people have complained about the sound design!

I didn't have an issue with it myself.




I know what you mean about the repeated invoking of this word.

The script was originally commissioned, I believe, after someone attended a talk by an actual physicist, and they were quite taken with the possibilities offered in the physical model he described. So I'm sure they made the most of certain keywords to reference back to that.

the only other thing I'd bring up, and it's related to this, is that there was definitely a lot of expositional dialogue in the film to explain to the audience what was going on. That sort of felt a bit clunky, like tuning into a lecture. But hey, I guess they were also trying to teach the filmgoer something along with the storyline experience

They stiull didn't explain much about gravity and black holes, especially how a person might NOT get utterly squashed going into one, while in the same movie being very relativistically affected by it's proximity (on the nearby worlds. Also, it seemed like they were never more than 10-15 seconds away from the next potential Earth OR the black hole, or the wormhole . A logistical mishmash ... bad editing.

Kip Thorne, a well-known physicist did consult on the film, and provided the CGI people with math models that they plugged in to create the images of said worm, and black holes . I guess that's about all the movie used of his ideas, because it doesn't have the feel of a movie that used a lot of real technical advice from scientists. But these movies never do ; Gravity was horrible in this regard . But I'm a bit fussy about having actual science in my Sci-Fi films .

Well, I just saw Insterstellar this past Sunday, so here's my take on why the black hole didn't kill him:

First off, the "5th dimensional beings" (presumably highly evolved humans; we don't know for sure as it's a supposition on Coop's part) seem to have their 'hand' in everything Coop and the rest do or manage to survive. Plus, as they 'live' in the 5th dimension, time is a lower dimension, and a spatial one, not a linear one. Thus, they see/experience all moments at once, past, present, and future. They create the tesseract that Coop ends up inside. We don't know for sure if it's outside of the black hole or inside the singularity. Plenty of things are left to our imaginations, and that's fine with me. Similarly, we don't know exactly what happens to Dave Bowman in 2001 when he goes into the Stargate. Mystery in hardcore science fiction is a good thing

Second, we are told that Gargantua is a rotating black hole, and that the singularity at its center may be accessible. We're not told exactly how that is possible, only that it is, and is that way due to the slower rotation factor. And so, we presume that Coop went into the singularity through whatever gap or shortcut the rotation created. Now some of us know that the one-dimensional object that is a singularity isn't all that well-understood by physicists. There's plenty of speculation that what happened to Coop could have happened by going into the singularity. 3D physics doesn't work in 1D 'reality', if there is even physics in a single dimension to begin with!

So again, it's a mystery. Why not leave it at that?

The one thing that had me wanting to yell in absolute joy in the movie was this: no sound in space!

Too long, too loud, too trite. I agree with the review that said it was clunky. Much as I like the actors in it, the movie itself was just an overcooked rehash of old themes. And I really hated the melodrama, which was completely unnecessary.

I had high hopes for this movie and was terribly disappointed.

[Astral Jane]

I just saw it with my 10 yr old daughter. We both thought the music was too loud , but I think it always is in other films too. Drives me nuts. It's the words I need to hear clearly to follow it...

Anyway funny how these comments are all over the place. I agree with most of them. Def coulda been shorter. Cloud Atlas was 10 min longer and worth it, IMO.

Originally Posted by Swami Chihuahuananda

It's no 2001 : A Space Oddysey , that's for sure. I do like most of it's ideas, but found it a bit of a mess , from an editing standpoint. Coulda been 45 minutes shorter , and more focused. The 5th Dimensional thing is cool , but there's too much Big Budget Hollywood bluster and not enough soul . Not that it isn't good. And parts are silly, like not getting spaghettified in a black hole . Coiulda done completely without Matt Damon's section.

They were trying for soul, with the love theme, esp about how love crosses dimensions, souls are connected across time and space etc. I think that's always hard mixed with sci-fi. The relationships never quite seem genuine, not complex enough anyway, but cliche & Hallmark-cardy, this one was maybe better than average.

Despite awe and nail-biting tension, there's too much clunky exposition and cinematic clichés, and although Nolan's intentions to make a singular and cerebral film are admirable, it all gets a bit silly.

with all that & all these comments- I wonder,what if i saw it a couple more times? I always get more out of a film each time (watched Cloud Atlas 4 times so far) so it would probably take that before I could say much more on the 5th dimensional stuff at the end. Very interesting how they portrayed it with the, uh, "whizzing libraries" going every which way.

I have not been able to make anything useful out of the "time is not real" idea that it's all happening all at once. Maybe I am too mental,blocking my own progress/ascension. I just can't get into it. I think of time travel as "reading code" which is the memory or thought or Akashic record, a recording of a 3D reality that can be relived much like watching a movie again, because the record of it is stored on the disc. Somehow I just can't translate that into the actual 3D reality (eg, me sitting on the couch right now) as happening at the same time as uh, me sitting on the couch last week..

so ya I'll have to watch it a couple more times... but I'll wait for the DVD.

[Mystik]

I saw this film the other night. I liked it a lot and think it is possibly one of the best sci fi movies ever made. However, it was too long. The time travel part left me scratching my head too(not literally).

[Mystik]

Originally Posted by Swami Chihuahuananda

It's no 2001 : A Space Oddysey , that's for sure. I do like most of it's ideas, but found it a bit of a mess , from an editing standpoint. Coulda been 45 minutes shorter , and more focused. The 5th Dimensional thing is cool , but there's too much Big Budget Hollywood bluster and not enough soul . Not that it isn't good. And parts are silly, like not getting spaghettified in a black hole . Coiulda done completely without Matt Damon's section.

Now, Birdman , there's a flawless , original , engaging bit of moviemaking !!!!

I don't remember the spaghetti thing I don't think.

Anyway, I agree with most of what is said here. As much as I like Matt Damon I have to agree his presence was very unnecessary. It just didn't add anything to the film and was not imperative to the plot.

[SPOILER ALERT: Dont' read the following section if you didn't see the movie yet]

I actually didn't pick up on a lot of love stuff other than the relationship between the Matthew Mc....(I won't try to spell his last name :p)character and his daughter. There was some dialog but I had to go to the bathroom at some point(only once during the movie). Also, the whole time warp thing confused me a bit though. I understand parts of it but if he was suppose to be over 100 years old why didn't he look that way? (s

[inspirit]

I had mixed feelings. It wasn't a bad science fiction movie. I just didn't enjoy this movie.

I don't recommend it.